Outsider Ground War

[discord]

fred: the bradley is a rather broken design, it still works, but not really all that well and it is a classic case of too many jobs and therefor not good at any of them.
compare that to the A10, probably the best fighting aircraft ever designed, which one do you think they want to scrap more?

kinda funny really, get a design team to try and improve on the A10 for it's CAS job, not much to do, it is damn near perfect, kinda like the colt 1911.

smithy: if you can hit a moving target from a moving platform at close to 1 light second, i think hitting a known stationary target from shorter range to be VERY easy, although most orbital bombardment will probably be mass weapons, energy/particle/beam weapons do not get along with atmosphere, and it would be rather easy to get payload effect anywhere between mortar strike and small tac nuke.

basically orbital weapons if you have them are pretty much just better, biggest issue would be time on target, longer distance to travel gives the enemy time to move.

<edit>
just thought of something, advanced canister shot would work great, fin stabilized with control surfaces, targeted and with 'sub munitions' in the form of ball bearings....should work great at that velocity.
</edit>

[Smithy]

smithy: if you can hit a moving target from a moving platform at close to 1 light second, i think hitting a known stationary target from shorter range to be VERY easy, although most orbital bombardment will probably be mass weapons, energy/particle/beam weapons do not get along with atmosphere, and it would be rather easy to get payload effect anywhere between mortar strike and small tac nuke.

I never suggested it wouldn't be easy. But when there are something like 10 people in a compound 50 metres away, an orbital strike seems excessive. If not just simply dangerous to your own troops. My issue with small kinetic payloads is what's the point. Firstly assuming you can get a mortar equivalent orbital weapon on target without it burning up. What's the point of designing in basically a space version of a pea shooter for your hugely powerful Cruiser. Why would you bother, just have your infantry carry a mortar. It's also useful in how fire control works. Mortars are in your battalion, so you can get them firing quickly and easily with one call on the wireless. There would be one hell of a communication/command chain to get the big ships in orbit to throw pebbles at the ground.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

The good news we can use the guns to take them out before they get in position...they are expensive and only built on major planets or real importance or on orbital defense platforms.

[daelyte]

http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/200 ... -well.html

I disagree significantly. I think he's stacking the deck by assuming the ships will be in low orbit (why?) and in the process unfairly dismissing the cost of producing sufficient munitions to strike and orbiting target, he's handwaving the cost of firing a laser through atmosphere, and he's ignoring CIWS-style defenses whose range is vastly increased when it's working with gravity and without air friction and anti-missile nukes which could wipe out an entire wave of incoming attackers.

Did you even read the article? He covers all that and more, and then there's further comments like this:

"But while kinetics launched down from space don't need boosters, if they are launched from high orbits the surface defense also has plenty of time to engage them. And since they have to pass through the atmosphere beaucoup fast, even minor pitting will degrade their accuracy if not cause a failure.

So in a missile dominant environment, I see high orbit as a standoff, with neither side in good tactical position to reach out and touch the other."

Orbital bombardment make artillery and bombers somewhat obsolete.

I would disagree, especially if you're fighting asymmetrical warfare. If enemy forces are holed up in a compound 50 metres away, a laser guided bomb or artillery/ mortar shell will do the job.

I agree the ground attack role is important, but I think antigrav flying tanks would cover that. What I meant was that orbital bombardment covers any need for heavy bombardment from higher altitudes.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

Also I bet the Loroi wouldn't put everything in one place they can destroy the guns but taking them is a lot harder as you have to take the guns themselves...the control centers and power plants...plus ammo bunkers that store the powerful rounds and support facilities to maintain them. There are also over rides they need to by pass to make the guns fire on a ally fail safes.

[discord]

smithy: why put dedicated orbital bombardment on a 'cruiser' to begin with...? put'em on the friggin troop transports.

if a warship wants to do major damage on a planetary target, no problem, can do, say goodbye to target....however, if you want PRECISE orbit to ground weapons with a minimum of collateral damage....use dedicated ground weapons, especially that 'minimum of collateral damage' part.

the only reason for troops is if you want to grab something on the ground, the only time you really care about shooting on the ground and bother about collateral is if you want something on the ground to survive, you need a ship to move troops, put orbital artillery on the same boat, add Command and Control to the ship and surveillance tech...voila, good command center that carries what you need for ground engagements with it.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

The best tactic is orbital defense or make it impossible to get into weapons range of the planet. The S-MACs had the ability to fire at targets 2/3rds the way to the moon.

[Trantor]

Everytime when someone describes a multipurpose vehicle, it reminds me from this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

dont know if i should laught or cry...

Just shrug. It´s the same everywhere. I could tell from the A380 cleanup, but i signed a NDA (or better: several NDAs...).

