Does it bother anyone else that so many sci-fi franchises/settings use 20th century naval terms like "destroyer," "cruiser," and "battleship" to mean "small," "medium," and "large," or am I just a lone autist?
I don't think it's that hard to come up with descriptive names for ship types based on what they actually do - as destroyer, cruiser, and battleship were originally.
>>47700652
>Destroyer, cruiser, and battleship
>to mean small, medium, or large
>Clearly doesn't know a damn thing about ships
>>47700652
Why create completely new words when it is perfectly viable to just reuse naval terminology?
If we make a gun that shoots different sized bullets, do we have to call it a smallshootbang? If someone creates a drink to get you sober, do we call it a sober instead of a beverage?
I think you're just a lone autist, anon.
>>47700652
What's always bothered me is speaking about spaceships and space travel with the same terms for sea vessels. Why is space an ocean? Is it just for ease of use?
>>47700652
Looking at that reminds me of being in the yards when I was in the navy. You tend to forget just how high up a ship is when it's out of the water and also being suspended so the yard birds can work on the hull underneath, it's a bitch of a climb too when you're carrying stuff.
>>47700841
It's an easy analogy to make I assume like >>47700831 said why come up with new words when you can describe it well enough as is
>>47700778
He's talking about how sci-fi settings use them.
>>47700831
It's more like if tanks were called knights and missiles were called arrows.
>>47700652
Whenever you think something like this, remember the word "legacy". Every time something silly or archaic is made, 90% of the time it's because someone in the past did it that way so they just followed. Look at the US, it still uses the imperial system just because it's too much of a cost to convert everything to metric, so it keeps ticking on. Some countries drive on the right and some on the left, and no-one wants to standardise because it would cost far too much. It's much more apparent in software systems. Most larger banking systems still run on 16 bit 1970s COBOL systems, and AAA games don't change because they're just running of the legacy of what came before, as just a couple of examples.
As to your other point, destroyer, cruiser, and battleship mean different things than sizes.
Battleships are largely obsolete, but were designed to take hits with extremely thick armour and give back with big guns.
Cruisers are designed to operate independently of a fleet (even though they do run with fleets). Smaller in both armour and weaponry, but still quite deadly.
Destroyers/Frigates are smaller ships designed to pick off escorts/hunt subs/line defence, especially in the US navy who runs a "carrier command center" that commands the fleet.
Then there's the other designations like minesweepers, aircraft carriers, submarines etc, but you get the idea. The names are for function, not just size.
tl:dr; I'm not bothered, and you shouldn't be either. Although if you did see a particularly different role than that of current maritime, then maybe it should have a different designation.
Because they're still ships, just with the word SPACE in front of them.
>>47700912
Both tanks and mounted knights are armored cavalry.
Arrows are missiles.
>>47700831
Destroyer, Cruiser, Battleship, and so on are obsolete terminology even today's navies.
>>47701039
As someone who just got out of the navy, i can deffinatly tell you that this is false
>>47701039
The only one that is obsolete is the battleship and thats only because big guns are being replaced with long range missiles
Not counting orbital vessels, there will be Only Two classes of combat space ships: Ships of line and Battleships. And that's because it is cheaper to produce one over the other.
All other ship classes will not exist. There's no stealth in space so there will be no space submarines. Since there are no space submarines, there will be no destroyers. In Space, Acceleration is the only thing that matters, so there won't be faster or slower ships (no cruisers).
The only difference between one ship or another will be how much propellant can you carry and how many big guns you have.
>>47701064
There destroyers bigger than cruisers. It is a Zombie terminology that refuses to die.
>>47701039
They've never actually be set in stone, either. These classifications have been so loose historically as to not really have any meaning. Hell, spaceship wargames have a tighter ship classification system than history ever had. Some classifications have been honorary, others arbitrary, and some interchangeable, and this has been the case with not one Navy from which all naval terminology is derived, but it's been the case with damn near every navy with its own tradition.
>>47701064
There's no meaningful difference in size or mission between destroyers and cruisers anymore - navies other than the USN work perfectly fine without the antiquated cruiser designation. And battleships haven't been used for anything other than shore bombardment for 70 years.
>>47701103
There's plenty of other differences that could exist.
Different FTL systems?
Biologically based neural interface, or crewed by AI?
Metal ship, or bioengineered organism?
Designed to bombard planets, or accelerate planets until they crack and fall apart?
Do they need a fleet to provide their network access, or do they have a manual pilot?
How does the ship reproduce?
>>47701103
>in the future there will not be old words, only ships of the line
whatthefuckareyoudoingsempi
It's fiction. I'm sure the US Airforce will think up appropriate classifications if the time comes
>>47701188
I really liked the ship classifications from the Hyperion Cantos series, if you're familiar with it
>>47701200
How about Main Battle Craft vs Deep Space Supremacy Craft?
>>47701064
I also just got out of the navy and I completely disagree with you. Cruiser is an obsolete term because there's nothing about them in terms of role or capability that differentiates them from modern destroyers and foreign navies have frigates sufficiently large that they displace as much as many destroyers have have similar armament.
>>47701103
>Acceleration is the only thing that matters, so there won't be faster or slower ships
hummmmm
>>47701254
For what its worth if you're going to be doing hard scifi space combat, there isn't much point making a bigger gunship because everything is 1 hit kills anyway, so its just as vulnerable and costs more.
But future acronyms are cool so how about Lunar-class Atomic Missile Projection And Defence. LAMPAD, old ancient greek death related spirit, the lunar part because its constructed in orbit around the moooooooon.
>>47701333
Delta-v and acceleration.
>>47701103
So, ships of line aren't meant for battle?
>>47701400
they are meant for broadsiding
Why are Fleshbags so terrible at space combat? Always travelling at 1 g. Can't stand 9 g for more than a couple second. Most of their crews pass at 5 g. Why are you so fragile?
>>47701103
>there will be Only Two classes of combat space ships: Ships of line and Battleships
This is pretty strange when you consider the origin of these terms. Ship of the Line comes from a ship capable of being in the "line of battle," otherwise known as a... battle-ship.
I mean, future terminology isn't required to make sense, but still.
>>47701395
So, what terms would you use for ships that can accelerate more or less quickly than another ship?
>>47701400
>>47701438
>>47701103
You're fucking dumb.
The term battleship is literally derived from "Line of battle ship".
>>47701496
What I meant is a mass-produced ship vs bigger ones.
>>47701123
the size of a ship has no bearing on its classification, role does. Now a days, "destroyer" mostly means ships that can do ASW well, since the role of DDs shifted from destroying torpedo boats and launching torpedo attacks themselves, to countering subs. It's the reason even the JMSDF's Helicopter carriers, while being the dimensions of aircraft carrier and looking very much like them, are classified as DDH instead of CV, since they are for ASW instead of attacking surface vessels.
Cruisers still retain their original role to some extent, during the 70's Nuclear powered ones were made by the USN and the Soviet navy, once again giving cruisers the long range that defined cruisers. While no longer nuclear powered, the Ticonderoga class of Cruisers in the USN have superior command facilities making them Cruisers, despite being based off the Spruance class of destroyers.
>>47701515
And what is the line of battle tactic? Sailing in 2 parallel lines and broadsiding the fuck out of people
>>47701438
Then what kind of battle are the battleships doing that the ships of the line can't do? Maneuvers?
>>47701496
What is what anymore?!
If acceleration is the only thing that matters, wouldn't that mean that bigger ships can go faster than smaller ones (more fuel)?
