Can we all agree that military starships will likely look like the Halo ships -- space ships built around massive cannons with extreme range and firepower?
>Can we all agree
You know good and goddamn well that we can't agree about anything here.
Probably. Keep in mind they used these ships for orbital bombardment as well.The missile is practically obsolete since they can easily be shot down. You can't shoot down a a 30' 600 ton depleted uranium slug fired at 12,000 kilometers per second.
No. Military spaceships will look exactly like subs with orbital rings for motion.
Why would space ships designed for combat EVER look like a naval ship in an area that is more like the ocean? Space combat would be so fucking tense that I would never want man to witness it. Sub hunting with subs is bad enough but imagine being able to detect the heat from engines from literal planet distances away and launching weapons designed to cause explosive decompression.
The ships in Halo are fast enough to the point where they can get from Earth to Mars in just a few hours. This is without the slip space drive btw.
They also have an insane amount of armor. You get a decompression? Than you just seal off that area. You need to aim for as much damage as possible with one hit that can't be evaded. Coil guns/rail guns are the only way.
>building a ship around a cannon
No, we can't agree on that, because your ship will be build around the drive if it's made to go anywhere at all. Even if your gun dominates the rest of the design, it's still going to be a relatively small percentage.
Not unless you're using a siege weapon for stationary targets.
>You get a decompression? Than you just seal off that area.
we do that already
Yeah, but you get what I mean. I you have a slow moving or entrenched target down on the surface of a planet/moon/whathaveyou, or a space station with sluggish maneuvering, kinetics are fine, but you'd want missiles or lasers for anything capable of quick response.
so if ships in halo are fast, why do they rely on railguns? why wouldn't they utilize what makes their ships fast to make the missiles faster? why would they use something that once launched cannot gain positive control over its direction and speed?
I don't know what this is from so I could be missing something, but
>Ship meant to travel only in space
Always bugged the crap out of me
>Ship in movie flying through space
>Engines on the entire time
>When they want to slow down or stop, they simply shut the engines off
Time to prove this guy right.
Honestly. No. No they will not.
At least not any time soon.
Extrapolating off of current technology, the earliest 'military' star ships are going to be cramped, covered in missile bays, point defense guns, radar and as many heat sinks as we can fit on them.
It's going to be a amazingly long distance version of submarine warfare, where you find a target, acquire a firing solution, fire, hope to hell he hasn't spotted you and that you hit him first, because the moment a missile gets through, things are going poorly for whoever is hit.
Engagements will be dictated by those with the best sensor range, missile range, and ability to maneuver.
Before somebody says "But weapon range is INFINITE in space". Yes. So is, technically, ship range.
Technically, I could sit in Houston, do the math and fire off a package at Mars with reasonable accuracy, it's what we call the math behind the Rover missions anyhow.
Technically means a whole lot of shit that boils down to the fact that you still have to be reasonably expected to find and destroy your target, and in the fucking, amazing, goddamn huge, seriously I cannot impress this enough, large distances in space, even radar is going to take time to actually get back to you once you get far enough. For example. say you bounce a radar wave from the earth to the moon, it will take a second to get there, and a second to get back.
Anywhere from 4 minutes to 24 minutes for Mars.
So you still have to be close enough to your target, for your firing solution to not be an echo that's seconds to minutes out of date.
This is assuming we ever actually even bother to engage in space warfare beyond parking a mothership up above a planet with a payload of nuclear fuck you, which is a whole different game and ballpark.
That all said, Halo has some pretty nifty looking space ships.
Still prefer Homeworld 2's though.
So please tell me how your massive cannon is going to hit something that moves in 3 dimensions on a dime and doesnt need to turn to do so. The reason that cannons, and even lasers, are dumb is because in space, you are either fighting at stupidly close range or stupidly long range. Long range is literally a pot luck game like old naval battles where you are adding another axis of travel since now you have vertical to deal with as well and short range is literally a zero sum game of 'If I die, I'm going to set off every weapon I have as well so enjoy your raped anus'. Space combat would be horrible aside from the environment because it's effectively ocean combat without any of the terrain. Enjoy being paranoid as shit while stalking one another and praying someone runs over one of the 5000 drone/mine/missile pod combos you have about so that it can radiation burst the enemy to give you an idea where he is and to light him up while launching everything from nukes to penetrators in a hope to get a kill.
>.The missile is practically obsolete since they can easily be shot down. You can't shoot down a a 30' 600 ton depleted uranium slug fired at 12,000 kilometers per second.
No, but you can easily move out of the way.
I think we will be more likely to field space born carriers
to decelerate as fast as you accelerate, you'd need engines of equal power on both sides
you'd just doubled your engine mass for no reason
big motor for pushing
tiny ones for direction change
I haven't actually but the poster stressing "da speed of da railguns is all dats important" is just so aggravating. the most sensible solution to space combat if needed is a combination of literally everything.
and that does what that missile technology couldn't eventually out-think or run?
