SF Military Tropes

[PainRack]

You can say the same about naval engagements. I imagine that a "realistic" space battle would be taking place between two vessels millions of kiolmeters apart and would never even see each other. it would just be blips and icons on a screen and considering the destructive force of energy weapons many ships would be hulled with just a few hits instead of blasting away ay each other for hours.

And in terms of realistic depictions of infantry fighting, if you look at Vietnam era clips and even video from the Battle of Fallujah, soldiers are hiding behind anything they can find and sticking just their guns over the wall or around the corner and firing away, No one is valiantly standing tall and picking his targets.

I know as a writer that these tropes may be tied to simple drama but I also feel that many sci-fi authors don't even get how modern wars are fought to properly portray a future war.

The Lost Fleet Series..

It helps that the author was a real naval officer.

He's ultimately the rebuttal to critics who claim that "real" science fiction would be too technical and boring, or suffer if there's a mistake in the science.

Also.... WOW:D

[The Dark]

So yes, the technology for something with advanced signal processing that can fit into a 20mm round and hunt humans is feasible now. It's just that nobody's seen a use for it...yet.

There is work being done for DARPA on guided rounds from a .50 calibre sniper rifle. The program is Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance, or EXACTO. It's not an autonomous hunter-killer, but an actively guided round. It was awarded under government contract number HR0011-09-C-0015.

And amazingly, that information on a classified program is all from the first page of a Google search.

[Night_stalker]

I'm not sure if I should start weeping at the apparent lack of security, or just be grateful for the info

[MKSheppard]

However, the best response is probably not to attack targets with a slight variation of the weapon which laser defnce made totally obsolete.

Laser defenses won't be infinite win; since their effectiveness will depend on:

1.) The number of units deployed -- is the standard unit of issue a specialist Laser Air Defense Battalion; or does every unit, right down to tanks and APCs have it's own smallish laser defense turret to blow away incoming ATGMs and other stuff that can work together to attrit an artillery strike that passes overhead?

2.) What's the standard refire rate of these units? Remember, even with a fairly high laser efficiency, there's going to be a lot of waste heat generated; and that will prevent them from clawing everything that flies out of the sky due to having to dump that heat somewhere.

3.) They can be affected by weather, such as thick fog. Or man-made fog. Have every tank carry around an external smoke generator which uses a 55 gallon drum of diesel to generate nice dense smoke. Smoke is the new camouflage!

But it would be enough to inflict horrible uncertainity on artillery strikes -- you would no longer be able to cackle insanely and be assured that every round you fire will hit it's target and blow up.

A Collorary to 1 and 2 is; what's the cost of overwhelming the defense?

US Army Missile P-1
US Army Ammunition P-1

Summarized US Army "I want" for FY2011; arranged by cost:

715 x Javelin ATGM for $102 million ($143,000 each)
2,592 x Guided MRLS (Unitary) for $259.3 million ($100,000 each)
2,106 x Laser Hellfires for $176 million ($84,000 each)
719 x 155mm XM982 Exalibur GPS Guided Rounds for $62.114 million ($86,389 each)
33,000~ x 155mm M107 HE Projectiles for $14.274 million ($433 each)

For the cost of:

1 x GPS Guided MRLS (GMRLS) rocket; you can fire 200~ rounds of 155mm.
1 x GPS guided 155mm shell/Laser Hellfire; you can fire 180~ rounds of basic 155mm.

(I subtracted about 10~ shell costs to take into account the costs for the bag charges, fuzes etc)

Yes; I know, you're probably asking; what about special dummy decoy sub-caliber rounds that would cost only $75 or so; letting you fire a thousand of them for $100k? Well, sensors and computing just keep advancing; meaning that you have to offer a credible threat -- if you fired inert steel darts, they would get recognized by fire finder radar, and be dismissed as non credible -- they'd only be a threat if they landed directly on top of someone or something. A standard 155mm round is dangerous to all sorts of things within 50 meters of the impact point.

