Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Instead of firing off RCS thrusters you can use the limbs as counterweights to change orientation. Kind of like the cat righting reflex where a can can flip 180 degrees without rotational momentum.

Plus saves propellant. Being able to simply rotate yourself with arms and legs.

Gyroscopes are way better.

A gyroscope has to have weight comparable to the entire ship to turn it at a meaningful rate. Likewise, it ends up spinning at a terrific pace. The issue here is that it's a heavy, fast moving object inside a warship. A good, solid hit and the gyro shatters, flinging pieces everywhere.

Blow off a limb and it's just a matter of finding a replacement.

The gyroscope can only spin the ship. It's the only purpose of the device. A limb, on the other hand, can be used to manipulate objects.

First, the gyroscope either has a significant mass relative to the ship, or spins absurdly fast. Unless you want the ship to spin absurdly fast too.

Second, the limbs would need to have a significant mass too — the laws of physics are the same for everything — so I don't see how they're better than gyros in that regard. And they're on the outside, exposed to the elements and, when applicable, enemy fire. The gyros will be buried deep inside the ship, and since they're small they can afford armor.

edited 9th Jul '15 10:20:08 AM by Aetol

Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a chore

If you want to do space construction... limbs. If you want to just rotate the ship, gyroscopes.

Are there advantages to having limbs in Space? Of course? Could you use them to make a big robot that melees battleships to death? yes. but you're more likely to get shot that way.

Yes, space is big. You're not getting into melee range in space.

Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a chore

^ Yeah just like how we never got into another air to air gunfight after Korea....wait a minute.

That's the same kind of logic being used to sell the F-35 Pigeon boondoggle.

Not parallel at all. Radar range under the best conditions cant be more than a few hundred miles across. Space is big, really, really big. The idea that you are going to start at, say, Jupiter, and not make it halfway across the solar system without being intercepted along the way by a long range weapon is not at all unrealistic.

Unless, as I pointed out, both spacecraft start hostilities while in the same planetary orbit. Then you might get close.

edited 9th Jul '15 4:47:57 PM by DeMarquis

Another wrinkle on the "To knife fight or not to knife fight" is the presence and type of Faster-Than-Light Travel in your universe. If you have the ability to pick a parking space next to another ship and vwoink into existence there without warning, that will have an impact on strategy and tactics.

No not really tom. The distances you can possibly fight at will still be thousands of kilometers and with no where to hide and threat environment that is going to take a toll on even fast maneuverable projectiles how on earth do you plan to get into melee range? Chances are a lot higher you will be another chunk of smashed space debris long before you even got close.

The Pigeon is actually following a long predicted path of development where stealth platforms are required to deliver stand off range ordinance to make normal air operations possible against modern AAM systems. The stand off push began before the Pigeon did.

Who watches the watchmen?

Either is bad for an object that does just one thing.

Since the limbs are farther from the center of mass they have more leverage. This is ideal for making those minute adjustments you'd need to aim.

But if they're small they also have a great deal of inertia and we've seen over the last few decades armor is of little protection against modern weapons.

Finally, nobody has addressed how limbs can serve double duty as manipulators. They can carry shields and weapons. They can repair warships and stations. They can haul mines and cargo. Granted, this doesn't make them idea for combat but when you pay by the pound for everything you send a mech is going to look very lonely at the back of the hanger.

The thing about space is it's also big. As in you can hide in plain sight big and not be noticed. It's one thing for the sensor data to say you there all along in hindsight. It's quite another for the guy making the call on whether or not to shoot or reading the monitors as the data comes in.

The same "logic" happened at sea and in the air in the height of the Cold War. Ships would never get close to each other, planes would never dogfight.

Both proven false for one reason or another. What happens if space warfare gets constrained by ROE like Vietnam did? That moving speck you suspect to be a ship on low-resolution IR? What if your ROE says you can't engage until you get a confirmed ID? That means that ship or mobile suit or fighter can close a fuckton more distance (or get away and/or disappear behind something like a moon). If the ROE says shoot anything that moves, what happens when that long range but low resolution IR sensor detects something and you kill it but you find out it was one of yours or that of civilians?

There's too many reasons and what ifs to declare something impossible in warfare. Whether in space or otherwise.

And it's giving the whole world a nasty case of History Repeats Itself. The F-105 Thud was like the F-35 today. Promised to do everything, delivered on almost nothing, got slaughtered by a much lower rate enemy than it was intending to fight.

The standoff push has been defeated again and again and again throughout the history of warfare.

edited 9th Jul '15 5:22:00 PM by MajorTom

"What happens if space warfare gets constrained by ROE like Vietnam did?"

That is a different issue. That might possibly encourage the use of small patrol ships, short range weapons and the like. But I dont see it getting to melee range, unless it's a police action, but that would be a boarding party type situation, not some sort of android wrestling match.

edited 9th Jul '15 7:15:14 PM by DeMarquis

You might see melee weapons inside colonies or around space station but this is mostly a police issue.

