NationStates Jolt Archive

It is my understanding that these are large, high density rods that are dropped from very high altitudes (upper atmosphere levels, close space) and cause large amounts of damage.
So what I want to know is, how are we supposed to counter such things? I'd expect you could shoot down the satellites beforehand...but anything else?

That's pretty much about it.

Though if your enemy is deploying godrods with a FOBS, then even that will be iffy at best.

edit: Neutralizing the enemy's launch facilities would also work, if you can manage it.

Your normal everyday anti-ballistic missiles will do a good enough job against them.

This is similar to my project starlight... Except mine aren't rods thier anti-matter weapons... but same concept. And if they are of the smae concept then I dought the standard everyday anti will work. the weapons would be to small to target and would move in a sparatic way. I really dought you would hit the rods.

The rods are, of necessity, as large or larger than the warheads launched by ballistic missiles. Your anti-matter ones will also be such due to the containment necessary. You also can't have something reentering the atmosphere and moving in a sporadic manner, it'd destroy itself in the process.

Your normal everyday anti-ballistic missiles will do a good enough job against them.

Unfortunately, ABMs are a great deal more expensive than godrods, so it's likely you'll run out of ABMs before the other guy runs out of godrods.

Unfortunately, ABMs are a great deal more expensive than godrods, so it's likely you'll run out of ABMs before the other guy runs out of godrods.

hmmm, so in which case mebbe THEL's would be useful?

I've heard prayer works in saving people never tried it in the middle of an orbital bombardment though...

Seriously though, in theory ABMs will work, like THAAD missiles and the like, as will ASATs against the launcher, but beyond that, like I said, its time to start praying. I'm not sure how well an ABM would do against a solid falling slice of armageddon, but odds are it'd do something, after all, look what THAAD does to missiles IRL, "poof" comes to mind. ASATs against the launch platform will work unless they've got enough defenses around it to keep it nice and cozy. Really there's no 100% effective countermeasure, but that's true for all things. Usually atleast some rods (if multiple are dropped) are going to make it through, its just the nature of technology, computers vs. nature, nature will eventually win some of them.

Unfortunately, ABMs are a great deal more expensive than godrods, so it's likely you'll run out of ABMs before the other guy runs out of godrods.

I consider that highly unlikely, especially given that godrods have to be lifted up to orbit, which increases their cost a good deal.

Unfortunately, ABMs are a great deal more expensive than godrods, so it's likely you'll run out of ABMs before the other guy runs out of godrods.
Wank from users of the latter. "Godrods" are space launches with all associated cost - $5,000-$10,000/kg for the launch alone. Using old Soviet SS-18, converted in accordance with START disarmament treaties into space launch vehicles, costs just $3,000/kg, but they are cheap because otherwise they'd just go to scrap. And they have only 90% reliability as opposed to 97% of the original SS-18, 96% of Russian purpose-built space launch vehicles, 94% of NASA launchers, 93% of others' products.
Though the reliability is not important for godrods, still Dnepr launchers are sold cheaper than they cost to build, and their supply is limited.

That makes a 1-tonne "godrod" cost about $10,000,000, because it also needs some satellite to control, direct and throw. That 1-tonne thing has about 14-16GJ of kinetic energy upon reaching the surface, which is equivalent to 2 tonnes of RDX, modern mil-standard explosive. Not bad, but not stunning either.


I'm not sure how well an ABM would do against a solid falling slice of armageddon, but odds are it'd do something, after all, look what THAAD does to missiles IRL, "poof" comes to mind.
Ballistic missile warheads are heavily shielded thick short objects. "Godrods" are just long rods, prone to all their failures - so it comes out even. If a system can intercept ICBM, it can intercept "godrods".

oh, as for THEL, it'd be a tall order to kill a rod with THEL, as THEL has nothing to ignite on a rod. Since the Rod is solid, you'd basically have to vaporize the entire rod before it hits, which takes all of a few seconds. So I'd say THEL wouldn't be particularly effective in repelling the rods from God.

Or you could melt a drag-inducing groove in the rod and see it broken by aerodynamic drag forces.