[Darth Wong]

It also depends on how bulky, heavy, and delicate a laser of sufficient power is. If it's quite bulky and heavy, then you have to slowly swing it around in order to aim at things with any kind of accuracy. Simply ramping up the drive motor power doesn't entirely solve the problem, because then you get a lot of settling time in your control system.

[Batman]

Assuming that information is actually GENUINE I mean the deliberate leaking of false information is something that's TOTALLY unheard of, especially in the defense industry
And on a more serious note, given the current capabilities of IT/ICs, guided .50 cal ammunition is perfectly in line (as opposed to actually being worth the money) with the abilities one CAN deduce from the officially available information.

[MKSheppard]

It also depends on how bulky, heavy, and delicate a laser of sufficient power is. If it's quite bulky and heavy, then you have to slowly swing it around in order to aim at things with any kind of accuracy. Simply ramping up the drive motor power doesn't entirely solve the problem, because then you get a lot of settling time in your control system.

A lot of these issues were solved with anti-aircraft guns; e.g. the automatic radar guided ones; e.g. Gepard, Vulcan Air Defense System, ZSU-23-4; but thos ehad the advantage that they had explosive rounds to increaze the kill zone and make up for any inaccuracy in the system. The one bonus for a laser system is it virtually eliminates a key parameter in the fire control equation -- the velocity of the shell, and pretty much eliminates lead.

With a ballistic trajectory, like an artillery shell; you also do eliminate a lot of guess work, since you can just aim the laser at where the shell is going to be as it passes through at that point in time and fire the laser at the right time.

Of course, the solution to this is to have aerodynamic manouvering vehicles that randomly move up and down and left and right like a ferret on crack doing the weasel war dance....but that really really eats into range.

The technology is already sort of reaching a near-deployable stage.


Last year, that shot down a bunch of UAVs in tests at White Sands.

[MKSheppard]

Assuming that information is actually GENUINE

It's real.

Link

Click on packages, and then read the solictation DOC.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking innovative solutions that will expand the knowledge base and design capabilities for the EXtreme ACcuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program. The use of a BAA solicitation allows a wide range of innovative ideas and concepts. The offeror(s) will have the flexibility to develop a tailored program plan that best advances the EXACTO program goals.

The EXACTO Program is an advanced technology development and demonstration program to create a guided, actively controlled 50-caliber sniper rifle system with significantly improved range and accuracy over the current systems. Specific system performance objectives (e.g. range, accuracy, and target speed) are classified. The EXACTO program will be conducted in three phases. During the first phase, one or more offerors will be selected to develop their EXACTO system preliminary design, conduct component risk reduction, and perform a Monte Carlo hardware-in-the-loop simulation showing that their design can meet the program’s performance objectives. In the second phase, one or more contractors will conduct detailed design, additional risk reduction, prototype system fabrication, and live fire prototype testing. The third phase will involve further prototype system operational testing. DARPA is only interested in full system solutions in response to this BAA. Technology developers with expertise in specific component areas are encouraged to team with an overall system developer. DARPA is soliciting proposals covering all three phases. The cost estimates and plans for Phases II and III will be updated by the end of Phase I. Funding decisions for subsequent phases will be based on a proposal update at the end of Phase I and the satisfaction of programmatic and technical go/no-go criteria, among other considerations.

DARPA seeks innovative proposals for end-to-end system solutions for EXACTO. Technologies of interest may include: fin-stabilized projectiles, spin-stabilized projectiles, internal and/or external aero-actuation control methods, projectile guidance technologies, tamper proofing, small stable power supplies, and advanced sighting and optical resolution technologies. Other advanced technologies may also be developed and demonstrated as required by the architectures proposed by offerors.

Program Goals
The ability to more accurately prosecute targets at significantly longer range would provide a dramatic new capability to the US military. The use of an actively controlled bullet will make it possible to counter environmental effects such as crosswinds and air density, and prosecute both stationary and moving targets while enhancing shooter covertness. This capability would have the further benefit of providing increased accuracy and range while reducing training requirements.

