Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Avenge_December_7

Would A Space Carrier Be As Crucial To Naval Combat As Regular Carriers Are?

70 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

788
[STW-M]
Members
2,105 posts
5,907 battles

Considering how the introduction of carriers changed the face of naval warfare, would carriers be as revolutionary in space battles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
313
[SF-E]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles

Unsure. It might be a place where battleships might do well again. Or maybe just a bunch of small DD types. I'm not sure. I do know that whatever it is, we'd have to have "shields" or doulbe/triple redundancy for vacuum leaks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,231
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,418 posts
9,614 battles
3 minutes ago, Avenge_December_7 said:

Considering how the introduction of carriers changed the face of naval warfare, would carriers be as revolutionary in space battles?

Depends on the enemy.

If they are Alien Xenomorphs...   Carrier is only going to be a big egg platform in a few days.

If they are fellow 'break away' humans (rebel colony), then..  maybe.

But serious space battles usually entail some sort of parity.  If the enemy is even 20 years ahead of us in technology, they will wipe us out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,106
[SPTR]
Members
3,479 posts
5,755 battles

I don't think so. In space, there's nothing really stopping, dispersing, or decreasing the power of laser weapons. If we are talking about inter planetary warfare, the power of the weapon and the ability to detect enemy threats in advance would pretty much negate any necessity of lauching multiple small crafts that can be easily tracted by laser weapons, and cannot mount effective counter attack due to the inferior power and detection, thanks to the small hull space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
362 posts
6,828 battles

Space battles would be based on who sees who first. Think more along the lines of submarine warfare instead of surface fleet. You would strive to remain invisible and you'd never know if the enemy knows your there until you've got a shell from a railgun ripping you in half... kinda funny because the moment they fire the shell, you would know they were there. Missiles and such would also have to be equally as stealthy to make it past defense systems. And the way it works in space, any form of heat being generated or released is beyond easy to detect. Signals of any kind (radar, thermal energy such as the type generated from charging or firing a railgun, missile exhaust, etc.) are simply too easy to detect in open space.

 

"Carriers" ultimately (if you wanted to have a ship dedicated to carrying smaller craft) would be nothing more than Drone command ships (no actual pilots would be in the cockpit) between the G-forces and extra stuff just to keep the pilot alive, it simply wouldn't be worth it. But commanding those drones wouldn't really be "commanding" them as any signals sent out to the drones would be like lighting up a beacon on your ship. Instead, you'd more than likely have fully autonomous drones flying around acting as either point defense, or for additional eyes looking around for a enemy. The only time they'd receive a command is via open broadcast (in which everyone knows you there now) or via laser communication <still risky but far less a giveaway.

 

There would be no major reason to use fighters or bombers as much as any other weapon system, save for cost. But if they can be made stealthy enough to avoid being picked up by thermal detection or from them passing in front of a light source when proceeding to a target (good luck with that too), they could do a heck of a lot of damage; they would however have a near zero chance of survival the moment they are detect or attack. Watch the series "The Expanse". <you'll get a good idea of what spacecraft armor would be like in reality. So it wouldn't take much for a drone to do decent and catastrophic damage to a larger ship.

 

But really, you don't need a dedicated ship just to carry them, you could just as easily strap them to the sides of any ship and deploy them from there too... Can't say that smaller strike craft in general wont have a place in space combat, but I do believe the concept of a dedicated carrier would be pointless as any ship could fill the role of carrying these things or resupplying them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
389
[POP]
Members
1,235 posts
8,332 battles

It depends on 3 things

1) Type of engines/power supply.
2) ability to deliver damage to the target
3) ability to evade fire directed at them

In general, you have to have a system which can move a small fighter at effectively interplanetary ranges and do so quickly (like a few hours, not months like we do now). The fighter must be able to deliver sufficient damage potential to make them worthwhile. Like, a small fighter with a couple of missiles with low yield nukes would be great against something like the space shuttle or ships with minimal armor and no advanced shielding, sensors, and anti-missile systems. But against something like a Death Star, it's useless.