But mechanical damage by anti-ballistic missiles would do better.

You also have to remember that Tungsten Rods are called Tungsten Rods for a reason. Namely, because their made of Tungsten. That stuff is helluva tough, very high melting point, and is used in modern tank armor. I dont think a THEL would be able to do much... although a ABM would probably work.

(Uh oh! I'm dangerously close to revealing that I have absolutely no knowledge of modern military conventions, quick change the subject!)

...Dutch people are awesome!

Okay, wild wild thing just putting out here, would a missile with no warhead be able to knock it off target towards a less destructive area, or really complex style, maybe some sort of hollow Tungsten missile which could capture the Rod and harmlessly detonate soewhere out to sea, I know these might be potentially dumbass ideas but I've learnt never to keep quiet about things.

THAAD, SM-3, and PAC-3 use a Kinetic Kill Vehicle to destroy incoming targets through the simple expedient of hitting it.

That's what I meant, in part. Most likely the rod will be broken after a serious deformation, but, if not, it is still going to miss aside.

Whether that will save the target depends on its size. It won't push the impact point really far if fired from the ground level - maybe 30m could be reached, and even that not always. A tank can be saved (but it's cheaper than the "godrod" anyway), something large like a building or a ship probably not.

THAAD, SM-3, and PAC-3 use a Kinetic Kill Vehicle to destroy incoming targets through the simple expedient of hitting it.

I dont consider those true ABMs, given their inability to intercept a ICBM, therefore, they would probably be useless against a tungsten rod. Now something like that system deployed around Moscow on the other hand...

THAAD's job is to intercept ICBMs, or their MIRVs. Its relatively short range (compared to a truly dedicated ABM), but then again, intercepting something at the edge of the atmosphere is pretty darn impressive. In short, THAAD is an ABM... unless the US military has been wasting my tax paying money again.

THAAD could probably take out a tungsten rod with a kinetic kill, like I said, look what it does to (admittedly much softer) ballistic missiles. Now a THAAD rocket made of tungsten, or something tougher/heavier... it may be in-pheasible, but it'd almost definitely kill the rod. Of course, when I talk about in-pheasibility I'm talking about building a whole new system to deal with a single threat, costing possibly billions of dollars, when an existing system could do the job quite well.

I still wouldn't really rely on dual-purpose systems. They will help, but not as much as dedicated ones - requirements are too different. Patriot might be not like S-300, but still a good SAM system - we all remember how it screwed up with timing against relatively slow TBM (but still fast and small), though.

THAAD is designed against TBM, not ICBM. That's a big difference. TBM fly at 2 km/s and low enough to get an early warning due to some drag. ICBM fly at 6-8 km/s and have nearly no drag at their altitudes.
Still, THAAD will help against ICBM and orbital projectiles (a better name for these rods), but not enough to be reliable.

http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/thaad1.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/missiledefense/tmd-thaad.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD


The system around Moscow includes a variety of weapons, some of them with nuclear warheads - the idea is to destroy MIRV ICBM with own nuclear explosions. Since most ICMB (all until Topol-M) have little specific protection against nuclear weapons, it's pretty effective. But that system is more aimed at warranting safety of the long-term counter-nuclear bunkers, protecting strategic objects, ensuring operation of Metro and D-6 aka Metro-2, and so on, rather than saving the surface homes. Own nuclear counter-fire can stop the missiles, but deal a lot of collateral damage. That system is way more complex than any feasible theater or global ABM protection, however.

Like everyone else had said, if you can lock on to that massive RADAR target, and shoot a missile at it, you can knock it on its side, induce a dangerous tumble, watch it deform, break up and not do as much damage as intended.

Unfortunately, ABMs are a great deal more expensive than godrods, so it's likely you'll run out of ABMs before the other guy runs out of godrods.

In addition to the arguments of godrods being very expensive little suckers, I'd like to add that using ABMs would probably just be buying time to destroy the enemy's orbital assets.

The system around Moscow

Don't forget about Safeguard! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_Program) One can view footage of Sprint tests on Youtube, which is awesome.

