Design Federation ground forces

[avatarxprime]

Congradulations you just described the droid army in the battle of Naboo, pure genious. And what hapens to your army when the control core is destroyed whether on ship or ground, they keel over and die. Anyone with good ECM could jam the control transmition and defeat said army.

No, I did not. The core would be there to choose the best programs to load, guide the drones' action, and prevent any program from going Moriarty, however, each individual drone will still be networked to each other and will be running their individal holo-character program onboard. If the central computer core goes down then the network is hurt and the adaptability and response time of the drones would suffer, but the same would happen if you blow up any command post for any army.

On an ethical matter would the federation condone creating a sentient being like Data/Exocomps just to fight/kill their enemies. Would the people condone it?

Well seeing as they aren't sentient and are simply holo-characters running around in android bodies (or any shape really) I don't see the Feds having any concern for their rights. They regularly fight and kill holo-characters for the fun of it, these are simply holo-characters providing greater usefulness by attacking enemies of the Federation. Remember that Data had to fight to be recognized by the Federation as a person and not equipment. The Doctor had to fight to gain similar rights and his EMH Mk. I compatriots weren't so lucky and got stuck on mining duty regardless of their actual desires. The Federation could care less about intelligent beings they create that aren't biological in origin and this case is no different. The computer core is not considered intelligent, the holo-character programs are not considered real and have no rights and the android bodies will simply be labeled as equipment. Nothing about this scenario should cause anyone in the Federation or Starfleet a moments pause in regards to the ethical treatment of the robo-army.

[SapphireFox]

No, I did not. The core would be there to choose the best programs to load, guide the drones' action, and prevent any program from going Moriarty, however, each individual drone will still be networked to each other and will be running their individal holo-character program onboard. If the central computer core goes down then the network is hurt and the adaptability and response time of the drones would suffer, but the same would happen if you blow up any command post for any army.

Exactly how would you prevent a program from going moriarty when they STILL don't know how he became sentient in the first place?
Also how would you maintain a network in the presence of ECM like I mentioned earlier?

I had came up with a similar idea earlier when I was pondering how to make a SW droid with ST tech and i admit I do like your idea and it could be very effective it just seems to have a few bugs like relying on a network in a battlefield situation.

Well seeing as they aren't sentient and are simply holo-characters running around in android bodies (or any shape really) I don't see the Feds having any concern for their rights. They regularly fight and kill holo-characters for the fun of it, these are simply holo-characters providing greater usefulness by attacking enemies of the Federation. Remember that Data had to fight to be recognized by the Federation as a person and not equipment. The Doctor had to fight to gain similar rights and his EMH Mk. I compatriots weren't so lucky and got stuck on mining duty regardless of their actual desires. The Federation could care less about intelligent beings they create that aren't biological in origin and this case is no different. The computer core is not considered intelligent, the holo-character programs are not considered real and have no rights and the android bodies will simply be labeled as equipment. Nothing about this scenario should cause anyone in the Federation or Starfleet a moments pause in regards to the ethical treatment of the robo-army.

Considering that they won those rights, don't you think that there would be a few people who would give a damn about this issue Data himself would probably complain or at least be concerned about this type of issue. The doctor being a hologram himself would be very vocal about this kind of thing. Picard considering he was data`s defense lawyer in his rights trial would also be concerned about the artificial sentience issue. You see what I mean.

[avatarxprime]

No, I did not. The core would be there to choose the best programs to load, guide the drones' action, and prevent any program from going Moriarty, however, each individual drone will still be networked to each other and will be running their individal holo-character program onboard. If the central computer core goes down then the network is hurt and the adaptability and response time of the drones would suffer, but the same would happen if you blow up any command post for any army.

Exactly how would you prevent a program from going moriarty when they STILL don't know how he became sentient in the first place?
Also how would you maintain a network in the presence of ECM like I mentioned earlier?

ECM and ECCM don't really seem to be used much on ST battlefields so I didn't really consider them an issue. Even then in most situations we've seen tricorders, comm badges and other Starfleet equipment work just fine.

