NATION

PASSWORD

NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:15 am

Connori Pilgrims wrote:
That said, Rods from God as a concept is very much a first-strike system, which someone here has already noted is perfectly fine and good only for global policemen bombing ebul moslem terrorists and dirty korean communists who have no ASAT weaponry (either ground-based or space-based) to respond. In any symmetrical war scenario Rods is too vulnerable and too inflexible to be of use.

And as stated, it will cost more to launch and engineer, but you can gain quite a bit of survivability if you just put them a few hundred km higher. The cost to increase altitude once already in orbit is beans compared to initial launch costs, anyway.

Just because an ASAT can reach space does not mean it will be able to go high enough to hit your satellite. We don't have ASATs, IIRC, that can hit geostationary orbiting satellites or even circular-geosynchronous-orbit satellites.
Last edited by Pharthan on Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
Yukonastan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7251
Founded: May 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Yukonastan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:16 am

Pharthan wrote:
Connori Pilgrims wrote:
That said, Rods from God as a concept is very much a first-strike system, which someone here has already noted is perfectly fine and good only for global policemen bombing ebul moslem terrorists and dirty korean communists who have no ASAT weaponry (either ground-based or space-based) to respond. In any symmetrical war scenario Rods is too vulnerable and too inflexible to be of use.

And as stated, it will cost more to launch and engineer, but you can gain quite a bit of survivability if you just put them a few hundred km higher.



Although that makes me think. If it were acceptable to delay the strike, why not boost the projectile into a highly elliptical orbit, then deorbit it at apogee for a maximum velocity re-entry and impact?
this guy is a fucking furry and a therian
Btw, here's my IC flag

"Purp go to bed." - Nirvash Type TheEnd

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33912
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Corparation » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:29 am

Pharthan wrote:
Connori Pilgrims wrote:
That said, Rods from God as a concept is very much a first-strike system, which someone here has already noted is perfectly fine and good only for global policemen bombing ebul moslem terrorists and dirty korean communists who have no ASAT weaponry (either ground-based or space-based) to respond. In any symmetrical war scenario Rods is too vulnerable and too inflexible to be of use.

And as stated, it will cost more to launch and engineer, but you can gain quite a bit of survivability if you just put them a few hundred km higher. The cost to increase altitude once already in orbit is beans compared to initial launch costs, anyway.

Just because an ASAT can reach space does not mean it will be able to go high enough to hit your satellite. We don't have ASATs, IIRC, that can hit geostationary orbiting satellites or even circular-geosynchronous-orbit satellites.

If you put them higher you increase the time it takes to hit the target, reducing the advantage of its speed. Putting it higher also requires you to devotee more mass on each rod to its deorbiting system. There's really not much to gain in return from the trade off. It only takes a slightly more expensive asat to kill them after you fire a couple shots.

As for ASATs reaching higher orbits, it's not that much harder to make one that goes higher.an asat doesn't need to worry about getting into orbit so it can get by with being much smaller than a launch vehicle. Plus this is NS. People already have such weapons. I designed an orbital mine awhile back specifically to take out systems like Rods from God.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting)
Orbital Freedom Machine Here
A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End 2020 WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Prop 65, CA Health & Safety
This Cell is intentionally blank.

User avatar
Connori Pilgrims
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1764
Founded: Nov 14, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Connori Pilgrims » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:34 am

Pharthan wrote:
Connori Pilgrims wrote:
That said, Rods from God as a concept is very much a first-strike system, which someone here has already noted is perfectly fine and good only for global policemen bombing ebul moslem terrorists and dirty korean communists who have no ASAT weaponry (either ground-based or space-based) to respond. In any symmetrical war scenario Rods is too vulnerable and too inflexible to be of use.

And as stated, it will cost more to launch and engineer, but you can gain quite a bit of survivability if you just put them a few hundred km higher. The cost to increase altitude once already in orbit is beans compared to initial launch costs, anyway.

Just because an ASAT can reach space does not mean it will be able to go high enough to hit your satellite. We don't have ASATs, IIRC, that can hit geostationary orbiting satellites or even circular-geosynchronous-orbit satellites.


