Designing drone army defence for a loosely populated planet

[Czcibor]

Hmm what's that saying? Armies are always best equipped to fight the last war? That may apply here. ;)

Good point. :D

A thought occurs regarding the atmosphere, at increased pressure gasses accumulate in the body. Don't have time to do a proper search right now but oxygen toxicity may be a big problem for the local population. I assume there's an authorial solution to this like the locals have developed medical regimens to cope with this. The enemy may not have this and securing that knowledge may be a priority.

Simpler - 7% of oxygen. Engines need more air, and high altitude aircraft have a problem...

 

[Czcibor]

A few clarifying questions:

1) we've spoke about the economy and how it's small size might be boosted by automation. Assuming a generous starting GDP of $10 billion how much more does automation get you? Twice as much? Three times? More? The answer depends on how much you're willing to automate. It will also help you better pin down what this nation can afford (sort of).

Around 1000$ per citizen? Like in poorest Subsaharan Africa countries or Renaissance Italy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

I thought in line of self driving vehicles, houses built out of prefabricated modules by heavily automated cranes, etc. And GDP per capita in PPP being somewhere around 50% greater than contemporary first world. Yes, I know disaster with economies of scale, however:
-abundant natural resources; (cheap hydropower, cheap wood, tolerant emission standards outside the capitol)
-80 years of slow tech development;
-high human capital
-high investment rate
-high productivity of one big city (I may link papers showing that big cities are more productive)
-plenty of minor efficiency booster (like for example low corruption, tiny crime, low commuting time thanks to squeezing citizens into high buildings and connecting everything by metro, gov works online)

2) What's the nature of the portals? Can anything pass through or is equipment required? How many are they and what size (can some fit airplanes)? These would be of great strategic importance.

Can be opened on demand by a psion. No practical size limit, an aircraft carrier would go. There would be however seriously reduced total amount that could be transported within limited time, so a big invading army should face a choke point (actually the last one turns out later to not be specially correct concerning their adversaries...)

3) What is this enemy like? What's their motivation, technology, numbers etc. Perhaps more importantly what's their intelligence like and how well prepared are they for local conditions (atmospheric pressure being key)?[/QUOTE]

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Simpler - 7% of oxygen. Engines need more air, and high altitude aircraft have a problem...

Ok so you've retained Oxygen partial pressure but what is the rest of the atmosphere composed of? Because if it's nitrogen trying to breath on the surface of your planet will induce almost instantaneous nitrogen narcosis. In fact even if the nitrogen concentration was the same as Earth (~78%) at three atm you're going to have impaired reasoning and capability. If its 92% then the effects will be bordering on even greater cognitive impairment. I can't find much information on what the long term effects would be, probably because no one has ever been in that type of environment for significant times, divers simply ascend which fixes the problem. It wouldn't surprise me if there was long term damage however.

Around 1000$ per citizen? Like in poorest Subsaharan Africa countries or Renaissance Italy?

So you're working with $10 billion GDP then? How much of that is held by the government? How much of that is spent on military matters? Finally why don't you look up the cost of some modern or recent historical equipment and see how much you can afford?

Can be opened on demand by a psion. No practical size limit, an aircraft carrier would go. There would be however seriously reduced total amount that could be transported within limited time, so a big invading army should face a choke point (actually the last one turns out later to not be specially correct concerning their adversaries...)

I take it the enemy has "psions"? The fact that the portals are closed naturally is an issue for the defenders. They could build a fortress around one and all the enemy would have to do is open if for a few seconds whilst they throw a nuke through and close it before it goes off a second later.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It occurs to me you may have been objecting to the 10 billion GDP figure rather than going for it. I mainly threw it out there due to the NK comparison but digging into it more...well its interesting to say the least. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(graphical) I noted down the 16 nations that have between 9 and 12 million inhabitants (it would have been 8 to 12 but there are no 8s). Then I grabbed the GDP of each one and plugged it into a spreadsheet. As you might expect there's a large range with Belgium having the largest at $434 billion and Niger the lowest at $11 billion.