Finally, the fighters have to have a chance to survive delivering their payload. That means stealth or maneuverability (or both). In space, using technologies similar to what we have now, we can see the light from an ion thruster from nearly two planets away. So a fighter, under thrust would be visible a long ranges. Without constant maneuvering, it would be vulnerable to kinetic strikes or the sand cloud attack. Basically a missile launched at very high speed (like up to .6 c) containing a few million birdshot pellets. When it explodes, it would send bird shot ripping through the solarsystem at .6 c. At that speed, one pellet would basically disintegrate the Space Shuttle. So, the fighter has to be able to survive that or avoid it. 

It really all depends on the drive systems, weapon systems, and defense systems (fighter and large ship). 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
1 hour ago, Avenge_December_7 said:

Considering how the introduction of carriers changed the face of naval warfare, would carriers be as revolutionary in space battles?

Considering the rapid advances in both robotics and drones, your "Space Carrier" will most likely be a re-enforced hanger from which drones are launched and controlled, with some pretty high end AI loaded into their circuits for when they are out of range of their carrier. Expect a lot of pre-set attack formations and various methods of breaking off contact. Predator has started the countdown to pilots being obsolete, just like Pearl Harbor sounded the death knell of Battleships.

So ... Yeah, they'll be quite revolutionary, and important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
1 hour ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

we'd have to have "shields" or doulbe/triple redundancy for vacuum leaks.

Shields are a pipe dream; what we will have for the few human piloted ships there are is people living in their suits, helmets always within arms reach, and emergency patches available everywhere. Watch "The Expanse", it's amazingly realistic.

1 hour ago, The_first_harbinger said:

If we are talking about inter planetary warfare, the power of the weapon and the ability to detect enemy threats in advance would pretty much negate any necessity of lauching multiple small crafts that can be easily tracted by laser weapons, and cannot mount effective counter attack due to the inferior power and detection, thanks to the small hull space.

The way that would be overcome would be the use of an overwhelming number of smaller, lighter missiles, negating the accuracy of the lasers and degrading the defensive system as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,606
[ERN]
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,123 posts
4,270 battles

i don't think they need to build a carrier, just a huge space battleship that can hold hundreds, if not thousands of space fighters in it hanger. And still be able to wield massive weapons. It weightless in outer space, so there will be no need to have those weapons to be under heavy loads of gravity, like on earth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
788
[STW-M]
Members
2,105 posts
5,907 battles
1 hour ago, MajorRenegade said:

i don't think they need to build a carrier, just a huge space battleship that can hold hundreds, if not thousands of space fighters in it hanger. And still be able to wield massive weapons. It weightless in outer space, so there will be no need to have those weapons to be under heavy loads of gravity, like on earth

So basically a battle-star then?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
738
[HYDRO]
Members
1,590 posts
3,753 battles

I wonder how nobody has talked about the planetary attacks carriers would possibly do. Space carriers would be pretty useful in order to launch atmospheric craft to strike planetary targets, then return back after their mission and a short space flight. Of course there is the really unimportant matter of the craft being able to move on an atmosphere and in the void, the existence of atmosphere in the first place etc. :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles

Would a carrier be effective against warships? That depends on many things including ECM systems, targeting accuracy, weapon sizes... It all basically boils down to this: Is it a better option to send a bunch of a little ships at the enemy to try and peck it to death/get a lucky nuke off, or should I just shoot them with the big guns from the comfort of my own battleship? Now I'll admit that it's hardly the most accurate of space sims, but given that it got zero-G combat down fairly well I'm going to defer to Space Engineers on this and say no, in the age of computer-controlled point defense systems it is not a better option. Commerce raiding? Totally, send in the little ships so that your big carrier doesn't get spotted and can retreat more easily, don't use more resources than necessary. Stealth missions? Smaller target, fewer emissions, less chance of being spotted and hit. I can totally see a space F-117 working. But given the nature of space and what you're need to use to fight in it, I'm pretty sure that any targeting system we come up with would rule out old-school dogfight and dodging flak to dive-bomb the enemy battleship.

