Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Homeworld Defense

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Homeworld Defense

    With the threat of the Ori upon us, it seems clear that we're going to need to put everything we've got into producing a spacefleet that can pose a threat to them. That means large numbers of starships. That means, intensive resource and personnel management.

    So, why not get the US Navy, who have considerable experience in building large, combat vessels, in on the Stargate Program? Among other military services. Not to mention, start developing newer weapons and technologies for use against the Ori and other threats in the galaxy.

    First, let's discuss Earth's fledgling space fleet.

    Building and Managing the US Space Fleet

    The United States of America is the most powerful, economically and militarily, nation on the face of the planet. We began the Stargate program in the first place, and have acted as the leader of the world in most aspects related to it. Mainly because we have enough money, people, and resources to take up most of the burdens using the Stargate entrails. This is not arrogance-this is simple fact. We have money and resources to spare several times over in research and development, as well as a hell of a lot of firepower to work with. And we have the responsibility to use that power effectively and wisely, and so far we have. The BC-303 program, for instance. However, we can always do better.

    The US Navy has large shipbuilding facilities. Presuming the Daedalus and other Earth starships are built modularly, a shipyard facility designed to move several-hundred-ton sections of ships to the right places for assembly is vital. Hiding it from the general public would be relatively easy: Use submarine construction facilities, which are covered over to be safe from satellites and prying eyes. Or, simply build each section separately, and bring them together in a secure, hidden location, so that any civilians assume they're parts for a normal vessel. Newport News Shipbuilding has the best facilities, including seven graving docks, a floating dry dock, two outfitting berths, five outfitting piers, a module outfitting facility, and various other shops. Plus, the largest dry dock in the Western Hemisphere, over 600 meters long-More than enough to house a Daedalus-class starship. To launch them, simply cloak the vessel and fly it out, rather like submerging a submarine and heading out.

    Speaking of which, the US Navy's submarine crews are probably the best qualified out of all the US's military personnel to run a starship: Months on end in an enclosed space, with a hostile, airless environment surrounding you, with only sensor readouts and computer screens to tell you exactly what's going on outside. Adding submarine-style tactics to our space forces would be a big help (running silent, for instance). Plus, ballistic missile submarine crews know how to run a nuclear-powered vessel, that carries nuclear ordnance, and launches it via vertical-launch tubes. The training would also be a lot easier than with Air Force crewers.

    Since our starships are, at the moment, combination battle-carrier-troop ships, crewing them with people who would already know how to run carrier operations, ship-to-ship combat, and landing troops on hostile shores would make things a LOT simpler, and cheaper. Not to mention faster. The Air Force is best at developing new technologies and managing spaceborne operations-The Navy is best at running ships, carrier operations, and troop landings. Probably, they have Navy personnel helping them right now, but making the Stargate Program a major part of all the services would make things run much more smoothly in many ways.

    The US Army also has a lot of experience in ship and ship operations, believe it or not. They run troopships of their own, as well as sea-borne special operations. In addition, diverting a number of Army troops to Stargate operations would grant the SGC more manpower to go through a gate and engage enemy forces. You wouldn't have to nessecarily make them into SG-teams. The Army regulars would work in support of SG-Teams, providing more firepower and warm bodies that the SG-teams can guide and lead into this new battlefield.

    The Army is also more experienced in armored combat. While most aliens we've faced have not used armored vehicles in combat, pulling troops from our forces who know how to fight with vehicles against infantry would give us a boost. Even a Prior would have some trouble against a group of Bradley fighting-vehicles supported by infantry. Finding a way to transfer a few light helicopters through the Stargate wouldn't hurt either. Until we make our own version of the Puddlejumper, we have to make due with what we've got.


    International Space Fleet

    Foreign assistance is something we've got to get running. The Russians, as a former superpower, have the ability to run nearly as many programs as the USA. They are already building their own space fleet-They have the needed facilities and isolated areas nessecary for such an operation, plus many facilities for the production of air/spacecraft, a great deal of space-support infrastructure, and plenty of ground troops and special ops for the SGC.

