Remove ads

General Idea Discussions and Designs for Spaceships/Warships, Starfighters, Shuttles, etc.

R

RedWolff

Location
Malaysia







Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser
Main bridge
Unlike many contemporary warship designs, the Dreadnaught-class did not have an easily visible bridge section, opting to shelter the command decks and crew stations inside the main armored superstructure. These areas were located on the dorsal side of the bow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...









LHM-BB01 Minerva




I hope everyone here doesn't mind but I like to start a general discussion thread concerning sci-fi spaceships/warships, starfighters, shuttles, etc. and think of ideas/discussions on how to combine sci-fi tech while also trying to make the sci-fi vehicles/ships look "realistic".

This general idea came up after watching the attached videos and thinking about how Star Wars spaceship and starfighter designs don't make sense and are focused more on aesthetic looks. In contrast, other titles like the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica and The Expanse TV series added more realism to their spaceship designs by taking into consideration on how things work in space.



For starters, where we should place the space warship's command bridge compared to the traditional sci-fi warship's command bridge based on modern ocean-going ships' like in classic titles such as Star Wars, Halo, Space Battleship Yamato, Gundam, Macross, etc.

Well, besides the Star Wars and Gundam SEED Destiny examples above, the Battlestar warships from the Battlestar Galactica franchise also had their command bridge & CIC placed deep within the ships' hulls. Other real world examples include military submarines which depend entirely on sensors during combat. I think the same thing applies with the CBS-70 Ptolemaios and CBS-74 Ptolemaios 2 (from Gundam 00 series) as well?

The LHM-BB01 Minerva offered an interesting compromise where the command bridge lowers itself into the CIC, which places both of them deeper within the ship's bridge base. It's like imagining the real world modern warships' bridge lowering themselves into their CIC rooms which was usually separate and I think it's where the captain usually goes to during combat.

What do you all think of the arguments concerning the space warship's command bridge:
- the ones in sci-fi with the traditional ocean-going ship bridge towers and windows;
- the ones based on being deep within the ship under layers of armour and shielding like real world military submarines, Battlestar warships and the Dreadnaught-class from Star Wars;
- the interesting third idea shown with the LHM-BB01 Minerva; and
- the ones based on the real world modern warships' bridge and CIC room, with the CIC room also being the main command bridge while the bridge tower is the secondary bridge/observation deck when in atmosphere (during combat and in space, armoured doors cover/seal the windows).

Which do you all like to use if you decide to plan your own space warship ideas? Later, I hope we could discuss other topics like combat aircraft/starfighters, shuttles, civilian starships, etc. and maybe even ground vehicles and mecha/powered armours.
 
Hey everyone, what do you all think of this topic content below concerning warship types for sci-fi? Do you think they fit and make sense in hindsight?



I think the corvette and frigate designations and/or roles could be similar/interchangeable depending on personal ideas or choices and ship sizes if both types exist in the same universe setting. Basically, both types serve in the roles of patrol, escort, scouting/screening and attack boat duties...... with the frigate generally serving as the bigger, heavier and longer-ranged, fleet-duty brother of the corvette type (which is generally better suited for the space equivalent of anti-piracy and coastal defence/patrol).

The destroyer type serves in general fleet duties as a fast, maneuverable, long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against powerful short range attackers (eg. corvettes, frigates, other attack boats, strike fighters/bombers, etc.). Plus, they could also contribute in fleet battles with massed fire from their long-ranged main weapon(s) in roles as described in the video above.

The cruiser type could serve as described in both the video and real world examples since it's a good role fit. Plus, if we included sci-fi fighters/bombers/strike craft, the sci-fi cruisers could also double as either real world escort carriers, Sea Control Ships or Soviet/Russian aircraft cruisers (like the the Kiev and Kuznetsov-class aviation cruisers) for escort and self-defence.

I also found the idea of a new, sci-fi distinction between battlecruisers and battleships an interesting idea. While battlecruisers serve in the normal sci-fi fleet action or roles like real world fast battleships, sci-fi battleships could be used to describe heavy fleet-killers or siege-breakers like the Onager-class Star Destroyer and Mandator IV-class Siege Dreadnought from Star Wars. Like the sci-fi cruiser, adding its own limited sci-fi fighters/bombers/strike craft complement gives it a secondary role for escort and self-defence.

