Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Bio-mimicry and study of natural structures has been mentioned before. For Mantis Shrimp, namely the club type, were being studied to see how their clubs remained so sturdy and strong even after over a thousand impacts. They were looking at the material and how it was layered.

Other critters include a type of deep sea snail and the [[ http://www.gizmag.com/snail-shell-military-armor-car-panels/13989/ Abalone]].

Giz mag alone has a whole bunch of articles on bio-mimicry.

and pistol shrimp gun arms would be pretty cool, no need for ammo, just a way of powering it, and maintenance, assuming it gets built in the first place.

Question: Can't stealth planes be tracked by triangulating the radio signals the pilots users or the weapons guidance systems?

Their general position can be triangulated yes. But that relies on active emissions. Things like running silent runs, that is no radar and comms silence does away with that. Some targeting systems are passive rather then active like IR weapons. Some weapons targeting equipment has a rather small signature for active tracking. Some weapons don't begin emitting or tracking until after release. There are some passive tracking methods but they require a fairly elaborate and well established equipment set ups to work properly. There is a method that looks for an absence of signal noise in a signal noisy environment but that is again reliant on equipment and environment. Long range thermal tracking and optical tracking have improved drastically thanks to computer advances. Certain kinds of radar are also increasingly able to detect stealth. So far the original theory put out in the 80's, that computer advances would push radar tech past stealth is slowly coming true.

One of the ideas that's I've been mulling around is putting radar suites on balloons and floating them up to the edge of the atmosphere. The system consists of a balloon made of a tough yet flexible plastic covered in an even tougher textile. This balloon is fed by a bottle of compressed hydrogen or helium gas and also has venting valves to reduce lift. The valves are controlled by a computer that's linked to an altimeter that keeps it at a constant altitude. The radome, which is essentially the same used on SAM sites and fighter jets, is attached to the very bottom. The Radome and it's attached computer will be able to detach and have an accompanying parachute in case of emergencies since they are the only valuable parts. The entire system can be tethered or untethered but the wind will tend to shove an untethered balloon all over the place. Tethering, however, requires more lift and a very long and strong line.

Since it's looking downwards the system can look for radar shadows on the ground. Being a balloon means that there isn't much heat to look for and with the right materials the balloon it'self wouldn't show up on radar. Weather balloons are also far less expensive than orbital rockets and if there's a problem you can set the entire system to decend to the ground. Push comes to shove, you can eject the expensive bits.

On the other hand, the radar suite it'self is an issue. It's heavy, metal, power intensive, and emits radar waves. The balloon is also vulnerable to damage. Anything able to reach it can kill it. Helium is expensive and hydrogen tends to explode.

So...thoughts? Critiques? Insults?

Downward looking radar systems was one of the pitfalls of the first gen B-1 Lancers and initially put the program into mothballs. Most modern stealth craft have a good front radar cross section but from below, above, and even from the side is more visible.

What do you mean by "radar shadows on the ground" ?

Normally, you can bounce radar waves off the ground. However, stealth planes will disperse and absorb radar waves which causes it to look like a giant blank spot.

The tether can also include a power cable and information cable.

Although they probably won't be as strong as something designed only to be strong, they could lend their strength to the whole structure, so it's not dead weight in that regard.

The power cable moves the main power source to the ground, which could be very heavy. That source could then be replaced much more easily(or just be the power grid), extending operational time.

The data cable also gets rid of some communication equipment, while giving the balloon more bandwidth, saving power, and keeping the information it collects better hidden.

edited 3rd Jul '15 3:00:03 PM by ManInGray

But satellites are far less maintenance intensive. Plus you don't have to worry about the ionosphere in the same way an absurd altitude balloon does.

Satellites are a lot more expensive and take longer to retask. They are better for things like signal or something that isn't zipping through the sky that is hard to track to begin with. You could far more easily and quickly set up a network with the tethered balloon. This is more or less one of the proposed purposes they have been tested for as in carrying detection and tracking equipment aloft.

The downside for the tethers as already noted is the balloon has to haul both equipment and line. The heavier the line the more weight it has to haul per foot of line. If you start talking power cabling that gets really heavy really quickly. Even fiber optics can be pretty hefty. Remember pretty much all radars are very power hungry.

