Serious Flaw in EA Military

[Joe_Dracos]

Also, from a design point of view, every time I see a Thunderbolt, I think its engines would be ripped off if it tried a reentry in the atmosphere. Maybe the Thunderbolt is atmosphere or space, but not trans-orbital.

I don't think so, the EA does use modern materials to construct their ships and fighters, they use futuristic materials. This assumption is faulty.

 

[Tolwyn]

just looked in my Earth Alliance Supplement for the D20 RPG. There is a nice EA Anti Fighter Tank with lasers.

 

[l33tpenguin]

First, Air superiority is an asset (and a good one) not a battle winning feature. The Russains in WWII fought almost the entire war with no (or contested) air superiority. While it might be said that the Russians had huge numbers to back them up, in a situation that you have discribed the EA would have an even greater numbers advantage. Every loss to the "Rebels" would be a greavous tactical loss.

This isn't exactly true. As war has evolved, air power has becoming more and more a determining factor in the success of any conflict. The ground conflict during Desert Storm was so successful as direct result of the complete dominance of U.S. air power. With the American Air Force in complete control of the sky, the ground forces were able to move unhindered by enemy attack from above. Iraqi pilots were frightened to even get near their air craft because they were such likely targets. This reality is even more true today. The majority of strikes against major targets in Iraq and Afghanistan are conducted by air craft, largely unmanned ones at that. I believe that this will hold true more and more as we progress into the future.

Not sure, based on your wording, which side is suffering the loss in the last sentence.

A target also need not be on the ground to be bombarded from space. When the fighters took off they would be targeted and eliminated while they were inflight to the battle area. Any weapon capable of being used as a ship to ship weapon in space is going to have a devestatingly quick attack time in an orbit-to-ground situation. Essentially point and click. Essentially, orbital superiority is a greater asset then air superiority.

This is an understatement Yea @ force multipliers! Why is weaponising space such a big deal? An attacker in space has impunity in his ability to strike without retaliation against any target anywhere on a planet within minutes. There is no doubt that (other than mass drivers) there exists multiple weapons designed specifically for attack against a ground target from space in the Babylon 5 universe. All you really need to do is just drop something capable of surviving entry into an atmosphere to create a deadly weapon. While not every weapon used in space combat would work (mitigating effects of an atmosphere on effectiveness) there is still plenty available.

Also, A space based adversary benefits from the ability to survey, monitor and track any movements by ground forces. What we see in TV and movies is short of what is already available to the military in regards to surveillance. It is nearly impossible to hide in modern times, much less what the level of surveillance technology will be available by the 23rd century.

Stealth profiles are also obviously a non-issue for EA sensor suites given the design aspects of all EA technology. The fighter would have to have something similar to the Minbari stealth system to be effective and at those ranges the EA managed to defeat the stealth suite that the Nials use.

Yup... and I'm doubting that any rebel force the EA is dealing with will have access to Minbari technology.

I think the BIGGEST oversight in regards to dealing with raiders or rebels is exactly what we are seeing today in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other parts of the world). It is NOT conventional warfare. Terrorists (for lack of a better word) do not act as they do in movies books and on TV. In all reality, the EA isn't going to be dealing with a large scale force of rebels with a concentration of military equipment somewhere. It’s going to be crap like we are seeing now: road side bombs, improvised explosives, snipers, random rockets and mortars. It is going to be a small group of hostiles mixed in with a mostly peaceful civilian population.

Of course, I also believe it isn't too long before advanced nations are using unmanned equipment almost exculsivly.

In conclusion, I don't believe that 'Air Power' as it exists today, is really needed in conventional warfare within the world of Babylon 5. The capabilities of space based weaponry more than make up for any lack of air power. A single ships ability to strike anywhere at any time over a planet leave a defending, ground based aggressor with no place to hide (with the exception of mixing in with the local, civilian population).

Also, this isn't even taking into account what a space based warship can do to ground based command, control and communication assests.

 

[Taran]

These bases can remain hidden from orbital surveillance by only supplying them by air (no roads or tracks left on the surface).

Just watching the fighters take off and eventually land is going to give away the locations of the bases. Orbital electronic Surveillance isn't That easily fooled

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

Well there is one really really simple answer. Mass Drivers. SUrely the EA captured some in the war against the Dilgar.

Except of course that Mass Drivers are highly illegal by international treaty. the only reason the Centauri got away with using them against the Narn was that Earth didn't want to get involved and the Minbari likely didn't care.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

The ground conflict during Desert Storm was so successful as direct result of the complete dominance of U.S. air power. With the American Air Force in complete control of the sky, the ground forces were able to move unhindered by enemy attack from above. Iraqi pilots were frightened to even get near their air craft because they were such likely targets. This reality is even more true today. The majority of strikes against major targets in Iraq and Afghanistan are conducted by air craft, largely unmanned ones at that. I believe that this will hold true more and more as we progress into the future.

