Gateworld Virtual Fleet 4.0 - Discussion thread

[thekillman]

For planetary fighters, I've always thought it would be better to have a scramjet system for atmospheric flight.

scrams are tricky because of the required starting speed.

i'm thinking of a Pulse Detonation Engine/Scramjet hybrid engine for optimum atmospheric flight. then a second set of engines for space travel. no need for a hyperdrive, makes it unnecessarily expensive.

as to armament, i'm thinking missile pods with some sort of AMRAAM plus a single nuke hardpoint. additionally one or two railguns as a main gun. the size of a 302, but without big wings.

Frigate/Battlecruiser/Carrier/Battleship or
Destroyer/Battlecruiser/Carrier/Battleship or
Cruiser/Battlecruiser/Carrier/Battleship

the battlecruiser in Stargate is a kind of carrier. besides fighters and gunships simply do not have the real firepower to overcome capital ships. you can fire only so many so powerful nukes from fighters before they start interfering with other missiles and fighters. a BC in stargate has a varied armament, fighter bays and multiple roles.


i'm not sure about the exact sizes, armaments etc of cruisers destoyers and frigates. what's the precise difference, because to me they're all small relatively weak ships.

Cruiser/Battlecruiser/Carrier/Battleship

Missile Cruiser/Battlecruiser/Battleship

Fighters/Gunships

yes fighters and gunships

Cargo Ship or
Freighter.

i'm not sure on this, they will probably be designed by companies based upon needs.

Well I thought the primary role of Frigates was as an escort to the larger capitals.

because in Real Life, there are missiles, shells and fighters. because it's cheaper to send along a smaller ship than to add even more guns to a big ship. a single supership is useless because of limited action radius, costs and target priority.

in Stargate however we don't need escorts. the Battleship has the shields to withstand lots of weaponsfire while being strong enough to ignore fighters. even then simple CIWS takes care of fighters that get too close.

also can we not go add random designations? i would like there to be a BC-305, BB-306 and a MC-307. the F100 fighter and the G(gunship?) -101.

[bradly08]

scrams are tricky because of the required starting speed.

i'm thinking of a Pulse Detonation Engine/Scramjet hybrid engine for optimum atmospheric flight. then a second set of engines for space travel. no need for a hyperdrive, makes it unnecessarily expensive.

as to armament, i'm thinking missile pods with some sort of AMRAAM plus a single nuke hardpoint. additionally one or two railguns as a main gun. the size of a 302, but without big wings.

A second set on engines is adding weigh that doesn't need to be there (and weight is key esp. if your exiting the atmoshpere)

the battlecruiser in Stargate is a kind of carrier. besides fighters and gunships simply do not have the real firepower to overcome capital ships. you can fire only so many so powerful nukes from fighters before they start interfering with other missiles and fighters. a BC in stargate has a varied armament, fighter bays and multiple roles.

agreed (finally somthing we both agree on ) Carriers in Stargate are only really usefull if your invading a planet or system.

in Stargate however we don't need escorts. the Battleship has the shields to withstand lots of weaponsfire while being strong enough to ignore fighters. even then simple CIWS takes care of fighters that get too close.

Actually escorts would still be usefull. Granted a CIWS can deal with any fighters that are a problem, but escorts can still be usefull. If your in the middle of a battle, you want to take out the enemies most powerfull wepaons, and to do that you use your own most powerfull weapon (Battleship). But your enemy will try and protect their Battleship while trying to take out yours. It doesnt matter how powerfull your shields are, If they are under bombardment from multable ships, they will colapse. Its simply a matter of time. With Escorts, you can have ships protecting your Battleships while they take out the enemies. The escorts deal with any ships harasing your Battleship so that it can concentrate its fire on the enemies Battleship.

Escorts IMO will still be key in stargate warfare.

[Davidtourniquet]

The intention is to have the F302s as planetary fighters only, so scramjets will be useful. Maybe a refit to the 304 could be to open it up to include more fighters and turn in into a battlecarrier. That wouldn't cost that much to do.

[bradly08]

The intention is to have the F302s as planetary fighters only, so scramjets will be useful. Maybe a refit to the 304 could be to open it up to include more fighters and turn in into a battlecarrier. That wouldn't cost that much to do.