Even if that were true, there's still the threat of space-based ASAT weaponry, i.e. satellites/batteries that are already up there at least in LEO (apparently Corp has at least one type). If one is weaponizing space expect other countries (at least those rich enough to do so) to do the same, starting with ASAT satellites to neutralize your RfG units (and by extension everything else you've got in space, like commercial & military satellites and space stations). These can easily hit your RfG satellites unless they're in the Lagrange points or the Moon, by which then they're too far to be really "rapid-response".

Lastly, and probably more important for me, RfG is only good against hardened bunkers and small relatively fixed point targets (such as terrorist masterminds or rogue leaders sitting in their evil lairs/palaces). They won't do massive area damage/kill large groups of enemies, and moving targets will pose major challenges.
Last edited by Connori Pilgrims on Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR YOU. HATE.

Overview of the United Provinces of Connorianople (MT)
FT - United Worlds of Connorianople/The Connori Pilgrims
MT-PMT - United Provinces of Connorianople
PT (19th-Mid-20th Century) - Republic of Connorianople/United States of America (1939 World of Tomorrow RP)
FanT - The Imperium Fremen

User avatar
Questers
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13867
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Questers » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:37 am

Pharthan wrote:
Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.

Forgive me if I trust DARPA over anyone on NS.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, I'm just going to be very skeptical.

As far as Rods from God, they've a far larger niche in NS than they do in the Real World. Uselessness IRL =/= Uselessness NS.
Yes, every weapon produced by the US was useful. Nothing ever remained iin the prototype stage! Especially not the actual airborne aircraft carrier produced for the USAF!
Last edited by Questers on Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Restore the Crown

User avatar
The Akasha Colony
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13914
Founded: Apr 25, 2010
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Akasha Colony » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:40 am

Atomic Utopia wrote:
Pharthan wrote:There is a use - but you have to find the niche for it.
UAVs, sure, quite possible. The USAF is looking to have recoverable UAVs launched/recovered from C-130s.

Currently what I am thinking of is a fast response craft. It would be capable of reaching anywhere in the globe within 24 hours and then be capable of using built in RADAR to identify enemy aircraft and ground targets. After identification it could deploy strike craft while remaining at standoff distances from the targets. This would also be beneficial in dealing with insurgents in other countries as it could attack terrorists quickly without needing to have a carrier or an airbase in the region.


If you're just trying to kill terrorists, an airborne aircraft carrier (and even a sea-borne aircraft carrier) is overkill. Just use a cheap, subsonic, long-endurance UAV launched from your homeland, since terrorists aren't exactly going to put up the sort of air defense network that's going to keep even a very unstealthy drone out.

Pharthan wrote:They'll be in range once every 90 minutes, actually, for many LEO.

ASATs? Throw your satellites into an orbit 2,000km up, which means they'll be in range every 127 minutes and still be outside of pretty much any IRL ASAT. It's still even considered LEO at that point.


90 minutes per orbit doesn't mean the satellite passes over the same part of the globe every 90 minutes:

Image

And using the same logic used to justify "NS =/= IRL," it can easily be pointed out that an enemy could built ASATs capable of hitting 2,000 km if there were a need. Right now IRL there isn't, but if the enemy starts putting weapons in higher orbits, then you can bet the ASATs will get longer legs too. Anywhere you can place a giant kinetic satellite, you can put a much smaller kinetic kill vehicle, and at lower cost.

Pharthan wrote:Just because an ASAT can reach space does not mean it will be able to go high enough to hit your satellite. We don't have ASATs, IIRC, that can hit geostationary orbiting satellites or even circular-geosynchronous-orbit satellites.


Because there's no need IRL. There's nothing up there worth taking out, since it's just communications and eavesdropping satellites that can be dealt with more easily by just using more secure methods of communication. The real-time tactical communications as well as SAR and IMINT satellites are all in LEO, so that's all you really need.
A colony of the New Free Planets Alliance.
The primary MT nation of this account is the Republic of Carthage.
New Free Planets Alliance (FT)
New Terran Republic (FT)
Republic of Carthage (MT)
World Economic Union (MT)
Kaiserreich Europa Zentral (PT/MT)
Five Republics of Hanalua (FanT)
National Links: Factbook Entry | Embassy Program
Storefronts: Carthaginian Naval Export Authority [MT, Navy]