    The British would have a bit harder time building their own spacefleet in the Home Islands-Remember, we have to keep these operations secret from the general public. The British have a few submarine construction facilities of their own, which would serve nicely to build smaller starships. At the very least, they can provide ground troops and supplies to the SGC, and crews for ships the US and Russia can build for them.

    France can assist about as much as the UK, also given their high population density, but I think their resources would be better spent on building F-302s and other advanced craft. They have extensive aircraft production facilities with Dassault, and a bit more open space for secret development programs than Britain and other European nations. Plus, they have their own nuclear program, and could serve to help build missiles and reactors with naquada. We don't want to put all our eggs into one basket, after all, and the sheer cost of these programs would be a strain on any nation.

    Canada would be very ideal for construction of starships-A great deal of their infrastructure is devoted to shipbuilding, and they have lots of open, sparsely-populated areas for secret testing and facilities. Plus, Rodney McKay came from Canada. 'Nuff said.

    Japan would work best for developing and building newer weapons, computers, and other technologies. Not to mention a lot of components and smaller pieces of ships. Building full-blown starships in secret would be a bit difficult, except in small numbers.

    China would be able to keep up with Russia in starship construction, as well as building a number of technologies and weapons systems, but I'd prefer we be a bit wary regarding China. They remain an oppressive regime, that no doubt would love to get their hands on advanced technology and use it to spread "the worker's paradise" to the rest of the Universe. Then again, maybe they'd finally get rid of the Communists in order to help the rest of their fellow Tau'ri defeat the menace that is the Ori. Or at least, focus on saving the galaxy rather than politics, which is something every nation should work on.

    Multiple other nations involved in the spacefleet program could devote numerous resources: money, manpower, support, shipbuilding, training, refugee sanctuary-Far too numerous to cite here. As in the Atlantis expedition, every nation has something to contribute. Every person on the planet has the ability to help in saving the planet.


    Fleet Order of Battle

    Daedalus-class starships will be the primary "heavy" capital ship of the Earth fleet, as well as variations on that design. Prometheus-class vessels are a good choice for a smaller, slightly cheaper starship to be constructed. New starship designs, built with the basic components of the BC-303 vessels, are not out of the question, and would be cheap alternatives to an entirely new design of vessel. Destroyer, frigate, and armed support-type vessels could be built in this way. Focusing on the current starship designs is for simplicity and ease-Using what we already know and have will let Earth get a much larger fleet up in a shorter amount of time.

    Ideally, every ship should be equipped with Asgard shielding and hyperdrive technology at the very least. Asgard sensor and transporter technologies also help, but are not as absolutely vital to combat, as demonstrated by the Prometheus in it's battle against Anubis's fleet.

    Weapons systems, for the most part, will be modified missile types already available (such as Western AMRAAM missiles, and the Russian AA-series). These weapons will be equipped to be operated in space, and given naquada-enhanced warheads for ship-to-ship combat. Additional modifications could be the addition of inertial-dampening technology to give the missiles greater speed and acceleration, and add an extra EMP burst to their detonations. Sensor-avoiding technology would also help, but it would depend on the resources available.

    Most ships can probably get by, defensively, with slightly-modified CWIS systems in use by naval vessels, like the US Phalanx-Vulcan and UK Goalkeeper. Combined with sensor direction, these systems can easily destroy most enemy fighters and munitions, and provide fire support for ground troops in a pinch. Small, defensive missile batteries, like the US RAM-116 system, would also be big helps. Rail guns would be available, and have already proven effective against Wraith Dart formations.

    To prove effective against capital ships, however, rail guns need to be either upgraded in calibre, fire rate, or firepower. Upgrades in calibre would mean making a larger, heavier shell. This means more kinetic energy in the hit, which equals more damage. A faster firing rate means more hits in a smaller space of time, which can be as effective as bigger shells, but requires more ammunition. Firepower refers to increasing the power of the shells themselves-Such as giving them naquada-tips, which (as seen in "Singularity") can produce a pretty big bang when it hits a reactive substance (like, say, energy fields ).

