The Fate of Naval Combat

[Francois]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I've got a question for all you future-tech buffs out there:
Is Wet Naval Combat doomed to become obsolete?

Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed? Or will
they still exist, and what will be the tactical, economic, and practical
reasons to allow them to remain?

Thanks!

--
Francois
Prime Directive Online
http://www.primedirectiveonline.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:23:40 -0600, Francois
<NOSPAMfrancois@primedirectiveonline.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>I've got a question for all you future-tech buffs out there:
>Is Wet Naval Combat doomed to become obsolete?
>
>Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
>and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
>liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed? Or will
>they still exist, and what will be the tactical, economic, and practical
>reasons to allow them to remain?
>

Well, ocean shipping isn't going anywhere. "Cheap" is relative, and
even "cheap" into orbit is going to be more expensive for moving large
masses than moving things with container ships and tankers on the
water. That being the case, it would be surprising if wet navies
totally vanished either. In particular, it would be especially
surprising if submersible craft disappeared since being under a
thousand feet of water is the best concealment and protection from
space to ground attack short of being under a thousand feet of rock,
with the added bonus of actually being mobile. Additionally small,
highly mobile patrol vessels would remain useful for a wide variety of
functions. If you have a space opera ships with reactionless drives,
they are likely to operate underwater as well, but the oceanic ships
will be cheaper. I can see big surface ships becoming obsolete as
space to ground weaponry and surveillance improves....but even then if
you wanted a really big mobile heavily protected weapons platform from
which to shoot into space, making it aquatic is the only way to go.
Those Ogre/Bolo super tanks are actually impractical. They are simply
too large to function on land. There's no way they could get enough
traction to move at more than a glacial crawl. There's a reason why
blue whales dwarf even the largest dinosaurs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Francois schrieb:
-snip
> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed?
-snip

Not if the future will take the "hard science" option. 🙂

Lifting payloads into orbit "cheaply, easily and reliably" requires
orbital elevators ("beanstalks"), as these are the only practical
solution that we can imagine and that could really be build with
near-future technolgy.(Building 36.000+ km long cables would require
working mass-production of nanotechnology, wich itself would change
economy and society radically, but thats another thing.)

The most economic way to transport goods is on the water, and the most
practical way for non-liquid and non-bulk dry goods is in standard
containers. Most of the classic tramp freighters have vanished, and the
container ships will become bigger and bigger. The greatest container
ships today can carry 9,000+ containers and are more than 300 meters
long. There are currently plans for monsters with capacity for more than
16,000 containers. (These ships would be way to big for most of todays
harbors or the Panama Canal.)

Once I read a book about ship building. It stated that new technologies,
materials and certain circumtances could change shipping in the future.
One problem in the future would be the lack of fossil fuels, esp. oil.
This could bring back the steamers (with improved steam engines, of
course), and ships that would take the "slow but cheap" option and would
use "assistance sails" to save fuel. So future shipping routes could
follow the winds again...

Surface warships would be another thing. The introduction of stealth
technology would make them look different, maybe a crossbreed between a
stealth fighter and a turtle.
Maybe fossil fuel made from oil would be reserved for them. Or they
could be devided into two groups - ships and boats. Ships would use
nuclear reactors, so they would be big - the size of a contemporary
cruiser and up. These ships would be armed with a variety of missiles
against other ships and (maybe) beam weapons for anti-aircraft defense.
Ships would use a lot of remote controlled drones for perimeter defense.
Boats would be the size of patrol boats and would use combustion engines
(that would use alcohol), fuel cells or maybe nuclear power cells. Boats
would be used to fight lightly armed opponents, e.g. pirates, so they
would be armed with a few "brilliant missiles" (see Ultra Tech) and
heavy machine guns or gauss guns.


