Sci-fi Weapons, Vehicles and Equipment

Suppose so, although it would use a drone as a spotter.

Depends what the mechanics are, A shield that's good against, say plasma weapons might not do much against lasers or non-ferrous projectiles.

Not really, the powered suit might be tech porn, be the armour itself is just shaped plates, unless it's capable of performing some form of action (I can imagine an armour with controllable artificial chromatophores that either reflect a laser, or absorb it and turn it into electricity).

That's what makes it so fun to work with, because if it's properly thought out there is so much you can actually do with it.

What do you mean by 'like that in Dune'? For other shields that work differently, try the Langston Field in The Mote In Gods Eye or the Potential Barrier in Poul Anderson's Shield. If that's still not good enough, take a look at the TVtropes page on the things.

Mind you, agaist an unmoving target, the AC-X can stay outside of MANPADS range while still firing back, whereas the A-10 has to get down to the sorts of rangers where even machine-guns can fire back. I suspect they would also be easier to modify to carry non-standard weapons such only otherwise equippable by large bombers.

You mean the equivalent of the de Havilland Mosquito "Tsetse" or B-25G/H? Could work.

edited 20th Oct '14 11:58:14 PM by MattII

The Tse Tse is closer to Warthog in that it directly takes action. More like modification of smaller Cargo planes or even non-cargo planes to fill the role. Kind of like the old OV-10 Bronco Gunship concept for example.

Belly mounted turret gun◊ Wing Mounted Direct Attack weapons.

edited 21st Oct '14 11:10:50 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I disagree, the Tsetse generally only got used in areas with light/no AA (mainly against shipping) due to requiring a steady approach, and since it was a convert rather than a ground-up rebuild it wasn't that fit for purpose anyway. The Bronco was at least designed from the start with ground-attack in mind.

I don't the Mosquito in General was Tactical Ground Attack/Tactical Bomber that got used even in areas with heavy AA presence. The Tse Tse is the same thing with a 57mm cannon.

edited 21st Oct '14 1:22:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

The Molins Gun required a straight, controlled approach to hit anything properly, which put the Mosquito into a position it wasn't good at, namely absorbing AA without flinching, it just wasn't built for it.

edited 21st Oct '14 1:45:41 PM by MattII

Which is why the put a bit of extra armor in the nose and engines. It was after all attacking things that carried their own AA namely German U Boats, Destroyers, and Shipping.

Who watches the watchmen?

The weight of fire they faces still paled in comparison to what they'd have faced doing that over land, especially against U-boats, which mounted few weapons, and those that they did mount lacked the dedicated range-finders of surface ships.

edited 21st Oct '14 3:07:30 PM by MattII

They also attacked surface ships including German Destroyers. One of the first Missions the Tse Tse's were on was against a convoy that had a U-boat four Destroyers and an escort of JU-88's. That isn't exactly a lack of AA coverage or fire power. They damaged the U boat and destroyed three of the enemy fighters. Other models without that armor were used in things like the 1943 Daylight Berlin Raid or the 1944 Prison Break raid. They had no problems using them to directly attack targets in areas that had enemy AA and/or fighter cover.

The point ultimately is the Mosquitos over all use and general design is closer to the A-10II then to a gun ship like AC-130.

But the point was the interest is more in the loitering gunship then a direct attack one like the A-10II.

---

Speaking craft with big guns this has me thinking. one of the problems of some of the larger gun systems is the strain they put on the aircraft.

For example the AC-130's 105mm shoves the aircraft several feet every time it is fired. The 40mm Bofors is hard on the plane as well. According to crew members more so because it is rapid fire and the shots are fired close together. The A-10II's gun when fired causes minor stalling of the craft because of the force of recoil. The Russians made a light weight 30mm gun that damages the aircraft that carry it in several cases when fired.

So the question is where is the happy medium between fire power, fire rate, and caliber of guns? This would also apply to systems like rail guns for now because we do not entirely know how the forces of recoil work but we have a half way decent idea.

edited 21st Oct '14 6:29:03 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Just because they both hit their targets head on does not make them analogous. Why using that logic you could catergorise the Panzer III and Tiger II as 'effectively the same' because they both have turret mounted guns and attack tanks. The simple facts of the matter are is that the A-10 is an aircraft custom-built around its cannon, the Tsetse was modified to carry its one. If you equipped the F-15 with a big cannon that wouldn't be an A-10 either.

As for guns, I do think they've reached their limits more-or-less, so I'd expect missiles and bombs to be the big killers in the future, especially as you don't have to line them up precisely to hit.

edited 21st Oct '14 6:31:54 PM by MattII

You really need to check your history a bit better then that. What was the Pz III for again?

That should sound familiar to a certain heavy tanks purpose. Kind of funny considering nearly all tanks share a lot of same design concepts and roles to begin with. Like supporting infantry and/or assisting in a break through, engaging enemy armor where possible, and targeting enemy hard points. Something both of those vehicles did despite other design differences and when they entered the war. One was supplanted by successive designs as tanks in the war fielded increasingly heavier armor and more powerful guns stepping in to fill the same roles of the tank before.