I had came up with a similar idea earlier when I was pondering how to make a SW droid with ST tech and i admit I do like your idea and it could be very effective it just seems to have a few bugs like relying on a network in a battlefield situation.

Well the United States Army hopes you're wrong about that. All of their future infantry plans focus heavily on further networking infantry in the field to each other and command.

Well seeing as they aren't sentient and are simply holo-characters running around in android bodies (or any shape really) I don't see the Feds having any concern for their rights. They regularly fight and kill holo-characters for the fun of it, these are simply holo-characters providing greater usefulness by attacking enemies of the Federation. Remember that Data had to fight to be recognized by the Federation as a person and not equipment. The Doctor had to fight to gain similar rights and his EMH Mk. I compatriots weren't so lucky and got stuck on mining duty regardless of their actual desires. The Federation could care less about intelligent beings they create that aren't biological in origin and this case is no different. The computer core is not considered intelligent, the holo-character programs are not considered real and have no rights and the android bodies will simply be labeled as equipment. Nothing about this scenario should cause anyone in the Federation or Starfleet a moments pause in regards to the ethical treatment of the robo-army.

Considering that they won those rights, don't you think that there would be a few people who would give a damn about this issue Data himself would probably complain or at least be concerned about this type of issue. The doctor being a hologram himself would be very vocal about this kind of thing. Picard considering he was data`s defense lawyer in his rights trial would also be concerned about the artificial sentience issue. You see what I mean.

I'm sure someone will say something, but remember that the Doctor had to prove he had gone beyond his programming and had become "a real boy" to get his rights, similarly for Data. As far as Data and Picard go, they probably won't have that much of a problem with it from the viewpoint of using holo-characters in android bodies, but rather the idea of sending wave after wave of killing machine at enemies given their interactions with holo-characters who aren't Moriarty.

[SapphireFox]

ECM and ECCM don't really seem to be used much on ST battlefields so I didn't really consider them an issue. Even then in most situations we've seen tricorders, comm badges and other Starfleet equipment work just fine.

While the modern concept of ECM might not be used frequently by starfleet or the other major powers, there has been plenty of times that communications have been disrupted by both natural and unnatural forces.

(TOS)"The Doomsday Machine" The dampening field the doomsday machine emits disrupts communications both long and short range. arguably an intentional form of ECM.

(TNG)"Skin of Evil" DATA: Armus is capable of creating undefined force-fields. In effect, we are powerless to communicate or use our transporter unless it allows us to.
Intentional communications disruptions pretty much describes ECM effects in this case

(TNG)"Menage a Troi" Communications are blocked by the emition of a nebula.

(TNG)"Darmok" RIKER: Riker to Captain Picard ... Captain, do you read me?

...

RIKER: Can we compensate?

DATA: No, sir. The Tamarians are projecting a particle sustaining beam into the upper atmosphere. The result is a hyper-ionization that disrupts virtually all EM and subspace carriers.

Again an intentional ECM effect and arguably more important because it is used on a planet EFECTIVELY , the enterprise was never able to contact picard through the effect.

(TNG)"Power Play"RIKER: Enterprise?

(no response)

DATA: It is unlikely, sir, that we will be able to establish communication with the ship, given the severe electromagnetic interference.

Communications disrupted by an electrical storm
(DS9)"Emissary"DAX: They're flooding subspace with anti- lepton interference... it'll cut off our communications with Starfleet...

The cardassians used a form of ECM to block communications.

Well the United States Army hopes you're wrong about that. All of their future infantry plans focus heavily on further networking infantry in the field to each other and command.

I cant speak for the US army but I don't think that there network connects their higher brain functions, which is my only other issue with this network.

. Since intelligence is the issue in Federation robotics, have them all function as networked drones tied to a starship level computer core. The core (by virtue of the holodeck) has proven itself more than capable of running sufficiently intelligent AI to function as soldiers and contains its own power supply.

According to your statement you NEED the core to actually RUN the programs that drive the robo-soldiers, if it were easy to run without the core you wouldn't need it at all.

