What would Ground WarFare look like in the 24th Century and beyond?

[Arpy]

I doubt somebody would put that much armament on a tank.

If they did, the Federation would have to act accordingly. They might not like wasting planets, but if the Klingons, Romulans, or Dominion did...Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ever see Babylon 5? Whatever the “rules of war” are, they get thrown out the airlock when power, politics, or survival come into play.

 

[Tenacity]

I doubt somebody would put that much armament on a tank.

The main weapon on a tank has to be able to destroy another tank, which could have a powerful shield generator. Taking out a ship in orbit might be a lesser task.

 

[Go-Captain]

Seeing modern peer to peer conflict...infantry and second gen tanks, maybe even third, are walking targets. IEDs, Drones, cruise missiles wipe the floor with them. A more mechanized peer might augment this with systems and vehicle protection/mechanization like the Israelis, but seeing unarmored, untech'd infantry in the 24th century, be it Klingon, Cardassian, Federation, or other is more and more jarring.

A infantryman by then should basically be a walking tank. Think more Pre-War PA forces, from Fallout, and that's a good go-to. Even just having an exosuit to make your punches stronger, nearly unlimited marching range, 200KG equipment, some armor, shield generators. Nothing that killed by a orc with a damn musket.

I read one of the ways Trek is made is to ask what will be available in the next 20-50 years and say it's available 200 years from now. With that, using near future concepts for the modern military translated into Trek makes good sense. That also gets around the question of going thematically (slap a shield on infantry) or maximally (Iron Man).

I doubt somebody would put that much armament on a tank.

If you put torpedoes on a tank like vehicle then its automatically a threat to orbiting vessels, maybe even at interplanetary ranges.

The main weapon on a tank has to be able to destroy another tank, which could have a powerful shield generator. Taking out a ship in orbit might be a lesser task.

Taking a ship out would be the harder task since power and defense scales up with ship size, and defense scales faster than weapons in Trek. It would take a few tanks working together to quickly take out a Bird of Prey, but something like a Defiant would take a few dozen, and it gets harder from there.

If they did, the Federation would have to act accordingly. They might not like wasting planets, but if the Klingons, Romulans, or Dominion did...Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ever see Babylon 5? Whatever the “rules of war” are, they get thrown out the airlock when power, politics, or survival come into play.

Fortunately ST: Picard confirms planetary shields for the modern era, and any planet one power wants is likely another wants, which would be reason enough to leave planets habitable, outside extreme circumstances.

 

[Arpy]

Tanks seem kind of silly to me. If they’re limited to the ground, you can phaser the ground below them and dunk them into the mantle. If they can fly, why not make them shuttles capable of ground, air, space, and underwater combat?

Making them strong enough to take down orbiting starships seems a bit much to me. Russia alone has 20,000 tanks. That’s one country. And they use them for ground warfare, not as anti-aircraft guns.

If you’re making ground-based weapons anti-starship...I dunno...you’re not too away far from something like Starkiller Base shooting death-rays through subspace at enemy planets.

 

[Imaus]

Tanks seem kind of silly to me. If they’re limited to the ground, you can phaser the ground below them and dunk them into the mantle. If they can fly, why not make them shuttles capable of ground, air, space, and underwater combat?

Making them strong enough to take down orbiting starships seems a bit much to me. Russia alone has 20,000 tanks. That’s one country. And they use them for ground warfare, not as anti-aircraft guns.

If you’re making ground-based weapons anti-starship...I dunno...you’re not too away far from something like Starkiller Base shooting death-rays through subspace at enemy planets.

That's the pandora's box that such wonderous tech opens.

Technically there's nothing stopping a warp torpedo from existing and devastating a planet. Earth might have shields in place, might not. I mean Alderaan had shields, apparently, didn't help them none.

But once you have hand-held weapons that can disintegrate a person, or technology that can disassemble matter, transform it to energy, transmit that energy, and reassemble it into matter - and far more importantly, the systems and technology that can store that amount of energy*- the possibilities almost do become endless, because getting to that point is such a game changer we can barely fathom it.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

So do you think StarFleet would make more Hybrid Ground Vehicles, or more single type platforms?

 

[Imaus]

So do you think StarFleet would make more Hybrid Ground Vehicles, or more single type platforms?

I think it'll depend on logistics more than anything else. Logistics and a lot of bored engineers. Out there on colonial worlds, a shuttle with phasers and torpedoes, or runabouts, can squash nearly anything of any immediate notice. But on more urbanized, developed worlds, why loiter a shuttle down a street when a specialized IFV or AFV can do? It's not like Trek has forgone wheels - the Argo shows that.

