Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

And the fact you'll have one hell of a case of seasickness when you stop.

Well, yeah. The electromagnetic bonds between your atoms would fail long before you noticed appreciable Unruh radiation.

Would space fairing species, logically, have different doctrines in space, or is space so restrictive in terms of creative freedom, that it limits what combatants can do, i.e on equal playing fields in terms of tactics.

Because I have story idea that takes place in a single star system, where multiple factions have different approaches to space warfare (from uses of drones, fighters, carrier based doctrine, to sniping with dreadnoughts and destroyers, among other miscellaneous things).

There are some ways in which a species' starship design might reflect their physiology. For example, one might have more tolerance for acceleration than another, and so design ships that can change speed and direction faster. One might have faster reaction time, and so be more suited for piloting smaller, fighter-like craft.

Overall, though, technology will be the dominant factor in space warfare.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 6th 2019 at 9:21:27 AM

How they apply their technology and choose to fight would be a societal consideration. Even on Earth with similar or near-peer states nations don't use technology in the exact same manner or use the exact same tactics. There is no real easy answer there. You could borrow a page from various fiction and their tactics in part represent an evolutionary path the species went down.

I am trying to for my Stardust setting. The Le'Ka for example are a race of biomechanical entities, they evolved from early cyborg synthesis on their planet and more or less underwent a singularity. As such their ships are more or less seen as extensions of themselves in a way.

The Yaven are a race that prides themselves on "alternative" resolution so their fighting style makes extensive use of long distance bombardment, they don't get up close and personal unless it is to discuss terms.

Tactics and operational philosophy are functions of one's strategic goals, and those are dictated by politics and culture, not technology or physics. If one race possess a psychological makeup that values defending themselves without directly threatening anyone else, that will place constraints on what technology they can use, or how they deploy their forces. If another race values aggressiveness in the face of potential threats, that will cause them to emphasize an entirely different set of strategies.

I don’t know...if a carrier based doctrine works for one faction, I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t work for others, if only to protect against fighters and other small craft.

Depends on what you mean by "work." If ones grand strategic goals do not include power projection, there is very little reason to invest in them. There must be alternatives that dont require them to spend precious resources on capabilities they dont need.

Obviously space is going to be a totally different game, we’re extrapolating from naval traditions here for the most part and it’s highly unlikely space will be anything like that.

That said, there actually is a counter to carriers we’ve seen here on Earth for those less interested in power projection: anti-access area denial systems. The Soviets did it during the Cold War and the Chinese are doing it now, using long range defensive weapons to create a dangerous perimeter forces can’t easily operate inside. A planet/nation with a mostly defensive strategy might invest lots in long-range missile batteries to harass approaching forces or deter them during peacetime.

Well, I was also thinking about FTL launched fighters, for one faction. Have the carrier sit just outside of the AO, and the launch bay primes the fighters (who don't have drives themselves) for a shortly FTL Jump, right into the action.

And another who would have your standard Fighter Launch Sequence. I suppose, that would mean disabling that FTL launch carrier would be the top priority, for one faction.

I’d wonder how come the other factions can’t do tha

So, I have been thinking about superheavy combat aircraft recently for my setting and I would like a bit of a reality check. I have in mind two potential types of superheavy aircraft: An Airborne Aircraft Carrier and a XXL Future Copter. My real question is whether or not such things would be useful, and what for.

Because gravity manipulation tech exists in my setting, Anti-Gravity should be possible to some extent, so size limits on aircraft would be a lot looser. Obviously this could be quite valuable when it comes to heavy lift aircraft and shuttles, but I have been thinking about combat applications for such craft.

The setting I am working on is a relatively soft one, around a high 3 on our Mohs Scale. There's a One Big Lie in which some Applied Phlebotinum can be used to mess with gravity which allows for FTL travel, Artificial Gravity, and Deflector Shields, and some smaller lies when it comes to power generation, materials science, chemistry, biology, and cyberwarfare.

These gravity manipulation devices tend to be quite large and they go hand-in-hand with advanced generator tech, so only large vehicles/fortifications can make use of them. Superheavy tanks exist to take advantage of this. They tend to be around three stories tall and proportioned a bit like an IFV. These super heavies are not very common. They operate alongside much greater numbers of normal-sized armor and infantry forces. Superheavy aircraft would be able to benefit from Deflector Shields, but with weaker shielding than equivalent tanks.

I'm envisioning the Airborne Aircraft Carrier as being a bit smaller than an escort carrier from WWII. The air forces of this faction are chiefly a mix of unmanned air superiority fighters, manned strike fighters, AWACS craft to control the drones, some recon drones, and long-range bombers. They all have thrust vectoring, so the fighters have VTOL or something close to it and even the bigger stuff like the bombers and AWACS birds can take off from short runways. About how many aircraft could one of these flying carriers accommodate, and would it be worthwhile to build them?

For the superheavy Future Copter, I imagine the first ones built would be gunships, but infantry transport models could also exist. The question is what they would be good for. They could mount much larger guns than normal helicopter-analogues, but missiles are where most of the firepower is on those platforms anyway and those could be distributed among a bunch of normal gunships. The Deflector Shields and improved armor make them less vulnerable to antiaircraft fire, though, and the advanced power plants would increase their range drastically. What kind of uses could such a thing have? Would drone motherships be better?