302's arn't exactly the most aerodynamic fighter, it IMO would be better suited for space warfare. Somthing like a F22 or a Su-47 only upgraded with stargate tech would be a way better planetary fighter.

[Davidtourniquet]

Well ok, why don't we keep the 302 as the space fighter and vote on a new planetary fighter. Maybe based on the tornado or eurofighter. Actually bradley, the eurofighter is a good case in point: it's aerodynamically unstable and would fall out of the sky if any of the 72 computers on it failed.

[Princess Awinita]

physical turn or mere rotation?

a proper fighter. good maneuverability, good weapons, etc. can kill even without missiles.

not by a lot. and the Dragon was So Big It's Useless

IMO a battleship is a ship that battles. it'll fight, kill and scare.

well we're not ready to vote... yet so no real point in posting it...

1 actual turn/rotation, i know (according to several games I have played on computer) that making a puretty much "turn on a dime" can't be done in the void of space, its impossible!
2 Oki now I understand, (can still only think of two craft here though, X-Wings (they're cool!) and F302s as they're about the same size)
3 True, even so, worth a thought?
4 Works for me!
5 Vote? we have yet ot actually say what is what, who we're fighting/surviving against, etc... or have we?

Ok 800 mtrs too big, we can easily pull the Dreadnaught class back to 600 tops.

The CE/CG 340 was designed from the outset as a gunship, missile cruiser with 20 tubes and as many guns you want to glue on it.

I only posted the bit about the use of a Frigate, because I honestly don't see the need for one in a projected Tauri fleet.

Actually according to a online database (and an old book), a Dreadnaught type ship is at minimum of 650 meters in length (maximum of 800 due to costs to build it)

I for one like the idea of a CE/CG 340! (hey if we're using them in Rogue Trader, they'l work in any universe!!)

[thekillman]

A second set on engines is adding weigh that doesn't need to be there (and weight is key esp. if your exiting the atmoshpere)

actually it's essential. first of all, a scramjet doesn't work untill you reach several mach's. second, anything getting you to starting speed can not get you scramjet speeds. also a scramjet is very light compared to any other engine, since it's basically a tube with fuel injectors and igniters. a dual engine system does not require a whole lot of extra mass. the alternative is a big booster like on the F-302 which is constant dead weight.

The escorts deal with any ships harasing your Battleship so that it can concentrate its fire on the enemies Battleship.

isn't that pretty much what the BC will be for?

Actually bradley, the eurofighter is a good case in point: it's aerodynamically unstable and would fall out of the sky if any of the 72 computers on it failed.

so does the 302. so it's not really that different. i'd keep the 302's as planetary defence, probably build an orbital space station with hangars etc. the new fighter would be better in every way regardless.

so scramjets will be useful.

yes but you need to go pretty fast before they actually work.

that making a puretty much "turn on a dime" can't be done in the void of space, its impossible!

BS. in space, i can make an Air Craft Carrier turn on a dime, even less. in space you can rotate every way, you can move sideways etc. and in BSG, remember that their speeds are nowhere near SG speeds.


i've begun work on the Gunship model to show what i'd like to see.

[Princess Awinita]

BS. in space, i can make an Air Craft Carrier turn on a dime, even less. in space you can rotate every way, you can move sideways etc. and in BSG, remember that their speeds are nowhere near SG speeds.

i've begun work on the Gunship model to show what i'd like to see.

I guess it is really just me then over how I felt about it. (is a Anakin fangirl so I watch SW a lot and when I can), so I gues it is really just me and how I feel about it. Now if we can actually get an ACC up there into space.....

If only I had the time and tools to do it I'd draw my model of Project 210, only problem, no scanner >.<

[bradly08]

Well ok, why don't we keep the 302 as the space fighter and vote on a new planetary fighter. Maybe based on the tornado or eurofighter. Actually bradley, the eurofighter is a good case in point: it's aerodynamically unstable and would fall out of the sky if any of the 72 computers on it failed.

It was designed to be Aerodynamically unstable, that is what makes it such an agile fighter. Millions of pounds (or dollars) have been spent on it so i highly dought that any of the computers will just fail.

actually it's essential. first of all, a scramjet doesn't work untill you reach several mach's. second, anything getting you to starting speed can not get you scramjet speeds. also a scramjet is very light compared to any other engine, since it's basically a tube with fuel injectors and igniters. a dual engine system does not require a whole lot of extra mass. the alternative is a big booster like on the F-302 which is constant dead weight.