Plus, the AFV can get rid of systems it doesn't need to carry around. It doesn't need to go to space or the atmosphere, as the shuttles on hand can do that, or carry around warp nacelles and anti-matter bottles and a friggin' warp core. All those can be removed, making the vehicle smaller.

Shuttles and Runabouts then become sort of like...Fighters and Bombers now, fulfilling air roles from scouting to denial to superiority, while the more specialized vehicles are on hand to give infantry a situational boost (and the engineers something to dabble on to justify their keep/pass the time).

Same with the 'Naval Patrol', which probably takes advantage of the high tech level to make really spacious, energetic submarines, but they probably don't shove warp cores in their subs - maybe impulse or a coil, but not a full blown core, ya know?

 

[Arpy]

Another name for them is sitting ducks. I dunno. There might be a place for cheaper vehicles in more stable crowd control and policing roles, but I’m really hesitant to put them up against anything with greater range of travel. It’s like pitting a warp ship against a sub lighter. The odds are vastly against you.

...I keep seeing a heavily armored wicked-looking black hover-tank about to quell a civilian uprising and murder everyone, and some shuttle coming deftly down from orbit to save the day.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Same with the 'Naval Patrol', which probably takes advantage of the high tech level to make really spacious, energetic submarines, but they probably don't shove warp cores in their subs - maybe impulse or a coil, but not a full blown core, ya know?

I don't think Surface Ships would have that much value when you have StarShips and Shuttles that can literally hide underwater but have the Space Superiority advantage naturally.

Submarines at least have some value in that they can at least hide underwater.

But Immersion Shielding and most Shuttles can probably just hunt them down, although finding them will be a chore given how vast an ocean can be and orbital sensors can only scan past rock and water to a certain very shallow depth.

Shuttles and Runabouts then become sort of like...Fighters and Bombers now, fulfilling air roles from scouting to denial to superiority, while the more specialized vehicles are on hand to give infantry a situational boost (and the engineers something to dabble on to justify their keep/pass the time).

I think Shuttles / RunAbouts become Hybridized (Heavy Transport/APC/LCAC) that can fight back and deliver it's cargo.

In my Head Canon, I still have dedicated Space Superiority and Atmospheric Superiority fighters that each can fulfill the role of Interceptor / Fighter / Close Air Support / Attack Craft / Light Bombers.

I think it'll depend on logistics more than anything else. Logistics and a lot of bored engineers. Out there on colonial worlds, a shuttle with phasers and torpedoes, or runabouts, can squash nearly anything of any immediate notice. But on more urbanized, developed worlds, why loiter a shuttle down a street when a specialized IFV or AFV can do? It's not like Trek has forgone wheels - the Argo shows that.

Plus, the AFV can get rid of systems it doesn't need to carry around. It doesn't need to go to space or the atmosphere, as the shuttles on hand can do that, or carry around warp nacelles and anti-matter bottles and a friggin' warp core. All those can be removed, making the vehicle smaller.

I concur, operating with less weight, less complexity would be great.

Use a Mini/Small Fusion Generator and lots of Condensed Energy Matrix Batteries should give you all the energy you need to operate your vehicles with Shields / Sensors / etc along with enough extra energy to get you by.

No need for complex M/A-M reactors or Artificial Quantum singularity Reactors that require more specialized engineers to maintain.

Good ole trusty Nuclear Fusion reactors + Batteries + combination of other free Green Energy sources to fulfill minor energy needs.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

So going by Planetside Platforms that could be used / created.

Going by their "Colloquial Names":

• Grounder = Vehicle that traversed over the ground via Wheels/Treads/Legs/or some other method on land
  
• Skimmer = Some form of Hovercraft, usually AntiGrav or low Altitude vehicle like a GEV (Ground Effect Vehicle)
• Hopper = A platform usually capable of Low Level Atmospheric Flight, higher Max Altitude than a GEV, but only up to low level modern day light sport aircraft.
  
• Flyer = A platform capable of flight using "Lift" and can traverse great range efficiently and has AntiGrav assist for STOL/VTOL capabilities and enhanced "Lift" performance. Capable of far more range and efficiency than most traditional AntiGrav platforms since they are designed to Fly efficiently while functioning with the benefits of AntiGrav platforms.
  
