[SF-Junky]

So what's with the lack of orbital planetary defenses? There is simply nothing like weapon satellites (no, no! Don't look at that giant one -Sara- made!) or giant magnetic accelerator cannons...not even a Morningstar-armed sentry gun? It's Earth, you know! Earth...well, Earth. The most important place or something. There's no mention of Earth firing Ground to Space missiles either, while Mercury does.

Who says there aren't any planitary defences? When Laporte's squadron arrives at the scene, the GTVA attack is already going at for a while. Enough time to destroy nearby weapon platforms. To protect the whole Earth space with such satellites as indicated in B5 is rather impossible, anyway. You'd need hundreds of thousands if not millions of those platforms to put up a full screen. Way to expensive, way to ineffective. It'd be far more cost effective to have fighters and warships.

Earthborn missile launchers would be way too ineffective imo. It would take far too long for them to reach orbit and could thereby easily be shot down by fighters and/or ship turrets.

[bigchunk1]

Video of an actual earthbased missile used against a satellite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ7g4tejb4Y

To be honest, I'm not sure which method of missile defence is more practical for a space age society. If the resources are on the planet, is it better to build it, launch it to a platform and then launch it in wartime... or just build it and launch it in wartime?

I would think a multilayered defence system would work best. One with platforms, warships, and earthbased defences.

[Buckshee Rounds]

Subspace makes a "screen" of defence satellites totally illogical. You can send a moving fighter to a scene, but you can't send an immobile gun platform anywhere. The only place platforms are used in FS at all are nodes and cargo depots and only then because they're both small enough to defend with such devices. The UEF fleet is Earth's defence. Besides how in hell would you justify a defence network in a system that has near zero security issues barring ze mighty Gef.

Not to mention weapons in FS have crap range right enough.

Ninja'ed: it's a stationary object getting shot down. FS Ships move.

Argueing for planetary based defences to shoot down stuff in space is like saying you should put a load of artillery piece on a country's coastline to protect against foreign navies. Best thing to fight a navy is your own navy, same in space.

Problem with FS is like all sci-fi, space=ocean.

[Destiny]

I'd say build and launch it in wartime. The GTVA hasn't done any orbital bombardments, instead they smashed all those stuff in orbit. We don't really know if ships in FS (except BP anyway...) can even operate in atmospheres, or achieve escape velocity. Does the UEF have a terrestrial arm? Fighters? Aircraft carriers? All that.

Unless the GTVA is going to do an orbital bombardment, ground-based missile silo clusters is more safer than one in space, probably......but yeah, bigchunk does have a point with multi-layered defenses. If your warships get sunk in the Atlantic ocean Buckshee, those artillery pieces you put there will be pretty useful.



You have to be kidding me Batutta, I think I'm glad I let them shoot me down got shot down by them.

[Suongadon]

Earthborn missile launchers would be way to effective imo. It would take far too long for them to reach orbit and could thereby easily be shot down by fighters and/or ship turrets.

Ineffective you mean? They'd only be easy to shoot down if they were being shot from the same side of the planet as the target. Better to shoot them from the other side, that way the warheads are in orbit and cruising long before they can be intercepted by the target. Maybe a little much realistic for a universe where ships have a top speed though.

Though wouldn't a surface installation basically be inviolate in FS? Since unlike an orbiting satellite or a spaceship, it can't be swarmed with fighters/bombers (since they're not good at atmospheric flight, right?), and a capital ship trying to bombard the surface would have to get into its range. *edit* Though it depends on how close a ship can jump to a planet, doesn't it?

To be honest, I'm not sure which method of missile defence is more practical for a space age society. If the resources are on the planet, is it better to build it, launch it to a platform and then launch it in wartime... or just build it and launch it in wartime?

If there was no concern for keeping hundreds/thousands of several hundred megaton bombs on the planet then I'd think keeping it on the planet would be best (cheapest, most defensible) for defending the immediate area, with ships responsible for supporting these systems and protecting installations outside the planetbound weapons' reach.