User avatar
Rich and Corporations
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6560
Founded: Aug 09, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Rich and Corporations » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:01 am

Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.
so this is the standard now, we have to justify everything a real life does in order to suggest it? excessive pedantry
The Akasha Colony wrote: Just use a cheap, subsonic, long-endurance UAV launched from your homeland
you mean a manned airship?
Corporate Confederacy
DEFENSE ALERT LEVEL
PEACE WAR

Factbook [url=iiwiki.com/wiki/Corporate_Confederacy]Wiki Article[/url]
Neptonia

User avatar
Questers
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13867
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Questers » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:07 am

Rich and Corporations wrote:
Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.
so this is the standard now, we have to justify everything a real life does in order to suggest it? excessive pedantry
The Akasha Colony wrote: Just use a cheap, subsonic, long-endurance UAV launched from your homeland
you mean a manned airship?

I see youve still not learned to read. Oh well! One can always hope.
Restore the Crown

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:29 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:
90 minutes per orbit doesn't mean the satellite passes over the same part of the globe every 90 minutes:



And using the same logic used to justify "NS =/= IRL," it can easily be pointed out that an enemy could built ASATs capable of hitting 2,000 km if there were a need. Right now IRL there isn't, but if the enemy starts putting weapons in higher orbits, then you can bet the ASATs will get longer legs too. Anywhere you can place a giant kinetic satellite, you can put a much smaller kinetic kill vehicle, and at lower cost.
True, there isn't much need for it to be a satellite anymore. A single munition could quite likely do everything that would be required of it anyway.

The inaccuracies of the orbits variance can be rather easily offset. You already have to have a rocket engine on the sucker anyway. ]
Last edited by Pharthan on Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
The Kievan People
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11387
Founded: Jul 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby The Kievan People » Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:35 am

Rods from god are silly.

1. Because of the problem of absenteeism a rod spends the vast majority of its time everywhere except where you want it. The only way to guarantee one is available when and where you need it is to fill the sky with rods, a prohibitively costly option. A ballistic missile meanwhile can reach anywhere on earth in about half an hour, and 100% of your missiles will be available for attacking 100% of targets 100% of the time.

2. The delta-v needed to reach anywhere on the planet with a ballistic missile is identical to the delta-v needed for reaching LEO. Which is significantly less than the delta-v needed to reach a higher orbit like 2000 km. So the cost per rod will be considerably less for a ballistic weapon.

3. Rods in orbit cannot be concentrated effectively. If your constellation is evenly spaced (minimizing absenteeism) you will only be able to attack targets sequentially, with fairly large gaps between each strike. If your constellation is bunched up you will be able to launch multiple strikes in rapid succession on a target, but there will be large windows where you cannot attack at all. Either option provides the enemy a countermeasure: Either create enough targets you cannot destroy them in a reasonable amount of time, or wait until the window of safety is open to expose themselves.
RIP
Your Nation's Main Battle Tank (No Mechs)
10/06/2009 - 23/02/2013
Gone but not forgotten
DEUS STATUS: ( X ) VULT ( ) NOT VULT
Leopard 2 IRL
Imperializt Russia wrote:kyiv rn irl

Anemos wrote:<Anemos> thx Kyiv D:
<Anemos> you are the eternal onii-san

Europe, a cool region for cool people. Click to find out more.

User avatar
Gallan Systems
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1939
Founded: Nov 16, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Gallan Systems » Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:48 am

New Oyashima wrote:My navy has a many amount of ships.
Also, I'm in the hospital recovering from a ruptured appendix and poisonous bacteria, so don't expect a normal posting habits. Maybe I can be useful in some way to the thread if there ever comes about a question about field appendix removal or why Morphine sucks :p


; _________ ;

Get well soon Oale pls don't die
Hello humans. I am Sporekin, specifically a European Umber-Brown Puffball (or more formally, Lycoperdon umbrinum). Ask me anything.
And yet they came out to the stars not just with their lusts and their hatred and their fears, but with their technology and their medicine, their heroes as well as their villains. Most of the races of the galaxy had been painted by the Creator in pastels; Men were primaries.

New Nicksyllvania - Unjustly Deleted 6/14/11

User avatar
Crookfur
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10517
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Crookfur » Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:47 am

All this talk of airborne drone carriers is making this thread sound very Dale Brown again.

