Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBronzePickle]

It's going to take a lot of technology before space combat becomes a 'shoot first' affair. I personally imagine that with our current level of technology, a working space combat doctrine would involve dozens of cheap, skeleton-crewed ships with the most powerful guns we could reasonably fit on them designed to win by numerical superiority over being able to last in a fight.

[Flying Dice]

We already have the capability to fight in spehss. It's just that it is impractical, expensive, and utterly pointless given that all our eggs are still in the same biosphere.

[Flare]

No missiles (way too slow). No Mass Drivers (too slow or too much recoil).

Missiles have an almost infinite range with a great finite guided capability on top of that. All you need to do is either shoot a lot of missiles at the target, or let them have a nice run up. Preferably both. Missiles if given enough space can accelerate fast enough to give point defences a hard time.

As for lasers, unless you have some immense power source, the effective range is quite limited.

[Loud Whispers]

It's going to take a lot of technology before space combat becomes a 'shoot first' affair. I personally imagine that with our current level of technology, a working space combat doctrine would involve dozens of cheap, skeleton-crewed ships with the most powerful guns we could reasonably fit on them designed to win by numerical superiority over being able to last in a fight.

I'm going to make a rough prediction based off modern navy and air force structuring of the most realistic imo spehss force.

1. Carriers which act as supply bases and head quarters for operations. Where da ppls at.
2. Figher-bombers (but in spehss) which act as how modern fighters do; covered in lots and lots of guns' n missiles, fire everything on request and go back to base (in this case spehss carrier).
3. Any nitty gritty fighting at all will be fought by USVs (unmanned spehss vehicles).

We already have the capability to fight in spehss. It's just that it is impractical, expensive, and utterly pointless given that all our eggs are still in the same biosphere.

And there's some laws against it IIRC

[10ebbor10]

Fighter and bombers ain't going to be as effective in space as they are on the ground. There's almost no stealth in space, so intercepting them is ludicrously easy. The only way to realistically defy point defense systems is applying more dakka. Lot's of missiles can easily overwhelm the defenses.

The carrier would most likely be sniped rather quickly by relativistic weaponry. Remember, at those speeds you only need one or two hits to kill an entire ship, no matter the size.

Also, Lasers are not very good weapons against ships. Paint it in a reflective paint (bad for stealth, I know) and it can deflect like 95% or more of the energy, rendering the lasers completely useless. Meanwhile, the lasers are having an enormous energy drain and heat production on your ship. In effect, I see spacebattles to be won by whichever faction has the most computing power at hand as they can then predict missiles and other systems, and often by nobody, as there's a very long time between weapon firing and impact.

[Loud Whispers]

Fighter and bombers ain't going to be as effective in space as they are on the ground. There's almost no stealth in space, so intercepting them is ludicrously easy. The only way to realistically defy point defense systems is applying more dakka. Lot's of missiles can easily overwhelm the defenses.

Hence - fighter-bomber. Flying missile silos. More dakka achieved; they'll never get close to enemy fighters. Also there'll be no enemy fighters. Because more dakka.

The carrier would most likely be sniped rather quickly by relativistic weaponry.

Station it really really far away. Really far away. Same as above, it shouldn't be seeing combat. That's for the nitty gritty drones to deal with.

[10ebbor10]

Fighter and bombers ain't going to be as effective in space as they are on the ground. There's almost no stealth in space, so intercepting them is ludicrously easy. The only way to realistically defy point defense systems is applying more dakka. Lot's of missiles can easily overwhelm the defenses.

Hence - fighter-bomber. Flying missile silos. More dakka achieved; they'll never get close to enemy fighters. Also there'll be no enemy fighters. Because more dakka.

The carrier would most likely be sniped rather quickly by relativistic weaponry.

Station it really really far away. Really far away. Same as above, it shouldn't be seeing combat. That's for the nitty gritty drones to deal with.

Cluster missiles? I mean there's not much point about getting it to come back, or having a human inside.

Even then, it can be sniped. I think spacecombat will mostly be decided by whom gets of the first shot, especially when you're attacking things that can't really move much, like spacestations* and planets.

*The ISS and sattelites are actually capable of active dodging of space debris.

[Jelle]

Long range. Think really long range, as in shooting at something at astronomical distance.
Combat will be dictated by scanning equipment, electronic warfare to mess with the enemies scanning or cloaking technology to avoid getting scanned.
Seeing as there's really no speed limit in space hitting a target will be all about that beautiful math, getting that projectile trajectory to collide with the potentially astronomically fast predicted enemy movements in that one dark point of space.


About explosives, do those even work in space? They rely on either or both shrapnel and the shockwave, shrapnel could work but I don't see how shockwaves will propagate themselves in the near vacuum of space.

Even then, it can be sniped. I think spacecombat will mostly be decided by whom gets of the first shot, especially when you're attacking things that can't really move much, like spacestations* and planets.

I'm shocked, planets can definatly move, they move at incredible speed around their suns! But I suppose it's a matter of perspective, all motion is relative in the end, especially so in space.

