|
10-01-2017, 05:49 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: England
|
[Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
I’m trying to work out what a naval task force would look like at TL10 as a thought experiment, and I’m having trouble deciding which options presented by Ultra-Tech are most effective. I’m concentrating on a safe-tech TL10, so no superscience or volitional AIs, and only limited genetic engineering (so it differs from Transhuman Space).
Depending on your interpretation, the principle component of a naval force (i.e. at the top of the admirals’ wish list when governments look at funding and procurement) could change from a surface aircraft carrier to a heavily stealthed battleship with a 160mm railgun and/or heavy missile armament with point defence lasers, or a drone-carrying submarine, which packs most of its offensive punch in non-volitional AI-controlled drones, which it launches before creeping back under the waves. Some of the questions I’ve come up with are:
I’m not sure there’s any firm answers to these, but I wondered what everyone thought and how other factors I’ve not thought of might influence matters. |
10-01-2017, 07:59 AM | #2 | ||||||
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
-- MA Lloyd |
||||||
10-01-2017, 10:38 AM | #3 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
Quote:
On the other hand, GURPS hasn't got rules that are particularly supportive of point defense... IIRC, the 'point defense lasers' in Ultratech are quite low RoF too, which seems quite bizarre - it's not like you need huge damage to mess up a missile, and even if you could under the rules autofiring lasers are great at doing lots of damage to poorly armored targets Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it suggests that the balance of penetration could swing back in favor of massively-armored battleships though. An orbital strike is almost unavoidably going to be coming in very fast, and is consequently more likely to use a heavy solid impactor rather than a lighter warhead, adding up to something relatively hard to stop. You could make a surface-launched orbital-velocity range kinetic-kill missile, sure, but it'd take an awful lot of rocket.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
||||
10-01-2017, 12:16 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
A first problem is 'what is your naval task force for'? TL 10 has effective force projection on a planetary scale without any need for ships.
|
10-01-2017, 12:17 PM | #5 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
The UT laser cannon has a 1/2d range of 38 miles, which means it gets ~19 seconds to shoot an orbital strike descending at roughly Mach 10. I doubt that laser can destroy the penetrator, but can it damage the guidance sensors or control fins enough to make the penetrator miss? I don't know, it seems within the realm of possibility. It also seems to me that if I can intercept the penetrator with something like a Sidewinder missile, having the penetrator impact multiple small objects going the opposite direction at high speed is going to alter the penetrator's ballistic profile, possibly enough to overcome the guidance system's ability to straighten the penetrator. Would I want to be the engineer tasked with designing a launch system for a Sidewinder type missile that needs to launch on 10-20 seconds warning, climb 5-10 missiles in a few seconds, and intercept an orbital penetrator? It does seem like a challenge, but the military has generally been pretty good about finding solutions to supposedly unstoppable weapons.
__________________
Read my GURPS blog: http://noschoolgrognard.blogspot.com |
|
10-01-2017, 12:24 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
It's the 100mm tactical missile. It accelerates at 277 Gs for up to 5 seconds. It wouldn't care if that was horizontal or vertical. You'll get your interception at over 40,000 feet of altitude with a minimum of 6Dx50.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
10-01-2017, 01:04 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The former Chochenyo territory
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
I was under the impression that penetrators coming down from orbit are difficult or impossible to use as guided weapons, as re-entry friction generates a sheath of plasma that's hard to see out of (for self-guided systems) and impossible to radio into (for externally-guided systems). If true, this makes avoiding orbital strikes easier, as the ship just needs to move somewhat unpredictably.
__________________
My gaming blog: Thor's Grumblings Keep your friends close, and your enemies in Close Combat. |
10-01-2017, 01:40 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
The most obvious is that it is, well, obvious. Unlike a sea-skimming hypersonic anti-ship missile, which might not come into a ship's line-of-sight until a few tens of seconds before impact and which can be quite stealthy, there is no way to deorbit something at near-orbital velocity without everyone seeing it. And it's not just that they'll know as soon as the missiles hit atmo. Unless you've got some super-science reactionless drives that just plain don't emit any heat or radiation of any kind, it will be perfectly obvious to any nation with basic sensors the moment you launch the attack. The ships will know there's an orbital attack in their area probably tens of minutes before the attack lands, if not longer (And an immediate change of course at high speed with a long lead-time might bleed some of the missile's energy and complicate the already difficult sensor situation during reentry). The attack profile is also near-ideal for missile defense systems. Something like the modern SM-3 is designed to take out de-orbiting threats such as ballistic missiles, and would probably find this TL10 reentry vehicle an average target (Maneuverability when re-entering at near-orbital velocities is basically nil unless you want to tear your own vehicle apart). Further, being a solid kinetic-kill warhead provides no benefit here; most intercepting missiles would probably be kinetic-kill as well, and even a glancing blow would be enough to tear apart a reentry vehicle travelling at those speeds. And this is with a missile that's 1.5-2 TLs behind; I'd expect more advanced missiles to be even better. Then you've got air-defense lasers, which get a nice, clear shot of an easily detected target, and while the kill-vehicles' heat shielding will provide some protection, I'd expect it wouldn't save them, and it certainly wouldn't save their sensors. Finally, since we're dealing with self-guided projectiles, it's quite possible that they'd have to slow to "just" hypersonic velocities simply to detect and maneuver on-target (See modern ballistic anti-ship missiles like the DF-21D), negating their one advantage over sea-skimming missiles. Between these, I would expect high, extremely-visible missiles to fare poorly against point defense measures. You'd need to saturate enemy defenses, making it more of a brute-force option. So if you can afford to throw dozens of guided hypersonic reentry vehicles at a surface ship, and don't mind that it might take an hour or so to land (Or, if based in LEO, potentially longer to launch), then it could be viable. Whether it's more effective and efficient than a few stealthy sea-skimming hypervelocity missiles is going to be a rather complex question. |
|
10-01-2017, 02:16 PM | #9 | |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What would naval warfare at TL10 look like?
Quote:
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
|
10-02-2017, 02:49 PM | #10 | |
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. |
|
Tags |
naval warfare, ultra-tech |
|
|