>>47701531
I am interested in what you are saying, but I do not understand the acronyms. Would you mind translating for those of us that don't get it?
>>47701544
A battleship is a large armored warship with a main battery consisting of heavy caliber guns. A ship of the line was a type of naval warship constructed from the 17th through to the mid-19th century to take part in the naval tactic known as the line of battle, in which two columns of opposing warships would manoeuvre to bring the greatest weight of broadside firepower to bear. There is some overlap between the two
>>47701603
Not him, but
DD = Destroyer
HHD = Helicopter Destroyer
ASW = Anti-submarine warfare
CV = Aircraft carrier
JMSDF = Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force (basically the modern Japanese navy)
USN = United States Navy
>>47701603
ASW = Anti Submarine Warfare
DD = Destroyer
JMSDF = Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force
DDH = Helicopter(-carrying) Destroyer
CV = Carrier Vessel, aka Aircraft Carrier
>>47701690
>HHD
er, I mean DDH, typo
>>47701536
You're completely missing the point. The term "Ship of the line" and "Battleship" literally denote the same combat role, the terminology just changed over time.
Say, ship roles.
There were the heavy mighty ones that could dish out dakka and could take it in return, sacrificing speed, and there were the light and nimble ones that were fragile but still packed a punch, those I get.
And I imagine there may be some specialist ships that fullfill other roles, like torpedo ships and what have you?
>>47701671
Ah, so "modern" (not really) battleships are a not-quite evolution of ye olde ship of the line, is that so?
>>47700652
Is there nothing to be said for tradition?
>>47700652
Holy shit you're retarded. What's that like? Do you know that you're stupid, or are you in denial?
>>47701715
pretty much. Guns got bigger, armor got thicker, and tactics shifted.
>>47701671
Again, they're exactly the same thing. The word "ship of the line (of battle)" was shortened to "line-of-battle ship", which was again shortened to "battleship".
Wouldn't make more sense to base their organisation/structure/tactics/ranks on the Airforce rather than the Navy?
>>47701758
Yes, but it should be noted that armour couldn't keep pace with the weapon's destructive potential.
As such, it's better to focus on maneuver, firepower and awareness rather than on resilience.
Is that what the US calls "Destroyer"?
>>47700652
The difference between classifications of naval ship is size, but role. A cruiser can be larger than a dreadnought and a destroyer can be smaller than a frigate, it's just that conventional design would have them fall into roughly those categories of small, medium and large
>>47701468
I see the navigational computer has developed sentience. Again.
Restoring to factory default in three...
I just want to laugh at how silly the term "ship of the line" is for space combat. "The line?" You can't hold "the line," they'll just go around you.
>>47701790
destroyers started as a torpedo boat destroyer and evolved into anti-sub, anti-missile and anti-air and is mainly an escort warship
>>47701767
Nah, naval tradition is much richer.
>>47701767
>posting porn
This is a blue board, anon. NSFW content isn't allowed.
>>47701856
broadsiding is the most efficient to put MOAR DAKKA on target
>>47701873
>using guns
>in space
>>47701905
Real men use laser axes.
>>47701905
>>47701942
Real men ram the enemy space ship.
>>47701954
>not being a rogue cruiser and throwing laser daggers from behind
>>47701767
Service in spacecraft would probably be more like serving in a modern submarine than surface ships....
>>47701969
>Not being a heavily armored battleship and ramming your enemy with the front.
Fucking Newbie get on my level.
>>47701873
>>47701905
>>47701942
>>47701954
>>47701969
>>47701981
Who said you need to shoot munitions?
>>47701942
A boarding axe is fine, too.
>>47701790
>Is that what the US calls "Destroyer"?
no
"Destroyer" comes from "Torpedo Boat Destroyer".
The idea was that battleships despite their thick armour were still still vulnerable to torpedoes, since they have pretty big warheads. Also, torpedoes can be carried by small, fast and maneuverable boats. At the time, slow reloading guns, primitive targeting methods, and slow turret turning speeds meant that BBs (battleships) could not defend themselves very well from these. Destroyers were faster and had smaller, but faste3r turning guns that could still take out Torpedo boats, and soon began to carry torpedoes themselves, as being bigger, they were more capable for longer range missions. During WW1 as Germany used U boats on a large scale navies realized that ASW was a new necessity for modern naval warfare. DDs were optimal since they were fast, maneuverable and smaller than capital ships, making them less likely to get hit by submarine launched torpedoes. As torpedo boats stopped being a real threat, and with newer ships being faster and more maneuverable, as well as Airplanes establishing themselves as the dominant force in naval combat, both the torpedo boat destroying and torpedo attack roles of destroyers became less relevant. ASW was all that was left and so modern day destroyers beat little resemblance to their old counterparts,
>>47701761
the terms have come to refer to the capital ship of their own time periods. not many will think of the steel armoured dreadnoughts when you say "ship of the line". I've only ever heard the French navy to have referred to their dreadnoughts as "Ship of the line", and even then, they also called them "cuirassé", Armor since the defining characteristic of BBs is their armor.
>>47701715
>Ah, so "modern" (not really) battleships are a not-quite evolution of ye olde ship of the line, is that so?
The evolution of ships of the line into modern battleships happened in a quite strange way, very, very quickly over the course of about 30 years between 1860 and 1890.
There were lots of weird intermediate stages, like screw and sail powered, but unarmored Le Napoleon, the armored ships of the line like Glorie and HMS Warrior which were commonly referred to as ships of the line at the time.
>>47700652
What else would you call the "small, nimble ship optimized for escort duty," the "all purpose mid-sized ship that balances speed/armor/firepower," and the "large ship that sacrifices maneuverability for firepower and armor?"
>>47702195
The context of this conversation is reviving the term "ship of the line" along side "battleship" to mean different thing.
I (and apparently some other anon) think this is dumb because the terms were used to refer to ships that filled the exact same role in their given era, which is simply that of a large combatant capable of being one of the main components of a surface action.
If you're going to have two different terms you may as well make them actually describe the role of the ship. Three letter acronyms are great for that.
>>47702292
Frigate, Cruiser, Battleship in that order
>>47702292
A red herring since there's no reason why the spacecraft with the biggest guns and thickest armor can't also have the highest acceleration
>>47702313
Didn't frigates used to be main-line combat ships?
>>47702329
>not sure if bait....
Fuck it.
Bigger mass is bigger inertia is more delta v required.
Acceleration and manouvering is the domain of lighter, smaller ships.
Unless space magic.
But hey if space magic theres no point even arguing is there?
>>47702329
>What is inertia?
Just because there isn't gravity in space doesn't mean that mass is irrelevant to maneuverability.
>>47702377
>What is thrust to wait ratio
>what is delta-V
>>47702371
straight from wikipedia In modern navies, frigates are used to protect other warships and merchant-marine ships, especially as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys. Ship classes dubbed "frigates" have also more closely resembled corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, and even battleships.
>>47701103
>no faster or slower
>acceleration as a concept still matters but that has no bearing somehow
Is this a joke?
>>47702292
>"small, nimble ship optimized for escort duty,"
Escort? Picket ship?
More importantly, though, this is space, and small size need not necessarily correlate with speed. Presumably you'd just need to scale up the engines as the mass of the ship increased. It's not like a ship in water which has to deal with heavy water and wind resistance.
>"all purpose mid-sized ship that balances speed/armor/firepower,"
I'm not sure there's a name for this in the present. I suppose it depends on what "all purpose" means exactly.
