Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9

Author Topic: How would space combat really work?  (Read 7355 times)

Scoops Novel

  • Bay Watcher
  • Talismanic
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2012, 01:48:11 pm »

Well, whats the toughest thing we have?
Logged
Reading a thinner book

Arcjolt (useful) Chilly The Endoplasm Jiggles

Hums with potential    a flying minotaur

Killjoy

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2012, 01:55:23 pm »

Okay, with our current level of technology it would probably be about as interesting as submarine battles, just without the sonar obiviously. I am a bit pessimistic about FTL travel ever happening. Given enough energy it is said to be possible to "bend" space, but I have a hard time even imagining how to compare that to any kind of traveling we might be able to comprehend.

A future space battle scenario basically looks like this: bunch of dudes, and maybe a few dudeds, crammed into a small metal can, working hard on determining in what direction to fire next laser. Most likely, future space battles will be fought over extremely huge distances. Even today we can detect meteorites light minutes away. What stops us from detecting enemy crafts a few astronomic units away? At these large distances only equipment will have any sort of idea what the enemy craft looks like, or even where it is. A large part of the battle will be actually predicting where the enemy is. You have to factor in that the enemy will be moving fast, be very far away, and that information can only travel at the speed of light and this information can be bend by gravitational forces, computers will be doing most of the fighting.
So, after the calculations are done and the first lasers are fired, the crew will have to wait to see whether or they actually hit anything. In most cases, they would probably only have hit empty space. Irrational movement patterns would be implemented so computers would not be able to predict enemy positions, and algorithms would be created to try and calculate how these pseudo random flight deviations are generated, to further help position prediction. Eventually the crafts will be close enough to each other, that with a bit of luck one of the computers manages to calculate a position where a laser will actually hit the enemy.
How will the crew have experienced the whole situation? It probably wont be much different than ordinary space travel, the only differences is that a order to kill whatever the computer has detected has been given.

So yeah, future space battles are basically submarine battles, but in space, with much less to actually do.

Logged
Merchants Quest me programming a trading game with roguelike elements.

Hanslanda

  • Bay Watcher
  • Baal's More Evil American Twin
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2012, 01:58:17 pm »

PTW for !!SCIENCE!!
Logged
Well, we could put two and two together and write a book: "The Shit that Hans and Max Did: You Won't Believe This Shit."
He's fucking with us.

Scoops Novel

  • Bay Watcher
  • Talismanic
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2012, 02:05:36 pm »

Actually, on the article they made a very relevant point about the difficulties of communicating to unmanned ships, unless you have AI, which we don't. On the other hand, i wish intrepid human pilots luck with dealing with that particular clusterfuck, particularly with ftl. Thoughts? My first ones were "GENETIC ENGINEERING!" but i have strong doubts as to whether that would do much good.
Logged
Reading a thinner book

Arcjolt (useful) Chilly The Endoplasm Jiggles

Hums with potential    a flying minotaur

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2012, 02:14:41 pm »

As has been mentioned, 3d formations and such would be the norm, and it would be quite hard to conceptualize.
 
Lasers and missiles. But it's hard to say without knowing th etechnology though. The peoples of the 50's never imagined the internet, but expected jet-packs. We might get something as odd a departure as that. e might see entire new unheard of weapons!
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2012, 02:16:40 pm »

Probably the simplest way of reducing or nullifying the importance of lasers would be aerosol sprays of some sort; your defense wouldn't be shields or armor, it would be jets of chemical mist and rapid rotation, as is fitting with the lowest-bidder mentality for military contracting. The one obvious benefit to missiles is that they (with a sophisticated enough 'brain') are fire-and-forget weapons; if your defense is to spin like a hookah-smoking dervish, it'd be rather difficult to keep your own lasers on target.

On another note, consider the possibility of using bomb-pumped laser warheads on missiles. Feasible in the foreseeable future?
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Urist McScoopbeard

  • Bay Watcher
  • Damnit Scoopz!
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2012, 02:21:40 pm »

I imagine that if, right now with current technologies, we had space battles between big-ass ships, there'd be crazy boarding because the armor would just get so thick it'd take forever to actually destroy a ship.
Logged
This conversation is getting disturbing fast, disturbingly erotic.