So imagine this background:
Turtles and kites.
In the not-so-far future (100 - 200 years, maybe), Earth has changed.
Global warmings changed the coast lines and the ocean currents. The old
economy with it's thousands of factory (most of them produced only a few
goods that where needed in other factories) is gone, and now the
robofacs and nanofacs produce everything that is needed. Cheap food,
clothing and housing are produced from allmost nothing. All you need -
food, clothing, even housing - is there, order it online and it will be
delivered in few hours.If you are one of the lucky ones in the old first
world.
Only the former "western nations" had the wealth, knowledge and
technology to build the robofacs - the rest of the world was written of.
The introduction of the nanofacs caused a massive economic collapse, and
the only companies that survived where the ones that build and
maintained the robofacs. The rest went belly-up, which of course led to
millions of unemployed world-wide, which worsened the collapse. Whole
countries vanished, as the angry mobs looted and plundered. Finally,
large part of the former third world fell into thousands of petty
kingdoms of various warlords, with the exception of the beanstalk bases
and places with "ressources of strategic interest" for the leading
countries. This areas are now de-facto colonies of the first-worlders.
To make sure that the natives will follow their orders, the "black
turtles of death" will show flag in the harbors of the world. When not
intimidating the hungry masses, the turtles control the shipping lanes.
Each capital ship is placed in a special sea area, wich has the size of
a about 500,000 square kilometers. Here, it escorts the slow cargo ships
that carry the goods from the robofacs and the raw materials from the
colonies and the beanstalk bases.
These cargo ships are giant container ships that are driven by steam
engines and large kites that pull the ships across the oceans. Each of
these "kite ships" would - thanks to computers and robots - only
require a very small crew of four to six seaman, the perfect size for an
adventure group.
Player characters could be sailors aboard a kite ship, or daring pirates
planning to loot the modern galores of the colonialists, or marines
fighting the pirates, or confused spacers on sigthseeing on earth...
Other suggestions?

Bye
Ingo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <41F27957.49249060@web.de>, Ingo Siekmann <Ingo-Siekmann@web.de> wrote:
>Francois schrieb:
>-snip
>> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
>> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
>> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed?
>-snip
>
>Not if the future will take the "hard science" option. 🙂
>
>Lifting payloads into orbit "cheaply, easily and reliably" requires
>orbital elevators ("beanstalks"), as these are the only practical
>solution that we can imagine and that could really be build with
>near-future technolgy.(Building 36.000+ km long cables would require
>working mass-production of nanotechnology, wich itself would change
>economy and society radically, but thats another thing.)

Unless you have some sort of Reactionless drive or AntiGravity

>
>The most economic way to transport goods is on the water, and the most
>practical way for non-liquid and non-bulk dry goods is in standard
>containers. Most of the classic tramp freighters have vanished, and the
>container ships will become bigger and bigger. The greatest container
>ships today can carry 9,000+ containers and are more than 300 meters
>long. There are currently plans for monsters with capacity for more than
>16,000 containers. (These ships would be way to big for most of todays
>harbors or the Panama Canal.)
>

With AG, think SkyTrains of Containers

>Once I read a book about ship building. It stated that new technologies,
>materials and certain circumtances could change shipping in the future.
>One problem in the future would be the lack of fossil fuels, esp. oil.
>This could bring back the steamers (with improved steam engines, of
>course), and ships that would take the "slow but cheap" option and would
>use "assistance sails" to save fuel. So future shipping routes could
>follow the winds again...
>
>Surface warships would be another thing. The introduction of stealth
>technology would make them look different, maybe a crossbreed between a
>stealth fighter and a turtle.
>Maybe fossil fuel made from oil would be reserved for them. Or they
>could be devided into two groups - ships and boats. Ships would use
>nuclear reactors, so they would be big - the size of a contemporary
>cruiser and up. These ships would be armed with a variety of missiles
>against other ships and (maybe) beam weapons for anti-aircraft defense.
>Ships would use a lot of remote controlled drones for perimeter defense.
>Boats would be the size of patrol boats and would use combustion engines
>(that would use alcohol), fuel cells or maybe nuclear power cells. Boats
>would be used to fight lightly armed opponents, e.g. pirates, so they
>would be armed with a few "brilliant missiles" (see Ultra Tech) and
>heavy machine guns or gauss guns.
>
>
>So imagine this background:
>Turtles and kites.
>In the not-so-far future (100 - 200 years, maybe), Earth has changed.
>Global warmings changed the coast lines and the ocean currents. The old
>economy with it's thousands of factory (most of them produced only a few
>goods that where needed in other factories) is gone, and now the
>robofacs and nanofacs produce everything that is needed. Cheap food,
>clothing and housing are produced from allmost nothing. All you need -
>food, clothing, even housing - is there, order it online and it will be
>delivered in few hours.If you are one of the lucky ones in the old first
>world.
>Only the former "western nations" had the wealth, knowledge and
>technology to build the robofacs - the rest of the world was written of.
>The introduction of the nanofacs caused a massive economic collapse, and
>the only companies that survived where the ones that build and
>maintained the robofacs. The rest went belly-up, which of course led to
>millions of unemployed world-wide, which worsened the collapse. Whole
>countries vanished, as the angry mobs looted and plundered. Finally,
>large part of the former third world fell into thousands of petty
>kingdoms of various warlords, with the exception of the beanstalk bases
>and places with "ressources of strategic interest" for the leading
>countries. This areas are now de-facto colonies of the first-worlders.
>To make sure that the natives will follow their orders, the "black
>turtles of death" will show flag in the harbors of the world. When not
>intimidating the hungry masses, the turtles control the shipping lanes.
>Each capital ship is placed in a special sea area, wich has the size of
>a about 500,000 square kilometers. Here, it escorts the slow cargo ships
>that carry the goods from the robofacs and the raw materials from the
>colonies and the beanstalk bases.
>These cargo ships are giant container ships that are driven by steam
>engines and large kites that pull the ships across the oceans. Each of
>these "kite ships" would - thanks to computers and robots - only
>require a very small crew of four to six seaman, the perfect size for an
>adventure group.
>Player characters could be sailors aboard a kite ship, or daring pirates
>planning to loot the modern galores of the colonialists, or marines
>fighting the pirates, or confused spacers on sigthseeing on earth...
>Other suggestions?
>
>Bye
>Ingo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:38:53 GMT, bb_43@hotmail.com (Brian Bunin)
wrote:

>In article <41F27957.49249060@web.de>, Ingo Siekmann <Ingo-Siekmann@web.de> wrote:
>>Francois schrieb:
>>-snip
>>> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
>>> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
>>> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed?
>>-snip
>>
>>Not if the future will take the "hard science" option. 🙂
>>
>>Lifting payloads into orbit "cheaply, easily and reliably" requires
>>orbital elevators ("beanstalks"), as these are the only practical
>>solution that we can imagine and that could really be build with
>>near-future technolgy.(Building 36.000+ km long cables would require
>>working mass-production of nanotechnology, wich itself would change
>>economy and society radically, but thats another thing.)
>
>Unless you have some sort of Reactionless drive or AntiGravity
>

Reactionless drives and AG still draw power and they are going to draw
more power than than simple lateral movement, not to mention have
drives that are themselves more expensive than those required to
propel oceanic vessels.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <41f27271.959163308@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:38:53 GMT, bb_43@hotmail.com (Brian Bunin)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <41F27957.49249060@web.de>, Ingo Siekmann <Ingo-Siekmann@web.de>
> wrote:
>>>Francois schrieb:
>>>-snip
>>>> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
>>>> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
>>>> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed?
>>>-snip
>>>
>>>Not if the future will take the "hard science" option. 🙂
>>>
>>>Lifting payloads into orbit "cheaply, easily and reliably" requires
>>>orbital elevators ("beanstalks"), as these are the only practical
>>>solution that we can imagine and that could really be build with
>>>near-future technolgy.(Building 36.000+ km long cables would require
>>>working mass-production of nanotechnology, wich itself would change
>>>economy and society radically, but thats another thing.)
>>
>>Unless you have some sort of Reactionless drive or AntiGravity
>>
>
>Reactionless drives and AG still draw power and they are going to draw
>more power than than simple lateral movement, not to mention have
>drives that are themselves more expensive than those required to
>propel oceanic vessels.
>

So? Your handy dandy Fusion Cell(tm) will take care of the power problem.
Or, alternatively, highly efficient Solar Cells, with decent lightweight
batteries..

Gotta think outside the box, here....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:34:29 GMT, bb_43@hotmail.com (Brian Bunin)
wrote:

>In article <41f27271.959163308@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:38:53 GMT, bb_43@hotmail.com (Brian Bunin)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <41F27957.49249060@web.de>, Ingo Siekmann <Ingo-Siekmann@web.de>
>> wrote:
>>>>Francois schrieb:
>>>>-snip
>>>>> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
>>>>> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
>>>>> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed?
>>>>-snip
>>>>
>>>>Not if the future will take the "hard science" option. 🙂
>>>>
>>>>Lifting payloads into orbit "cheaply, easily and reliably" requires
>>>>orbital elevators ("beanstalks"), as these are the only practical
>>>>solution that we can imagine and that could really be build with
>>>>near-future technolgy.(Building 36.000+ km long cables would require
>>>>working mass-production of nanotechnology, wich itself would change
>>>>economy and society radically, but thats another thing.)
>>>
>>>Unless you have some sort of Reactionless drive or AntiGravity
>>>
>>
>>Reactionless drives and AG still draw power and they are going to draw
>>more power than than simple lateral movement, not to mention have
>>drives that are themselves more expensive than those required to
>>propel oceanic vessels.
>>
>
>So? Your handy dandy Fusion Cell(tm) will take care of the power problem.

It might make power cheap. It won't make it free. Here's a
fundamental secret:
Power is never "too cheap to meter".
Particularly for commercial purposes, even the most minute saving of
expense converts into a significant competitive advantage


>Or, alternatively, highly efficient Solar Cells, with decent lightweight
>batteries..

Solar cells can't give you more power than the available surface area
even with 100% efficiency.

