Jump to content

Supercarrier help


Jhorriga

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

 

Why would you go to the risk and complexity of putting humans in the loop when you have technology advanced enough to build an interplanetary super carrier ?

Nibb31,

 Science fiction is about people. You can't make a good story with a ship full of robots. At least not unless they're sentient.

Best,

-Slashy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Because people can't be hacked? Imagine how much would cost service robot that is super secured? Also making repairs and using radio waves makes you "visible" while I guess most of fight in space is going to be stealth like F-35 or even more advanced.

Not much. Just airgap the heck out of it.

And spacecraft hulls are good electromagnetic containers. It's the heat radiators you need to worry... to worry so much, stealth in space won't exist.

29 minutes ago, Cassel said:

What about BSG? Battlestar is basically super-space-carrier.

Which has to retract its landing bays almost whenever it's exposed to enemy fire.

Not to mention, it's an all-in-one ship, which is boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Because people can't be hacked? Imagine how much would cost service robot that is super secured?

It would have to be super secured anyway. If there is a way to penetrate your defenses, it's not really much of difference between hacked drone/torpedo and crewed ship with hacked control system. And no, can't do without computers. If your crew have to resort to basic automation and their own senses, they are no longer a threat to anyone except themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd need to flesh out the sci fi universe so we know what laws of physics are broken. Clearly the rocket equation is out the window, so a few questions are:

What sort of space opera drive does stuff have that allows for fighters to be useful?

What limits fire control such that hitting fighters with directed energy weapons doesn't become a trivial issue, such that it's just a matter of how many unique fighters can be killed per unit time, not if they can be hit at all?

What larger weapons are there, what are typical engagement ranges, etc?

What can individual small craft do to larger ships, and how does this affect the small craft?

All that sort of stuff matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, radonek said:

And no, can't do without computers. If your crew have to resort to basic automation and their own senses, they are no longer a threat to anyone except themselves.

Except for it being a soft sci-fi verse. Which means a crew without automation is MORE capable for the sake of the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Nibb31,

 Science fiction is about people. You can't make a good story with a ship full of robots. At least not unless they're sentient.

Best,

-Slashy

And here I was thinking this forum was about science, not fantasy.

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Because people can't be hacked? Imagine how much would cost service robot that is super secured? Also making repairs and using radio waves makes you "visible" while I guess most of fight in space is going to be stealth like F-35 or even more advanced.

Your interplanetary super carrier isn't going anywhere if it isn't controlled by computers. Same for any space based targetting systems. By the time you have calculated enemy fire trajectories with your slide rule, your entire fleet of manned Vipers will have be blown away.

The whole concept of a space fighter that fires projectiles is stupid. Instead of launching a swarm of fighters to fire missiles, just launch a swarm of expendable drone-missiles. (And don't get me started on the Last Jedi space bombers)

By the time we get to oversized military capital ships dueling in the orbit of Jupiter, those capital ships are more likely to be AI driven like the ships in The Culture books, defended by swarms of drone projectiles.

We'll have autonomous military AI way before we have space battleships. Heck, an average video game today can already beat an human player already, and games are biased to allow the player to win sometimes.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this analysis about the viability of whether having a fighter making sense or not (depending on several factors)

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/SpaceFighter

It has a good amount of reasons of when having fighters is justified and when having fighters is not making sense

Edited by ARS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

We'll have autonomous military AI way before we have space battleships. Heck, an average video game today can already beat an human player already, and games are biased to allow the player to win sometimes.

There is even automaton (I'd prefer to avoid term AI here until it gives itself snarky name) that can outfly professional fighter pilot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

And here I was thinking this forum was about science, not fantasy.

Your interplanetary super carrier isn't going anywhere if it isn't controlled by computers. Same for any space based targetting systems. By the time you have calculated enemy fire trajectories with your slide rule, your entire fleet of manned Vipers will have be blown away.

The whole concept of a space fighter that fires projectiles is stupid. Instead of launching a swarm of fighters to fire missiles, just launch a swarm of expendable drone-missiles. (And don't get me started on the Last Jedi space bombers)

By the time we get to oversized military capital ships dueling in the orbit of Jupiter, those capital ships are more likely to be AI driven like the ships in The Culture books, defended by swarms of drone projectiles.

We'll have autonomous military AI way before we have space battleships. Heck, an average video game today can already beat an human player already, and games are biased to allow the player to win sometimes.

