Hydrocarbon Fuel Cells for 3e

[Anthony]

Given the stealth available in the system, I suggest removing all the active sensors and active defense systems and replacing them with stealth systems and radar/ladar detectors. They can't detect you with passives, and you can detect their active sensors from outside of their sensor range, so just avoid everything.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

From my understanding, it's less 'ubiquitous' and more 'very common'... although it might be our definitions of ubiquitous being skewed.

Recent advances in technology have made ATGMs more man-portable while at least retaining effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised that everyone would be running around with a light version of the Javelin-made-TAC Missile in the future. This is especially interesting given that the US Army has been implementing something akin to the TAC missile by using the radar variant of the Hellfire in its new SHORAD system.

Javelin is still a 35 pound round. General issue LAWs are generally under 20 pounds for the entire loaded (usually single-shot disposable) weapon. That's a pretty big jump.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Think of it this way, just a while back Rathyon had revealed a 40mm micro missile that can be used in the bog-standard underslung grenade launcher. This capability gives soldiers a decent-sized boost to their anti-vehicle/structure capability using an HEDP warhead similar to the ones used in the standard HiLo grenades.

While the HEDP warhead wouldn't be dangerous for, say, a tank, it would be for something like light combat cars (like the humvee and successors) and APCs at the minimum with certainty against any electronics and other sensitive equipment.

Remember that the primary defense of a modern combat vehicle, like a modern infantry soldier, is cover and concealment. The real HMMWV wasn't designed to be a midget APC and it didn't exactly do a great job when turned into one.

Is this thing immune to small arms? Because if not, worrying about whether it's safe against 40mm missiles is kinda missing the point.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

The energy ADS system is for hypersonic missiles, which would be immune to anything that doesn't use a UV (or X-Ray) wavelength pulse laser thanks to that plasma sheath. Note the only other weapon in that ADS unit is a 2mm gatling railgun that is fairly short-ranged compared to the UV pulse laser.

Well, the big problem is that you design your forces against your enemies, and when two of them love to make sure that they get fire in all directions (either with lots of launchers or quite a few rapid-fire launchers)...

... unless you've got your turrets using electromagnetic levitation mountings (i.e. instead of a traditional turret mounting, they're in a maglev environment, which makes them far faster at the fraction of the mass cost), you're going to need multiple turrets. Since you need NBC capability to keep out Tiberium (at the minimum)... EM turrets aren't going to be viable.

The problem is that you're trying to design a "humvee" that can stand off an attack that would threaten a carrier battle group. A war machine kinda needs to accept mortality at some point rather than evolving into an Ogre in a futile attempt to reject it.

Depending on what stats you're assigning it, a 2mm gatling railgun could easily be an appropriate main weapon for such a vehicle.

(Tangentially, since the ADS turrets are necessarily automated, it doesn't seem that there would be any conflict between the NBC seal and the maglev mounting. The entire turret assembly would just be outside the sealed crew space.)

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

The reality of the situation is that, well, it's going to be in the coming days as guided micro-missiles and ATGMs proliferate to ubiquitous levels. We're starting to see vehicles be fitted with ADS systems, and it's only going to get more common as time goes on. It would probably be a situation where everyone and their brother slaps ADS systems -or, as you put it, CIWS- on every vehicle that can do so just to stem the missile-a-paluza that a future battlefield is going to be.

Let alone CnC's in/famous 'vehicular/building and guided weapons are 100% accurate unless shenanigans (like, oh, CnC Generals' China's ECM tank 'lol'ing missiles)' battlefield.

Missiles aren't going to be quite as common as that. If they were, they would already be. The thing is, missiles are heavy and they are either slow or not stealthy as well.

[GURPS Fox]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Given the stealth available in the system, I suggest removing all the active sensors and active defense systems and replacing them with stealth systems and radar/ladar detectors. They can't detect you with passives, and you can detect their active sensors from outside of their sensor range, so just avoid everything.

From my understanding, not possible within the framework of CnC Tiberium. You have to be active or be useless. In addition, only one faction can stealth-up like that and the vehicle isn't part of that faction. Not to mention that the IR Stealth and regular Stealth get into the metric ton range beyond basic...

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Javelin is still a 35 pound round. General issue LAWs are generally under 20 pounds for the entire loaded (usually single-shot disposable) weapon. That's a pretty big jump.