TheBronzePickle

  • Bay Watcher
  • Why am I doing this?
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2012, 02:26:02 pm »

I don't really know about laser superiority in space. I, for one, would probably be fitting my ship with spinal railguns optimized for projectile speed. I'm pretty sure that E=MC^2 and its fellow equations state that my solid slug going at appreciable fractions of light speed is going to be able to impart more energy than an equivalent-energy laser weapon (although I might be wrong and stupid) and railguns have been shown to have no recoil that would affect the orbital trajectory of the ship. We already have more than enough technology to make a computer with adequate firing solutions.
Logged
Nothing important here, move along.

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2012, 02:26:51 pm »

Thick armor would only be plausible if we had substantial space-based industry, though. It costs a hell of a lot to put stuff into orbit from a planetary gravity well.
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2012, 02:28:22 pm »

Probably the simplest way of reducing or nullifying the importance of lasers would be aerosol sprays of some sort; your defense wouldn't be shields or armor, it would be jets of chemical mist and rapid rotation, as is fitting with the lowest-bidder mentality for military contracting. The one obvious benefit to missiles is that they (with a sophisticated enough 'brain') are fire-and-forget weapons; if your defense is to spin like a hookah-smoking dervish, it'd be rather difficult to keep your own lasers on target.

On another note, consider the possibility of using bomb-pumped laser warheads on missiles. Feasible in the foreseeable future?
Then, of course, there is the counter of  tricking the "brains", as opposed ot the ones you pay attention to, which require more effort, but won't get side-tracked
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Flying Dice

  • Bay Watcher
  • inveterate shitposter
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2012, 02:38:16 pm »

Probably the simplest way of reducing or nullifying the importance of lasers would be aerosol sprays of some sort; your defense wouldn't be shields or armor, it would be jets of chemical mist and rapid rotation, as is fitting with the lowest-bidder mentality for military contracting. The one obvious benefit to missiles is that they (with a sophisticated enough 'brain') are fire-and-forget weapons; if your defense is to spin like a hookah-smoking dervish, it'd be rather difficult to keep your own lasers on target.

On another note, consider the possibility of using bomb-pumped laser warheads on missiles. Feasible in the foreseeable future?
ECM
Simplified that for you.  :P
Logged


Aurora on small monitors:
1. Game Parameters -> Reduced Height Windows.
2. Lock taskbar to the right side of your desktop.
3. Run Resize Enable

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2012, 02:59:16 pm »

"Dogfighting" in the sense that we know it with airbreathing fighters wouldn't exist in a universe where we still have to obey the laws of physics. With what we currently have, space combat would likely be mutual annihilation or mutual inability to harm the enemy in almost all circumstances; we can't get high enough velocities to dodge missiles, ballistic weapons are either too large to make for effective shipboard weapons or are (by space standards) absurdly short-ranged, modern DEW (like the YAL-1), while effective at shooting down large missiles, would require precise aim to damage anything critical, and if both vessels put on some multidirectional rotation, it would be difficult to maintain contact with a point long enough to burn through even an unarmored hull.


So it would hinge on whether our PD would be good enough to counteract enemy missiles; the lack of atmospheric interference in lasers makes this seem likely. It would actually not be entirely unrealistic to expect space combat with modern materials and technology to revolve around boarding actions, not least because of the current difficulty of getting materials into orbit; much better to capture a vessel than to destroy it. All we would need in that case would be a hate plague, and voila, Space Pirates and Zombies.  :P


If you talk about anything much beyond that, it's time to drop the pretensions and start discussing Trans-Newtonian minerals, Forerunners, and the Khanate of Orion.

This hits it on the head I think.

I think the Aliens universe is surprisingly realistic in this respect.  There are primarily four different weapons used in space:

1. Kinetic kill weapons - Railguns and similar weapons are used to destroy enemy ships at relatively close range.  The projectiles are hard but possible to dodge, and they're only extremely accurate at relatively short range.  If they hit though, no armor in existence can stop them, and they tend to cause catastrophic damage in a handful of hits.

2. Missiles - These are used for longer ranged kill capability, but can be jammed, decoyed or shot down much easier than kinetic weapons.

3. Lasers - Lasers are primarily point defense weapons used to shoot down incoming railgun rounds, missiles or more rarely fighters.  Large scale lasers aren't generally able to cause significant damage to ships at long range, even though they're hard to miss with and impossible to dodge.  At long range beam divergence and ablative armor make them worthless.

4. Particle beam weapons - Primarily used to disrupt electronics for defensive purposes or dazzling enemy targeting.  At very close ranges these can cause physical damage to a ship's hull, but being able to hit in such a manner would be exceedingly rare.