>"large ship that sacrifices maneuverability for firepower and armor?"
Again, space isn't water, and I don't know if the size/maneuverability trade-off is really relevant here.
Part of the problem with all this is that we don't really know what roles spaceships designed for war would have. It depends a lot on how the war is conducted. Naval terms are more common and maybe more reasonable in soft space operas, but as the sci-fi becomes "harder" the analogy makes less and less sense.
>>47702377
A 100 ton ship with one rocket engine and 80 tons of propellant is just a mobile as a 1000 ton ship with ten rocket engines and 800 tons of propellant.
>>47702303
>If you're going to have two different terms you may as well make them actually describe the role of the ship
in most other languages Battleships are called Armors. French "cuirassé", Spanish "Acorazado", Italian "corazzata".
>>47702588
>Implying anything other than English naval parlance is relevant
>>47702538
but couldnt the small ship destroy the bigger ship or at least deal enough damage to remove the larger ship from the fight? In that case, the ideal would be to deploy 10 small ships with maximum firepower and fuck all for armor, as you scale up the ship making an expendable gun platform becomes less and less useful. Sure it can shoot at ten other guys, but cost 10 times as much as still got fragged.
Alternatively, if you start piling on armor to make it more resilient against the small ships, the weapon to mass ratio start falling making it a big target that cant deal much damage, but can take a lot of hits.
>>47700652
Yes. But I admit I use the term 'Monitor' and 'Cruiser' for my space universe. Cruisers are like torchships, they can run around a system. Monitors are like the old Monitors: they can run circles around a planet, but can't go to the next planet over in any real order other than transfering and are used for defense or local control/augmentation of cruiser forces.
>>47702663
>discussing what the best use of naval terminology is
> a perfectly logical term appears
>no
ok then
>>47702663
What if in the future people speak Chinese, Arabic, or Spanish?
>>47703137
They should still use English nautical terms.
English is the language of the sea.
>>47701517
>Not naming your mass-produced ships Cheapfasts
>Not naming your bigger ones Hulkcosts
Fancy that, ya daft-typer, poo-poofter.
>>47701582
bigger means more mass though.Which means that it will accelerate slower provided that the same motor is used. I'm not a rocket scientist but the way I understand it, making the motors bigger does noy mean a linear increase in the propulsion. There is a sort of sweet spot for different modes of propulsion where anything more than that provides deminishing returns. Also bigger motors need more fuel. More fuel means bigger containers etc etc.
>>47701531
No, they're DDHs for the same reason that Russian carriers are technically "aviation cruisers" - politics. Japanese constitutional caselaw prohibits "offensive weapons" which carriers are considered to be.
>>47701582
Square cube law limits your ability to strap more and more thrusters to a larger spacecraft.
>being in space
>not designing your ships to be spheres for maximum internal volume
It's [current year]+[future], get with the times
>All this >implying that there will be huge armored warships in space
Skiff, cutter, and sloop are what you call your spaceships.
What is Delta-V? I know what acceleration is. I don't get Delta-V and why is it so important in space.
>>47703530
Change in velocity. It means acceleration.
>>47703394
No, look at their specs and you'll see why you are wrong
>Hyuga
>only 16 VLS cells
>equipped with ASROCS (Anti Submarine Rockets) and Sea Sparrows.
>Can only carry Helicopters unfit for surface warfare as any surface ship can easily shoot them down
>Izumo Class
Doesn't even have VLS
>just ASW and mine counter measures helis
Russia's "Heavy Aviation Cruisers" carry aircraft actually capable of surface warfare, the Sukhoi Su-33 and a ton of Anti ship cruise missiles.
They are not comparable at all.
>>47700652
This is never what those terms are used for in sci-fi settings. Each of those ship types do seperate things and serve seperate roles on the battlefield. Nowhere are they used to mean small, medium, or large.
>>47703530
Everything you need to know about rockets in order to Make Stuff Up:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
>>47702670
And now you know why battleships are obsolete in a tactical sense.
>>47703548
This. Saying "Delta V" is a way to imply that you're measuring in units your ability to accelerate.
>>47703568
>This is never what those terms are used for in sci-fi settings. Each of those ship types do seperate things and serve seperate roles on the battlefield. Nowhere are they used to mean small, medium, or large.
Your next line will be, D&D has never been about exploring dungeons, it's not about finding treasure, it has nothing to do with dragons.
You should namefag yourself "he who says the opposite of what is true" since that's all you seem to do.
>>47701767
Given the fact that space ships operate for extended periods of time in a hostile medium with crew confined directly to their vessels for the duration of their mission (except when pulling into port) it makes a lot of sense that they'd copy the Navy (which is basically that, but on a 2.5-dimensional scale) rather than the Air Force (Which operates very differently, with pilots not serving all or their time confined to their aircraft while they're deployed, and they operate almost exclusively out of a fixed, fortified base of operations, where they bunk and board when not on an active mission).
>>47703951
Literally what? I made just one post. Projecting much?
>>47701254
Presuming that a Deep Space Supremacy Craft is a long range vessel that prioritizes speed and range over brute armament and is geared to operate alone. Congradulations, you just described a Cruiser.
>>47703993
>Literally what? I made just one post.
One incredibly wrong post, yes.
>y-y-you're just projecting
If you're going to post things you know are wrong to go /b/ or /pol/.
>>47704004
>anon says one thing about apples
>you bring up oranges
he's wrong but you're still a fucking autist
The major issue is that space combat would be completely different to modern naval warfare.
Even assuming no FTL, missile barrages would be excessively long range and insanely quick.
>>47704004
What is wrong about my statement?
>>47703565
Wow, helicopter carriers are good for ASW! Who would have thought?
The entire reason for their classification is the following.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c01.html#s2
>Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
As you should know, this article has been interpreted since 1954 to allow for a defensive military force in the form of the JSDF
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/ronten/02ronten.html
And let's look at what the Japanese MoD has to say on the matter.
http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp01.html
>The possession of armaments deemed to be offensive weapons designed to be used only for the mass destruction of another country, which would, by definition, exceed the minimum necessary level, is not permissible under any circumstances. For example, the SDF is not allowed to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), long-range strategic bombers, or attack aircraft carriers.
So, I guess that means that if they want aircraft carriers, they have to be defensive and potentially call them something else to avoid ambiguity.
Let's see what Globalsecurity has to say.
>>47704107
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x-aircraft-carrier.htm
>Japan has long wanted to develop an aircraft carrier. As early as 1983, Japan called for the building of a 20,000-ton aircraft carrier, which could carry 20 helicopters or 20 VTOL Sea Harriers. This was not realized owing to opposition from the United States. The US Navy strongly opposed to the plan, and urged Japan to build more destroyers instead. The US Navy had enough flattops to counter the Soviet Navy but lacked destroyers. The MSDF's plan to own a light flattop raised Washington's eyebrow, apparently taken as a subcontractor attempting to strike out on its own.
>The "16DDH"-class ship has attracted significant media and Diet attention, owing to its resemblance to an aircraft carrier.
>According to a designer's concept shown by the agency in December 2000, the vessel's bridge was located amidships to bisect the flight deck-a ship design that was effectively identical to its predecessor. But when it became time for the fiscal 2004 budget request in August 2003, the agency came up with a completely new drawing, which showed the bridge on starboard to create a through deck-a design of none other than an aircraft carrier. The agency, however, insists that since this vessel is just an expanded model of any conventional flagship DDH, it ought to be categorized as such.
