Space Combat Vessel Design.

[jaeger115]

It's pretty obvious where this thread is going. In realistic sci-fi, carriers will be the main (probably only) capital ships, fighters will be doing all the combat. Of course, the carriers could have long-range scanners anti-fighter weaponry for defense, but the fighters will be doing the primary attacks and defenses.

What we have to accomplish before we can have uber-space cruisers like the ISD and Andromeda, is artifical gravity, reactionless drives, and a power plant with a super-high output (in the exowatt range).

[Enlightenment]

Of course artificial gravity is beneficial, but it's not worth dying for, so in a combat vessel which is expected to maneuver, it's not worth it unless you can use uber-tech.

It's not that cut and dried. Unless crewmembers are limited to only a small number of deployments, ships without gravity will kill or cripple their crews eventually. Ships with simulated gravity might get their crews killed if the mass penalty from gravity simulation exceeds the benefits of onboard gravity--including the prospect of better experienced crews on accont of not needing to limit maximum service times to fairly short periods.

'Might kill you' will go down a lot better at the recruiting office, at the veteran's benefits office, and with the beancounters than ships that'll probably cripple people or will require such short crew deployment limits that training costs will go through the roof.

If we're dealing with strictly realistic tech, then space combat is a no-brainer. As soon as you know where your enemy is, he's dead. No spacecraft can carry any kind of armour or defensive system which will keep an attacker from destroying him.

Except for pure laser combat models then everyone's going to be shooting missiles. Defense against a missile is simply a matter of killing the missile moving the out of the way of the incoming fragments. Killing the missile can be done with a laser (fry the seeker or k-kill depending on the laser power) or by hitting the missile with another missile.

Victory would depend on the attacker overwhelming the defender's defenses rather than simply a matter of whoever shooting first taking all.

Then you have carriers which rotate but whose combat survivability is near-nil, and you have zero-g fighters for all the combat.

More like missile cruisers, probably. I've already gone into the mass ratio issues involved with manned/reusable fighters.

[Darth Wong]

Then you have carriers which rotate but whose combat survivability is near-nil, and you have zero-g fighters for all the combat.

More like missile cruisers, probably. I've already gone into the mass ratio issues involved with manned/reusable fighters.

A manned/reusable fighter has inferior performance to a missile, but you don't use missiles to do scouting/patrolling. Your sensor range is limited, and if you can see an incoming attacker, it's already too late; he can see you, and he may have already loosed his missiles. A horde of small missiles will overcome any defensive system. Increasing technology tends to shift the balance towards the attacker, not the defender.

You need to be able to extend your detection range, and that means some kind of drone or fighter, which carries its own sensors, has its own sense of judgement (hence requiring an intelligent pilot, thus it may or may require a human depending on what you think AI may be capable of at the time), and can launch its own missiles in order to engage upon detection of the enemy.

The type of gear and fuel you need for long-range scouting and patrolling would be a detriment to the performance of a missile, hence you don't use a missile for that purpose, even if it's smart enough to do the job. Hence drones and/or fighters.

[jaeger115]

A horde of small missiles will overcome any defensive system.

What if we invent a shield system?

[Darth Wong]

A horde of small missiles will overcome any defensive system.

What if we invent a shield system?

Sorry, I should have said "realistic defensive system". A laser system with infinite accuracy and perfect immunity to countermeasures or a two-layered particle/energy shield grid could very well do the job, but the thread is an attempt to be quasi-realistic.

[jaeger115]

In that case, is there a way we could create a defensive force field like we see in Star Wars? I remember a link to a "Tesla shield" that uses perpendicular electric waves to project a hemisphere of energy, but I can't find the link anymore and I suspect it's pseudoscience because it's linked to a conspiracy-theory site.

[Seggybop]

I remember reading about the 'tesla shield.' It was described as a hemisphere that anything passing through was burned and subjected to severe EMP effects. However, I've read a great deal of information about Tesla and nothing about this phenomena was mentioned. So they must have either tacked on the name to something someone else found or made the whole thing up. I am more inclined to believe the second option. But there are many inventions Tesla did create that would be of great value on a ship of this type...

[jaeger115]

The question is: Can it work in vacuum or does it need an atmosphere?