    Finally, support vessels: The F-302 is the front-line choice, but this does not rule out modifying existing aircraft with alien technology, or building new ones. Transforming an F/A-22 Raptor into a space-borne fighter would be rather impractical, but very sweet all the same.

    TBC...

    #2
    ...ok

    Comment


      #3
      That was all very good and detailed but to get the massive effort involved needed to do all that, the US government is either going to have to give up some control over the Stargate Program or make the stargate public knowledge, or both. We know from Scourge that none of that is a possibility right now.

      Comment


        #4
        Well, they've already given up some control to the overseeing committee. This, however, has less to do with the Stargate than with organizing global operations using existing technologies and resources.

        And this thread is for speculation thereof.

        Comment


          #5
          that was an aeswem and detailed analisis of what need to happen you should be a writer man
          hallowed are the ori
          Last edited by Ludofjn; 28 February 2006, 08:29 PM.

          Comment


            #6
            Problem at the moment is that yes they could build up a massive fleet, but how would those ships fair against Ori vessels?
            Spoiler:
            Remember Ethon
            sigpic

            Comment


              #7
              You on vacation or something?

              Comment


                #8
                just build ships in antractica or in space with a shipyard...

                Now in use. pps is at 4,929 Terawatts
                pps = power per second
                The power that power's the great cities of the Ancients.
                xfire = zpm
                [m2k] klan, and forever will be.
                http://m2kclan.com
                vent info: voice250.hurricanehost.com
                port: 3785
                P90>M4A1+AK47+Machine Gun
                halo player and cs:s, cs:1.6, cz, cod2.
                Save Stargate NOW!!!- http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Stargate/

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Steve_the_Wraith
                  Problem at the moment is that yes they could build up a massive fleet, but how would those ships fair against Ori vessels?
                  Spoiler:
                  Remember Ethon
                  We'd need to work with the Asgard to upgrade our shields to mount a decent defense against their weapons. In addition, we could adjust our tactics in combat. A moving target is much harder to hit than a stationary one. Also, using hyperspace tactically would be a good mode for hit-and-run attacks.

                  I believe, also, that we should make an effort to equip our ships with cloaking technology. Even an Alkesh cloak would offer us a few seconds advantage against the Ori, if for those few seconds they could not detect us.


                  However, I believe I should analyze these suggestions in a continuation of the initial article.


                  Space Combat-General Management

                  The US Air Force has not done badly in running a space navy. Air to air combat and space-borne combat have many similarities-Combat in a three-dimensional battlespace at very high speeds, something the Air Force is very good at. Unfortunately, as seen in "Ethon", they have a tendency to think two-dimensionally, like most people on Earth. This is not to say they are incompetent by any means, but if you're fighting a starship, fight it like a jet fighter or a submarine, and not like a surface ship.

                  The element of surprise is critical in any form of combat. Earth ships have done a reasonably good job of keeping their ships concealed when they have to-Keeping their electromagnetic signature (ala active sensors, running lights, etc.) down to a minimum. True, they have several lit windows, but at certain combat ranges this doesn't matter a whole lot. And, unlike ships in, say, Stark Trek, these lit portholes are much smaller and harder to make out at a distance. Instead of a Christmas tree, they are more like stars in the black background of space. In certain situations, these windows could serve as a sort of camoflague, though speaking for myself I think we'd be better off if we just painted all our ships completely black and turned off the lights in battle. Not good camera visuals, true, but a lot harder for bad guys to spot us. The reason the SGC has not done this is more probably due to funding limitations, as it would be rather difficult to explain to Congress the need for several hundred thousand gallons of black paint.

                  Without a blacked-out ship, we still have another, potentially better alternative: Cloaking technology. If a small Gou'ald cargo ship can mount one, then an Earth ship should not be a big problem. As seen in Atlantis, cloaking seems to be related to shields, which makes sense-Both systems project energy around the ship, though for different purposes. Plugging in a spare cloaking device into the shield grid would give the ship commander more flexibility in covert operations, surprise attacks, and reconaissance.

                  General combat protocol in space is not too difficult to learn: A submarine commander would know to dive, ascend, take evasive action in all directions, hide and seek out places to hide, and put together an image of the situation in his or her head. They would not require too much adjustment to command a Daedalus-class starship effectively in battle.