Except without the really cool stuff like NIRNSATS, EB-2 Vampires, violating russia and china's airspace with bombers to save 1 person and winning entire wars just using bomber fleets and a few tinmen (or the russian equivelent there of).
The Kingdom of Crookfur
Your ordinary everyday scotiodanavian freedom loving utopia!

And yes I do like big old guns, why do you ask?

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54843
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:10 am

Nachmere wrote:
Atomic Utopia wrote:What is the military use of a megacarrier?

It could probably be heard from miles away dependent on hull design, is a big friggin target that costs a metric shitton or two, and could not be in more than one place at a time. What exactly would be the benifit to a huge carrier over several (2-3) small ones?



Easier to maintain a high rate of operations due to larger work areas, more personnel and aircraft? Thinking out loud.

You still reach an effective upper limit of about 70 aircraft in the air at once though. Any more and you might start losing aircraft to running out of fuel. At this point, any aircraft you carry over 70-80 are pretty much just "spares". And thus mostly useless.
Romic wrote:
The United Remnants of America wrote:But one flying carrier shouldn't be able to defend against an air force, should it?

Like, the reason they always die in the movies/games is because of the storytelling their inability to defend well, right?

Not only that but ground based SAMs and everything an aircraft must worry about. It's literally just a giant moving sky target.

Just like an air refuelling aircraft, an AWACS, an EW aircraft...
Hmm.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
DnalweN acilbupeR
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7409
Founded: Aug 23, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DnalweN acilbupeR » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:21 am

is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.

User avatar
DnalweN acilbupeR
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7409
Founded: Aug 23, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DnalweN acilbupeR » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:23 am

Crookfur wrote:All this talk of airborne drone carriers is making this thread sound very Dale Brown again.

Except without the really cool stuff like NIRNSATS, EB-2 Vampires, violating russia and china's airspace with bombers to save 1 person and winning entire wars just using bomber fleets and a few tinmen (or the russian equivelent there of).



Image
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.

User avatar
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9659
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:31 am

The Corparation wrote:
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:
Bolded numbers added by me.
1.I was aiming for the plasma engines as a way to get around in space without using the SABREs, those being used for both getting into orbit and for in-atmosphere, although now that you mention it, I suppose I could eliminate the plasma engines.
Will I need to replace them with jet engines to get around in-atmosphere? I was originally hoping to use these fighters as a replacement for both space-only and jet fighters; but if a good spaceplane which is intended to be both atmospherically and exoatmospherically flight-capable isn't possible, or is simply terribly difficult to build and/or maintain I suppose I could just use this fighter solely for space combat but still have them be ground-launch capable.
2. I didn't really factor that in, although I suppose I should have; that's going to require me to carry a lot more fuel. Shall I go for a titanium-vanadium alloy? Or just titanium?
3. Should I place the turrets that were on the wings on the fuselage? I put them there to protect the fighter against rear attacks and make it able to attack enemies in any direction without turning. Although I guess a turret or some turrets elsewhere might not work just as good...they'll all be single-barrel with higher power as well, including the nose turret- but that shouldn't be there either, I guess.

1)If you have SABREs you don't need jet enginges to get around in the atmosphere, because the SABREs function like jet engines while at the speed and altitude where you would use jet engines. That's how a spacecraft with them is supposed to takeoff. As for using them as a replacement for jet fighters, what's needed for a good spaceplane does not really overlap much with a normal fighter jet. There's just so many things a space plane needs that would be detrimental to air combat. As for a spaceplane for space combat, there's nothing to wrong with using one for orbital combat, just don't expect sending it off to crush the dastardly Martian's in their own cities.
2) Of course you could always carry more fuel. But then you have the mass of that fuel you need to carry. So need more fuel to lift that fuel. And herein lies the problem, it's not a matter of just carrying more fuel, its cutting down on mass. Your airframe and hull will likely be made up of materials like Titanium, Aluminum or carbon fiber rather than heavy things like tungsten.
3) Location of the laser turrets should be based on a few things, however the number it carries should be rooted in the tech level and environment you intend to operate it in. Since that determines the number of lasers you have, it also should have an impact on how you place them. Personally I think space warships should aim to cover the full celestial sphere with the least amount of lasers, or at the very least as much as possible. That's not to say you can't have more lasers or have gaps in coverage that you can fix via changing your orientation, but I've always felt that when it comes to space weapons.

In other news this has inspired me to make my own space fighter design. It will be an interceptor designed for combat, as well as other missions in LEO. Probably not going to go beyond a mockup or a protype IC.

1. I guess I'll invent a new jet fighter instead.
2. Well then! I didn't see it that way either. I guess I'll use titanium, mostly because of the higher melting point and ability to resist heat...oh...Wikipedia says it loses strength at 430 C. So I won't use heat resistance as a way to measure efficacy anymore; maybe I'll try out aluminum.
3. I agree with your view. Since I won't need to worry about aerodynamics, I guess I'll place them on the fuselage, halfway between the nose and the engines.
Thanks for helping me design a better fighter.

The Kievan People wrote:Rods from god are silly.

1. Because of the problem of absenteeism a rod spends the vast majority of its time everywhere except where you want it. The only way to guarantee one is available when and where you need it is to fill the sky with rods, a prohibitively costly option. A ballistic missile meanwhile can reach anywhere on earth in about half an hour, and 100% of your missiles will be available for attacking 100% of targets 100% of the time.

2. The delta-v needed to reach anywhere on the planet with a ballistic missile is identical to the delta-v needed for reaching LEO. Which is significantly less than the delta-v needed to reach a higher orbit like 2000 km. So the cost per rod will be considerably less for a ballistic weapon.

3. Rods in orbit cannot be concentrated effectively. If your constellation is evenly spaced (minimizing absenteeism) you will only be able to attack targets sequentially, with fairly large gaps between each strike. If your constellation is bunched up you will be able to launch multiple strikes in rapid succession on a target, but there will be large windows where you cannot attack at all. Either option provides the enemy a countermeasure: Either create enough targets you cannot destroy them in a reasonable amount of time, or wait until the window of safety is open to expose themselves.

Would it be possible to put the rods from god on a spacecraft capable of moving faster than an orbiting space station with the things, or should one just go for ballistic missiles?
I use coilguns and missiles myself for orbital bombardment.
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol

Yeah, ASAT missiles, jammers, and just sending other sattelites to fuck with 'em.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to encourage settlement of all habitable worlds in the Galaxy and perhaps the Universe by the human race;
to ensure that human rights are respected, with force if necessary, and that all nations recognize the inevitable and unalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their individual and harmless differences, or Idiosyncrasies;
to represent the interests of all humankind to other sapient species;
to protect all humanity and its’ colonies from unneeded violence or danger;
to promote technological advancement and scientific achievement for the happiness, knowledge and welfare of all humans;
and to facilitate cooperation in the spheres of law, transportation, communication, and measurement between nation-states.

User avatar
DnalweN acilbupeR
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7409
Founded: Aug 23, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby DnalweN acilbupeR » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:33 am

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:
The Corparation wrote:1)If you have SABREs you don't need jet enginges to get around in the atmosphere, because the SABREs function like jet engines while at the speed and altitude where you would use jet engines. That's how a spacecraft with them is supposed to takeoff. As for using them as a replacement for jet fighters, what's needed for a good spaceplane does not really overlap much with a normal fighter jet. There's just so many things a space plane needs that would be detrimental to air combat. As for a spaceplane for space combat, there's nothing to wrong with using one for orbital combat, just don't expect sending it off to crush the dastardly Martian's in their own cities.
2) Of course you could always carry more fuel. But then you have the mass of that fuel you need to carry. So need more fuel to lift that fuel. And herein lies the problem, it's not a matter of just carrying more fuel, its cutting down on mass. Your airframe and hull will likely be made up of materials like Titanium, Aluminum or carbon fiber rather than heavy things like tungsten.
3) Location of the laser turrets should be based on a few things, however the number it carries should be rooted in the tech level and environment you intend to operate it in. Since that determines the number of lasers you have, it also should have an impact on how you place them. Personally I think space warships should aim to cover the full celestial sphere with the least amount of lasers, or at the very least as much as possible. That's not to say you can't have more lasers or have gaps in coverage that you can fix via changing your orientation, but I've always felt that when it comes to space weapons.

In other news this has inspired me to make my own space fighter design. It will be an interceptor designed for combat, as well as other missions in LEO. Probably not going to go beyond a mockup or a protype IC.

1. I guess I'll invent a new jet fighter instead.
2. Well then! I didn't see it that way either. I guess I'll use titanium, mostly because of the higher melting point and ability to resist heat...oh...Wikipedia says it loses strength at 430 C. So I won't use heat resistance as a way to measure efficacy anymore; maybe I'll try out aluminum.
3. I agree with your view. Since I won't need to worry about aerodynamics, I guess I'll place them on the fuselage, halfway between the nose and the engines.
Thanks for helping me design a better fighter.

The Kievan People wrote:Rods from god are silly.

1. Because of the problem of absenteeism a rod spends the vast majority of its time everywhere except where you want it. The only way to guarantee one is available when and where you need it is to fill the sky with rods, a prohibitively costly option. A ballistic missile meanwhile can reach anywhere on earth in about half an hour, and 100% of your missiles will be available for attacking 100% of targets 100% of the time.

2. The delta-v needed to reach anywhere on the planet with a ballistic missile is identical to the delta-v needed for reaching LEO. Which is significantly less than the delta-v needed to reach a higher orbit like 2000 km. So the cost per rod will be considerably less for a ballistic weapon.

3. Rods in orbit cannot be concentrated effectively. If your constellation is evenly spaced (minimizing absenteeism) you will only be able to attack targets sequentially, with fairly large gaps between each strike. If your constellation is bunched up you will be able to launch multiple strikes in rapid succession on a target, but there will be large windows where you cannot attack at all. Either option provides the enemy a countermeasure: Either create enough targets you cannot destroy them in a reasonable amount of time, or wait until the window of safety is open to expose themselves.

Would it be possible to put the rods from god on a spacecraft capable of moving faster than an orbiting space station with the things, or should one just go for ballistic missiles?
I use coilguns and missiles myself for orbital bombardment.
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol

Yeah, ASAT missiles, jammers, and just sending other sattelites to fuck with 'em.


I meant anti-ASAT
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I award you no points, and have sent people to make sure your parents refrain from further breeding.
Lyttenburgh wrote:all this is a damning enough evidence to proove you of being an edgy butthurt 'murican teenager with the sole agenda of prooving to the uncaring bitch Web, that "You Have A Point!"
Lyttenburgh wrote:Either that, or, you were gang-raped by commi-nazi russian Spetznaz kill team, who then painted all walls in your house in hammer and sickles, and then viped their asses with the stars and stripes banner in your yard. That's the only logical explanation.

User avatar
Pharthan
Minister
 
Posts: 2969
Founded: Feb 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Pharthan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:11 am

Crookfur wrote:All this talk of airborne drone carriers is making this thread sound very Dale Brown again.

Except without the really cool stuff like NIRNSATS, EB-2 Vampires, violating russia and china's airspace with bombers to save 1 person and winning entire wars just using bomber fleets and a few tinmen (or the russian equivelent there of).

It was the EB-1 Vampire, IIRC.
HALCYON ARMS STOREFRONT

"Humanity is a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"Besides, if God didn't want us making glowing fish and insect-resistant corn, the building blocks of life wouldn't be so easy for science to fiddle with." - Dracoria

Why haven't I had anything new in my storefront for so long? This is why. I've been busy.

User avatar
Yukonastan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7251
Founded: May 17, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Yukonastan » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:20 am

Crookfur wrote:All this talk of airborne drone carriers is making this thread sound very Dale Brown again.

Except without the really cool stuff like NIRNSATS, EB-2 Vampires, violating russia and china's airspace with bombers to save 1 person and winning entire wars just using bomber fleets and a few tinmen (or the russian equivelent there of).