I'm sure someone will say something, but remember that the Doctor had to prove he had gone beyond his programming and had become "a real boy" to get his rights, similarly for Data. As far as Data and Picard go, they probably won't have that much of a problem with it from the viewpoint of using holo-characters in android bodies, but rather the idea of sending wave after wave of killing machine at enemies given their interactions with holo-characters who aren't Moriarty.

I think we've come to the point of agreement on this issue, some grumbling from some quarters but the army of "mindless" and/or "soulless" death machines would probably disturb the average feddie citizen.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Quick question, does the Federation have any kind of rail or coilguns? Because due to the nature of phasers I feel that gun tubes are their only option as far as artillery goes.

[Stofsk]

Quick question, does the Federation have any kind of rail or coilguns? Because due to the nature of phasers I feel that gun tubes are their only option as far as artillery goes.

Their only artillery seen is a mortar in 'Arena'.

If you want to give the Fedders coilguns, go for it. You don't need to work within the bounds of canon for a hypothetical or speculative thread like this one is. Frankly, though, I don't know what's wrong with basing ground tactics on the idea you'd have a starship in orbit with a transporter and phasers. Why have artillery when you can have ortillery?

[Captain Seafort]

Their only artillery seen is a mortar in 'Arena'.

There was also the big canon in "The Cage", but I'm not sure how useful that would be militarily - it was dependent on the Enterprise for power, and it was used at very short range. It's demonstrated firepower was, however, the best we've seen of any Trek ground weapon.

[Stofsk]

It's difficult to understand that device. I don't know how it could be dependent on Enterprise for power when its in orbit and the blaster cannon thingy is on the planet's surface.

But yeah it was cool that they carried heavy artillery... of a sort. Phaser rifles were only seen in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' as well.

[Ted C]

Your little challenge is to try and conceptualize how proper Federation ground forces would look like if the Star Trek writers had the budget and desire to show epic land battles with combined arms in a similar vein to Geonosis, or, if you prefer, simply ground forces with a modicum of sense.

Well, to make it brief.

1. Phaser rifles and pistols with good ergonomics.
2. Hand grenades like we say in ENT "Broken Bow".
3. Photon grenade launchers.
4. Support weapons, presumably phasers, that can sustain fire for extended periods of time.
5. Anti-gravity devices (like those seen in TOS "The Changeling") to make carrying large power supplies for support weapons and other equipment feasible.
6. Transport inhibitors, to keep enemies from using transporter technology against your force.
7. Pattern enhances, to allow troops to make use of their own transporters in adverse conditions.
8. Alternatives to phasers, where phasers are ineffective (radiogenic environments, energy dampening fields, etc.).
9. Transport vehicles, possibly armored with essentially phaser-proof materials like "toranium inlay". If the difference in cost between flying vehicles and ground vehicles is essentially negligible with Federation technology, then it all of them could be flying.
10. Various levels of body armor, all the way up to sealed suits.
11. Remote-piloted vehicles for reconnaissance and support.

I'm pretty sure all of that has some precedent in Star Trek; they just need to use it intelligently.

[Ted C]

It's difficult to understand that device. I don't know how it could be dependent on Enterprise for power when its in orbit and the blaster cannon thingy is on the planet's surface.

But yeah it was cool that they carried heavy artillery... of a sort. Phaser rifles were only seen in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' as well.

It almost looks like they took one of the Enterprise's phaser mounts, brought it down to the surface, and ran it with broadcast power from the ship. We know they can beam power from the ship for various purposes.

[Ritterin Sophia]

If you want to give the Fedders coilguns, go for it. You don't need to work within the bounds of canon for a hypothetical or speculative thread like this one is. Frankly, though, I don't know what's wrong with basing ground tactics on the idea you'd have a starship in orbit with a transporter and phasers. Why have artillery when you can have ortillery?

Because doing so means the ship has to stay on station in one general area, making it a static target for any antiorbital phaser cannons a competent Trek military ought to have, rather than transporting equipment or engaging the enemy orbital assets.

[Stofsk]

If you want to give the Fedders coilguns, go for it. You don't need to work within the bounds of canon for a hypothetical or speculative thread like this one is. Frankly, though, I don't know what's wrong with basing ground tactics on the idea you'd have a starship in orbit with a transporter and phasers. Why have artillery when you can have ortillery?