I could see this as a hasty temporary network using something like a flat bed with a generator to launch and recover the balloons. A shifting radar network that can adjust its network coverage on the fly has some possible uses.

There is another possible option but I don't think you will using it with the larger high power radars. The US military has been experimenting what are basically inflatable comm antennae and sat dishes. Instead of the bulky structure of metal to support the array the inflatable provides the physical structure. It is lighter, more portable, and easier to maintain. These are aimed largely at ground based equipment though.

The US military already uses balloons as platforms for radar and other stuff. If you live near a base along the southern border or Gulf Coast, you can see them idling in the air.

How about using the balloon as a reflector dish, and leaving the emitter/receiver on the ground ?

edited 4th Jul '15 2:59:01 AM by Aetol

Arnt balloons vulnerable?

One issue that's already been pointed out is that the since the radar would be constantly radiating it would end up broadcasting its location to all and sundry (making it relatively trivial to knock it out with an ARM or similar).

Although radar is getting better in this regard, another issue to consider is ground clutter.

^ That's the advantage of "look down" radar systems. Ground clutter becomes almost a non-issue. A satellite's radar for example can track low altitude things from 500 km in altitude better than Cheyenne Mountain ever will if the satellite is directly over the flying object.

Well, I mean, it's a radar fitted in a fucking blimp, so it's not like stealth is the primary goal here. I've mostly seen them stationed over large military installations. The altitude they are positioned at, and the power of the radar sets they can hoist without space or power concerns shared by heavier-than-air aircraft typically mean they can see a potential threat from much farther off. I understand the ones based in CONUS mainly look out for drug runners and other aircraft trying to dash over the border. Santa Anna having yet another go at Texas is not high on their list of threats.

The Aerostat blimps are vulnerable to wind conditions. I was chatting up the prime power guys who work with THAAD (a ██ Megawatt watt gen) and they were skeptical over the idea of a cable that long that was power and data. So far JLENS hasn't really performed as well as the Army would like. On youtube there is an emergency recovery of a JLENS blimp due to high Afghan winds. The Blimp makes the ground crew it's Bitch due to the fins catching the wind.

The other problem is that the radar needs a lot of power to get the return back. Even with commercial aircraft, the FAA doesn't rely on the "skin paint": the radar return from the ground. The "skin paint" is used to verify the transponders on aircraft. Terrain, weather, atmospheric conditions can affect the return.

And did you ever wonder why the F-15 and F-22 can climb so high? During the Cold War the USSR poured a lot of money and time into "lookdown/shootdown" systems.

So the USAF build their strategy on flying over the Russians. The Navy's AIM-64 Phoenix actually goes into the upper atmo and dives down.

An exp-atmospehric craft would walk all over those blimps.

Low frequency radars lack the resolutions to see if a stealth aircraft is hostile or it's a plane full of Red Cross Nuns flying orphans to the relief hospital. But it can give you a firing solution. If it's not jammed from a farther distance than a K or X band radar.

I doubt Red Cross Nuns flying orphans to a hospital are going to be flying stealth aircraft. Unless these are battle nuns and if by hospital you mean the drop zone and by orphans you mean ordinance needing a new home after launching or firing.

The point is that a low resolution radar can't see below it's wavelenght. A VHF radar can see that a jet is flying but can't tell what it is.

I intended to have this write-up on last Tuesday. As you can guess, it took me a lot longer to formulate:

Begin excessively verbose post:

And revisiting a topic mentioned earlier in the thread that I told Tuffel I'd bring up: Launchers!

Futuristic launchers, from grenades to missiles to exotic shit under the Sun and more! How do you think they and their munitions conventional/realistic or otherwise would be in the future? How would they be employed? Any potential advantages to be gleaned? Can they be balanced in a multiplayer FPS without pulling a copout like Battleduty games do?

Without further ado I begin with theories I have and supplemented by an example or so from one of my universes.^Note Examples here are given in somewhat low detail intentionally. I'm preparing a write-up of ALL infantry weapons and vehicles for critique in this thread for a later date. Don't want to spoil it all yet. Yes it may include things like customization options and initial balance designs/statistics.

Be advised: this is only a partial thinkthrough of this very topic. So various elements may be unthought of or in insufficient detail.

