Advertisement
by Auman » Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:04 pm
by Kyuria » Fri Aug 01, 2014 9:46 pm
by SquareDisc City » Sat Aug 02, 2014 6:32 am
by Dooom35796821595 » Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:53 pm
by The Fedral Union » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:30 am
Dooom35796821595 wrote:I was considering the design of an airborne aircraft carrier when I realised that there is a lot of potential for variations. Would It be like the Avengers helicarriers just a Nimitz class with repulsor engines, or a shielded runway like BSG, or hollow like saints row?
Each design has advantages and disadvantages, however due to weight constraints and maximising armour potential I was considering more of a saints row approach as all vehicles using it will have VTOL capability. The ship would also have significant point defences.
Is there a better alternative? And are there any improvements that could be made to the design?
by Dreadful Sagittarius » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:23 am
Dooom35796821595 wrote:I was considering the design of an airborne aircraft carrier when I realised that there is a lot of potential for variations. Would It be like the Avengers helicarriers just a Nimitz class with repulsor engines, or a shielded runway like BSG, or hollow like saints row?
Each design has advantages and disadvantages, however due to weight constraints and maximising armour potential I was considering more of a saints row approach as all vehicles using it will have VTOL capability. The ship would also have significant point defences.
Is there a better alternative? And are there any improvements that could be made to the design?
by The Fedral Union » Mon Aug 04, 2014 5:43 am
Dreadful Sagittarius wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:I was considering the design of an airborne aircraft carrier when I realised that there is a lot of potential for variations. Would It be like the Avengers helicarriers just a Nimitz class with repulsor engines, or a shielded runway like BSG, or hollow like saints row?
Each design has advantages and disadvantages, however due to weight constraints and maximising armour potential I was considering more of a saints row approach as all vehicles using it will have VTOL capability. The ship would also have significant point defences.
Is there a better alternative? And are there any improvements that could be made to the design?
What advantages does an airborne carrier have over a regular naval carrier or a space carrier carrying atmospheric-capable strikecraft? I don't see it being less vulnerable to AA fire, since if the enemy's got any anti-orbital weapons (that by necessity must be able to target vessels at far, far greater distances and with higher speeds), there's no stopping them retasking it to engage the airborne carrier.
Yes, it does have the advantage of having a greater area of operations than a wet carrier, but at the same time it's horrifically vulnerable. AA fire, old ICBM's, and the sheer chance of accidents happening are all real threats. Look at it like this; you can hole a wet naval carrier, and it could well still be afloat.
If I recall correctly, the USN carrier Yorktown damaged at Midway had been abandoned and then towed by a destroyer back to Pearl Harbour, and that was with a holed hull. (Admittedly a salvage team had boarded to try and save it and managed to reduce list by two degrees) On the other hand, what do you do with an airborne carrier missing a lift device? You don't have the helpful medium of water beneath you, just a long drop and a short stop.
by Dreadful Sagittarius » Mon Aug 04, 2014 8:57 am
The Fedral Union wrote:Should be noted, that space craft can just scoot away from the planet if they are under such heavy fire they would need to GTFO.
The Fedral Union wrote:That said, My transports and well any other persons ships should be able to conduct adequate SEAD and maintain enough air defense cover to knock down incoming missiles..
The Fedral Union wrote:What you have to worry about, is the enemy fleet, if you don't have orbital supremacy you'll be hard pressed to even attempt a landing.
by The Fedral Union » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:43 am
Dreadful Sagittarius wrote:The Fedral Union wrote:Should be noted, that space craft can just scoot away from the planet if they are under such heavy fire they would need to GTFO.
Thanks for rehashing my point. Yes, spacecraft can move away from any anti-orbital fire. An airborne carrier won't have that luxury unless it can get over the horizon, assuming the enemy's weapon is Line-of-Sight. If the enemy's weapon is a missile, then bye bye aerocarrier.The Fedral Union wrote:That said, My transports and well any other persons ships should be able to conduct adequate SEAD and maintain enough air defense cover to knock down incoming missiles..
Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but okay. No wait, actually, what? Transports conducting SEAD? That's like having an oversized F-111 and sending it to destroy some enemy missile batteries, all the while toting an underslung container packed with troops.The Fedral Union wrote:What you have to worry about, is the enemy fleet, if you don't have orbital supremacy you'll be hard pressed to even attempt a landing.
Enemy fleet is a big worry. But anti-orbital weapons should always be feared as well. Too many people make the assumption of 'Oh it's a ground based facility, we'll just nuke it from orbit.' Not easily depending on what it is. Assuming the enemy has the brains to place a thorough air-defence network around their orbital weapons, not only do you have to expend ammunition on taking out the weapon, you've got to disrupt the network as well.