[Lagmonster]

On the issue of shields, I think it's vastly silly. In space, where the issue of volatility is much higher (you can't afford little holes in your space craft, where on a tank it might not matter as much), the winning team is going to use automation or remote-piloting for as much as they can get away with for its scouting ships, and even that is going to be a massive waste of resources in short order.

In the end, it will come down to who sees who first and launches a nuke. The most impressively armored space craft is going to wish it were somewhere else after, say, a half dozen nuclear weapons detonate on its hull.

[jaeger115]

Even if the shields deflect the nukes?

[Lagmonster]

Even if the shields deflect the nukes?

How are they going to do it? You don't slam a nuclear missile into the shields. You don't slam a nuclear anything into anything. It detonates near its target.

I admit that it's a nice concept, but where is all this energy that's powering your shields coming from?

The easiest way to take care of oncoming missiles is the same as it's always been. Damage or destroy the missile before it detonates. I'd be researching ways to do that, not trying to build and power massive energy-consuming force fields or whatever.

[jaeger115]

The easiest way to take care of oncoming missiles is the same as it's always been. Damage or destroy the missile before it detonates. I'd be researching ways to do that, not trying to build and power massive energy-consuming force fields or whatever.

Ever hear of the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) system?

[Lagmonster]

The easiest way to take care of oncoming missiles is the same as it's always been. Damage or destroy the missile before it detonates. I'd be researching ways to do that, not trying to build and power massive energy-consuming force fields or whatever.

Ever hear of the THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) system?

Admittedly, no, but I'll wager it's not a shield.

[phongn]

Actually, wouldn't slamming a nuclear device into some sort of forcefield cause it to be destroyed rather than detonate?

[jaeger115]

Admittedly, no, but I'll wager it's not a shield.

Its a laser system that's capable of tracking down every enemy rocket, artillery round, and air-to-ground or ground-to-ground missile and destroying them with a single beam. They're now being deployed in Israel, courtesy of the US Army

[Mostly Harmless]

A manned/reusable fighter has inferior performance to a missile, but you don't use missiles to do scouting/patrolling. Your sensor range is limited, and if you can see an incoming attacker, it's already too late; he can see you, and he may have already loosed his missiles. A horde of small missiles will overcome any defensive system. Increasing technology tends to shift the balance towards the attacker, not the defender.

You need to be able to extend your detection range, and that means some kind of drone or fighter, which carries its own sensors, has its own sense of judgement (hence requiring an intelligent pilot, thus it may or may require a human depending on what you think AI may be capable of at the time), and can launch its own missiles in order to engage upon detection of the enemy.

The type of gear and fuel you need for long-range scouting and patrolling would be a detriment to the performance of a missile, hence you don't use a missile for that purpose, even if it's smart enough to do the job. Hence drones and/or fighters.

The difference between drones and missiles is IMHO not that fundamental: both are unmanned remote/AI controlled parasite craft. The only difference is intended mission and payload - missile carries warhead (proximity nuke, detonation laser or something else...) and is one-use vehicle, while sensor drone carries sensor/ECM/ECCM package and is supposed to be recovered.

I'd see those two as pretty much interchangable. The future "missile/drone carrier" vessel should carry "empty" drones and ample amount of "mission packages". Those "mission packages" would be sensor kits (for sensor drones), ECM kits, large nuclear warheads (for one-use shipkillers), submunition launchers (for saturation attacks), even direct fire weapons (for defensive use). This would allow precise mix&match of attacking/defending drone group.


As for manned space fighters, I don't believe in them. Human being is a fragile creature; it requires considerable life-support equipment, and is not suited to high-g accelerations. Humans also (in comparison to machines) tend to have crappy reflexes. And, of course, humans (again, unlike machines) tend to shy from strictly suicide missions.

That's why I'm proposing all-drone strike force. It will be AI controlled on long range missions, and AI controlled / human "advised" whenever communication lag is not to severe.


Anyway, those are my 0.02 lv.

[Raptor 597]

Actually, wouldn't slamming a nuclear device into some sort of forcefield cause it to be destroyed rather than detonate?

If the warhead nose could be jammed sufficently I suppose you could unbalance the detonating firing mechanism.