Yeah, as a Babylon 5 fan, I'm as sad about this as the rest of you are. I wanted my Starfuries. :Smile_sad:

5 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I don't think so. In space, there's nothing really stopping, dispersing, or decreasing the power of laser weapons. If we are talking about inter planetary warfare, the power of the weapon and the ability to detect enemy threats in advance would pretty much negate any necessity of lauching multiple small crafts that can be easily tracted by laser weapons, and cannot mount effective counter attack due to the inferior power and detection, thanks to the small hull space.

Eh... Not exactly. There's nothing in space to diffuse a laser, true, but its power would still diminish over distance as the beam spreads out. If engagement distances are spread out enough then it is certainly possible that a laser would lose effectiveness. Now kinetic weapons or unguided chemical/nuclear effect rounds, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

They would lose effectiveness at range too, but only due to accuracy loss from lead time and computer error. In the end it would all have to do with not only who sees who first, but whose engagement distance is longer/whose weapons are more accurate.

3 hours ago, Umikami said:

Shields are a pipe dream;

"Energy barrier" that stops shots in their tracks? Yes. Shielding in general? Not really! Two ideas I have in terms of "shields" that could be effective against different weapons.

First idea: 'Schürzen' shielding. Take ionized gas (anything will do), and spread it in a thick, controlled envelope around the ship using magnetic fields. You now have what is basically a mobile cloud around you that could defract and diffuse lasers, lessening their impact, as well as mucking with enemy sensors and possibly even setting off missiles and other warheads prematurely.
Second idea: Gravitic shields. We're talking space travel right? Well the ability to manipulate mass is pretty much a requirement for anything besides puttering around a single solar system, and with that comes a wonderful defense against kinetic weapons/warheads and a way to lessen the threat form missiles: Give your ship NEGATIVE gravity relative to the surrounding space. Rounds will then literally curve around your ship and sail off to oh like you actually care where (unless you do, like if there's a planet you like behind you. In which case don't use this). If any of you play Space Engineers you can test this out using gravity generators and a homemade mas driver. Just line the hull of your ship with a gravity field oriented so that "down" is away from the hull. It works great. Bonus: Free catapult effect for fighter launches.

36 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I wonder how nobody has talked about the planetary attacks carriers would possibly do. Space carriers would be pretty useful in order to launch atmospheric craft to strike planetary targets, then return back after their mission and a short space flight. Of course there is the really unimportant matter of the craft being able to move on an atmosphere and in the void, the existence of atmosphere in the first place etc. :Smile_hiding:

Sadly, as cool as that would be, orbital bombardment with either unguided ordinance or smart missiles would be the more effective option. Slowing down from orbital velocity for an attack run at any speed a human pilot can handle and then accelerating BACK into orbit would be a huge waste of fuel, not to mention the fact of required heat shielding and that atmospheric entry is one of the LEAST stealthy things this side of a Saturn V launch.

Edit: And while we're on the subject of space warfare, an idea that's always been in the back of my mind that I would KILL to see in fiction: Using a bombardment of nuclear weapons detonated above the atmosphere to create a widespread EMP prior to landing operations, neutralizing any equipment not specifically hidden or hardened against radio wave surges.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,459
[REVY]
Members
6,104 posts
5,104 battles
5 hours ago, Avenge_December_7 said:

Considering how the introduction of carriers changed the face of naval warfare, would carriers be as revolutionary in space battles?