The Government’s point of departure system architecture consists of: (i) a sighting system that aids the shooter in identifying the target; (ii) a guidance system that provides information to direct the projectile to the target regardless of environmental or target perturbations; (iii) an actively controlled 50 caliber projectile that uses this information for real time directional flight control; and (iv) a 50 caliber rifle. Technologies of interest may include: fin-stabilized projectiles, spin-stabilized projectiles, internal and/or external aero-actuation control methods, projectile guidance technologies, tamper proofing, small stable power supplies, and advanced sighting, optical resolution and clarity technologies. Other advanced technologies may also be developed and demonstrated as required by the architectures proposed by offerors. The Government is interested in an end-to-end system solution for EXACTO.

The EXACTO program seeks to 1) develop a robust system design that meets the established performance objectives and has significant military utility; 2) identify and mature critical enabling technologies; and 3) validate through simulation, ground test and live fire demonstration that an EXACTO system solution is achievable. A number of the EXACTO performance objectives are classified. These values are provided in a classified addendum to this BAA. See Section IV-A above for instructions on receiving the classified addendum.

DARPA has established the following non-tradeable requirements for the EXACTO system:
Daytime range: (See classified addendum)
Nighttime range: (See classified addendum)
Maximum crosswinds: (See classified addendum)
Maximum target speed: (See classified addendum)
Accuracy (1radius): (See classified addendum)
Ability to adequately identify target at maximum range
Does not expose the shooter more than the current M107 system (minimal firing signature, covertness)
Energy and momentum of projectile equal to current 50-cal sniper round (Ball, M33) at all ranges beyond 300 meters

DARPA has also identified the following attributes that are highly desirable for the system but are not requirements. These are listed in descending order of importance.
No heavier than 46 lbs and with similar volume to current two-man sniper system (Based on M107 rifle with Leupold scope, magazine loaded with 8 rounds, M551 Gold Ring observation telescope with tripod, AN/PAS 13C heavy thermal weapon sight, AN/PVS 14 monocular night vision device, sniper’s data book [including slide rules and data cards])
Secure and tamper-proof design to prevent misuse and exploitation of any portion of the system if obtained by an adversary
>10 year shelf life of cartridges
Significantly reduced signature compared to current M107 sniper system
Sufficient power to support 14 hour mission (i.e. longest day)
Inherently producible
Inherently low cost
Fire and forget round
Greater range, target velocity, and accuracy than non-tradeable requirements
Uses current rifles (M82A1 or M107) without modification (ex. sights)
Permits use of standard ammunition (Ball, M33)
No worse accuracy at all ranges than current round
Multiple round capability

[Night_stalker]

Yeah, but remember they could be puting out disinformation out there. I mean, you're kinda at their mercy as to what is put out there.

[Zor]

Shep, would it be wanky to have divisions of soldiers that are basically at the motorized trained to basically the same levels modern army/marines/navy are trained to as far as combat goes, with a basic rundown on how to act like police for occupying seized territory?

Zor

[MKSheppard]

Shep, would it be wanky to have divisions of soldiers that are basically at the motorized trained to basically the same levels modern army/marines/navy are trained to as far as combat goes, with a basic rundown on how to act like police for occupying seized territory?

You mean something like the People's Armed Police?


PAP in nice spiffy rides.


PAP in Tibet


PAP arresting a grot.

There are 1.5 million of them

[Night_stalker]

Yeah, they do sound sketchy but I think the premise is kinda interesting.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Well, in a sci-fi universe where lasers are particularly cheap and compact, they might even have pseudo-artillery lasers: you launch a one-shot drone from the ground which flies up until it has a line of sight to the target and then it fires, hopefully before defensive ground-based lasers can pick it off in flight.

Or maybe instead the laser stays on the ground, and what gets fired is some sort of expendable mirror-munition. The mirror would rotate in flight and angle itself just right (probably inside a transparent casing so it can rotate without screwing up the aerodynamics), and the ground laser would bounce a beam off it onto the target when the mirror rises high enough to have line of sight. I suppose which you would use depends on whether you can make precise, powered laser reflecting mirrors, or tiny powerful lasers better. A mirror might be harder for enemy lasers to shoot down I suppose.

[Ford Prefect]

Laser defenses won't be infinite win; since their effectiveness will depend on:

I was actually about to say 'I know this, I even wrote a post about it in this thread', but when I went looking for it, I couldn't find anything to that effect. But I assure you that I thought it earlier in this thread.

It also depends on how bulky, heavy, and delicate a laser of sufficient power is. If it's quite bulky and heavy, then you have to slowly swing it around in order to aim at things with any kind of accuracy. Simply ramping up the drive motor power doesn't entirely solve the problem, because then you get a lot of settling time in your control system.

I'm not entirely sure this will be that much of a problem. While you couldn't exactly call THEL 'compact', it is definitely accurate and not exactly sluggish: it shot down three mortar rounds in flight before one had the ground. While a mortar round doesn't have the sort of velocity of the other projectiles we've been discussing, I wouldn't exactly call THEL a particularly mature example of that kind of technology. However, it is plausible that you might see missile design moving towards more rapid lateral movements in order to make it more difficult for laser arrays to achieve sufficient dwell time. Or you might just see airborne lasers shooting ground based lasers.

[adam_grif]

I wonder if we'll see stupid shit like the US Army being put on trial for war crimes because one of their anti-aircraft laser systems permanently blinded an enemy pilot


Also, aren't current laser systems horrifically inefficient, and using all sorts of nasty chemicals that need to be regularly refilled? The "ammo" of such systems isn't great.

[Shroom Man 777]

How'd lasers fare against stealthy subsonic ground-hugging cruise missiles?

[Uraniun235]

Well, in a sci-fi universe where lasers are particularly cheap and compact, they might even have pseudo-artillery lasers: you launch a one-shot drone from the ground which flies up until it has a line of sight to the target and then it fires, hopefully before defensive ground-based lasers can pick it off in flight.

Or maybe instead the laser stays on the ground, and what gets fired is some sort of expendable mirror-munition. The mirror would rotate in flight and angle itself just right (probably inside a transparent casing so it can rotate without screwing up the aerodynamics), and the ground laser would bounce a beam off it onto the target when the mirror rises high enough to have line of sight. I suppose which you would use depends on whether you can make precise, powered laser reflecting mirrors, or tiny powerful lasers better. A mirror might be harder for enemy lasers to shoot down I suppose.

Mirrors don't work so well, they'd probably burn through the mirror before the ground target sustained enough damage, and that's if you achieve the miracle of holding the mirror steady enough to keep the laser directed at a target that is hundreds or thousands of meters away.

[Teleros]

Actually, I think I have one of his books on a shelf, I found it and bought it from some cheap place. But I haven't gotten off my ass and read it at all, since I haven't read anything for the past... how many months.

Here is Project Gutenberg's copy of 'Triplanetary':
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20782

You can download and read it at your convenience.

I believe that's the non-Lensman version of Triplanetary though. And missing all the historical stuff.

So how do you expect it to work when the other side has widely deployed, cheap, effective laser based air defense platforms? You'd literally be throwing away billions in dollars of missiles; while all your opponent would be doing is burning gasoline or hydrogen in their portable Futuristic Laser Avenger Humvees.

As noted previously, it depends on the specifics of the setting. If you've got Culture-tech, the thing can probably zip along a few inches above the ground, use cover, stop and start at will, and probably cook your meal too .

[Lord of the Abyss]

Mirrors don't work so well, they'd probably burn through the mirror before the ground target sustained enough damage, and that's if you achieve the miracle of holding the mirror steady enough to keep the laser directed at a target that is hundreds or thousands of meters away.

