|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 18, 2016 19:12:30 GMT
These are some excellent points I feel. One thing that could be done to aid in getting into orbit is making the braking burn at a long distance from the target and inserting into a highly elliptical orbit. Not only would this make interference with the burn more difficult it would also give the greatest flexibility to the invasion fleet to decide what their final orbit will be. In addition the final breaking stage of an invasion stage could be fairly well armored to protect against this type of attack. Yes, armored (from the front at least) 'final' invasion stages are a decent idea. I've been considering how you could armor a nuclear rocket from behind- it's not easy, but it is possible, especially if the number of places that they can shoot at you from is limited, and your main concern is lasers rather than solid projectiles. Another one is to go on offense, with at least one (unarmored, unmanned) craft filled with missiles and maybe a few drones that doesn't decelerate at all, but rather exists to destroy and disrupt any placed defenses or attempted intercept during the braking manuevers. I think the question of "how soon must they brake to avoid taking long range fire" is a very interesting one, especially since it's at the edge of what a lot of questions the simulation isn't set up to avoid answering. If they do it too early, they're not even in an elliptical orbit, and will need to spend real thrust to get to where they need to go. If they break too late, they're exposed to all sorts of nastiness - including defensive (potentially stealthy, at least until the last possible minute) railguns, pre-placed missiles and drones, very big lasers, and more - when they absolutely cannot afford it. Prudence suggests erring on the side of caution, and bringing a (relatively) armored, manueverable tanker so you can fight your way in slowly. It's worth noting that, in terms of fighting near most belt bodies, I imagine there's no such thing as a "safe" ellipitical orbit (simply too little gravity). Another thing worth considering is reinforcements. An interplanetary invasion many not be not "one and done", but a whole stream of attacks launched as logistics and construction are completed back at home. Having a fleet in a high orbital gives you time to assess the opponent's strength in detail, direct waves of hypervelocity attacks coming in behind you, and shoot down-well at targets of opportunity while the rest of your reinforcements come in. I don't know if an "orbithead" could be a real thing, but I don't see why it couldn't be. Personally I feel like an orbithead is very much a thing. Especially for planets. Just a very high orbit which will allow linking up with the rest of the fleet while still more or less in the same place. In addition in a very high orbit it would be fairy easy to avoid incoming shots. So be it another idea would be to insert into the same orbit as the planet link up with the rest of your forces and then just spend a small amount of delta v to get into the gravity well of the target. That would allow you to use mostly unarmored invasion stages and just bring along a fairly small tanker. The invasion stage puts you into say mars orbit but a fair bit behind mars. Once you've matched mars orbit you then perform a fairly small burn to enter the martian gravity well and work from there.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 19, 2016 15:16:40 GMT
Based on the orbit head idea, here is a proposed model. Essentially this model runs along three basic principles. 1: The establishment of a Orbit head based on on RTP(return to planet) ability. Essentially the fleets brake down as the following: 1:Primary incursion fleet.