[The E]

Ineffective you mean? They'd only be easy to shoot down if they were being shot from the same side of the planet as the target. Better to shoot them from the other side, that way the warheads are in orbit and cruising long before they can be intercepted by the target. Maybe a little much realistic for a universe where ships have a top speed though.

Though wouldn't a surface installation basically be inviolate in FS? Since unlike an orbiting satellite or a spaceship, it can't be swarmed with fighters/bombers (since they're not good at atmospheric flight, right?), and a capital ship trying to bombard the surface would have to get into its range. *edit* Though it depends on how close a ship can jump to a planet, doesn't it?

Problem is that those installations are on the wrong side of the gravity well. Since they can't move, they can be taken out with ease by dropping an asteroid on them.

If there was no concern for keeping hundreds/thousands of several hundred megaton bombs on the planet then I'd think keeping it on the planet would be best (cheapest, most defensible) for defending the immediate area, with ships responsible for supporting these systems and protecting installations outside the planetbound weapons' reach.

See above RE: asteroids. Once you have the location (via HUMINT, spysats, whatever), your ground-based installation is toast. And even if it is able to fire a shot at a target, there are still many problems. One, such a launch is guaranteed to be noticeable from orbit (given the amount of explodey payload you need to scratch an FS vessel). Two, the missile will take a few minutes to reach the target, which is usually enough for the target to jump away real quick. Three, if you've used this tactic once, you can't repeat it, since no commander worth his stripes will send ships worth firing at into range of your installations when he can send in a couple fighters and bombers to destroy what he needs to destroy.

[Destiny]

Is it actually safe to warp into a planet's gravity well, and atmosphere? Plus I'm sure there's plenty of ground-based defences. Humans fight for land, not for space. Maybe some THAADs or PAC-3s or something, then SAMs and maybe shield the top of the missile silo. Would be pretty cheap to shield the lid. It's probably the size of a Vajra.

Also asteroids + Earth = Not what GTVA wants






...although I began drooling at the prospect of being capable of firing a full Tomahawk cruise missile adapted for space use out of a UEF bomber...seeing the wings deploy and ignite it's rocket engines...damn. *drool*

[Buckshee Rounds]

Ground based defences, maybe, but not against anything in space. Any spaceborne threat will likely have a subspace drive, making a missile strike with it's long flight time totally useless. Basically what the E just said. I doubt there are aircraft carriers of any kind, I like to think 24th century aircraft would have enough range and speed to make sea assets totally mute. Hell there probably won't be an air force anyway seeing as there are no other factions on any one planet to fight in the air.

FS canonically has space navies and infantry only, which makes sense for the above reasons. I may be a little biased seeing as I personally hate the idea of archaic sea and air forces in a future with space battles.

[Logistics]

...although I began drooling at the prospect of being capable of firing a full Tomahawk cruise missile adapted for space use out of a UEF bomber...seeing the wings deploy and ignite it's rocket engines...damn. *drool*

Adapted for space + wings.

...I'm not seeing it.

[Destiny]

Well Buckshee, I'm willing to bet any pure space or hybrid space-air fighter will not perform better than a pure air superiority fighter with 2385 technology. (Macross is just your ordinary fighter with thermonuclear engines, awesome ain't it)

...although I began drooling at the prospect of being capable of firing a full Tomahawk cruise missile adapted for space use out of a UEF bomber...seeing the wings deploy and ignite it's rocket engines...damn. *drool*

Adapted for space + wings.

...I'm not seeing it.

There's something called the cool factor!

And note that most, launchable thingies have fins, if not, wings. When you go to weapon loadout.

[The E]

Is it actually safe to warp into a planet's gravity well, and atmosphere? Plus I'm sure there's plenty of ground-based defences. Humans fight for land, not for space. Maybe some THAADs or PAC-3s or something, then SAMs and maybe shield the top of the missile silo. Would be pretty cheap to shield the lid. It's probably the size of a Vajra.

Well, we thought about this. We figure that the energy required to make a jump depends on how deep you are in a gravity well, and how heavy you are. So while you may be able to jump into a gravity well, you may not be able to jump out again. Basically, fighters can skip the Orbit/Atmosphere interface, heavier ships can't. If you've seen BSG's Return to New Caprica arc, you can imagine what a Destroyer jumping into Atmosphere looks like, only minus the successful jumpout.