The Launcher Itself

Conventional modern day launchers are pretty simple today, typically a tube to fire missiles and other munitions but hardpoints can serve in the same capacity. However in the future, improvements in ammo, fire control, weight management and more or simply equipping folks in Powered Armor may lead to different lines of thinking.

For example, multiple barrel rocket launchers. Sure you have the iconic double barrel Rocket Launcher from Halo but is that really all you'd go for?

Actually I'd say nay. In modern weapons, multiple barrel rocket launchers have been built. For example that QF-4 Vanguard MANPADS variant in over-under configuration. Allows two shots against aircraft per reload instead of one unlike an FIM-92A Stinger though it has the cost of being a heavier weapon.

In the video game universe I'm building, we'll call it Library for shorthand there are a couple multiple barrel rocket launchers, each with different uses.

The first one going with the pick-up prompt: Rocket Launcher (Gee, how indicative) is a three-barrel system with the barrels arranged triangularly like if you took three pipes and tightly bound them together. It can fire those three (THREE!) 90mm HE-DP rockets in quick succession at a target. By default the weapon is free-fire (unguided) only. Enhancements available can allow the weapon to acquire lock-on against vehicles, emplacements and aircraft but its performance against countermeasures isn't ideal, nor is its range. The need for three barrels comes from the need to rapidly punch through vehicle armor against heavy foes who may or may not use active protection systems. Alternatively, they give a single operator enough ammo in a single pack to engage multiple targets such as a machine gun position, an enemy jeep and an attack VTOL all without reloading or needing to pause much longer than it takes to shift aim on target.

In Library this weapon is by far one of the most versatile infantry weapons for defeating vehicles.

The second multi-barrel one is an Expy of that QF-4 variant. The Sunburst Launcher as its pick-up prompt says is an over-under anti-aircraft launcher. The twin-barrel configuration allows for firing on single targets in quick succession either to help defeat countermeasures or break through more durable targets like shielded starfighters. Alternatively with the right Enhancement in Library you can use it to engage two separate targets at the same time. Yes, two separate targets.

Multiple barrel launchers as you might see show the promise of versatility and/or second strike capability should the first hit fail to destroy the target. The main disadvantages relate to its size. Yes even with Powered Armor infantry as standard issue, the increased size of a multi-barrel platform may mean it either carries less ammo per trooper or does something else like be cumbersome in tight environs or block out peripheral vision when in use.

But multiple barrels might not be the only method. A second variety is possible wherein rapid-fire launchers may be preferable to multiple barrels. Either for engaging multiple foes or in case of enemies made of sterner stuffs.

One example of this is known as the MLRS in the pick up prompt. This weapon can fire six rapid-fire lightweight rockets in the assault role. Not as powerful as the Rocket Launcher both in direct hits and splash radius but has more ammo and a faster rate of fire. (AI would almost treat this weapon like multi-shot grenade launcher firing 1-3 rounds in a burst against targets.) This weapon uses a clip-feed from the top to facilitate this in lieu of multiple barrels.

In Library, quite a few vehicle munitions employ rapid-fire launchers, often combining with multiple barrels.

But not all launcher weapons need be missiles and rockets and not all of them need be constrained by being either rapid fire or multi-barrel or both. Some weapons may use a more conventional layout even if like in the following example, they use more exotic ammunition.

To demonstrate this I bring out a weapon known as the Plasma Launcher. The Plasma Launcher is a single-fire plasma weapon that fires guided bolts of plasma for very heavy damage. Being a plasma weapon in Library, it naturally has a regenerative power supply meaning effectively unlimited ammo instead being limited in rate of fire by the sheer heat of each firing. But its aesthetic and use is more akin to modern day shoulder fired weapons like the M3 MAAWS or HJ-12. As a result it takes less time to recharge and cool down compared to the more complicated process of replacing MLRS clips or Rocket Launcher ammo packs.

But who said more conventional launchers had to be shaped like shoulder fired rockets? Obviously grenade launchers would be different.