Of course ground-based weapons lack the advantage of mobility available to starships, but don't knock them. A large enough amount will stop most invasion forces unless you're talking something akin to an FT version of Sword Beach in Normandy 1944.
by Derscon » Mon Aug 04, 2014 9:57 am
Kyuria wrote:Out of really quick and kyurious kyuriosity (First time I ever used that on purpose, first time I don't hate myself for it! Yay!
by Auman » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:15 pm
by The Akasha Colony » Mon Aug 04, 2014 1:32 pm
Auman wrote:"Enemy fleet is a big worry. But anti-orbital weapons should always be feared as well. Too many people make the assumption of 'Oh it's a ground based facility, we'll just nuke it from orbit.' Not easily depending on what it is. Assuming the enemy has the brains to place a thorough air-defence network around their orbital weapons, not only do you have to expend ammunition on taking out the weapon, you've got to disrupt the network as well."
I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS FOR 11 YEARS! D:
by Nyte » Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:37 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Auman wrote:"Enemy fleet is a big worry. But anti-orbital weapons should always be feared as well. Too many people make the assumption of 'Oh it's a ground based facility, we'll just nuke it from orbit.' Not easily depending on what it is. Assuming the enemy has the brains to place a thorough air-defence network around their orbital weapons, not only do you have to expend ammunition on taking out the weapon, you've got to disrupt the network as well."
I HAVE BEEN ARGUING THIS FOR 11 YEARS! D:
And an air defense network would be an obstacle to orbital bombardment because...?
Or even beyond-orbital, since planets are rather difficult to move and easy targets to hit.
by The Akasha Colony » Mon Aug 04, 2014 2:58 pm
Nyte wrote:It depends on what you are bombarding a planet with. If you're the type to use missiles for example (nuclear or otherwise), those ground based defenses can simply shoot them out of the sky/orbital space; likely well before they even get close to their target(s). Of course it also depends on what kind of weaponry the defense network consists of as well as different weapons will have different uses and/or ranges. There's also the fact that if your ships are in orbit shooting at the ground, the ground based weapons will be shooting right back at your ships, and odds are, those ground based weapons will be extensive unless your attacking some poorly defended border planet or some such.
Also, while I'm not actually sure of this, I do believe that a ground based laser weapon isn't any less long ranged than a ship based laser weapon, so you can sit your ships back all you want, but that laser can still hit you...
by SquareDisc City » Mon Aug 04, 2014 3:41 pm
If you want to deploy aircraft from space, those aircraft need to be spacecraft too. That's going to add weight and compromise their performance as aircraft. An AAC that's space capable itself gets round that problem.Dreadful Sagittarius wrote:What advantages does an airborne carrier have over a regular naval carrier or a space carrier carrying atmospheric-capable strikecraft? I don't see it being less vulnerable to AA fire, since if the enemy's got any anti-orbital weapons (that by necessity must be able to target vessels at far, far greater distances and with higher speeds), there's no stopping them retasking it to engage the airborne carrier.
Yes, it does have the advantage of having a greater area of operations than a wet carrier, but at the same time it's horrifically vulnerable. AA fire, old ICBM's, and the sheer chance of accidents happening are all real threats. Look at it like this; you can hole a wet naval carrier, and it could well still be afloat.
If I recall correctly, the USN carrier Yorktown damaged at Midway had been abandoned and then towed by a destroyer back to Pearl Harbour, and that was with a holed hull. (Admittedly a salvage team had boarded to try and save it and managed to reduce list by two degrees) On the other hand, what do you do with an airborne carrier missing a lift device? You don't have the helpful medium of water beneath you, just a long drop and a short stop.
by The Liminal Commonwealth » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:16 pm
Nyte wrote:Also, while I'm not actually sure of this, I do believe that a ground based laser weapon isn't any less long ranged than a ship based laser weapon, so you can sit your ships back all you want, but that laser can still hit you...
by The Fedral Union » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:27 pm
The Liminal Commonwealth wrote:Nyte wrote:Also, while I'm not actually sure of this, I do believe that a ground based laser weapon isn't any less long ranged than a ship based laser weapon, so you can sit your ships back all you want, but that laser can still hit you...
High-energy lasers in atmosphere into problems with atmospheric interference - it's a phenomena called 'blooming'. You can make the laser bigger or used an array of less powerful lasers to try to make up for it, but it still means that if you want to have a laser that's capable of reaching orbit or beyond and still do damage to a target you're going to have to expend quite a bit more energy than a comparable space-to-space laser battery would. Of course, this limitation works both ways too - a ship in orbit using a laser against a stationary ground target is also going to have to pump more energy into its battery to do an equivalent amount of damage.