At first this might seem that you could model your nation on Belgium however, as has been discussed several times in the thread no nation exists in isolation. Everyone trades to make the most of specialisation and to acquire resources they don't have. As an example of this 5 of the 6 richest in that list are EU members having the advantage of the EU common market and political support, they make up two thirds of the wealth in that list. Interestingly cuba, Belarus and Angola (all former or current communist states) make up another 28%.

So really when it comes to assembling your figures you really need to take into account the lack of trade as a huge factor. That could be somewhat offset by the type of economy you run and better technology but it's still a huge issue. As a reader I'd probably retain suspension of disbelief at around $100 billion, not much more though.

 

[Czcibor]

Ok so you've retained Oxygen partial pressure but what is the rest of the atmosphere composed of? Because it it's nitrogen trying to breath on the surface of your planet will induce almost instantaneous nitrogen narcosis. In fact even if the nitrogen concentration was the same as Earth (~78%) at three atm you're going to have impaired reasoning and capability. If its 92% then the effects will be bordering on even greater cognitive impairment. I can't find much information on what the long term effects would be, probably because no one has ever been in that type of environment for significant times, divers simply ascend which fixes the problem. It wouldn't surprise me if there was long term damage however.

That's equivalent of 6 m underwater. Nitrogen narcosis starts occurring somewhere arround 30 m.

So you're working with $10 billion GDP then? How much of that is held by the government? How much of that is spent on military matters? Finally why don't you look up the cost of some modern or recent historical equipment and see how much you can afford?

No I just considered this number as a bit unfitting idea of having any industry. ;) No, I'm working with something in line with 75 000 $ / per capita, thus somewhere around 750 bln.
For gov - somewhere around 60% of that, so 450 bln (yes, mixed economy). For military - around 0.5% of GDP, however in any double use project military would only put part of the expenditure. (so for SAMs they had to pay, but not for big aircraft) So effectively this military share would be somewhere around 1% of GDP. Standing army of 300. They are well paid, and train hard - let's say they cost 0.5 bln per year. So there should be at least 3 bln left per year for purchase of expensive toys for military. Multiply it by at least 20 years - 60 bln in cheap battle drones, SAMs, mine fields, fortifications, stashes of weapons, etc.

I take it the enemy has "psions"? The fact that the portals are closed naturall is an issue for the defenders. They could build a fortress around one and all the enemy would have to do is open if for a few seconds whilst they throw a nuke through and close it before it goes off a second later.

And according to Soviet plans of storming Western Europe send soldiers into area that was just cleared using a nuke? ;)

No building real fortress. However it would cause logistic troubles that could be exploited.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's equivalent of 6 m underwater. Nitrogen narcosis starts occurring somewhere arround 30 m.

Look at the link, nitrogen narcosis starts at 2-4 bar which is almost the same as 2-4 atm.

No I just considered this number as a bit unfitting idea of having any industry. ;) No, I'm working with something in line with 75 000 $ / per capita, thus somewhere around 750 bln.

That's an extreme economy for a nation with supposedly 21st century technology. That places it in the top twenty richest nations in the world by nominal GDP and near the top three countries in the world by GDP per capita! I thought your automation technology was meant to be rather simple? For a nation with absolutely no imports or exports this strains belief. Its your story so have it that high if you want but you seem to be keen for this to be as realistic as possible. The only way you can make this figure work is if you propose some really advanced technology.

For gov - somewhere around 60% of that, so 450 bln (yes, mixed economy). For military - around 0.5% of GDP, however in any double use project military would only put part of the expenditure. (so for SAMs they had to pay, but not for big aircraft) So effectively this military share would be somewhere around 1% of GDP. Standing army of 300. They are well paid, and train hard - let's say they cost 0.5 bln per year. So there should be at least 3 bln left per year for purchase of expensive toys for military. Multiply it by at least 20 years - 60 bln in cheap battle drones, SAMs, mine fields, fortifications, stashes of weapons, etc.