To be honest, until payloads can be cheaply lifted off into space, or there is an asteroid mining economy in space producing rocket fuel, there's little practicality in carriers.  There's a reason we used staged rockets to get to space because it reduces deadweight and greatly increases delta v.  Just the amount of fuel a space fighter would consume would greatly limit their range capability to maneuver because the only weight they bleed off is their own fuel.  I've tried this in smaller scales in Kerbal Space Program, and even when the mothership is just a compartmentalized fuel tanks, I could only just get to Mars(Duna), and preform one landing and return and get back home, which cost me all my fuel.  In order to use space planes, the mothership would have to be very very heavy to carry all that fuel, and it would burn a godly amount of fuel just trying to haul that weight anywhere.  No, there's just no getting past the efficiency of the a gun-turret in space.  It doesn't cost much propellent to send a shell very long distances.  You could put the turret on a space station or even install them on the poles of the Moon, which would be capable of bombarding any location on Earth every few hours depending on the orbit.

pzEQ3B2o_o.jpg

 

39 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I wonder how nobody has talked about the planetary attacks carriers would possibly do. Space carriers would be pretty useful in order to launch atmospheric craft to strike planetary targets, then return back after their mission and a short space flight. Of course there is the really unimportant matter of the craft being able to move on an atmosphere and in the void, the existence of atmosphere in the first place etc. :Smile_hiding:

Actually, it takes a minimum amount of fuel to deorbit, and aerobraking would bleed away the orbital velocity (having wings make them very good at that).  Although that space plane would probably need to burn 90% of its fuel getting back into orbit so it can't really dogfight meaningfully.  I suppose you can just deploy them like gliders, launched from space so you de-orbit in the middle of an enemies airspace, conduct the mission and then fly out to an airbase, but you'd need a rocket to send that fighter back into space.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles

@Sventex *KSP suborbital high-five* That's two fellow Kerbal players I've found in botes, hooray!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
7 hours ago, Landsraad said:

'Schürzen' shielding. Take ionized gas (anything will do), and spread it in a thick, controlled envelope around the ship using magnetic fields. You now have what is basically a mobile cloud around you that could defract and diffuse lasers, lessening their impact, as well as mucking with enemy sensors and possibly even setting off missiles and other warheads prematurely.

Any magnetic field strong enough to keep such ionized material around a moving ship in space would play bloody hell with your electronics.

7 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Gravitic shields. We're talking space travel right? Well the ability to manipulate mass is pretty much a requirement for anything besides puttering around a single solar system, and with that comes a wonderful defense against kinetic weapons/warheads and a way to lessen the threat form missiles: Give your ship NEGATIVE gravity relative to the surrounding space. Rounds will then literally curve around your ship and sail off to oh like you actually care where (unless you do, like if there's a planet you like behind you. In which case don't use this). If any of you play Space Engineers you can test this out using gravity generators and a homemade mas driver. Just line the hull of your ship with a gravity field oriented so that "down" is away from the hull. It works great. Bonus: Free catapult effect for fighter launches.

People in this century aren't even sure how gravity works, and certainly not capable of manipulating it to this degree; pipe dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,030 posts

This thread makes me chortle. Continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles
4 hours ago, Umikami said:

People in this century aren't even sure how gravity works, and certainly not capable of manipulating it to this degree; pipe dream.

In the same way that combat in space is a pipe dream then. Everything we're talking about here is sci-fi to one degree or another, and sticking solely with things that are technically possible (as opposed to just theoretically possible) pretty much means that there's only one necessary form of "space combat": Flood the target's orbital path with debris and wait for Kessler Syndrome to set in. If we can't have space, no one can.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,260 posts
6,734 battles

It would all depend on the weapons and technology in use at the time, but if I’m not mistaken a gun in space theoretically has limitless range if I understand space correctly, so with powerful enough radar there may be no use for a space carrier aside from boarding actions maybe.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
107
[C-1]
[C-1]
Members
362 posts
6,828 battles
5 hours ago, Umikami said:

Any magnetic field strong enough to keep such ionized material around a moving ship in space would play bloody hell with your electronics.

This is true, but you know, you could also disperse this stuff at the front of your ship and have it diffuse around your ship as you move without turning on said magnetic field. Or deploy it in a missile or canister towards the direction of incoming threats to create a temporary cloud. I'm with you on the issues that come with having such a magnetic field generated near and on your ship though. You'd also have your ship instantly warm up (and become the brightest thing in space on sensors; more so than if you were firing a railgun) if you were using electromagnets to create this field. But... if your primary threat was from energy-based weapons, instead of kinetic, you might just be willing to run the risk. I could see this sort of thing working well as a defense against natural threats as well.