Ground-based lasers also run into the problem that they're limited to line-of-sight fire only - their firing arc extends only as far as the horizon at their battery. With missiles and sufficiently big artillery you can put things on trajectories that will take them to where you need to go, but with lasers you'd be stuck with a fixed range. If the enemy you're shooting at knows where your big anti-orbital lasers are, they can just sit out of their ranges and be quite safe. Orbital mirrors may help with that, but if you're having to fire ground-based lasers at targets in orbit, odds are the enemy is already going to be hard at work demolishing them.
by Dreadful Sagittarius » Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:41 pm
by Dooom35796821595 » Mon Aug 04, 2014 7:36 pm
SquareDisc City wrote:If you want to deploy aircraft from space, those aircraft need to be spacecraft too. That's going to add weight and compromise their performance as aircraft. An AAC that's space capable itself gets round that problem.
And an AAC could include redundant lift devices, so it can stay aloft even if one or two are disabled. It would be little different to a ship (which has internal bulkeads to give the same benefit) or a regular multi-engine plane in this respect.
As for specific AAC designs, the main thing to consider is the takeoff and landing process I reckon, since that's what you're likely to write about. Takeoff can be a simple drop if you like, but landing is more challenging. A conventional runway may not be practical because the carrier will be at high altitude, although a pressurised interior space with a forcefield entrance/exit would be a neat way round this. VTOLs would work, but then you have to include VTOL equipment on your aircraft, which you might not otherwise need. Another option is for returning craft to "dock" with the AAC in a fashion similar to aerial refuelling, then be pulled aboard by some sort of robot arm - and indeed this is the approach that was attempted with real-life AACs. It makes returning a very tricky bit of flying, could be fun to RP.
by Dirthkos » Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:50 pm
by The Fedral Union » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:11 pm
Dirthkos wrote:I would like to ask for some help with designing my ftl(both travel and communications) tech. I'd like to be able to justify both with the same principle, operating under the same rules, and would like to have a requirement for highly skilled human/alien/other form of biological life navigator- no computers, but they're used elsewhere- with multiple, very precise trips(whether jumps or something like a star trek warp drive, I'm undecided) required for most trips. It shouldn't be particularly fast, but I want to be able to use it to justify multiple speeds of travel, depending on some other factor, and it should be capable of linking together a group of semi-feudal space nomad fleets, which are nevertheless isolated enough to have developed distinct cultural, dialectical, and even racial groupings.
My idea was to have *insert technobabble explanation of why the navigator has to be human(or intelligent alien)* and the main restriction on where a jump/warp flight can go being the skill and experience of the navigator. FTL communications depends largely on being able to send a regular radio message through the same jump/warp flight through *insert technobabble here*, so FTL com cannot be broadcasted, but relies on knowing exactly where the recipient is(because of the low risk, it can be sent significantly further distances).
My question is, Would that work, and how could I flesh it out?
by Dirthkos » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:27 pm
The Fedral Union wrote:Dirthkos wrote:I would like to ask for some help with designing my ftl(both travel and communications) tech. I'd like to be able to justify both with the same principle, operating under the same rules, and would like to have a requirement for highly skilled human/alien/other form of biological life navigator- no computers, but they're used elsewhere- with multiple, very precise trips(whether jumps or something like a star trek warp drive, I'm undecided) required for most trips. It shouldn't be particularly fast, but I want to be able to use it to justify multiple speeds of travel, depending on some other factor, and it should be capable of linking together a group of semi-feudal space nomad fleets, which are nevertheless isolated enough to have developed distinct cultural, dialectical, and even racial groupings.
My idea was to have *insert technobabble explanation of why the navigator has to be human(or intelligent alien)* and the main restriction on where a jump/warp flight can go being the skill and experience of the navigator. FTL communications depends largely on being able to send a regular radio message through the same jump/warp flight through *insert technobabble here*, so FTL com cannot be broadcasted, but relies on knowing exactly where the recipient is(because of the low risk, it can be sent significantly further distances).
My question is, Would that work, and how could I flesh it out?
FTL is one of those things that really cant be explained aside from going in to a bunch of pseudo theory and what if's my drive is based off of a-lot of things I've read in some theoretical physics books, and have seen, but that is really just going above and beyond what most people even care to do. (I just did it out of interest) ; as for FTL comns again one of those things that has so much conjecture around it , that anything said here is once more mere speculation. The speed of your FTL should be a variable, and dependant on the thread at hands plot.