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

What I think Francois is asking though has nothing to do with economics or
society. Think strictly military. There will ALWAYS be a requirement for
some sort of wet navy. That is the cheapest way to get massive amounts of
troops on the ground. The only way to win is to occupy, and the only way to
occupy, AND KEEP IT, is with the basic infantry trooper. There will ALWAYS
be a need for a wet navy.
"Francois" <NOSPAMfrancois@primedirectiveonline.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:54hId.1183$sJ4.170@fe06.lga...
> I've got a question for all you future-tech buffs out there:
> Is Wet Naval Combat doomed to become obsolete?
>
> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed? Or will
> they still exist, and what will be the tactical, economic, and practical
> reasons to allow them to remain?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Francois
> Prime Directive Online
> http://www.primedirectiveonline.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:23:44 GMT, "Scott" <shensch@satx.rr.com> wrote:

>What I think Francois is asking though has nothing to do with economics or
>society. Think strictly military. There will ALWAYS be a requirement for
>some sort of wet navy. That is the cheapest way to get massive amounts of
>troops on the ground.

Actually only if the massive amounts of troops are already on the
ground. Assuming that they have to arrive by spaceship, just landing
or being dropped where you want them to go is cheaper. And of course
militaries don't generally give a damn about cheapness as a tradeoff
for speed of deployment. Wars aren't fought at a profit.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

From: rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:23:44 GMT, "Scott" <shensch@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>What I think Francois is asking though has nothing to do with economics or
>>society. Think strictly military. There will ALWAYS be a requirement for
>>some sort of wet navy. That is the cheapest way to get massive amounts of
>>troops on the ground.
>
>Actually only if the massive amounts of troops are already on the
>ground. Assuming that they have to arrive by spaceship, just landing
>or being dropped where you want them to go is cheaper. And of course
>militaries don't generally give a damn about cheapness as a tradeoff
>for speed of deployment. Wars aren't fought at a profit.

I can envision one wet navy unit that may still be used in a spacefaring
civilization: Submarines.

A fixed ground installation can be located and attacked, especially if it's
shooting at ships in orbit. How ever, if you take those same weapons and
put them on a sub, then the attacker has a problem, especially if sensors
can't see much below the water's surface.

Submarines are mobile. They can pop to the surface, shoot at a convenient
target (orbiting ship, landing craft, etc) then pop back in the depths before
the enemy can effectively reply. The enemy never knows where the subs will
pop up. The only way to effectively reply is to deploy their own subs to hunt
down the defenders.

I imagine these subs would be used on worlds with large, open bodies of
water. Like Earth.

- Nopporn Wongrassamee

Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/evilauthor/myhomepage/index.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Nopporn Wongrassamee wrote:

> I can envision one wet navy unit that may still be used in a spacefaring
> civilization: Submarines.
>
> A fixed ground installation can be located and attacked, especially if it's
> shooting at ships in orbit. How ever, if you take those same weapons and
> put them on a sub, then the attacker has a problem, especially if sensors
> can't see much below the water's surface.
>
> Submarines are mobile. They can pop to the surface, shoot at a convenient
> target (orbiting ship, landing craft, etc) then pop back in the depths before
> the enemy can effectively reply. The enemy never knows where the subs will
> pop up. The only way to effectively reply is to deploy their own subs to hunt
> down the defenders.
>
> I imagine these subs would be used on worlds with large, open bodies of
> water. Like Earth.
>
> - Nopporn Wongrassamee

I believe we already have a variety of sensors which can see through
quite a bit of water, in the form of extremely low frequency radar. One
imagines that such technologies will only improve with time, so probably
by the time there are starships, water won't be much good for hiding in.

--
Aaron Boyden

The main division between the so-called Continental and Analytic
traditions has been disputes over whether the task of being unclear
should be carried out in natural language or in a formal system.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Once a sub surfaces, won't it take just as long for it to scope out
the space target as it would for the target to lock on to the sub?
Doesn't that mean they'd fire at roughly the same time?

Something in a fixed orbit would probably be predictable enough for
the sub to "snap shot" at, but I don't see how subs would help much
against space ships.

Also, what are the effects of firing weapons two and from the planet?
It would seem that you could load a LOT more stuff on a space station,
because you don't have to worry about losing bouyancy, but instead
just expand your orbit a little.

If the subs use projectile or missile weapons, it would seem that they
wouldn't have a chance in heck of reaching the space targets without
being shot down. Furthermore, IF the space target doesn't use beam
weapons, it still doesn't have to worry much, because all it's attacks
still hit the planet anyway.

Too many questions?

-- Matt Jozwiak

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <gah7v09l6f89vn8knv4m7n47dh10p83ls8@4ax.com>,
Red Beard <Akahige@HotPOP.com> wrote:
>Once a sub surfaces, won't it take just as long for it to scope out
>the space target as it would for the target to lock on to the sub?
>Doesn't that mean they'd fire at roughly the same time?