                  Former fighter squadron commanders would also be reasonably good choices for starship command-They know how to manage intelligence gathering, personnel, maintenance, in-flight emergencies, three-dimensional combat, and groups of craft. Aircraft carrier commanders would also fit the bill in a number of areas, though making the transition from standing relatively still while your airwing engages an enemy in 3D battlespace, to your ship actively participating with your airwing in 3D battlespace, is much harder than it sounds. In the end, the majority of US (and, for that matter, Western-trained) commanders could make the transition from planet-bound to space combat managment, but the first three examples would be the easiest to put into the big chair. Fighting creatively is another matter entirely...


                  Logistics (Supplies)

                  Logistically speaking, since our ships would be equipped with Asgard hyperdrives (able to get to most places in the galaxy in a matter of days at most, and to the next galaxy in a few weeks), and would be able to land on most planetary surfaces, the need for dedicated support vessels is rather limited. Small cargo shuttles, like those the Gou'ald and now the Free Jaffa Nation use, could probably take care of most of our needs as far as weapon reloads, spare parts, and personnel go. The Stargate network also makes resupply a lot easier, simply by sending the needed supplies to a planet, which an Earth or allied starship can the go to and beam up to their hold, before being on their way. Carrying spare Stargates on our ships would practically eliminate the need for resupply vessels entirely, but this is not very practical.

                  Finally, ground-to-orbit transport ships are also not something needed in abundance, with Asgard beaming technology and the ability to land on a planet's surface. It would just give our vessels more flexibility, by letting them insert covert operations teams where transporters are not available, or by letting them conceal our level of technology to newly contacted races. Or, simply by providing another means down to a planet.

                  As our starships would be constructed modularly, that is, in pre-fabricated sections, it makes maintenance much easier. Making sure that all of Earth's ships use standardized components makes resupply even easier, as we don't have to separately order, manufacture, and deliver different replacements of parts that all do the same thing. Individual nations will doubtless like to modify their starships and technologies by different means, in order to test and develope new and better ways of doing things. However, making sure that all our ships start with the same, basic building blocks allows us to build and maintain a lot more of them. Just look at the Replicators.

                  Again, this thread is for the proposal of different methods, tactics, and technologies for Earth to build and fight it's space fleet. Dont' be shy! Just make sure your ideas are carefully thought out first.
                  Last edited by Andrew Joshua Talon; 27 February 2006, 09:58 AM.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    AJT, i am really impressed. This is such a great read well done.
                    From what ive read you have basicly summerised what the IC and SGC need to do to make the current ship building and manegment system as efficent and productive, whilst still keeping the stargate program and the BC-303 production as a secret as possible.

                    Going through the above posts, the first section mentions using navy crews to man US space faring craft. whilst assumingly keeping the F-302 pilots reassuringly USAF.
                    I think, for the record, that they already to this to some degree. The homeworld security division (HSD) has control over all the military forces in the US, and has control over the SGC and BC-303 production. This means that the HSD would have advisors and personell from all areas.
                    You definitly right that manning the craft with navy personel makes the most sense, and i think they will do that eventually. however the USAF has always been in charge so it would take a little time for the HSD to shift the workload around the military rather than just the USAF.
                    Also this point about keeping it secret and using the navy, the USAF generally puts it air bases out in the middle of nowwhere, wheras the navy has to have it around the coast, near urban centres are. This could cause complications if a giant ship just flew out of dry dock. wheras in the backwaters it would be easy to cover it up.

                    There could be a third option, which would be potentially easier and more intonational than using either the US navy or air force. THey could decide that the IC and the HSD should come together, with an intonational ship building program for defence of the planet. this could be based at the antartic site, an area already sanctioned by the IC to belong to noone.
                    The other option instead of antartica in this intonational spaceship building program would be to create a space based shipyard, which would be not only secret, be also very much easier to man, launch and construct vessels from, Esspecially with the continued influx of beaming based technolgy around.

                    TBC
                    sigpic
                    You are the fifth race, your role is clear, if there is any hope in preserving the future it lies with you and your people ~ 8years for those words
                    Stargate : Genesis |
                    Original Starship DesignThread
                    Sanctuary for all | http://virtualfleet.vze.com/
                    11000! green me




                    Comment


                      #11
                      Another option, at least for manning the ships would be to take a new and radical approach altogether.

                      Something of a triumverate to command the ship....a USAF full-bird colonel, a USN rear-admiral, and a brigadiere general. Each commander would be assigned command over different aspects of a vessel's mission.

                      Obviously, the USAF colonel would handle any and all action related to the piloting, ship-to-ship combat, or point-defense of the vessel. The admiral would carry out command of any carrier-type activity (mainly maintaining control of the F302's and any other support craft, properly piloted by US Navy or Marine pilots). An admiral aboard a BC-303 (for example) would control the actions of any fighter or escort craft (like the admirals placed in command of carrier groups do now). The general would have a less utilized function in that he would act almost like a proxy for the commander of the SGC aboard the ship. He would be responsible for troops in the ship, both in the event that teams ever needed to be sent to another ship or planetside or if the ship was ever boarded and needed defending.

                      No one of the three commanders would be able to over-rule the other outside of their own part of the command. I can see some obvious problems with not having a single-point chain of command, but perhaps that is something that needs to be worked out as we evolve into a space-combat-cabable race.

                      It's may just be unrealistic to put the burden of all three of those distinct types of command onto one officer, no matter how adept he or she may be.

                      But if it is possible to consolidate all that specialized command training, another radical alternative is to create an entirely NEW branch of the military specifically designed to staff Earth's infant fleet. You couldn't expect a USAF general to properly command a wet-navy carrier group, simply because he hasn't been properly educated and trained to handle that kind of command. Perhaps another new, specially trained branch IS necessary...let's bear in mind that the USAF was at one time just a part of the US Army as the Army Air Command, but as the technology and training became highly specialized, it was eventually decided to make the US Air Force it's own entity and branch within the DoD. No matter how you look at it, space flight and combat is a unique situation that definately demands a new school of discipline to expertly manage.

                      Just a thought...of course a whole new branch of the US armed forces would be hard to keep a secret from the public at large, and nigh impossible to keep from the rest of Congress.
                      Last edited by tendomentis; 27 February 2006, 11:37 AM.
                      "For truth hath better deeds than words to grace it..."

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Well, putting flag officers (that is, admirals and generals) in command of single vessels is impractical and against military doctrine. Admirals and generals are called flag officers because they are primarily tasked with strategic planning and operations, as in the command of a fleet or army.

                        The current system, having a USAF colonel or USN captain (they are essentially the same rate, just different terms) in command of a ship has worked well enough for centuries. The commander of the ship is not supposed to be skilled at everything, but to be skilled at running things, which is a very different concept. Essentially, the commander of the vessel uses his or her experts and department heads (weapons officer, strategic planning officer, sensor operators, pilots, engineers, etc.) to work together in a cohesive fighting unit, allying their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. A good commander knows what his or her own limitations are, and know who is better in certain areas than they are, and is able to manage that.

                        Three commanders of equal rank on a ship at one time is rather difficult, because the ship may be multi-role, but it's just one ship. It also causes confusion about the chain of command in a crisis situation, if one officer is more qualified in one area over another officer, but is assigned to a different area. Keeping a hierarchy is designed to eliminate confusion in who to follow orders from so that the whole crew can work together without fighting about who leads. This is not only efficient-It is vital to the ship and crew's survival.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Andrew Joshua Talon
                          Well, putting flag officers (that is, admirals and generals) in command of single vessels is impractical and against military doctrine. Admirals and generals are called flag officers because they are primarily tasked with strategic planning and operations, as in the command of a fleet or army.

                          The current system, having a USAF colonel or USN captain (they are essentially the same rate, just different terms) in command of a ship has worked well enough for centuries. The commander of the ship is not supposed to be skilled at everything, but to be skilled at running things, which is a very different concept. Essentially, the commander of the vessel uses his or her experts and department heads (weapons officer, strategic planning officer, sensor operators, pilots, engineers, etc.) to work together in a cohesive fighting unit, allying their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. A good commander knows what his or her own limitations are, and know who is better in certain areas than they are, and is able to manage that.

