NationStates Jolt Archive

With regards to the formation of future space forces, I notice the general assumption in many sci fi series that space forces will be "space navies." With space carriers, battleships, frigates, destroyers, fighters, and all the inherent qualities and characteristics and military organization of wet water navies.

I think this is dull.

But anyway, how do you see space forces? More like air, or more like navy? Or something entirely different and deserving it's own system of classifications and unit organization?

Please explain why and give examples.

I think it will be a navy eventually. But thats just my opinion because thats what I want it to be, battlestars, huge unstoppable ships, but that doesnt mean thats what its going to be.

I think it will start as a division of the air force and then gradually move towards more of a space navy.

Our space militaries are comprised mainly of space fortresses and Mobile Suits...

I think that, in Iansisle's case, our space force will be more similar to a wet-water navy. After all, our entire military culture is based around the navy right now, and it seems only natural that that tradition will continue. Plus, I really like the title 'First Star Lord' :)

yes i see them as something else:
ignorantly impractical
but if you want to rp them it's all fantasy anyway.

which brings me to another fun little bit of amusement

there's a very simple reason there aren't (in rl) giant humanoid military robots:

they'd be f'ing useless for anything other then wonderfuly hard to miss targets

=^^=
.../\...

A little of both actually.

For me, since the navy nomenclature is quite popular in space ship usage, it's a bit hard to break away from that "tradition." Mind you, how exactly is "shuttle" classified? I haven't seen that used for any "ship" rankings. Heck, a "shuttle" could mean the bus.

But I think if a system is carefully laid out and logically consistent, then perhaps it doesn't really matter. Most likely, Vrak would come up with some weird new terms for its space forces cuz we are kind of goofy.

I'm very happy with my Roanian Galactic Navy.

And Vrak, you're a walrus. One of the most goofy critters in existence.

Start airforce in orbit, then move out. As distances increase, bigger ships will be needed... hence the navy. As these bigger ships grow more plentiful, they will hunt each other. They could carry more fuel, weapons, armor, and reduce the stress of "being alone" out in space.

If it got down to cold-war USSR vs USA, then it would be "Moonraker" style initially.

Massive rod-shaped craft engaging at distances of thousands of kilometres. Because of the speeds involved, windows of opportunity are measured in 1000ths of a second. The most dangerous operations are boarding actions.

Generally, i think a combination of airforces and wet water navies in space. however, i thought up this system that i may use once i get spacecraft of any type (i only have missile reaserch right now).

Shuttle: Light Transport, usually unarmed, generally for civillian usage.
Starlifter: Medium or Heavy Transport. usually with some gun turrets.
Hopper: Light Scout class, very lightly armed.
Gun Platform: Light to Mediumly armed combat spacecraft.
Hive: very lightly armed design used for carrying drone fighters.
Missile Platform: heavily armed combat spacecraft, generally carrying many more missiles than railguns.
BattleFortress: Very heavily armed combat spacecraft, carrying all types of weapons, and carrying a fair amount of drone fighters.

Perhaps I'll elaborate on the "rod" thing...
all the facilities are located mostly in the front. There is a "hood" of ablative armour and a pulsed magnetic field for defence.

The engine, an evolution of the Super Orion concept, uses fusion reactions to achieve tremendous speeds, up to 0.15c. An ftl version could use antimatter fission for a warping field. Of course, that's in the realm of fantasy.

The engine is highly radioactive, so the rod has to be quite long to keep it separate from living cargo. To make use of it, it acts as housing for a linear accelerator, firing either mass shells or charged particles. In effect, the ships I had in mind are enormous floating ray guns or rifles. An antimatter-powered superconductive accelerator over 1000m in length would be a terrifying weapon.

Depends on the tech base avalible, but the closest analog we have iRL will probally be the navy; ships with crews in excess of a dozen or two and missions measured in days, if not weeks and years, instead of hours.

Perhaps I'll elaborate on the "rod" thing...
all the facilities are located mostly in the front. There is a "hood" of ablative armour and a pulsed magnetic field for defence.

The engine, an evolution of the Super Orion concept, uses fusion reactions to achieve tremendous speeds, up to 0.15c. An ftl version could use antimatter fission for a warping field. Of course, that's in the realm of fantasy.

The engine is highly radioactive, so the rod has to be quite long to keep it separate from living cargo. To make use of it, it acts as housing for a linear accelerator, firing either mass shells or charged particles. In effect, the ships I had in mind are enormous floating ray guns or rifles. An antimatter-powered superconductive accelerator over 1000m in length would be a terrifying weapon.

I'll stick with energy and stealthed missile weapons for hard sci-fi; longer effective range and alot harded to dodge.