Why does the sub need to scope out its own targets? a distrubited network
of observers (both human and automatic on land and sea) could supply targeting data

>Something in a fixed orbit would probably be predictable enough for
>the sub to "snap shot" at, but I don't see how subs would help much
>against space ships.

The advantage of a sub is that, it is mobile, its hidden (depth charges are
only effective if the location of the sub is known), and water
makes very good armour (beam weapons would just make huge clouds of steam,
projectile weapons a big splash)

>Also, what are the effects of firing weapons two and from the planet?
>It would seem that you could load a LOT more stuff on a space station,

A space station would be a good first line of defence, but its location is
known and its armour is limited to what is shifted into orbit, dump a few
thousand titanium half-bricks in a retrograde orbit and the space station
could be in real trouble

>because you don't have to worry about losing bouyancy, but instead
>just expand your orbit a little.

and expanding the sub is not an option?

>If the subs use projectile or missile weapons, it would seem that they
>wouldn't have a chance in heck of reaching the space targets without
>being shot down.

Your next sentence implys the existence of beam weapons why can't the
sub's use beam weapons?

> Furthermore, IF the space target doesn't use beam
>weapons, it still doesn't have to worry much, because all it's attacks
>still hit the planet anyway.

The attack hit the planet, has it hit anything that matters?

>Too many questions?
>
>-- Matt Jozwiak


--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:53:41 +0000 (UTC), mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr.
M.J. Lush) wrote:

>Why does the sub need to scope out its own targets? a distrubited network
>of observers (both human and automatic on land and sea) could supply targeting data

All of the points you made seem to depend on a single space station
going up against an entire continent's defenses. Of course it would
lose in a situation like that. But what if a space-based targeting
and attack system were already in place?

But to actually answer your question: Subs, at least today, have very
limited ways of receiving information when they're hidden underwater.
To get the targeting data to the sub, they need to either... [1] know
where the sub will surface (pattern behavior is easy to anticipate by
the space station's side), [2] wait for the sub to send a data request
after surfacing (which might be detected by the station's side), or
[3] give the sub all commands through a slow medium like ELF (which
might not be good enough for up-to-the-second tracking information).


>The advantage of a sub is that, it is mobile, its hidden (depth charges are
>only effective if the location of the sub is known), and water
>makes very good armour (beam weapons would just make huge clouds of steam,
>projectile weapons a big splash)

Water limits the sub's attack options just as much as the station's.


>A space station would be a good first line of defence, but its location is
>known and its armour is limited to what is shifted into orbit, dump a few
>thousand titanium half-bricks in a retrograde orbit and the space station
>could be in real trouble

Such a tactic would be almost as avoidable as a submarine dodging
anti-ship mines dumped in its path. Both methods are neutralized IF
the victim can detect the problem in time.

In order to guarantee a hit in either case, the attacker has to put
himself in a poisition to drop his weapon at *effectively* point-blank
range -- so close as to make the collision unavoidable. Doing that,
however, almost certainly tips the victim off to the attacker's
presence and/or intention (catch-22).


>and expanding the sub is not an option?

Not beyond a certain point, no. The bigger you get, the slower you
have to react to prevent buckling your own hull. If you make a sub
into an underwater aircraft carrier, it'll have to turn like one too.

On the other hand, vacuum doesn't bog you down when you want to move a
space station. It does have its own unique problems, just as with any
large construct, but displacing thousands (or millions) of tons of
water in order to dive isn't one of them.


>Your next sentence implys the existence of beam weapons why can't the
>sub's use beam weapons?

There's no reason a sub can't use beam weapons, but a space station is
certainly more suited to large ones. There's just no good way to have
giant heat sinks on a sub and still keep it maneuverable.

On a space station, there's no water resistance to break things off
when you move, so all you really have to worry about is making the
parts strong enough to resist the stresses of station maneuvering.


>The attack hit the planet, has it hit anything that matters?

With a beam weapon, there might not be much effect, though I'm sure
instantly vaporizing a ton of water would certainly shake up the sub a
dozen yards away.

Projectile weapons are another matter. What do you think would happen
if a house suddenly landed in your back yard -- at a thousand mph?


-- Matt Jozwiak

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 23 Jan 2005 10:31:55 GMT, evilauthor@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee)
carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I can envision one wet navy unit that may still be used in a spacefaring
> civilization: Submarines.
>
> A fixed ground installation can be located and attacked, especially if it's
> shooting at ships in orbit. How ever, if you take those same weapons and
> put them on a sub, then the attacker has a problem, especially if sensors
> can't see much below the water's surface.
>
> Submarines are mobile. They can pop to the surface, shoot at a convenient
> target (orbiting ship, landing craft, etc) then pop back in the depths before
> the enemy can effectively reply. The enemy never knows where the subs will
> pop up. The only way to effectively reply is to deploy their own subs to hunt
> down the defenders.