Also echoing V10's statement on the firepower of Thor/Godrods/orbital projectiles, these don't really count as WMD. :P

Depends on the size of your projectile. You have crowbars for tanks, telephone poles for buildings and ships, and possibly larger projectiles for even bigger targets. A projectile capable of causing strategic level damage, however, is not something you'll be launching from the ground.

Don't forget about Safeguard! One can view footage of Sprint tests on Youtube, which is awesome.
Well, I spoke about the Moscow system because it was mentioned in the beginning of this thread. Besides, it's way more extensive, as its protects as much area as the treaty allows, and actually more, considering the second and the third tiers. But both rely on nuclear damage as the only reliable solution.

Of course, with tungsten orbital rods it's inefficient to use nuclear defense.

Couldn't you use a large nuclear-tipped missile (ie, a giant version of the Genie) to shoot down a Godrod? It'd most likely annihilate the thing...plus, if a player gets to use Godrods, I've always figured that it's time to open up the nukes (to me, they're the same category).

Couldn't you use a large nuclear-tipped missile (ie, a giant version of the Genie) to shoot down a Godrod? It'd most likely annihilate the thing...plus, if a player gets to use Godrods, I've always figured that it's time to open up the nukes (to me, they're the same category).

Collateral damage is huge. Fallout, radiation, Gods knows what else.

Unless it is in the extreme upper atmosphere like practically in space, then it is safe.

There is also the EMP thing.

Collateral damage is huge. Fallout, radiation, Gods knows what else.
Unless it is in the extreme upper atmosphere like practically in space, then it is safe.
Nuclear explosions are also way weaker in space, lacking shockwave.

There's no significant fallout from high-atmospheric nuclear explosions, but they will start fires all around the city or other object below and cause a local storm to make it worse.

So it's generally just better to get a tungsten rod hit rather than intercept it with nukes.

some kind of weapons platform, big enough to aim and launch the tungsten rods previously mentions, would no doubt be easy to track (due to its size) on long range RADAR so at the start of hostilities why wouldn't you target the 'GODROD' launcher platforms ? (drunk excuss mistakes please)

Godcondom anyone?

Asking someone to intercept a godrod is like asking WW2 AA gunners to intercept the bombs falling out of a bomber.

It is by far more effective to target the weapons carrier and targeting units (in WW2 case, the lead bomber, who was generally the only one with a decent navigator to the drop zones).

Once the bombs are dropped, the whole point is almost moot, but if you have the resources in the 'right place', in other words, would otherwise be destroyed if the bomb hits, then by all means, expend as much ammo to destroy a single bomb as you could to destroy a fully loaded bomber...

Therefore, the simplest tactic is to destroy godrod launchers as they are deployed by your own ASAT satallites/missiles.

And if all else fails, target godrod launchers with godrods/LRPs...

Asking someone to intercept a godrod is like asking WW2 AA gunners to intercept the bombs falling out of a bomber.

It is by far more effective to target the weapons carrier and targeting units (in WW2 case, the lead bomber, who was generally the only one with a decent navigator to the drop zones).

Once the bombs are dropped, the whole point is almost moot, but if you have the resources in the 'right place', in other words, would otherwise be destroyed if the bomb hits, then by all means, expend as much ammo to destroy a single bomb as you could to destroy a fully loaded bomber...

Therefore, the simplest tactic is to destroy godrod launchers as they are deployed by your own ASAT satallites/missiles.

And if all else fails, target godrod launchers with godrods/LRPs...

...Or just cause said user of godrods to knock off the practice by deploying nuclear assets in an offensive capability against said nation...

I consider both to be in the same arena (seeing how people always bitch when you shoot missiles into space).

Well, Ezaltia had specially designed a weapon called: Ballistic Underwater Terminating Terribly Super Exciting Continental Kinetic System (B.U.T.T.S.E.C.K.S.) missiles

I can also suggest the Soviet designed:

-High Orbit-Big Blast Interceptor Technology Plus Efficient Non Interdictory Systems (H.O.B.B.I.T P.E.N.I.S)

I consider both to be in the same arena (seeing how people always bitch when you shoot missiles into space).

They do? I've never seen anyone get pissed off about space launches. :/


I can also suggest the Soviet designed:
-High Orbit-Big Blast Interceptor Technology Plus Efficient Non Interdictory Systems (H.O.B.B.I.T P.E.N.I.S)

...I am now scarred for life. Thinking of the Ballard of Bilbo Baggins while reading this didn't help either. x.x

Both of which could be countered if the enemy godrod launcher comes equiped with an I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon...

Oh c'mon, cant you take a joke?

Well, Ezaltia had specially designed a weapon called: Ballistic Underwater Terminating Terribly Super Exciting Continental Kinetic System (B.U.T.T.S.E.C.K.S.) missiles

I can also suggest the Soviet designed:

-High Orbit-Big Blast Interceptor Technology Plus Efficient Non Interdictory Systems (H.O.B.B.I.T P.E.N.I.S)

Both of which could be countered if the enemy godrod launcher comes equiped with an I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannon...

I vaguely remember playing with a former nation when, however implausibly, the giant impenetrable invincible undersea bubble was nullified.

The concept of godrods make the bubble look as scientific as Newton's Laws.

The concept of godrods make the bubble look as scientific as Newton's Laws.

Err...How?

Also, are you from back in the GDODAD (probably didn't get that right..) days? O_o

God rods are hella difficult to stop. They are moving 36,000 feet per second (Wiki) by the time they enter the atmosphere, which means you have a matter of seconds to shoot it down. They are too sturdy and heat resistant for a MT laser to weaken in such a short span of time.

Land and air launched missiles are too slow to intercept god rods over long distances, but you could use them to protect vital targets. No matter what you do incoming god rods will still fall to the ground, so I wouldn't bother trying to destroy them. I would try to use a concussive blast to alter their course instead.

One thing to keep in mind is that god rods are not built for accuracy. Heavy objects moving at high rates of speed don't change course easily. While they can inflict massive damage against cities, military bases, and other fixed targets; they are not so good against moving targets.

Of course, it is always best to destroy the god rods before they are ever launched...

God rods are hella difficult to stop. They are moving 36,000 feet per second by the time they enter the atmosphere, which means you have a matter of seconds after it enters the atmosphere to shoot it down.

God rods are too sturdy and heat resistant for a MT laser to weaken in such a short span of time.

Land and air launched missiles are too slow to intercept god rods over long distances, but you may be able to use missiles protect vital targets. God rods are sturdy and difficult to hit. No matter what you do the god rod will still fall to the ground, so I wouldn't bother trying to destroy the missile outright. Instead, I would try to use concussive blast to alter the course of the incoming god rods.

One thing to keep in mind is that god rods are not built for accuracy. Heavy objects moving at high rates of speed don't change course easily. God rods can inflict massive damage against cities, military bases, and other fixed targets; but they are not so good against moving targets.

Of course, it is always best to destroy the god rods before they are ever launched...

What we've learned is that they are like nuclear weapons in silos, on trains and in submarines. First strike, or else.

Err...How?

Also, are you from back in the GDODAD (probably didn't get that right..) days? O_o


Scientific was the wrong word. Perhaps just plausible? The use of incredibly powerful, incredibly hard to stop weapons such as the godrod seems perilously close to God-moding.

If a state has the resources to accurately* utilise these, why not just harness a meteor or asteroid to crush the entire nation? Because it takes the fun out of conflict. If you jump from 'we declare war' to 'your country is splat', what's the point?

There doesn't seem to be any point to the godrod. Somewhere in the midst of wanting to reduce battlefield casualties, the fun died. How about if you don't want to feel bad when you have thousands die when one of your assaults fails, just make a robotic army.

If we possess the technology to utilise so called godrods, why not the technology to create wormholes with which to
a) circumvent the rods to another dimension
or
b) transport the nation to another dimension, thus leaving weapons useless.

And now we're in a completely different dimension, which may or may not exist, and you can't really do much until you return to the prime.

The godrod is really just a way to cheaply win a war with little to no retaliation, and 'win' a roleplaying scenario with as little imagination as possible.