Also, to ponder the possibilities, it could very well be used to defend against kinetic rounds or nearby nuclear detonations (direct impact of a nuclear warhead is definitely going to be a bad day for you and your ship). Have you heard of the "new" defense shield that could be installed onto armored vehicles to destroy RPG's and such. (if not) Basically, it charges the air just before the impact point with electricity, creating a mini lightening bolt (plasma) that vaporizes or detonates incoming projectiles such as those. But note where it also says you'd be blind as a bat while using it XD https://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-patents-star-wars-style-force-fields/ <using this dispersed material, it would open up the ability to create this effect in space; naturally, this would be impossible as space is of course empty, but add this medium to the mix, and you can could potentially create a actual (if not temporary) defensive shield around your ship.

 

5 hours ago, Umikami said:

People in this century aren't even sure how gravity works, and certainly not capable of manipulating it to this degree; pipe dream.

Pipe dream for now. But the human race technically has a long time to try for it... assuming we don't blow ourselves up playing with antimatter or making a black hole... or more likely a super virus... yeah, the odds are against us XD

Edited by Levits
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
104
[WAG]
Members
393 posts
7,551 battles
18 hours ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

Unsure. It might be a place where battleships might do well again. Or maybe just a bunch of small DD types. I'm not sure. I do know that whatever it is, we'd have to have "shields" or doulbe/triple redundancy for vacuum leaks.

You fight decompressed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,314
[SOUP]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,578 posts

No, space combat as shown in fiction is not anywhere close to how it would be in real life. There will be no dogfights, engagement ranges would be in the thousands of kilometers, not meters (maybe even light-seconds if you're using lasers).

Very few sci-fis depict space combat with a realistic view. So far only a few have come close, such as The Expanse (when it comes to closer engagements) or Legend of the Galactic Heroes (which shows strategy fairly well grounded in reality and physics). But the WW2-esqe combat of Star Wars will NEVER happen. If you have laser-based weapons, you're not going to roll up for a 300m range broadside, you're going to go out to the maximum range your weapons can handle. Which, when you're in space, is forever. With the right targeting systems, you could strike a target on the moon from Earth with a laser weapon, even a more conventional kinetic weapon could do it too.

I recommend watching Spacedock's various videos, they do good videos about all manner of spacecraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[FATE]
[FATE]
Members
8 posts
2,872 battles
Quote

"Lieutenant?" A familiar voice was heard nearby. His ears twitched as he turned to face Janus Rotarl, her own dress uniform devoid of decoration but she now had a sub-lieutenant's striping on her cuffs and on her shoulderboard.

            "Sub-Lieutenant Rotarl." His ears fully raised. "You got the Warspite?"

            "Assistant Weapons Officer." The mouse smiled. "As well as one of our pilots for the Swordfish spotters."

            "Very nice. You passed through rather quickly, it took me a few more years to finish my technical training." Prower said.

            "Quick study, Lieutenant." Rotarl looked over at the completed battleship. "Four turrets, two guns per turret. Two situated in the fore, two aft. High turret on each is 15-inch railgun, low turret laser, 6000 terawatts at maximum."

Well it's a good thing I wrote both kinetics and lasers into KRSS Warspite o.o

Edited by Tails
Quote system went goofy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
388
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,423 posts
3,367 battles
2 hours ago, Chobittsu said:

No, space combat as shown in fiction is not anywhere close to how it would be in real life. There will be no dogfights, engagement ranges would be in the thousands of kilometers, not meters (maybe even light-seconds if you're using lasers).