Fair enough, but in order to reach the escape velocity, alot of weight will have to saved to fit in the scramjet. SG tech should help with this

isn't that pretty much what the BC will be for?

Fair enough A BC could be used in this role, but i was argueing that Escorts will still be needed, not what kind of ship will be needed.

so does the 302. so it's not really that different. i'd keep the 302's as planetary defence, probably build an orbital space station with hangars etc. the new fighter would be better in every way regardless.

The 302 could be kept for planetary defence, but I would want to see it gradually phased out as newer "Generation 6" fighters come in.

[blackluster]

Actually escorts would still be usefull. Granted a CIWS can deal with any fighters that are a problem, but escorts can still be usefull. If your in the middle of a battle, you want to take out the enemies most powerfull wepaons, and to do that you use your own most powerfull weapon (Battleship). But your enemy will try and protect their Battleship while trying to take out yours. It doesnt matter how powerfull your shields are, If they are under bombardment from multable ships, they will colapse. Its simply a matter of time. With Escorts, you can have ships protecting your Battleships while they take out the enemies. The escorts deal with any ships harasing your Battleship so that it can concentrate its fire on the enemies Battleship.

Escorts IMO will still be key in stargate warfare.

Indeed, though even this is a limited view on what such sized ships would truly be capable of. As specifically escorts, they probably wouldn't be doing that often unless there was some fleet action or Earth was in some open state of war that required ships to move in packs. These ships truly shine in being able to operate independently, far from home for long periods of time. If you considered your BC's as your fleet assets or battle-turners, then you want to only have to deploy them to exactly where they are needed when they are needed. For rapid response, surveillance or patrol, you want a cheaper ship that brings BC firepower to the problem area rapidly and if you need it to stay there, then it can do that. Especially in fighting a economical war where you want eyes everywhere and a projected presence, but you don't want to commit yourself tactically, these mid range classes of vessels are the ultimate utility. By themselves they make a nice measured response and in packs they can hunt and destroy bigger ships.

On the planetary fighter, I actually like the idea of retrofitting known fighters with some alien tech. I particularly fond of the Flanker airframes. Combined with an efficient space capable thruster as the only power-plant might be a better option than having two types of engines. The thruster power could just adjust from full power at extreme altitudes to lower power settings at lower altitude where the wings can do more of the work. A little anti inertia field for these craft would allow the pilots to really be competitive against anything coming into the atmosphere.

[bradly08]

Couldn't agree with you more Blackluster, Cruisers and Battlecruiser will be our most effective ship class. While Battleships will have greater fire power and shields, They will be too prized to be used in they same way. They will still play a key role in not only showing the galaxy we can fight and win, but they will be piviotal in those key battles within a war.

[thekillman]

Fair enough, but in order to reach the escape velocity, alot of weight will have to saved to fit in the scramjet. SG tech should help with this

a scramjet is not much more than an air intake with fuel injectors. it won't add much weight but it will add a great deal of thrust.

On the planetary fighter, I actually like the idea of retrofitting known fighters with some alien tech. I particularly fond of the Flanker airframes. Combined with an efficient space capable thruster as the only power-plant might be a better option than having two types of engines. The thruster power could just adjust from full power at extreme altitudes to lower power settings at lower altitude where the wings can do more of the work. A little anti inertia field for these craft would allow the pilots to really be competitive against anything coming into the atmosphere.

an engine that works fine at sonic and subsonic speeds does not work properly at hypersonic speeds, let alone the speeds needed to escape gravity, and not at all in space.

an engine that works fine at sonic and hypersonic speeds still doesn't work in space.

an engine that works in space most likely doesn't work in the atmosphere.

an ion engine will never really work in the atmosphere, nor will a plasma engine. our big ships don't really have trouble with it as they seem to have a weak inertialess drive onboard. such technology can never fit into our aircraft.

a ram or Scramjet simply doesn't work when you're moving slow. you need something for takeoff. now you could use rocket boosters. but that makes you completely dependent on them.

a PDE would work fine, and wouldn't require that much fuel. it's quite fuel efficient, you see. it gets you up to speed, the Scramjet can then work and boost you to space. in space, you switch to some form of magnetoplasma drive, or ion drive (doubt it's powerful enough though).

there IS one engine in existence that can do all three (subsonic, hypersonic, spaceflight) equally good. unfortunately it eats lots of fuel. a rocket is the only engine that can do everything well. but as i said, you require way too much fuel.


a fuel-economic PDE, combined with a Scramjet (little extra weight, lots of additional thrust), and a magnetoplasma drive, is the most effective craft i can think of.