The carrier type warship is pretty obvious and doesn't need any change. Except maybe anti-ship missiles/torpedoes and anti-corvette/-frigate weaponry for self-defence?

What do you all think?
 
You mention "shuttles", but never emphasize or discuss them closer.

They may not be warships, but realize that they are the objective of space war.

Because the aim of war is to get boots on ground.
All other specialized types of warships are justified insofar as they prevent enemies from getting their boots on ground or help friends get their boots on ground despite enemy action.

How precisely do your various types of warships contribute to hinder or assist landinga?
 
chornedsnorkack said:
You mention "shuttles", but never emphasize or discuss them closer.

They may not be warships, but realize that they are the objective of space war.

Because the aim of war is to get boots on ground.
All other specialized types of warships are justified insofar as they prevent enemies from getting their boots on ground or help friends get their boots on ground despite enemy action.

How precisely do your various types of warships contribute to hinder or assist landings?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Well, I was giving a broad/general mention as I couldn't exactly list out every spaceship type or class from the top of my head. Hence the general reference to the word, "shuttles", in the title. Plus, I figured it'll be a given topic to discuss in the future. Hence why I ended the first post with this paragraph:
RedWolff said:
Which do you all like to use if you decide to plan your own space warship ideas? Later, I hope we could discuss other topics like combat aircraft/starfighters, shuttles, civilian starships, etc. and maybe even ground vehicles and mecha/powered armours.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


P.S. Thanks for replying
 
I apologize if this might look like info dumping but I personally thought it'll be easier for future discussions and referencing if I also include in this thread all the other video posts which inspired me to start out this thread and ask your opinions in the first place. Said videos' contents were rather impactful to me to start this thread and want to discuss with others. Especially the ones from Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Halo (UNSC designs).









 
My point is that actually the most important part of space warfare is this. How DO you, in the end, get people to walk the ground of another planet?

All other specialized ships have the main goal either to help or hinder this.

Plus... How do you perform a landing in face of active opposition?
 
chornedsnorkack said:
My point is that actually the most important part of space warfare is this. How DO you, in the end, get people to walk the ground of another planet?

All other specialized ships have the main goal either to help or hinder this.

Plus... How do you perform a landing in face of active opposition?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Isn't that the point for this discussion thread? That was why I suggested while we try to go for a more "realistic" or "semi-realistic" approach like in Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Halo, we'll still be open and fluid to adding some hand-waving with sci-fi tech.

For example, for shuttles, I keep thinking about the human shuttles and dropships from Halo and Babylon 5 and even the real world Space Shuttle. Do you have your own ideas instead? Like I said, this is an open discussion for others' opinions and ideas since I'm no expert.












As seen with the new videos, said videos also got me wondering. I really enjoyed these interrelated videos concerning a more realistic take on sci-fi spacefighters such as Battlestar Galactica's Viper-series and Babylon 5's Starfury-series. I also liked the videos comparing the two designs, as well as the How to Dogfight in Space and The Problem With Missiles in Sci-Fi Space Combat videos.

This made me wonder, how do you think a fighter that could operate in both space and atmosphere could be like if we included more aerodynamic designs while also being open enough with adding sci-fi tech from sources like Halo, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars? This includes also drawing real world inspirations such as delta wing designs (including real world jet fighter designs using delta wings) and the Space Shuttle.

How do you all think such a design might/would turn out to be like?
 
Last edited:
I'm really sorry :oops: I forgot to post these videos earlier ............ and I'm not sure if each post could accept more than five video links per post.






P.S. I'm sorry for the multiple posts and video-related contents. It's just that these videos played major roles in making me start this thread and ask these questions. It's hard for me to explain them in words as the video explained them better.
 
Last edited:
RedWolff said:
Isn't that the point for this discussion thread? That was why I suggested while we try to go for a more "realistic" or "semi-realistic" approach like in Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Halo, we'll still be open and fluid to adding some hand-waving with sci-fi tech.

For example, for shuttles, I keep thinking about the human shuttles and dropships from Halo and Babylon 5 and even the real world Space Shuttle. Do you have your own ideas instead? Like I said, this is an open discussion for others' opinions and ideas since I'm no expert.