So, in the face of evidence, one may reasonably conclude that Japan's classification of its helicopter carriers as destroyers has everything to do with political semantics than their configuration.
>>47704149
according to you, what is it then?
>>47700652
Look what you've done OP, I hope your're happy.
But to be clear, everyone knows the US just calls them destroyers so congress will fund them, right?
>>47701103
I'm fucking tired of this no stealth in space bullshit. Stealth doesn't mean invisible via magic fields, or cloaking devices. Stealth means to move or act unobtrusively, or secretly. You can damn well do that in space. Detection systems will not be foolproof, and even if super powerful at some point somewhere a person will have to interpret some data. This means mistakes can be made, people can be mislead and fuck-ups will happen. You can achieve stealth by arriving unnoticed, not because you couldn't be noticed, but because you weren't.
Behold, the great list of Freespace ship classifications:
>Cruiser
Smallest combatant capital ship.
>Corvette
Middle ground combatant capital ship. Easily worth 3 cruisers.
>Destroyer
Capital ships with heavy weaponry and fighter scrambling capabilities.
As you can see, it breaks them down into logical, easy to understand terms. The cruisers cruise through space, and the destroyers destroy things in space.
>>47704245
So you just hope that all of the automated tracking systems pointed in your direction fail at the same time?
>>47700652
Nope.
>>47704324
Oh, sorry, that should have been "Nope, and yes, yes you are".
>>47704149
Japan has been building helicopter carrying destroyers since the 70s with the Haruna class and then the Shirane class, from the start intended for ASW. Only those things carried a mere 3 helicopters, so of course the next thing would be to increase the amiunt carried. Hyuga can't even carry more than 20, and neither the Izumo nor the Hyuga can carry airplanes, as they are too heavy and the deck has no airplane accommodations. And once again, as their armament is purely for ASW and their own defense, they classify as destroyers. They were always intended to just be big DDs
>>47704338
get fucked
>>47704290
are there any non capital ships? or is that just a term thrown around with no concern to its actual meaning. also
>Corvette
>medium ship
>worth 3 cruisers
Corvettes are the smallest ships, the word itself is a diminutive.
>cruisers are the smallest
Cruisers are supposed to be able to operate solo (to a logical extent), since you know, they'll be cruising far as fuck away from their home port and reinforcements can't come very quickly.
I'll let destroyer slide because torpedo boats don't really transfer into space, all ships are essentially submarines, and torpedo attacks aren't a thing in space, while they still destroy things.
>>47704421
>are there any non capital ships?
Freighters, transports, medical ships, science vessels, AWACS, and gas miners, off the top of my head.
Corvette, in this case, means 'smaller than a destroyer'. Given that they were developed after destroyers and cruisers, this makes sense.
Cruisers are absolutely capable of working on their own and do, frequently. It should also be noted that they were likely the earliest developed of the ships you encounter, so it was probable that they used to live up to the 'cruiser' title before being pushed aside by the 2km-long warships that made them look tiny by comparison.
>>47704344
I'm sorry that the experts disagree with you
>>47701124
This. With shit like Fast Battleships, Heavy Battlecruisers, Destroyer Escorts, heavy cruisers with the capability and tonnage of a battlecruiser, battlecruisers that were really just fucking battleships, destroyers that were only classified as destroyers because they were too fast to be cruisers and all sorts of other weird shit the classifications are almost completely arbitrary and vary from navy to navy making them meaningless.
>>47704297
Just trick them will do. Maybe in the future it's like the equivalent of rebels shining laser pointers at drones to blind them.
>>47704501
That's kind of the opposite of stealth, though. That's the kind of thing that sets off alarms and gets system defense boats scrambled.
And there's no reasonable way to "trick" radar, lidar, and especially thermal imaging. Your ship is going to be a blip on any functioning sensors, no matter what you do. Blowing up the sensors is your only option, but since they can likely detect an AU away, that's not practical either.
>>47704576
They're not going to detect a glitch among many. Hack their shit using that laser pointer (as in, transmit a virus that interferes with their IFF/radar/sensors etc using the laser as a transmission device).
Or maybe use a hacked IFF that transmits viruses and shit. Maybe two virus, one is overt and easier to detect and destroy than the other one, that does general mess your sensor up shit - and the other is more subtle, which just masks your ship's IFF and telemetry and sensor data.
Basically it's kinda like causing a racket in front of the bank while a second team tapes still pictures on their security cameras while they're distracted.
>>47704653
that's not how electronic warfare works at all.
>>47704466
Don't forget politics.
>>47704297
In real life stealth is the reduction in distance a detection system can see you. It should also be noted that detection, tracking, identifying, and targeting are all separate things.
>>47704680
and another attempt to justifty stealth in space has fallen flat again. WOOP.
>>47704680
in real life, sure.
but this is sci-fi SPESS.
And I believe if there is a system, there is a way to break said system. No system is perfect, and neither does detection systems. There will be a loophole or a vulnerability, and people will exploit that.
So maybe in a setting with hyperspace as FTL method, there could be people who create FTL drives that shunt you to hyperspace but not actually accelerate you beyond lightspeed, thus creating a kind of stealth drive where only the entrance and exit points are 'visible'.
Shit could be theorized, you know?
>>47704721
If you wanna do handwavey space magic, then yeah, you can have stealth in space. Does that make you happy?
>>47700652
Stealth in Space isn't possible with materials and systems we have now. When you're designing a sci-fi world, especially when you're trying to keep in somewhere in the realm of logic, has room for costly materials to overcome limitations.
But if you're not going to add exotic matter or special materials that allow for reduced detection then yeah- no stealth in space.
>>47701124
Starting from 1923 up to 1939 the biggest navies of the (United states Navy, British Royal Navy, Imperial Japanese Navy, French Marine Nationale, Italian Marina) were limited in what they could build by the Washington, and later London Naval Treaties. To ensure no one exploited loopholes and vague classifications, (eg. France's submarine Heavy Cruiser Surcouf, Japan's "too light to be an aircraft carrier" Ryujo) the London Naval treaty defined ship classifications and set limits on ship displacement and armaments. As such we have a good definition of what those ship types are for things built in that era at least. For things before that, 1900-1922, we still have good general classifications based on their role
>>47704466
>fast battleships
Just refers to a warship with the armor of a battleship but with superior speed, only became a thing around the 30s as old battleships were capable of only around 23 knots. Things like the Kongo class could go 31, the King Georve V around 28 iirc, and the Iowas 35 max.
>heavy Battlecruisers
I've never heard such a term being used. You've gotten battlecruiser and Heavy cruiser mixed up.
>destroyer escort
Only used by the USN
they were destroyers in the sense that they served for ASW but they were too slow and lightly armed to serve with a fleet. Their only purpose was to escort supply convoys providing ASW support, AA support, and try to fens off small commerce raiders. Regular destroyers were needed in the front lines of active combat so these much cheaper and easier to build ships were made for that role.
>heavy cruisers with the tonnage and capability of battlecruisers
which ones? Only the Deuchtsland class comes to mind, although they had the standard displacement expected of heavy cruisers, thin armor, even for a heavy cruiser, and while their guns were superior in power to the 8" guns allowed by the London Naval Treaty they were not really battlecruisers level, especially by the time they were built.
>battlecruisers that were just battleships
Only HMS Hood qualifies, as far as I know, having a 12" armor belt at its thickest. The RN chose to classify it as a Battlecruiser as it had the speed that had defined battlecruisers, going 28 knots. Completely unheard of at the time for a ship of that size and power.