If your comns are relying on knowing exactly where someone is... Well; you've got a major issue. How would you know where they are, and space is massive.. I would go with QE honestly, in my case I just link up through phase space or QE. If you want an odd form of FTL, I'd say if you were more of a stationary race you could set up FTL cannonpaults, and fling construction ships to destination systems to set up receivers and cannonpults to move on to the next before sending your people there. Or have mobile versions with their own FTL . But yeah that's a bit much to work out on. For navigation you can also just use direct interfacing with your navigation guy/gal/alien if you are loathe to have AI or some such.
by The Fedral Union » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:48 pm
Dirthkos wrote:The Fedral Union wrote:
FTL is one of those things that really cant be explained aside from going in to a bunch of pseudo theory and what if's my drive is based off of a-lot of things I've read in some theoretical physics books, and have seen, but that is really just going above and beyond what most people even care to do. (I just did it out of interest) ; as for FTL comns again one of those things that has so much conjecture around it , that anything said here is once more mere speculation. The speed of your FTL should be a variable, and dependant on the thread at hands plot.
OK, would experience and skill(I'm using a long lived race, so experience won't really be much of a problem) of the navigator be a good way to try to justify it ic, though?If your comns are relying on knowing exactly where someone is... Well; you've got a major issue. How would you know where they are, and space is massive.. I would go with QE honestly, in my case I just link up through phase space or QE. If you want an odd form of FTL, I'd say if you were more of a stationary race you could set up FTL cannonpaults, and fling construction ships to destination systems to set up receivers and cannonpults to move on to the next before sending your people there. Or have mobile versions with their own FTL . But yeah that's a bit much to work out on. For navigation you can also just use direct interfacing with your navigation guy/gal/alien if you are loathe to have AI or some such.
Yeah, I was trying to have an issue with communications, but that does seem a little bit excessive. I was trying to create a setting with a homing pigeon equivalent, but no radio equivalent.Also, what's QE?Quantum entanglement, right? If I limited it to only being able to give exact location, maybe that could be how communications techs would know exact locations?
by Dirthkos » Sat Aug 09, 2014 9:00 pm
The Fedral Union wrote:Dirthkos wrote:OK, would experience and skill(I'm using a long lived race, so experience won't really be much of a problem) of the navigator be a good way to try to justify it ic, though?
Yeah, I was trying to have an issue with communications, but that does seem a little bit excessive. I was trying to create a setting with a homing pigeon equivalent, but no radio equivalent.Also, what's QE?Quantum entanglement, right? If I limited it to only being able to give exact location, maybe that could be how communications techs would know exact locations?
Yeah quantum entanglement. I'm not sure entanglement works that way exactly but it'd be a good way to communicate to be honest, space faring civilizations have the distinct requirement of needing good communications (at least for the most part) you cant really get around that fact in a sense. But it seems your trying to go more for an age of sail thing in space.. Thats commendable I mean alternatively you can just make the ability to communicate limited in the sense of how often per ever x amount of time you can send an FTL burst of data. You can use a wormlink. QE may be able to send back data regarding the ships position though, but as I said I'm not completely /sure/ My ships (at least most and all in Star command) have the need or ability to be tracked for logistical reasons.
Since your a semi feudalistic nomadic race though (by the way feudalism I've been told is an efficient form of government for FT but I stick with my Democratic and Republican Federalism) . You wouldn't need to have such an integrated tracking system as routine like other states (for other that communications) . Mind you as your nomadic you have an awesome advantage of being able to disappear due to space being huge.
by Kyrusia » Sat Aug 09, 2014 9:18 pm
Dirthkos wrote:I would like to ask for some help with designing my ftl(both travel and communications) tech. I'd like to be able to justify both with the same principle, operating under the same rules, and would like to have a requirement for highly skilled human/alien/other form of biological life navigator- no computers, but they're used elsewhere- with multiple, very precise trips(whether jumps or something like a star trek warp drive, I'm undecided) required for most trips. It shouldn't be particularly fast, but I want to be able to use it to justify multiple speeds of travel, depending on some other factor, and it should be capable of linking together a group of semi-feudal space nomad fleets, which are nevertheless isolated enough to have developed distinct cultural, dialectical, and even racial groupings.
My idea was to have *insert technobabble explanation of why the navigator has to be human(or intelligent alien)* and the main restriction on where a jump/warp flight can go being the skill and experience of the navigator. FTL communications depends largely on being able to send a regular radio message through the same jump/warp flight through *insert technobabble here*, so FTL com cannot be broadcasted, but relies on knowing exactly where the recipient is(because of the low risk, it can be sent significantly further distances).
My question is, Would that work, and how could I flesh it out?
Advertisement
Return to International Incidents
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]
Advertisement