Author Topic: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas  (Read 4767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SF-Junky

  • 29
  • Bread can mold, what can you do?
Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Today we have cruise missiles which can cover a distance of 2.500 km at a speed of some 250 m/s and we have railguns in development which can bin a projectile to a speed of 7.800 (!!) m//s. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century.

In the FreeSpace 23rd century, mankind mounts crappy plasma turrets on warships which have a fire range of mere a few hundred meters and can't hit anything that is more agile than a drunken chicken.

I know that it is clear of obvious reasons that the armament of Terran cruisers in FS1 and FS2 can never be really realistic, that would probably mean that there aren't any dogfights at all, because a pilots only task would be to fire long-range missiles at enemy targets he can't even see, only on his radar. The same counts for capships.

But I've been wondering for some time now how the GTA's arsenal would look like if it was a bit close to the reality? Or let's rather say: To what will most like become the reality.
I personally think that it would look much more like that of Blue Planet's UEF, that is some heavy railguns to attack hostile capships, supported by ship-to-ship torpedoes and flak/smaller railguns/Gauß rifles as anti-fighter and point defence weaponry.

What do you say? :)

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
The plasma turrets on FS1 era warships had a yield of a couple hundred tons of TNT IIRC

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
1) FS armament is not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be futuristic (= for show)

2) Logistics.... Do you know how much logistics it takes to arm ships with their cruise missiles if they constantly engaged? On Terra firma its simple cause the distances are short and you've got a some warning time before the enemy attacks your supply lines (except on sea... Submarines are great *Waffengattungsstolz*1,2); now transfer that to a combat theatre in space with fast distances, the enemy being able to strike at your supply lines at their leisure...
Ergo: Supplying your warships with the armaments is quite difficult and so arming them with the weapons you don't have to do much resupplying for is logical (even if these weapons are less powerful to fire)

3) Keep comparisons between UEF and GTA/GTVA ships to a minimum... UEF ships are designed to operate in Sol (that means to far from their bases) and thus can rely on guns which spend real ammunition - at the end of the day your Narayana or Karuna will simply return to base for resupply...
A Fenris or an Aelous were made with much less "getting back home to get me some more missiles" in mind

1 german word, meaningless to anyone but those who serve or have served in the Bundeswehr
2 I know, I know - I have just served on the base, not on a submarine itself... but nontheless
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Cool, Orpheus is a badass!

And while I agree with his points about logistics, antifighter missiles would also be cool to see. I'd love to do those.

 

Offline Droid803

  • Trusted poster of legit stuff
  • 213
  • /人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人\ Do you want to be a Magical Girl?
    • Skype
    • Steam
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Fear them FighterKillers.
They actually killed fighters (before shields, that is).
(´・ω・`)
=============================================================

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Cool, Orpheus is a badass!

No ... just served my one year of military service as it was my obligation to (Until they stopped that policy this year, every 18+ year old man in Germany had to serve at least 9 months (it was more back when there was an enemy for our military) in military or civilian services)

and I spend the last five years studying issues of Defense as fundament for my political career...
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
In reality fighters will probably be simple drones that have only as much a heat signature as the nearest star warms them up, and capital ships will have only a few people as crew, thus eliminating any fun that we have in FreeSpace- a fighter 'pilot' would program the flight of several wings and AI would take over.

Fighters would do a good job at intercepting guided warheads the enemy fires, and perhaps even railgun projectiles would be fired at with some intercepting missiles (a few kT could push a railgun projectile off it's path) or lasers. With a bunch of these orbiting capital ships it would be possible to intercept threats earlier. The fighters could also form a huge sensor array.

Bombers would be useful to try to flank enemy ships and attack from directions that there are no fighters, or assuming some form of "subspace" is discovered- they'd warp in too close to maneuver capital ships away from attacks, drop their payload, and hopefully warp out before the first nukes get shot down.

Cruisers would be bomb and strike craft killing units, perhaps with some serious sensors to pick up attackers through all the noise that the enemy task force would definitely be making to blind them. They'd also have to have a few meters of composite armor on their outer skin, and much more below to be able to absorb any kinetic energy rounds, and perhaps near misses from nukes, or moving through laser beams. In a world with subspace, expect these to warp in near an enemy task force to paint it with sensors, and probably also attack until out of missiles or energy for lasers.
The recoil of big Gauss guns would probably push these things around a bit, and the magnetic fields involved with firing the guns might pull people with metal buttons on their shirts across rooms, so I wouldn't expect too many cruisers to have them.