However, enter the Buster Rifle as its known in Library. This beam weapon has a resemblance more akin to an advanced anti-materiel sniper rifle than an ATGM. In its default uncharged state, it fires powerful beams of energy that can easily dispatch lone infantry in one hit (to the head or otherwise) or defeat light vehicles within only a few shots. But its use as an anti-vehicle weapon depends on its charge capabilities. If charged to Level 2 with the regular beam projectile being Level 1, the weapon forms a wider coherent beam strike that can easily dispatch light vehicles in a single hit and destroy medium to heavy vehicles such as armored personnel carriers or tanks in a maximum of two to three hits. Charge it to maximum of Level 3 and it becomes a ravenous beam of destruction that only the mightiest of vehicles the Federation Landcruiser can survive, even then it won't survive a second strike assuming the beam dumps its full potential on target. (Also at Level 3, the beam deals ambient damage to infantry targets in very close proximity to the beam but are not in contact with it.)

But form isn't the only deciding factor on where launchers could possibly go or do in the future.

Ammunition

So what ammo should they use? Even in the future, the possibility of different ammunition or different varieties for specific platforms will either exist or be possible.

Would cluster munitions be a more viable means of defeating active protection foes? Would you utilize thermobarics to defeat dug in infantry?

All are valid options I'd see in the future, even if for different reasons. For example the Rocket Launcher mentioned above has an Enhancement where you can swap out to thermobaric rockets for increased splash damage and splash radius. Very effective against infantry especially in tight spaces but pretty close to worthless against heavy armor such as tanks.

But then we also have the Cluster Missile as its prompt is known. This weapon fires a singular larger missile that splits into three sub-munitions. Each sub-munition has roughly the firepower of a single shot of the MLRS used by infantry. The use of three sub-munitions here is described in-universe as a means of defeating aircraft better. (Same logic as Starstreak.) This is because each individual sub-missile has to be deflected by countermeasures so it's rarely an all or nothing attack. Higher probability of hit, both against land or air targets. The Cluster Missile is much more effective against aircraft than against ground vehicles, able to keep up with high intensity maneuvers and speedy enough to reach quite good ranges and faster threats. Also it destroys the Protectorate starfighter the Corsair in one strike if all three sub-munitions reach their mark. It takes two or three of the same to defeat a tank. (Six to nine sub-munitions total.) The Cluster Missile can also engage multiple threats with the same lock-on allowing the three sub-munitions to engage up to three separate targets if need be. (THIS INCLUDES INFANTRY!)

Meaning cluster munitions can allow a more conventional style launcher to achieve similar versatility and/or hit probability as a multi-barrel or rapid-fire system.

As mentioned above, conventional (or slightly unconventional) missiles and rockets are not the only ammunition available for munitions launchers. Beams, grenades, plasma, and perhaps more all can be possibilities.

But then who said this had to be confined to infantry weapons or conventional point and aim?

Functionality: Multiple targets, flight profiles, Free-fire vs guided-only vs combination and "Hey! Did that plane just fire on something at his 9 o'clock high?"

Current generation games and a lot of warfighting equipment today are stuck on the very old fashioned "one target, gotta look at him" doctrine of engaging things. Thus they get stuck on level flight munitions, point and shoot^Vut? As in physically aim the weapon at the target like an old school dogfight or classical rifle marksmanship. fire control systems, and of course shooting at only one thing at a time.

But what if we loosened the restraints on this methodology? What if planes, vehicles and infantry could engage multiple targets and/or while not facing the enemy? Some restraints as seen with the R-77 Archer and AIM-9X Sidewinder and the FGM-148 Javelin are already being contested.

In Library several weapons and vehicles including aircraft have the ability either through Enhancements or inherently to engage off-boresight and/or multiple targets at the same time.

Alternatively they can also fire without lock-on (possibly Lock-On-After-Launch capable) even when capable of or fire in different flight profiles.

As mentioned earlier both the Cluster Missile and Sunburst Launcher can engage multiple targets at the same time.

But on the vehicle front in Library there's the Protectorate Wildcat terrestrial fighter aircraft. One of its three weapons are Sidewinder^Note Backstory fluff I have set aside implies the Sidewinder on the Wildcat is in fact an evolutionary descendent of the real world AIM-9. missiles which can engage both land and air targets. The fighter carries four per reload and all four are needed to hit a heavy target like a tank or dropship in order to destroy them in one go. The Sidewinder here embodies no less than two of the above mentioned abilities. For starters and at simplest, it does not require lock-on to shoot meaning Wildcats can attack ground or air targets in a rocket run using their Sidewinder missiles. Even in-universe it's described as not the best idea to do but you can still do it. The second ability is that it can lock on and then fire upon a target in a full 180 degree half-sphere in front of the Wildcat.^Gameplay All you the player would need to do when flying one of these is hit the Aim key, put the reticule on a vehicle or aircraft, get a lock and press the Fire key.