Note what Drakkith said about maintenance of military equipment, it isn't free to store things. It can get ridiculously expensive. In any case by odd coincidence $7.5 billion is the military expenditure of North Korea:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

And according to Soviet plans of storming Western Europe send soldiers into area that was just cleared using a nuke? ;)

No building real fortress. However it would cause logistic troubles that could be exploited.

*Shrug. A small tactical nuke on a military installation could be very useful without much fuss. Nuke one portal, storm through and if you really don't want to hold the area due to fallout march your force to the nearest other portal to outflank the garrison there. You still haven't really told us about this enemy though so it's hard to judge.

 

[Czcibor]

It occurs to me you may have been objecting to the 10 billion GDP figure rather than going for it. I mainly threw it out there due to the NK comparison but digging into it more...well its interesting to say the least. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(graphical) I noted down the 16 nations that have between 9 and 12 million inhabitants (it would have been 8 to 12 but there are no 8s). Then I grabbed the GDP of each one and plugged it into a spreadsheet. As you might expect there's a large range with Belgium having the largest at $434 billion and Niger the lowest at $11 billion.

At first this might seem that you could model your nation on Belgium however, as has been discussed several times in the thread no nation exists in isolation. Everyone trades to make the most of specialisation and to acquire resources they don't have. As an example of this 5 of the 6 richest in that list are EU members having the advantage of the EU common market and political support, they make up two thirds of the wealth in that list. Interestingly cuba, Belarus and Angola (all former or current communist states) make up another 28%.

So really when it comes to assembling your figures you really need to take into account the lack of trade as a huge factor. That could be somewhat offset by the type of economy you run and better technology but it's still a huge issue. As a reader I'd probably retain suspension of disbelief at around $100 billion, not much more though.

This acquiring resources is not a big deal. I mean that would be a trouble if they were contained in some tiny region.

With advantage of common market - I fully agree. However there is a crucial thing - social capital. Sweden (9.6 mln) and Greece (11 mln) - both are in the EU :D . And I'm far from those people who glorify Scandinavian model as an idea that can be transplanted into different societies. Rather with advanced enough society can decide to build nice welfare state and it would more or less work, while less advanced society can just vote to have high entitlements but would be unwilling to pay for that, or hope that politicians would reward voters with gov jobs.

For story reasons this society and country would clearly be in top ones, a bit above Scandinavians or Singapore. Actually no handwavium used here. The group of survivors was made out of selected applicants. And society had some time to evolve.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This acquiring resources is not a big deal. I mean that would be a trouble if they were contained in some tiny region.

...You said they mostly live in one city? Even if they have outlying towns they'd have to be spread across potentially thousands of kilometres. That means you're going to have to have long supply chains to bring back goods and ship supplies to these places which is going to be quite expensive. Not to mention fragile, how long would your city survive if the enemy took out a few of these outlying towns? Also how many people does it take to operate an assortment of mines, quarries, oil fields etcetera? Especially as procedures, tools and workers in one field (i.e. chalk mining) might be totally inappropriate in another (i.e. uranium mining).

With advantage of common market - I fully agree. However there is a crucial thing - social capital. Sweden (9.6 mln) and Greece (11 mln) - both are in the EU :D . And I'm far from those people who glorify Scandinavian model as an idea that can be transplanted into different societies. Rather with advanced enough society can decide to build nice welfare state and it would more or less work, while less advanced society can just vote to have high entitlements but would be unwilling to pay for that, or hope that politicians would reward voters with gov jobs.

For story reasons this society and country would clearly be in top ones, a bit above Scandinavians or Singapore. Actually no handwavium used here. The group of survivors was made out of selected applicants. And society had some time to evolve.

