Military applications for P2P (split from SpaceX)

[YNM]

2 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

I meant roll 

I'm not sure if you can even roll starship to face the other side (heatshield up) completely in control... the flaps doesn't work like in normal rockets.

[SpaceFace545]

14 minutes ago, YNM said:

I'm not sure if you can even roll starship to face the other side (heatshield up) completely in control... the flaps doesn't work like in normal rockets.

You could probably roll it over but I don’t think you could roll it back.

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But those elevators are meant to work in microgravity and likely won’t be able to carry 60 ton tanks.

Hence the phrase "close to" in my post. Or they could create a completely different system. And somehow I doubt they'll be shipping vehicles. That's a thing for ships and airlifters. SS's niche is speed. It could deliver missiles, critical replacement parts, etc. An M1A2? Nah.

[SpaceFace545]

27 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

It could deliver missiles, critical replacement parts, etc. 

But that's the point I don't get. Missiles, replacement parts and supplies are all things that are at the base next door, max two hours away by a helicopter. I also doubt any base needs 100 tons of missiles or whatever so badly that it needs them shipped by a rocket. 

[kerbiloid]

(Copypasted from Q&A thread because it's too nice to post this just once)

But irl the Lunar Force was born as a pure infantry.

And it has an officially developed and accepted spacesuit  and weapon design, optimized for lunar conditions.

Spoiler

 

That's not a sci-fi, that's from the official project documentation.

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But that's the point I don't get. Missiles, replacement parts and supplies are all things that are at the base next door, max two hours away by a helicopter. I also doubt any base needs 100 tons of missiles or whatever so badly that it needs them shipped by a rocket. 

We already went over this. During the opening stages of a major conflict, a lot of existing infrastructure would be lost (read: the bases "next door" are no longer fully operational). Some of the areas these things are stored at could be hit. So, SS could bring replacements quickly. And in the opening stages of what would presumably be a very fast-paced conflict, every second counts.

[DDE]

8 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But those elevators are meant to work in microgravity and likely won’t be able to carry 60 ton tanks.

Let's be honest, Starships probably wouldn't be used to ferry ABCTs; for SBCTs, the Stryker/Dragoon family of vehicles isn't likely to get heavier than 25 tons, and it's entirely possible the rocket troopers would be formed of just ICBTs (airborne, mountain, light brigades, maybe Rangers) who don't have permanently assigned squad transports at all and are nominally just foot troops with jeeps.

Spoiler

Infantry platoon in an ABCT:

Infantry platoon in an SBCT:

Three infantry platoons in an IBCT:

 

[kerbiloid]

Tanks are anti-partisanbeggar dinosaurs since the drones, javelins, hornets, sadarms, and other anti-roof things became a mainstream.

20..30 mm thick from top (against 1 m equivalent from front), and 3 times greater projection area.

So, a tank gets as vulnerable as a lightweight armored vehicle when you see it from top.

Edited June 4, 2021 by kerbiloid

[tater]

https://afresearchlab.com/news/department-of-the-air-force-announces-fourth-vanguard-program/

Quote

Potential mission applications include Special Airlift to deliver equipment needed to quickly restore a loss of mission operations, and humanitarian aid and disaster relief payloads to stricken areas.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Landing in a hurricane may prove problematic 

[SpaceFace545]

9 minutes ago, tater said:

https://afresearchlab.com/news/department-of-the-air-force-announces-fourth-vanguard-program/

 

So I guess not starship. This imo looks much cooler and a lot more retro.

[tater]

6 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

So I guess not starship. This imo looks much cooler and a lot more retro.

1. It's lousy art, and just looks crappy.

2. It's Starship.

 

That's an M985 truck, which is slightly longer than Starship diameter.

So the crappy render just happens to be a 30' diameter steel tube—but no, it's not Starship, lol.

Edited June 4, 2021 by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

It's Starship

Can't be... It is blue 

[tater]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Can't be... It is blue 

LOL.

Maybe MS Paint didn't have "steel" as an option?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Just now, tater said:

LOL.

Maybe MS Paint didn't have "steel" as an option?

Man - you just don't get it, yet, do you. 

 

You probably think this is a Boeng. 

It is not. 

 

It is a Quantas

(grin) 

[tater]

Clearly not a 747, but much cooler:

Spoiler

 

[kerbiloid]

10 hours ago, tater said:

Quote

Potential mission applications include Special Airlift to deliver equipment needed to quickly restore a loss of mission operations, and humanitarian aid and disaster relief payloads to stricken areas.

 

A permanently fueled cryorocket full of blankets? Lol.

Several hours of the disaster itself + at least several hours of warehouse and bureaucracy + several hours of cryorocket fuelling = an airplane flight instead does not take too much,

[tater]

39 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A permanently fueled cryorocket full of blankets? Lol.

Several hours of the disaster itself + at least several hours of warehouse and bureaucracy + several hours of cryorocket fuelling = an airplane flight instead does not take too much,

Starship gets filled in what, 30 minutes? Call fueling an hour, maybe 2?