Aside: It's been so long I can't really remember what the gdodad may or may not have been

Godrods arn't always a solution to every concievable problem. I mostly only deploy them to hit large naval fleets that I can't get forces in place to intercept.

They are basically one of the ideal tools for laying waste to those overpriced wastes of material known as super dreadnoughts.

A single godrod, economically, represents an expenditure possibly reaching into the realms of training, fitting and arming entire tank corps, if not entire army groups (that's up to 1.5 million soldiers, people!) depending on the complexity of the launch devices.

Now against a super dreadnought, these represent a cost effective way of destroying said ships. The problem comes when people try to circumvent defences by simply saying 'I drop godrods on it', which is where the complaint is.

At best, Godrods are the equivalent of using a tactical nuke on something, but circumventing it by claiming it's conventional.

This is the exact same thing that happens when somebody goes 'I shoot <arbitrarily huge number> Conventional ICBMs at you!' and complains when the retaliation is nuclear. The whole point of ICBMs not being fired in a war situation is because nobody can tell what's loaded into the front until it actually hits or is too late. Trying to get around it by claiming it's conventional is just madness (*sidesteps the g-word*).

A godrod could actually be a nuke dropped from orbit. Nobody can be sure until it hits.

If I were an MT nation, or even a PMT nation, I'd make it perfectly clear that my country would interpret any godrod or ICBM strike as a potential nuclear first strike and retaliate accordingly.

It is my understanding that Godrods are a Kinetic Bombardment Superweapon capbale of causing destruction on the same level as Nuclear ICBM's. It is also my understanding that the GodRods are large bulky peices that must be somewhat Aligned before they fall to their target. Minor Course adjustments are made using Fins and GPS systems housed within the rod. Wouldn't it be possible to cover possible "targets" such as capital citys, military bases, Nuclear Silos and target ships such as Carriers and Large Surface Combatants with GPS Jamming Systems?

The intent being to move the rod off course. Still causing a huge amount of damange but not destroying the target itselt? Altough thats still a pretty shit defence id have to agree with Leafanistan that if your going to war with a known Godrod capable nation then you either A) remove that threat B) counter it by getting your own Godrod weapon invoking the M.A.D doctrine of Military Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_Assured_Destruction).


A Possible PMT Defence?

I was unsure whether "Godrods" are MT or PMT if they are the latter wouldn't it be for a possible a "Ace Combat 4 Stonehenge" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_%28Ace_Combat%29) type defence system. The idea of a Stonehenge Superweapon in the game was to destroy asteroids falling along a predicted path. Would it not be possible for nations with the budget and paranoid fear of Godrods to construct a Stonehenge type Defence Weapon to effecively counter God-Rods?

Snip


A Possible PMT Defence?

I was unsure whether "Godrods" are MT or PMT if they are the latter wouldn't it be for a possible a "Ace Combat 4 Stonehenge" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_%28Ace_Combat%29) type defence system. The idea of a Stonehenge Superweapon in the game was to destroy asteroids falling along a predicted path. Would it not be possible for nations with the budget and paranoid fear of Godrods to construct a Stonehenge type Defence Weapon to effecively counter God-Rods?

In my opinion yes and no. A Godrod could be pretty small, a lot smaller than an asteroid, keep in mind asteroids often hit the earths atmosphere, and simply break up under intense heat and pressure. That means that such a massive weapon is designed to hit a LARGE object, something which would actually make it through any atmosphere, and in most cases an asteroid sized like a godrod would be too small in my opinion for such a system. However with smaller, more accurate such weapons it might be possible...

That or put a few satellites of your own in orbit above your nation(this is NS, you can be on the equator if you want :D) in geostationary orbit which can take out opposing satellites. Problem solved.

Oh, and just taking into account that people might well take a Godrod attack to be a nuclear attack why not just use nukes, M.A.D is going to happen anyway you know :)

A single godrod, economically, represents an expenditure possibly reaching into the realms of training, fitting and arming entire tank corps, if not entire army groups (that's up to 1.5 million soldiers, people!) depending on the complexity of the launch devices.

Now against a super dreadnought, these represent a cost effective way of destroying said ships. The problem comes when people try to circumvent defences by simply saying 'I drop godrods on it', which is where the complaint is.

