Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

@Tuefel

Actually, you're on to something. Fluoridated polymers are pretty resistant to oxidation, including teflon. Granted, it's pretty poor as a structural material but you can still coat structural materials with it Not sure how it would stand up to space conditions and if it gets pulverized it's just adding fluorine to the fire.

@Major Tom

Out of chloroform, apparently.

edited 11th Feb '16 5:39:53 AM by Belisaurius

Well, if your setting has pressurized hulls and plenty of internal atmosphere an incendiary device would do a lot of harm, but you would have to deal with decompression and possible with the space craft's own fire control system.

For crafts that do not use a pressurized hull, you'd need something ridiculously reactive and with a dispersal good enough to make it stick on every surface possible.

The damage would certainly be limited to the compartment though I'd wager having an warhead filled with explosives would do more damage and be more useful.

Now if you somehow need to kill everyone outside a space suit and inside a pressurized compartment, throwing in an incendiary grenade would do wonders.

@Angelus

Mind you, the entire premise is an oxidizer based incendiary. Cutting off the air source wouldn't do anything since the bomb it'self IS the "air". Modern fire suppressants would have trouble as high end oxidizers like chlorine trifluoride have been known to set fire to sand and asbestos as well as make water explode. Reactive enough agents could very well corrode/melt through bulkheads given time and the resulting heat could overload a ship's cooling system.

You can limit decompression by using a small diameter delivery system. Granted, this limits the oxidizer you can deliver but you'd need to deep freeze the payload anyway or it would eat through the warhead.

edited 11th Feb '16 8:42:18 AM by Belisaurius

What I should have made clearer is that having an atmosphere inside the craft helps the incendiary devices because it helps spread inside the craft much faster than a very low pressure segment or in the vacuum.

edited 11th Feb '16 8:57:00 AM by AngelusNox

True, but what you loose in coverage you gain back in part with concentration. Without air to dilute it the oxidizers will try to burn right through the first surface they encounter. That leads to more structural damage than normal even if overall damage is far less.

So what you're describing is, in effect if not in cause, more like Hollywood Acid than anything you'd normally think of when you hear "incendiary"...

Indeed, it's actually using some of the same forces as actual acid but with oxygen and fluoride rather than hydrogen. In fact, hydrofluoric acid is going to be a byproduct if it encounters any water.

How DOES acid work any way, none of my chemistry teachers ever bothered to explain it, just what they are. :/

What makes strong acids corrosive is basically the fact that a lot of things you wouldn't normally think of in these terms are bases compared to them and will react as such. Something like H Cl is so eager to dump its H+ ion that even otherwise quite inoffensive compounds will suddenly find themselves with an extra proton stuck on somewhere, and that just causes all kinds of messy stuff.

So its its trying to dump ions off on something else?

Am I to assume that bases work the same way but with - ions?

See here

Essentially it all boils down to breaking bonds to make another more stable compounds.

Acids as mentioned dumb a lot of H+ ions while bases dump a whole lot of OH- ions, but for the reaction to happen you'd need a solvent or solution any element containing a positive or negative ion affinity.

Both bases and acids have a lot of affinity with water and carbon based compounds due to how easily hydrogen, oxygen and carbon can make new bonds with other elements, a few others like fluoridric acid (HF) is infamous for being able to corrode glass due to Fluorine's affinity with silicon.

Both also create a lot of salts and water, since metal and metalloid have plenty of free electrons available to make new bonds, losing hydrogen and oxygen in the process, the reaction is usually exothermic giving away heat.

Water is important for both bases and acids because it allows the H+ and OH- ions to move freely instead of just letting the reaction occurring on the contact point. This is why you never put water in acid and base burns, whilst you risk making the burn even more severe.

edited 12th Feb '16 1:43:57 PM by AngelusNox

So quick thought. If we were to ever send a ship on a long term assignment and it was designed to interact with possible Alien species.

Which would be a better choice for sending this thing into the depths of space?

A human crew with a cryogenics system?

Or a Android built to perfectly resemble humans?

I feel android because as a machine it could feasibly last longer and so long as it's thoughts are human.

When applied to a reactant it creates a chemical reaction that breaks existing existing chemical bonds (and thus changing the physical and chemical properties), establishes new ones, and generally sheds or gains ions depending on the nature of the reaction.

A common product created by acid reactions are salts.

So I have been poking around some of our more common referenced fiction pieces.

I started with the often cited kinetic rounds from Honor Harrington. Interesting weapon system that is deployed from a tube launched cluster munition pod. Each impactor is about 1.5 short tons and packs a short lived booster engine(impeller drive). They have an approximate max impact force of one megaton. At max speed they are moving at roughly 45-50 km/s.