This made me wonder, how do you think a fighter that could operate in both space and atmosphere could be like if we included more aerodynamic designs while also being open enough with adding sci-fi tech from sources like Halo, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars? This includes also drawing real world inspirations such as delta wing designs (including real world jet fighter designs using delta wings) and the Space Shuttle.

How do you all think such a design might/would turn out to be like?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A problem with 20th century Space Shuttle is that it needs an airport runway to land.

How are you going to land on a planet where nobody has yet landed and built a spaceport? And land not just a few explorers but the workers and tools to build spaceport?

And this is BOTH civilian AND military task. How about, there was a spaceport, but enemies hold and defend it, or have destroyed it - how do you land away from a spaceport defended by enemies?

About fighters: if you want to kill a shuttleload of enemies, how do you do it?

They might just land in a civilian spaceship away from the defenders and come fight on ground. You can fight a space war with no warships and no space fighting, exclusively by civil ships that never are engaged.

But if your enemies land unmolested and deploy on land, they have time to scatter in ground cover, unpack their arms, dig in, fight back... It would be nice to kill a lot of enemies huddled in one shipwreck, unable to defend themselves.

How? A spaceship in space should be mobile. It can dodge your defences.

It might be a smart idea to destroy a spaceship on ground in the act of landing. After it has lost its mobility but before the payload has been able to scatter on ground.

How to attack a spaceship? With another spaceship? Or something else?

Do you think that a spaceship is likely to wind up destroyed landing on a landmine?
Or other traps? Like, spaceship lands on what turns out to be underground car park, which collapses, and a pillar pierces the hull, rendering the spaceship unspaceworthy?
 
So, supposing that the objective of the fleet is to assault enemy worlds, as opposed to something closer to seige warfare (commerce raiding to deprive the enemy of imported goods and technologies), or just straight bombing back to the stone age, we'll need troopships. Their primary function would be to carry troops, keep them in peak physical shape, and deploy them to a planetary surface. So, they'd be large (for max troop capacity) have dropship bays, and artifical gravity, whether generators or centrifuges. They'd probably also act as a C4I suite, providing medical and logistical support to the GROPOS, which means large cargo bays. Weapons would be optional, but they'd probably have at least aome bombardment weaponry for attacking ASAT missile launchers and subterranean laser platforms and the like.

To get into orbit, you'd need some way of destroying the orbital defenses. You'd want a type of ship to attack those defenses, and one to intercept incoming weapons (ship here is defined rather loosely: drones and the like would also be classified as ships). Assuming a somewhat realistic future, you'd have lasers, railguns, and missiles. Whether combining arms or keeping each seperate is up to the navy (as is the effectiveness of each weapon). You'd also need logistical ships to keep the navy supplied with food, fuel, ammunition, fresh crews and troops, which would be guarded by the defensive ships.

Each of the above vessels would probably come in large and small variations, so as to keep the navy economical. A bigger ship is usually better, but if you only need a certsin capability, the funds could probably be better used elsewhere.

Just my $0.02 based on an hour of me desperately trying to avoid my thesis.
 
theorion said:
So, supposing that the objective of the fleet is to assault enemy worlds, as opposed to something closer to seige warfare (commerce raiding to deprive the enemy of imported goods and technologies),
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You don´t need to siege Earth now, Earth is already under embargo. Nobody comes to Earth to import any goods, and people of Earth can get nowhere where any goods or technologies are.

And note a contrast. A ship in space may be be visible but it also is mobile. Whereas a ship on ground being loaded is less mobile, and a ship being built or repaired even less so.

Just because you "hold a planet", as in, have a garrison at planetary capital and a few others, does not mean most of the planet is not thousands of kilometres away from nearest garrison, or nearest decently equipped one. If you detect a completely unauthorized landing by a smuggler UFO, how long are you going to need to scramble a reaction force and get it to the approximate landing region? Quite possibly, not before the UFO is safely unloaded, taken off and gone to hyperspace, AND the recipients on ground have also dispersed into woods and civil population with smuggled goods.
theorion said:
or just straight bombing back to the stone age,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You need to take, and take profitably. Breaking is only a means to facilitate taking.
theorion said:
we'll need troopships. Their primary function would be to carry troops, keep them in peak physical shape, and deploy them to a planetary surface. So, they'd be large (for max troop capacity) have dropship bays,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In other words, you are assuming you need lighters. And your ships meant for planetary landing do not travel long distance.