>destroyers that were only classified as DDs because they were too fast
I can't think of any ship that matches that.
>>47704465
So despite being built to fit the role of destroyers, fitting the same characteristics as previous destroyers of the same type( Shigure, Haruna), and being capable of only destroyer roles, their classification is entirely political and not at all because they are destroyers? Whatever you say dude
>>47704849
>I've never heard such a term being used.
Meet the Alaska class.
Seen here next to the Missouri.
>>47704916
Those were heavy cruisers.
>>47704653
>uhh Jeff, there's some idiot shooting lasers at one of our sentry drones
>alright, scrambling defense drones. Shit, that's gonna cost a lot to fix, what does he think he's doing?
>No, not that kind of lasers. Like the harmless ones we give to kids and use to mess with cats. It appears he's trying to communicate with it using... Morse code? Binary? Hex?
>The fuck...?
>>47704942
No one knows what the fuck they were, the either failed or surpassed previous designations so they pulled one out of their ass. Heavy battlecruiser could work because it's damn sure not as fast a battle cruiser and lacks the punch of a BB.
>>47700652
Because it is easier for us to understand what type of ship they are talking about
>>47704916
they were never referred to as "large battlecruisers", they weren't even referred to as battlecruisers. Their designation was CB, whereas the designation for the Lexington class of battlecruisers was "CC".
They were just "large cruisers".
>>47704944
>I'm hax0ring ur sens0rz d00dz!
>gib r00t plz!
>>47704768
There is a significant difference between saying that cloak tech exist and is magically makes you invisible to enemy ships and makes all your thermal and gravitic signature just disappear, and elaborating on how said cloaking tech works and how it just exploits and tricks the enemy sensors into thinking your ship's not there - it will still have drawbacks. Like, say, manual visual contact will show your ship being there, or if you're using LED screen plating or chameleon paint or whatever, a noticeable disturbance in the star field.
It's kinda like how stealth aircraft works. You trick the radar and the people operating the radar.
Don't use the slippery slope here, plz.
>>47705657
Except it's way harder to "trick" infrared. Your ship blazes like a torch against the cold black of space. There's no good way to avoid that without using space magic of one sort or another.
>>47704879
So, are all ASW ships destroyers to you? Were the Essex's destroyers because they were used as ASW helicopter platforms?
You have defense analysts saying that "yeah, the JSDF wanted a carrier, but wanted to split hairs to get around Article 9 limitations so they called them destroyers." Yeah, I'll take Globalsecurity's analysis over some jackass on 4chan unless you have something better to pull out.
The full length flight deck instantly classifies them as a carrier, and the elevator arrangements tell us that they are specifically for helicopters.
>>47705711
You can trick the system that runs that infrared sensor that everything is fine and dandy. Even though the sensor sees your thermals.
But that's more of a hacking matter. Could be done through backdoor'd systems. The stealth is less magic stealth field generator and more of sensory sabotage, sleeper agents/paid traitors/unwitting virus carriers sneaking the program in the other ship's systems and computer hacking.
Of course, nothing is perfect. On both the stealth virus side, and the detection side. This is how true stealth in space doesn't exist, yet a 'stealth' workaround is still possible.
>>47705839
See:
>>47704944
>>47705199
What, are all future shipboard sensor arrays built by Microsoft, and they just automatically execute binary code blobs that are sent in over the comms from unknown sources, because that's a feature now?
You do know it's possible to actually secure a system, right? You use small, thoroughly verified code bases and don't connect it to the outside, and you're good.
Now, if your opponent has a guy with a screwdriver on board your ship who has security clearance to get into vital systems areas, you might have trouble, but by that point you are fucking up in some serious ways and "he might hide a ship from sensors" is probably less important than "he might disable engines and weapons" or "he might disable life support and take the shuttle out."
Even supposing you've got one of these guys, how many more can you get to cover every ship, satellite, and tracking station around?
>>47701039
What about an air warfare destroyer?
>>47700652
No, you're the only person it bothers.
>>47702485
There's no top speed in space. No friction. All ships will reach the same space so long you keep giving them fuel. A ship with a fusion reactor can reach the same speed (eventually reaching relativistic speed) as an antimatter one so long you keep feeding hidrogen.
>>47705914
The more secure you think a system is, the more it is vulnerable to new ways of thought.
Sure, you can secure a system, but what if the system's rigged from the start? What if a mole on the system developer side found a loophole or vulnerability? Sure, it opens up a can of worms that is more than just stealthing a ship against another ship, and the method has its weakness, too.
But it still stands that "stealth" workarounds in space is theoretically doable.
>>47700652
By the time humans become sufficiently advanced enough for this conversation to actually take place, English and other languages might evolve so much that words we currently use to describe military-grade would be completely different. And that's assuming we end up using space ships to wage war in the first place.
That's not to say we will use nonsense words like "Glibglobs" to describe human space crafts (but I am fine with aliens doing so) but instead of using outdated naval terminology, consider naming crafts based on animals/objects they might symbolically or physically resemble or represent.
Space combat is going to be so much different from other kinds of warfare that any references to naval or air combat in fiction is simply a charming anachronism.
>>47700652
Give us a specific example of what sci-fi franchise you are talking about you autist.
I get that nerds love to invent problems to rail against so they can seem smart and well-informed, but this feels like such a non-issue.
Especially since, when you look back in time, Battleships were the biggest, cruisers were smaller, and destroyers smaller still.
It's like naming sci-fi energy weapons Cannon. A cannon by definition is a piece of artillery that uses an explosive to fire a projectile, but we have plasma cannon and laser cannon all over the place, because most people understand that it's just meant to convey "big gun."
>>47706008
>No friction.
You would think so...
>>47706029
There is the enemy, go kill them.
Not much different than any other manner of war really.
>>47706062
Technically a gun and cannon are one in the same.
>>47706026
>The more secure you think a system is, the more it is vulnerable to new ways of thought.
Utter horseshit! That sounds like systems security advice by Deepak Chopra.
Imagine a computer that runs only one instruction, is connected to nothing, and has no interface at all save a power switch. Where do you hide the backdoor in that code? How do you expose the vulnerability? What do you do to find the exploit?
If you can answer that, please hack my lamp to flash "owned" in morse code, 'cause that would be awesome.
>what if the system's rigged from the start? What if a mole on the system developer side found a loophole or vulnerability?
And what if monkeys flew out my butt? Elaborate Tom Clancy what-ifs about moles and widespread industrial sabotage do not remotely constitute "stealth in space."
Seriously, dude, you're grasping at straws here.
How would humans handle accelerations beyond 9g without dying or passing out in the process?
>>47706089
We'll know when we get there.
>>47706073
Technically a gun is just defined as a tube designed to discharge, well, anything. It can be meant to fire gas, solids, liquids or energy, and calling it a gun is still correct.
A cannon, on the other hand, has explosive propellant used to fire a projectile built into the definition.
>>47706089
Replace our blood with something more efficient and wear badass pressure suits.
>>47706089
Some kind of liquid damper where you can breath without lungs.
>>47704680
>>47700652
I half disagree, and I half don't.
Personally, if I were to do it differently, I'd separate shit into three broad categories; craft, vessels, and ships.
Craft is anything small enough to require some form of mothership or relatively nearby base of operations. Comparative terms from traditional scifi would be fighters, lighters, scouts, and corvettes.
Vessels are larger vehicles capable of independent operation, but are nothing more than escort vehicles in a fleet. Comparative terms from traditional scifi would be frigates, destroyers, and cruisers.