Slip a laser-head around your armoured hood, aim with internal gyros, and nail you in the side with bomb-pumped X-ray goodness :D

Really, a ship like that's all down and dirty brute force; no finess at all.

Make it shorter, give the crew a density-shielded compartment to live, give it decent laterial movement ability, arm it with missiles, lasers, nuclear interceptors to deflect incoming railgun slugs, a plethora of powerful sensor drones, and employ stealth, decoys, ECM, etc. to the best of your ability.

I'll stick with energy and stealthed missile weapons for hard sci-fi; longer effective range and alot harded to dodge.

A particle weapon with a kilometre-long accelerator will turn any opponent into debris if it hits. It's as hard to dodge as a laser.

Slip a laser-head around your armoured hood, aim with internal gyros, and nail you in the side with bomb-pumped X-ray goodness :D

The problem is that only a small ship could do that. I don't believe it could have the thrust power to carry any decent weapons. Moreover, a defensive turret can take that out.

Really, a ship like that's all down and dirty brute force; no finess at all.

It's only fitting for hard, near-future sci-fi. I don't want space opera. The cosmos is a terrifying, alien environment. Ugly, devastating warships only enhance that.

Make it shorter, give the crew a density-shielded compartment to live

Shielding? From gamma rays? What do you exactly propose? The amount of radiation released from antimatter fission is huge. The crew could not survive without a hundred metres of shielding and distance. Moreover, the radiation is ionising; the shielding would have to be jettisoned and renewed once it becomes too saturated.

give it decent laterial movement ability

It can already pivot, but I guess that lateral movement would be a nice addition.

arm it with missiles, lasers, nuclear interceptors to deflect incoming railgun slugs, a plethora of powerful sensor drones, and employ stealth, decoys, ECM, etc. to the best of your ability.

Missiles are way too slow. Bear in mind the impossibly mind-numbingly huge distances we're dealing with.
This applies to your comment on "slipping around" the hood (above). At worst, you'd need to strafe for a million kilometres to get a clear shot of the side facing.

To clarify my point: In my idea of space combat, the ships are so far away from each other that the crew can't always even spot the opponent with the naked eye.

Your idea of drones, however, is wonderful!
It gave me this idea:
A single-use laser mine. It's powered by a small nuclear bomb, with energy from the reaction used for a powerful laser. It would be small and black, so almost impossible to detect. Even worse, they could be made to activate long after deployment, making for a lethal minefield!
I'm pretty sure someone's thought of that before, but thanks for the inspiration. :D

Comparable, but not identical to a WW1 level wet navy.

Fighters, bombers etc. that decide upon victory and defeat in todays naval forces are irrelevant, since their advantage (speed, maneuverability) doesn´t exist in space. Unlike 'normal' naval warfare, both, the small ones as well as the big ones, use the same 'medium' to 'maneuver'. comparable propulsion systems, etc.

This means that, unlike on earth, the fighter/ bomber can´t outrun the battleship. And, since it`s fuel reserves are far more limited, it can`t even follow it.

At the same time, the speed this spaceships have makes missiles irrelevant. The missiles aren´t fast enough/ don´t have the range to be efficient, either. Since explosions in space are fairly inefficient AND the ships are fast enough to outrun debris/ radiation etc., they simply wont work efficiently.

Means that the old Dreadnought theory comes into being, again. The bigger, the better.

However, there are significant differences as well.

First of all, simple, space. Lots of space. In the case of, say, interplanetary warfare, it will be near to impossible to find and attack a fleet already on it`s way.

You needed giant amounts of ships to find enemy convoys in the pre- airwar era on earth. In space, the area you need to check is nearly indefinitely larger.

Means that 'open space battles' are highly unlikely.

Instead, the fleets will 'meet' at the positions both sides want to control: The orbit of the planets/ moons they want to control.

Funny enough, this means that both sides will be less dependant on their speed/ maneuverability. Firepower will be far more important. First to fire = winner.

There are other differences as well: Landing operations: Complicate in wet naval warfare. Highly inefficient in space warfare. It´s hard to get the dropships/ landing pods/ wahtever back up. Not to mention that considerable anti air/ space defences make any kind of orbital landing... well, suicide.

Means that instead, massive bombardement will take place. Generally, wiping out anything the enemy has, and then landing. This part, for once, is actually comparable to modern warfare, except that it´s even more important.

I wont even go into the details of planets/ moons with different environments and therefore different technological/ tactical/ strategic needs...

edit: eight typos, god...

Means that instead, massive bombvardement will take place. Generally, wiping out anything the enemy has, and then landing. This part, for oncem, is actually comparable to modern warfare, except that it´s even more important.


That's pretty much my idea. As much as I'd like to go for a science-fantasy approach, the loss in credibility is so great that the whole setting would suffer.