Both the Mosquito and A-10II both are used in a lot of the same roles including tactical bombing, CAS, and even assorted missions in air space that is protected by enemy AA weapons. And again the Mosquito is closer to the A-10II then a loitering gun ship like the AC-130.

I don't think we can go overly large guns beyond what we have tried realistically speaking. Unless you have some system to absorb the recoil of the gun to keep it from beating up the air craft. Problem is those systems have weight and take up space. That is part of why the 105mm shoves around the AC-130 is it has a cut down recoil system.

edited 21st Oct '14 7:24:07 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

Thing is, they aren't the same. Why not? Because the A-10 is a custom-built ground attack aircraft, and was made deliberately rugged because of this, while the Tsetse was a modified run of fast-bombers, so it wasn't as rugged, but was fast enough to (hopefully) escape most entanglements.

Also, I still say an AC-X is a good design, because not only can if be fitted to carry any and all weapons that a bomber can, but its large cargo-hold means it can be modified to equip weapons that would require considerably more effort were you to try to stick them in a bomber.

They are not the same no, but ended covering a lot of the same missions.

Interestingly the pilots who fly the A-10II have some ideas to tweak it. I have to find that article just one more time.

The AC-X Concept is a good one in itself but I do believe the craft will be steadily trying to open up the range as much as they can and still provide CAS/Fire Support.

One thought did occur to me for big gun options but it would be tricky ti implement in an aircraft and would likely be a ground up build. An aircraft using an auto-loading recoilless rifle. You either have to rig a gun pod mount or an internal mount with a blast vent that directs the vent outside.

edited 21st Oct '14 10:55:46 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

^ Internal (traditional) gun that soft-launches laser guided gun-launched missiles. Much less muss and recoil.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

After recently proving that not only is hard light a thing but that we can also make light itself into a solid crystalline matrix, how feasible do you think using this technology as a form of instant 3D-printing (much like Borderlands' Digistruct modules) would be for people living a few hundred years in the future?

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

I think a big difference between the A-10 and the Mosquito variants is that the Mosquito was originally built as a Lightning Bruiser. She'd race in, outrunning German interceptors, lay in a precision strike, and then do her damndest to get home before the morning tea got cold.

What I'm saying is that the Mosquito is more analogous to the most successful of all American built bombers, the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Tom: That is a good idea too.

Afp:P

K Spam: Except the structure was so unstable they couldn't directly observe it and had to watch the bits flying off. Even worse as the system sheds the photons it becomes increasingly unstable with the only means of keeping it together is pump more in.

edited 22nd Oct '14 4:24:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

I think a better WWII analog to the A-10 would be something like the A-20 Havoc or B-25 Mitchell, particularly when equipped with the steel "gunfighter" noses as opposed to the glass bombardier nose the planes were originally designed with.

Of course, the P-47 Thunderbolt draws obvious parallels as well, although that's (yet) another example of a fighter being repurposed into a ground attack plane (all that firepower designed to quickly swat fast moving opponents in split-second firing windows does wonders on relatively stationary ground targets, and those powerful engines can help to hoist impressive payloads when speed and agility are of secondary importance, and most importantly, the P-47 was built using engineering techniques later applied to Nintendo Gameboys.)

Assuming that we're going to fudge physics a bit, what would be a more efficient means of interstellar/intergalactic communication, quantum entanglement or sending traditional signals through wormholes?

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial

^^ The best WWII analog to the Hog is the A-1 Skyraider. It was ready for the war in time, it just never got sent to the front.

The best combat analog is basically the SBD Dauntless or A-26 Invader since they were purpose built attack aircraft like the Hog as opposed to the P-47 and A-36 which were fighter designs.

edited 22nd Oct '14 4:24:42 PM by MajorTom

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

AFP: We can just put an engine on a game boy then and call it a day.

Who watches the watchmen?

Nope. Weaponizing Nintendo hardware has been banned per international arms restriction treaties. Most folks try to get around it by up-arming Sony PS Ps instead, on the grounds that nobody really cares what you do with a Sony PSP.

But aren't PSP's just training dummies? Why would you send that shit against the enemy? Do we need less of them on hand?

Perhaps we should just weaponize one Game Boy. It'll survive whatever we put it against short of a nuclear warhead.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Or we could use a certain brand of flip phone.

Who watches the watchmen?

IIRC, you cant use quantum entanglement as a communication device.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I know. But the idea of using micro wormholes to transmit signals across intergalactic space is already pretty out there, so physics is... meh. If it sounds plausible enough, I'll fudge it

EDIT: And hey, it worked for Mass Effect.

edited 22nd Oct '14 9:33:30 PM by KSPAM

I've got new mythological machinery, and very handsome supernatural scenery. Goodfae: a mafia web serial