What weapons did the cap ship fire? by Juggernaut

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What weapons did the cap ship fire?

POSTED BY: JUGGERNAUT
UPDATED: Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7788
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 9:26 AM

Pardon me if this has been discussed elsewhere, and I missed it:

At the end of 'Bushwhacked,' what did the Alliance ship use to destroy the derelict transport? I'm going off of memory, but if I remember, it looked a little 'ray gun'-ish. Were they missiles?

I'd be interested to know, since it's about the only evidence of 'ship to ship' warfare we've seen in the FF universe yet...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:37 AM

ZICSOFT

Yeah, it looked ray-gunnish to me too. That ship was certainly big enough to mount an energy weapon. Like a particle beam. Then again, if it were a high-velocity missle, it would look even more like a ray gun than a particple beam would. Cause you'd have the rocket exhaust to generate the "ray", whereas a particle-beam fired in a vacuum wouldn't scatter, and thus would not be visible from the side.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 10:58 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.

The weapon looks like a missile because of the vapor trail. I don't know how vapor trails dissipates in space, but that's what it looks like.

This is the first missile.

This is the second.

And finally, notice the expansion of the vapor trail near the ship.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:10 AM

JUGGERNAUT

A-ha... thanks for the screen grabs.

Definitely looks like some kind of missile. That makes me feel better. I was afraid it was going to be some sort of slow-moving ray bolt. That definitely would've given me fits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:23 AM

HAPLO721

Missiles make a lot of sense as space weapons. They can be fitted with tracking systems, they're fast, and they blow up real good. Kudos to ME for using a sensical (new word) space weapon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11:39 AM

HOBBES

I think the missile wasn't fitted with a warhead. The explosion looks like interior ship systems blowing up.

The missile would most likly be armed with a nuclear (fusion?) warhead or something else (plasma? high-intensity chemical? a little help here).

Anyway it would be a lot bigger explosion if any warhead was used (even an old style chemical).

Of course I could be way off.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:03 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Well, If I had to guess I would go for the Plasma theory. I'm not sure how a conventional missle would actually detonate in space against the hull .(no air,no explosion) Frm the screenshots above, it doesn't look like a missle. Plasma (super heated gas/liquid) on the other hand, would melt through the hull and travel straight through it. This would be much like modern tank guns today. The projectile itself is not explosive, but it causes the combustionable parts in the enemy's tank to explode. Of course in a tank, they use velocity to generate heat, instead of heat to begin with, but the principle is the same. If this doesn't make sense, I'll try to re write it more coherently.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 9:18 AM

LOONYTOON

Tragicstory, modern tanks still use, among other things, high explosive shells, along with armor-pierceing, and incindiary ammunition. Missile would work with a nuclear warhead, and an internal explosion would work from the ships atmoshere. Plasma would be quite inefficint to use.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:08 AM

DELVO

Remember there are other ways to make chemical reactions that go boom without oxygen or even any other kind of air. You just have to carry the ingredient(s) with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:03 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Loonytoon,

Yes, there are many types of ammunition for a tank. Well, actually there are only two. KET and HEAT. KET (Kenetic Energy Transfer) relys on kenetic energy to puncture a hull,(think railgun) HEAT (High Energy Anti-Tank) relys on impact detonated explosives (think sticky c-4)

Now take a spaceship, it is intented to travel through space, where debris flys around at incredible speeds and not get destroyed. So being able to withstand a fist sized piece of iron ore going at incredibly high speed crashing into you is a must. The KET (railgun) idea would not work because space travel would have had to work around it since there are things flying through space at incredible speeds all the time.

So what chance would a missle have being fired at close quarters? It would never build up the kenetic energy needed to puncture the hull to mix with the oxygen to ignite. No oxygen, no explosion.

As for a nuclear warhead, A. It doesn't look like a nuclear warhead from the screenshots, B. A nuclear warhead would have to be detonated on contact with the hull, in which case the explosion would be prior to the ship and not in the ship itself. If that were the case, it woud be a nuclear explosion in space. Here is CalTech's answer to what would happen.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad12.html

In short, a nuclear exlosion in space at that distance would vaporize the ship and not have an explosion.

So what you would need would be a non explosive, penetrating weapon. Hence, plasma.

Imagine two peices of coal, one cold, one glowing red hot, both are dropped on top of a tub of butter. One will hit the bottom, the other will not.

Now imagine that the bottom half of the tub of butter is gasoline. Get the idea?

What is seen in the screenshots? A plasma ball melts it's way into the ship, ignites combustible materials in an oxygen rich enviornment, and procedes to melt it's way through the other side.

I hope that makes my argument clearer.

Now why would plasma be inefficient? Plasma contains high amounts of energy, can be made and controlled and does not require oxygen. So why would it not work?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 11:08 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Actually, no oxygen would be needed for a conventional warhead to explode in space. A conventional warhead doesn't use ambient air to explode. Explosives of that intensity use internal oxidizers.

By conventional warhead are we talking bout nuclear or chemical expolsives?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 12:27 PM

TINYTIMM

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
I'm not sure how a conventional missle would actually detonate in space against the hull .(no air,no explosion)

Don't bet on that. The US has been using explosives in space craft for a long time. Explosive bolts to separate stages, etc. The question is what makes a good anti-ship missile in space? Keep in mind, movement of air even at 15 psi is not instantaneous. Firefly class vessels can have a good size hole and still have time to get to suits. Explosives bring the oxidizer with them. It's the only way to support the supersonic wave front.
On the other tentacle, the fuel-air explosive brings little oxidizer. It literally mixes fuel with the local atmosphere and detonates it. This makes the effective size of the explosive charge tremendous.