Sweden, like many rich nations, is reliant on trade for its economy to function. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it to: a nation that has the low population and high GDP of a real world nation but without the global market those nations need to function. Really what this boils down to is that a nation can have a small population, can have a high GDP and can have low levels of trade but it can only have two out of the three at anyone time. Bonus addition: it can be low tech, at which point it becomes "pick three out of four".

 

[Czcibor]

...You said they mostly live in one city? Even if they have outlying towns they'd have to be spread across potentially thousands of kilometres. That means you're going to have to have long supply chains to bring back goods and ship supplies to these places which is going to be quite expensive. Not to mention fragile, how long would your city survive if the enemy took out a few of these outlying towns? Also how many people does it take to operate an assortment of mines, quarries, oil fields etcetera? Especially as procedures, tools and workers in one field (i.e. chalk mining) might be totally inappropriate in another (i.e. uranium mining).

Yes long supply chains. Expensive? Not so bad, bulk ship transport is actually quite cheap. In Poland a few years ago there was a scandal - it turned out that importing coal from Australia was cheaper than mining it locally. (communists were explaining us for generations that coal was our main national asset...)

Damn, I just found other vulnerability that I haven't thought about it. One WW2 U-Boot would be able to choke most of such transport.

How would survive? For a while - no problem, there would be stockpiles - intended to survive a minor misfortune (like a big collapse in mine or drowning of two cargo ships in row). An captured mine would be indeed a problem.

Except from turning such crucial mines into a fortified regions I don't see a way into being able to defend them.

Sweden, like many rich nations, is reliant on trade for its economy to function. You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it to: a nation that has the low population and high GDP of a real world nation but without the global market those nations need to function. Really what this boils down to is that a nation can have a small population, can have a high GDP and can have low levels of trade but it can only have two out of the three at anyone time. Bonus addition: it can be low tech, at which point it becomes "pick three out of four".

One thing. I do not to drop Sweden economy on this planet and pray for a miracle. ;) I fully see the part that economy would be terribly hit by lack of external trade. I try rather to counterbalance it with higher gross capital formation rate, higher human capital and automation.

Let's disaggregate GDP:
-farming, agriculture, mining (a few % of GDP) - perfect conditions
-industry (30% of GDP) - serious problem here
-services (over 75% of GDP) - fine conditions

So the real hit would be concerning stuff produced in small quantities. Like unique manufacturing equipment.

Other question - which level of tech improvement would you consider as realistic for a small, separate country, which is well managed, well educated and treating maintaining high tech as high priority?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I notice you've not addressed the nitrogen narcosis problem, nor given any information of the enemy of this story. Do you plan to?

Yes long supply chains. Expensive? Not so bad, bulk ship transport is actually quite cheap. In Poland a few years ago there was a scandal - it turned out that importing coal from Australia was cheaper than mining it locally. (communists were explaining us for generations that coal was our main national asset...)

It almost certainly wouldn't be cheaper if the Australian mines didn't benefit from having the Australian economy maintain its infrastructure. On top of that you have to have shipyards, build and maintain the ships, drill and refine the oil to power them etc etc.

Damn, I just found other vulnerability that I haven't thought about it. One WW2 U-Boot would be able to choke most of such transport.

How would survive? For a while - no problem, there would be stockpiles - intended to survive a minor misfortune (like a big collapse in mine or drowning of two cargo ships in row). An captured mine would be indeed a problem.

Except from turning such crucial mines into a fortified regions I don't see a way into being able to defend them.

Yes militarily your tiny nation is extremely vulnerable.

One thing. I do not to drop Sweden economy on this planet and pray for a miracle. ;) I fully see the part that economy would be terribly hit by lack of external trade. I try rather to counterbalance it with higher gross capital formation rate, higher human capital and automation.

Let's disaggregate GDP:
-farming, agriculture, mining (a few % of GDP) - perfect conditions
-industry (30% of GDP) - serious problem here
-services (over 75% of GDP) - fine conditions

So the real hit would be concerning stuff produced in small quantities. Like unique manufacturing equipment.

