Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

"...Would it be possible (well, anything is possible, but more like feasible or practical) to have a ship with the necessary facilities to operate indefinitely?"

That's the problem that faced pirates in the 18th century, and it boils down to obtaining spare replacement parts as complex mechanisms break down. Back then, pirates had to capture a new ship every couple of years as the old one wore out, because they had no access to the port facilities required for such complex repairs. I would think your crew behind enemy lines would face the same issues. As long as they can capture new ships every couple of years, there is probably no reason they couldn't go on for a very long time.

edited 14th Jan '18 2:06:44 PM by DeMarquis

I'm more thinking along the lines of equipping a capital ship with extensive machine shops and mining gear or something like that. I'm just wondering how much you could feasibly take care of onboard while still having a combat-effective vessel.

They should have sent a poet.

This fleet have advanced 3D printers and on board manufacturing plants for basic munitions, as well as an agricultural ship that’s heavily protected.

All of the ships have some form of hydroponics for MR Es, but the agriculture ship produces many of the delicate foods these soldiers eat on a day to day basis

New Survey coming this weekend!

Well, if a ship has it's own manufacturing capabilities, such that its entirely independent of access to port facilities, then you answered your own question.

I would wonder how carrying around that much extra equipment would affect its' performance.

It's essentially an independent, self-contained micro-society that also happens to have a military function. As long as it has a way to obtain fuel and other non-renewable resources, such as by skimming hydrogen off of gas giants or something like that, then there's no inherent reason it can't last almost indefinitely on any modest scale — years or decades.

The major problems facing any such fleet are, in no particular order:

• Attrition of equipment. Let's say it gets into a battle and the hydroponics ship takes a catastrophic hit. The fleet's sustainability is now seriously compromised. There just wouldn't be enough redundancy to deal with this sort of problem. Possible solution: the fleet captures a starship manufacturing facility from the enemy.

(Note, however, that this creates a point of attack that defies the idea of the fleet being highly mobile.)

• Attrition of personnel. Even with a zero casualty rate, soldiers age and eventually cease being fit for combat. There would have to be a way to get new combatants to the fleet, and "home-growing" them is an iffy proposition. Possible solution: a cloning facility, depending on technological capabilities.
• Morale and psychology. Even the most hardened soldier is going to get tired of fighting sooner or later and need a break. This fleet would have limited capability for shore leave; since it operates "behind enemy lines", every port is hostile. Possible solution: use robotic/AI combatants and let the people run the show instead of fighting directly.
• Technological obsolescence. In any protracted wartime scenario, military technology is constantly evolving. Even if this fleet has the most amazing tech ever seen when it's deployed, in a few years it'd be behind the curve, and sooner or later it'd be essentially worthless. This could be mitigated a bit if the war is so damaging to one or both sides that technological development is severely impaired.

These are just off the top of my head. The more capability you give to your fleet to make it self-sufficient, the less it resembles a covert operations strike force and the more it resembles (and must act like) a complete, functional society.

edited 15th Jan '18 6:38:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

My solution for morale is to operate them where they complete three missions and then it’s automatically three days of shore leave back in friendly territory. As in the policy for the government not to even call them up for duty unless it’s a true and genuine apocalyptic emergency.

So 2/3rds of the year they’d fight and perform operations and the other third they’d essentially would legally be able to tell the chain of command to fuck off im on vacation for lack of a better way to put it.

New Survey coming this weekend!

My solution for morale would be to create a sense of friendly but healthy competition and prizes for who does the best in their missions.

Prizes like:

• Access to the hot water in the showers.
• Extra time at chow but no more than 10 minutes.
• Extra time in your bunk to sleep but no more than 5 minutes.

De Marquis: that's sort of what I'm wondering. It seems like it would be possible, but would it end up making the ships ineffective?

I'd imagine ships like these would require a high degree of automation. Anything that could be offloaded onto a computer system should be to reduce strain on human personnel. I'd also imagine that the ship would need some sort of system to collect resources, whether it be scoops or mining equipment or whatever. Even with super-advanced 3D printers the material has to come from somewhere.

They should have sent a poet.

You're essentially sending a colony ship to fight behind enemy lines. The better it is at being a self sustaining colony, the less effective it will be at fighting. The two types of designs have too many contradictory requirements.

So, I was thinking about the Fighter-Launching Sequence trope for a Space Fighter Wing and was toying with the idea of having a catapult vs having an open hangar

So, currently, I have it set up where the launch bays are basically ALWAYS filled to the brim with fighters in certain spots equidistant from each other. The launch bay has no life support, so when pilots on minuteman duty scramble, they're already in full dress, before they scramble into their cockpits. Launch bays are nearly 3/4 kilometer long, and basically launch the fighters by magnetic rail tech. Each fighter is behind other 150 feet, and numerous calculations are made so that when they are all launched at the same time, there is no collision.