At best, Godrods are the equivalent of using a tactical nuke on something, but circumventing it by claiming it's conventional.

This is the exact same thing that happens when somebody goes 'I shoot <arbitrarily huge number> Conventional ICBMs at you!' and complains when the retaliation is nuclear. The whole point of ICBMs not being fired in a war situation is because nobody can tell what's loaded into the front until it actually hits or is too late. Trying to get around it by claiming it's conventional is just madness (*sidesteps the g-word*).

A godrod could actually be a nuke dropped from orbit. Nobody can be sure until it hits.

If I were an MT nation, or even a PMT nation, I'd make it perfectly clear that my country would interpret any godrod or ICBM strike as a potential nuclear first strike and retaliate accordingly.

I gotta QFT most of this-people bitch about nukes, and then up and drop Godrods in the dozens (You know who you are).
I'd either retaliate with an IGNORE cannon, or just throw a huge bundle of nukes back...possibly invoking an OOC flamefest, but hey, that's the price of using Godrods.

Surely these Rods of Tungsten that people throw about would be better served in some sort of super tank armour anyway? Be a hell of a lot cheaper, or do they do that these days anyway?

Surely these Rods of Tungsten that people throw about would be better served in some sort of super tank armour anyway? Be a hell of a lot cheaper, or do they do that these days anyway?

I've been saving up for NS centuries....i can do whatever i want :P.

Godrods say it in the name- Godmode. Fine in small numbers, but highly likely to be taken to an extreme and overused. Theoretically it could be the end of the tank.

You can't really save for centuries without attracting ignore-cannon... Very few people actually accept 1day=1year scale, except for storefront weapon delivery. For others, the scale is the timeline.

Orbital projectiles are expensive, and not perfectly accurate. They aren't as expensive as an army, of course, but still a single rod costs way more than a tank. They aren't a danger to tanks at all. They are a danger to particularly large ships, though, or to superheavy tanks.


P.S. BTW, about that bullpup rifle contract - check the region message board; I can take it.

You can't really save for centuries without attracting ignore-cannon... Very few people actually accept 1day=1year scale, except for storefront weapon delivery. For others, the scale is the timeline.

Orbital projectiles are expensive, and not perfectly accurate. They aren't as expensive as an army, of course, but still a single rod costs way more than a tank. They aren't a danger to tanks at all. They are a danger to particularly large ships, though, or to superheavy tanks.


P.S. BTW, about that bullpup rifle contract - check the region message board; I can take it.

Very true, kinda my point, its ridiculous to act as if someone can have thousands of the best nuclear weapons or godrods. The man power and costs would be ridiculous, plus i'd be zooming around another solar system by now if i really had had about 200 years worth of my budget.

In fact Godrods are in my opinion completely useless, if you take into account the size of the world and the way you need polar orbits to be perfectly in synch or be on the equator to get a sattelite close enough to the planet to launch the strike. A strong arguament for it being godmode to hit anything but a stationary target is therefore in order imo

And TY for the bullpup info, but, your in GD!?! :)

Yes, orbit is the main problem with satellites. I have an entire international comm provider, multi-trillion Lightning Communications, and still, checking the world size, to provide just the video of specific area, even with interruptions, an entire belt of satellites has to change orbits. That makes "godrods" not just relatively cheap throw like ICBM, but complete satellites with orbit control capabilities.

They are still useful against oversized ships, but actually these ships are also vulnerable to torpedoes, and - yes - missiles. (That breaks the stereotype, I know, but even small and slow WWII anti-ship missiles punctured battleships top to bottom. Now, modern toys... Just add some armor and it's more durable than a shell, plus it maneuvers, plus it may carry not much explosives, but it will deliver them exactly where they hurt most).

"Godrods" aren't completely useless, IMHO, but their application is actually very limited. Well, I do have some, owned by Lightning Communications (secret IC, but many sats are dual-purpose), but I have never used them. Destroy ships? Subs do that cheaper. Attack cities and bases? Too weak. Attack nuclear silos? Just take nukes, because that's an all-out war anyway. Precision strikes at nations which have no deterrence? Possible, but I can just throw conventional-tipped ICBM at them: less cost, more damage, and faster, as they don't have to change orbits.