Very few sci-fis depict space combat with a realistic view. So far only a few have come close, such as The Expanse (when it comes to closer engagements) or Legend of the Galactic Heroes (which shows strategy fairly well grounded in reality and physics). But the WW2-esqe combat of Star Wars will NEVER happen. If you have laser-based weapons, you're not going to roll up for a 300m range broadside, you're going to go out to the maximum range your weapons can handle. Which, when you're in space, is forever. With the right targeting systems, you could strike a target on the moon from Earth with a laser weapon, even a more conventional kinetic weapon could do it too.

This is one thing that I liked about Babylon 5. With the exception of when combatants jumped in right on top of each other (or vessels that relied on maneuverability and speed to evade shots like the White Stars were involved, though admittedly the White Stars relied more on rule of cool than anything else), you never actually got to see who the ship you were watching was shooting at. The implication, of course, being that during these long range battles with ships chasing each other down and blasting away with their main guns (while their fighters were relegated to a simple deterrent against bombing runs and supplement for point defense systems shooting down missiles) they were doing so at INSANE range. And when there was an up-close dogfight? All the implications of free-fall are shown. Fighters will "strafe" by flying using their main engines to accelerate and then fighting sideways, deal with enemies behind them by firing maneuvering thrusters full-force to the side and braking or simply turning backwards, heck the titular station even uses the fact that it generates gravity through centrifugal force as a way to catapult its defensive craft into the fray faster, launching Starfuries by just dropping them through the "floor" that is the outer hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
3 hours ago, Landsraad said:

In the same way that combat in space is a pipe dream then

Balderdash! We could have combat in space right now; comparatively, the same way the men of the Bronze age had combat when compared to the modern variety. We currently are able to launch and control missiles, fire iron balls out of rail guns, and launch satellites capable of targeting either space craft or ground targets. If we COULDN'T  have combat in space, why are both the US and the old USSR signatories of an agreement to NOT militarize space. Your argument is totally wrong.

3 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Everything we're talking about here is sci-fi to one degree or another, and sticking solely with things that are technically possible (as opposed to just theoretically possible) pretty much means that there's only one necessary form of "space combat": Flood the target's orbital path with debris and wait for Kessler Syndrome to set in. If we can't have space, no one can.

You are so very wrong about this I don't even know where to start. Quit watching SyFy Channel and start reading the NASA newsletters.

3 hours ago, Chobittsu said:

a few have come close, such as The Expanse (when it comes to closer engagements)

That show is fantastic, love every minute of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,266
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,804 posts
15,310 battles
3 hours ago, Levits said:

This is true, but you know, you could also disperse this stuff at the front of your ship and have it diffuse around your ship as you move without turning on said magnetic field.

After you "disperse" it, how are you going to keep it surrounding the ship, since by "dispersing" it you have given it a totally different speed and trajectory?

3 hours ago, Levits said:

I could see this sort of thing working well as a defense against natural threats as well.

The closest idea that might work along the lines you suggest would be to "disperse" water droplets in front of your ship. They would freeze, occlude your ship from enemy craft, and at the speeds required to travel successfully in space the ice would wreck any missiles fired at you. It would move away from the ship quickly, so it would only be a temporary measure for an immediate threat, but it would help. It would be of no value at all against kinetic weapons as they would simply brush the cloud aside.

3 hours ago, Levits said:

Also, to ponder the possibilities, it could very well be used to defend against kinetic rounds or nearby nuclear detonations (direct impact of a nuclear warhead is definitely going to be a bad day for you and your ship).

No one will use nukes in space when they can use nuclear pumped gamma ray weapons; a "small" nuke pumps a gamma generator which throws out gamma rays along pre-calculated paths. Much deadlier than a nuke, there is no atmosphere to carry the force of the detonation, and gamma rays will travel through a lot of solid matter without being stopped.

3 hours ago, Levits said:

Have you heard of the "new" defense shield that could be installed onto armored vehicles to destroy RPG's and such. (if not) Basically, it charges the air just before the impact point with electricity, creating a mini lightening bolt (plasma) that vaporizes or detonates incoming projectiles such as those.

It also requires an atmosphere to keep it contained or the plasma will disperse and be useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×