Space Military Thread

Honestly very little in this thread will have a practical battlefield role. Infantry? Nu uh. Fighters? Nope. Mecha? Fuggetaboutit. But that's why I run games by rule of cool, not hard sci fi

...

Infantry will always have a role in warfare numbnuts

...

...

...

...

...

...

Infantry is eternal.

It's mostly a meme in space combat. Realisticly, I think that the only applications would be using drone fighters armed with torpedoes. You can chuck out swarms of them and just mob a larger ship. They're small, disposable, and pack a punch.

This too. You can still use fighters for strafing runs, bombing, or if they have the ability to float they can be used as gunships.

A fighter does the following:
1. Gets to the enemy.
2. Shoots its munitions.
3. Gets back to be recovered.

A missile bus does the following:
1. Gets to the enemy.
2. Shoots its munitions.

A fighter has a role when, and only when, it makes sense to recover your ordnance delivery system after use.

I'm just gonna scream LATENCY ISSUES until I get my way and they send me to die in a manned missile barge, or play a setting where you can sleeve into starfighter drones.

...

...

If you put a human being on your ordnance platform, then the question of why you want to recover it is easily answered: the pilots are very unhappy if every mission is a suicide mission. Then you need a reason why the task of piloting the thing could not be handled by a drone. For example: you need intelligent decision making capability at great distance from the carrier.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I think this is my favorite future trooper gear, where they just take medieval helmets and put a HUD in them.

Probably because I don't have the space bucks to keep buying up missile buses. Some of us run armadas ona budget and have to recycle our delivery systems

notably powerful small engines would make such ranges make sense

Something you guys may have missed is that the user you are tagging is that whether it makes sense to recapture a missile delivery vehicle is entirely setting dependent. If there is no such thing as a computer in your setting than a manned fighter always wins by default. If obedient God-like AI is as easy to make as a bagel than there is no reason to involve humans in war again. If you still want manned spacefighters then all you have to do is create a setting in which it is the logical choice for people to use. This is easier said than done if you're going for a hard sci-fi setting that is suppose to be real life in the future, but then you just need to get more creative. Otherwise, just make up some magical bullshit as to why unmanned missile buses are complete garbage and call it a day.

Man, it's amazing how many good artits are out there making high quality artwork for the love of the art.

...

...

oh look another blocky helmet, i've never seen that before

Using manned fighters isn't cheaper. The fighters themselves are larger and more expensive than the unmanned equivalent due to the additional mass and volume requirements added by the need for pilot accommodation, life support and additional reaction mass for a return trip. The pilot also costs resources to train.

The fighters are now restricted in their ability to accelerate and maneuver by the physical limitations of their occupants. You've also introduced a new manning requirement and morale as issues for their use.

The carrier craft also now needs to be larger in order to accommodate the pilots and needs to carry substantially more consumable supplies to keep them alive. Also if you want to actually be able to utilize your full complement of fighters at any given time you need to have enough additional pilots to have multiple shifts, that's at least 2 humans per fighter.

Using a manned fighter to deliver missiles which are perfectly capable of either delivering themselves or being delivered by an unmanned drone is not a cheaper option, it is a much more expensive, more logistically difficult, less effective option.

magazine.artstation.com/2016/11/respawn-entertainment-titanfall-2-art-blast/

...

Just like horses

...

Not really future here, but I think it still fits. I mainly just love the helmet design.

...

...

...

...

...

...

False equivalence. The correct equivalent for Infantry would be Cavalry. The equivalent of horses would be humans.

You'll notice that cavalry units still exist, but are no longer generally mounted on horses. Infantry units will continue to exist, but may cease to be made up of humans.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>You will never fight hare-soldiers from atop a cyber-tortoise
>You will never ride in a cyber-tortoise parade through the capital
>You will never stamp fascist/luddite eugenicists into paste as a cyber-tortoise in the name of chelonian democracy
>You will never create a tower by stacking cyber-tortoises and claim to be god for doing so

It hurts to Yurtle.

...

There could be a reason to use the fighter if you can't use the ship drive on the missile due to price/engineering limitations. If your missiles have a maximum of of 40 km/s in fuel and your ships have thousands while also having good acceleration you can't launch your missile from a large distance.

of course you can try to build oversized missiles that would cost a lot. Or you could build a fighter corvette with best sensors and EW equipment you could cram into this size and allow it to run weapon control and ECM/ECCM for your missiles.

...

...

We still use horses. We just call them tanks and APC's. Just like we'll still use infantry in the future, we'll just call it gel-life and assaultoids.

...

...

...

Infantry is love

>ejection port
>left hand side
Enjoy your mouthfull of casings.

where the hell do you see an ejection port?
that's clearly a handle for the bolt

quad-mech is best mech and can do anything a walker can do without being stupid.

Well, unless theres also another port on the other side (and why would there be? Thats twice as many ways to get crsp in there to jam the mechanism) that's where the cases will have to come out.

Also,
>bolt is on inside of stock
>enjoy tearing your cheek/scraping your helmet with every shot

>bolt
fuck, I meant handle. You get the gist though.

This doesn't work logically, because a manned fighter will not be innately more survivable than a drone or missile of equivalent size and will also be less capable, you still don't gain anything by using a manned fighter. Additionally missiles and fighters are the same scale, so it's difficult to imagine a situation where fighters would be viable but missiles would not be.

Maybe it's caseless.

>future
>not front ejection

>Rat-Thing

My melanin-enhanced brother.

...

...

...

...

>Arms dealer
That guy is only selling one arm, as far as I can tell

...

...

...

...

...

I'm out

Glad got that cleaned up and slimmed out.

Stop shilling this space fanboy shit.

You could slap a grip on any of those and convince someone they were super-advanced guns of some description.
Heck, you probably wouldn't even need to do that.

>Stop shilling sci-fi military art

Que?

>Purposely enters a sci-fi military art to bitch about sci-fi military art
Listen pal we aren't exactly stoked to have you here either.