Search results

I've just explained how they would be more even more scale sensitive in space than on Earth (where a considerable amount of mass sensitivity does exist because you're not in 0g and keeping shit in air takes fuel)... That's 60's missiles, no one wants missiles like that anymore. Modern missiles...

Yes, there would be some savings. Guidance and sensors, with the right design, can be very sensitive to scale, because they are electronics. Of course "per kg" pricing of missiles is completely random and is going to vary greatly with the missile and its sensors due to the latter dominating the...

The advances that allow it do... But when used to the bleeding edge, that's always expensive. On the other hand, you can always get a PC of the same capabilities as a laptop or phone for a far lower price. These things can be made smaller or bigger. The smaller variants will naturally use fancy...

There is one way how cheaper transport results in cheaper weapon systems. Namely, skipping miniaturization costs. Keeping things small and compact costs money in design, materials, maintenance. If mass is cheap, you can throw in 10 tons of cheap heatsinks and 10 tons of cheap batteries to get a...

Who the hell knows. In places where the Germans were determined to do urban warfare, the cities involved were 70-80% ruined, with major civilian losses too. Which depends on mostly political considerations of whether that's a bad thing or perfectly acceptable thing. I disagree with the base...

How much of it was due to urban warfare rather than allied bombing? About 3000m/s is the equivalence for kinetic energy of a mass being equal to its mass in TNT, which would mean a 500 ton rock, though it may deliver that energy in a very suboptimal way. However, what if someone makes some...

Not because they were nice, but because they didn't care for trying hard at it, they mostly saved their try-harding for the eastern front - and there were many ruined cities to show for it. In an age of planetary invasions i doubt the modern taboos about nuclear weapons would be there to stay...

In that scenario you have already went with the assumption that the enemy opposition is not fighting very hard for whatever reason, because "France in WW2" represents a tired, distracted army that's undersupplied and isn't into making fortified urban stronghold in the way of the enemy. Combined...

But only if you decide to... But in a peer opponent, large scale planetary invasion... If you act like it is, then it's the enemy who will be left with the benefits of your "cost savings" as your invasion force gets completely destroyed on landing. Hence things like "broader conception of a...

>always Not always, you will never get back the time, landers and troops lost trying to act as if you are invading Space Iraq if it turns out to be a mistake. Whatever you do next, you will have to do it without those.

You do or you don't, intelligence in space invasions may be kinda important. You *may* want to know who your opponents are and whether you are invading Cadia or Space Iraq. And speaking of, that's another potential grade of opposition. The kind packed with high end sci fi defensive technologies...

Movie inconsistencies aside, conventional artillery in sufficient quantity also wipes out cities, and if the city is well defended and has to be taken with ground forces, it will be used in said sufficient quantity anyway. So in that scenario, not using orbital bombardment to not destroy the...

In the circumstances we are discussing here, it is a false binary. It's not a choice between leveling the planet with orbital bombardment or pulling a Desert Storm with minimal casualties, friendly military or local civilian. My point is that if the planet is heavily defended, there is no...

It is. Some better drones are about half as fast as subsonic missiles, still the range\cost curve can be *wildly* different. You are trying to shove extremely complex technological paradigms with a lot of cheats and exceptions and factors that matter in one application but not in other into...

I think you are underestimating the sheer scale of what hides behind the term "full scale planetary invasion". We're not invading Iraq here, we're invading the equivalent of Iraq, all the other countries, and probably some more if it's a highly developed planet, all at the same time. On the...

Again, many variables depending on target, warhead, delivery method, guidance system, there is no simple relationship there. Still, without it, other forces are easy to neutralize. Bunkers or something equivalent would be absolutely necessary for fighting orbital bombardment capable enemy...

Do not get yourself locked into purely theoretical comparisons that are easily broken by real developments in weapons. Some concepts really step out of such assumptions really badly - say, a kamikaze drone can be as accurate as a Javelin, at 50-100 times the range, yet cost half as much. In...

That's "dumb" ballistic weapons only, of course anyone using those would not use them in a role as long range weapons. Does not apply to guided missiles and other weapons with some sort of guidance and terminal maneuvering. Also the space forces get their missiles and bombs boosted by gravity...

We have established that is is *technically* barely possible, which translates to shite performance skirting the line of combat effectiveness in fairly bulky and not so cheap form. A weapon of desperation if anyone would use it at all, rather than something to be perfected, mass and stockpiled...

So? Just because it can do it, doesn't mean it's a wise idea to do it while invading a hostile planet. Just like tactical jets in a war don't fly using the same economically efficient altitudes and speeds commercial airliners do. No one cares if they can do *anything*. The question is, can they...