Ships are the largest of vehicles, capable of independent operation, but are always acomanied by escort vehicles and are always part of a fleet. Comparitive terms from traditional scifi would be battleships, dreadnoughts, carriers, etc...
So, for example, we could say a small fleet would be comprised of:
1 heavy battleship.
1 wing carrier vessel.
- 1 wing of strike craft, comprised of 10 squadrons of 5 strike craft each, as well as a compliment of 5 squadrons of anti-ship siege craft.
5 escort vessels.
2 support vessels.
>>47706074
>Imagine a computer that runs only one instruction, is connected to nothing, and has no interface at all save a power switch.
Yes, and it won't be as useful as a networked fleet control computer. Sure you can make a boxed AI, but would it be feasible for a combat situation?
I'm just proposing that "stealth" (note how I've put quotes there, to denote it's not true stealth) in space is possible. Just because you think it isn't possible, doesn't mean it really is impossible. Scientists before Einstein thought that Newtonian physics were the end-all be-all, but along came Einstein and blew their minds - and that became the new standard.
Not saying that I'm Einstein 2.0 or some genius, but think outside the box for a second. How would you hide a spaceship from another spaceship without resorting to magical handwavey shit? I come up with a possible idea, yet you are too eager to prove me wrong, just because you think it's impossible for stealth to exist in space. Now how about you think stuff up instead of me? No crying about "not my problem" now, you've shown yourself to be more than capable on this stealth issue.
>>47700652
The words destroyer, cruiser, and battleship had already lost all their meaning by the 1950s, as you imply. Destroyer is a shortened from of Torpedo Boat Destroyer, but torpedo boats were long since taken out of service. Cruisers referred to the long range cruises these ships took independent of the main fleet, but lone ships were too vulnerable to go on lone cruises anymore. Battleship was a shortened form of Line of Battle Ship, but ships didn't fight in battle lines anymore. The origin of the names doesn't matter anymore in real life, ehy should it matter in Sci Fi?
>>47700652
>am I just a lone autist?
Yes. Any other questions?
>>47706164
>Sure you can make a boxed AI, but would it be feasible for a combat situation?
Sensors arrays don't need to be complicated. You're intentionally trying to make them be complicated in order to shore up your lousy argument.
And are you really busting out the old saw about "before Einstein"? Jesus christ, man, your proposal is that in order to have "stealth in space" you merely need to retroactively have hidden a mole in the heart of the (apparently only) sensors manufacturer, who inserted a backdoor into the code for the sensors that was so skillfully hidden that it was not detected in any of the code reviews that sensor array would have undergone by the company, the government, the military, and likely a major corporation or two that bought it later on, and that this backdoor has gone unused and undetected until just now, when you can finally use it to "hide" your ship, by sabotaging all sensors that might see you.
Provided everyone's using the same sensor array, and it's never been caught, then sure, those sensors will fail when the backdoor is tripped.
You're not even proving that stealth in space is possible. If anything, you're proving that you'll bend over backwards to fight for a lost cause.
I don't understand why everyone wants so desperately for space to be oceans. Space combat is going to share a hell of a lot more with air combat than naval combat. When was the last time you saw a flying battleship or aircraft carrier outside of a capeshit movie? There's a reason for that.
We'll have huge generation ships and the like, but all battles will be fought with analogs of modern fighters and bombers that use maneuverability as their armor.
>>47706166
Because those are the names of these class of vessels which denotes the task they're most proficient at.
>>47703315
This is true in atmosphere, because of air resistance and gravity, but does it hold true in orbital (probably yes?)/deep space combat(probably not?)??
Not so sure, which means that logically more thrusters does actually mean better speed.
>>47706089
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACQr0IZIb5I
>>47706226
Because, just like in the water, weight is less of an issue in space than in the air, I'd like to see a fighter take on a BB.
Hint:Not well for the plane.
>>47706226
Because people understand the oceans intuitively. But for real space mechanics, they have nothing to base it on. So audiences like shit that conforms to their terrestrial expectations for how things work no matter how anachronistic it is, just like featherless utah raptors.
>>47706219
In related news, I've invented an invisibility cloak! It consists of a stick you use to poke everyone's eyes out.
>>47706226
>maneuverability
Space aint gonna be nothin like air, boy. Everything will be fought in orbits, according to orbital mechanics; the only thing space combat has in common with air combat is that there's a 3rd dimension.
That being said, how would a potential interplanetary military be organized?
The most obvious division would be between space forces, and planetary forces; fleet and army.
How would the army be divided? Would they even bother with dedicated ground, sea, and air corps, or would each army be tailored for the planet they're invading?
>>47706287
it's up to the author really.
>>47706140
I would agree with you, but human vocabulary isn't geared towards constructing such a logical and well constructed system. What we tend to do is hold on to the initial term for an object long after its used has evolved outside of its original role.
>>47706226
Space will be like naval combat in that the combatant ships will be expected to operate for relatively long periods of time away from resupply. But the reality is that neither air combat nor naval combat will provide a close analogue.
>>47706241
But that isn't true anymore. In modern navies destroyers are multi-role warships, cruisers protect the fleet from aircraft, and battleship provide fire support for amphibious landings. None of these things are even close to the original roles they gained their names for.
>>47706226
space combat is more like submarine combat to me. retrorockets=ballast. of course, if you want to name your gatling space truck warthog, I won't blame you
>>47706287
There won't be large colonies of humans for a long time, so I expect robots do the grunt jobs. It doesn't help that freefall messes with our bodies. Actually, colonising space could require mastering our gene code (people can't breed at all in certain environments).
>>47706219
See? By your own words you admit that 'stealth' in space is possible, albeit not that flashy or reliable. I'm not bending over backwards, I did posit that 'stealth' in space is possible. Information can be duped, and that includes sensor data. That's all I'm saying in the beginning. How that sensor data gets disrupted or hidden has several ways, and I elaborated that it could be done via industrial espionage and hacking. But of course, you could also say that pulsing a directed EMP onto the sensor disables it or disrupts the information. Pulse it low enough to make it appear like it's glitching, and you got your 'stealth'. Or you can say that it can be done by using a stick to poke everyone's eyes, but that's toeing close to the unbelievability spectrum.
> You're intentionally trying to make them be complicated in order to shore up your lousy argument.
Not saying that it will be that complicated, but a degree of sophistication will be needed to make a sensor that's simple and robust, yet able to withstand and take enough data for space travel. I mean, if currently a navy guy can make an entire ship think it received the radar image of a 500 km big UFO just by making popcorn using the microwave from his ship's antenna...
Can't you accept that one way to hide a ship is to hide information of it? Or, at least, tamper so that the human viewing that data becomes convinced that there are no ship?
>>47706281
It's a lot like the authors trying to imagine air combat or armored warfare in the 19th century. The realm is so different from what we've experienced before that no one can imagine what it will really look like.
>>47706297
>Space will be like naval combat in that the combatant ships will be expected to operate for relatively long periods of time away from resupply.
They won't, though. You'll have humongous ships that are effectively cities or countries or continents or even planets unto themselves, and they'll defend themselves by launching single-crew combat craft to intercept attackers well outside of effective weapons range of the mothership. You'll never have capitol ships designed to duke it out with other capitol ships, because there's no way to build a capitol ship that can't be crippled by a single fighter.
Seriously though, how do you propose to armor a rocket engine?
