Laser battles in space.

POSTED BY: Hjermsted
UPDATED: Monday, March 22, 2004 21:20
VIEWED: 21470
PAGE 5 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

SCIFIDO

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:48 PM

Wow, this is an interesting thread.

Let me ask some questions:

Beam weapons and electro magnetic guns exist, right?

Artificial Gravity (Which is just a convention to prevent having to deal with freefall in space for cheaper television making), Energy shields, deflector shields and the like do not exist, right?

So, are we disussing the realities or the fantasies here?

For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.

The slug on the other hand is moving very fast comparitively and has little surface area to reflect off of radar or its equivalent. Without the ability to quickly evade or detect, I see no advantage to lasers because they would be easier to deflect. A highly polished exterior would do the job nicely allowing only a portion of the energy to burn through.

From a cost point of view slugs would seem to be much less expensive unless electricity is somehow free and greatly storable.

As to the fantasy discussions, well, the potentials are as limitless as our imaginations.

Person 1: They could use antimatter beams.
Person 2: Yeah, but with a gravimetric shield...

Anyhoo, that's just my two cents worth...

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Alliance cruisers are gleaming cities in space, and a powered down Firefly can't escape a sensor sweep.

In both 'Serenity' and 'Bushwhacked' Alliance Cruisers seem to get very close, very fast to Serenity with out being detected.
...ok in 'Serenity' it kinda was the dinosaur’s fault.

Also I think those Cruisers were on a patrol footing; in combat they probably have extensive ECM systems that can jam any sensors that could detect them.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

HOTPOINT

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:

THE USN is also experimenting with fitting Railguns to its ships as well. Kinetic Energy weapons are more shattering

Various Armies are working on Mass-Driver armed Tanks too

Yes. However, pure battleships were out-moded by the development of guided missile systems, because of their stealth factors inherent in a small, powerful warhead. The development of mounted naval lasers takes this step again - infinitely stealthier. Done correctly, comparatively damaging. Unimaginabley harder to avoid.

Apply this to 'space' batttles, and you can see why kinetic weapony may be mooted. If you were right, then battleships should be making a come-back around about... *glances at watch*....
B]

Lasers are Line-Of-Sight Mass-Drivers are not. A Laser only armed naval vessel would be pulverised by a Mass-Driver armed one firing over the Horizon

The best idea would be a vessel armed with both systems which is likely where we are going

Actually Mass-Drivers would render batleships obsolete in themselves. Easier to up the railgun velocity than increase armour thickness

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
The development of mounted naval lasers takes this step again - infinitely stealthier.

Not as stealthy as a submarine, can't hit what you can't see, plus 3000 feet of water makes a good anti-laser shield. Hopefully super cavatating point defenses will even the odds.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Lasers are Line-Of-Sight Mass-Drivers are not. A Laser only armed naval vessel would be pulverised by a Mass-Driver armed one firing over the Horizon

LOS can be avoided by using a aircraft with a mirror to direct the laser over the horizon. Kind of like a targeting helo/UAV off a modern ship.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

BLUEBLOODUK

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:03 PM

Wait.. are you saying that a light laser cruiser would be nailed by a light mass-driver cruiser? Are are you bringing armour into the equation now? Which applies to either system ad infinitum. Arms Race, anyone?

These days, you can't shell Destroyers or Frigates. Their Over-The-Horizon Radar systems are too efficient, their turning circle/acceleration too good. Which is why we use guided-missiles.

Yes, range, in planetary conditions, are a factor to laser-weapons, considering the curvature of the Earth, however once that range has been reduced (and lets face it, you have absolutely no guarentee of a hit in the interim), then the battle swings towards the laser-weapon.

However, in space, these disadvantages are removed from the outset. Lasers have clear line of sight. At the speed of light. Mass-Drivers hang around in the MACH-speed range. And once fired, they are incapable of in-flight path alterations (unless they become guided missiles, invalidating the mass-driver concept there and then).

Your mass-driver cruiser is toast.

BLUEBLOODUK

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:05 PM

A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor, and the lack of sophistication of a ASW sonar system - both of which are struggling against each other all the time.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
Wow, this is an interesting thread.

Let me ask some questions:

Beam weapons and electro magnetic guns exist, right?

Artificial Gravity (Which is just a convention to prevent having to deal with freefall in space for cheaper television making), Energy shields, deflector shields and the like do not exist, right?

So, are we disussing the realities or the fantasies here?

For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.

The slug on the other hand is moving very fast comparitively and has little surface area to reflect off of radar or its equivalent. Without the ability to quickly evade or detect, I see no advantage to lasers because they would be easier to deflect. A highly polished exterior would do the job nicely allowing only a portion of the energy to burn through.

From a cost point of view slugs would seem to be much less expensive unless electricity is somehow free and greatly storable.

As to the fantasy discussions, well, the potentials are as limitless as our imaginations.

Person 1: They could use antimatter beams.
Person 2: Yeah, but with a gravimetric shield...

Anyhoo, that's just my two cents worth...

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.

So, if we're discussing the reality of the show, slugthrowers may only be effective against large/slow targets or at extremely close range.

I do, incidentally, believe that in Bushwacked the Alliance Cruiser used a slugthrower of some kind to destroy the non-mobile ship that had been the victim of Reaver attack. That doesn't suggest viability in a dogfight.

As for energy being free... no, it must cost something. They do refuel from time to time.

But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.

--Anthony

GUNRUNNER

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor.

Easily rectified, Collins or Amur Diesel-Electric submarines anyone?

Anyways new sub launched SAMs will become a serous threat to Helos and ASW aircraft (the real threats to subs) in the 21st century.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

BLUEBLOODUK

Friday, March 19, 2004 5:16 PM

Diesel/Electric? Better not be in open seas then. Our (sorry, Royal Navy) Upholder-class subs were primarily designed for medium-range patrols. You dont deploy them in deep open waters these days if you can help it. It looks bad when you have to surface or snort during prolonged engagements.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE