UFO Weapons

[Bomb Bloke]

The general fanfic discussion thread has, to put it mildly, become a bit overburdened with tangents, sub-tangents, sub-sub-tangents, etc.

 

I've thrown in a new forum section so that we can split all these topics into their own threads, leaving the main discussion thread free for plot discussion issues.

 

By way of explanation for this thread, UFO implements many technologies that are beyond our real-world knowledge. Here we can throw down possible explanations as to how different weapon types might work.

[storm turmoil]

well, as an Ease in to this, my description for that oh so underappreciated and yet absolutely indispensable piece of equipment, the Avalanche missile system.

 

A seeming Anachronism harking back the bad old days of the cold war, and the rampant paranoia over the 'bomber gap' The Avalanche missile system is a long range large scale tactical engagement weapon system designed to give a single interceptor aircraft the hitting power to engage significantly superior numbers of enemy aircraft in formation.

 

The sytem itself consists of three basic componenets: The Avalanche telemetry and Guidance package mounted in the Aircraft, the Launcher, and the individual Missiles.

 

The Guidance package incorporates Radar, Infra-red and laser targeting systems with a digital encrypted datalink with the Avalanche missile's onboard guidance computer, allowing all-aspect engagements and the neutralisation of most passive and active countermeasures by means of cycling between sensor systems and 'weeding out' unwanted interference from any single spectrum. Simply put, to spoof an Avalanche, a target has to be able decoy Radar, Laser and infrared signals simultaneously and with perfect synchronicity, or else the system's sensor discriminators will disregard the decoy signals.

 

The launch system is an aerodynamically streamlined pod that can house up to three Avalanche Missiles while it's advanced cavitating profile limits drag to an absolute minimum. Each Launcher is hardened to withstand both shrapnel and fragment damage, and Electromagnetic pulse, an important consideration in view of the destructive Avalanche ordnance onboard.

 

The Avalanche missiles themselves mount a high thrust composite liquid fuel rocket motor with a steering system built around three low-mass gyoscopes housed within the midsection of the missile. This allows the missile to be used not only in atmosphere, but also in space, or as an Anti-Sattelite (A-SAT) weapon. The missiles remarkable destructive power is a controversial topic; in order to achieve it's stated aim of stand-off destruction against numerically superior opponents, the Avalanche missile mounts either a one kiloton, two kiloton or five kiloton tactical Nuclear warhead. While controversial merely due to the word Nuclear, the current Aavalanche warheads are high yield Clean weapons, with absolutely minimal radiation release on detonation and no fallout. While this hasn't prevented widescale dislike of the system due to ingrained prejudices, it is acknowledged that Avalanche is the single safest application of Nuclear technology to date due to multiply redundant safety systems.

 

It was all of these factors that brought this impressive weapon system to the attention of X-Com, particularly in view of the limited results achieved with conventional ordnance agains the seemingly untouchable UFO hull alloys; The first engagement made using AVALANCHE, armed with a one kiloton warhead, proved conclusively that not only were the UFO's not invulnerable, but that X-Com had chosen wisely in it's selection for a long range weapon system capable of engaging and destroying UFOs at extreme range.

[FullAuto]

I have a few reservations. I didn't realise the Avalanche system was nuclear? And what country is going to say, "Oh sure, feel free to intercept alien craft over our country with nuclear missiles." And what sort of effect is this going to have? Or are we saying airbursting nuclear weapons have little to no bad after-effects? Ok, no fallout (that's mostly a groundburst thing) but what about radiation? EMP?

[Hobbes]

Even airburst nuclear weapons produce fallout (although significantly less than a ground burst) because of the unspent fuel plus the bombcase, and there would be also a certain dose of radiation.

[storm turmoil]

The UFOPEDIA entry for the Avalanche states it's Nuclear (or it would if it hadn't been covered; I have seen an uncovered set of screens, however), and more than that, it's got enough destructive power to make it just under half as powerful as the Fusion Ball launcher, Which is definately Nuclear (and super Nuclear, too; it's powered by Elerium Antimatter reactions). Add to that it's powerful enough to damage UFO hulls which, let's not forget, are tough enough to withstand all manner of grief, including re-entry heat and plasma weapons fire (theoretically; you make your own ships tough enough to withstand your own weapons), and it makes for a fairly convincing case that Avalanche is Tactical Nuclear. The only real questions in my mind are whether I underpowered it, and whether Stingray is similarly Tactical Nuclear. (I'm wondering if Stingray shouldn't be the 1 kiloton version, and Avalanche 2 or 3 kilotons)

 

As opposed to Strategic Nuclear. Even I don't think X-Com would be given access to Strategic assetts, except in a worst case scenario. As for other countries opposing this...well, it's this or leave the UFO's alone. We've already written into the fic that aircraft can drop over a dozen convetional missiles on a UFO without doing damage, so what does that leave?

 

Fallout is going to be minimal and very wide scattered with a low yield tactical device. Radiation isn't going to be an issue unless fired into the ground (most of the radiation would be charged particles, which would be stopped by atmospheric absorption way before it got to ground level) and EMP will be small scale and localised. Again, unless you're firing at the ground, it just isn't going to be close enough to affect anything.

 

And X-Com is supposed to have access to the most powerful weapons Earth has to offer. While there might be political unhappiness over using Nuclear weapons, it's more likely that they would have permission to do so, albeit grudging. Now, if they start hitting the ground, where they can affect civilians, that attitude is likely to change.

 

Besides, X-Com is Supposed to be unpopular for all sorts of reasons. It's not too hard to imagine this could be one of them.

[Accounting Troll]

Would it be practical for an air-to-air missile such as the avalaunche to use a depleted uranium casing for the front part to pierce the hull of a UFO, much like the depleted uranium anti-tank shells that America and some of its allies have used in recent conflicts?

 

It would increase the weight slightly, which has an impact on either range or the amount of high explosive it contains, but the increased chance of penetrating a UFO hull would be worth it. There would still be a problem with radioactivity and the resultant political fallout, which have become issues in Kosovo and Iraq, but it wouldn't be as bad as with true nuclear missiles.

 

Modern aircraft are somewhat fragile, so a depleted uranium warhead would be a case of overkill in a war between two human nations. However as international concern about the UFOs was supposedly increasing in the years leading up to the formation of X-COM, it is logical to suppose that the major world powers would develop technology aimed at meeting the alien threat.

[FullAuto]

Well, most air-to-air missiles don't hit their targets, their warheads are proximity-fused. The explosion gets the aircraft, not the actual missile itself. A DU nose on a missile might be some use against a bigger target (like a large UFO, say) as long as the missile was fused to go off on impact.

[Skonar]

WARNING. SKONAR CRITS AHEAD. SKONAR IS A DICK. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

 

well, as an Ease in to this, my description for that oh so underappreciated and yet absolutely indispensable piece of equipment, ... (SNIP!) ... a long range weapon system capable of engaging and destroying UFOs at extreme range.

 

I'm afraid a system as described would be extremely impractical, for a number of reasons. For example. the mentioned cavitation system... you're probably thinking about golf balls. The problem with this is, the aerodynamics of the golf ball, IIRC, (please correct me if I'm misinformed here,) relies primarily on the golf ball spinning in flight.

 

Otherwise, small gaps or blocks to airflow are avoided religiously. This is why you don't see planes with flat noses.

 

As for 'clean' nuclear blasts... this just isn't possible, IIRC. The reason I say this is that there have been several projects to attempt to use nuclear weapons to blow mountains out of the way, for example, to build the next panama canal. Unfortunately, all of these projects died an untimely death due to fallout concerns. If a 'clean' yield was possible, I'm pretty sure we'd be seeing nuclear explosions in much more common use for engineering concerns.

 

(Edit: Incidentally, nuclear isotopes with a short half life, eg, those that irradiate for as short a time as possible, tend to be the ones that put off the most lethal kinds of radiaiton. Another problem for the 'clean nuclear' argument.)

 

As for the guidance system... The more levels of complexity you introduce to any system of decision making, for example, missile guidance, the higher the fail rate one typically sees.

 

It's easy to get a missile to follow heat trails. It's difficult to get a missile to tell the difference between a flare and a genuine heat trail. I'd wager it's going to be an utter bitch, if not practically unfeasible, to link up multiple guidance systems to get any kind of meaningful guidance solution.

 

Then there are the gyros in there... a nice concept, but to physically move something with the mass of a missile would require a pretty hefty gyro. As for going out of orbit, etcetera... Not all rocket fuels are capable of operating outside of an oxygenated environment. And for that matter, IIRC, most missiles use an engine that isn't quite the same as for rockets, that would require oxygen to burn, as submarine launched ones require some weird method of getting up past the surface.

 

(If you are absolutely DESPERATE to have a nuclear Air-Air weapon, however, look up the AIM-26 Falcon, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon )

 

The UFOPEDIA entry for the Avalanche states it's Nuclear (or it would if it hadn't been covered; I have seen an uncovered set of screens, however), and more than that, it's got enough destructive power to make it just under half as powerful as the Fusion Ball launcher, Which is definately Nuclear (and super Nuclear, too; it's powered by Elerium Antimatter reactions). Add to that it's powerful enough to damage UFO hulls which, let's not forget, are tough enough to withstand all manner of grief, including re-entry heat and plasma weapons fire (theoretically; you make your own ships tough enough to withstand your own weapons), and it makes for a fairly convincing case that Avalanche is Tactical Nuclear. The only real questions in my mind are whether I underpowered it, and whether Stingray is similarly Tactical Nuclear. (I'm wondering if Stingray shouldn't be the 1 kiloton version, and Avalanche 2 or 3 kilotons)

 

Fusion ball launchers, by reference to the Diane Duane novel, wasn't a bomb at all - it was described in the text as a tiny, angry sun that was shot ahead without much by way of guidance. Either way, it's fusion based. That's not 'super nuclear', it's plain old nuclear, just like fission. Presuming we base the fusion ball launcher on the blaster bombs, (something I am personally loathe to do,) the matter is not entirely clear even then. If I recall correctly, the hidden weight value for blaster bombs was pretty heavy - certainly enough that if it was using a conventional fusion reaction, the entire mission zone would go up in smoke.

 

As for UFO hulls... UFO hulls are, on the whole, built kind of dinky. Keep in mind, they don't bother with 're-entry heat', that's purely part of a process known as Aerobraking, which we use to slow down when coming down from orbit. UFOs would have no need of this. As for destroying UFO hulls, you really need to compare the durability of the humble Skyranger with that of these UFOs. Skyrangers, in my experience, have shrugged off blaster bomb hits to the side, though I haven't really tested this extensively. I do know they don't tear open when you apply heavy plasma to them, however.

 

In game data supports the theory that, while Alien Alloy is strong, whatever we're using is just as tough. However, our stuff is a lot more heavy and bulky in comparison to alien Alloy.

 

As for wether or not other missiles are nuclear... well. There's a reason the US only ever used, and abandoned, one anti-aircraft nuclear weapon. That reason is, in terms of cost effectiveness, (and don't you dare tell me money isn't a factor! This is X-Com! We live and die by the budget!), nuclear weapons just don't perform as well as their conventional counterparts in this particular role.

 

 

 

Would it be practical for an air-to-air missile such as the avalaunche to use a depleted uranium casing for the front part to pierce the hull of a UFO, much like the depleted uranium anti-tank shells that America and some of its allies have used in recent conflicts?

 

Actually, FA is seriously wrong here. Trying to hit a moving target with another moving target... well. At the speeds of aircraft interceptions, this is a practical impossibility. AFAIK, most missiles don't just airburst, they explode long before impact and blow the hell out of enemy aircraft with flying fragments.

 

Now, depleted uranium was useful in tank shells because they're basically throwing an uber-hard icepick at the enemy armour and stabbing through. Depleted uranium is extremely heavy, and thus useful in this role.

 

In terms of the way missiles work... not quite so useful, since IIRC depleted uranium is extremely flammable. EG - you light it up with a warhead detonation, and you've got a flying cloud of burning metal.

 

While this sounds cool, the armour piercing properties of this would not be very useful.

[FullAuto]

I don't know about 'long' before impact, I just know the damn things are proximity-fused.

 

What immediately sprung to mind when nuclear AAMs were mentioned was a fairly low altitude explosion over a populated area. Lots of fires from thermal radiation, lots of buildings knocked down (most buildings are weaker than a starved child), plenty of smashed windows and many people blinded by the flash (ok, they'd have to be looking right at it, but you think they'd be interested in a dogfight between a UFO and a plane).

 

If a nuclear explosion can generate lots of pressure (I forget how much it is in PSi, but it's 30 to 100+ KPa), and most buildings suffer structural damage at 30 to 40 KPa and lungs are damaged at 70KPa, eardrums somewhere above that I think, so you're looking at a lot of people with ruptured eardrums and haemorraging lungs amidst a kilometre or so of damaged buildings. At a worst-case scenario, of course.

 

That's just what sprung to mind. Sorry.

[Hobbes]

Nice discussion considering nuclear weapons but there's still one conundrum: like storm turmoil said the UFOPedia clearly states that the Avalanche is a nuclear AAM.

 

Impractical? Most likely. Messy? Yes. The s... would hit the fan if an Avalanche detonated on an UFO hovering a residential area? Definitely yes.

 

But....think of it as a challenge. How could you use such a weapon in your writing? How would a country react? What sort of accidents could happen?

 

I think it would be much more interesting to consider those aspects than to simply write: "After two previous misses, the last Avalanche finally hit the UFO and its conventional warhead detonated, and the Scout was sent cartwheeling to the ocean"

[Alitorious]

Well, I always thought that the skyranger was resistant to blaster bombs because then they don't have to worry about "how did they get home from Antarctica if there's a huge gaping hole in the Skyranger?"

 

Keep in mind that if we're basing strictly on game performance, then there's a layer of indestructible dirt across the entire globe a few inches below topsoil/grass/floors, except in polar, desert, or mountain regions. There we have indestructible ice, sand, and bedrock.

 

 

And as for the high weight of blaster bombs - that could be explained away as the mass of the antigravity and guidance systems, I guess.

 

I did kinda like the idea of Avalanches being a nuclear weapon (such as a neutron bomb, which were designed as anti-tank weapons to be used in proximity to friendly forces - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb)

However, thinking about it, the radiation is a big issue... but on the other hand Avalanches are very powerful. I'm torn on this.

 

I do agree, though, that giving them spaceborne capabilities is a wee bit much. Same for the many different tracking systems. The shape of UFO hulls would be very visible to RADAR, unless alien alloys happened to be radar-absorbent (which we know they're not, because RADAR works in the game). Radar tracking will probably work for them as long as they're used for UFOs. Especially considering that they probably don't have countermeasures.

 

 

Perhaps the cannons could be DU? (Of course, that would mean that trigger was going to blast off the helicoptor's rotor with anti-take munitions, unless we say it was loaded with conventional ammo.)

 

And I don't quite what you mean by 30-70 kPa doing damage, considering standart atmospheric pressure (what you're probably at right now) is about 100kPa. Or do you mean a sudden change in pressure of 70 kPa?

 

Change of topic, but something I've always noted was that laser/plasma weapons in the battlescape were always projectile, but in interception they're both beams - for both human and UFO weapons.

Now, we know lasers must be beams because they travel at the speed of light. We can also guess that the reason it's drawn as a particle in battlescape is because the game engine just can't handle a beam, but in geoscape interception the game can handle the beam. Perhaps we could argue that, since craft-mounted plasma weapons are beams, then the soldier-mounted plasma weapons are beam-like as well. (I don't agree with this myself, actually, because it'll be too much of a leap of thought, and we've already written plasma in as projectile-looking things, right?)

 

Unless enough other people decide that holding portable weapons of green-beam death is attractive, I'll assume not. So maybe we can come up with some reason to explain why plasma beams are beams.

[Skonar]

I think given that the AP cannon in the same fluff text which was removed from the game's ufopedia claimed it could go through sixteen inches of steel... and you compare this to the game performance... well.

 

I have to admit, I don't put much stock in the ufopedia text that was cut from in-game access.

 

As for plasma rifles, Wikipedia to the rescue!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_rifle

[storm turmoil]

To clear up some details from hte description.

 

1: The pseudo-space capability was added purely because it is theoretically possible to mount Avalanches on FireStorms/Lightnings/Avengers, therefore, I added a limited space capability, assuming that the interception craft can get it there. I never meant for it to be capable of reaching orbit unassisted. I guess I wasn't too clear on this. Basically, it's just so that if we felt the need, and X-com needed a space weapon, but didn't have any lasers/Plasmas/fusion ball launchers ready, they could throw on an Avalanche

 

2: The multiple guidance systems were there purely to explain the fact that in-gane, Avalanche is more accurate than Stingray. Why? I asked? Well, because it has a bigger onboard guidance package and a bunch of telemetry stuff on the intercept craft, was the answer I thought up.

 

3: The cavitating profile of the launchers was only meant to explain why the 'barrels' of the launchers didn't cause massive drag for such a large aperture. (the same way that open-muzzle folding fin rocket pods have open 'barrels' but don't generate the level of drag that would be expected. They do generate some drag, but not as much as they would normally, because of some clever airflow dynamics techniques)

 

4: The only weapon in the battlescape that can damage UFO walls is a Nuclear weapon, the blaster bomb, which is a pocket fusion nuke (and, presumably, a clean one, using Alien technology.) In the Geoscape, Cannons can (depleted uranium kinetic penetrators?), Missiles can (Nuclear warhead?) and of course lasers, and plasma cannons can. The Fusion ball launcher is simply the blaster bomb's bigger brother, so of course it can.

 

perhaps one of the reasons that X-com is so desperate to lay hands on Alien Technology is so they can Stop having to use Nuclear weapons on the UFOs!

 

well, it'd be just one more thing for Genega to stress over.

[FullAuto]

Sorry, that's overpressures, when I was talking about kPa. You get two types, static overpressure and dynamic pressure. Static is a sharp increase caused by the shockwave. Dynamic is drag from the blast winds.

 

Static compresses structures, weakening them, which are then subjected to the dynamic and torn apart or knocked over. Acting on the human body, the shockwaves can cause pressure waves through bodily tissue, and cause embolisms or haemorraging in the lungs. Overpressure of 70 kPa damages lungs and eardrums.

 

Nasty.

 

I'm not totally against using the Avalanche as a nuclear system, but it was hidden for a reason. We can (and have) diverted from the game dogma for many reasons.