Because doing so means the ship has to stay on station in one general area, making it a static target for any antiorbital phaser cannons a competent Trek military ought to have, rather than transporting equipment or engaging the enemy orbital assets.

I think it would be sensible to have air (space?) supremacy before committing to a large scale invasion. That means any orbital defences are neutralised and any planetary surface weapon installations that can hit ships in orbit are also neutralised before ground troops are beamed down. Once 'space' supremacy has been achieved, ships in orbit remain to defend the ground troops in case there is any reprisal or counter attack from reinforcements that warp in.

I have the feeling surface installations would be easier to hit than a starship, since the latter can evade while the former is largely a sitting duck. Ortillery would be more valuable than some kind of artillery vehicle or towed cannon. If anything would happen to the ships above, the invasion wouldn't succeed anyway.

[CDiehl]

I think the Federation having a separate ground army is a good idea. Eventually, someone has to land on a planet and secure it, or has to defend a planet already under your control. While Starfleet's security personnel can be retrained into an analog of the Marine Corps, they still need a dedicated army to fight on the ground.

I would suggest such an army have some low-tech equipment, which is augmented by high-tech most of the time. Holograms, androids, transporters and advanced sensors are all great to have, but when all of them fail, you have to have some sort of alternate plan.

Weapons - Give the troops a simple, sturdy phaser. This phaser's primary job is to kill, and it fires an amount of energy sufficient to do so to one typical opponent per shot. The power could be adjusted upward for tougher targets, but in a firefight, they're designed to kill. For the most part, fancier settings will be relegated to other weapons. For example, a phaser pistol could have a stun setting, for when one needs to take a prisoner, or a squad carries one disintegrating phaser, similar to a bazooka. At best, maybe the phaser rifle could empty its clip into one disintegrating shot. While these phasers can have fancy, modern sensors on them, but when they fail (and they will), they have simple things like a flashlight and an old-fashioned iron sight built into them.

Armor - Give the troops a helmet and some body armor. They probably don't have the technology to make armor that works against energy weapons, so they'll have to develop that. In the meantime, give them old-fashioned armor that still works on bullets or melee weapons, just in case. When the fancy new anti-phaser/disruptor gear is developed, they'll be used to wearing armor. It's better to protect them from something you know you can protect them from than just to send them out with the shirts on their backs.

Supplies - Each soldier has a backpack and carries ammo, rations, a sleeping bag, a couple tents per squad, and some basic camping supplies. It's true that supplies could be sent out by transporter, but when the transporter fails (and it will), they'll be able to function on their own for a while.

Medicine - Each soldier is trained in first aid and carries a basic first aid kit. They have bandages, splints, a tourniquet, some morphine (or equvalent) and some other simple medicines. The squad has a medic with a standard medical kit with a tricorder, tissue regenerator, etc. When all that tech fails (and it will), they'll need some form of at least basic medical gear.

Vehicles - While many people dislike the idea of using old-fashioned vehicles, there's little evidence that Starfleet has anything more modern. Until they develop some ground vehicles, replicate an APC or a jeep, made of more advanced materials and with a better engine, and send that down to the troops. For water, give them a motorboat or even a raft with some paddles. These are not perfect solutions, but they'll tide them over until the better stuff can be made. Also, when they find an area where the anti-grav device on the hovercars won't work (and they will), it's nice to have another option.

Artillery - Starfleet may not be able to build phasers that work as ground-based artillery, but until such time as they figure out a way, they can still use old fashioned weapons that fire shells. Replicate a 20th-21st Century cannon, made of sturdier materials and maybe using a better propellant, and use that on the battlefield. Buildings collapse just as well from high explosive shells in the 24th Century as they did in the past, and the enemy troops in them are just as dead. These pieces can use modern sensors and targeting computers, but when those items fail (and they will), the crews should be trained to use a firing table.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think it would be sensible to have air (space?) supremacy before committing to a large scale invasion. That means any orbital defences are neutralised and any planetary surface weapon installations that can hit ships in orbit are also neutralised before ground troops are beamed down. Once 'space' supremacy has been achieved, ships in orbit remain to defend the ground troops in case there is any reprisal or counter attack from reinforcements that warp in.