Destroyers would be big and slow. They'd need to be megaliths with caves dug deep within to hold the few crew members, reactors, weapons and strike craft. A mountain of 500 meters of titanium reinforced granite that is a couple kilometers long would be able to stand up to prolonged bombardment, and their main weapons would be bombers and swarm missiles to destroy the soft objects on enemy destroyers, such as sensors.
The big ships' engines would be hidden deep withing the hull, and all exhaust gasses would leave through caves hundreds of meters deep.
The capital ships would also use some serious Gauss guns, throwing projectiles that weigh as much as freight train locomotives at several times the speed of a geo-stationary satellite. While these would be interceptable, they'd be able to create serious cracks on the surface of enemy destroyers' hulls, and after prolonged bombardment- some serious damage, and perhaps destruction.

Then there's beam cannons- spitting out particles with so much energy that such granite mountains would quickly have part of them turn into a volcano erupting lava into space.

Now let's introduce shields- a system that has multiple very small jets on the hull of a ship. These jets throw plasma at anything that comes really close, similar to modern active armor throwing rockets or pellets. The very violent plasma discharge would be strong enough to negate the effect of incoming rounds, at least until the shield system would have enough energy to continue operating.
'Teeth of the Tiger' - campaign in the making
Story, Ships, Weapons, Project Leader.

 
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Well after first argument there is very little left to discuss. I too believe there are tons of unrealistic features present in the game because without these there wouldn't be any game to play. Just imagine :
a- Firing your gun to an enemy fighter/bomber at 10km. You can't aim your fixed gun of  your fighter to a moving target at a distance of 10km with your bare hands and piloting skills.
b- A small target at 10km will be impossible to see without using an optical equipment with powerful zoom. All targeting and firing should be computer assisted. Therefore there would  be very little dogfight experience in the game so no fun factor would be present.
c- With BVR (Beyond Visible Range) capable air to air missiles of today it 's possible to hit a target aircraft from 50-200 km away. Again, where is the fun of that? :)

On the other hand I disagree with Orpheus regarding Logistics. A Fenris class cruiser is 260m long which is close to the size of Enterprise class aircraft carrier. Just imagine how much Tomahawk cruise missiles a carrier can carry without carrying its airwing. My guess is at least 500 to 1000. And Fenris class cruisers are not built for very long deployments without resupply. For Orion class this number should be no less than 5000 considering the size of it. With that much missiles in your arsenal you can blow up lots of enemies without reload. :)

1) FS armament is not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be futuristic (= for show)

2) Logistics.... Do you know how much logistics it takes to arm ships with their cruise missiles if they constantly engaged? On Terra firma its simple cause the distances are short and you've got a some warning time before the enemy attacks your supply lines (except on sea... Submarines are great *Waffengattungsstolz*1,2); now transfer that to a combat theatre in space with fast distances, the enemy being able to strike at your supply lines at their leisure...
Ergo: Supplying your warships with the armaments is quite difficult and so arming them with the weapons you don't have to do much resupplying for is logical (even if these weapons are less powerful to fire)

3) Keep comparisons between UEF and GTA/GTVA ships to a minimum... UEF ships are designed to operate in Sol (that means to far from their bases) and thus can rely on guns which spend real ammunition - at the end of the day your Narayana or Karuna will simply return to base for resupply...
A Fenris or an Aelous were made with much less "getting back home to get me some more missiles" in mind

1 german word, meaningless to anyone but those who serve or have served in the Bundeswehr
2 I know, I know - I have just served on the base, not on a submarine itself... but nontheless

 

Offline Fury

  • The Curmudgeon
  • 213
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
2) Logistics.... Do you know how much logistics it takes to arm ships with their cruise missiles if they constantly engaged? On Terra firma its simple cause the distances are short and you've got a some warning time before the enemy attacks your supply lines (except on sea... Submarines are great *Waffengattungsstolz*1,2); now transfer that to a combat theatre in space with fast distances, the enemy being able to strike at your supply lines at their leisure...
Ergo: Supplying your warships with the armaments is quite difficult and so arming them with the weapons you don't have to do much resupplying for is logical (even if these weapons are less powerful to fire)

3) Keep comparisons between UEF and GTA/GTVA ships to a minimum... UEF ships are designed to operate in Sol (that means to far from their bases) and thus can rely on guns which spend real ammunition - at the end of the day your Narayana or Karuna will simply return to base for resupply...
A Fenris or an Aelous were made with much less "getting back home to get me some more missiles" in mind

Invalid argument.