So, how do the subs target those orbiting craft? And what will they be
shooting with?


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <7j17v05dp9nusk8n2oohpm1s0meaftsp2m@4ax.com>,
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On 23 Jan 2005 10:31:55 GMT, evilauthor@aol.com (Nopporn Wongrassamee)
>carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> I can envision one wet navy unit that may still be used in a spacefaring
>> civilization: Submarines.
>>
>> A fixed ground installation can be located and attacked, especially if it's
>> shooting at ships in orbit. How ever, if you take those same weapons and
>> put them on a sub, then the attacker has a problem, especially if sensors
>> can't see much below the water's surface.
>>
>> Submarines are mobile. They can pop to the surface, shoot at a convenient
>> target (orbiting ship, landing craft, etc) then pop back in the depths before
>> the enemy can effectively reply. The enemy never knows where the subs will
>> pop up. The only way to effectively reply is to deploy their own subs to hunt
>> down the defenders.
>
>So, how do the subs target those orbiting craft?

Optical and/or radar.... using a drone sub located some 100 miles away

>And what will they be shooting with?

Probably a peashooter or perhaps an air rifle if they can afford one.


--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Red Beard wrote:

>Such a tactic would be almost as avoidable as a submarine dodging
>anti-ship mines dumped in its path. Both methods are neutralized IF
>the victim can detect the problem in time.
>
The obvious upgrade to the space station killer is to make your "bricks"
guided. It is hard to hide in space.

>
>>Your next sentence implys the existence of beam weapons why can't the
>>sub's use beam weapons?
>>
>>
>
>There's no reason a sub can't use beam weapons, but a space station is
>certainly more suited to large ones. There's just no good way to have
>giant heat sinks on a sub and still keep it maneuverable.
>
Water is excelent at removing heat. It has an anomalously high heat
capacity and heat of evaporation. You don't need enormous heat sinks if
you are in a sub - just pump the coolant fluid through the outer hull
next to the ocean, and any heat you could expect to generate with any
reasonable beam weapon would disappear.

On the other hand, space is horrible at removing heat. There is no
fluid to dump it to. You have to radiate it away which is really really
slow unless (a) your radiating surface is huge or (b) you have extremely
high temperatures. Option (b) works for stars, but material limits
prevent you from going very far this way with mechanical devices.
Option (a) leaves large vulnerable structures.

>With a beam weapon, there might not be much effect, though I'm sure
>instantly vaporizing a ton of water would certainly shake up the sub a
>dozen yards away.
>
Forseable beam weapons are not going to be instantly vaporizing tons of
water. For one thing, no beam projector is 100% efficient. A
significant fraction of the energy going into the beam will end up as
heat the space station has to get rid of. See my previous statements
about the difficulty of getting rid of heat in space.

Yes, space based beam weapons can be useful in many circumstances. The
pinpoint accuracy of lasers makes them nice for picking off any targets
you can sense optically. If you can see the sub, it is going to be in
trouble if you can train some hefty lasers on it. Misses are not going
to bother it much, though. If the sub also has a laser, you will be in
even more trouble, because (a) the sub can dive if things start going
badly, (b) you can't, (c) even if unable to dive, the sub can throw up a
spray of water droplets to block your beam and do so continuously, and
(d) you can't. Note that surface ships can also take advantage of (c)
and (d) to gain total protection from lasers. They will not be able to
shoot back while doing this, of course.

>Projectile weapons are another matter. What do you think would happen
>if a house suddenly landed in your back yard -- at a thousand mph?
>
Houses have this small problem that they are unable to get very far through our atmosphere at a thousand mph. You'd just get a bunch of kindling tumbling down at subsonic velocities.

To cause significant damage, you need large masses that can survive re-entry at hypersonic velocities. Even then, if unaimed these will not cause much problem until you get into dinosaur killer territory. A 10 kT explosion in the middle of the ocean or Kansas farmland or the Yukon tundra is not going to cause much of an effect. You need those masses to strike targets of military importance.

If we are hypothesizing serious beam weapons, these giant chunks could end up being vulnerable during their decent phase. The hypersonic passage through the atmosphere places enormous loads on large objects. The masses must be very strong and aerodynamically built. If a beam weapon can damage the aerodynamics, the stresses will increase and could blow the mass apart high in the atmosphere, where it will not do anything. The major issue with this technique is if the beam weapon can get through the shock generated obscuring plasma sheath generated by extreme hypersonic velocities.

