|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2017 18:59:09 GMT
The problem with all Drones (drone fighters, boarders etc) Drones can be Hacked. Drone Control signals can be jammed/hacked. It won't do you much good to send your antipersonnel drone force aboard an enemy ship, if some tech savvy enemy breaks into your Drone Control system and turns them on you... or jams that control signal to make the drones completely useless. Why do you think we don't already have Drone Bombers/Fighters in real life? Can the Taliban/Isis hack them? No. But Russia/China/Iran etc sure can hack or jam drones. The Iranians have already proven they can do it. Drones are not the end-all be-all weapons system that you guys seem to think they are. Encryption won't be hacked We have a long history of breaking unbreakable codes, assume the enemy can hear what you're saying, and can hack you
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Mar 5, 2017 19:07:07 GMT
you can run your drone off a tether which can only be physically disrupted. So instead of arguing over drones versus espatiers, we could use remote vehicles instead, right? That has the complex momentary decision making that comes with direct human control while retaining the expendability of a drone.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Mar 5, 2017 19:27:42 GMT
you can run your drone off a tether which can only be physically disrupted. So instead of arguing over drones versus espatiers, we could use remote vehicles instead, right? That has the complex momentary decision making that comes with direct human control while retaining the expendability of a drone. The human espatiers might only be a few meters behind the breaching drone to handcuff the crew the breaching drone discovered.. The drone operator who is wearing VR goggles and whatever controller is quite a bit further back. Of course depending upon the history of boarding they might only use humans because the risk is such that human loss is unlikely. The whole point of the breaching drone is to save one guy from death and it is a bit demoralizing if your decision is to try and kill a drone and die swiftly to the counterpunch or just surrender. Nobody really cares if you broke their drone. Compare that to actually killing a boarding human. More than that the boarders can be more aggressive because the equipment is most likely to die rather than losing well trained men and writing letters to the bereaved family. Shoot my drone? You die. Your family will be crying and my financial officer will only be slightly annoyed. Again the boarded crew only has two choices left, surrender or die, they cannot escape.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Mar 5, 2017 19:33:43 GMT
Encryption won't be hacked We have a long history of breaking unbreakable codes, assume the enemy can hear what you're saying, and can hack you Your ship is wrecked, your propellant tanks punctured, rocket nozzles perforated, cannon barrels melted and radiators empty of coolant. Your cameras watch a boarding vessel approach and match velocities and little drones and space marines start crawling along your hull. Hack those drones before they cut open your already depressurized bulkheads. Try hacking them when they have a cable reel that leads back to the boarding ship and the drones are plural and mutually supported by both armed drones and armed human marines.
Speaking politically there may be some Factional negotiations about recovering the crew of derelict vessels. In that enemies may or may not ask for their crews to be rescued or to insist the derelict be left in solar orbit for friendly recovery. Now agreeing with your adversary is a dangerous thing so they might loudly proclaim you should not board their derelict warship, but what are they going to do about it if you board anyways? That's more of the political/humanitarian law of space warfare regarding quarter. I don't see a faction being required to rescue a disabled enemy on an escape trajectory, but if an enemy crew is stranded in your sphere of influence and requests rescue the defender might have some reasonable obligation to accept a surrender. Again this is politics which will often conflict with idealized physical equations.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2017 20:46:18 GMT
Easy if they have radio or non-physical communications then they can be hacked, not a matter of If but When. the crew of the disabled warship might not be able to crack the code in the little time they have left but the spies back home have years to work the code down
|
|
|
Boarding
Mar 5, 2017 21:37:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by Easy on Mar 5, 2017 21:37:14 GMT
Easy if they have radio or non-physical communications then they can be hacked, not a matter of If but When. the crew of the disabled warship might not be able to crack the code in the little time they have left but the spies back home have years to work the code down too little, too late. Remember that the ship being boarded has already lost the battle and is existing at the mercy of the victors. Meaningful resistance is at best a delaying tactic that probably won't las long enough for friendly rescue. Of course we are assuming quarter will be given. If the crew can expect only torture and death from capture they might choose self destruction. The crew isn't without options, they might increase radiation dramatically to force boarding parties to operate within the same radiation umbrella the surviving crew is hiding in. And you might hold yourself hostage with a nuclear weapon so both boarders and derelict crew die. But that assumes the standoff will last long enough for friendly rescue (days? Weeks? Years?). How much life support does the damaged crew module on emergency power have? Even then the boarders may keep distance and disassemble the ship with expendable salvage drones.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2017 22:26:01 GMT
Easy Data is what the boarders are after, increasing the time it takes for them to reach the data means I can wreak more hard drives (not just wiping them but destorying them) and kill more intel officers and Admirals.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Mar 5, 2017 22:51:17 GMT
Easy Data is what the boarders are after, increasing the time it takes for them to reach the data means I can wreak more hard drives (not just wiping them but destroying them) and kill more intel officers and Admirals. If easy data is the goal then why board the crew module at all? Just shoot off the radiators and cook 'em.