But why do you assume bigger ships are more efficient in transporting troops?
Popular approach, but very dubious for me.
Why not fleets of large numbers of individually small ships?
 
Last edited:
chornedsnorkack said:
You don´t need to siege Earth now, Earth is already under embargo. Nobody comes to Earth to import any goods, and people of Earth can get nowhere where any goods or technologies are.

And note a contrast. A ship in space may be be visible but it also is mobile. Whereas a ship on ground being loaded is less mobile, and a ship being built or repaired even less so.

Just because you "hold a planet", as in, have a garrison at planetary capital and a few others, does not mean most of the planet is not thousands of kilometres away from nearest garrison, or nearest decently equipped one. If you detect a completely unauthorized landing by a smuggler UFO, how long are you going to need to scramble a reaction force and get it to the approximate landing region? Quite possibly, not before the UFO is safely unloaded, taken off and gone to hyperspace, AND the recipients on ground have also dispersed into woods and civil population with smuggled goods.

You need to take, and take profitably. Breaking is only a means to facilitate taking.

In other words, you are assuming you need lighters. And your ships meant for planetary landing do not travel long distance.

But why do you assume bigger ships are more efficient in transporting troops?
Popular approach, but very dubious for me.
Why not fleets of large numbers of individually small ships?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I'm afraid I don't follow your sci-fi reference :???::???:
 
chornedsnorkack said:
You don´t need to siege Earth now, Earth is already under embargo. Nobody comes to Earth to import any goods, and people of Earth can get nowhere where any goods or technologies are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In such a scenario where Earth is a space-faring power, it will be cheaper to mine resources to send them back. Oil is easily obtained on Titan, heavy metals on Mercury, and iron will be far cheaper. Depriving Earth of those resouces would mean needing to reopen mines and redrill oil fields, which would take time Earth wouldn't have. Plus, Earth would be seperated from new technological advances that other worlds make. While the tech is spread theoughout the galaxy, Earth would be deprived of it, slowly becoming more primitive and easier to conventionally conquer.

Yes, the Earth is currently isolated. But we won't be when we have the chance, because globalism and the like are economically profitable, and you aren't the only ones advancing your society and tech.

Just because you "hold a planet", as in, have a garrison at planetary capital and a few others, does not mean most of the planet is not thousands of kilometres away from nearest garrison, or nearest decently equipped one. If you detect a completely unauthorized landing by a smuggler UFO, how long are you going to need to scramble a reaction force and get it to the approximate landing region? Quite possibly, not before the UFO is safely unloaded, taken off and gone to hyperspace, AND the recipients on ground have also dispersed into woods and civil population with smuggled goods.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you don't control orbit, you have no chance on the ground. If you do control orbit, this is a job for the people who do.

Note: This whole time I have been assuming a jump shadow or the like, where you can't jump directly into a gravity well. If this isnt the case, the entire navy is obsolete because you never have to leave the atmosphere to travel between planets. You'd also have a very dangerous situation because you could instantly bomb them without warning. Terrorists could, too.

You need to take, and take profitably. Breaking is only a means to facilitate taking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The US would have lost a million+ soldiers in Operation Downfall, so they started dropping nukes. Had Japan not surrendered, they would have continued dropping nukes until there was no Japan left. In a similar scenario, neutron bombs are the way to go. You quickly and easily eliminate the entire planetary population, while leaving structures intact for your own populace. Pretty profitable, as things go.

You only run into problems when things like human rights and rules of war come into the picture. And while usually paramount, when versing certain alien species (ex Tyranids), where peace isn't and will never be viable, these things are of reduced importance.

In other words, you are assuming you need lighters. And your ships meant for planetary landing do not travel long distance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you have transporters, then instead you want a pad per person for the quickest deployment. Either way, it uses up a ton of space.

And see below for my discussion of landing craft going long distances versus large ships doing so.