The thing is, with systems like Raython's 40mm micro-missile system showing up, they're getting lighter and given the rate of proliferation these days is pretty high...

Remember that the primary defense of a modern combat vehicle, like a modern infantry soldier, is cover and concealment. The real HMMWV wasn't designed to be a midget APC and it didn't exactly do a great job when turned into one.

It's supposed to be transporting a recon squad in the field and give them some sensor support. Part of the eyes and ears, so to speak.

Is this thing immune to small arms? Because if not, worrying about whether it's safe against 40mm missiles is kinda missing the point.

The vehicle is designed around the local equiv of battle rifles, with the ADS for stopping Akmad the GLA recoilless rifle operator (who uses something akin to the 40mm micro-missile and RPGs) and his buddies from sending the vehicle (and the scouts) to kingdom come.

The problem is that you're trying to design a "humvee" that can stand off an attack that would threaten a carrier battle group. A war machine kinda needs to accept mortality at some point rather than evolving into an Ogre in a futile attempt to reject it.

Given that 'western' nations can't accept that. The moment a soldier gets hurt, people quickly start going 'bring the troops home'. I wouldn't be surprised that, to deal with ADS, anti-vehicle missiles are going to become hypersonic to deal with them, that is if they don't go the Battletech route of 'all ze missiles'.

Depending on what stats you're assigning it, a 2mm gatling railgun could easily be an appropriate main weapon for such a vehicle.

Not when the AR/LMG damage roll is 9d6+2 (in Vehicles, a 2mm very-short railgun is 4d6-1).

(Tangentially, since the ADS turrets are necessarily automated, it doesn't seem that there would be any conflict between the NBC seal and the maglev mounting. The entire turret assembly would just be outside the sealed crew space.)

That's a 'yes and no' proposition from my understanding, given that you've got to power them anyway, which means breaches in the protection (or, more probably, weak points) which, combined with Tiberium's nasty ability to cause radiation poisoning+ though any breach... especially in the TW2 and TW3 variants of Tib (yeah, it mutates just to spite you).

Originally Posted by Rupert

Missiles aren't going to be quite as common as that. If they were, they would already be. The thing is, missiles are heavy and they are either slow or not stealthy as well.

That's not exactly the case in the coming days, at least from my understanding. Between sensors getting way better, RWS becoming a thing (and the coming implementation of 'autonomous' fire control for said RWS, given that we've had something similar since the 1970s via the Sgt. Ford project)...

... either you have to consider squads of soldiers to be acceptable casualties (fat chance you're going to get this approved by 'Western' governments) or stay away as far as possible and hope for the best.

Guess what is far more digestible for western military leaders when confronted with political realities?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

The thing is, with systems like Raython's 40mm micro-missile system showing up, they're getting lighter and given the rate of proliferation these days is pretty high...

That still has all the firepower of a 40mm grenade. A rather core and rather large component of an ATGM is an actual anti-tank warhead and the means to move it. Unlike guidance tech, that's not really shrinking dramatically or likely to.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

It's supposed to be transporting a recon squad in the field and give them some sensor support. Part of the eyes and ears, so to speak.

The vehicle is designed around the local equiv of battle rifles, with the ADS for stopping Akmad the GLA recoilless rifle operator (who uses something akin to the 40mm micro-missile and RPGs) and his buddies from sending the vehicle (and the scouts) to kingdom come.

So you're building a LAV, not a humvee.

And multiple defense turrets is still overkill.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Given that 'western' nations can't accept that. The moment a soldier gets hurt, people quickly start going 'bring the troops home'.

You cannot fight an actual war on that basis. There's absolutely no way GDI operates under no-acceptable-casualties rules. (You can't run a training exercise on that basis either.)

For them to even get close you'd need to give them a lot more tech, and make this thing unmanned. Or at a minimum make it a behind-lines drone-control station rather than a front-line recon vehicle. And forget about the dismount infantry.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

That's a 'yes and no' proposition from my understanding, given that you've got to power them anyway, which means breaches in the protection (or, more probably, weak points) which, combined with Tiberium's nasty ability to cause radiation poisoning+ though any breach... especially in the TW2 and TW3 variants of Tib (yeah, it mutates just to spite you).