I wonder what about surface to space Mass Drivers like the UNSC Super MAC on the ground?

I would use them as a (important) part of a CIWS.

For further range i´d use beam weapons. A super-cannon on a ship is limited in size, power and effectivity. A cannon on the ground can be much much bigger and powerful (grid, maybe even with renewables *g*), with a way better cadence (cooling!) and way more range, atmosphere or not.

Gaining space superiority over a well defended planet is not an easy walk in the park.

[Just a Crazy-Man]

Nope but we can make it alot harder.

[pinheadh78]

Speaking of ground based energy weapons see the XKCD what-if which though over-blown gives a pretty good idea of how energy weapons and atmospheres get along. http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/

For orbital bombardment with mass-drivers they also have a pretty cool physics what-if for impacts. http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/

[Arioch]

I expect that lasers would be reasonably effective through atmosphere, especially if they have an appropriate frequency. Particle beams might have some use, though they would probably have to be specifically designed for atmospheric use. Plasma weapons would be mostly useless. Nuclear weapons obviously do a lot of damage, but can be intercepted. Mass drivers would be very effective against targets that can't dodge, so they would be mostly useful by space forces against ground targets, and by ground bases against space targets in very close orbit.

But the real killer on the side of the space forces is bombs or missiles containing matter-conversion fuel (such as antimatter). This fuel is readily available to any starship, and the delivery mechanism doesn't have to be very sophisticated at all... a minimally-guided bomb will do just fine. Because intercepting an antimatter weapon doesn't do the planetary defender much good -- the payload will still go off, and/or spray antimatter over the target. There is almost no defense against such a weapon, except to prevent it from being launched in the first place.

[Trantor]

But the real killer on the side of the space forces is bombs or missiles containing matter-conversion fuel (such as antimatter). This fuel is readily available to any starship, and the delivery mechanism doesn't have to be very sophisticated at all... a minimally-guided bomb will do just fine. Because intercepting an antimatter weapon doesn't do the planetary defender much good -- the payload will still go off, and/or spray antimatter over the target.

Of which distance do you speak? I mean the interception/kaboom distance?

[Just a Crazy-Man]

I had a idea to launch a long range guided anti matter missile at high speed from a mass driver. Too fast to intercept plus at that speed take out any ship plus small engine fire to make sure it fly's into the right target.

[Trantor]

For orbital bombardment with mass-drivers they also have a pretty cool physics what-if for impacts. http://what-if.xkcd.com/20/

Hehe, this is gold.


Another one for impacts below relative effects:

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

[daelyte]

@discord:
You mean a combined drop ship, fire support and command center? That would make a lot of sense in this context. It should be big enough to carry AFVs anyway, armored enough to be hard to shoot down, and it has to be able to go from orbit to ground and back, so the ability to carry out precision strikes from various altitudes would be compatible. The same chassis could be flexible enough to retrofit depending on the situation to act as a fully specialized drop ship, bomber, or command center, or some hybrid of the three.

@Arioch:

Because intercepting an antimatter weapon doesn't do the planetary defender much good -- the payload will still go off, and/or spray antimatter over the target. There is almost no defense against such a weapon, except to prevent it from being launched in the first place.

It's no worse than relativistic weapons, and probably easier to intercept before it ever gets close to the planet. If they can stop an asteroid going at 90% the speed of light, they can certainly stop an antimatter weapon well before it reaches the atmosphere.

Space forces can't come very close (no closer than the moon, at least) to a fortified planet without being vulnerable to formidable planetary defenses. Anything coming towards the planet from that distance can be intercepted by point defenses same as if they were coming towards any other large ship. You can forget landing any troops in that scenario either. The easiest options against a fortified planet is probably to blockade it until you can assemble an overwhelming force, or sneak in and sabotage.

If the planet can launch ASATs from aircraft and subs and has a few bunkers with point defenses but no long-range defenses, you still wouldn't want to orbit or invade but you can bombard it from deep space safely enough. They can probably stop most of what you throw at them, but if you're far enough that they can't do much about it, some will get through eventually. In this case it may be possible to thin out the defenses enough for eventual invasion.

If there are little or no spaceward defenses, you can bomb from orbit but you can also invade and try to capture what's there relatively intact. There could be some resistance, but nothing can come into the open without the risk of getting bombed by your space forces.

[Arioch]

Of which distance do you speak? I mean the interception/kaboom distance?