But why do you assume bigger ships are more efficient in transporting troops?
Popular approach, but very dubious for me.
Why not fleets of large numbers of individually small ships?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Because of the square-cube law. It's more efficient to build larger, as it uses fewer resources than numerous ships of similar surface area, and is harder to hit than ships of similar volume. So instead of giving 100 smaller ships 1 cm of armor, you can afford to give your big ship 4.64 meters of armor. If you use only a meter and a half of armor, you're better equipped than a smaller ship, while also not using as much material, which costs less.

Space also isn't like the water or air, where the frictional resistance increases with size. Your larger craft are going to have the exact same thrust capabilities, if not better, as your smaller ships, as they can use the same drives, just upscaled or downscaled as needed. I say better because your large ship with 1.5 m armor will have a smaller armor percentage than your small one. The large ship will be volume-for volume lighter, and so for similar volume ratio drive plants, will be able to go faster.

On the flipside, the square-cube law comes back to bite you in a gravity well, where your big troopship would be landing. There's a reason we only build skyscrapers so large, after all. Make a landing craft too big, and it'll buckle under its own weight. And its often better to use different drives in different mediums, a jet engine (or similar) for in atmo, and a nuke drive for exo. This way, you won't irradiate your own troops when they step off your assault craft. It's also easier, engineering-wise, to have different drives on different ships.
 
Last edited:
theorion said:
In such a scenario where Earth is a space-faring power, it will be cheaper to mine resources to send them back. Oil is easily obtained on Titan, heavy metals on Mercury, and iron will be far cheaper. Depriving Earth of those resouces would mean needing to reopen mines and redrill oil fields, which would take time Earth wouldn't have. Plus, Earth would be seperated from new technological advances that other worlds make. While the tech is spread theoughout the galaxy, Earth would be deprived of it, slowly becoming more primitive and easier to conventionally conquer.

Yes, the Earth is currently isolated. But we won't be when we have the chance, because globalism and the like are economically profitable, and you aren't the only ones advancing your society and tech.


If you don't control orbit, you have no chance on the ground. If you do control orbit, this is a job for the people who do.

Note: This whole time I have been assuming a jump shadow or the like, where you can't jump directly into a gravity well. If this isnt the case, the entire navy is obsolete because you never have to leave the atmosphere to travel between planets. You'd also have a very dangerous situation because you could instantly bomb them without warning. Terrorists could, too.


The US would have lost a million+ soldiers in Operation Downfall, so they started dropping nukes. Had Japan not surrendered, they would have continued dropping nukes until there was no Japan left. In a similar scenario, neutron bombs are the way to go. You quickly and easily eliminate the entire planetary population, while leaving structures intact for your own populace. Pretty profitable, as things go.

You only run into problems when things like human rights and rules of war come into the picture. And while usually paramount, when versing certain alien species (ex Tyranids), where peace isn't and will never be viable, these things are of reduced importance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


What sci-fi series are you referring to?
 
RedWolff said:
What sci-fi series are you referring to?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's completely hypothetical. I took what was posited and expanded upon it.

chornedsnorkack said:
Turn it around. If nobody "controls the orbit", because nobody can, does anybody have a chance on ground?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You can absolutely have orbital superiority. Missiles and lasers having effective light-second ranges isn't out of the ballpark by any stretch of the imagination, and a planet is only so big. Half a dozen ships placed equidistantly from each other (2 at the poles, 4 around the equator) is an effective minimum for keeping an eye on the planet below and the skies above.

Unless you're saying orbital space is so cluttered that the attacker cannot maintain adequate control of orbit because of all the Kinetic Kill Vehicles debris flrying around, in which case the defender has the advantage until the attacker can get rid of tbe debris.

So I could see a use for a minesweeper analogue. Pretty much a whipple shield net with engines and as much surface area as possible to catch/destroy metal shards and the like. Unmanned, of course. No use risking people in such a dangerous environment.
 
theorion said:
It's completely hypothetical. I took what was posited and expanded upon it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah I see. I was placing the whole idea around the world-building examples set up by titles such as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica ,Babylon 5 and Halo. Yours sound like building things from The Expanse which is a great example too.

But currently, I'm focusing more on examples from Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica ,Babylon 5 and Halo. So it's possible I might get confused now and then. Thanks again for the posts.
 
Last edited:
RedWolff said:
Ah I see. I was placing the whole idea around the world-building examples set up by titles such as Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica ,Babylon 5 and Halo. Yours sound like building things from The Expanse which is a great example too.