So, basically, when a carrier enters battle about 16 squadrons are launched at once, and new fighters will be launched in a 2 minute window, the time it takes for the pilots next in line to get their craft into the bays.

Viable? Need some tweaks?

I would give a little bit of time between each wave just in case something doesn't go right but it should feasibly permit a large mass launch.

Who watches the watchmen?

Seems like it would take one heck of a lot of time to stage this sort of launch, and the system would be extremely vulnerable to battle damage or technical malfunctions. The question is whether the trade-off is worthwhile, never mind why you're using the Space Fighter trope in the first place.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

On the flip side, I always thought the idea of fighters launching themselves, like the TIE series was far more dangerous.

Hell even in the Last Jedi they seem to be flying inside the ship with no regard for safety.

Some type of launch sequence even if it has some technical issues would be preferable if only for safety reasons

New Survey coming this weekend!

Agreed. One obvious problem, aside from human error leading to crashes, is the thrust of the fighters causing damage inside the hangar bay. Depending on what sort of engines they use, the exhaust could be highly energetic, contain ionizing radiation, or both.

Some kind of automated launch system, possibly using magnetics or a physical catapult, seems to be indicated.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Then there is the method used in Battlestar Galactica and Space: Above and Beyond, where fighters are launched from individual launch bays rather than the hangar. Launch the bird, seal the launch bay, load the next bird, repeat.

A lot of this comes down to differences between Launch Deck and Hanger. A Hanger is where you repair and service planes and the Launch Deck is where they can be stored and launched from.

For a space fighter carrier you'd want the Launch Deck/Bay in vacuum 24/7. You can load ammo and fuel in the Launch Bay but actual repair and maintenance should be done in the pressurized hanger.

To be clear, the idea proposed here is just a specialized version of the "launch tube" idea, which happens to be set up for a synchronized mass launch. Otherwise it's the same basic principle.

My concern isn't with the idea itself but the large amount of effort required to set it up. Other than looking cool, what inherent tactical advantage does it convey? If you need to get a ship's entire fighter complement launched that quickly, it's usually not a good thing.

Some settings propose that the launch bay is at least partially pressurized, but uses some kind of force field to keep the atmosphere in while letting ships pass. How viable this is depends on the realism of your setting. Without magic force fields, keeping the bay in vacuum is far more practical.

edited 19th Jan '18 8:21:13 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'd just use a revolving door setup to get planes from the hanger to the launch bay.

By “in vacuum” do you mean it’s exposed to the void (I.e “outside” of the ship) or there’s simply no breathable atmosphere/life support/artificial gravity?

New Survey coming this weekend!

What distinction are you proposing between those states? You mean that the bay is fully enclosed but shunts craft into the launch tubes which do get exposed to space? If so, then why keep it depressurized?

edited 19th Jan '18 8:45:25 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The launch bay is depressurized and has launch rails. Easier to set up and maintain. You can seal it but that's mostly to keep jerks from sniping your fighters off the launch deck.

How about an elevator that opens to the outer hull?

Then there's the Babylon 5 method of just opening up the bottom of the hangar and dropping the fighters out like bombs. Or the Babylon 5 method of loading the fighters onto a scaled up Pez Dispenser that cycles them past the exterior door in rapid succession. Or the Babylon 5 method of loading the fighters onto a rack that is extended outside the ship.

Babylon 5 had a few different solutions to this problem lol.

One idea concerning any "Magnum Launch" option: Safe spacing for the fighters as they exit. I'm picturing each launch tube being offset by a small portion, so that the fighters end up fanning out on launch. You could have some tubes offset in the Y axis as well as the X axis for separation options.

I'd assume that the launch is done on automatics so that pilot error can't cause a catastrophic chain reaction.

Regarding Babylon 5, they do know that things don't "fall out" of non-accelerating spaceships, right? Or is there an artificial gravity field that provides a "down" for the fighters to drop into, no matter how illogical this would be?

edited 19th Jan '18 12:03:41 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Realistically, what would the advantage be to having "launched" space fighters? We launch fighters off of aircraft carriers on earth because they need to hit a certain speed to get in the air, but space doesn't work like that. Why bother with the complex mechanisms required to launch something when you could just push your fighters out of a hatch, or have them launch themselves vertically away from exterior decks?

I think it's been mentioned before, but launching small craft in space seems like it has more in common the way naval ships launch helicopters than the way they launch fixed-wing aircraft.

They should have sent a poet.