Not to be smarmy, but seriously, you just denied this so-called competent Federation Ground Forces any ability to hold terrain from enemies. How do you propose the Federation fight orbital assets when it has none of it's own if you don't have power antiorbital weapons?

I have the feeling surface installations would be easier to hit than a starship, since the latter can evade while the former is largely a sitting duck. Ortillery would be more valuable than some kind of artillery vehicle or towed cannon. If anything would happen to the ships above, the invasion wouldn't succeed anyway.

North Korea.

[Stofsk]

I think it would be sensible to have air (space?) supremacy before committing to a large scale invasion. That means any orbital defences are neutralised and any planetary surface weapon installations that can hit ships in orbit are also neutralised before ground troops are beamed down. Once 'space' supremacy has been achieved, ships in orbit remain to defend the ground troops in case there is any reprisal or counter attack from reinforcements that warp in.

Not to be smarmy, but seriously, you just denied this so-called competent Federation Ground Forces any ability to hold terrain from enemies. How do you propose the Federation fight orbital assets when it has none of it's own if you don't have power antiorbital weapons?

Alright, can you explain the pros and cons of artillery versus ortillery then.

I have the feeling surface installations would be easier to hit than a starship, since the latter can evade while the former is largely a sitting duck. Ortillery would be more valuable than some kind of artillery vehicle or towed cannon. If anything would happen to the ships above, the invasion wouldn't succeed anyway.

North Korea.

They have anti-orbital anti-starship defences?

[adam_grif]

In reply to the holo-tank idea, if you have something capable of generating solid objects at distance, and your plan is to have the soldiers that aren't real fire bullets that aren't real, which still do damage (iirc it's something to do with generating force fields to make it act like it's there??? But I'm not knowledgable on my treknology, so someone please jump in if I'm talking shit), then the tank should just cut out the middle men and generate random/unstable force to rip enemy soldiers apart and provide 'holo armor' for itself.

[open_sketchbook]

I wanted something that looked good and felt Trek, not that was super effective. The best would probably swarms of tactil hologram manipulators holding phaser pistols generated by artillery-launched platforms; you could outfit the system with a few dozen of guns to start and the software would be programmed to pick up the fallen weapons of the enemy as well.

[Ryan Thunder]

I wanted something that looked good and felt Trek, not that was super effective. The best would probably swarms of tactil hologram manipulators holding phaser pistols generated by artillery-launched platforms; you could outfit the system with a few dozen of guns to start and the software would be programmed to pick up the fallen weapons of the enemy as well.

That just gave me an image of an artillery shell landing and a horde of images imitating the Doctor from Voyager popping out and jumping on people and shit.

[stormthebeaches]

First of all, I would like to say that a dedicated ground force is important to any space empire. You will need an occupation force for the planet you just conquered. You will need to be able to remove an enemy occupation force on one of your own planets. You will need to be able to put down uprisings without trashing the whole planet.

Anyway, here is my idea for a Federation ground force:

The average soldier in the Federation army will have a full body armored suit. Whilst the suit won't do much good against a direct hit from a phaser it will protect against shrapnel, extreme heat (fireproof), and limited projectile weapons. It also provides full NBC protection, although it does not protect against the vaccum of space (but since the Federation army does not operation in space this is a non-issue). Modified versions of the suit also exist, to allow Federation soldiers to fight in the extreme cold, or even underwater.

For weapons, your average Federation soldier will have a phaser rifle and pistol with proper sights and trigger guards. They will also have some kind of grenade. The Federation army is expected to operate without transporters or orbital support so they will carry a lot of their own gear. All Federation soldiers will carry food rations, first aid kits, radios and other equipment that you would expect a soldier to carry. One Federation soldier in every squad will carry a transport inhibitor. This device blocks all transporter actions in a radius of several hundred miles. This will prevent an enemy from beaming up Federation soldiers or transporting their own soldiers right on top of Federation lines.

