NS Military Realism Mk. 7: NO

[Pharthan]

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.

[Yukonastan]

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?

[The Corparation]

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.

[Connori Pilgrims]

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.

[Questers]

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!

[The Akasha Colony]

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.

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:



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.

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.

[Rich and Corporations]

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

Just use a cheap, subsonic, long-endurance UAV launched from your homeland

you mean a manned airship?

[Questers]

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

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.

[Pharthan]

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. ]

[The Kievan People]

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.

[Gallan Systems]

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

; _________ ;

Get well soon Oale pls don't die

[Crookfur]

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).

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

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.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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 United Colonies of Earth]

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.

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.

is there such a thing as satellite countermeasures? lol

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

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

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.

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

[Pharthan]

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.

[Yukonastan]

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!

[The United Colonies of Earth]

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.

[Roski]

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

[Ardavia]

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.

[Triplebaconation]

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.



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.

[Themiclesia]

What happened to Biop?

[Triplebaconation]

He's not doing well.