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 5, 2017 23:33:25 GMT
Easy if they have radio or non-physical communications then they can be hacked, not a matter of If but When. the crew of the disabled warship might not be able to crack the code in the little time they have left but the spies back home have years to work the code down Nope. If you're controlling the drones from the same point you're deploying them from, key distribution isn't a problem. That means you can use one-time pad encryption, with the pads randomly generated just prior to launch. One-time pads are provably secure. The drone launcher and control console are air-gapped except for the radio link between drone and controller. You can't hack either of them, because without a copy of the pad, you can't produce intelligible coded messages.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:33:06 GMT
The whole point of the breaching drone is to save one guy from death... But not just that, machines just do some jobs better than humans can. Regarding boarding a spaceship in hard vacuum, I can't see any job that a human can do better than well designed drone robots. Perhaps after all the action is over human officers might come over, but that's not boarding, that's exploitation and investigation of captured enemy equipment.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:37:54 GMT
Easy Data is what the boarders are after, increasing the time it takes for them to reach the data means I can wreak more hard drives (not just wiping them but destroying them) and kill more intel officers and Admirals. If easy data is the goal then why board the crew module at all? Just shoot off the radiators and cook 'em. But if you cook the crew, you will cook the computers and data drives too. Maybe neutron grenades carried by the bots that I am sorry to say, eliminate people, but leave equipment intact. But heat is your enemy if you want data. Really I think less than lethal backed up with some arms makes the most sense. Flashbangs, dazzlers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, sand shot, ultrasonic disablers, etc all are very effective.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 6, 2017 2:11:44 GMT
If easy data is the goal then why board the crew module at all? Just shoot off the radiators and cook 'em. But if you cook the crew, you will cook the computers and data drives too. Maybe neutron grenades carried by the bots that I am sorry to say, eliminate people, but leave equipment intact. But heat is your enemy if you want data. Really I think less than lethal backed up with some arms makes the most sense. Flashbangs, dazzlers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, sand shot, ultrasonic disablers, etc all are very effective. Neutron Bombs are small scale nuclear weapons, 10Kt of TNT is what your looking at for a big Neutron Bomb
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 6, 2017 2:13:45 GMT
What about chemical warfare? Fill their ecosystem with some nitrous and put them to sleep?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 2:17:52 GMT
But if you cook the crew, you will cook the computers and data drives too. Maybe neutron grenades carried by the bots that I am sorry to say, eliminate people, but leave equipment intact. But heat is your enemy if you want data. Really I think less than lethal backed up with some arms makes the most sense. Flashbangs, dazzlers, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets, sand shot, ultrasonic disablers, etc all are very effective. Neutron Bombs are small scale nuclear weapons, 10Kt of TNT is what your looking at for a big Neutron Bomb Not exactly. It's not just a small nuke, but in a way a separate category of weapon. Kill the crew without breaking their stuff. That's what a neutron bomb is made for. It is designed to use the neutron flash as a lethal killer instead of using that to create an explosion. "A neutron bomb, officially termed as a type of Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW), is a low yield thermonuclear weapon designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation in the immediate vicinity of the blast while minimizing the physical power of the blast itself. The neutron release generated by a nuclear fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components.[3] The neutron burst, which is used as the primary destructive action of the warhead, is able to penetrate enemy armor more effectively than a conventional warhead thus making it more lethal as a tactical weapon." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 6, 2017 2:45:17 GMT
deltav "low yield thermonuclear weapon" is where you went wrong, Neutron Bombs were made to kill Soviet Armoured Tank Divisions, by cooking the crew, however tanks are armoured (go figure) so the radiation pulse was not as effective as thought, also if you have LoS to the bomb exploding you get cooked in a different way. A small nuclear blast will wipe out the crew module also the Li-6 radiation shields everyone uses are perfect for stopping that kind of stuff
|
|