[bradly08]

Retro-fitting our own fighters (f-22's and eurofighters) isn't going to work because they are designed to fight a war that no longer exists. what we need is a brand new generation of fighters that uses SG tech to its full advantage. And with SG tech im sure we will be able to think of new engines that can give us enough force to punch above the escape velocity and manuver in space.

[blackluster]

there IS one engine in existence that can do all three (subsonic, hypersonic, spaceflight) equally good. unfortunately it eats lots of fuel. a rocket is the only engine that can do everything well. but as i said, you require way too much fuel.

When I said single thruster, this is what I meant. That is the ultimate ideal since really one shouldn't have to waste one's time with engines that require air mixture for combustion if you can avoid it. Incidentally on drive sizes, it will depend what can be done with puddle jumper thrusters (not the inertia less ones but the extenders). They might provide limited thrust for a PJ but PJ's don't use aerodynamic properties to fly. You should be able to get away with a trade-off in conventional earth jets. The death gliders also seem to work with inertia-less drives, which when it comes to retrofitting atmospheric fighters can be as simple as outsourcing to FJN manufacturers to produce them.

Retro-fitting our own fighters (f-22's and eurofighters) isn't going to work because they are designed to fight a war that no longer exists. what we need is a brand new generation of fighters that uses SG tech to its full advantage. And with SG tech im sure we will be able to think of new engines that can give us enough force to punch above the escape velocity and manuver in space.

Structurally I can't really think of a single thing that makes a 302 airframe more effective than any existing modern day fighter. 302's are only formidable because of onboard devices, most of which you could integrate into any other existing airframe only an existing airframe would actually more efficient than a 302 in an atmosphere. If one could solve the engine and material problem, the airframe should transfer quite well. Incidentally, if we were really talking about the kind of wars that are not being fought anymore, I doubt we'd still be using manned fighters by 2025 at all.

[Crazy Tom]

it can take on hive ship 5 times it size? but it cant take on a hatak? are you dumb... and ive seen it blow up plenty hatak and not to mention the aincent ships it blew up at enemy at the gate on sga

I mean without Asgard beams. And if your going to rebuttal something, the lest you can do is be polite and do us the courtesy of spell checking.

Through you have a point, we've simply never see it fight a Ha'tak with nukes.

certain space engines don't work in-atmosphere. also by using oxygen breathing engines you remove a whole deal of energy required.

Yes, but using engines that can do both you remove complexity and since you need that naquadah reactor for space travel anyways, I don't see a reason not to put it to continuous use.

The only solution would be to launch nukes in the middle of a swarm of fighters... Kamikaze strategy? Certainly not on Earth.

Leads nicely into my Idea of the Day: Space Dart Missile System

Using force fields, a ship equipped with a spinal accelerator can throw miniaturized smart missiles at low relativistic speed. Equipped with maneuvering thrusters for terminal maneuvers and a naquadah warhead that detonates on impact, the Space Dart can pass through the enemy point defense screen in under a second, dramatically reducing their ability to react. And as they are fairly small, they can be fired in salvos, to overwhelm enemy point defense.

On a tangent: the USAF is starting to move away form manned fighters for UCAVs, due to higher performance and safety. So for defensive, light second and less operations, UCAVs would be my choice to.

What about the old favourite: the "grace" aliens

One and the same as the Shrin'yar.

Killman sums up my opinion on multiple ship classes.

For atmospheric propulsion, any non-radioactive space drive will work, you can for example, use a low end fusion drive drive, which will work fine in atmo Killman, and switch to anti-matter catalyzed fusion in space. INERTIAL DAMPENING people. Weight is a non-issue for getting out of a gravity well.

Retro-fitting our own fighters (f-22's and eurofighters) isn't going to work because they are designed to fight a war that no longer exists. what we need is a brand new generation of fighters that uses SG tech to its full advantage. And with SG tech im sure we will be able to think of new engines that can give us enough force to punch above the escape velocity and maneuver in space.

PS. Nobody's got anything to say on the stellevator?