But currently, I'm focusing more on examples from Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica ,Babylon 5 and Halo. So it's possible I might get confused now and then. Thanks again for the posts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alright then. This right here is what naval analysts use:



The foundation of every science-fiction navy is the setting. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5 and Halo, all have very different settings, with their own assumptions on how the world works. Just technologically, BSG, B5 and Halo use point defense weapons to deflect oncoming weapons fire, while Star Wars instead uses energy shielding. B5 lacks artificial gravity tech, having their spaceships either use centripetal gravity or simply limiting their crew's deployment schedules. B5 and Star Wars use directed energy weapons, while BSG and Halo use kinetics which must be resupplied to avoid going dry.

Who are the powers in the setting? Star Wars has the Empire, a single monolithic entity which controls the whole galaxy and is mostly focused on putting down rebellions? BSG has 12 equal colonies that must be protected equally, with a single enemy power that they must guard against. Babylon 5 has Earth, the crown jewel, which is heavily defended, and numerous more lightly defended colonies, to defend against a half-dozen powerful races which could do them serious harm if they wanted to. Halo is a mix of BSG and B5. Is Earth even united, or are there separate entities which are at each other's throats as much as alien races are?

How many alien races are there (if any)? How powerful are they? How friendly are they? Do we fear them despite their supposed friendliness because of their power? Do they impose restrictions on warship building like the Turians in Mass Effect or the real-life Washington Naval Treaty?

What is the relationship between the alien powers? If we got into a war, do we have the big brute on our side who will (hopefully) do most of the fighting for us? Or are we the big brute protecting smaller races? How involved are we with the galactic community?

How do you get from place to place? Hyperspace, wormholes, warp drive, space-folding? Accelerating close to the speed of light and waiting? What are the limitations for going faster-than-light? Do you need to be a certain distance from a star, a la Star Wars or Traveller? Can ships enter FTL by themselves, or do they require outside help, like B5 or Mass Effect? How big must the FTL drive be for effective travel?

When was the last big war between Earth and another power? Who won? Babylon 5 has the war only a decade ago, with Earth being the loser, and the scars still fresh and the crews all combat-tested veterans. BSG, on the other hand, has only a few officers remaining from the First Cylon War 40 years ago, with most people only having the stories of their parents and grandparents. What is the attitude of the populace towards the military? Are they seen as protectors, a necessary evil, an unwanted expense that could be going to social projects or back into my pocket?

How does the Navy pay for itself? Donations from powerful people, raiding others for supplies and resources, taxation, or are they self-sufficient, with control of enough mines and the like that they can do as they please? How cash starved are they? Is the navy on a shoe-string budget, forcing the use of a lot of older ships inferior to most other race's equivalents? Or is there a nice, fat, military industrial complex, endlessly pressuring the brass to invest in new, experimental ships

Based on the outcomes of each of these assumptions, very different navies will results. Babylon 5's navy is a result of a frantic shipbuilding program following the loss of their whole navy and using as many mass-produced parts as possible, with as many up-gunned ships as possible to discourage anyone from finishing what the Minbari started. Star Wars showed the Empire projecting power and attempting to intimidate their worlds into remaining a part of their polity, and their navy reflects that.
 
theorion said:
Alright then. This right here is what naval analysts use:



The foundation of every science-fiction navy is the setting. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5 and Halo, all have very different settings, with their own assumptions on how the world works. Just technologically, BSG, B5 and Halo use point defense weapons to deflect oncoming weapons fire, while Star Wars instead uses energy shielding. B5 lacks artificial gravity tech, having their spaceships either use centripetal gravity or simply limiting their crew's deployment schedules. B5 and Star Wars use directed energy weapons, while BSG and Halo use kinetics which must be resupplied to avoid going dry.

Who are the powers in the setting? Star Wars has the Empire, a single monolithic entity which controls the whole galaxy and is mostly focused on putting down rebellions? BSG has 12 equal colonies that must be protected equally, with a single enemy power that they must guard against. Babylon 5 has Earth, the crown jewel, which is heavily defended, and numerous more lightly defended colonies, to defend against a half-dozen powerful races which could do them serious harm if they wanted to. Halo is a mix of BSG and B5. Is Earth even united, or are there separate entities which are at each other's throats as much as alien races are?