The Federation army will require an APC of some sort. The APC will offer full projection against the outside atmosphere (don't know what kind of atmosphere we will be fighting on) and will carry a range of supplies for our Federation troops. It will have shields that protect it against small arms fire and his several weapons built it that are operated remotely.

The Federation army will also have an MBT. This tank will have a two man crew (driver and gunner) and even more powerful shields and armor than the APC. The Federation army will also need artillary (can't rely on orbital support all the time), some kind of helicopter like transport and some kind of anti-starship weapon (ground to space cannon) for driving off an invading fleet.

So having developed our Federation army we need to establish when it will be used. Obviously, it will not be used for space ship clearing or fighting on airless moons (that's what Starfleet security/marines are there for). The Federation army will be deployed on hospitable planets with large populations. The Federation army will be used to put down uprisings and rebellions, or just be deployed to intimidate a population into compliance. If you conquer a planet you will need to send in the ground troops to act as an effective occupation army. Alternatively if you are retaking one of your planets you will need ground troops to clear out the enemies occupation army. A Federation army could also repel an invasion force (or at least delay until Starfleet arrives.

[Uraniun235]

What's the plan for when the planet being invaded tries to cream your landing zone with a massive nuclear/antimatter strike? You guys think maybe an anti-missile defense might be in order?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Alright, can you explain the pros and cons of artillery versus ortillery then...

It's all summed up in North Korea.

They have anti-orbital anti-starship defences?

No, what they do have is lots and lots of gun tubes, and they've deployed them in such a way as to make them extremely hard to destroy, if America and North Korea went to war right now not even a preemptive nuclear strike would be able to get those artillery positions before they reduced all of Seoul to rubble. An orbital weapons platform is vulnerable, from every direction and it takes truely piddling weak firepower to mission kill a satellite. The artillery on the other hand isn't as vulnerable, to hit it you have to predictably come within the zone it's fire is predesignated to cover.

[Teleros]

An orbital weapons platform is vulnerable, from every direction and it takes truely piddling weak firepower to mission kill a satellite.

In this case though you're talking about a ship like the Ent-D, or perhaps even something specially designed to act as an orbital bombardment ship.

[Stofsk]

Alright, can you explain the pros and cons of artillery versus ortillery then...

It's all summed up in North Korea.

They have anti-orbital anti-starship defences?

No, what they do have is lots and lots of gun tubes, and they've deployed them in such a way as to make them extremely hard to destroy, if America and North Korea went to war right now not even a preemptive nuclear strike would be able to get those artillery positions before they reduced all of Seoul to rubble. An orbital weapons platform is vulnerable, from every direction and it takes truely piddling weak firepower to mission kill a satellite. The artillery on the other hand isn't as vulnerable, to hit it you have to predictably come within the zone it's fire is predesignated to cover.

I know that Nth Korea have lots of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul. What I don't get is how that relates to the discussion we're having with building a more robust Federation ground force. You say that mission killing an orbital weapons platform is trivially easy, compared with artillery. How are you going to invade a planet without having space supremacy (IE killing or driving off defending space craft and/or orbital defence platforms) in the first place?

[Teleros]

Depends on the nature of those anti-starship weapons. If they're unable to shoot down (many of?) the smaller transports from your mothership (which could be out of range at this point), they may wait with them until orbital support is requested, then attack when ships move in to provide said support.

[Stofsk]

Obviously. Have there been any planet based anti-starship weaponry that are a serious threat to starships and are also difficult to detect and thus target? The one time I recall the Enterprise being attacked by surface batteries was in 'A Taste for Armageddon' (yeah yeah I know sound waves don't travel in outer space). Enterprise just increased its orbital distance until it was out of the surface batteries range.

I know this thread is largely speculative. But how much is conjecture, and how much is invention? Any competent invasion force would try to have all its bases covered. If there are such weapon platforms that can seriously threaten a starship, they would be taken out first - hence the whole idea that you get space supremacy before the invasion commences.

It also depends on your opponent. Try a stunt like 'keep the anti-starship weapon hidden so you can hit the klingon troop ship when they're coming in to land' and the klingon fleet commander might go 'fuck it, let's bombard the fuckers with neutron radiation - that'll fix their little red wagon'.