Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

In my mind, you want to avoid space warfare at all costs. Kinetic strike anything on a launch pad.

[Aqizzar]

Actually, one of the most important developments in space-related weaponry which is already in use is ground-based laser that can blind satellites, obscuring what a country is up to.  Combine that with underground launch-tubes and good timing, and you can't keep anybody out of space forever.

[Strife26]

I've always wondered how good sat-blinders were. But, if it's a laser, it should be easy enough to trace it back to its source and kill it, right?

[Aqizzar]

No, because it's a laser, and in the real world, lasers don't make solid beams in the sky.  The only thing that can see the laser is the satellite it's blinding, and then that's all it can see.

The Pentagon is scrambling for answers to exactly that problem, since China has started blinding their spy sats.

[Ultimuh]

I have an idea, why seeking upwards when you can go downwards?
Why trying to conquer the skies and/or space when you can dig underground and harness the powers of the very earth itself?
Think of warfare with giant drills and MAGMA CANONS! (Might be more things I just have'nt thought of yet.)
With that, the phraze "Death from above" will be replaced with "Death from below".

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think that in the future, there will be less incentive to fight wars. For humans, at least. At some point humanity will either destroy itself or unite, and seek PvE instead of PvP, so to speak. Conquering space and exploring the depths, or surviving in bunkers and hunting mutants for food.

If a time comes after that, when a war has to be waged - say, against aliens - then the most prominent form of attack unit will be the armored infantryman - a suit of power armor a little larger than a normal human, kinda like StarCraft's Marines. Tanks are fairly specialized, piloted fighters aren't cost-effective, giant mecha are a bad idea... that leaves only the carrier, the gunship, and the infantryman as probable staples of future wars. One destroys its target before it can reach it, another is highly mobile and packs a punch, and the last is omnipresent and infinitely versatile.

[bjlong]

Sean: I've heard that theory (no war or total obliteration) many times before, and I'm very reluctant to believe it. People have been making that prediction about "the next war" since WWI, and we've had plenty of wars since then. And we've progressed technologically. All this does is change "the next war" for "eventually." Really, I just don't see any evidence for it besides back-of-the-napkin figures and broad estimations.

Later is Now!

The main advantage of a LEO space station is its positioning--right on the brink of space, it could send light drones to "tow" asteroids in for mining. Since it will have earth-like gravity to be sustainable, manufacturing can take place in 1g or micro g environments, which allow a lot of manufacturing possibilities. In war, it's got the high position.

The main disadvantages in war would be its very vulnerable structure. There will be a point when the entire structure fails.

Against the earth, some of its best weapons would be asteroids, coated with something heat resistant. With little modification, you could use asteroids as a delivery system for material and manpower. (The engineering problems are kinda complex here--the best I've been able to come up with is a hang-glider type system. That way, you can land where the asteroids hit with some precision. The problem? You're vulnerable to AA fire.) Since the station would be a manufacturing center, the people here would have plenty of manufacturing experience, which means that you could drop vehicles as parts, and, if modular enough, each part could be used on its own.

Note that these could be launched from the space station long before they become active, save for the troops. Those would probably have a timer on the scale of about a week before they'd have to be dropped.

The fact that they'd be dropping vehicles as parts means that they'd have no heavy armor. If the earth had these, they'd be in a good position to take back cities (which is where a good commander would position these "para" troops.)

The fun thing to design for me was the vehicles. I tried to make them modular enough so that everything had multiple functions, but I could only really do that with the jeep. The turret was easy enough. The body should be able to double as a bunker, if covered with rubble, the engine could double as a winch, and the seats as armor plating or riot shields. I tried to come up with a spider tank in much the same way, but I ended up just saying that it could be dropped whole.

As before, the earth could simply launch missiles. Which is why the space station would have to strike first, possibly while moving the space station into a higher, different orbit.

[umiman]

You designed something to be dropped from an orbital spacecraft?

Ultimuh: Mrm... I'm not sure which is more difficult. Fighing from space, or from below the crust.