• Swimmer = Water Based Platforms that ride on top of the water like Boats/Ships or underneath like Submarines/Submersibles.
  
• Tunneler = Specialized platforms designed to dig tunnels.

 

[publiusr]

What might put Trek ahead of Star Wars in terms of numbers would be for an Insurrection type holoship filled with synths shrunk down into the cube-like things the Kelvins used in TOS. On their arms are the devices used to stun whole crowds from Spock’s Brain.

Beam them down by the thousands.

The synths are like autons but their built in weapon is the instantaneous effect Scalosian device no light saber can block.
Grenades are spores that Garth invented, with Echo Papas for A-10 type support.

More fearsome than drones.

 

[Unimatrix Q]

Spoilers for Season 3 of Discovery:

Spoiler

Personal Transporters are apparently widely used during the 32nd century

Could there have been more primitive versions of them being around for ground troops during the Dominion War?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Could there have been more primitive versions of them being around for ground troops during the Dominion War?

Considering Tom Paris had his own "Walkie Talkie" sized one in a Alternate Timeline in ST:VOY.

It was in ST:NEM that there was a Tiny ComBadge sized one for OneWay Emergency Transporter use.

But Transporter Ranges for Personal Site to Site Transport should still be incredibly short compared to a full blown Transporter Pad on a StarShip.

 

[Go-Captain]

Tanks seem kind of silly to me. If they’re limited to the ground, you can phaser the ground below them and dunk them into the mantle. If they can fly, why not make them shuttles capable of ground, air, space, and underwater combat?

Making them strong enough to take down orbiting starships seems a bit much to me. Russia alone has 20,000 tanks. That’s one country. And they use them for ground warfare, not as anti-aircraft guns.

If you’re making ground-based weapons anti-starship...I dunno...you’re not too away far from something like Starkiller Base shooting death-rays through subspace at enemy planets.

I can't imagine a Trek combat vehicle being truly ground only, even if it's running off batteries instead of fusion or antimatter, so they would be using shuttle tech geared specifically to excellent flying nearly against a surface. Who want's to get stuck in mud or have a broken tire.

Modern tanks have fire control systems capable of directing their main gun to shoot down helicopters, at least German and American ones do.

That's an enormous leap to compare a planet size gun to something I imagine as being a few runabouts in volume.

So do you think StarFleet would make more Hybrid Ground Vehicles, or more single type platforms?

Hybrid function can come two different ways, cost saving or abundance of capability. We're at a point where capability is so abundant that it doesn't make sense to leave a feature out, and every fighter at this point even the F-22 has ground attack capability. There are better aircraft for ground attack, but it can do it despite being for air superiority, and the ground attack fighters can still mount anti-air missiles. That's the way I would expect Trek to go unless there is a distinct advantage in leaving functions out, because cost is going to be considered in a completely different way than today.

So if you want a troop carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle you can make them the same vehicle without trade off except being size. It could probably scout as well as anything else too. But if you needed something for casualties, you need a purpose built interior for all the medical equipment. And if you want a torpedo launcher, that's going to take a lot of internal space so will likely need a different platform, unless you are using a mini-torpedo launcher.

The only thing I imagine ground vehicles in Trek lacking are warp engines, at least full fledged warp engines. They add a lot of weight and likely specialty engineering other power and propulsion systems don't have to worry about. Though I had warp engines put on my tank concept for warp just above warp 1.

Considering Tom Paris had his own "Walkie Talkie" sized one in a Alternate Timeline in ST:VOY.

It was in ST:NEM that there was a Tiny ComBadge sized one for OneWay Emergency Transporter use.

But Transporter Ranges for Personal Site to Site Transport should still be incredibly short compared to a full blown Transporter Pad on a StarShip.

Even if you can only go a few miles per beaming it would be extremely useful. Even with my minimalist vision for Federation infantry includes them due to how compact the tech is.

Also, even if TAS weren't canon, Lower Decks canonizes it, so a Federation infantry would definitely have some sort of shield too.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Hybrid function can come two different ways, cost saving or abundance of capability. We're at a point where capability is so abundant that it doesn't make sense to leave a feature out, and every fighter at this point even the F-22 has ground attack capability. There are better aircraft for ground attack, but it can do it despite being for air superiority, and the ground attack fighters can still mount anti-air missiles. That's the way I would expect Trek to go unless there is a distinct advantage in leaving functions out, because cost is going to be considered in a completely different way than today.