P.S.
Yeah, I'm in the GD now. Well, I thought about Haven and some more, but they contain people we have bad IC relations with, and Haven is too warmongerous. So I settled for GD.
I think that I'll base it on R1 - see it here: http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3400
R1 was actually a result of discussions with Max Popenker ( http://world.guns.ru ), so I doubt it's possible to do any better in MT, without major sacrifices. I screwed up a bit with the loading system, trying to make it accept almost anything of close size, but that's going to be fixed soon by changing it somewhat. If you're fine with single-caliber weapon, that will be easier.

Vault 10, my blue-water navy, due to terrain issues, is more or less nonexistent. My nation has little to no experience with blue-water naval craft.

Pearce Weapons Inc (Under the Direction of The Govenment of The Dominion of Vetaka)

Summary:

After a recent joint-investigation between Pearce Weapons Inc, The University of Helgan and the Vetakan Defence Force into the Superweapon God-Rods the investiagtion found a possible defence to this seemingly undefendable weapon. This defence has come to be known as the "Helgan Weapon Platform" the idea came from the popular game "Ace Combat 4" and its superweapon of Stonehenge. Thus the idea of the "Helgan Air Defence System" is born made up of either a configuration of 2,4 or 8 railguns and backed up by an impressive tracking system. The system at its full capacity would monitor and track every aircraft, helicopter, missile and UFO entering a nations airspace. When the system identified a threat it would fire upon it to remove it using standard AA, Ballistical Weapons or the Helgan Weapon.

The Helgan Air Defence System (HADS):

In order for the system to work the Helgan Weapon would have to be built in a central point of the proposed system in a circular formation the weapon as best as we can theorize would have an operating range of 1000 to 2000 miles. As a result around the Weapon the Helgan platform would require an impressive web array of Radar and Tracking systems of todays modern technology this could be possibly provided by or supported by AWAC, Nimrod and other mobile air tracking systems. The system would also require Satellite Technology observation and tracking technology. The proposed system would link all exsisting AA Systems into one central system. The Helgan Weapon would be based on a Railgun system similar to that of the Ace Combat weapon it would fire a tungsten peircing projectile which would be propelled at its target at extremely high velocities. On contact with the target depending on the target iself it would either destroy out right or push its target off course. For example let us imagine a god rod was fired at a capital city of a nation the HDAS system would immediatly locate the target it would quickly attain the rods course and fire a projectile the projectile would speed towards it and make impact causing the falling rod to either be destroyed completely, knocked off course still causing damage but saving its preset target or the rod would be smashed into smaller falling still damanging peices. With advances in all fields of science it would be possible to mount the Projectiles with explosives but at this time the investigation and research team where unable to successful theorize this.

Altough the HADS was designed primarily to offer a counter of Godrods the systems secondary function was to provide a modern AA and Radar sytem to a nation the system if configured correctly would have the ability to identify a nations AA assets and utlize them on a national scale it could register anything that enters a nation and alert a central command centre this could prove invable to nations. A possible 9/11 incident could be averted as a system could fire on rogue jets using a centrally controlled AA system the possibilities are endless with the HADS nations could add the interceptor human fighters into the system.

Below is a simple diagram demonstraing the possibilty of a HADS in action:

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u295/razgriz-demon/HADS.jpg

Key:

Large Black Circle: Is the range of the Helgan Weapon

Black Squares: Radar and Tracking Stations

Red Squares: AA/Sam Weapon Statesions

Central Blue Square: Central System Command Centre

Yellow Rectangle: Helgan Weapon Platform (Similar to AC4 Stonehenge Weapon)

It would be possible to arrange the system so that it had an external tracking and firing capacity outside of the Helgan Weapons Platform firing range of 1000 to 2000 miles.