For orbital bombardment, I think the ship design I had in mind would be peerless. It could just use the accelerator rails to dump spacerocks at mach 30 from the orbit. No need for nukes.

I'd see it as a space navy that will ensure supremecy in "air" (for want of a better name) space between planets, while most conflicts will be resolved on the surfaces of a planet.
Whats the sense of turning a potential colony site into slag from a orbital bombardement, it is much more economicle to send in some troops to capture it intact (compared to what a bombardement would do) than to capture a lifeless rock more probably than not useless for you...

The only thing that this new Space force would have in common whit a sea going Navy is the rank structure The Fact that they are call ships makes the need for a Captain as a commanding officer the only rank structure that lets that happened is the sea going navy.
The fact that the only service of the military that is trained in going to something like a submarine were you can’t go outside and get fresh air and you have to be with lots of people all nice and together cram like sardines.
R/ President of the Teracknor Federation

Okay, well I admit I found it hard to avoid the "traditional" terminology as well. That's why you'll find me referring to "destroyers" and "frigates," however I did this mostly because that's more understandable to most players than MSOVs and MTAOCs.

But if it's true that there isn't that fighter/ship duality characteristic of wetwater navies, then what exactly is the difference between a frigate and destroyer, anyway?

Does anybody use actual definitions based on functions (weapons types, most likely targets, speed) for these things, or just hands out the names when they feel right?

What I call a "battlecruiser" is in fact, likely far smaller than everybody else's "battlecruisers." In your space navies, my battlecruisers might rate only frigates, by mass/size.

Also, on fighters not existing in space-- I think that actually, the advantages of speed and maneuverability would still be there. After all, a 500 meter long ship is going to turn around slower than a 10 meter one, because it has more distance to cover.

And while larger ships have more fuel, that doesn't necessarily make them higher performance. I think small, high performance, short range ships might well be "fighters," having the ability to go faster than a large ship over the short haul. Especially as large ships need to be more fuel efficient (unless you gravwank and don't need fuel because your ships are magical) and there's usually a choice between efficiency (ISP) and performance (thrust); you can't have it both ways as good as you could if you did all one or the other.

So really, I think if you can have a space "battleship," there's nothing wrong with space "fighters." Particularly if said fighters can also go in atmospheres and other things that capital ships can't do (unless they gravwank and can do anything because they are magical.)

Rather large, metallic spheres, which are accelerated to great speeds, and then collide with planets.

Accellerating at several G's would, over a course of, say, months, would yield incredible speeds, with continent-destroying kinetic energy. Some fairly simple mathematics will let you determine the exact velocity and direction that the weapon needs to move at, and when it must begin its trip.

Unless you can catch the weapon early-on, when its still moving slowly, it will be almost impossible to stop. There will be no weapon that can shoot it down when moving at the speeds it can reach.. unless you put something in its way (which will cost you a lot of resources) then it's going to hit.

Who needs a space Navy? Anyone who threatens my planet can expect a few of those suckers.

A little of both, and a little unique. My spaceforce is something like what you would get if you gave a navy aircraft carrier to the airforce, expanded the role of dirigibles by about 1,000%, and then took away gravity.

Heheh.. the terms/phrases "Astronauts with guns" and "First Star Lord" almost make me want to take Walmington to space some day.. but that wouldn't end well.

I think that if we ever get to that point it will be a cross of air and navy-ish craft. In other words, heavy starships to deal with big threats and tiny fighters to take out the smaller stuff.

While alot science fiction does use the idea of space Navies with large 4 mile wide spacecrafts (i.e. Star Trek, Star Wars etc.), I think that that the most likely space military would be something like NASA with guns.

I the idea of building a 4 mile wide (or even a half-mile wide) spaceship is kind of crazy. The amount of resources and time that it would take to build a ship of that size is huge. Even if you have the time/resources, you would have to build the thing in space, as earth's gravitiy would never let it get into orbit. lets not forget the number of crew, amount of fuel, air, food, water, etc. you would require to use it. Such a ship would be impractical for warfare. :cry:

Space combat in general wouldn't work too well because, as stated before, even our own solar system is so large that you could search for thousands of years before finding an enemy craft. :shock:

Your idea of drones, however, is wonderful!
It gave me this idea:
A single-use laser mine. It's powered by a small nuclear bomb, with energy from the reaction used for a powerful laser. It would be small and black, so almost impossible to detect. Even worse, they could be made to activate long after deployment, making for a lethal minefield!
I'm pretty sure someone's thought of that before, but thanks for the inspiration. :D

That's basicly what I mean to do with the missiles; Have them ride boost on the main ship, and further accelerated on magnetic rails. Fire them in small swarms, using nuclear rocket motors to gain delta-V only when necessary, but otherwise remain quite and stealth-like, using gyros to quietly aim at the target ship. Give it a bomb-pumped X-ray laser so even getting to within a few lightseconds of it, depending on the distance you can focus the beam, makes your enemy a viable target. Effective range of such a weapon system can, when properly employed, can be measured in lightminutes, possibly lighthours or more, and it can double as a mine system.