Remember that industries are interconnected, cut down on one and you harm others. In your case with such a small work force that's an even bigger problem. Cut down on manufacturing unique equipment and you might find your farms are a lot less productive as the tractors break down. Try to save money by cutting down on services like retail and suddenly your logistics costs boom due to inefficiencies. Reduce funding to arts and entertainment and you have low moral problems and maybe even public disorder. TANSTAAFL!

Other question - which level of tech improvement would you consider as realistic for a small, separate country, which is well managed, well educated and treating maintaining high tech as high priority?

I don't know what you mean by "level of tech improvement".

 

[Czcibor]

I notice you've not addressed the nitrogen narcosis problem, nor given any information of the enemy of this story. Do you plan to?

That's the lower level at which may be some low symptoms happen. I'd rather assume that it would be manageable, in the same way as people get used to living in areas where is possible to suffer from altitude sickness.

It almost certainly wouldn't be cheaper if the Australian mines didn't benefit from having the Australian economy maintain its infrastructure. On top of that you have to have shipyards, build and maintain the ships, drill and refine the oil to power them etc etc.

As far as I remember data that I've read ship transport cost something like 1/3 of rail and 1/10 of car (roughly counting). Here this calculation would be skewed even more in favour of ships, as there would not be not much transport to justify construction of infrastructure. Let's say 20 times more efficient. So it would building a mine 500 km away through land would be as problematic as building it 10 000 km away, assuming that near sea shore.Shipyards? I thought about just one. And one proper model of drone sea-river ship, Mary Celeste class. ;)

Yes militarily your tiny nation is extremely vulnerable.

So any ideas how to defend it? ;)

Remember that industries are interconnected, cut down on one and you harm others. In your case with such a small work force that's an even bigger problem. Cut down on manufacturing unique equipment and you might find your farms are a lot less productive as the tractors break down. Try to save money by cutting down on services like retail and suddenly your logistics costs boom due to inefficiencies. Reduce funding to arts and entertainment and you have low moral problems and maybe even public disorder. TANSTAAFL!

I know...
To arts? Would you go on strike because of slashing funding for art galery? :D
I see here one more reason to spent a lot on culture. There is a need to create their own culture with values fitting such environment. So proper astroturfing is needed.

But if you mentioned agriculture, I think that there is a plenty place for efficiency boost... I mean all major developed countries (I think New Zeland was a notable exception) have crazy agriculture subsidies policies.

I don't know what you mean by "level of tech improvement".

How many new inventions can be realistically assumed?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To be honest I feel like I'm done with this thread. You've responded to every legitimate piece of feedback with either ignoring it or making up nonsense. If you wanted to hand wave away every issue then why even ask for advice on how to make it realistic? Just write the soft science fiction you clearly want to. It's a shame because this had potential. Good luck with your story.

 

[snorkack]

That's an extreme economy for a nation with supposedly 21st century technology. That places it in the top twenty richest nations in the world by nominal GDP and near the top three countries in the world by GDP per capita!

And Australia is 5th from the top as of 2014. Ahead of Sweden, Singapore and USA. Only Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar and Switzerland are ahead.

 

[GTOM]

If you only want to defend, i think much of the job can be done with sentry guns, auto-guns that can relocate, hidden cameras, some recon drones, missile drones, patrol cars.
For attack, i think the operators and field mechanics need to be nearby, in thick air, i think long-range comms won't be too secure, against a serious enemy, they could create fog, dust, track or jam it.
I think about cheap improvised tanks and transport vehicles sorrounded by drones.

 

[Hornbein]

One thing - I'm somewhat malicious here. I'm asking here not how to win such war against overwhelming enemy, but what to prepare not knowing the enemy. The later part of the story involves actually facing a real enemy and discovering serious mismatch between that what army was prepared for and actual fight.

The aim of facing a more technologically advanced / numerous enemy does not have to be a victory. Being able to achieve a "Winter War" equivalent would still count as a success.

Concerning military aims. Resources / land - not really worth a war. Conquest and exploiting economy - it would be a worthy aim.

Hmmm. Maybe like Switzerland, a rich country where the land is not worth much of anything.

In Switzerland where every male citizen has military training, and keeps a machine gun and ammunition in his home. I think the Swiss also have hardened fortifications. The idea is to make any conquest too costly to be worthwhile. The mountains help, though western Switzerland is flat.

The Swiss were last attacked by Napoleon, so it seems to have worked.

Or there was Scotland. When the Romans invaded, they simply gave up their farmland, went into the forest, and survived as hunter/gatherers. There was no one left to farm the land, and no one to tax. So the Romans got nothing out of it. They left.

That stuff in the Hunger Games where the poor have built an entire high tech base and weapons without the Capitol knowing about it is ridiculous. So don't got that way.

 

[snorkack]

If you only want to defend, i think much of the job can be done with sentry guns, auto-guns that can relocate,

Relocate how?

hidden cameras, some recon drones, missile drones, patrol cars.

Patrol cars patrolling which roads?

For attack, i think the operators and field mechanics need to be nearby, in thick air, i think long-range comms won't be too secure, against a serious enemy, they could create fog, dust, track or jam it.
I think about cheap improvised tanks and transport vehicles sorrounded by drones.

Do tanks have any double use?
Consider that in big planet with thick air, planes have a big advantage over cars.
At high speed on a smooth highway, car´s resistance is mostly air resistance. Which is tripled. Freeways are not free anyway.
At a slow speed, the resistance of car is dominated by rolling resistance, and air resistance does not matter much.
So, the outback/bush could use 4WD cars and cheaply cleared, poorly surfaced roads - at a low speed.
Or airfields. If you want to get to a mine or summer cottage 500 km in outback, do you prefer to pave 500 km of road, with top speed of 60 km/h anyway, or smooth just a 500 m airstrip?
How is Royal Canadian Mounted Police "patrolling" Yukon and Northwest Territories? Horseback may be suitable for prairies, but the forests and barrengrounds have little good forage for horses. By car? By plane?

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Hmmm. Maybe like Switzerland, a rich country where the land is not worth much of anything.

In Switzerland where every male citizen has military training, and keeps a machine gun and ammunition in his home. I think the Swiss also have hardened fortifications. The idea is to make any conquest too costly to be worthwhile. The mountains help, though western Switzerland is flat.

The Swiss were last attacked by Napoleon, so it seems to have worked.

Or there was Scotland. When the Romans invaded, they simply gave up their farmland, went into the forest, and survived as hunter/gatherers. There was no one left to farm the land, and no one to tax. So the Romans got nothing out of it. They left.

Both of these situations require that the invading army be unable to sustain itself or the locals not participating in what the invaders want. Both of those get nullified if you have a drone army that doesn't require food or water, and can be repurposed to farm.

 

[Hornbein]

Both of these situations require that the invading army be unable to sustain itself or the locals not participating in what the invaders want. Both of those get nullified if you have a drone army that doesn't require food or water, and can be repurposed to farm.

Yes, but the original poster asked about a diametrically different situation.
Czcibor -- Concerning military aims. Resources / land - not really worth a war. Conquest and exploiting economy - it would be a worthy aim.

 

[Czcibor]

Relocate how?

Patrol cars patrolling which roads?

Do tanks have any double use?
Consider that in big planet with thick air, planes have a big advantage over cars.
At high speed on a smooth highway, car´s resistance is mostly air resistance. Which is tripled. Freeways are not free anyway.
At a slow speed, the resistance of car is dominated by rolling resistance, and air resistance does not matter much.
So, the outback/bush could use 4WD cars and cheaply cleared, poorly surfaced roads - at a low speed.
Or airfields. If you want to get to a mine or summer cottage 500 km in outback, do you prefer to pave 500 km of road, with top speed of 60 km/h anyway, or smooth just a 500 m airstrip?
How is Royal Canadian Mounted Police "patrolling" Yukon and Northwest Territories? Horseback may be suitable for prairies, but the forests and barrengrounds have little good forage for horses. By car? By plane?

