2006-04-18, 12:18 | Link #41 | |
Gangsta Member
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-04-18, 15:16 | Link #42 |
NO ESCAPE FROM NYAAA
Artist
Join Date: Jan 2004
|
A laser only cuts because one is using it at low-intensity and moving it slowly across a surface. A more practical space laser would be a short, high-energy burst like Manji mentioned.
The heat does not cut. It's the intensity and motion of the laser that creates a "cutting" effect, but all that's really happening is that you're melting a thin line across the target. A practical laser would cause the target point to heat up so quickly it would basically explode. So instead of a "cutting" laser it's more like an "explosive" laser, really.
__________________
|
2006-04-18, 15:23 | Link #43 |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
ofcourse at those distances one would have to use FTL projectiles
or any enemy would just turn right and watch it fly by days/weeks/years later But there's another problem I once heard a statement about 'dogfights' which -if crowded enough- could also sound true for spacecombat: "Even our most advanced radar can't see the difference between a bomber and civil 747. To really be sure, you gotta go closer take a look, and what happens when you get close enough and it turns out to be the enemy? You've got a dogfight on your hands" remember that in WWII huge ships, even entire fleets could "hide" for weeks among all other naval traffic One would not expect civilian traffic in a warzone, but one can expect warships in a civilian traffic route Without visual identification,... who will push the button and send a cat shelter-transport ship to oblivion? For god's sake, think about the kittens
__________________
|
2006-04-18, 16:35 | Link #45 | |
NO ESCAPE FROM NYAAA
Artist
Join Date: Jan 2004
|
Quote:
- the radar is that advanced - the craft doesn't have stealthing or some kind of jamming - the craft is flying conveniently close to you and not far, far away - the weather or environment is clear and free of any interference That's a lot of assumptions, there.
__________________
|
|
2006-04-18, 16:41 | Link #46 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Quote:
-Sorry, forgot the part about missileRadars not being accurate beyond a certain distance (20 miles??? there must be some aviation-geniusses here) I believe this is why the use of the well know long range Phoenix missile was restricted- But still: catching a planes silhoutte is only possible at a certain angle (a plane viewed from left-front gives a different signature than one from dead center) if -example- an F14 were to carry bombs instead of AA weaponry it already has a very 'unknown' radarsignature ie: once a missle locks on to something, it coud be a stray weather ballon, or a passengerplane a target's a target
__________________
|
|
2006-04-18, 16:43 | Link #47 | |
Gangsta Member
|
Quote:
and you can catch a plane at many angles and be able to identify it (well most likly you would need an advanced computer program ^^;; ) |
|
2006-04-18, 16:51 | Link #48 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Quote:
So far: The universe is winning" Never forget: if the predator improves, so will the prey If one can develop a radar so advanced it can identify targets 100% someone can develop something to make a target look 100% like something else
__________________
|
|
2006-04-18, 16:52 | Link #49 | |
Gangsta Member
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-04-18, 17:12 | Link #50 | |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Quote:
if I'm in a formation, and we get "long distance lock-on" my buddies know where 'I' am, and as long as you're in visual reach and the enemy far away, everyone knows that there's no need to pull the trigger and making the enemy scared ****less to blow their own men out of the sky
__________________
|
|
2006-04-18, 17:15 | Link #52 | |
Gangsta Member
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-04-18, 17:28 | Link #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Current trend is to get long-range contact via something, then get a scout aloft. Right now, this is done by fighter or helicopter, but it's changing to UAV. I can't see why long-range unmanned drone couldn't do the visual detection. If it gets blown up, well at least you know you aren't dealing with a defenseless civilian ship.
|
2006-04-18, 17:33 | Link #54 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2006-04-18, 19:20 | Link #55 |
Vampie Walrus. Big fangs
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
We'd also need major advancements in information communication. As it stands now it takes a long, long time for the light of distant sights to reach us. At only a few thousand kilometers this isn't such a big deal but when evading every second counts. The last thing we'd need is finding out we were shot at and COULD have evaded certain doom, if only we'd known about it 3 seconds earlier.
Basically, for space combat we're looking at so many much-needed technological advancements, we may as well just assume we have tech that's far more advanced than what's there now and not just "the next step up". A novel I once read had an interresting idea where ships were discovered by sensors that carefully monitored wayward gasses/dust/miniscule gravitational effects on other nearby objects, etc etc etc. I liked the idea, as cumbersome as it was. And the calculations could be done to determine the mass of the object and tell if it was a stray-floating screw or a huge battleship. It was kinda like whatever martial art it is that teaches how to see everything around you by disturbances in the environment. |
2006-04-18, 21:35 | Link #57 | |
Umeboshi!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tejas
Age: 48
|
Quote:
The superheating laser idea actually sounds pretty interesting, but I'm curious at what point diffraction would become a problem (I left physics behind looooong ago). Wouldn't it be easier to launch short range (relatively speaking of course) drones and launch missiles from significantly closer? Of course then anti-drone measures would become the norm. Really if you look at the history of military technology, it doesn't matter what one side or the other comes up with, the other side is going to either come up with a defense or get wiped out (possibly both): it's why there's an arms escalation.
__________________
|
|
2006-04-18, 21:52 | Link #58 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
The widespread usage of nukes will eliminate small manned fighters due to their inability to withstand radiation. Only heavily radiation-shielded warships will enter combat. |
|
2006-04-19, 01:37 | Link #59 |
NO ESCAPE FROM NYAAA
Artist
Join Date: Jan 2004
|
Radiation also drops off pretty significantly in space so you need point-blank detonation for it to be really useful (or a missile that hits the target, drills or penetrates into the ship, and then detonates). A shaped nuclear warhead would help too, I imagine.
__________________
|
|
|