Loading might take a couple hours, presumably they'd have a few prepacked cargo types. Water purification, dried food, generators (solar?), medical supplies.

Could be a thing.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Could be a thing.

Far North is too close to airports.
Far South needs too many rockets.

@tater, a project of an ICBM with a rescue variant. 

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-844.html

But it's for the sea rescue operations.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Far North is too close to airports.
Far South needs too many rockets.

I think they want the capability, and part of that is a sales pitch (to Congress). It really only makes sense for antipodal missions.

 

[kerbiloid]

(As Google translate seems having problems with that link, here's a copypaste of the translation)

Spoiler

15P170 Albatross Author: Dimmi Created: 8/11/2015 7:40:47 Changed: 16.09.2016 22:49:56 Comments: 0 Category: EARTH / Ballistic missiles surface-to-earth / intercontinental ballistic missiles / 15P170 Albatross /

DATA FOR 2015 (standard replenishment) R&D "Albatross", complex 15P170 Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The development of the complex was carried out by NPO Mashinostroeniya (Reutovo) by Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers No. 173-45 dated February 9, 1987. Chief Designer - Herbert Efremov. In 1991, it was planned to start testing the complex, and in 1993 it was planned to start mass production of ICBMs (East - Kazydub). The creation of a new missile system with the ability to overcome a multi-echelon missile defense system was supposed to be an asymmetric response to the development of a missile defense system in the United States under the SDI program. Combat equipment of the complex - maneuvering gliding (winged) hypersonic warheads of the first generation ( source ), capable of maneuvering up to 1000 km in azimuth when entering the atmosphere at an altitude of the "Karman line" with speeds of the order of 5.8 - 7.5 km / s (17-22 M). The Albatross project was based on proposals for a guided warhead capable of evading an anti-missile missile - UBB was supposed to record the launch of an anti-missile and perform a programmed evasive maneuver. The development of the UBB project with such capabilities was carried out in 1979-1980. - the design of an automation system for such an anti-missile maneuver was carried out ( source ). The preliminary design of the Albatross complex was developed by the end of 1987 and was criticized by the Ministry of Defense. The design of the complex was carried out until the beginning of 1989. The main reasons for the termination of development: the doubtful timing of the project, incl. due to the problematic nature of the technical solutions incorporated in the project. In June 1989, at a meeting at NPO Mashinostroeniya (Reutovo), General Director of NPO G.A. Efremov proposed the development of the Albatross complex as a universal complex for the Strategic Missile Forces - for mine and mobile types of basing. This provoked opposition from other ICBM developers - the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT) and the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau (Dnepropetrovsk). On September 9, 1989, in the development of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of February 9, 1987, Decision of the Military Industrial Complex No. 323 was issued, which prescribed the creation of two new missile systems instead of the Albatross complex - a mobile ground and stationary mine based on a universal three-stage solid-propellant rocket for both complexes. developed by MIT for the Topol-2 mobile soil complex. The research topic was named "Universal"(rocket RT-2PM2 / 8Zh65, later - "Topol-M" ). The development of a PGRK with a new missile was carried out by MIT, a complex based in silos - KB "Yuzhnoye" (source - Kazydub). The active development of the Albatross complex in the interests of the Strategic Missile Forces was discontinued after the conclusion of the START-1 treaty in 1991, but testing of UBB prototypes continued.     Drawing of the apparatus SLA-1 and SLA-2 of the "Call" system from the advertising booklet of NPO Mashinostroyenia, 1990s ( http://forums.airbase.ru/ ). According to other, unconfirmed officially, data, the termination of work on the complex occurred after the consideration of the draft design by the USSR Ministry of Defense and happened in 1988-1989. ( source ). 1990-1992 flight tests of UBB prototypes of the Albatross complex were carried out. The launches were made from the Kapustin Yar test site using the K65M-R launch vehicle. The first launch was performed on February 28, 1990 without separating the payload. Chronology of launches according to the test program of the Albatross complex: No. Rocket A type Start (date) Polygon Description  one   K65M-R February 28, 1990 Kapustin Yar The first launch of the test program for the controlled warhead of the Albatross complex. The launch was carried out at the Sary-Shagan test site. The launch took place "without separating" the combat load  2   K65M-R 05.03.1990 Kapustin Yar The second launch of the test program for the controlled warhead of the Albatross complex. The launch was carried out at the Sary-Shagan test site. The launch took place "without separating" the combat load                         Later, using the developments under the Albatross project, NPO Mashinostroyenia began the development of the 4202 aeroballistic hypersonic combat equipment (AGBO) . Launching and ground equipment : Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers No. 173-45 of February 9, 1987 proposed the development of a complex in three basing options - mobile ground, stationary mine and redeployed mine. The missile launchers were supposed to have increased resistance to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion, as well as to the effects of beam and other types of weapons. - PGRK - silo, stationary version - silo, redeployable version of the Albatross Rocket : The design is a three-stage solid-propellant rocket with a sequential arrangement of stages. The main goal of the development of the complex is the creation of an ICBM protected from the damaging factors of nuclear explosions, beam and kinetic weapons. Accordingly, the body of the rocket had to have increased resistance to the indicated damaging factors.  Control system and guidance : autonomous inertial ICBM control system. The development of a control and guidance system for combat equipment was carried out by NPO Mashinostroyenia (Reutovo). The winged guided warhead (UBB) was supposed to perform programmed anti-missile maneuvers in azimuth and flight altitude at altitudes less than 300 km using several random variants of evasion maneuvers. It was also supposed to use the UBB flight trajectory correction system according to the radio-contrast terrain standard in the target area. The use of extreme navigation by reference matrices of the terrain relief was not intended. By the end of the 1980s, the solution with the extraction and recognition of the contours of radio-contrast images was recognized as promising. It was planned to accumulate statistics on the use of this correction technology when testing the 3M25 Meteorite cruise missile , but this did not happen. Engines : 1st, 2nd and 3rd stages - solid propellant engines TTX complex "Albatross" : Maximum speed UBB - 17-22 M Maximum flight altitude - 250-300 km Combat equipment : - one or several (?) Gliding winged blocks (PCB) with a nuclear charge. By inertia, the unit performs a controlled flight in the atmosphere (plans) and can reach the target from any direction and in a wide range of altitudes. Some sources indicate the index of the controlled warhead - 15F178. At the same time, it is known that the UBB 15F178 is not a winged UBB and was developed for the R-36M2 ICBM. According to the source, tests of the first controlled warhead (probably 15F178) were carried out by K65M-R launch vehicles along the Kapustin Yar - Sary-Shagan route in 1985-1991. Modifications : - complex with an "Albatross" ICBM with a winged UBB - a basic version with a basic version of combat equipment; - complex "Prizyv" - jointly in the TsNIIMASH NPO Mashinostroyenia in the 1990s came up with an initiative proposal to develop a project for the "Prizyv" rescue rocket and space system. It was proposed by 2000-2003 on the basis of the UR-100NUTTH ICBM to create a complex for rendering assistance to ships in distress. Train load - special aerospace rescue aircraft SLA-1 and SLA-2, which can carry various rescue equipment. The delivery time of the emergency kit to those in distress could be from 15 minutes to 1.5 hours, the landing accuracy was 20-30 m, the payload mass was 420 kg and 2500 kg, depending on the type of the ULV. The SLA-1 rescue aircraft is capable of delivering up to 90 life rafts or an emergency kit.Rescue aircraft SLA-2 - can deliver rescue equipment for ships (fire-fighting module, drainage module and diving module); in another embodiment, a remotely piloted aircraft or a rescue robot. The work on the project did not leave the preliminary study stage. Status : USSR / Russia - 1991 - the planned date for testing the Albatross ICBM under the Decree on the development of the complex. Sources : Kazydub G.I. Seven commanders of the Strategic Missile Forces without retouching and makeup. ( source ). A.V. Karpenko Combat missile system "Albatross" with an intercontinental ballistic missile. 2015 Called by the time. From confrontation to international cooperation. GKB "Yuzhnoye", 2003

 

[YNM]

18 hours ago, tater said:

Potential mission applications include Special Airlift to deliver equipment needed to quickly restore a loss of mission operations, and humanitarian aid and disaster relief payloads to stricken areas.

I still don't quite get how would they get back from a place they couldn't refuel in though. That being said if they do manage to get up enough dV then they wouldn't need any.

7 hours ago, tater said:

It really only makes sense for antipodal missions.

Well, maybe not quite antipode...

Spoiler

 

[Vanamonde]

Some comments have been removed. Since KSP attracts players from all over the world, please remember that 'the other side' of any comparison of nationalities is going to include fellow forum members. This is why we ask folks to avoid politics and arguments about which country is more or less virtuous, effective, fragrant, etc. Those discussions are always hurtful to someone and make the forum a less pleasant place to visit. 

[DDE]

On 6/4/2021 at 5:02 AM, SpaceFace545 said:

But that's the point I don't get. Missiles, replacement parts and supplies are all things that are at the base next door, max two hours away by a helicopter. I also doubt any base needs 100 tons of missiles or whatever so badly that it needs them shipped by a rocket. 

I don't think that's a correct assumption. Recent conflicts have been consistently mired by smart weapon shortages, the USN rarely has the ordnance to top off its warships to the brim... and that's before "for but not with" where entire weapon systems are omitted. Basically, militaries are fast becoming fans of "just in time supplies" with regards to ordnance.

Same goes for replacement parts... when those are even avilable in the first place, which is not the case for a range of systems. Last month USAF solicited a company to reverse-engineer a B-2 component because not only is the contractor gone but they didn't leave the documentation behind.

[YNM]

8 minutes ago, DDE said:

Basically, militaries are fast becoming fans of "just in time supplies" with regards to ordnance.

Almost seems like a waste delivering small rockets with a giant rockets though... esp. when that means you need to service the giant rockets and fly them back, with fuel that aren't as widely used (yet).