10-02-2017, 09:13 AM | #31 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
It would be a bigger explosion too as the front of the orbit-to-ground thing will also explode when it hits something solid. The figure used back in the day for Thor had it exploding with a force equal to 10x its' own weight in TNT. It's not just an explosion more than 10x what you were considering it's the very much unscheduled course correction. The Thor-thing should not only miss what it was targeted at it probably loses stabilization too. It would at least try and fly sideways and probably tumble end over end. A thing that can explode like 10x its' weight in TNT has a lot more KE in its' mass than it has structural strength in its' molecular bonds.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
10-02-2017, 09:20 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Luke |
|
10-02-2017, 09:30 AM | #33 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Seriously this has always been one of the big criticisms of orbital bombardment ideas - hypersonic flight through the entire depth of an atmosphere, with all the variable forces that entails, is not conducive precision targeting. By the time you add enough guidance and stabilization and course correction capacity to guarantee you can hit the right city, never mind a smaller target, you've added all the expensive parts of a missile. Assuming you can even do it at all without slowing down to the point your kinetic energy isn't any higher than said missile, which you may not be able to. Count the propulsion stuff you need to move it into the desired orbit before "launch" and you've way exceeded the fuel or energy requirements of said missile too.
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
10-02-2017, 09:31 AM | #34 |
Join Date: Nov 2013
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
A single large projectile could very well be intercepted or miss but you really dont need 80 tons of TNT to kill most ships while it might be useful against naval facilities and the like. A hundred projectiles at 8 tons of TNT or a thousand at 800 kilograms should do a lot better. Intercepting such an attack should be considerably more difficult and likely very expensive.
Personally I'd say ships will only be used for transport with possibly occational submarines for mobile nuclear deterrents and possibly to hunt transports and submarines. Mostly because a single "cheap" drone aircraft can kill any ship and any equal enemy will be able to saturate any resonable point defense. Most of the actual fighting over seas will be done by aircrafts or space based military with some form of drones doing a lot of the land fighting especially outside densly populated areas. Last edited by exalted; 10-02-2017 at 09:42 AM. |
10-02-2017, 10:17 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: Mar 2014
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Even without using AIs at all, you could greatly reduce the number of crew with automation. |
|
10-02-2017, 02:49 PM | #36 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Coming in at full orbital velocity is going to be a bit more limiting on maneuverability. It doesn't follow from the second because you misquoted me by clipping off half the statement. Not cool. You seem to be presenting this scenario as if someone is setting off a bomb nearby a stationary rod, but that's about as far from the scenario as we could get. The rod isn't stationary; it's closing at near-orbital velocity, upping the energy of the impact by roughly 4 to 10 times, depending on when the intercept occurs (The rod is going considerably slower at impact than during reentry) and the angle of impact (Likely to be head-on if we're talking about a ship defending itself). Further, this isn't just a random explosion nearby; this is a kinetic impact directly on the surface of the rod with a significant directional component. With the minimum speed for a head-on intercept, we're talking mach 20-25, close to the velocity that you get from a HEAT jet. This isn't some simple proximity detonation, and it's not distributed randomly (The LEAP is a unitary warhead, not some package of multiple smaller projectiles). It's going to be a single focused impact point leaving a sizable hole or crater on the surface of that reentry vehicle. Get a solid head-on impact during reentry, and you stand a good chance of blowing the entire head off that rod. Needless to say, these are things you really don't want during reentry. Hell, you don't want it when hypersonic. It very likely leaves the vehicle uncontrollable during reentry, if not tearing it apart through aerodynamic forces. If it does survive and regain control, it would have burned a great deal of energy, which, combined with impaired aerodynamics from the impact, might easily leave it unable to maneuver onto its target. But even that isn't the end of it. If it's got terminal self-guidance (And it needs guidance to have any chance of hitting a mobile target 10+ minutes after launch), then it needs to see the target, and that means vulnerable sensors that really don't respond well to mach 20+ impacts. So yeah, the reason I said it having a kinetic kill warhead didn't provide any benefit here is because it makes no meaningful difference in the outcome. A kinetic intercept at these velocities is devastating, even against another kinetic-kill vehicle. And yes, you can scale up bigger and bigger until you find something that would survive just through sheer mass, but I was imagining we were talking practical tactical weapons that might be employed against ships. You're obviously not going to stop a moon, but you'll stop reasonable threats. Even the thor project is already getting a bit silly for anything other than strategic mass-bombing and hardened-target strikes against a nation without suitable air/space defense. |
|
10-02-2017, 03:04 PM | #37 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one! |
|
10-02-2017, 03:43 PM | #38 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
10-02-2017, 04:14 PM | #39 |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
One thought, presumably the TL 10 landscape will include more undersea habitation, mining fish farms and so forth. Floating islands could also exist depending on the setting. Navies acting in a support role for undersea infantry operations would presumably be a function.
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike...... And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn |
10-03-2017, 09:30 AM | #40 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
|
Tags |
naval warfare, ultra-tech |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|