The Cobra missiles on the heavier and more powerful Protectorate Corsair starfighter can do both of those as well. (Those ones may or may not be able to also acquire multiple targets even off-bore.) Similarly the Plasma Missiles on the Federation Iron Dragon starfighter can work this way too.

This versatility and capability I would see as vastly changing air support both in air to air and air to ground missions.

But then there's even more! The Viper Lightweight Missile System equipped to the Protectorate Skirmisher FSV on the ground can be both free-fired and multiple target lock to compliment such evolution in the air.

Of course the last part concerning flight profiles shows a deviation in the form of the Longbolt ATGM as its prompt says. It's a large-caliber man-portable AT missile. It has two modes: Direct Attack and Top Attack. Basically it's a FGM-148 Javelin Expy. In Direct Attack, the Longbolt fires somewhat level and headed to the point of aim. It's more versatile as it can achieve lock-on against vehicles, emplacements and even low-level aircraft but the missile is pretty poor at Anti-Air in terms of maneuverability and reliability. It can be free-fired in this mode but really that's a last resort option for the Assault role to destroy bunkers and dug in infantry owing to the low amount of ammo carried by a trooper and the missile's low rate of fire. Top Attack mode on the other hand trades Versatility for Power. It takes a top-attack flight profile very similarly to the Javelin in reality and hits with that much more punch. In this mode, only the Federation Landcruiser can survive a hit. Everything else lesser just simply dies. But in Top Attack mode, it can only be fired when the launcher has achieved a lock and even then only against ground vehicles.

I'm plenty sure there is far more that can be discussed concerning this area.

Also in conclusion, conceptual game design and worldbuilding be time consuming yo.

>Extreme off-boresight targeting

>Lock on after launch

>Cluster missiles

>mfw◊

In all seriousness, I like what you've got here! I suppose that one question is how a missile asked to track, say, a target directly behind it would make the necessary manoeuvres to begin engaging it.

I suppose that it could drop off the launch rail, "backflip", and engage its motor at that point.

I would also say that RPG-7 equivalents will still probably have a role to play in sci-fi, even if only because "proper" ATGMs might be too large, heavy, or expensive to be used (think light infantry, guerrilla groups, and so on). Heck, they might even be inappropriate for the target at hand (after all, you can't change out an ATGM's warhead for a thermobaric one on the fly, can you?).

I imagine such weapon systems would not vary too much from the basic template of launcher and rocket. The munitions would be over-diameter and jut out of the launcher to allow for all munition variants to fit it, even if they're manufactured long after the launcher is out of production.

You might see tandem charge warheads making more of an appearance, as well as something akin to a nose probe to trigger active protection systems before the rocket proper impacts the target.

I also had the nutty idea of an AT grenade that's small enough to fit in a grenade launcher (either UGL, rifle grenade, or a "proper" grenade launcher). It wouldn't really be designed to defeat tank armour so much as IFVs etc. It would have a front end designed in such a way that the grenade strikes the hull in as close to an optimal manner for penetration as possible.

edited 6th Jul '15 11:08:38 AM by Flanker66

So I see this commonly in Science Fiction. But is there any advantage to Bipedal Robot designs? Like even basic Mecha-Mooks are humanoid.

What are the pros to having a humanoid machine minion? Compared to treaded or quadrepedal designs?

Truly, there really arent any. They're cool, is all.

Major Tom, another option for you: coordinated firing from independent platforms. Distributed computing will give different individual platforms the opportunity to fire in sequence on the same target- getting the advantages of multiple launch platforms while spreading the counter-fire targets around, improving survivability. Has the disadvantage, however, of being vulnerable to hacking and other electronic counter measures.

There is an argument for mechs In Space but it mostly revolves around human adaptability, Mo Cap control systems, and AMBAC-style maneuvering systems.