Making ship controlled by computers is one thing and controlling drones remotely is other thing when it comes to security.

This star wars video is not from me...

Problem is how you control drones, while on Earth if you lose control it will crash and get destroyed, but in space enemy can gather your drone and study it easily. Giving orders to drones reveal your and drone position, so again it is problem for military.

AI can beat me in game where all the rules are created by creator of AI, but not in real world where there is no rules on how to use weapon, move, hide etc etc.

12 hours ago, DDE said:

Which has to retract its landing bays almost whenever it's exposed to enemy fire.

Not to mention, it's an all-in-one ship, which is boring.

No, they retract them during jumps.

All-in-one ship is future not only in space battle, but also in navy. Just wait few years to see how it will develop, right now only US have large carriers fleet, so they have no competition and no reason to push it further. But China is making their own navy and I doubt it they will copy US tactics, they should make their own way of using carriers.

EDIT

I don't really see how large swarms of drones could work in space, where enemy can destroy them using energy weapons (laser) from hundreds of kilometers.
Drones are good on Earth where you can hide below horizon line or behind hill, but in space it is stupid concept. Note that making huge swarms of drones stealth is impossible and making single expensive stealth drone that have to receive orders makes it easy to detect by enemy.

In space there will be more like Star Trek ships with lots of energy weapons and the one with best range wins.

Edited by Cassel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can't make a good story with a ship full of robots. At least not unless they're sentient.

I think that's already somewhere...

 

@ OP : If this ship is a storage space, just make it one big shell.

 

Regarding space combat : the best weapon are shrapnel field. We know how dangerous they are, and it's there already.

Which is why space combat is a bit silly. Just spread loads of shrapnel, and every destroyed enemy is your weapon.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cassel said:

Making ship controlled by computers is one thing and controlling drones remotely is other thing when it comes to security.

This star wars video is not from me...

Problem is how you control drones, while on Earth if you lose control it will crash and get destroyed, but in space enemy can gather your drone and study it easily. Giving orders to drones reveal your and drone position, so again it is problem for military.

You think that in 200 years we won't have encrypted comms and anti-tamper systems ? And who says the drones have to be remote controlled ? Why can't they be autonomous ?

In 200 years, computers will have advanced at least as much as space technology. Autonomous drone projectiles are much easier to build than space battlecruisers and space fighters.

Quote

AI can beat me in game where all the rules are created by creator of AI, but not in real world where there is no rules on how to use weapon, move, hide etc etc.

It's just a matter of uploading the proper rule book into the AI. The real universe is dominated by a rather strict set of rules. It's just a matter of having a good decision-making algorithm and feeding it with an accurate model. And I'm pretty sure that a machine can already beat you in many areas in the real-world.

 

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You think that in 200 years we won't have encrypted comms and anti-tamper systems ? And who says the drones have to be remote controlled ? Why can't they be autonomous ?
 

Going 20 years into future is futurism, but going 200 years is pure sci-fi and you said something about science forum :-)

Autonomous or not, those drones still needs to know where they are, that means you still need to make some kind of GPS stations to communicate with drones and to give them order "go to location x and destroy everything in there" you also need to know where is location x. Destruction or jamming of this space-gps signal makes all your drones useless.

 

17 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

In 200 years, computers will have advanced at least as much as space technology. Autonomous drone projectiles are much easier to build than space battlecruisers and space fighters.

Same as hacking methods are going to be more advanced. Who knows maybe it is possible to hack computer that is not connected to internet using magnetic field or something. After 20 years we found out that intel cpu are not secured and those things are everywhere including military stuff like navy carriers and nuke missiles.
 

17 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's just a matter of uploading the proper rule book into the AI. The real universe is dominated by a rather strict set of rules. It's just a matter of having a good decision-making algorithm and feeding it with an accurate model. And I'm pretty sure that a machine can already beat you in many areas in the real-world.

 

Uploading data requires lots of communication and enemy can detect both sides you and drone, can see what you send and change his tactics.

Yes, machines can beat me in reaction time, when they are close enough. But if they are hundreds or thousands of kilometers away what advantage they have from their super fast reaction time?