I don't see why it would be any harder to aim a mirror in flight than a laser in flight. And aren't mirrors components of lasers? And the presumption here is that you have lasers powerful enough to do useful amounts of damage very fast, and that anything in line of sight of the enemy is going to be destroyed very quickly; so you don't need to hold the beam on the target long.

[[R_H]]

Yeah, they do sound sketchy but I think the premise is kinda interesting.

Why do you think they're sketchy? They're basically just gendarmes/light infantry like the Gendarmerie Nationale or the Arma dei Carabinieri, for example.

[Bakustra]

Mirrors don't work so well, they'd probably burn through the mirror before the ground target sustained enough damage, and that's if you achieve the miracle of holding the mirror steady enough to keep the laser directed at a target that is hundreds or thousands of meters away.

I don't see why it would be any harder to aim a mirror in flight than a laser in flight. And aren't mirrors components of lasers? And the presumption here is that you have lasers powerful enough to do useful amounts of damage very fast, and that anything in line of sight of the enemy is going to be destroyed very quickly; so you don't need to hold the beam on the target long.

a) The mirror would have to be at the appropriate angle with respect to both target and emitter; the laser drone only with the target. The drone shell could also be theoretically fired over the horizon and used to attack targets even further away, while the mirror puts more severe upper limits on range.

b) Mirrors are not perfect reflectors. The ones inside a laser don't deal with the full beam, but with miniscule fractions. A mirror dealing with an artillery-grade laser would be heated by the fraction of the beam it can't reflect. This will burn the mirror, reducing its reflectivity more and aggravating the results, eventually melting it or damaging it beyond the ability to keep aloft. Making the laser stronger only exacerbates these problems.

[PeZook]

I wonder if we'll see stupid shit like the US Army being put on trial for war crimes because one of their anti-aircraft laser systems permanently blinded an enemy pilot

Then you'd have to put every army everywhere on trial, since classic maiming utensils like artillery do all that and more on a massive scale.

Also, aren't current laser systems horrifically inefficient, and using all sorts of nasty chemicals that need to be regularly refilled? The "ammo" of such systems isn't great.

Yes, but that's going to change: the Laser Avenger is a solid-state laser, for example. The chemical thing was a result of solid state laser technology not being up to the task.

[adam_grif]

Then you'd have to put every army everywhere on trial, since classic maiming utensils like artillery do all that and more on a massive scale.

I know, but isn't there a whole bunch of hot air surrounding the use of lasers as blinding weapons or something? I vaguely recall something about that.

Yes, but that's going to change: the Laser Avenger is a solid-state laser, for example. The chemical thing was a result of solid state laser technology not being up to the task.

So are solid state lasers the "electricity is the only ammo" type, or do they still need some kind of specialized fuel?

[Lord of the Abyss]

a) The mirror would have to be at the appropriate angle with respect to both target and emitter; the laser drone only with the target. The drone shell could also be theoretically fired over the horizon and used to attack targets even further away, while the mirror puts more severe upper limits on range.

I see, that makes sense.

b) Mirrors are not perfect reflectors. The ones inside a laser don't deal with the full beam, but with miniscule fractions. A mirror dealing with an artillery-grade laser would be heated by the fraction of the beam it can't reflect. This will burn the mirror, reducing its reflectivity more and aggravating the results, eventually melting it or damaging it beyond the ability to keep aloft.

Well, in the scenario I was talking about the mirror (or drone for that matter) would be destroyed by the enemy in moments anyway; I figured that you would be throwing as much energy as possible in as short a time as possible and probably destroying the mirror in the process.

[andrewgpaul]

What do you mean by "artillery-grade" lasers anyway? Doesn't that thing mounted in a 747 use a system of mirrors mounted in the ball at the front to aim the beam? The laser generator is bolted to the floor of the plane and the ball gimbals to aim the beam. At least, that's how I understood it.