Cost and Legal Issues:

The research and investigation team theorizes a minimum price for system would be at least $20 Billion. Due to the fact that each system would be totally indivdual any nation or organization that wanted to sell such systems would have to address each customer as an indivdual. The seller would have to look at orignal AA systems, communication systems, possible Helgan Weapon Platform locations and of course the buyers possible uses for such a system. After all it would be possible to use the Helgan Weapon Platform for other possible hostile uses. The research investigation team would like to make it clear that this work is purelly research and theory this research should not be counted as a soild. Many problems could be expericend in any system based on the above research.

Finally to end upon Pearce Weapons Inc, The University of Helgan, The Vetakan Defence Force and the Dominion of Vetaka takes no responsibilty for any outcome to this research. This research is free to use to any resulting study the research and investigation team only requests that they be credited. The team welcomes any critism to this study after all thats how things are improved.


OOC: Not sure why i did it in an IC format. What do you think? Possible? I thought it could be stretching the MT/PMT boundary?

Rail guns need superconductors, which you won't be getting until mid PMT, and it'd be ridicously expensive, unwiedly, and probably unable to intercept god rods or even ICBMs. And a range of 1000-2000miles is way way too far, even the saner AC4 railgun only had a range of some 800 miles, and probably would have collasped it's barrel because of the massive weight. (IR: They were built totaly wrong, should be in a more conventional turret setup rather then hanging 1000ft in the air...)

You're better off sticking with missiles.

Wank from users of the latter. "Godrods" are space launches with all associated cost - $5,000-$10,000/kg for the launch alone. Using old Soviet SS-18, converted in accordance with START disarmament treaties into space launch vehicles, costs just $3,000/kg, but they are cheap because otherwise they'd just go to scrap. And they have only 90% reliability as opposed to 97% of the original SS-18, 96% of Russian purpose-built space launch vehicles, 94% of NASA launchers, 93% of others' products.
Though the reliability is not important for godrods, still Dnepr launchers are sold cheaper than they cost to build, and their supply is limited.

That makes a 1-tonne "godrod" cost about $10,000,000, because it also needs some satellite to control, direct and throw. That 1-tonne thing has about 14-16GJ of kinetic energy upon reaching the surface, which is equivalent to 2 tonnes of RDX, modern mil-standard explosive. Not bad, but not stunning either.

I haven't read the rest of the thread since the first page, I just wanted to point out some calculations I made. Estimating an average godrod at weighing one tonne is a very conservative estimate. Given tungsten's density (19.25 g/cubic cm) and the fact that from what I've read (and from what I remember) of America's plans to put godrods in space, the godrods they were going to put in space were about 20x1 feet in size, using basic geometric math I worked out the following:

A godrod twenty feet long and one foot in diameter weighs 8294837.2584 grams, or 8,294.84 kg - over eight tonnes, which dramatically increases the price of putting godrods in space and therefore reduces the number available to a nation at any given time.

Meh, most people here put Tungsten Rods nine feet long in orbit. I know I do, their not my only Tungsten Rods, of course... their just the most common.

Meh, most people here put Tungsten Rods nine feet long in orbit. I know I do, their not my only Tungsten Rods, of course... their just the most common.

3781154.944 grams - 3,758.12 kg - 3.7 tonnes.

That'll cost you about $28M per godrod to put those in space, just counting the mass of the tungsten (Taking the average of Vault 10's calculations, at $7,500 per kg).

Just so you know. And most likely, that will cost more than one shot of an ABM system, if the people in this thread actually did decide that an ABM shot could derail/stop a godrod. If not, I'm sure somebody could figure out a way to stop a nine foot long godrod if given $27M to do it with.

3781154.944 grams - 3,758.12 kg - 3.7 tonnes.

That'll cost you about $28M per godrod to put those in space, just counting the mass of the tungsten (Taking the average of Vault 10's calculations, at $7,500 per kg).

Just so you know. And most likely, that will cost more than one shot of an ABM system, if the people in this thread actually did decide that an ABM shot could derail/stop a godrod. If not, I'm sure somebody could figure out a way to stop a nine foot long godrod if given $27M to do it with.

3.7 tonnes equates to about 1,800,000 rods [if we accept the current W reserve predictions set at 7million tonnes (or tons...).

Also, shouldn't this discussion be better situated in General NS, instead of II?