The main purpose for the drones I sugested was to provide long-range recon platforms, and an offboard place to put your high-power active sensor systems, making it easier to spot and observe the enemy, yet harder for him to do the same to you. You could also arm them, but it would increase their volume, mass, and cost, reducing the number you can carry, and likly their acceleration as well.


And wouldn't a charged particle beam be largly counterible by high-powered magnetic fields?

Charged particle beams wouldn't work so well in space, I think neutral is preferred. And yes, you could easily block a charged particle using a strong electromagnetic field (I think.)

And for that matter, everyone seems to have bomb-pumped X-rays these days. They're insanely complicated, and no one has explained how theirs manage to work, and they deal ridiculous amounts of damage. I'd say far future, if any, tech.

Charged particle beams wouldn't work so well in space, I think neutral is preferred. And yes, you could easily block a charged particle using a strong electromagnetic field (I think.)

And for that matter, everyone seems to have bomb-pumped X-rays these days. They're insanely complicated, and no one has explained how theirs manage to work, and they deal ridiculous amounts of damage. I'd say far future, if any, tech.

I think most people who've moved very far into space are future-tech or beyond.

As for how they work... that's classifyed; military secret; matter of national security; bomb-pumped lasers? That's rediculous. Now stop asking silly questions befor you have an unfortunate accident.

>.>

<.<

>.>

:D

space fleets will propably be organized much more like modern day sub fleets. for primarily two reasons, atleast initally. given time it will evolve. (but to keep it simple for many readers and writers the naval terminolgy and structures are transplanted wholesale.)

first. like modern hunters and boomers the vessels will be expected to operate for extened periods alone. but when they do operate together it will be like the german wolf packs.

second. the way that the crews will have to sense their outside environment. basically, looking out the viewport won't help you. you really can't see anybody out there unless they are _huge_ or they are close enough that you could spit at them and not miss.

third. figher craft probably won't be too effective. the weaponry needed in space will make short work of anything as manueoverable as a fighter craft. it sucks i know, i like the concept the starfighters.

Well, many ship based weapons make short work of modern fighters, but we still have them.

Generally, weapons are powerful enough in space so that you'll want to present as many targets to the enemy as possible and lose the least when the inevitable* removal of one unit happens. In short, battleships are collections of all your eggs, and fighters would be a more redundant, survivable solution. And I think in space, even a fighter sized vehicle could employ some truly nasty weapons.

I agree with the rest of your conclusions though, IS.

Kanuckistan, I guess I just find it dull when everyone uses the same, uber powerful weapon, be it an X-ray laser, Death Star, or plamsa splooge. And also, theres a difference between future and far future, and I would challenge the notion that most everybody in space has X-ray laser ability. I don't, and I'd guess there are a few others, but then I probably don't know.



*Inevitable, unless you're one of those magical space fleets that never takes damage or losses, of course :wink:

And for that matter, everyone seems to have bomb-pumped X-rays these days. They're insanely complicated, and no one has explained how theirs manage to work, and they deal ridiculous amounts of damage. I'd say far future, if any, tech.

Read Footfall. The Grazer Stovepipes are seriously sweet weapons. Basically, they just detonate a bomb inside a heavily shielded tube, so that a lot of the energy is absorbed by the shielding, but there's still a lot left to go out the front. They're the most primitive possible bomb-powered 'laser' weapons (not really even true lasers, as the beam isn't entirely coherent) but could still do a lot of damage. Just very slightly future tech to reflect/focus the rays could make them quite devastating.

Heh; kinda like nuke-pumped flash-bulbs.


Santa Barbara, I've not seen bomb-pumped laser weapons around here, although I employ a mixture of conventional-style and laser-head missiles for extream-range missiles(well, in space), usually alpha-stiked. For close-in work(if you can consider 'under a lightsecond' close-in) I employ a particle weapon of my own design, combining very early prototype RL tech with elements of my own.

Also, you've reminded me of a classic game, called Stars!. In combat, it became common practice to use hordes of cheap ships, nicknamed 'chaff', to soak up long-range torpedo fire and protect capital ships, which were armed with torps and beams, the later of which was shorter range, but would burn through the 'chaff' ships like they were nothing, and, iirc, were typicly more powerful.

This seems like an interestingly possible tactic in space warfare happened upon by the player community.