How many alien races are there (if any)? How powerful are they? How friendly are they? Do we fear them despite their supposed friendliness because of their power? Do they impose restrictions on warship building like the Turians in Mass Effect or the real-life Washington Naval Treaty?

What is the relationship between the alien powers? If we got into a war, do we have the big brute on our side who will (hopefully) do most of the fighting for us? Or are we the big brute protecting smaller races? How involved are we with the galactic community?

How do you get from place to place? Hyperspace, wormholes, warp drive, space-folding? Accelerating close to the speed of light and waiting? What are the limitations for going faster-than-light? Do you need to be a certain distance from a star, a la Star Wars or Traveller? Can ships enter FTL by themselves, or do they require outside help, like B5 or Mass Effect? How big must the FTL drive be for effective travel?

When was the last big war between Earth and another power? Who won? Babylon 5 has the war only a decade ago, with Earth being the loser, and the scars still fresh and the crews all combat-tested veterans. BSG, on the other hand, has only a few officers remaining from the First Cylon War 40 years ago, with most people only having the stories of their parents and grandparents. What is the attitude of the populace towards the military? Are they seen as protectors, a necessary evil, an unwanted expense that could be going to social projects or back into my pocket?

How does the Navy pay for itself? Donations from powerful people, raiding others for supplies and resources, taxation, or are they self-sufficient, with control of enough mines and the like that they can do as they please? How cash starved are they? Is the navy on a shoe-string budget, forcing the use of a lot of older ships inferior to most other race's equivalents? Or is there a nice, fat, military industrial complex, endlessly pressuring the brass to invest in new, experimental ships

Based on the outcomes of each of these assumptions, very different navies will results. Babylon 5's navy is a result of a frantic shipbuilding program following the loss of their whole navy and using as many mass-produced parts as possible, with as many up-gunned ships as possible to discourage anyone from finishing what the Minbari started. Star Wars showed the Empire projecting power and attempting to intimidate their worlds into remaining a part of their polity, and their navy reflects that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


COOL! Thanks a lot for this post and its contents! I really enjoy this step-by-step look. :grin:
 
theorion said:
Half a dozen ships placed equidistantly from each other (2 at the poles, 4 around the equator) is an effective minimum for keeping an eye on the planet below and the skies above.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You could make do with five, but the polar ones cannot orbit then.
But those ships need to keep to sky then. You could very well have a planetary governor who cannot control the orbit because the few available ships are under repair on ground - he could scramble one spaceworty one, but that does not control the whole surroundings.

Also you mention how "the navy" is funded. Remember that besides the navy, you also have merchant marine... and potentially smugglers.
 
RedWolff said:
COOL! Thanks a lot for this post and its contents! I really enjoy this step-by-step look. :grin:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's all just for the "strategic assumptions" column. Once you get that down, you can actually move on to the "what is my navy supposed to be doing?" part.

chornedsnorkack said:
You could make do with five, but the polar ones cannot orbit then.
But those ships need to keep to sky then. You could very well have a planetary governor who cannot control the orbit because the few available ships are under repair on ground - he could scramble one spaceworty one, but that does not control the whole surroundings.

Also you mention how "the navy" is funded. Remember that besides the navy, you also have merchant marine... and potentially smugglers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I doubt ships will be constructed (or repaired) planetside, at least for a developed navy. The cost to get into orbit is just too high, and the materials are probably going to be mined spaceside anyways. You'd probably have shipyards over major worlds and in asteroid belts, with vessels needing repairs or upgrades being brought there for refit or towed back, like the Navy does with heavy lift ships.

And the merchant marine, at least in the US, isn't usually a part of the military. In peacetime, they're just regular commercial ships (personnel are often part of the Naval Reserve, but not always), but they and their crews can be "drafted" during times of war to transport stuff. In such a case, the Merchant Marines are considered active duty members of the military. When I was sailing, and tensions with North Korea started getting hot again, I was told flat out that there was a good chance my 42 day cadet cruise might be extended for an unknown amount of time.
 
theorion said:
Alright then. This right here is what naval analysts use:



The foundation of every science-fiction navy is the setting. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5 and Halo, all have very different settings, with their own assumptions on how the world works. Just technologically, BSG, B5 and Halo use point defense weapons to deflect oncoming weapons fire, while Star Wars instead uses energy shielding. B5 lacks artificial gravity tech, having their spaceships either use centripetal gravity or simply limiting their crew's deployment schedules. B5 and Star Wars use directed energy weapons, while BSG and Halo use kinetics which must be resupplied to avoid going dry.