[Armok]

I find disappointedly little response to my giant well thought-through post whit an awesome CGI image in it. I spent a far to long time writing that.

Granted, both the weapons I discussed are further away tech-wise than what most of the discussion has been about, but I can imagine something whit the basic structure of that cylinder-whit-legs thing (minus some of the fancier gadgets maybe) becoming viable enough to affect things by the 2050ies.

[bjlong]

Nah, I designed the stuff after the packaging comes off. I didn't feel comfortable trying to come up with a reentry system, so I outlined that (hollowed out asteroid w/ some sort of chemical heat shield). The hangglider thing I had lots of trouble with, so I just sketched up my ideas and hoped that they didn't seem too unrealistic. The rest was just assuming that they could fit a basic engine, radiator and battery; a disassembled exoskeleton; a turret; and a set of metal plates into (separate!) asteroids.

I should note that I did this because of a book I'm trying to write. It's history by the time of the book, but I thought that I ought to come up with some of the tactics and fighting methods, to give historical perspective.

E: Armok... paragraphs would be good. And put your image in a spoiler.

[Aqizzar]

Armok: "Well thought-through" from a dramatic sense maybe, but not a plausibility sense.  All that talk of plasma flamethrowers and cybernetic monkey girls made me glaze over, and sounds to me like something better suited to a '90s game pitch than a foreseeable weapon system.  Especially since I can't see what it really does except squeeze through tight areas and kick lots of theoretical ass at very close range.

It's an awesome render though, I'll give you that.  I wish I could model anything like that.

[DJ]

Robotic locust with nanobots in jaws so it can devour metal. Go biblical on their ass!

[Armok]

Armok: "Well thought-through" from a dramatic sense maybe, but not a plausibility sense.  All that talk of plasma flamethrowers and cybernetic monkey girls made me glaze over, and sounds to me like something better suited to a '90s game pitch than a foreseeable weapon system.  Especially since I can't see what it really does except squeeze through tight areas and kick lots of theoretical ass at very close range.

It's an awesome render though, I'll give you that.  I wish I could model anything like that.

The "plasma flamethrower" was a bad way to put it, what I meant the niche of a flamethrower (e.i. short range, impossible to miss. As far as I am concerned a flamethrower is a shorter range sustained fire shotgun), not that it's technical workings had anything to do whit how flamethrowers work.
The girl is a) not part of what is being discussed, and b) not a "cybernetic monkey girl", just a female human whit a computer brain interface and a rather large and bulky (but totally worth it) fashion statement. (and before you say attaching a 20kg mechanical tail to your spine I'd like to point out tattoos, those rings that makes giraffe-girls somewhere in Africa, moon boots, and people buying pre-torn jeans. The only way this differs from these thing is that it's higher tech, and that it's actually hot.)
As for what it does? it squeeze through tight areas (such as corridors, forests, narrow city streets, and just abut half of every place you'll ever have combat...) and kick lots of theoretical ass at very close range. it can also kick as at long range whit the modularly added on weapons I didn't describe as they change from mission to mission. it can also fly, swim, or drive fast on plain ground, although at these things it is of coarse outperformed by specialized vehicles. if you need to do them in succession without a chance to change vehicle in between however...
There is not to say there is no oversights in realism for the sake of drama. This kind of design IS slightly more optimized for a single hero that needs to do everything while cut of from allies, compared to lots of them fighting side by side.

And yea, it's awesome.

[umiman]

Robotic locust with nanobots in jaws so it can devour metal. Go biblical on their ass!

It would be hilarious, that's for sure.

I'm surprised everyone agreed with the untouchable, indestructible, and superpowerful weapon as being the ultimate weapon idea. I thought someone would say something like how a weapon like that can't possibly be controlled by humans or something.

[bjlong]

I saw it more as a list of desirable qualities.

Armok: I'd have to see some of the theoretical tech behind this to make a call. It is suitable for a "space fighter" but... I dunno, something about those arms makes me hesitant. They look vulnerable.