And, well, FS is still a universe where the Weber/Heinlein rule is valid, i.e. if you control the orbit, you control the planet, because nothing can stop you from dropping ordnance or troops from a superior position.
To reiterate, Surface-to-Orbit weapons systems are one-shot weapons, you can use them once, but then their effectiveness is nil, because the countermaneuvers are rather easy and obvious.

Also asteroids + Earth = Not what GTVA wants

Nope, it's not what they want. However, it's what they can do, and it's what they will do if pushed hard enough.

[Destiny]

I'm firmly entrenched that having a terrestrial arm is important, because it's better to have a soldier guarding a city than no one at all. Both Battles of Deneb had ground forces involved (No mentions about Shivan armies invading or how terrifying it can be, but the shipboarding cutscene was scary enough).

Although, I don't foresee the GTVA wanting to really start doing orbital bombardments with asteroids, unless they're really going to be pushed out of Sol. The UEF'll need a lotta antimatter ready...

[The E]

Oh, sure, there probably are ground-based army units.

However, the war will be decided in space; just as the War in the Pacific was decided in the Pacific, not through ground battles on japanese soil.

[Mars]

I'm firmly entrenched that having a terrestrial arm is important, because it's better to have a soldier guarding a city than no one at all. Both Battles of Deneb had ground forces involved (No mentions about Shivan armies invading or how terrifying it can be, but the shipboarding cutscene was scary enough).

Although, I don't foresee the GTVA wanting to really start doing orbital bombardments with asteroids, unless they're really going to be pushed out of Sol. The UEF'll need a lotta antimatter ready...

Having a warship parked overhead with the ability to conduct airstrikes and bombard entrenched positions is a rather insurmountable tactical edge.

[Destiny]

I'm not that sure the efficiency of the fighters part of the airstrike would be high, but if it works, it may as well work if there aren't Rapier/Dart-armed F-22s around. Being capable of bombarding people from on top of their heads, is essentially endgame for the defending forces. That is, if the weapons actually work as intended, when they fly through the atmosphere. The main guns of Karunas and Naras probably could. For beams, I think there's a possibility the whole magnetic thingy can be sustained actually. Although, I think slashing beams would decimate entire swaths of defenses at once, while LRBGreens are for melting through to bunkers.

Although I think ultimately the war was ended due to the atomic bombing, the Pacific just hastened their defeat, and allowed the Allies to move ground forces to the Home Islands. They were prepared for a bloody...bloodbath on their own soil.

[The E]

Yes, but one cannot help but notice the complete absence of the famous siege of Tokyo from this universe.

[Mars]

I'm not that sure the efficiency of the fighters part of the airstrike would be high, but if it works, it may as well work if there aren't Rapier/Dart-armed F-22s around. Being capable of bombarding people from on top of their heads, is essentially endgame for the defending forces. That is, if the weapons actually work as intended, when they fly through the atmosphere. The main guns of Karunas and Naras probably could. For beams, I think there's a possibility the whole magnetic thingy can be sustained actually. Although, I think slashing beams would decimate entire swaths of defenses at once, while LRBGreens are for melting through to bunkers.

Seeing as how threatening to bombard planets was the Alliances original strategy, and knowing that beams are proven to work effectively at surface bombardment, I'd say that beams NOT working in such a capacity is a pretty hard assertion to defend.

Do remember though, these beams have high megaton yeilds at least. The LRBGreen beam wouldn't melt through a bunker, it would utterly destroy a city. A single Chimera would probably be capable of taking out every major city in the United States in several minutes. I doubt the alliance would primarily use beams in a siege scenario, more likely, they'd use strikecraft based weaponry and toned down guns to destroy surface targets.

[Snail]

Knowing the gigaton-scale damage involved in your average FS battle, the GTVA probably have what's equivalent to wave motion guns on every ship.

[Mars]

I think BP has actually lowered the yield of most weapons in their canon, but they're still absurdly high

[Buckshee Rounds]

GTVA Infantryman after unsuccessful Earth invasion:- "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."