Edited by Captain_Cactus on Mar 20th 2019 at 9:41:57 AM

Captain: This will be an effort post so give me a bit.

Ok. For this, I am going to do something roughly similar I did for Tactical Foxes uber alles “World Raiding Giga Carrier” TM. This will be under a folder for the estimate but I will do something separate for rough use.

So now what? Your theoretical carrier can carry a good number of strike craft of varying capability and quantity, what in the hell do you do with them?

You operate like a carrier with a number of advantages the carrier can't. While some of these also imply a variety of risks using standoff ranges to launch strikes can possibly make the craft viable in various ways.

The primary role of carriers is to help project firepower via aircraft in various ways or in general project firepower.

Being a flying platform can fly high, launch the craft from a height advantage, and then decrease altitude to reduce tracking and targeting and help make some landings easier. The ability to move over land and use terrain with elevation adjustments for cover can help a carrier possibly surprise a target by launching from behind something like a mountain and then freely move to a new position.

The more craft you can field with some sort of viable strike or combat option the more craft you can swarm a threat with and possibly overwhelm defenses. Insert De Marquis comment on fighting swarms with swarms here.

There are drawbacks as well such as being a great whopping thing in the air it would be detected and possibly targeted and attacked a long way off so it had better have some really good defenses. It would in other considerations have nearly total freedom of movement in terms of where it could go.

The big uber chopper I will leave to someone else and others will likely have their own commentary on the carrier.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Mar 20th 2019 at 8:16:26 AM

That is quite the effort post. Thanks a lot. I take it these flying carriers would be strategically worthwhile and could carry enough strike craft to make a significant impact. That's good to know, and you've given me a lot to consider.

Lol I love how my carrier from god knows how long ago is your template for these things

I have that post and others saved in my profile so I don't have to go hunting them down every time I reference them. Why redo all the work?

Wow, Tuefel, that's a difficult act to follow.

@Captain: As far as your super-copter is concerned, I take it that what you want is some sort of VTOL version of a C-130, or something that functions like one. You mentioned anti-grav, so I am assuming that actual rotors are optional. This would be a very useful transport craft, because it can carry very large loads into rough areas without airfields. Imagine dropping heavy armor very close to the combat zone- it would greatly increase the strategic flexibility of the military using them. Heavy tanks, armored artillery, and heavy construction/combat engineering assets could all be accommodated. Range and payload are the key performance parameters, so design them around that.

I'm not certain how useful it would be as a gunship, for the reasons you yourself stated. I think that a more useful offensive role would be as a standoff platform for guided bombs and heavy cannon (like some sort of hovering cross between a AC-130 and a B-52). It all depends on what the loitering capability is- does your anti-grav have relatively good or poor "gas mileage" compared to current tech? If it could stay up for some number of hours, I could see it functioning as a kind of highly mobile artillery battery/close air support. Range and payload are still the key design considerations, although speed to the deployment area is also a consideration. I see these things as being smaller and faster than the transport models, but no so small and fast as the dedicated gunships.

Helicopter gunships are pretty much CAS and fast moving scouts. Part of their advantage is they are typically smaller than full-sized aircraft and can operate in VTOL.

A giant gunship might be good for either hefting around either heavy or lots of smaller weapons for the purpose of saturation fire. Or like De Marquis suggestion.

The world's biggest helicopter is the Mil Mi-26. This big ass beasty is a logistics machine. It hauls vehicles, people, supplies, etc.

Now I'm still figuring out how the flights on the Airborne Aircraft Carrier will work, but it has great 'gas mileage' so the mega-chopper gunship sounds like a go. I'm thinking it should have a heavy ram accelerator cannon in order to do noticeable damage to enemy super-heavy tanks or fortifications, a whole bunch of hardpoints for heavy missiles/bombs, a couple of autocannons to deal with infantry and light vehicles and a bit of point defenses so this large and expensive thing doesn't get wrecked by enemy air in two minutes.

My new question is what type of forces they ought to be grouped with in the organizational structure. Would they work best if grouped into their own squadrons, or as part of squadron that's mostly normal choppers? Would they more frequently support tanks or infantry?

Also (This might be a better question for the equipment thread), are there major drawbacks to having trans atmospheric capability on a flying cargo lifter? Like are the requirements for basic spaceflight totally at odds with what an atmospheric cargo aircraft needs to do? With and without the anti-grav stuff, I mean.

Edited by Captain_Cactus on Mar 22nd 2019 at 11:59:25 AM

I’d use a mega-copter for air assault, kind of like a gigantic and heavily armed Chinook.

If you just about double the size and payload of a Chinook you’ve basically got a VTOL C-17, which means you can do air assault with a decently sized company or even a small armored detachment with a single aircraft rather than three. You could probably carry some support armaments larger than a couple LM Gs too, maybe a small autocannon or two. Mix in some stealth shaping and you’ve got a very attractive platform for special forces looking to strike behind enemy lines.

If money were no object and Boeing just wanted to prove a point and metaphorically swing their dick around, what’s the largest plane they could build?

^ They can first try to beat this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules#/media/File:Giant_planes_comparison_-_Updated.svg

I'd have gone with the Spruce Goose but I'm a nostalgic American.

But if you want something truly big, I'd start looking at the Arsenal Bird.