>>47706302
I see it like submarines too. Crewmen hunched over their consoles, plotting complicated firing angles and trying to detect the enemy before they detect you. Every breath hangs in the air from the passive cooling systems and the hours into weeks, all the while never knowing when a flash of death may come.
>>47703208
We're talking about the cosmos, not about the sea
>>47706302
Submarines are stealth ships. Apart from being comparatively hard to find, what does a submarine actually do better than a surface ship? Nothing. You can imagine spaceships engaging in stealthy cat and mouse battles all you want, but that's not the way it works in reality because stealth is impossible in space.
>>47701603
Naming space ships after blue water vessels doesn't bother me this sort of laziness/helplessness does.
>>47706366
>Crewmen doing math
That's what you have computers for.
>>47706388
Computers crash. Especially around directed energy weapons and cosmic radiation. You need to be able to do it by hand, and it justifies having people onboard at all, while also adding to the submarine element.
>>47706381
It's more efficient to define everything once than expect a dozen people to Google a dozen different acronyms.
>>47706297
>But that isn't true anymore.
Sure it is, 'Destroyers' are multi role vehicles yes, but they still serve as escort screens for capitol ships, however I will admit the line has blurred a little due to politics, for some reason congress is afraid of funding cruisers, but they'll buy three more 'destroyers'.
>>47706361
Yes you will because the bigger the ship, the bigger the guns the thicker the armor.
I'd like to see the fighters get close enough to try.
>Seriously though, how do you propose to armor a rocket engine?
With layers of dense metals.
>>47706378
It is impossible, but that doesn't mean 100% accurate detection, due to the speed of light lag. If you observe their burn then you can know where they are, but if you miss that then you have a lot harder time finding them.
>>47706388
dude, imagine a retro-future style space combat where every shot fired took a couple minutes on a chalkboard. Or just do it Roach style, crit potshots every shot.
>>47706401
Computers are more accurate, reliable, and faster than humans. Most "computer problems" are actually user problems.
>>47706417
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f96p-IhcZhQ
>>47706417
nah they'd do it with paper calculators and slide rules. It's not that hard.
>>47706430
In space, computers do not work reliably because cosmic rays and other radiation knocks electrons out of order in the cpu which causes it to crash. hardened cpu's do exist, but they're much slower and only mitigate the chance of crashing so much. I just don't think people would rely on them as a result.
>>47706436
cheat sheets are for the army. I let the heart of the cards guide my photon torpedoes.
>>47706410
>the bigger the guns
>I'd like to see the fighters get close enough to try.
Yes, because modern aircraft are terrified of 16" naval guns.
>With layers of dense metals.
You realize that there's no way to design a reaction engine without a big hole in it, right?
>>47706226
If argue that the military unit conducting a mission most similiar to space travel is the nuclear ballistic missile submarine.
>>47706436
How about nanomechanical cogitators?
What % of the ship will be dedicated to:
-Propellant.
-Reactor.
-Radiators.
-Heat-sinks.
-Computes.
-Weapons
-Supplies and cargo area.
-Life support
-Living quarters.
-"Bridge".
>>47706361
>You'll have humongous ships that are effectively cities or countries or continents or even planets unto themselves
Do you realize the sort of tech required to construct and operate such monsterus ships? It doesn't exist, we can even conceive of it yet. I think we're considering two different time periods here. I'm talking about realistic, near future settings. 200-300 years tops. Humanity isn't going to be moving around continent sized starships in that time period, but people will literally go insane if you try to stuff them into a single seat fighter sized craft for the 9+ months it takes to get anywhere. Speaking off
>they'll defend themselves by launching single-crew combat craft to intercept attackers well outside of effective weapons range of the mothership
Why spend the time any energy bringing a pilot along when you could just send a computer? You don't even need to bring back it then. There is no such thing as 'weapons range' in space, only how long you're you're willing to wait for a missile to reach its target.
>>47706366
Except that it's trivially easy to spot every starship in a system in a matter of minutes. We could do this with present day tech even.
>>47706453
>Yes, because modern aircraft are terrified of 16" naval guns.
Modern aircraft have the ability to bank against the wind. doing a burn in a singlecraft just tells the ship watching it exactly where and how fast it is going.
>>47706442
EMI shielding and ECC are normal things used all over the place in terrestrial applications. The hurdles required to make targeting computers work in space are negligible.
Ok so we have three arguments ongoing and one settled. I assume we can all agree that the terms like battleship are already out of date? That leaves us with 1. Big ships are pointless. 2. Size has no baring on mobility. 3. Stealth is impossible.
I'm going to assume >>47702538 is true and that you can freely scale up any ship but since in doing so you make it easier to hit this is not always a good idea. As things stand it seems best to have a fleet of small craft until someone comes up with a way to kill them on mass that wouldn't work on a larger craft.
As we're talking about Si-Fi let us assume shielding exists, if it is more efficient to shield one large craft than many small ones but shielding takes up a lot of room (so something has to be removed for it to fit in) or that the shield creates some kind of drag (if I understand relatively correctly this would be drag relative to the ship as the generator is moving at the same speed as the craft it is on) then a craft with shields would be working with a lower mass/power ratio than one without allowing fast bulk transport ships but not combat craft. From here we just need a good reason to make big craft in the first place and justification for stealth.
>>47706471
>Except that it's trivially easy to spot every starship in a system in a matter of minutes
Doesn't mean you can hit them. It's impossible to engage a ship that doesn't want to fight.
>>47706466
depends on how efficient the propellant is
depends on how fast you need to go, and how quickly
depends on how hot shit gets
depends on how hot shit gets
depends on how much computation you need to do
depends on what you need to kill
depends on how long you'll be gone
depends on how many crew you need
depends on how many crew you need
depends on how many command officers are needed
>>47700652
I personally like that space ships pretend they are water ships.
>>47706466
Most of the mass will be dedicated to propellant.
>>47706453
We aren't talking about modern aircraft now are we? But to indulge you.
The 16' guns are going to be focused on actual threats, or filling the sky with a fuckoff load of flack along with every other gun, it's the 4' and 30mm guns they should watch out for. And of course other aircraft.
As for your reactor bit, no way we know of yet.
>>47706466
>>47706453
There's no reason to point your engines at an enemy unless you're on burn.
>>47706483
Of course it's possible, all you have to do is match their course and be faster than them. They can try and throw you off, but with time and delta-v you'll eventually catch up to them.
>>47700652
In a lot of ways it hearkens back to the exploration in the age of sail and the traditions of naval service.
I like it, it's got that Star Trek kind of optimism to just invoke the classifications.
You know, until you remember the fact that an Arleigh Burke Class guided missile destroyer has probably the highest destructive capability of any weapons platform not using nuclear warheads.
![fc9d3167c2afd031399d0d92070607da[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Y07XBUh.jpg "fc9d3167c2afd031399d0d92070607da[1].jpg")
>>47706503
You underestimate just how big and how empty space is.
>>47706526
I disagree.
>>47706466
You can simplify the question by dividing all the systems between propulsion bus and payload section. That said, payload section is usually bigger and crew compartments smaller.
Less humans to take care = less weight wasted on life support and food rations.
>>47706471
>Do you realize the sort of tech required to construct and operate such monsterus ships?
Yes, but that's the only way a space battle is feasible. If you're fighting the Russians, why bother fighting them in space and not in Russia? Hell, if you're fighting Mars, why not just shoot a bunch of nukes from earth? The only way space battles make sense is in the case of nations located in different star systems. The distance to the next extrasolar planet is far enough that it's only feasible with generation ships.