I was referring to orbit (the lower the better, obviously); from LEO such a weapon would, I believe, be virtually unstoppable. Even if intercepted almost immediately, the antimatter would still spill into the upper atmosphere, causing a pretty devastating air burst. Maximum viable range of a bomb will be a function of speed, and what kind of defenses you're attempting to penetrate. Ground based-defenses that can fire through atmosphere (missiles, laser batteries, mass drivers) have very limited range; perhaps really big lasers might have a range of 40,000 km at which they could be a threat to a launching starship (mass driver range would be much less). A typical starship system transit velocity is 3,000 km/s; at that velocity, even a free-fall bomb will cross that distance in under 14 seconds. That's not much time to intercept the bombs from the ground, and even if you do, the explosion might dissipate or diffuse some of the antimatter, but you're still going to get hit. There are also other ways to deliver such a warhead: missile, torpedo, fighters, etc., but bombs are going to be the cheapest, meaning you can potentially use them in large numbers to saturate defenses.

If you are trying to penetrate space-based defenses, that's a whole different kettle of fish. You have to win the space battle before you can consider how to deal with the planet. Trying to attack a planet's surface while it still has space-based defenders is not likely to be fruitful (any more than attempting to invade England while the RAF was still operational). But ground-based weapons are not likely to play a major role in this space battle because of their limited range and field of fire.

It's no worse than relativistic weapons, and probably easier to intercept before it ever gets close to the planet. If they can stop an asteroid going at 90% the speed of light, they can certainly stop an antimatter weapon well before it reaches the atmosphere.

There aren't any relativistic weapons of this sort available; there's no practical way with Outsider tech to accelerate an asteroid to 90% lightspeed within the confines of a solar system (at 30G, it would take 255 hours and you'd have to start 827 AU from the target). If there were, I don't know how you'd stop it, but let's not get sidetracked with capabilities that we don't have.

Space forces can't come very close (no closer than the moon, at least) to a fortified planet without being vulnerable to formidable planetary defenses. Anything coming towards the planet from that distance can be intercepted by point defenses same as if they were coming towards any other large ship.

I'm not sure which "formidable planetary defenses" you're referring to; if you mean defensive fleets or orbital battle stations and weapons platforms, I'd agree that these need to be dealt with first before one can consider attacking the planet's surface. But if you're talking about ground-based defenses (which is what we've been discussing), I don't see that they have the range to threaten space forces at sufficient distance to prevent the successful launch of planet-killing weapons, as mentioned above.

Any submarine that comes close enough to the surface to engage in combat can be detected from the air (and, presumably, from orbit). A submarine that goes very deep might avoid detection, but it won't be able to engage in combat at the same time -- if they can't see you, you can't see them

I disagree. Surface ships usually don't have much in the way of noise stealthing, so I would expect submarines to be able to passively "watch" surface ships with ease while remaining undetected. Passive sonar has a long range.

We were talking about the ability of air and orbital forces to detect and attack submarines and vice versa; my comment had nothing to do with surface ships.

[daelyte]

I'm not sure which "formidable planetary defenses" you're referring to; if you mean defensive fleets or orbital battle stations and weapons platforms, I'd agree that these need to be dealt with first before one can consider attacking the planet's surface.

Anything you can put on a battle station or weapons platform, you can put on the planet itself. Ground based weapons can be much bigger and more numerous which means much longer range and more penetration, due to the lower cost for support systems (energy, heat sinks, etc). This can include deep space missiles, mass drivers, lasers, and so on.

Point defense lasers can stop incoming missiles, mass drivers can meet mass drivers, and other weapons have more limited effective range.

Not every planet would be fortified like that, of course. If there's only minimal defenses a large fleet could overwhelm them easily enough, and then you'd only have surface-to-orbit defenses to worry about.

Ground based-defenses that can fire through atmosphere (missiles, laser batteries, mass drivers) have very limited range; perhaps really big lasers might have a range of 40,000 km at which they could be a threat to a launching starship (mass driver range would be much less).

Mass driver range would be more than lasers, and missile range can be even longer still. Particle beams do have shorter effective range than lasers, but they don't work as well in an atmosphere anyway.

That's not much time to intercept the bombs from the ground, and even if you do, the explosion might dissipate or diffuse some of the antimatter, but you're still going to get hit.

Any mass intercepting that antimatter will stop it. You can literally throw bricks at it, and it will scatter itself.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... Efficiency

Any submarine that comes close enough to the surface to engage in combat can be detected from the air (and, presumably, from orbit). A submarine that goes very deep might avoid detection, but it won't be able to engage in combat at the same time -- if they can't see you, you can't see them

A submarine can launch missiles without surfacing. It gives away its position temporarily, but it can move along before it can be targeted accurately. Which leaves you dealing with missiles launched out of nowhere.

[Arioch]

Anything you can put on a battle station or weapons platform, you can put on the planet itself. Ground based weapons can be much bigger and more numerous which means much longer range and more penetration, due to the lower cost for support systems (energy, heat sinks, etc).