That does lead to a number of interesting issues of non-lethal weapons that work in space and on space ships.

Tom: Wrong on pretty much all points. Did you even bother to think this out or did you just want to make this up as you went along?

There is nowhere to hide in open space period. There is nothing to hide you and nothing to hide behind. You emit heat and electronic signals which passive sensors alone can detect. Active sensors of several varieties could also easily find you. Space is big and full of a lot of empty space between things. You are not going to hide in plain sight especially anywhere inside any form of detection envelope. This isn't land warfare where weather and terrain features permit such tactics. There is no weather or land feature in open space to hide you. There is no surface to skim, no mountains to screen, no ground clutter to confuse signals, no weather to mask, and no moonless nights to conceal. There is simply no where to hide. No there was never any logic that said ships would never get close a quick peak at various ship designs and armaments alone knocks giant holes in that steaming pile and they believed the missile would replace the gun as a dogfighting weapon without understanding its limitations and capabilities and that theory was only applied to a single aircraft design. Up to that point alongside aerial rockets missiles were aimed mostly at striking at heavy bomber aircraft.

The ROE of Vietnam was a mixture of factors chief among them the war was taking place smack bang in the middle of a civilian population and they were attempting to not wax friendly locals. If Captain Calamity dropped his bomb a few seconds to late his bomb fragged Johnny HO the BBQ cook instead of Vao the VC. If you are in the middle of open space that sort of ROE is very very very unlikely to ever happen because of a distinct lack of places to hide but also a very distinct lack of a local population. Short of fighting taking place on top of a sensitive location like a space station for example the ROE is likely to be almost completely unrestricted outside of specific goals, traditions of war and laws, and personal decisions.

The Standoff Push has not been defeated at any point in history in fact it has drastically changed warfare every time and been constantly validated. The Stand Off Push got us into space just in case you forgot the origin of space exploration started with a stand off missile platform. From the cannon to the ICBM Stand off capability of one variety or another has had numerous and often dramatic changes on history and warfare. Please don't insult anyone else intelligence including your own by making such an obviously pure contrarian statement that is overtly wrong on nearly every level.

Who watches the watchmen?

Please watch the tone, Tuefel, there's no reason to get personal.

If you have a problem hit the holler button otherwise knock off the mini-modding.

Who watches the watchmen?

Mods are not the only ones responsible for maintaining civility here. You can make your point more effectively by using objective language.

I could care less about your personal view on the tone. If you have an issue hit the holler button and quit mini-modding.

Who watches the watchmen?

TH, you're getting spittle on me.

Another concern informing the ROE in Vietnam was that the possibility that PLAF aircraft might be operating in the area, and they didn't want to risk splashing a Chinese Mig and sparking an incident. And probably more important than the ROE concern was that many of the BVR missiles of the 1960s blew chunks. Remember the track record of the Falcon missile?

Construction, yes, but the other stuff is going to be marginal at best, because getting into grappling range is likely to be nigh impossible.

Orientation doesn't help much if you want to change vectors, a far more likely scenario in any case.

The amount of propellant you'd use to do the same is marginal when compared to the weight of the limbs.

Actually, it's more complicated, because the inside of a ship is protected, while a limb is not, plus if you lose a limb that might actually make the mission impossible.

A closer analogy would be having boarding as a viable naval tactic today, which it isn't, not if the other ship is a still-afloat warship.

Aiming doesn't work well against moving ships today, against ships in space it's a waste of time.

And exactly what active defences is the mech mounting?

Carriyng shields and weapons is a no-go, they're useless in space. Repairing, not much better, since the hands will either be human-sized, or need special tools, developed at high cost. Hauling mines and cargo. Maybe, but remote manipulator arms on the ships themselves can do that, plus guys in power-assist space-suits. Also, to move stuff you need to alter vectors, something a free-floating mech isn't good at.

Contradictory statement, if the guy has to decide whether to shoot, he's noticed you.

That's when you send out an unmanned probe, it can accelerate much faster than anything manned, is disposable, and gives you the reading you want. Drones were more-or-less unheard of in Vietnam.

Also, this promotes mechs at exactly zero point, arms are useless in space combat because aiming is useless, plus an arm-mounted weapon packs a lower punch than one mounted on a hull mount.

AFP: Ok Fair enough.

Wasn't the Falcon the missile that made the Sidewinder look well designed? Even scarier there was a sub-kiloton version.

MattII: We talking full out drone as in it can navigate and maneuver around like a craft or just shooting out a generic disposable sensor package to do the looking?

edited 9th Jul '15 10:12:48 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Reusable for a single target, for multiples, a disposable one, since that's more likely to be a fleet.

Wasn't the reason the missiles in 'Nam were terrible, mainly because computer guidance systems in the 60s were complete dogshit or was that another conflict?

New Survey coming this weekend!