Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
I'm afraid not. The "bunker buster" is in fact an explosive device. It penetrates the ground and then detonates 630 lbs of HE.
|
The presence of the explosive does not negate the fact that it is a kinetic projectile. I does use an explosive warhead but this does not mean it is not also a kinetic weapon. Get it. Yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
I'm afraid you missed my point. It is physically impossible to hide a heat source in space, even today. I have already explained why.
|
Do you have a god complex or are you really simple enough to think that condescending to me will give you argument the weight it lacks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
And that deals with optical detection nicely. Until the ship you're hiding from moves. It also does nothing to mask the target's IR signature.
|
So you acknowledge that one could hypothetical, possible hide in space.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Again, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that it is reasonable to assume that a belligerent faction will build more than one ship. It is strategically unsound to do otherwise. Modern nations with navies build multiple ships; having just one isn't good enough.
|
Slow down on the backpedaling befor you trip. Now it is just a reasonable assumption and strategically unsound not to. I do not think all space conflict will follow you naval analogy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
If you'll look again at the passage that this refers to, you will see that I do not acknowledge this. I in fact say: "Detection technologies exist today that would make finding anything above 3 Kelvins in space trivial."
|
A source would be necessary with this kind of outlandish claim. If you would site one please.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
It is reasonable to assume that such a capacity will only increase as technology improves and as detectors are spread around the system (in ships, drones, and bases).
|
You also assume that any technologies to counter detection will not be developed, hardly realistic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Correct. But you hardly need to be that close. An engine burn is extremely visible from long range.
|
Who said anything about oxidising engines. Funy how my ships are incredible unimaginitive with the most inapropriate technologies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Alright, assume you want to ram and board. You need to hit a crew accessible part of the ship.
|
Completely untrue
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
And you need to make sure you don't break anything you need to get on the ship.
|
Why would you need something on the ship
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Basically, this means that you need to hit a very small target, avoiding any weapons fire you take, you need to make sure not to damage your airlocks, you need to not break anything inside the ship you ram that you need to work it, and then you need to go ahead and incapacitate the crew. If you were able to get near the ship (unlikely) and not be destroyed (unlikely) then you will be engaging in a form of combat much less effective than simply shooting at your target.
|
Made up facts lead to incorect conclusions
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
If you detach the ram, it is simply a big kinetic weapon. But it is moving pretty slowly. It has to be or you end up with the ship unable to stop or change course in time to not hit the target itself. You could counter this by letting the ram go further from the target, but then the target can just move out of the way.
The ram may indeed by lighter than other weapons systems, but you then only have one weapon. If you went with a ram, you'd likely also want other weapons, making the ship big, slow, and not very manoeuvrable.
|
Reusable
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck
Solar sails provide terrible acceleration and are easily damaged. They would likely see no military use.
|
Compared to what?