>>47706471
>Why spend the time any energy bringing a pilot along when you could just send a computer? You don't even need to bring back it then.
That's a good point, UAVs are already replacing manned aircraft. Unmanned fighters are quite likely. Bringing them back is a much more efficient use of limited resources, though.
>There is no such thing as 'weapons range' in space, only how long you're you're willing to wait for a missile to reach its target.
There is, because if you fire it from several days away, it's feasible to intercept or even outrun it. A ship burning at 1G for an hour will be traveling significantly faster than a missile that can burn at 50G but only for a minute.
>>47706533
>>47706532
You underestimate my desire to close that gap.
Fun fact: ramming was deemed tactically sound in the 30th century because of the success of the CSS Virginia using it to sink wooden ships of the line.
Fun fact II:HMS Dreadnought holds the only confirmed kill of a submarine by ramming, her only.
>>47706521
But there's a pretty good reason to fly around a space battleship with armor yards thick if you want to hurt it. It's not even that hard, considering that if it had maneuvering thrusters large enough to turn quickly, you could just shoot those instead.
>>47706466
Don't forget about the amenities. He won't be traveling to the stars like barbarians*wink*
We're not Protectors for Tanj sake.
>Entertainment Rooms
>Religious Ceremonies
>Sex Pods
>Clone Farms
>Indoctrination Chambers
>Bathrooms
>"Re-purposing (Suicide) Booths"
Our ships will require a lot of extraneous stuff to keep people happy, useful and intelligent if we need to use generation ships.
>>47706545
>Hell, if you're fighting Mars, why not just shoot a bunch of nukes from earth?
Because you cannot occupy with nukes.
>UAVs are already replacing manned aircraft.
That's a laugh, but a valid point, drones will likely be used as swarms, small expendable things to overwhelm the target, manned fighters will probably be better protected and pack a bigger punch.
>>47706566
Its going to be shooting back at you the whole time you try and fly around it, which could take a long ass time.
>>47706566
Please do.
>>47706569
Can't occupy with ships or planes either. What's your point?
>>47706583
It's not the ships themselves, but what's in them.
>>47706569
What's there to occupy anyway? For hundreds of years colonies in space will be closer to oil rigs and colonial towns than cities. We won't need big armies in space until planets begin having millions of people or robots.
>>47706577
I cut around your battleship by the distance necessary to give me 5 minutes time to impact from your CIWS. That'll give plenty of time to dodge. I hope your predictive targeting algorithms are up to snuff.
>>47706577
Wouldn't CIWS overheat very quickly in the vacuum?
>>47706554
Holy shit! Hey future man does WW3 really set us back so far technologically that we're only back up to naval warfare by the 3,000's?
>>47706602
Until then, I'll settle for small scale.
>>47706604
If you have time to dodge, I have time to target your projectiles.
>>47706604
270 km is still a decent distance, to try and circumference.
>>47700989
Some countries use the metric system and the rest land men on the moon.
>>47706609
I deserve that, I just wish I had a snappy comeback.
>>47706617
It's a comically small distance on a cosmic scale.
>>47706615
So your plan is to shoot my bullets with your own bullets?
>>47706641
Oh, you're shooting bullets? Continue.
>>47706641
Its enough distance that a ship can turn before you manage to get into its back arc.
>>47706478
I posit that 'stealth' is possible, but not 100%. This is because with sensors advanced enough, they will be complicated, and the higher the complexity, the more ways it could be tampered with. Also that 100% detection is as impossible as 100% stealth. There will be gaps - and there will be someone desperate or driven enough to find and utilize those gaps in detection.
>>47706660
I use two fighters then. Plus his battleship probably can't actually turn that fast.
>>47706651
For real, how much are you expecting to be able to armor your propulsion system? I think you probably have some unfeasible expectations. Obviously if your battleship is relying on comic book science it will be completely invincible to anything that could actually exist.
>>47706719
It's unlikely for fighters to catch a battleship unless it wants them too.
>>47706719
I see I have approached this from a completely different angle.
The real question is why is my BB alone, is there no destroyer screen? And if so, who's to say there aren't fighters or drones to keep you away from that area?
>>47706008
Ramscoop spacecraft like the one in your picture actually do suffer from drag, thanks to the giant magnetic field they project slowing down the hydrogen. It's more correct to say that there is *very little* friction in space, but it matters when your ship has a 20 million km^2 frontal aspect.
>>47706089
Upload to computers or send postbiological descendants.
>>47703951
Anon you need to just shut up, because that isn't anywhere close to correct.
As established by this entire thread, naval ship designations are about intended combat role, not size.
Come back when you are 18 kid.
>>47706686
True. I never meant to imply it was impossible just that it was being disputed in this thread. Assuming you can keep your computers safe I think smoke screening might be the best way to do it.
As any sensor will probably be active (like sonar in that it sends something out and waits for it to come back) or passive (like our eyes it uses stuff that finds its way to it) if a lot of ships put out a pulse of all kinds of radiation and whatever else sensors pick up you could hide the fleets from eachother for a short time (if you hold the flanks you could tell your own fleet what's going on).
>>47706735
Burning on a capitol ship is orders of magnitude more expensive than burning on a fighter craft. If they're pointed anywhere but directly at a refueling station they could easily end up in a situation where they can't continue to burn and still make it back to resupply. Keep in mind that the fighters will also be launched from a large ship traveling very fast, so as it burns it's adding on to that speed.
>>47706759
If you're relying exclusively on smaller craft to do your fighting, why even have the battleship in the first place? What is it actually designed to fight? This is exactly why battleships are already obsolete.
>>47704297
You don't "hope," you actively fuck with them.
Fighters in space don't make any sense.
>>47706806
They'd still have a much higher burn time than a fighter craft does, which has to have enough to evade while pursuing, as well as return to its mother craft.
>>47706805
Indeed. And stealth only needs to work just long enough for the stealthed ship to either sneak past the other ship's weapons range, or sneak close enough to deliver an attack that is hard for the other ship to evade from.
Most people aren't interested in hard science space sci fi where you nuke other ships from 200 miles away. Space Navy keeps things simple and easy to understand with a clear frame of reference.
>>47706823
Sure, but a fighter pilot only has his own life to worry about, and the battleship captain also has thousands of crew members to think about. That makes you more conservative in making choices that could leave you drifting for eternity.
>>47706806
>If you're relying exclusively on smaller craft to do your fighting
I'm not, I'm relying on it to defend, simply put a fighter isn't a threat, a BB is meant to engage other capitol ships or workehorses if necessary, fighters? It could but it's vulnerable in places, and works best with a fighter or escort screen.
If You're that determined, then I could go without the fighters, and you'd have to deal with point defense, tertiary and secondary armament.
And I don't need to armor my propulsion when I can guard it. The major failing of the flying fortress was that the attacking fighters had better range and mobility than the bomber, but every German pilot knew the dangers of this bomber, and they called it a flying porcupine.
(Flak was the largest cause of US bomber deaths, largely due to US bombing runs taking place during the day.)
>>47706851
Presumably the battleship is actually travelling somewhere, so all he has to do is maintain course and shoot at the fighters and their carrier.
>>47706851
Until you're needed.
This mindset is responsible for US naval doctrine in WWII.
>>47706866
Kill the carrier and those pilots are proper fucked.
>>47706864
So your battleship is effective against other battleships but vulnerable to fighters? Why would you bother with one? Presumable your enemies won't bother with one either, and if they do, you'll have fighters of your own.
>>47706866
Then intercepting it isn't a problem.