Next is the Legend of Galactic Heroes. It has the whole weird sci-fi mix of things. Oddly there doesn't seem to be a lot of missiles used but primarily beam weapons. They have their hand wavium anti-energy weapon particle that creates violent explosions when energy weapons are fired in area saturated with these particles. Think a really potent fuel air blast. One depictions shows the blast charring and burning those caught in it. It can even be deployed in space and is used against an array of defensive mini-fortress energy beam satellites orbiting a planet.

They even have a space wedgie guarded by a massive artificial satellite with a power energy weapons that is totally not a death star rip off. The surface is some sort of pseudo liquid metal that allows weapons systems and hatch ways to be quickly and easily moved through and around the surface.

edited 13th Feb '16 8:03:57 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Very interesting!

I belatedly realised that MIRV-ing a shipboard anti-ship missile would be very effective, or at least it'd increase the chances of defeating point defences.

What would you call MIRV buses that aren't intended to send their cargo back into atmosphere, anyway? Multiple Independent Space Vehicles (MISVs?)

I've seen "kill vehicle" used for a warhead, but that'd kinda ruin the acronym.

You can still just call them cluster munitions. The term is used to describe everything from traditional cluster bombs, leaflet bombs, artillery launched mine dispensers, dumb and guided cluster munition systems, and even weapons like the CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon. It also includes missile and shell systems as well. The US also frequently calls them Munition Dispensers to describe a variety of systems for dispersing various cluster weapons. You could call it a containerized weapon system. Really you have a lot of options to choose from.

Personally I am fond of weapons/munition bus.

They have been adapted to carry a rather wide variety of munitions for various systems including an assortment of guided sub-munitions, incendiary bomblets, flechettes, mines, HEAT/DP warheads, MPAM warheads, chemical weapons, Thermobaric weapons, Anti-Armor Long Rod Penetrators, and technically as you already noted nuclear weapons.

edited 13th Feb '16 8:24:46 AM by TuefelHundenIV

I've always heard kill vehicles being used to refer more to kinetic kill vehicles rather than MIRV style buses.

Maintaining the acronym isn't as important as getting an accurate name, though.

@Tuefel:

That's technically accurate, I suppose. Though I'd keep associating it with air dropped munitions instead of missile buses. I'm inclined to agree that munitions or weapons bus is probably the best bet - it's clear without being deceptive.

On a completely different note, I definitely know I asked something similar way back in the dim past of this thread, but I figure it's worth a shot regardless - what sort of features would be most important for equipment (of all types) that's designed to support a interstellar!Deep Battle type doctrine? I've already got a few ideas, but sanity checks and suchlike are always helpful:

• Excellent cross-country mobility, since you can't really rely upon there being transport infrastructure such as roads and bridges you can co-opt - not to mention the very rapid rates of advance such a doctrine dictates! Also planets have a pesky habit of being completely different in terms of terrain and prevailing climates.
• High rates of fire to assist in suppressing defensive positions.
• Similarly, the ability to fire accurately on the move would also be important because anyone that stops is likely to get smacked by the nearest irate enemy gun or missile.
• Rugged construction, since it'd rather put a dampener on things if your high-tech doodads broke down and the logistics train was still several hours away.

Aaaaaand that's all I can think of off the top of my head! Any other requirements? Any tweaks?

Redundant life support systems. Lack of air is deal so you want you're troops to be more than one suit leak away from certain doom.

That looks like something I was going to post in this thread anyway...a vehicle from my GURPS Sci-Fi campaign.

The Weapons Carrier 64mm(G) "Scorpion".

A (lightly) armored fighting vehicle built as a mobile platform for the Alliance's multipurpose 64mm Gauss cannon, the scorpion is a six-wheeled, all-terrain capable vehicle that has been used in a variety of roles, from indirect artillery fire to direct fire support and even occasional anti-air fire thanks to the versatility of its main armament. The "Sixty-Four" can fire saboted kinetic penetrators, numerous variations on the theme of high-explosive, shaped-charge bunker-busting rounds and variable-fuze fragmentation charges for use against infantry or very careless low-flying aircraft, and it does so at variable muzzle velocities ranging up to 4km/s.

Its cannon was originally intended as the main armament for a full-sized main battle tank, but while the tank project stalled out in development and was eventually scrapped, the Scorpion platform, originally built only as a way to show the cannon off to potential customers, has endured and enjoyed considerable popularity in the four decades since its introduction.

