NationStates

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The Akasha Colony wrote: Just use a cheap, subsonic, long-endurance UAV launched from your homeland

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol

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.

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).

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Themiclesia wrote:What happened to Biop?