Luke

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

The Sophist wrote:

> I believe we already have a variety of sensors which can see through
> quite a bit of water, in the form of extremely low frequency radar.
> One imagines that such technologies will only improve with time, so
> probably by the time there are starships, water won't be much good for
> hiding in.

We can never foresee the future, of course. But "hard science"
extrapolations don't show any way of sensing through long distance of
water other than with sonar or possibly by picking up passive emissions
of neutrinos given off by fission (not fusion!) powered subs. We have
already explored the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and the only part
that can go through much water are the extreme low frequency (ELF)
waves. Unfortunately, these waves are pretty near useless for detection
and ranging because of a fundamental physical restriction imposed by
their long wavelengths. Sonar, of course, is quite difficult for space
stations to use*. This argues that subs will be able to hide from
orbital bad guys for quite some time.

But who knows? Maybe next week someone will discover a completely novel
physical effect that can be used for remote sensing**. At this point,
we must ask "but then what." If the space station can sense the sub, it
still must be able to blow it out of the water somehow, and once again
this is difficult to do with submerged vessels, especially with the
armaments likely available to spacestations. Lasers will either be
absorbed right at the surface or, for certain frequencies, penetrate a
few tens of meters (subs can dive deeper). Hypersonic projectiles will
explode at the surface. You would need depth charges that could be
slowed down to subsonic velocities before splashdown. This takes time
and allows the sub to maneuver. Unless of course the amazing new
discovery of remote underwater detection and ranging from space can also
be turned into a weapon. Fun stuff for science fiction, but by no means
inevitable or even probable.

Luke

* Not impossible, though. We could envision the space station blasting
the water's surface with lasers to produce sound waves. These would
then be sensed with ladar when they propagated back to the water's surface.

** One possible such discovery is the prediction that quantum entangled
photons can give a resolution better than unentangled photons. For
example, if you entangle two photons, you could resolve objects twice as
small as with one photon of the same frequency. Last I heard, this
prediction was still controversial and unverified by experiment. Even
if it did work, you would have a long way to go before you could
entangle on the order of 1000 ELF photons in order to get useful
resolution on your entangled ELF radar. Note that ELF radar will also
require a multi-kilometer long antenna.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"The Sophist" <sophist@brown.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:htPId.75057$Wo.3816@lakeread08...

>
> I believe we already have a variety of sensors which can see through
> quite a bit of water, in the form of extremely low frequency radar. One
> imagines that such technologies will only improve with time, so probably
> by the time there are starships, water won't be much good for hiding in.

The night skies seemed not a good place to hide in, when radar became
fashionable. You will have noticed we've been developing stealth technology
to counter that. For that matter, we've been hearing through water for quite
some time, with sonar - and the subs have become more and more noiseless.
One imagines that if a sub remains an otherwise valuable weapons platform,
stealth technologies will also only improve with time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:27:35 -0500, Red Beard <Akahige@HotPOP.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:53:41 +0000 (UTC), mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr.
>M.J. Lush) wrote:
>
>>Why does the sub need to scope out its own targets? a distrubited network
>>of observers (both human and automatic on land and sea) could supply targeting data
>
>All of the points you made seem to depend on a single space station
>going up against an entire continent's defenses. Of course it would
>lose in a situation like that. But what if a space-based targeting
>and attack system were already in place?

Then it would probably belong to whoever owns the planet. At least
until it gets destroyed by the attackers, which would be the very
first thing to happen.

>
>But to actually answer your question: Subs, at least today, have very
>limited ways of receiving information when they're hidden underwater.
>To get the targeting data to the sub, they need to either... [1] know
>where the sub will surface (pattern behavior is easy to anticipate by
>the space station's side), [2] wait for the sub to send a data request
>after surfacing (which might be detected by the station's side),

I suspect that the sub shooting at the orbital side will also be
detected.

or
>[3] give the sub all commands through a slow medium like ELF (which
>might not be good enough for up-to-the-second tracking information).
>
>
>>The advantage of a sub is that, it is mobile, its hidden (depth charges are
>>only effective if the location of the sub is known), and water
>>makes very good armour (beam weapons would just make huge clouds of steam,
>>projectile weapons a big splash)
>
>Water limits the sub's attack options just as much as the station's.

Which is why subs spend most of their time hiding and waiting for the
moment of opportunity.


>>Your next sentence implys the existence of beam weapons why can't the
>>sub's use beam weapons?
>
>There's no reason a sub can't use beam weapons, but a space station is
>certainly more suited to large ones. There's just no good way to have
>giant heat sinks on a sub and still keep it maneuverable.