A fast lightly armed and armoured fleet. Designed to get there first and begin testing the defences of the target body/hitting any easy early targets, unprotected satellites, blockading commercial commerce and destroying mass driver packages to and from the target body. What makes them also special is that they do not have any ship to ship direct attack space craft. The composition is a carrier, silo ship and finally an AWACS/defensive ship that could intercept any initial counter waves of missiles and drones. These ships will also likely be designed so that they have an automatic RTP ability, as they never have to close to a direct engagement range they don't have to spend that precious Dv to close to target. They will always have the ability to escape the engagement and move away should superior or difficult forces arrive. They are there to put that initial pressure on and test the target while gathering information, closely observing surface facilities, defensive emplacements etc... They only have partial armour if any at all to save as much as possible on weight and Dv 2:The Assault fleet.A Far more aggressive fleet this one would also be able to close to the orbit head, but also have enough fuel in conjunction with drop tanks to make it to a closer orbit while still having a full tank. These ships would comprise of an assault carrier, assault missile ship, Coil lancer and laser destroyer. They are fully armoured for combat and are designed to potentially engage ship to ship if necessary. Their prerogative is to destroy enemy fleets and defences, using information gathered by the incursion fleet. Should it be necessary they could hypothetically retreat to Orbit head, but further withdrawal would likely require a tanker. 3:Invasion FleetThis is the final and heaviest fleet. Further dedicated Silo ships and carriers supported by Coil Catapults and most importantly a troop transport with assault boats and at least one tanker. These guys are here to just finish the job. Smash any remaining ships or defences, then mount the assault with Espatier, and begin ISRU in conjunction with the tanker ships to begin refuelling and restocking the fleet. These ships will carry into and prioritise tight elliptical siege orbits to allow them to pin point the sub systems and people inside the colony. Prioritising CQC with the target body an landing operations. These fleets could hypothetically meet up at orbit head ahead of time or simply engage as necessary, but i feel like a feeler fleet is a good idea, both as a survivable scout fleet and a quick response and attack. In campaign both the missions Orbital fallout and force projection are examples of how skipping to an assault fleet is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 19, 2016 16:07:42 GMT
Based on the orbit head idea, here is a proposed model. Essentially this model runs along three basic principles. 1: The establishment of a Orbit head based on on RTP(return to planet) ability. Essentially the fleets brake down as the following: 1:Primary incursion fleet.
A fast lightly armed and armoured fleet. Designed to get there first and begin testing the defences of the target body/hitting any easy early targets, unprotected satellites, blockading commercial commerce and destroying mass driver packages to and from the target body. What makes them also special is that they do not have any ship to ship direct attack space craft. The composition is a carrier, silo ship and finally an AWACS/defensive ship that could intercept any initial counter waves of missiles and drones. These ships will also likely be designed so that they have an automatic RTP ability, as they never have to close to a direct engagement range they don't have to spend that precious Dv to close to target. They will always have the ability to escape the engagement and move away should superior or difficult forces arrive. They are there to put that initial pressure on and test the target while gathering information, closely observing surface facilities, defensive emplacements etc... They only have partial armour if any at all to save as much as possible on weight and Dv 2:The Assault fleet.A Far more aggressive fleet this one would also be able to close to the orbit head, but also have enough fuel in conjunction with drop tanks to make it to a closer orbit while still having a full tank. These ships would comprise of an assault carrier, assault missile ship, Coil lancer and laser destroyer. They are fully armoured for combat and are designed to potentially engage ship to ship if necessary. Their prerogative is to destroy enemy fleets and defences, using information gathered by the incursion fleet. Should it be necessary they could hypothetically retreat to Orbit head, but further withdrawal would likely require a tanker. 3:Invasion FleetThis is the final and heaviest fleet. Further dedicated Silo ships and carriers supported by Coil Catapults and most importantly a troop transport with assault boats and at least one tanker. These guys are here to just finish the job. Smash any remaining ships or defences, then mount the assault with Espatier, and begin ISRU in conjunction with the tanker ships to begin refuelling and restocking the fleet. These ships will carry into and prioritise tight elliptical siege orbits to allow them to pin point the sub systems and people inside the colony. Prioritising CQC with the target body an landing operations. These fleets could hypothetically meet up at orbit head ahead of time or simply engage as necessary, but i feel like a feeler fleet is a good idea, both as a survivable scout fleet and a quick response and attack. In campaign both the missions Orbital fallout and force projection are examples of how skipping to an assault fleet is a bad idea. That's cool! I'm glad my thoughts on the functionality of an orbit head could be. Mind you you would still need a fairly substantial invasion stage to slow from interplanetary speed to the fairly low high orbit speed. The main advantage of a high orbit is being far away from hostiles when you burn into the system. Another way that I brought up would be to match the orbit around the sun of the target body trailing either ahead of or behind the object a bit and then entering the target bodies sphere of influence at a fairly low velocity minimizing the amount of delta v needed and allowing the major braking maneuver to happen well outside of the range of most enemy weapon systems. Slowing down into a low orbit almost definitely would require fleet tankers but those can be much more protected than an invasion stage.
|
|
|
Post by wafflestoo on Oct 19, 2016 16:41:33 GMT
I was looking this over and I don't think high orbit is any more defensible than low orbit. But the incursion fleet could hang out in the unstable area outside of the Hill Sphere and that would make them almost un-interceptable (or at least the erratic, non-periodic orbits would require tons of corrections to hit). I think any defenders would have a hard time dealing with them up there.
I think you should add a 'wagon-train' mission to that fleet up there, just have the tankers and supply ships hang out with the incursion fleet to support the assault and invasion fleets if need be. This also gives the entire fleet a retreat option if things go sour (i.e. the assault fleet, if beaten can retreat to the incursion fleet to be refuelled or at least taken off their ships for the evacuation.)
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 19, 2016 20:57:37 GMT
That's cool! I'm glad my thoughts on the functionality of an orbit head could be. Mind you you would still need a fairly substantial invasion stage to slow from interplanetary speed to the fairly low high orbit speed. The main advantage of a high orbit is being far away from hostiles when you burn into the system. Another way that I brought up would be to match the orbit around the sun of the target body trailing either ahead of or behind the object a bit and then entering the target bodies sphere of influence at a fairly low velocity minimizing the amount of delta v needed and allowing the major braking maneuver to happen well outside of the range of most enemy weapon systems. Slowing down into a low orbit almost definitely would require fleet tankers but those can be much more protected than an invasion stage. This does mesh with the general scenario, my idea for the incursion fleet was that they would not need tankers, but would instead be very lightly armoured and long range oriented, From there they would likely be a kind of orbital guard line from which they could begin assault. Hypothetically i guess if the assault fleet definitely needs back up they could be called down to a strike orbit to deal with the target body, but this would only be in very specific cases. As a double function they could be repurposed as a "runaway, bus" A defeated assault fleet could ditch their weapons and missiles/drones then one of the incursion fleet ships could bus down and ferry the crews to high orbit were they could fuel up the biggest ship and ski-daddle out from the orbit head, their assault ships could be programmed to careen into the target for maximum damage. In order for them to survive though they would need a "we fucked up cruise ship" basically in my mind a repurposed passenger liner stocked with food and medical supplies to come along from the now turned away invasion fleet. It would meet up with the remaining ships from the incursion fleet, transfer the crews and turn tail and run back to friendly space. Posted by wafflestoo3 hours ago
I was looking this over and I don't think high orbit is any more defensible than low orbit. But the incursion fleet could hang out in the unstable area outside of the Hill Sphere and that would make them almost un-interceptable (or at least the erratic, non-periodic orbits would require tons of corrections to hit). I think any defenders would have a hard time dealing with them up there.
I think you should add a 'wagon-train' mission to that fleet up there, just have the tankers and supply ships hang out with the incursion fleet to support the assault and invasion fleets if need be. This also gives the entire fleet a retreat option if things go sour (i.e. the assault fleet, if beaten can retreat to the incursion fleet to be refuelled or at least taken off their ships for the evacuation.)
This is also an interesting suggestion. Adding a tanker and supplies ship to the Assault fleet with a additional ships in the invasion fleet would open up the flexibility of a retreat operation. I would mainly be concerned with how secure those ships would be if orbit head was only loosely secured.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Oct 20, 2016 0:54:38 GMT
Here is a rough blueprint finally finished:
|
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57
|
Post by erin on Oct 20, 2016 3:32:42 GMT
Kind of a smaller qualm, but what would make a position outside of the Hill sphere intrinsically much more difficult to hit? I've never really seen the effectiveness of unstable freefall trajectories in fouling up an intercept, just go to the edge of the Hill sphere yourself in the rough area the enemy will be, bring your supply tenders and spare tanks, and plot your intercept from there. That's not to say that holding such a position doesn't introduce any complications for the defense at all, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that defending forces are going to be able to compute how the enemy's orbits get perturbed, and the enemy is still going to need active thrust to avoid you if that's what they're trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 13:24:14 GMT
What would be the point of turning such an asteroid into a fortress? There's no reason for your enemy to attack it, since it has little inherent value, and they can always go around it to attack something else. If you're going to fortify something, it should be something valuable. Also, how would you aim a mass driver built deep into the asteroid? Its your political enclave in a solar system full of bloodthirsty tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by wafflestoo on Oct 20, 2016 15:23:37 GMT
Kind of a smaller qualm, but what would make a position outside of the Hill sphere intrinsically much more difficult to hit? I've never really seen the effectiveness of unstable freefall trajectories in fouling up an intercept, just go to the edge of the Hill sphere yourself in the rough area the enemy will be, bring your supply tenders and spare tanks, and plot your intercept from there. That's not to say that holding such a position doesn't introduce any complications for the defense at all, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that defending forces are going to be able to compute how the enemy's orbits get perturbed, and the enemy is still going to need active thrust to avoid you if that's what they're trying to do. Because we don't have that capability in game I really want to argue the point... but I can't. Mostly because of my experience with the ISEE-3 reboot project; Robert Farquhar calculated the N-Body orbit that the probe would take so well that his predictions on where it would be beat the computer simulations in accuracy so I know first-hand that it can be done. The idea was to take advantage of the instability region to create a safe-ish haven for the operational and support ships to hide in while the combat ships went down into orbit to slug it out with the defenders.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 20, 2016 22:58:33 GMT
I think I may try to build one of these "assault ships" tonight. I'd assume it would be a large carrier, loaded up with smaller landing ships. What sort of weight ratio would you expect for equipment/supplies/troops? What's the smallest deployment unit for a landing ship? Do we need to landing ships to be atmosphere-capable so they're utilitarian or do we build them mission specific?
Gamewise, has anyobe tried using a remote control and a crew compartmentry on the same ship? At work so I can't test it.
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 20, 2016 23:08:32 GMT
Well for landing craft most of the time you will not need to re enter the atmosphere as most of the things you want are airless bodies. But capitals and very major installations are on very large moons with atmosphere or even full up planets and as those are the final objective you will eventauly need a landing craft but then again why are you invading a body that you can threatened with nuclear annihilation if they do not agree to all terms of surrender?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Oct 21, 2016 0:38:15 GMT
Well for landing craft most of the time you will not need to re enter the atmosphere as most of the things you want are airless bodies. But capitals and very major installations are on very large moons with atmosphere or even full up planets and as those are the final objective you will eventauly need a landing craft but then again why are you invading a body that you can threatened with nuclear annihilation if they do not agree to all terms of surrender? Granted, "landing" on a rock would be much different than atmosphere. But sometimes you need boots on the ground. I'd assume an invasion would carry specialized craft for whatever environment it was intended to occupy, but at the same time it would cost-prohibitive to have huge arsenals of Luna-rated and Encleaudus-rated landers. There'd have to be some sort of standardization. Do the gravities of most of the Jovan moons vary? I know the atmospheric pressures very. So how would the ships be rated?
|
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57
|
Post by erin on Oct 21, 2016 0:45:18 GMT
Because we don't have that capability in game I really want to argue the point... but I can't. Mostly because of my experience with the ISEE-3 reboot project; Robert Farquhar calculated the N-Body orbit that the probe would take so well that his predictions on where it would be beat the computer simulations in accuracy so I know first-hand that it can be done. The idea was to take advantage of the instability region to create a safe-ish haven for the operational and support ships to hide in while the combat ships went down into orbit to slug it out with the defenders. Yeah, like, even in-game we still can calculate the unstable trajectories -- they have to be computable or else the game couldn't project the freefall trajectories into the future itself. The main challenge involved, the way I've experienced it, is one of human error and patience, and perhaps also the question of "what range is weapons range" that CoaDE sidesteps. I do agree that holding the edge of the Hill sphere could be advantageous to attackers, just in a more general sense of being far enough out of the gravity well and at sufficient distance that surface-mounted kinetics will be ineffective and the defenders will need to deploy capships or at least very high dV drone/missile squadrons to engage any FOBs/staging areas. Durandal for troop landing ships, maybe the Ithacus rocket could serve as a useful start point? Ithacus was supposed to be an SSTO drop-tank troop transport in the Cold War and was supposed to carry a payload of 450 tonnes corresponding to 1200 soldiers; the Ithacus Jr. version would deploy 33.5 tonnes for 260 soldiers. Ratio of 375kg and 129kg/soldier respectively. Gross mass for the Ithacus Sr is listed on the website as 6363 tonnes, so total mass-to-soldier ratio of 5.3 tonnes/soldier, albeit for a very optimistic rocket. captinjoehenry I don't see any sense in completely annihilating a settlement that won't comply with all terms of surrender. As for the assumption that capitals will be on very large planets/moons, why? There are good reasons to think that asteroids will be useful homes for many millions of people, possibly to a degree comparable with planets. It's not a guarantee of course, but I'd recommend looking into the Gravitational Space Balloons project for a lot of really interesting thoughts on developing asteroid habitats capable of housing 100+ million people
|
|
|
Post by captinjoehenry on Oct 21, 2016 0:49:23 GMT
Because we don't have that capability in game I really want to argue the point... but I can't. Mostly because of my experience with the ISEE-3 reboot project; Robert Farquhar calculated the N-Body orbit that the probe would take so well that his predictions on where it would be beat the computer simulations in accuracy so I know first-hand that it can be done. The idea was to take advantage of the instability region to create a safe-ish haven for the operational and support ships to hide in while the combat ships went down into orbit to slug it out with the defenders. Yeah, like, even in-game we still can calculate the unstable trajectories -- they have to be computable or else the game couldn't project the freefall trajectories into the future itself. The main challenge involved, the way I've experienced it, is one of human error and patience, and perhaps also the question of "what range is weapons range" that CoaDE sidesteps. I do agree that holding the edge of the Hill sphere could be advantageous to attackers, just in a more general sense of being far enough out of the gravity well and at sufficient distance that surface-mounted kinetics will be ineffective and the defenders will need to deploy capships or at least very high dV drone/missile squadrons to engage any FOBs/staging areas. Durandal for troop landing ships, maybe the Ithacus rocket could serve as a useful start point? Ithacus was supposed to be an SSTO drop-tank troop transport in the Cold War and was supposed to carry a payload of 450 tonnes corresponding to 1200 soldiers; the Ithacus Jr. version would deploy 33.5 tonnes for 260 soldiers. Ratio of 375kg and 129kg/soldier respectively. Gross mass for the Ithacus Sr is listed on the website as 6363 tonnes, so total mass-to-soldier ratio of 5.3 tonnes/soldier, albeit for a very optimistic rocket. captinjoehenry I don't see any sense in completely annihilating a settlement that won't comply with all terms of surrender. As for the assumption that capitals will be on very large planets/moons, why? There are good reasons to think that asteroids will be useful homes for many millions of people, possibly to a degree comparable with planets. It's not a guarantee of course, but I'd recommend looking into the Gravitational Space Balloons project for a lot of really interesting thoughts on developing asteroid habitats capable of housing 100+ million people Well mostly it was just based off of the fact that Mars is the main base of one faction and the last place to be taken in the campaign was a big moon of one of the gas giants which if I recall had an atmosphere. So I was just going off of that as yeah asteroids can definitely work and airless bodies as well.
|
|
erin
Junior Member
Smash Mouth Plays From The Depths Of Hell As You Traverse A Deep, Rat-Infested Cave
Posts: 57
|
Post by erin on Oct 21, 2016 0:54:34 GMT
Gotcha. I was assuming more generally on the subject of space habitation, sorry yeah
|
|