Designing drone army defence for a loosely populated planet

[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.