Lasers in this milieu are considered outdated, short-ranged weapons that are mainly useful for point defense. The long-ranged plasma weaponry that is the main weapon used in ship-to-ship combat won't work through atmosphere. Lasers and mass drivers will also have to contend with atmosphere, and so won't be as effective as weapons of the same size in space (or on airless moons). Mass drivers in particular will have a cap on maximum muzzle velocity when fired from within atmosphere (or the rounds will explode due to air friction). Ground-based weapons will also be without defensive screens.

Mass driver range would be more than lasers, and missile range can be even longer still.

The "range" of a mass driver is unlimited in terms of how far it can go, but it's very limited in terms of being able to get there in a manner timely enough to hit a maneuvering target. Even an ultra high-velocity (10% lightspeed) mass driver round takes 10 seconds to cross maximum beam range of 300,000 km, during which time a target accelerating at 30G can displace 14 km off it's current course. Mass drivers aren't very useful against maneuvering targets in space.

A submarine can launch missiles without surfacing.

Yes, but not from depth; ballistic missile submarines must come very near the surface (<50m) to launch their missiles. It's perhaps possible to design missiles that might be launched from depth, but my point was that there's no way to know what you're shooting at; if they can't see you, you can't see them either. If all you want is a hidden missile silo to use against orbital invaders, I think there are much more economical and more effective land-based alternatives.

[daelyte]

I agree lasers are mostly for point defense, due to short range and poor armor penetration.

You didn't mention missiles. Missiles have stupendous range. If your spacecraft can cross the solar system, so can your missiles. Unless it runs out of propellant or is scragged by hostile point defense, missiles will Always Hit.

The atmosphere has the same effect on lasers and mass drivers both ways. Current scramjet record is mach 9.6, or 3266 m/s so a well designed mass driver round could probably go at least as fast. That's faster than what you said was typical starship system transit velocity of 3,000 m/s.

If defensive screens are electromagnetic (like it says in the Insider), why wouldn't they work on the ground? Earth's natural magnetic field already (mostly) deflects the solar winds. Ground-based installations could simply install defensive screens.

I don't have enough details about how plasma weapons work in Outsider to comment on how they could work through atmosphere. It looks like currently the best theories for making plasma weapons work in real life involve using lasers or mass drivers to make a path through the atmosphere, and using said atmosphere to keep the plasma from spreading out.

Anything that could be used to focus plasma could also be used to block or deflect it. If you use magnetic confinement, plasma weapons wouldn't get through an electromagnetic defensive screen.

The ability of mass driver rounds to hit their target is a speed and accuracy issue not a range issue. Who says a mass driver round can't have a guidance system? Plenty of forward thrust is provided by the coil gun, so you only need enough thrust to alter course. It wouldn't be enough to chase things all over the solar system, but it could probably intercept incoming missiles and ships especially if you throw them out in volleys.

Yes, hidden missile silo is what I was going for with the subs. Detection stations can stay hidden much more easily than the actual launchers, so they can be pretty much anywhere on a planet's surface. Launching stuff without being traced back is more difficult, thus mobile and preferably stealthy weapons platforms might be preferable, taking advantage of planetary features not available to space forces. Aircraft and trucks could work too, but subs are about as stealthy as it gets.

[Trantor]

Of which distance do you speak? I mean the interception/kaboom distance?

I was referring to orbit (the lower the better, obviously); from LEO such a weapon would, I believe, be virtually unstoppable. Even if intercepted almost immediately, the antimatter would still spill into the upper atmosphere, causing a pretty devastating air burst. Maximum viable range of a bomb will be a function of speed, and what kind of defenses you're attempting to penetrate. Ground based-defenses that can fire through atmosphere (missiles, laser batteries, mass drivers) have very limited range; perhaps really big lasers might have a range of 40,000 km at which they could be a threat to a launching starship (mass driver range would be much less). A typical starship system transit velocity is 3,000 km/s; at that velocity, even a free-fall bomb will cross that distance in under 14 seconds. That's not much time to intercept the bombs from the ground, and even if you do, the explosion might dissipate or diffuse some of the antimatter, but you're still going to get hit. There are also other ways to deliver such a warhead: missile, torpedo, fighters, etc., but bombs are going to be the cheapest, meaning you can potentially use them in large numbers to saturate defenses.

If you are trying to penetrate space-based defenses, that's a whole different kettle of fish. You have to win the space battle before you can consider how to deal with the planet. Trying to attack a planet's surface while it still has space-based defenders is not likely to be fruitful (any more than attempting to invade England while the RAF was still operational). But ground-based weapons are not likely to play a major role in this space battle because of their limited range and field of fire.

Ah, i was thinking of beam weapons with far more range to keep enemies out of low orbit.