Yeah, the F-35 is a Ground Attack Aircraft FIRST, that also happens to be the 2nd best Air Superiority Fighter, right underneath the F-22. The F-35 is revolutionary in many ways and needs to be truly appreciated for all the tech and changes it brings to American Combat Aviation.

So if you want a troop carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle you can make them the same vehicle without trade off except being size. It could probably scout as well as anything else too. But if you needed something for casualties, you need a purpose built interior for all the medical equipment. And if you want a torpedo launcher, that's going to take a lot of internal space so will likely need a different platform, unless you are using a mini-torpedo launcher.

As far as troop carriers, my standardized shuttles of various sizes pulls double duty as Troop Carriers / AFV for various reasons.

Planetside, I have Hybrid Skimmer / Hoppers that are Anti-Grav platforms that can do a bit of low level flying, but generally prefers being right above the ground due to energy efficiency and designed / optimized to operate only a few feet off the ground.

The only thing I imagine ground vehicles in Trek lacking are warp engines, at least full fledged warp engines. They add a lot of weight and likely specialty engineering other power and propulsion systems don't have to worry about. Though I had warp engines put on my tank concept for warp just above warp 1.

Yeah, all my PlanetSide vehicles and Mecha didn't need FTL IMO.
Micro/Mini/Compact/Small/Medium/Large Fusion Reactors +
Condensed Energy Matrix Batteries (Technology discovered in the Delta Quadrant, more recent trips to the Delta Quadrant would eventually acquire the capabilitie and specs to manufacture it).

Remember in the ST:VOY episode Warhead, the little WMD Long Range Torpedo was the size of a small Golf Bag, the CEM (Condensed Energy Matrix) was a incredibly powerful and energy dense battery that can power a fleet of vessels. Imagine if the CEM Battery was the size of the Tesseract from the MCU, it basically fits in the palm of your hand, but it has enough power to run the computers/sensors on a AI powered WMD Matter/Anti-Matter Long Range Torpedo, travel 80 ly, have shields, and have on-board counter-measures.

Also, even if TAS weren't canon, Lower Decks canonizes it, so a Federation infantry would definitely have some sort of shield too.

I've been Pro Federation Infantry having Battery powered Shields for quite a while.

 

[publiusr]

I have this little idea that the reason the fantail scoop under Excelsior is so long is that—perhaps—a dropship pod was meant to go there.

From the side view, it would seem that the secondary hull was like that of Oberth (assuming that was a hull)...a gentle arc rising up to meet the shuttlebay at the very aft-most tip.

Then you see this thing detach, re-enter, then flip and land...looking like the top of the ALIEN skull.

 

[FederationHistorian]

We know that Starfleet uses dune buggies and have cloaked research posts, and have personal transporters by Nemesis. They also have ablative armor and ablative generators for ships, meaning buggies would be outfitted with this tech too. They would also employ force fields to operate as shield to protect various bases and barracks housing troops. Not to mention that hologram are employed to do dangerous works in regards to mining; it would make sense if holographic troops were used as a canary in the coal mine, to detect if any danger was present. And Starfleet likely reverse engineered the cloaked drones the Ent-D encounters in “The Arsenal of Freedom”, and the TR—116 rifle (which has a micro transporter to beam bullets into another room) used by both Chu’lak and Ezri Dax on DS9.

Odds are ground warfare from Starfleet would incorporate these aspects. Tanks are quite pointless, when when a personal transporter can be used transport photon, quantum and transphasic torpedoes to the target area, and those weapons' can be fitted with bioweapons if necessary. A runabout could be refitted to carry such armaments too. It would make more sense to rely on Saber class vessels or Federation fighters for air support if no cruisers/heavy cruisers were available.

It would also depend on who Starfleet is facing on the ground.

Klingons are known to use suicide tactics and don’t take hostages, according to TNG.

Hunters from the Gamma Quadrant have hand held deflector shields.

Cardassian had the Obsidian Order to gather intelligence (including by torture) and were very good at occupying terror for long stretches.

Bajoran Resistance held their own against the Cardassians for generations using guerrilla tactics.

Remans have Thaleron radiation and would use it, whereas the Starfleet never would use it, as it is a biogenic weapon.

Tholians would have no need to go to the ground; just encompass the area with a Tholian web and start firing from orbit.

Not to mention that as Garak once said on DS9, humans have rules in war. There is no guarantee that whoever Starfleet is engaged in conflict with would follow humanity’s rules regarding war.