So, to sum it up: fighters are rare because of point defense weapons, kinetic weapons give ships hard kill capability, and DEWs are used for defensive purposes.  Seems reasonable to me.
Logged
Through pain, I find wisdom.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2012, 03:09:57 pm »

Without, pretty much like regular dogfights. With, the same but with a time limit based on how long it takes to charge FTL travel.
I don't get this. Dogfights never happen in the modern world, why would we suddenly revert to what would be Verdun-like tactics in the future?

Honestly space combat would be M.A.D.

The only way around that would be to make your ship so ridiculously big that no amount of damage could conceivably take it down.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's the only way.

THE ONLY

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2012, 03:12:53 pm »

More or less, with the kind of weapons that can reach a spacecraft  from an appreciable distance, stealth is going to be everything. The moment you're hit, you can write off whatever got hit barring a miracle, not the least because that compromises your stealth enough to know exactly where you're going to be for a follow-up attack. Large ships are sitting ducks - sure, you might last a while defending yourself against missiles, but if you can see it from a planet, you can use all of that planet's resources to overwhelm and destroy it.

A big thing that article misses is that removing heat is very difficult in space. The best you can do outside of waiting for black-body radiation to do the job (while you slowly roast) is eject some concentrated heat, in water, maybe, or ideally some metal. Either way, that's a hell of a lot of extra mass to carry around and shield from radar. Combat ships are not going to have this capability, because manueverability is a much better tactical option. Heat weapons (particle guns, probably, and on the off chance they can get to close enough range, focusable radar) are going to be quite attractive for this reason.

Now you have lots of small, stealthy ships cooking each other in very quiet battles. They're going to have the best radar systems and computers we can put on them. They're not going to be manned by humans, because that adds lots of extra weight for life support, living space, and sanity-guards. It would also be horribly cruel - no one wants to die being broiled alive. The exception might be very expensive but vital stealth-outposts that provide a safeguard against the fleet being compromised by hacking or the like.

What are they actually for, though? Let's go with classic rebel uprising on mars. We're discounting nanophages and relativistic weapons, because at that point anyone can destroy anyone else without absurd defensive capability. We could put extra weapons on the ships for a ground strike, but that would decrease their combat readiness against other vessels. And since the planetary defenses -are- the other vessels, we don't really need to anyway. A second wave of stealth-warheads or weapons platforms would probably be sent instead, after that side has become the clear victor and a path has been cleared. It would be trivial to disable a lot of the SAM-style defenses we have now from orbit, or for that matter the laser-defense systems that are likely to be commonplace in this example. That's a huge reason why space-based weapons were banned.

Against a well-equipped counter-defense platform (which would include powerful lasers, possibly electronic warfare drones, and a laser communications system back to whoever is guiding the thing), ground based defenses don't stand a chance. These would be saved until after they've been disabled (theoretically) by orbital or moon-based defenses. They'd be highly shielded and top-secret locations. A few would contain swarms of tagging drones, too small to be realistically detected (or to contain appreciable weaponry), but with a small amount of internal guidance to get a ping off of a CD platform's hull. Other defense systems would then take pot-shots aiming at its predicted location from as safe a distance as possible. Ideally this would happen fast enough to be effective. Either way, the ground-based defenses would activate once the bombs started falling, and whatever CD platforms remain would do their best to help them along.

That's my theories anyway.
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044

Eagleon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Soundcloud
Re: How would space combat really work?
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2012, 03:37:16 pm »

Stealth is space is pretty much impossible. Withhold your heat, you appear too cold, release your heat, you appear too hot. Both times you stand out. Then there's the fact you'd have to be stealthed for a large range of wavelengths, the energy costs would probably be phenomenal etc.
If we get to the point where we're fighting it out between space, we're going to have put a lot of money into this. That means things like metamaterials, hull design, and post-burn maneuvering techniques (including solar sails, which we can ditch if they present a large radar profile) are going to be advanced to the degree that an entirely new set of tactical options are available for us to exploit on both sides. This is -if- we're fighting - I maintain that larger, non-stealthy ships are not an option, because you have the infrastructure of entire nations (or even just colonies, would be formidable) to shove defenses into place and take them out before they could ever be in range. So right now it's pretty much a moot point IMO if it's between two established populations. Stealth would be the only thing to enable it, if we don't want to be seen building relativistic weapons.
Logged
Agora: open-source, next-gen online discussions with formal outcomes!
Music, Ballpoint
Support 100% Emigration, Everyone Walking Around Confused Forever 2044
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9