The Scorpion gets its name from the way it stabilizes itself for full-power firing: Articulated anchoring legs extend from the chassis to provide some counter to the massive recoil of the 64mm gun (while the gun does have its own inertial compensator, what gets past it is still powerful enough to potentially flip the vehicle over), making the whole thing look a little bit like a scorpion ready to strike.

Powered by a micro-fusion plant, it is a very agile but lightly armored vehicle, capable of standing up only to small-arms fire, but it does pack a significant punch while remaining mobile enough to evade retaliation after firing.

Scorpions are in service with almost all of the Alliance's member states as well as the Alliance Marine Corps. The Marine version is equipped with enhanced environmental seals and attachment points for a suborbital drop harness, allowing it to be deployed practically anywhere within half an hour of entering orbit. These modifications come at the cost of internal space for ammunition storage and crew...Marine Scorpion crews are generally referred to as "sardines".

From the sounds of it you are more referring to planet side operations.

Rate of fire for suppression isn't necessarily the way to go every time. Even then accurate and lethal fire can just as easily suppress an enemy as a hailstorm of bullets thrown into your general vicinity. AOE weapons can suppress with individual shots and even destroy targets with a few well placed shots. Suppression by volume can work but suppression by accurate effective fire works just as well and arguably better in terms of enemies hit and rounds expended. I would however argue that suppression by volume is better for close quarters or breaking sudden charges that are close in then suppression by accuracy. Pretty much the "the closer they are the more useful high volume of fire is" argument.

As for Deep Battle keep in mind it had a few key weaknesses. The first was a heavy reliance on pre-staged reserves waiting for the right target to exploit. However by attacking, destroying, and/or causing to more widely disperse a reserve formation waiting for the exploitation point it is possible to not only blunt the effectiveness of the attack but to stop it. This was the big selling point for the Assault Breaker program and why it really upset the Soviets. It is also why the US has so many Smart Sub-Munition style weapons in it's arsenals or munitions that can be fired singly or as containerized units. Also why the US has a fair number of already extant stand off munitions aimed at attacking land targets.

Those reserve forces were also very vulnerable to long range artillery as well so they had to deploy further back from the front to protect them and hence the need for those air mobile units. It was also very reliant on sufficient and rapid movement of forces to the target points once they were identified. Use of things like interdicting mine fields or various forms of interdiction not only could delay forces but buy time to reinforce the weak point making it less exploitable. Minefields weren't the only means for that but a readily available example.

The final issue was the common vehicles used by the Soviets at the time. The common air droppable and amphibious vehicles they have for that role are very vulnerable to even common infantry weapons because of a need for very light armor schemes. Typically this is in the form of vehicles with a fair bit of aluminum armor and/or hull components. Things like Claymore Mines, HEDP 40mm Grenades, LAW rockets, medium machine guns firing AP ammo, and if the vehicles got close it was sometimes possible for even assault rifle ammo penetrating them.

Add in the common turret and ammo schemes turned them into death traps if the turret area was penetrated. This was a common flaw of Battle Taxis and light weight IFV type vehicles. The "medium" variants of these vehicles are better protected but still vulnerable to weapons like LAW launchers, HEDP, .50 Cals, and even medium machine guns. You don't get the serious protection until you get into the "heavy" equivalents which are usually repurposed/adapted tank chassis.

Basically the more mobile the armored vehicle unit is the less likely it is to be well protected. There is however a caveats to this. Emerging material tech and the increasing use of APS is looking like it will push mobility higher and armor schemes lighter. The trade off though is that weapons tech still tends to catch up and even outstrip armor tech in terms of vehicles rather quickly. So anything that gets through the APS will likely knock out the target vehicle. There are other methods to possibly avoid being knocked out which includes faster mobility and reduced detection ranges. Possible future tech example in the DARPA GVX-T program

edited 13th Feb '16 10:07:05 AM by TuefelHundenIV

@Belisarius:

True! Perhaps separate life support systems for vehicles and infantry suits would be useful (so that if even one or the other is holed they're not going to asphyxiate).

@Matt Striker:

Oh, that's cool! I'm guessing that firing would be done from as long a range as possible to ensure that AT weapons can't easily hit them while they're vulnerable.

@Tuefel:

Thanks for the advice! I recall that AirLand Battle sought to exploit what they saw as rigid adherence to timetables by disrupting the "phasing" of a Soviet attack. The prime method was to use deep look sensors to see far into their lines and assembly areas, then use long range systems to strike. This in turn would create a (temporary) dearth of units at the front line, which NATO commanders could exploit in order to either fend off the current attack or transition to a counterattack. A properly executed attack under Deep Battle seemed like it would be very hard to stop if you didn't get your act together very quickly, but it wasn't the unstoppable juggernaut that some might portray it as. You're also right in that this is more about planetary ops than spaceside operations since Deep Battle doesn't really translate well into space IMO.