Why do you need giant heat sinks on a sub when you have an ocean to be

a heat sink?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:12:15 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:27:35 -0500, Red Beard <Akahige@HotPOP.com>
>wrote:

<snip>

>>There's no reason a sub can't use beam weapons, but a space station is
>>certainly more suited to large ones. There's just no good way to have
>>giant heat sinks on a sub and still keep it maneuverable.
>
>Why do you need giant heat sinks on a sub when you have an ocean to be
>a heat sink?

Because that creates a "heat bloom" in the ocean, which can be picked up
in space using modern-day instruments. All the invader would need to do
is target the centre of the heat bloom, and suddenly there's no more
submarine...

--
Rob Kelk <http://robkelk.ottawa-anime.org/> robkelk -at- gmail -dot- com
"And really, you think people who watch Japanese cartoons would be a
little more understanding of the seemingly odd hobbies of other fringe
groups." - Chris "Blade" McNeil on rec.arts.anime.misc, 20 Jan 2004

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:41:44 -0500, Rob Kelk <robkelk@deadspam.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:12:15 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:27:35 -0500, Red Beard <Akahige@HotPOP.com>
>>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>There's no reason a sub can't use beam weapons, but a space station is
>>>certainly more suited to large ones. There's just no good way to have
>>>giant heat sinks on a sub and still keep it maneuverable.
>>
>>Why do you need giant heat sinks on a sub when you have an ocean to be
>>a heat sink?
>
>Because that creates a "heat bloom" in the ocean, which can be picked up
>in space using modern-day instruments.

I would expect that your position would be given away by the fact that
you are radiating fantastically powerful beams of energy regardless of
whether you have a heat bloom in the ocean. Although really for
shooting through atmospheres I'd go with missiles in preference to
beam weapons anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Depends on Time to Target delivery of firepower and personnel. If
Orbital jumps can provide the capabilities of a fleet arriving of the
coast, faster, then the "Wet Navy" will become obsolete.

This is not simply putting personnel there or conversly, demolishing a
target from orbit, but would include a large number of other things,
including on the spot communications.

A "wet Navy" will probably still exist under any future envisioned
situation simply because there is the requirement to patrol/protect the
country's shipping, which will NOT go away. Can't really envision
Orbital jumps to the middle of the ocean!

Regards-
Roger

Francois wrote:
> I've got a question for all you future-tech buffs out there:
> Is Wet Naval Combat doomed to become obsolete?
>
> Once we've got space-bound navies, with the ability to cheaply, easily,
> and reliably get to orbital space, are the days of ocean shipping
> liners, wet navy warships, and other water-based craft doomed? Or will
> they still exist, and what will be the tactical, economic, and practical
> reasons to allow them to remain?
>
> Thanks!
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Red Beard" <Akahige@HotPOP.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:agc8v09nnurmv0mgsgq25ohgl8sq6rtrpk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:53:41 +0000 (UTC), mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr.
> M.J. Lush) wrote:

Subs, at least today, have very
> limited ways of receiving information when they're hidden underwater.

> Water limits the sub's attack options just as much as the station's.

Right now, subs can launch fairly long-ranged missiles without surfacing.

Right now, missiles can be smart enough to be just launched in the general
direction of the enemy - then their course can be updated in various ways,
including independent in-missile sensors.

See what I mean? The sub just needs a simple ELF message saying "launch
now". It doesn't surface, and by the time the missiles leave the water, it's
already changing position. And the missiles will find their targets on their
own.

This of course shifts the problem to: what anti-missile defenses are
available to the space vessel? If orbital stations have sure ways to defeat
missiles from the planet's surface, then not only the subs but also any
land-based force has little in the way of anti-orbital effectiveness. OK,
land-based stations could possibly resort to beam weapons, more easily than
subs.

If, however, anti-orbital missiles are in any way effective, the procedure
above is a good way to deliver them into the orbit from a relatively safer
platfrom than an immobile land-based station.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"LukeCampbell" <lwcampbe@uci.thetrash.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:ct32hm$2m1$1@news.service.uci.edu...
>
>
> Red Beard wrote:
>
> >Such a tactic would be almost as avoidable as a submarine dodging
> >anti-ship mines dumped in its path. Both methods are neutralized IF
> >the victim can detect the problem in time.
> >
> The obvious upgrade to the space station killer is to make your "bricks"
> guided.

"Stupid" bricks is what I would never use anyway if I were a space-faring
owner of the planet. Think about it. In order to remove say five offending
spaceships in my orbit, I have to sow a few hundreds of thousands of space
mines - where? In my orbit. Supposing I win, I end up with a minefield
surrounding my home.
I need a way to get rid of that. At the really very least, I need a smart
delivery system that throws the bricks on an in-built decaying orbit, and
they need to be small enough to just burn in the upper layer of my
atmosphere.