Thank for this "double use for tanks". I first thought about some tracked tractors/construction machines, being built on the same base. But it may indeed be so niche market, that would be just neglected, what would preclude any tracked vehicles.

 

[Czcibor]

Aircraft - actually this higher pressure means higher lift for the same design and speed, so landing strips can be shorter. I mostly wonder whether under such conditions it would be possible to use aircraft being flying boats without bothering to optimise its shape for water. As long as it would be good enough to take off (using ground effect, hydrofoil whatever) then it would be really practical. Or unrealistic?

If to give up tracked vehicles, that changes the tactics a bit concerning land confrontation.

So for example in direct confrontation, without anything remotely resembling MBT, then their role would be need to be filled by some armoured fighting vehicles. Less armor, move vulnerable. Tiny main gun, when encountering tanks its only chance would be shooting an antitank missile first. On the only plus side, it would presumably be able to escape from tanks.

Conventional, mobile artillery could only look this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATMOS_2000

Because of being a vulnerable target it means moving after every shoot to avoid counter battery fire.

 

[Czcibor]

Relocate how?

Under peaceful conditions - zeppelin (yes, dense atmosphere wins ;)
Under war conditions (or just in right places) - engineer troops which have barges and tank transporters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_transporter
(all such stuff would be needed for civilian constructions, so no extra R&D cost)

 

[Czcibor]

I roughly found an aircraft that I thought about:

http://planes.axlegeeks.com/l/327/Sukhoi-Be-103

An offspring of Sukhoi-Be-103 and a motoglider.

 

[GTOM]

Back to relocate how, i thought about machineguns and cannons moving randomly on wheels or tracks, so they are harder to locate and hit.
Since not much satellites, swarms of small cheap recon drones to find and mark targets for artillery.

The planet is very poor in fossil fuels, so they are automatically out, you wrote in another topic.
That could be a justification for beasts of burden drag guns, ammo into place at least on greener areas.

 

[Czcibor]

Back to relocate how, i thought about machineguns and cannons moving randomly on wheels or tracks, so they are harder to locate and hit.

I thought about generally speaking about a few groups:
-immobile (or semi-immobile) bunkers - damn hard, put around any object worth defending
-mobile armoured vehicles armed with rockets / medium guns / machine guns

Since not much satellites, swarms of small cheap recon drones to find and mark targets for artillery.

Drones, high altitude baloons, and hidden sentry points
Additionally some of such drones can be armed with tiny guns against infantry.

The planet is very poor in fossil fuels, so they are automatically out, you wrote in another topic.
That could be a justification for beasts of burden drag guns, ammo into place at least on greener areas.

Too complicated in comparison to synthetic fuels. ;)
Yes, I play a bit with environmental determinism.

 

[James Holland]

maybe have two classes of drone.
on anti-personnel that could be very similar to modern quad copters but with a sub-machine gun opposed to a camera
and then anti tank/vehicle that has a spherical chassis with either one propeller/jet at the rear or maybe one on each side that act as tilt rotors similar to V-22 ospreys armed with a single main gun that would be a high velocity ap round designed to enter a tank through armour but not have enough speed to exit and so bounce about killing crew and destroying equipment.
and these would be deployed to work in squads of anywhere between 10 and 200 that have one command drone directly controlled by a human, who can give basic commands e.g. attack, stand down, retreat, ect. so if a group of refugees came through the gate the commander could question them and not attack on sight. however in their basic programming if the commander is destroyed then all drones instantly attack anyone present that is not part of the colony and if an individual drone is damaged beyond a certain point it will return fire without orders unless directly told to stand down.