You have maneuvering thrusters for that.
>but you said-
I know. But you don't use dinky maneuvering thrusters to actually decelerate your ship. That's what the main engines are for.
>doubled your engine mass for no reason
The reason is that the fuel required to turn around the entire ship every time to decelerate would easily be more efficiently replaced with engines which weigh slightly more but are much more compact.
As an aside, and perhaps one of my favorite little space fighters ever, behold the Starfury from Babylon 5.
Otherwise known as the closest to realistic space fighters a TV series has gotten in a long time. Exceptions for any that just used unmanned drones like any sane person fighting in space.
wouldn't they paint the ships black so they blend in with the background?
I know it's likely not going to have much of an effect because if you can see the other ship with the bare eye something as gone horribly wrong, but still
>implying smaller means more fuel efficient
>implying you don't mind spending longer to decelerate yet you have something spergy against taking the time to rotate your ship
Are you pretty much saying that going faster and slowing down are different because you're in space?
Right, because Iowa class battleships were designed with speed in mind.
No, I'm saynig going faster and slowing down are the same. Because you're in space.
The only thing that allows you to say whether you're "accelerating" or "decelerating" is your point of reference. Physically you're doing the exact same fucking thing either way.
>No, I'm saynig going faster and slowing down are the same. Because you're in space.
I'm really not sure if you're just fucking with me at this point. Please elaborate on "Going faster and slowing down are the same because you're in space". What is your reasoning?
It's a good idea for troop transport at least.
Have a carrier with a light escort behind the main group, have it shit out shuttles filled with troops on to disabled ships intended for capture/stations/planets
"Going faster" and "slowing down" just mean changing your speed. To change your speed a certain amount takes the exact same amount of work whether you are "speeding up" or "slowing down", these are words that wouldn't even have meaning without a reference point.
>Iowa class battleships were designed with speed in mind
>top seed 32.5 knots
I haven't, so I suppose that's a good thing. I'm just confused on anon's reasoning that reducing one's speed is the same as increasing it.
Hell, I'm in /k/, why should I expect any different?
I stand corrected
And then you realise that explosives in space are next to useless because there is no oxygen to carry the material.
You have to make bigger bangs to produce reasonable results.
In Halo the shipboard archer missiles were essentially nukes for this exact reason.
>no oxygen to carry the material.
I honest to god hope you're thinking of pressure waves. I literally can't believe someone would be dumb enough to say
>object in space powered by explosion cannot travel due to no air.
basically all explosives come with their own oxidizer, so all they need is pressure and heat to set them off
That's just part of the good thing about missiles, payload is damn near whatever you want it to be, even if it's too bulky or fragile to be fired out of a railgun.
>it's 2014+a lot
>his missiles don't carry nuclear pumped X-ray laser payloads
We will probably have ships like the ISA cruisers which are flying skyscraper rather than flying battle ships
How is no one remembering that you have no atmosphere In space?
You can literally turn anything on a dime. A 100,000 ton battle cruiser could dip its nose 90 degrees and carry on In that course in milliseconds.
It just simply isn't the same law of movement as it is here
>You can literally turn anything on a dime
That's not how this works. In space, there is no drag. At all. Any turn you make has to include a burn to stop your momentum in another direction.
>It just simply isn't the same law of movement as it is here
>inertia and mass don't exist in space
It still takes time. A big ship can't just say fuck you to inertia and turn on a dime, and even if it could, it would rip itself apart in the process.
I'm still saying just turn around, though. Why?
Well, let's say you have a huge ship that turns relatively slowly. Why is it huge? Most likely because it has a huge drive. And why would you want a huge drive? To go a longass way. Well, if you're going a longass way, the amount of time it takes to turn your ship around to start your deceleration burn is going to be a small part of your journey. You'd lose a lot more time packing on another main drive because you're wasting fuel and time accelerating and decelerating a pointless bit of extra payload.
Meanwhile, if you have a small ship with a small drive for more limited operations, you CAN turn on a dime anyway.
How has no one mentioned weapons in space are not allowed. It will be a long ass time before that changes, if it ever does.
Later on perhaps, but in the earlier stages I think military ships would look something more like the Prometheus from Stargate, relying mostly on missiles and smaller kinetics as well as deployable fighter units
For a brief run down what people will want out of military craft in space is. That fastest possible the smallest possible packing the most firepower possible. So we will probably end up with the equivelent of a single seat fighter that can jump across a galaxy and glass a planet, if there is any human pilot at all/
it's like this, if you have two objects on a blank empty space and they're moving towards each other, one moving towards the other is indistinguishable from both moving towards the other
stationary is relative
if I'm on a train, then my suitcase is stationary relative to me, but, to an observer, the suitcase is zipping by at 60 miles and hour
this is called relativity
similarly, speeding up and slowing down are indistinguishable without outside reference
your change in momentum between 0 and 100 and 100 and 200 km/s is the same
so is 100 to 0 and 0 to -100 km/s
do you udnerstand now?
kinetic weapons have fixed velocity. missiles don't. missiles can be guided, kinetics can't.
distances in space are huge and even an object traveling 12km/s can be easily dodged if you are just 100km away. 100km is practically kissing in terms of the solar system.