Realistically, even if your ship is equipped with energy weapons such as plasma cannons and whatnot, those too require ammunition. Or do you think the plasma or whatever a energy weapon uses to fire the weapon materializes out of nothingness? Even if it so happens that the weapon is capable of powering itself from same source of energy as ship's engines, shields and other devices, I doubt that energy itself is enough to make a weapon unless you have something to fire with. It doesn't make any difference whether it is a ballistic weapon using conventional explosive rounds, solid rounds, excited plasma, unexcited plasma, mildly excited plasma or candy bars, you need ammunition.

The fact that in FS your ships have unlimited energy to power the ship and its shields, unlimited fuel to keep the ship and its afterburner going, unlimited ammunition to weapons regardless of their type (remember Avenger and Maxim) are all gameplay decisions.

In WiH the fact that ballistic weapons had ammunition but energy weapons do not was also a gameplay decision. If there had been a need for realistic setup, then both ballistic and energy weapons would have had ammunition.

 

Offline MatthTheGeek

  • Captain Obvious
  • 212
  • Frenchie McFrenchface
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
No realism exist in FS. Problem solved.
People are stupid, therefore anything popular is at best suspicious.

Mod management tools     -     Wiki stuff!     -     Help us help you

666maslo666: Releasing a finished product is not a good thing! It is a modern fad.

SpardaSon21: it seems like you exist in a permanent state of half-joking misanthropy

Axem: when you put it like that, i sound like an insane person

bigchunk1: it's not retarded it's american!
bigchunk1: ...

batwota: steele's maneuvering for the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: you mispelled grâce
Awaesaar: grace
batwota: oh right :P
Darius: ah!
Darius: yes, i like that
MatthTheGeek: the way you just spelled it it means fat
Awaesaar: +accent I forgot how to keyboard
MatthTheGeek: or grease
Darius: the killing fat!
Axem: jabba does the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: XD
Axem: bring me solo and a cookie

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • Oceans rise. Empires fall.
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
No realism exist in FS. Problem solved.

But still it's a nice-enought argument to have ;)

Invalid argument.

Realistically, even if your ship is equipped with energy weapons such as plasma cannons and whatnot, those too require ammunition.

I never said they require no ammunition ... I said they would have to be resupplied less often - moreover this was mainly an argument against ship-to-ship-missiles/-torpedos

Most Energy can't travel the vaccum by itself all that well, it has to transfered by something of "material qualities" (I know waves can travel vaccum by their own)
However you don't need a giant projectiles to "transfer" you kintetic (speed) and thermic (heat) energy from a e.g. Orion's tripple THT to the hull of Demon... the projectile would just have to be able to be recieve and contain the energy of THT until it impacts nothing more nothing less...

Most of mass of an unfired missile or even a bullet it's propullsion - if you take that away and handle propullsion anyway else the part required for a projectile to inflict damage becomes smaller and smaller => Resupply problem solved

On the other hand I disagree with Orpheus regarding Logistics. A Fenris class cruiser is 260m long which is close to the size of Enterprise class aircraft carrier.

Now that's another inapproriate comparision....
The Fernis might have same size but it has to meet more requirements of the design:
For example to operate in space it would have to be able to at least recycle the in-ship atmosphere for a while - an Enterprise carrier doesn't need that cause it never operates in vakuum... even the air in pressuriszed areas of the ship is at some point exchanged with the outside
(I'm not going into detail how to recycle air on a space ship - thats a different discussion)

And there are other requirements a modern day warship doesn't have to meet but that are vital in the hypothetical space warship (with FS tech in mind):
- generation of artifical gravity
- radiation shielding
- redundancy (as matter of damage control; which is a different matter of redudancy than at sea)
(that's just what I can come up now)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 03:05:02 am by 0rph3u5 »
"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

"...because they are not Dragons."