Drone-projectile with electronics would have G limit much lower that simple titanium bolt, so guess which can move faster? From what I know in space there is a larger problem detecting micrometeorites  than electrical devices, just rain your enemies with steel-meteorites and all their docked fighters, military drones and service robots are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cassel said:

All-in-one ship is future not only in space battle, but also in navy. Just wait few years to see how it will develop, right now only US have large carriers fleet, so they have no competition and no reason to push it further. But China is making their own navy and I doubt it they will copy US tactics, they should make their own way of using carriers.

Have you ever seen a Nimitz-class go anywhere without a ginormous escort? Aircraft carriers desperately need surface combatant support.

Heck, they may have been obsolete for two-three decades, and Gorshkov will get the last laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, DDE said:

Have you ever seen a Nimitz-class go anywhere without a ginormous escort? Aircraft carriers desperately need surface combatant support.

Heck, they may have been obsolete for two-three decades, and Gorshkov will get the last laugh.

nimitz-class is all-in-one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cassel said:

nimitz-class is all-in-one?

Show me the Nimitz’s anti-submarine, anti-ship and long-range anti-aircraft assets, outside of an air wing that can easily get shot down and takes hours to sortie out?

Why do you think the Ticos, the Arleigh Burkes and the Los Angeles all exist and are all used as escorts?

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

Edited by DDE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with DDE. I don't believe the OP was looking for reasons why he shouldn't create a supercarrier in his fictional universe or reasons why somebody else's fictional universe might be better. He has the ability to build in any maguffins necessary to make supercarriers valuable.

Therefore I'm sticking to the very narrow interpretation of what a spacegoing supercarrier would be like.

Best,
-Slashy
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Show me the Nimitz’s anti-submarine, anti-ship and long-range anti-aircraft assets, outside of an air wing that can easily get shot down and takes hours to sortie out?

Why do you think the Ticos, the Arleigh Burkes and the Los Angeles all exist and are all used as escorts?

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg


Of course all-in-one navy-ship would be same size or little bigger than nimitz class, would have fewer planes on his deck, but lots of lasers, railguns and rockets. As for submarine I guess drones set to destroy any incoming torpedo or small manned submarines able to dock and resupply on main ship.

It would be a lot cheaper to make 5 ships with all-in-one capabilities  than this group from photo. I am talking not only about designs, technology, spare parts, building costs and building time etc etc but also about crew rotation.
This large group of ships require lots of people trained to do different things and you can't put crew from destroyer on carrier without additional training. While in my idea all crews would be trained in same way, because they are all from ship of same class.
I think, not an expert, but centralized command with modern technology would be easier than having 15 captains on 15 ships all doing one job... protecting carrier.

Space all-in-one ship should be heavy armored, with lots of energy weapons, railguns and also rockets. Some suicide-defensive drones to take down enemy rockets if some are going to pass lasers. I don't really see any use for space-fighter other than stealth scout. Small light armored ships in space are going to be melted with lasers or shreaded by projectiles from railguns.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Of course all-in-one navy-ship would be same size or little bigger than nimitz class, would have fewer planes on his deck, but lots of lasers, railguns and rockets. As for submarine I guess drones set to destroy any incoming torpedo or small manned submarines able to dock and resupply on main ship.

It would be a lot cheaper to make 5 ships with all-in-one capabilities  than this group from photo. I am talking not only about designs, technology, spare parts, building costs and building time etc etc but also about crew rotation.
This large group of ships require lots of people trained to do different things and you can't put crew from destroyer on carrier without additional training. While in my idea all crews would be trained in same way, because they are all from ship of same class.
I think, not an expert, but centralized command with modern technology would be easier than having 15 captains on 15 ships all doing one job... protecting carrier.

Facepalm.

One nuke gets through and a ship is gone. ANY ship. You don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket, because the sword is always more potent than the shield. Heck, the USN is currently moving towards "distributed lethality", where even the tankers carry cruise missiles, just because the carriers are a huge, fragile target.

And that's before we talk displacement and the sacrifices needed to combine mutually exclusive design elements in one platform.

146761170942.jpeg

55 minutes ago, Cassel said:

Space all-in-one ship should be heavy armored

Double facepalm.

You do realize that the all-in-one capability would result in obscene under-armour volume, which in turn would require a ludicrous amount of material to protect, right? Later battleship only protected a minor part of the ship with any meaningful armour.

This is the critical part of an aircraft carrier. Just you try and armour it up:

800px-thumbnail.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...