Ofcourse that had nothing to do with Iraq's marginally effective airforce or the 3 or 4 dozen nations supplying air power to the US cause. Using the Iraq and Afgani campaigns as an example of how dominating airpower can be is.... somewhat self serving, as the military power of both nations were extremely compromised by either the sheer power of numbers or the extremely degraded state their military was in.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Ofcourse that had nothing to do with Iraq's marginally effective airforce or the 3 or 4 dozen nations supplying air power to the US cause. Using the Iraq and Afgani campaigns as an example of how dominating airpower can be is.... somewhat self serving, as the military power of both nations were extremely compromised by either the sheer power of numbers or the extremely degraded state their military was in.

Yes... and no. I as contrasting a conflict between Earth Force and a rebellious or terroristic faction in comparison to those wars. A rebel faction is not going to be able to bring the numbers, firepower or level of technology that Earth Force can field. They are going to be out numbered and out gunned.

I was also pointing out JUST how effective Airpower is in modern war fighting. Because of the US military’s unchallenged rule of the sky during those conflicts, the ground forces were able to move unhindered. In modern warfare, if your military is incapable of holding the air, they will be ineffective on the ground. Had Iraq be able to match or even surpass the US in the air, even if they had less effective ground forces, they would have been in a far stronger position. The efficiency of air power as a force multiplier is currently unmatched.

To contrast that, holding space in Babylon 5 gives you an unprecedented advantage over your opponent. Not only in terms of being able to control the battle space, but in terms of pure efficiency. Anything a ground based opponent does is going to be slower and more costly due to being down a gravity well. They cannot react as quickly to threats and are easily exposed to both observation and attack.

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Eeeeh, I'd have to say yes and no as well... there is also a technology advantage. US ground striking capability is ... extreme thanks to the ability to make pin-point attacks on key areas... and the Gau-8 just eats tanks for breakfast. Iraq had no air defence assets that could have been used in that instance.

....Its all situational.

Any way, you are correct about the numbers and firepower, a Rebel force would need Earth Force units to defect. Otherwise it could get pointless.

Might as well run at them with Hummis (spell is wrong)

 

[Kalek]

Having control of orbit is good, however, the ground forces will know when your orbital assets are moving over their area. A Nova Destroyer in orbit is probably visible with the naked eye on the ground.


Sure, orbital surveillance can detect enemy positions, however, a surface of a planet is a large area to look. If have hidden or mobile bases or passive obit tracking systems, then you might be able to either move your base or restrict traffic when the EA orbital assets fly over or, use transatmosphereic raider to knock out spy sats and then return to the safety of the atmosphere.

The greatest thing the EA could do is knock out the ground's command and control from orbit, if the ground remains in their structures. Any active ground tracking bases, like radar stations, will be the first to go.

This is for a scenario I've been thinking about for a while.

There are three factions on this world

1. Religious separatists
2. Mercenary Scavengers
3. Traders

The Mercenary Scavengers will provide the training and some of the fighting for the Religious Separatists whereas the traders will stick to themselves, hoping not to anger either side, as that would be bad for business.

The Religious Separatists will have an entire continent to themselves that will have a massive city and lots of infrastructure.

I'm working on a map and it's almost complete. It's a mountainous world with a thinner atmosphere. At the equator it is near boiling. At higher altitudes and latitudes, it's near freezing.

 

[Nomad]

Get a few 500-tonne streamlined solid iron flechettes...drop them from orbit so they hit the ground at, oh, mach 15 or thereabouts...

Who needs air superiority?

Or nukes, or mass drivers for that matter...

 

[Jal]

Get a few 500-tonne streamlined solid iron flechettes...drop them from orbit so they hit the ground at, oh, mach 15 or thereabouts...

concept was worked on in the 50`s by Jerry Pournelle at Boeing, project Thor..... it was used in the Niven/Pournelle book "Footfall". 8)

 

[Joe_Dracos]

Okay assume that you can see orbital assets moving into your area (either through sensors or sentries). You still have a number of problems to concider.

1. Even Delta-V's are going to need a facility to launch from. No mater what you might think, ships capable of moving and firing effectively in space combat are going to move much faster then the ground forces can even simply get in a car and abandon everything. If this fails, the Omega with its detailed maps and sensors will simply beam the facilities at maximum range.

2. Nuclear weapons could simply launched from over the horizon and then fly at tree top till they are over the target and Kaboom.

3. Earth force will still have more equipment, more people, and the ability to do orbital drops.

4. In any scenario, the Thunderbolt will win against the Delta-V.

5. You need to concider the following military (EA) vs. Civilian (your guys). Unless they have outside support, they are going to have there facilities Lasered, Railguned, nuc'd and then swarmed by GROPOS, Banshees and Thunderbolts. End of rebelion.

This even happened on the show, Orion and Proxima split from the EA. Orion was retaken quickly and Proxima was in the process of being over run. The only reason B5 survived as an independant state was because of the intervention of outside forces.