Then it's impossible to do at all, because your drive train and many of your sensors need to be partly or entirely outside the sealed compartment.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

That's not exactly the case in the coming days, at least from my understanding. Between sensors getting way better, RWS becoming a thing (and the coming implementation of 'autonomous' fire control for said RWS, given that we've had something similar since the 1970s via the Sgt. Ford project)...

How do remote weapon systems/stations, assuming that's what you're abbreviating, induce missile proliferation?

Also, we've had them since WWII. Primarily on aircraft, where there was a stronger motivation to separate the gunner and the gun.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You cannot fight an actual war on that basis. There's absolutely no way GDI operates under no-acceptable-casualties rules.

Well, no way compatible with the vehicle being talked about making sense. The way you do no-casualties is by not having any actual personnel in the field, just drones.

[GURPS Fox]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That still has all the firepower of a 40mm grenade. A rather core and rather large component of an ATGM is an actual anti-tank warhead and the means to move it. Unlike guidance tech, that's not really shrinking dramatically or likely to.

From my understanding, it's something of a 'yes and no' answer when it comes to guidance packages, largely due to the fact that

So you're building a LAV, not a humvee.

Tell that to the Humvee's replacement... minus the numerous sensors.

And multiple defense turrets is still overkill.

Then tell that to modern ADS systems, which have multiple turrets/launchers as standard. Even APCs get this treatment.

You cannot fight an actual war on that basis. There's absolutely no way GDI operates under no-acceptable-casualties rules. (You can't run a training exercise on that basis either.)

Militaries of the west are starting to have to do that sort of thing today (I distinctly remember the vocal discontent the moment bodies and limbless soldiers started showing up back when Afghanistan first started). Hell, the eventual end-doctrine of GDI before TW3 was 'use units to flush out Nod, send Nod to hell via ion cannon' largely because GDI didn't have the manpower to pull much in terms of casualties.

While this sentiment has eroded somewhat in my 'remake' version of the setting, it's still powerful enough to influence doctrine. For better or for worse.

For them to even get close you'd need to give them a lot more tech, and make this thing unmanned. Or at a minimum make it a behind-lines drone-control station rather than a front-line recon vehicle. And forget about the dismount infantry.

Canonically, drones, as we know them, are a dead end in CnC Tiberium-verse unless you decide to slap AGIs into them... which they don't because of CABAL's little rebellion in Firestorm.

While the 'remake' version is a bit more relaxed than canon (and that GDI has its own AGI in the form of GOLAN, a byproduct of EVA improvement research, and is -in setting- very excited at proving itself), drones, as we know them, are a dead-end. Add to this that AGI mass production is still relatively new...

Then it's impossible to do at all, because your drive train and many of your sensors need to be partly or entirely outside the sealed compartment.

Somehow GDI and Nod canonically found a way to NBCT-proof their vehicles that they simply dispose of affected vehicles by TW2 instead of dealing with Tib-poisoning victims after every deployment. Remember in the GDI campaign, one of the missions started with 60% of GDI's troops either suffering from or already succumbed to Tib-poisoning despite the protection that NBC kits provided (GDI's SoP when it came to infantry and Tib fields was, essentially, load up in an NBC-equipped APC, cross the field, unload a fair distance away, and in that order). At least, that's the implication.

Also, all the fun carbon stuff (CNTs, various carbon composites, the like) is also useless as Tib loves to screw around with carbon. Most common case? You die and become a giant pile of tib. Worst case? Becoming a Vicceroid, which requires anti-tank weapons to properly kill.

How do remote weapon systems/stations, assuming that's what you're abbreviating, induce missile proliferation?

Also, we've had them since WWII. Primarily on aircraft, where there was a stronger motivation to separate the gunner and the gun.

RWS means, in this case, the Remote Weapon System, and from my understanding, ground-side RWS were first tested out by the Nazis with at least a project to give the Hetzer some anti-infantry weaponry. Aircraft using them is something new to me, as I've only seen one tiny blurb of the B-29 having 20mm-armed turrets that were remotely controlled and that was that.

My understanding was that it induced the need for longer-range weapons (because pilots and planes are expensive) and since cannons won't exactly work, missiles became the go-to weapon to bypass aircraft RWS systems, leading them to be retired on anything resembling a modern airforce.