B-b-b-ut... My rewinged stealth big ugly fat fuckers!
this guy is a fucking furry and a therian
Btw, here's my IC flag

"Purp go to bed." - Nirvash Type TheEnd

User avatar
The United Colonies of Earth
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9659
Founded: Dec 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Colonies of Earth » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:59 am

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:1. I guess I'll invent a new jet fighter instead.
2. Well then! I didn't see it that way either. I guess I'll use titanium, mostly because of the higher melting point and ability to resist heat...oh...Wikipedia says it loses strength at 430 C. So I won't use heat resistance as a way to measure efficacy anymore; maybe I'll try out aluminum.
3. I agree with your view. Since I won't need to worry about aerodynamics, I guess I'll place them on the fuselage, halfway between the nose and the engines.
Thanks for helping me design a better fighter.


Would it be possible to put the rods from god on a spacecraft capable of moving faster than an orbiting space station with the things, or should one just go for ballistic missiles?
I use coilguns and missiles myself for orbital bombardment.

Yeah, ASAT missiles, jammers, and just sending other sattelites to fuck with 'em.


I meant anti-ASAT

Well, you could always launch an antimissile, but I don't think any RL nation has those.

Is it possible to have a handheld coilgun weapon of any sort? That's what my army uses for our troops.
The United Colonies of Earth exists:
to encourage settlement of all habitable worlds in the Galaxy and perhaps the Universe by the human race;
to ensure that human rights are respected, with force if necessary, and that all nations recognize the inevitable and unalienable rights of all human beings regardless of their individual and harmless differences, or Idiosyncrasies;
to represent the interests of all humankind to other sapient species;
to protect all humanity and its’ colonies from unneeded violence or danger;
to promote technological advancement and scientific achievement for the happiness, knowledge and welfare of all humans;
and to facilitate cooperation in the spheres of law, transportation, communication, and measurement between nation-states.

User avatar
Roski
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15601
Founded: Nov 18, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Roski » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:14 am

The United Colonies of Earth wrote:
DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:
I meant anti-ASAT

Well, you could always launch an antimissile, but I don't think any RL nation has those.

Is it possible to have a handheld coilgun weapon of any sort? That's what my army uses for our troops.


What the fuck is a coilgun
I'm some 17 year old psuedo-libertarian who leans to the left in social terms, is fiercly right economically, and centrist in foriegn policy. Unapologetically Pro-American, Pro-NATO, even if we do fuck up (a lot). If you can find real sources that disagree with me I will change my opinion. Call me IHOP cause I'm always flipping.

Follow my Vex Robotics team on instagram! @3921a_vex

I am the Federal Republic of Roski. I have a population slightly over 256 million with a GDP of 13.92-14.25 trillion. My gross domestic product increases each year between .4%-.1.4%. I have a military with 4.58 million total people, with 1.58 million of those active. My defense spending is 598.5 billion, or 4.2% of my Gross Domestic Product.

User avatar
Ardavia
Senator
 
Posts: 4732
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardavia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:16 am

Roski wrote:
The United Colonies of Earth wrote:Well, you could always launch an antimissile, but I don't think any RL nation has those.

Is it possible to have a handheld coilgun weapon of any sort? That's what my army uses for our troops.


What the fuck is a coilgun


It's a type of projectile accelerator consisting of one or more coils used as electromagnets in the configuration of a linear motor that accelerate a ferromagnetic or conducting projectile to high velocity. Also known as a Gauss gun.
professional contrarian
for: whatever you are against
against: whatever you are for

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Minister
 
Posts: 3446
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Triplebaconation » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:30 am

Pharthan wrote:
Questers wrote:EEvidence of an irl military doing something means its possible, not useful.

Forgive me if I trust DARPA over anyone on NS.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, I'm just going to be very skeptical.



Living in the so-called Bible Belt, I've noticed that many religious types trust the Bible. Very few have read it carefully.

Image

Calling the DARPA concept an airborne aircraft carrier is like calling the above a walking aircraft carrier.

As far as Rods from God, they've a far larger niche in NS than they do in the Real World. Uselessness IRL =/= Uselessness NS.


In fact it's the exact opposite. Rods from God are another thing that everybody thinks they know about but haven't researched carefully or at all. For one thing they were never supposed to be in LEO lol.
Last edited by Triplebaconation on Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Themiclesia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10632
Founded: Feb 12, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Themiclesia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:32 am

Themiclesia wrote:What happened to Biop? :eyebrow:

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Minister
 
Posts: 3446
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Triplebaconation » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:32 am

He's not doing well.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Liburia, Occitanica

Advertisement

Remove ads