Who are the powers in the setting? Star Wars has the Empire, a single monolithic entity which controls the whole galaxy and is mostly focused on putting down rebellions? BSG has 12 equal colonies that must be protected equally, with a single enemy power that they must guard against. Babylon 5 has Earth, the crown jewel, which is heavily defended, and numerous more lightly defended colonies, to defend against a half-dozen powerful races which could do them serious harm if they wanted to. Halo is a mix of BSG and B5. Is Earth even united, or are there separate entities which are at each other's throats as much as alien races are?

How many alien races are there (if any)? How powerful are they? How friendly are they? Do we fear them despite their supposed friendliness because of their power? Do they impose restrictions on warship building like the Turians in Mass Effect or the real-life Washington Naval Treaty?

What is the relationship between the alien powers? If we got into a war, do we have the big brute on our side who will (hopefully) do most of the fighting for us? Or are we the big brute protecting smaller races? How involved are we with the galactic community?

How do you get from place to place? Hyperspace, wormholes, warp drive, space-folding? Accelerating close to the speed of light and waiting? What are the limitations for going faster-than-light? Do you need to be a certain distance from a star, a la Star Wars or Traveller? Can ships enter FTL by themselves, or do they require outside help, like B5 or Mass Effect? How big must the FTL drive be for effective travel?

When was the last big war between Earth and another power? Who won? Babylon 5 has the war only a decade ago, with Earth being the loser, and the scars still fresh and the crews all combat-tested veterans. BSG, on the other hand, has only a few officers remaining from the First Cylon War 40 years ago, with most people only having the stories of their parents and grandparents. What is the attitude of the populace towards the military? Are they seen as protectors, a necessary evil, an unwanted expense that could be going to social projects or back into my pocket?

How does the Navy pay for itself? Donations from powerful people, raiding others for supplies and resources, taxation, or are they self-sufficient, with control of enough mines and the like that they can do as they please? How cash starved are they? Is the navy on a shoe-string budget, forcing the use of a lot of older ships inferior to most other race's equivalents? Or is there a nice, fat, military industrial complex, endlessly pressuring the brass to invest in new, experimental ships

Based on the outcomes of each of these assumptions, very different navies will results. Babylon 5's navy is a result of a frantic shipbuilding program following the loss of their whole navy and using as many mass-produced parts as possible, with as many up-gunned ships as possible to discourage anyone from finishing what the Minbari started. Star Wars showed the Empire projecting power and attempting to intimidate their worlds into remaining a part of their polity, and their navy reflects that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
theorion said:
That's all just for the "strategic assumptions" column. Once you get that down, you can actually move on to the "what is my navy supposed to be doing?" part.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Can I share the contents with others?
 
How do you like the "Bloodsucker"?

From Asimov´s Foundation-verse, or more specifically "Empire" trilogy. In a prequel set millennia before Foundation, but sharing the same technology. Namely "Stars, like dust".
Built by people of planet Tyrann. Noted as spartan in contrast to other ships even of Tyrann, and of warships of other countries.
Tyrann defeated 24 countries spanning 50 planets and 20 000 million people (note average of 400 millions per planet) despite having hundreds times smaller population (meaning under 200 millions but over 20 millions), by having ships that were faster and turned their opponents´ ships into scrap.
One (but not the greatest) contributor to being faster was being more spartan and therefore lighter.

"Bloodsucker" had a single cabin intended for 6 men to sleep in 3 double bunks. (The intended crew might have been even bigger if they did not sleep at a time, some standing watch at bridge). Food supplies were based on dried conserves. Planet Tyrann was short of water and the people were used to scarcity - the ship had heads but no provision to wash during voyage. The ship also had equipment to recycle waste water - not normal on non-Tyranni spaceships. A small storeroom for dry conserves was contrasted to other ships, where it was usual to have rows of animal carcasses hung up.

Careful description of what was unusual in Foundation-verse gives implications for what was usual.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top