On the ground, the majority of the vehicular weapons were already deadly to soldiers, leading to a situation where Joe/Ivan/Hans/[insert common first name of any language here] the AT gunner has to hope to whomever god he worships that his shot rings true or he and his squad will die very messily to return fire (HE rounds, despite Hollywood downplaying them, are no joke). This led to the USSR developing a viable ATGM system, which was (comparatively) more accurate and had a greater range than many recoilless rifles.

This presented a conundrum for everyone. At this point, the idea of making an RWS system on a vehicle stayed on the back burner because there was no real need and various required technologies (mostly in cameras and view-screens) weren't all that developed yet. The vehicle armaments killed infantry quite well, and usually at a far greater range than what infantry could muster. ATGMs change that equation, and probably at the worst possible time as composite armor wouldn't be practical until the early 1970s and wasn't mass implemented until the late 1970s at the least. Add to the fact that most pintle-mounted guns still used iron sights instead of various scopes and you still have to pop your head out to use it (which means, well, your tank commander is one moment away from someone blowing his head off, and in the chaotic battlefield, that's a matter of when, not if). Note the latter problem was having the old standby of 'throw darts at the board and see what sticks' RnD causing things like the M60's turret cupola system.

As ATGMs improved (and tanks struggled to keep up), this requirement became more and more prominent. By the 1980s, the first of what we can see as RWS stations started to appear... but it was a bit of a "too little, too late" situation as the Cold War ended. So, they went to the back burner again... then 9/11 and Afghanistan happened, causing the mass implementation of the RWS systems we see today.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Tell that to the Humvee's replacement... minus the numerous sensors.

...You're referring to what? The JLTV has almost no armor in the base configuration and does not have an ADS system.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Then tell that to modern ADS systems, which have multiple turrets/launchers as standard. Even APCs get this treatment.

Most of them don't get that treatment, and if they did it would be one of the light versions.

Also, the launchers typically used are a very different proposition than a turret mounting multiple automatic weapons.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Militaries of the west are starting to have to do that sort of thing today (I distinctly remember the vocal discontent the moment bodies and limbless soldiers started showing up back when Afghanistan first started). Hell, the eventual end-doctrine of GDI before TW3 was 'use units to flush out Nod, send Nod to hell via ion cannon' largely because GDI didn't have the manpower to pull much in terms of casualties.

While this sentiment has eroded somewhat in my 'remake' version of the setting, it's still powerful enough to influence doctrine. For better or for worse.

And modern militaries of the west don't fight wars much, and only with hopelessly outclassed opponents, so that sort of works a little bit. Except the US, at least, demonstrably can conduct a prolonged occupation with frequent violence in recent years.

France and possibly Britain in WWII intended a heavily mechanized strategy because they didn't think they had enough manpower to absorb massive infantry casualties again. Trying to conserve manpower isn't the same thing as being unable to accept casualties.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Canonically, drones, as we know them, are a dead end in CnC Tiberium-verse unless you decide to slap AGIs into them... which they don't because of CABAL's little rebellion in Firestorm.

While the 'remake' version is a bit more relaxed than canon (and that GDI has its own AGI in the form of GOLAN, a byproduct of EVA improvement research, and is -in setting- very excited at proving itself), drones, as we know them, are a dead-end. Add to this that AGI mass production is still relatively new...

The point isn't 'drones are a good idea', the point is 'casualties are a certainty if you put a manned recon car on the front line'.

Dismounting the recon squad is similarly unsafe.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Somehow GDI and Nod canonically found a way to NBCT-proof their vehicles that they simply dispose of affected vehicles by TW2 instead of dealing with Tib-poisoning victims after every deployment. Remember in the GDI campaign, one of the missions started with 60% of GDI's troops either suffering from or already succumbed to Tib-poisoning despite the protection that NBC kits provided (GDI's SoP when it came to infantry and Tib fields was, essentially, load up in an NBC-equipped APC, cross the field, unload a fair distance away, and in that order). At least, that's the implication.

...Yes, the intended takeaway was that obviously you can run power feeds across the seal without breaking it, so needing to do so for the turret is not a problem.

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

RWS means, in this case, the Remote Weapon System, and from my understanding, ground-side RWS were first tested out by the Nazis with at least a project to give the Hetzer some anti-infantry weaponry. Aircraft using them is something new to me, as I've only seen one tiny blurb of the B-29 having 20mm-armed turrets that were remotely controlled and that was that.

My understanding was that it induced the need for longer-range weapons (because pilots and planes are expensive) and since cannons won't exactly work, missiles became the go-to weapon to bypass aircraft RWS systems, leading them to be retired on anything resembling a modern airforce.

That's a terrible blurb, since the B-29 was armed with .50 caliber machine guns, not 20mm. (The last B-52 model did have a 20mm tail gun, which was also remotely operated and entirely radar-directed.) It and a few other aircraft had remote-controlled weapons. Most bombers and some heavy fighters and CAS aircraft in WWII (and WWI) had defensive guns, though most such guns were directly operated rather than remotely.

I believe the relevant advantage of remote weapons was to do with streamlining, ergonomics, and maybe cabin pressurization. Not that remote guns were particularly superior as weapons.

Shooting down heavy and heavily armed bombers without getting close to them was indeed among the motivations for AAM development, and the primary motivation of some rather amusing weapons before guided AAMs established themselves. (AIR-2 Genie rocket anyone?)

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

On the ground, the majority of the vehicular weapons were already deadly to soldiers, leading to a situation where Joe/Ivan/Hans/[insert common first name of any language here] the AT gunner has to hope to whomever god he worships that his shot rings true or he and his squad will die very messily to return fire (HE rounds, despite Hollywood downplaying them, are no joke). This led to the USSR developing a viable ATGM system, which was (comparatively) more accurate and had a greater range than many recoilless rifles.

This presented a conundrum for everyone. At this point, the idea of making an RWS system on a vehicle stayed on the back burner because there was no real need and various required technologies (mostly in cameras and view-screens) weren't all that developed yet. The vehicle armaments killed infantry quite well, and usually at a far greater range than what infantry could muster. ATGMs change that equation, and probably at the worst possible time as composite armor wouldn't be practical until the early 1970s and wasn't mass implemented until the late 1970s at the least. Add to the fact that most pintle-mounted guns still used iron sights instead of various scopes and you still have to pop your head out to use it (which means, well, your tank commander is one moment away from someone blowing his head off, and in the chaotic battlefield, that's a matter of when, not if). Note the latter problem was having the old standby of 'throw darts at the board and see what sticks' RnD causing things like the M60's turret cupola system.

As ATGMs improved (and tanks struggled to keep up), this requirement became more and more prominent. By the 1980s, the first of what we can see as RWS stations started to appear... but it was a bit of a "too little, too late" situation as the Cold War ended. So, they went to the back burner again... then 9/11 and Afghanistan happened, causing the mass implementation of the RWS systems we see today.

RWS aren't about making weapons more effective or longer ranged, they're about letting them be operated while keeping the crew behind armor and with less vulnerability, bulk, and weight than adding on a mini-turret that somebody sticks their head into to operate.

I don't believe RWS and ATGMs are meaningfully connected. A tank will engage a known ATGM position with its main armament (not unlike how earlier tanks would react to an AT gun). They do not want those people alive anywhere near them. Counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for that matter anywhere else have not, as I understand it, involved a lot of incoming ATGMs. (There were at least a few in Gaza in 2014, but that's not exactly an insurgency situation.) ATGMs are big, expensive, and specialized, and mostly are buying long range with that. Insurgents usually use LAWs, in bulk, from ambush if at all possible.

Automated gunlaying is a separate thing from RWS, though obviously they can be used together. Mature WWII naval gunnery is (barring serious combat damage) automated - turrets take instructions from central rangefinding systems and a ballistic computer. The guns were, in general, still manually loaded!

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by GURPS Fox

Then tell that to modern ADS systems, which have multiple turrets/launchers as standard. Even APCs get this treatment.

Air defence systems go on dedicated vehicles, not on APCs. Yes, they might be mounted on an APC chassis (or an old tank's) but they do not remain an APC or tank - they become a new class of vehicle.

Anti-ATGM systems are much smaller and lighter and have a very limited number of shots before they have to be reloaded (and often refurbished as well). What's more, they're mounted on tanks, not on most APCs.

[Rupert]

Back to the original problem:

A 4MW powerplant running at near maximum output for 10 hours is going to be large and heavy (especially if it's to be mounted in an off-road vehicle and thus be subjected to all kinds of bumps and shocks) and consume a considerable mass of fuel, and there's really nothing you can do about that.