Honestly the ship design can be radically different between things like nations, companies, brands, designations and roles.
You could have a frigate and a battleship sitting (floating whatever) next to each other and looks absolutely nothing alike. Mainly because design matters very little when friction and air current doesn't matter.
Hell if in the future the world continues to go the corporate route style may start to overlap function
> not in the military
> Implying the military doesn't become completely owned by corporations and your tanks start advertising pepsi
everyone else is stupid
you'd have retrograde boosters for combat maneuvering AND you'd also swing around the main engines for larger shifts in velocity with less time sensitivity than combat
The Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons in orbit and weapons emplacement on "celestial bodies," but does not in fact ban conventional weapons in space.
The Russians orbited at least one 23mm cannon on a space station IIRC, and I am sure Russia, China, and the US all have some capability to put weapons in orbit, and thus probably have.
> implying that armor can keep up with weapon development.
Those fighters could be carrying rail guns capable of putting a dozen man sized holes literally swiss cheese your ship in one pass.
>with space fighters
>when you have the ultimate high ground
>implying a fighter can do anything that a missile cannot do better for cheaper
Still fixed velocity, so it's still worse than missiles.
You fight over the stuff IN space. Control of asteroids, moons, planets, and the power to tax and regulate travel between them. There's plenty to fight over in space.
If we ever get into interstellar dogfights, I doubt the pilots will rely on windows to shoot down their targets, since space is so incredibly vast and the ships will be travelling extremely fast. We will rely on radars, computer displays, lasers, etc.
No, it ain't.
If you want to fight in space, you're going to have to fight at huge standoff distances, which means significant travel time. It's not rifle fire coming at you from 100 paces. And you see what's coming, because there's no stealth in space. So you see what's coming from a longass way away and you avoid it.
Hey, I don't know. I just said that the Prometheus seems feasible as an early ship and it also seems feasible that the military would want fighters on board, for whatever reason.
>The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 2.8×1021 to 3.2×1021 kilograms, which is just 4% of the mass of the Moon. The four largest objects, Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and 10 Hygiea, account for half of the belt's total mass, with almost one-third accounted for by Ceres alone.
> inertia n shit
>play years ago, small Corp
>Corp mining op, I'm mining
>find my spot, deploy drones and jet can, align to station
>dumbass brings Mothership into belt instead of just sending fighters
>other Corp jumps in, most of us successfully run, Mothership goes pop
>they send our CEO a mail, they did it just because of stupid Mothership pilot
>CEO pissed as fuck, I chuckle because they were right
> implying with all those resources we won't say "fuck it" and create gigantic ships that are measured in kilometers more than anything else
Didn't I just say I don't know? I don't exactly know what kind of requirements there will be of military spacecraft when we get to that level.
Space travel is kind of stuck right now because of two problems
> Fuel and propulsion
If we could get a significant discovery in either field space exploration would become a much more plausible thing
>Be on sunday bored as fuck
>CEO says hes going on a roam in a Domi
>Fuck it i'll join
>buy a thorax, quickly kit it out with blasters, plate, tackle and a repper (CEO had an armor rep booster alt with him.)
>So it was a Thorax(me) a Wolf and a Domi
>Fairly boring, went to venal to shoot carebears, had some guy in a scythe following us.
>CEO decides to hang back and see if the Scythe agresses
>The dumb nigger aggresses, domi unleashes his drones, we burn to him and apply liberal amounts of DPS all over his face.
>have to warp off barely in structure, warp back after repping armor a bit
>Scythe pops cyno
>tactically shit pants, waiting for massive hotdrop.
>a single redeemer appears as soon as the scythe pops
>Apply moar DPS to redeemer, his tank fails hard because heavy neuts on domi.
>redeemer pops, 1 bil kill. Drops deadspace mods and faction mods.
>lols were had on TS, pap created, high fives all around
Long story short, they ended up gathering a 30+ man fleet to hot drop us again with blops ships. We die in glorious fire with minimal isk lost to theirs.
The closest star is four light-years away. It takes light, the fastest thing in the fucking universe, four years to get to the closest star to us in the fucking universe, and it's a podunk shithole with nothing of interest to say about it other than "it's the closest one". There's probably not even anything terribly interesting orbiting it.
There will never be a point where everything in the universe is easily accessible. We will never even come close. And even if we did, most of it is shit.
Ask the same dude if our vision of the future back then was anything close to how amazing and advanced it turned out and he'll also laugh in your face.
I don't see flying cars, robotic butlers or a moon colony. Do you?
We make guesses based on what we know now. Not on what we might know in 70 years.