Nevertheless, the doctrinal points of Deep Battle are relevant here mostly in terms of how a sci-fi equivalent's demands would shape the development of weaponry, vehicles, personal protection, etc.

You do bring up a very good point about "accurate" suppression vis-a-vis "bullet hose" suppression. I suppose one could also bring psychological factors into it (i.e. for the poor saps on the receiving end, is it more unnerving to be caught under an unrelenting torrent of fire or for their comrades to get methodically picked off with pinpoint accurate shooting?). Either way, the requirement for weaponry that can suppress effectively would be a must considering the aggression required. From the sounds of things Deep Battle prioritised closing with the enemy for a number of reasons (off the top of my head: limiting the number of shots the defenders can get off before you're upon them, complicating targeting of CBRN munitions^note Or for our purposes, orbital artillery, maximising the chances of breakthrough, etc.) which would imply that close quarters capability might be valued.

As you briefly touched upon, APSes and low observability tech might be very useful for the lighter vehicles such a military might employ (such as armoured cars or light IFVs - or even light drones!). The GXV-T looks very interesting, though I haven't gotten around to reading the article just yet.

edited 13th Feb '16 10:19:45 AM by Flanker66

High volume and accurate shooting are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is more about the situational application of the two methods. For example part of the Soviet infantry doctrine shifted away from relying only on closing with the targets and began including long range accurate fire to thin or soften targets. This is partly why the gun fired missiles and turret mounted missiles became more common with Soviet IFV's and the Soviets began fielding the Dragonuv for most intents and purposes is the first purpose built DMR at the squad level to supplement their close in fire power. They also started to adapt more guided weapons such as ATGM's at varying levels. They even started experimenting with a wider range of guided weapons. The US also isn't entirely reliant on long range accuracy alone. The US adopted weapons like the M2 .50 cal because it was both accurate and rapid fire. The MK-19 uses a combination of higher volume of fire but AOE for soft targets and multiple direct hits to kill harder targets and is aimed at squad sized targets and supporting IFV's.

However the biggest difference is at the "big tactical" and strategic level. The US specifically using a combination of area saturation and guided munitions. The more well known example being the CBU-97/CBU-105 systems which scatter tens instead of hundreds of sub munitions across 15 acres. The other less well known was the munition that was adapted into Viper Strike the Brilliant Anti- Tank munition. It used optical acoustic tracking to find, select, target, and then attack certain vehicles at their weak points. It actually finished development and had entered production. Block II ATACM had barely started production before it was axed and the BAT munitions just sat in storage until converted. The final one is perhaps the most sophisticated of the three examples. LOCASS is a self propelled LAM that can track its intended targets as a networked weapon system working in conjunction with multiple sensor sources and/or other LOCASS munitions. It even had a three in one warhead and weak point target selection. It was meant to be released in the general area and then roam around hunting for targets in a coordinated search pattern.

The Russians have started a big push to further develop similar capabilities as we have been seeing in Syria and battlefield testing those systems.

Even the small tactical level is starting to see these kinds of changes with the emergence of individual guided weapons like the in development UBGL laser guided projectile, smart 40mm grenades, and Switch Blade "Air Strike in a Can." It is only a matter of time before some variant or take on these weapons is adapted into a HEDP type set up where they can take on most targets short of tanks and hardened bunkers.

Now consider all that tech in a possible future perspective and imagine the kind of guided munition fire power any force may face from possibly as low as the individual level up tot he Company Level. It may be possible for a grunt to be packing a multi-purpose multi-role mini munition that can be used against any light armor attempting Deep Battle style assaults. They could be met by a multitude of guided munition threats including individually fired MANPACK-LAM type weapons that can use things like terrain skimming and pop up attack modes.

edited 13th Feb '16 2:11:25 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Conceded on the fact that suppression is not a binary choice. I also agree that there is likely to be a broad spectrum of threats that could successfully engage light armour engaged in an attack in depth.

I do have ideas for how to reduce the effectiveness of Assault Breaker type weapons (or Reconnaissance-Strike Complexes as the Soviets (who loved to overcomplicate things) would say). However, I think that's somewhat ancillary to my original question (i.e. "For a stellar equivalent to Deep Battle, what would be desirable in their equipment?"). Okay, "ancillary" is kind of a poor choice of words, I suppose - it will need to be answered (since such weapons are extremely effective), but I'm trying to start from the foundation (what is needed equipment-wise to support this doctrine) and then move on to how to counter the... er... countermeasures.