Jeff
Who notes a space ship is just full of explosive compounds and combinations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 12:32 PM

TINYTIMM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
... the plume from a missile during boost-phase looks like a round ball of flame if the boost is hot enough and far enough away. The green color, however, is not indicative of missile exhaust.

Perhaps like French capital ships c. 1935-1941 they are coloring the plume for tracing perposes. Jamming could make computer aided optic tracking popular.

Jeff
Who notes the French invented the bayonet, amoung other things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 12:41 PM

TINYTIMM

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Loonytoon,Yes, there are many types of ammunition for a tank. Well, actually there are only two. KET and HEAT. KET (Kenetic Energy Transfer) relys on kenetic energy to puncture a hull,(think railgun) HEAT (High Energy Anti-Tank) relys on impact detonated explosives (think sticky c-4)

I'm afraid not. APDS in it's variants, Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, a long penetrator hitting at a velocity around a mile a second, you call it KET. HEAT, is in US Forces, High Explosive Anti-tank. This uses a shaped charge to accelerate metal into a penetrator close against the armor. What you are thinking of is called HEP in US Forces and HESH in UK Forces. Hight Explosive Plastic. The think metal shell holds plastic explosive. It hits the target spreads on the surface and is detonated from the base of the projectile. Ideally the result is spalling, metal flakes coming off the inside of the cast tank turret at supersonic speeds. Imagine occupying a small space with a lot of razor blade scraps. Tanks, depending on service, caliber etc. can also fire A-PERS, Anti-personnel, think of a 105mm (4 inch) shotgun round. and Flame rounds. The flame round scatters self igniting aluminum compounds on the target.

Jeff
Who knows the infantry have can openers of an explosive nature as a counter to armor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:03 PM

TRAGICSTORY

So trying to steer the thread back on track... WHAT TYPE OF WEAPON WAS FIRED?

I still say plasma. Any reason it couldn't be?

But I do bow down to the explosive knowledge of others... If I ever need something demolished I now know who to ask!

Side note... could you heat up air enough for it to break down into it's basic elements and combust? Like water in to H and O.

Who now knows that Jeff is much more knowledgeable than I am.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:45 AM

LOONYTOON

Okay, did I miss the requirement to have a Phd to sign up?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 13, 2002 8:59 AM

TRAGICSTORY

New theory!

Acid!

HA! For my argument I will use the opening of the pilot episode where acid, and not explosives or "plasma" was used to open a sealed spaceship! and it's green in the screen shots cuz.... it was St. Patricks day.... yeah, that's it!

Tragic Story

Maybe it was "Plasma Acid" I could market it as Plasma A.C. It would have the nostalga of Pepcid A.C., but with modern 2500 AD aplications! Mwa ha ha.... I'll make millions!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 5:25 PM

WHATNOW

Read Arthur C. Clark why missles make poor space weapons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 17, 2002 7:52 AM

WHATNOW

You may force me to look it up,but its nothing to do with shock waves. I thought it involved range and accuracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 17, 2002 12:19 PM

HOBBES

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Although particle beams and lasers, if they can be built with sufficient energy sources would also be very effective in space. Given a sufficiently large means of power, they might be more effective then missiles,

But lasers and PB's would be affected by a mirror coating on the ship's armor. Also at high distances (multiples of light seconds) they would be limited by being direct fire weapons (they can't turn to follow a ship) and by the fact that power use would increase.

I like railguns, less energy required but still fast and cheap (compared to a missile).

I like missiles too.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:04 PM

HOBBES

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Not exactly.

Particle Beams would be uneffected by the optical properties of a target's armor. And the only lasers that would be effected by a mirror coating would be optical lasers.

Oh. Ok, thanks for the correction.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:

Also there are ways that the beam of both lasers and PB could be directed. Particle Beams, for instances, could be directed by using two sets of magnetic plates to adjust the direction of the beam in the x and y. And the further the distance the target is the less energy it would require to aim it. And it could be aimed very precisely and very quickly. Furthermore, the beam would retain a considerable amount of coherency over long distances so it could actually be a very effective weapon at long range.

I'm not debating that you could turn the beam but if the ship is doing random evasives it won't matter. A missile could follow and railguns (more likly nailguns for that kind of thing) could saturate the area easier.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 17, 2002 6:44 PM

WEBWARRIOR

It was a Mass Driver!!!!!!!!!!!!

A more controled virsion a a rail Gun!!!

Electo Current Base Gun!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:26 AM

TRAGICSTORY

Look.

It was a GREEN WATER BALLON. If water can kill the Wicked Witch of the West, then what chance does a spaceship have? END OF STORY.

The Alliance also has a CKFH(Cheap Kansas Farm House) gun for wimpier targets, in case you were wondering.

"Societues are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:05 PM

XERIAR

Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
So trying to steer the thread back on track... WHAT TYPE OF WEAPON WAS FIRED?

I still say plasma. Any reason it couldn't be?

Not much else is going to be a green ball like that (in space, anyway. One thing that always bothered me about the Death Star's laser in Star Wars was -WHY IS IT GREEN- enough ranting). But, as noted, it was 1: Moving kind of slow and 2: Plasma tends to dissipate outside of containment.

However, it's entirely possible it was a sphere launched from a coilgun or something with a magnetic feild strong enough to keep the plasma contained. It might just be a cheaper way to obliterate slow-moving targets in the future.

Quote:

Side note... could you heat up air enough for it to break down into it's basic elements and combust? Like water in to H and O.

Atomic weapons burn nitrogen, making nitrous oxide. AFAIK that is actually what makes the fire when the nuke goes off. Not much else in the atmosphere to burn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 19, 2002 11:41 AM

KURUKAMI

My guess was actually a rail-gun of some sort... that projectile went completely thru the derelict ship.

History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it merely shouts "Weren't you listening the first time?!?" and lets fly with a club.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE