[Liberator]

Perhaps, but there's a limit as to the size of a vessel that could remain stable while firing those suckers.  I heard somewhere that even the Iowa's recoil something like 10 or 15 degrees when they're really going at it.  So something cheaper, which would probably be smaller would probably capsize itself.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't suppose building a new cheaper platform for mounting 16 inchers out fitted with modern fire control etc. to support Marines landings would be a better solution?  I assume if you making landings you have already achieved local air and naval superiority?

That's why they want the Zumwalt's 155mm and, eventually, the railgun.

[StarSlayer]

Perhaps, but there's a limit as to the size of a vessel that could remain stable while firing those suckers.  I heard somewhere that even the Iowa's recoil something like 10 or 15 degrees when they're really going at it.  So something cheaper, which would probably be smaller would probably capsize itself.

I was angling towards a purpose built platform not just stuffing a triple 16' turret on an Areilgh Burke hull, maybe a trimaran. 

[MR_T3D]

Perhaps, but there's a limit as to the size of a vessel that could remain stable while firing those suckers.  I heard somewhere that even the Iowa's recoil something like 10 or 15 degrees when they're really going at it.  So something cheaper, which would probably be smaller would probably capsize itself.

I was angling towards a purpose built platform not just stuffing a triple 16' turret on an Areilgh Burke hull, maybe a trimaran. 

like congress would approve of such an ugly design..

[General Battuta]

Actually, the one place where battleships would make sense again would be in space. There's no reason to build fighters, so you'd be back to the old frigate/cruiser/battleship model.

[Kosh]

Actually, the one place where battleships would make sense again would be in space. There's no reason to build fighters, so you'd be back to the old frigate/cruiser/battleship model.

So, if you don't build fighters how do you ward off enemy bombers?

[The E]

Considering that a viable space bomber looks more like an ICBM, I'd say the normal antimissile defense systems are a better investment. Seriously, outside of some fictional universes (or some handwavium), space fighters are probably not viable.

[MR_T3D]

Considering that a viable space bomber looks more like an ICBM, I'd say the normal antimissile defense systems are a better investment. Seriously, outside of some fictional universes (or some handwavium), space fighters are probably not viable.

i think that IRL space combat will be stupidly long range (like, leading lasers becasue of vast distances, or short, if both parties develop elaborate system that fool everything from radar to spacedar.

[NGTM-1R]

like congress would approve of such an ugly design..

It would look a lot like a scaled-up LCS.

[Mongoose]

i think that IRL space combat will be stupidly long range (like, leading lasers becasue of vast distances, or short, if both parties develop elaborate system that fool everything from radar to spacedar.

As always, the real world ruins everyone's fun.

[General Battuta]

Actually, the one place where battleships would make sense again would be in space. There's no reason to build fighters, so you'd be back to the old frigate/cruiser/battleship model.

So, if you don't build fighters how do you ward off enemy bombers?

There won't be any bombers.

[Kosh]

Untile we discover something like subspace that might be true.

[The E]

Wrong. There is a lot more handwavium involved in creating space fighters (and bombers).

[MR_T3D]

unless EMP tech results in the total defeat of electronic guidance systems for missles whithin Xkm of a ship, which is the only logic reason to create human-guided delivery vehicle for missles.
but lasers will likely work better, anyway.

[General Battuta]

EMP will do as much damage to computer-driven human craft as it would to electronically controlled craft. Both are going to require a stupid amount of electronics to work. Of course, that amount of damage is likely to be zero since they'll both be hardened.

Lasers, missiles, and kinetic weapons all have a (theoretical) place in space warfare, with lasers being the up-close knife fighting weapons.

[StarSlayer]

Are we discounting strike craft in general or just manned ones?

[General Battuta]

Mostly just manned ones. Unmanned weapon buses make a lot of sense (I think).

[TrashMan]

IMHO, 1 LY is the utter maximum possible engagment range in a future space battle.

Frankly, I expect the optimal battle range to be a LOT smaller. accuracy, lag and focusing will all present a problem at longer ranges.

[Mika]

IMHO, 1 LY is the utter maximum possible engagment range in a future space battle.

Frankly, I expect the optimal battle range to be a LOT smaller. accuracy, lag and focusing will all present a problem at longer ranges.

 

Sorry Trashman, but you just made my day. This has to be the best understatement of the year up so far, given the context and all.

I'm barely able to resist the temptation of calculating the corresponding F-number and Airy radius of that kind of system.

[Turambar]

how could you possibly aim to shoot someone and hit them a year later?