                          Three commanders of equal rank on a ship at one time is rather difficult, because the ship may be multi-role, but it's just one ship. It also causes confusion about the chain of command in a crisis situation, if one officer is more qualified in one area over another officer, but is assigned to a different area. Keeping a hierarchy is designed to eliminate confusion in who to follow orders from so that the whole crew can work together without fighting about who leads. This is not only efficient-It is vital to the ship and crew's survival.
                          Granted, having flag officers commanding single ships isn't practical. Admirals are routinely placed in command of carrier groups (like I said in my first post), so if the BC-303 were ever to take on a sole carrier mission with multiple frigates and destroyer-type spacecraft as escorts, having an admiral to oversee the whole thing would be ideal.

                          But, upon better reflection, maybe the problem truly is not of the three branches of the military to put in charge, but to create a fourth space-based command to handle the new fleet.

                          Having the wrong type of people in command was always a pet-peeve (in fact my only one) about the show. God save and keep General George Hammond, but as an Air Force general he was simply not properly trained to be commanding ground troops (also USAF, not Army) through the gate on infantry-type missions. They should have had Hammond as a US Army general...that would have been more consistent with the mission types at the SGC. Like I said, just a pet-peeve....and I wish Hammond had never left the SGC.
                          "For truth hath better deeds than words to grace it..."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by tendomentis
                            Granted, having flag officers commanding single ships isn't practical. Admirals are routinely placed in command of carrier groups (like I said in my first post), so if the BC-303 were ever to take on a sole carrier mission with multiple frigates and destroyer-type spacecraft as escorts, having an admiral to oversee the whole thing would be ideal.

                            But, upon better reflection, maybe the problem truly is not of the three branches of the military to put in charge, but to create a fourth space-based command to handle the new fleet.

                            Having the wrong type of people in command was always a pet-peeve (in fact my only one) about the show. God save and keep General George Hammond, but as an Air Force general he was simply not properly trained to be commanding ground troops (also USAF, not Army) through the gate on infantry-type missions. They should have had Hammond as a US Army general...that would have been more consistent with the mission types at the SGC. Like I said, just a pet-peeve....and I wish Hammond had never left the SGC.
                            Well, Hammond didn't do too badly. And the Air Force trains it's special forces guys in ground combat like Army Rangers and Navy SEALs. As for a fourth branch of the military, the SGC is practically that already. Just adding more of the other three branches into the SGC would be easier.

                            Now, I'd like to propose a weapons system for use against threat vessels. A modification of our current rail guns, with existing technology.

                            Have you ever heard of "Metal Storm?"

                            http://www.metalstorm.com/

                            Essentially, they build guns with multiple barrels, that fire stacked, electronically-ignited bullets. These weapons can reach firing rates of over a million rounds a minute.

                            Now, apply some of this technology to our rail guns. Stack rounds, fired electronically (maybe with an anti-gravity boost as well) in multiple barrels mounted in rotating turrets. We could literally put out hails of fire against enemy targets, easily decimating threat fighter formations. With a slightly-larger version of the Metal Storm rail gun system, you could do serious harm against capital ships, especially if the rounds had naquada-tips.

                            Thoughts?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              They should also try and get Felgers plasma weapon prototype up and running to provide some form of energy weapon for Earth. Once a larger group of weapons are available for Earths arsenal then could always start making more specialist ships like anti-fighter ships and cloaked destroyers to further enhance Earths Space Navy.


                              'Hallowed are the children of the Ori. CROWD: Hallowed are we. Hallowed are the Ori.' -

                              'Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the Gods, ships shall be built to carry the warriors out among the stars and we will spread Origin to all the unbelievers. The power of the Ori will be felt far and wide and the wicked shall be vanquished' -


                              Contribute to the Stargate Wiki a source for any information on the Stargate universe from the books, RPG to games and comics.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X