Kozmos
Jew Detective
Carriers and fighters are un-viable in space. For many reasons. It will never happen. Give up on your dreams. (least of all which is that a missile is simpler, cheaper and more effective than a fighter will ever be)
How Should a Space Military Force be Organized?
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
Carriers and fighters are un-viable in space. For many reasons. It will never happen. Give up on your dreams. (least of all which is that a missile is simpler, cheaper and more effective than a fighter will ever be)
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Yeah, you're looking at something more akin to missile submarines or missile cruisers. A platform for hurling missiles at the enemy and little else.
There still will be a place for weapons that go remarkably faster than that. Now, with the distances involved, the mathematics involved with 'missing the target' become much easier, but photon-based (etc.) weapons will need platforms, too!
Missile delivery systems and photon delivery systems will likely need 'small' vessels, but again brings me to the idea of aircraft carriers for maintenance, supply, living space, etc.
Missile delivery systems and photon delivery systems will likely need 'small' vessels, but again brings me to the idea of aircraft carriers for maintenance, supply, living space, etc.
"Not enough facepalms"?
Nice. Thanks for taking what I said, interpreting it to be as dumb as possible, then being a prick about it.I'm familliar with viscosity, Archimedes, fluid dynamics, the whole bit. I wasn't thinking about aircraft carriers vs aircraft when I suggested maneuverability, but rather, battleships vs torpedo boats, or ships of the line vs frigates, the latter of each pair having "being hard to line up a broadside on" because of their maneuverability.
ChiefDesigner
Sunset Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 761
"Not enough facepalms"?
I'm familliar with viscosity, Archimedes, fluid dynamics, the whole bit. I wasn't thinking about aircraft carriers vs aircraft when I suggested maneuverability, but rather, battleships vs torpedo boats, or ships of the line vs frigates, the latter of each pair having "being hard to line up a broadside on" because of their maneuverability.
Then you are certainly familiar with the facts that:
* the concept of a "broadside" is completely inappropriate when your munitions travel at >0.5c
* "maneuverability" in space is related to how much acceleration (delta-v) you can produce
* that the tradeoff favors larger ships, because they can necessarily carry more reaction mass, to produce more delta-v
---------------------------
If spaceships are expensive, I think there might be a role for one-way boarding craft -- missiles carrying a payload of marines, if you will, to storm and capture enemy ships. The problem, once again, is flak coverage and point defense. They won't look like fighters as we conceive of them, though.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions here. If there are wars, there are weapons, if there are weapons there are defenses. We could forgive a time traveling Roman for believing a battleship could never float, of course.
We could see fleets moving across a sector, docking at a forward base to receive their armor, then heading into battle if there's no way to keep the weight from affecting the economics of traveling in the first place.
And as for our approaches to armor, well there was a time when the crossbow bolt was seen as unstoppable. Of course, if your hull is breached in space, it's a lot more urgent than springing a leak.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The way I see it we're going to have armed robots in space patrolling crap before we have people up there with weapons fighting eachother.
More than likely you are correct. Modern military procurement and development initiatives are definitely geared more towards acquiring unmanned systems and creating more autonomous weapon platforms. Humans fighting humans may in fact be a thing of the past within the next 25 to 50 years.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
It'll take a while to replace infantry. They can go all sorts of places where robots can't, and can devise new tactics or solutions to problems on the fly. Also, even when superior robots are made, many groups will be too poor to afford their initial cost and will stick with human soldiers. Observe how a lot of third world militaries, paramilitaries, militias, and so on use various military surplus that's decades old. It's affordable, it's available, and it's good enough against similarly armed opponents.
But yeah, most or all of these problems will eventually be overcome and human infantry will gradually go obsolete.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
As has been pointed out, until we have sufficient AI, humans will very likely still have to be involved somewhere in combat, if nothing more than as a command role. Especially without FTL communication.
So until we get one of those two things, unmanned craft will have to be accompanied by humans to some extent.
So until we get one of those two things, unmanned craft will have to be accompanied by humans to some extent.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
I'd wager we would have whole-brain emulation by that point. Humans in space, aside from being shuffled around in bulky cargo ships would be nothing but bothersome flies.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
"It's not the problem whether the machine thinks but it is the problem whether the man does" The problem is when You can't throw it from a window ..... "Never trust a machine You can't throw out of a window" I think if we would to embrace those fundamental truths we should be fine, but don't worry we are stupid enough not to bother ourselves with a "killswitch" like that 
Well, I think even the poorest countries will be able to get their hands on at least some primitive UGCVs. So a war in 50 years between a "great power" and a "developing nation" may involve the great power's autonomous robots fighting the developing nation's UGCVs being controlled from a bunker by a human. So humans would still be removed from direct involvement in combat against other humans. The only military forces I see still using humans for combat in 50 years are insurgent and terrorist organizations.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
The word "paramilitaries" got a new meaning after Maidan ? Is Russia protecting "us" from those obviouly "facisct militaristic" snipers or they act on their own ?
Agenda and if so ! Who's agenda is it ?
I am genuinely confused by this post. What does this post have to do with anything I wrote in the post you quoted?
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
I am genuinely confused by this post. What does this post have to do with anything I wrote in the post you quoted?
"great power" ? sniped it for You !
"great power" ? sniped it for You !
You do realize I was just using the term great power as a generic term for a more powerful and wealthy nation? It was not in reference to any specific nation in existence today because I was talking about hypothetical battlefields in 50 years; and we have no idea who might be considered a "great power" in 50 years.
But hey, if you want to try to inject your views about the Crimean crisis into every thread on this forum, who am I to stop you?
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
But, however it goes, I think it should get about 2% of our national GDP as a recurring budget.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
Depending on the goals of the "space military" I'm not sure 2% would be enough.
If there were tasked with setting up colonies, protecting them, overseeing them along with other more military actions I'd think the amount needed could be sizable.
Also, the more I think about, the more I think massive ships would likely be the norm in space.
With two primary "classes". Those designed for assisting in on-planet operations, and those for fighting other ships in space.
I think massive because the extra size implies extra space for energy (hence velocity) generation.
Which leads to a final point, any sort of missiles and kinetic weaponry would likely not work in space combat due to the fact it would be extremely hard to accelerate them to the speeds necessary to be useful. Lasers would be the norm I think.
If there were tasked with setting up colonies, protecting them, overseeing them along with other more military actions I'd think the amount needed could be sizable.
Also, the more I think about, the more I think massive ships would likely be the norm in space.
With two primary "classes". Those designed for assisting in on-planet operations, and those for fighting other ships in space.
I think massive because the extra size implies extra space for energy (hence velocity) generation.
Which leads to a final point, any sort of missiles and kinetic weaponry would likely not work in space combat due to the fact it would be extremely hard to accelerate them to the speeds necessary to be useful. Lasers would be the norm I think.
Similar threads