 
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
I don't think that's inappropriate too much. I agree that a spaceship will require significant space for shielding, air & water recycling etc. But keep in mind Fenris class is not operated by 5000 strong crew(3000 sailors + 2000 airwing) . My guess is 500 sailors tops. So less people means less space for living quarters, air & water recycling,  food storage etc. etc. More space for ammo, fuel storage. Also Fenris class although a bit shorter than an Enterprise class aircraft carrier is much more fatter. :) So again more space.  :p


Now that's another inapproriate comparision....
The Fernis might have same size but it has to meet more requirements of the design:
For example to operate in space it would have to be able to at least recycle the in-ship atmosphere for a while - an Enterprise carrier doesn't need that cause it never operates in vakuum... even the air in pressuriszed areas of the ship is at some point exchanged with the outside
(I'm not going into detail how to recycle air on a space ship - thats a different discussion)

And there are other requirements a modern day warship doesn't have to meet but that are vital in the hypothetical space warship (with FS tech in mind):
- generation of artifical gravity
- radiation shielding
- redundancy (as matter of damage control; which is a different matter of redudancy than at sea)
(that's just what I can come up now)

 

Offline MatthTheGeek

  • Captain Obvious
  • 212
  • Frenchie McFrenchface
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
IIRC, it is stated several times that the crew of a cruiser is counted in thousands.
People are stupid, therefore anything popular is at best suspicious.

Mod management tools     -     Wiki stuff!     -     Help us help you

666maslo666: Releasing a finished product is not a good thing! It is a modern fad.

SpardaSon21: it seems like you exist in a permanent state of half-joking misanthropy

Axem: when you put it like that, i sound like an insane person

bigchunk1: it's not retarded it's american!
bigchunk1: ...

batwota: steele's maneuvering for the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: you mispelled grâce
Awaesaar: grace
batwota: oh right :P
Darius: ah!
Darius: yes, i like that
MatthTheGeek: the way you just spelled it it means fat
Awaesaar: +accent I forgot how to keyboard
MatthTheGeek: or grease
Darius: the killing fat!
Axem: jabba does the coup de gras
MatthTheGeek: XD
Axem: bring me solo and a cookie

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Negative, as a matter of fact, the Orff in FS1 was stated to have a crew in the dozens.  Deimos corvettes have a crew of either 3 or 5 thousand (forgot which) in Freespace 2, and are several times the size of a cruiser.

Several hundred would be a good guess for a cruiser.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Realistically, even if your ship is equipped with energy weapons such as plasma cannons and whatnot, those too require ammunition. Or do you think the plasma or whatever a energy weapon uses to fire the weapon materializes out of nothingness?

FS1 informed us helpfully that the majority of FS energy weapons are chemical lasers. Having a slight familiarity with chemical laser projects, I can tell you this is hogwash. It is entirely possible to carry hundreds of thousands of "rounds" such that there is no realistic possibility of a fighter running out of ammunition in a single sortie. It helps a lot that there's far less worry of the chemicals getting out and contaminating the people locker so they don't need to be shielded as much. (The USN's project was ultimately killed by two things; fog, and the possibility of having toxic chemicals get loose.)

Similarly, it takes very little plasma to make an effective amount for a weapon if you can get it to cohere. Orpheus also correctly states the majority of an unfired shell or missile is taken up in its propulsion. One of the reasons railguns are being pursued so ardently by the USN in the modern day is that it would triple or quadruple the number of ready rounds a ship can carry. The more the raw mass of the ammunition shrinks, the more of it it becomes practical to carry. I'd argue that the fact the UEF has truly ammunition-dependent weapons for its fighters (as opposed to Mass Effect-esque hyperaccelerated grain of sand shooters that can fire millions of times, given the UEF's demonstrated mastery of railgun technology) makes less sense.

If you're going to argue cruiser crewing go resurrect the thread we had on it, I can't find it. :p
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
I'm not really sure FS1 did that at all. The 'argon laser' and similar descriptions don't make them chemical lasers, that's just a description of the lasing medium. That's pretty type-agnostic.

 

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Yeah, actually, they seem like they're almost explicitly not chemical lasers.

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Yeah, actually, they seem like they're almost explicitly not chemical lasers.

If they're not chemical lasers that actually makes my argument even more valid. :P

However I personally doubt it considering krypton/argon is the big chemical laser combo and both are mentioned alternately.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

  

Offline General Battuta

  • Poe's Law In Action
  • 214
  • i wonder when my postcount will exceed my iq
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Yeah, actually, they seem like they're almost explicitly not chemical lasers.

If they're not chemical lasers that actually makes my argument even more valid. :P

However I personally doubt it considering krypton/argon is the big chemical laser combo and both are mentioned alternately.

They are? I thought it was all deuterium fluoride and similar stuff. I've usually heard of krypton and argon being used in gas lasers.

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Re: Terran/Vasudan Fighter and Capship Weaponry - Views and Ideas
Krypton and Argon are kind of non-reactive, don't you know. . .

They are however an excellent lasing medium for gas lasers.