[TheBronzePickle]

Planets are fast, but they can't change trajectory at all without risking the population on them. It would be pitifully easy to line up a couple railguns and blast the planet into nuclear winter. Same with space stations, although they'll be more maneuverable, they still won't be able to move that much.

Explosive weapons by themselves will be mostly useless with the exception of nukes, which explode into energy mostly. Most explosive weapons used will be like the modern bunker-buster, burying themselves into the enemy ship and detonating inside to tear the armor open and destroy internal structure.

I personally imagine seeing railguns shooting fission rounds designed to squash into supercritical mass on impact with the enemy ship, but that's just me.

[Flare]

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.

I think what eagle is saying isn't the benefits of stealth being moot, but realistic stealth in space is pretty much impossible as per the question of th OP, or at least impractical given the constraints.  What he's pointing out isn't EMC, but avoiding simple detection. We don't really need radar in any case most probably becaus3 we can see a great distance in space alreary. We can frack the maneuvering jets from the shuttles from several planets down iirc. With current off the shelf civilian tech, we can have an entire scan of th3 entire sky in a few hours.

The tempurature difference he's talking about is also a pretty huge problem. Unless there's a way around thermal dynamics,  anything with a power aource in sppace 8s going to light up like a Christmas tree to IR sensors.

Explosive weapons by themselves will be mostly useless with the exception of nukes, which explode into energy mostly. Most explosive weapons used will be like the modern bunker-buster, burying themselves into the enemy ship and detonating inside to tear the armor open and destroy internal structure.

I thinks they'll still be useful, most of the killing power of HE rounds do are from the explosive shockwave and the shrapnel it throws around. While the first would be moot, the second one still does a pretty good amount of damage to things inside of its armor ratings.  If you can't get a lock onto a target, but know the general direction it's in, sending in q couple of huge HE rounds would be good.

As for nukes, I thino they'll probably be used frequently,  but I don't recall that they have much destructive power beyonda hundred metres or so in a vacuum. Inside of that range it varies in deg4ees of vaporization.

[misko27]

Come to think of it, nukes would also be very useful due to the EMP burst they release.

Given that their range is increased by the magnetic field of the planet earth, it is disputable whether their effectiveness in space would be sufficient to cancel out the negative effects of using a nuclear weapon for such a purpose.

[Draxis]

    I think nuclear weapons would not be used as kill vehicles:  the effective radius (small due to no fireball, the damage done would be from flash-heating by radiation) probably does not justify the cost of not simply using more kinetic missiles, but it depends on the technology.  However, nuclear weapons could be very useful for point defense or scaring enemy sensors into temporary shutdowns.
    It is impossible to be invisible in space, but lowering the detection range enough that the enemy has limited time to react is very useful.
    At the speeds ships would need to move at to make space travel plausible, nothing will survive a  decent-sized kinetic impact.
 
    All of the following depends on non-instant or no FTL, multiple "baskets" controlled by different powers, and some regard for human life:
    Space war would be focused on denying the use of resources, supply centers, and ultimately populations to the enemy in order to force concessions:  I would expect expendable, dedicated military drones relying on other traffic to not be immediately spotted, and no armament on other assets to prevent them from being destroyed unnecessarily.  The goal would be to place the other side in a position where they would be forced to submit or suffer massive economic and population damage - similar to the theory of war, if not the practice, under mercintilism.  Ground combat I would expect to be extremely bloody, but in space anything with strategic value would be as distributed and expendable as possible to make it harder to force them being denied.  (meaning that they could be forced to surrender or be destroyed, either one would be a losing proposition).  Commerce would be heavily regulated and patrolled, because getting undetected a force into a population or logistical center would be a major bargaining point for any involved power.  This assumes that no participating powers are terribly fanatical or completely desperate, because such a situation would probably end in mass genocide for everybody.
    I see a few types of military ships:
    Defensive or patrol ships, based at areas of importance and keeping the area threatening it as well as any maneuver areas (jump points if they are a thing, anything that could hide ships, etc...) clear and checking any incoming craft.  These would be most extensive around civilian centres, as their location cannot be kept secret, which is the first defence of military installations assuming interstellar travel:  stealth may be futile, but space is big. 
    Offensive ships, those designed to get in and deny enemy assets and those supporting them.  These could be disguised as commercial shipping, "stealthy" buses carrying KKVs, or any number of other types.
    Deterrent weapons:  nuclear or massive kinetic threats to civilian populations, enough to scare the enemy into not using theirs on you.  "The bomber will get through"; it is impossible given reasonable technology assumptions to defend a planet against unlimited warfare, so these would be the equivalent of the nuclear threat today.  These could be asteroids with engines, FTL missiles, poison for food/water supplies: anything to force the opponent into a limited war.

Atomic Rockets and Rocketpunk Manifesto are both good resources on space warfare, and there are a few good discussions and essays at Spacebattles.

[Furtuka]

Press the button, let the computer do the rest, watch a tiny speck of light explode far off in the distance.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

God, don't mean to diverge, but isn't there that 'particle disruption cannon' thing? You aim it at something and it basically excites the whole thing into plasma/exploding violently.

EDIT: that is actually a particle beam weapon

[Loud Whispers]

Press the button, let the computer do the rest, watch a tiny speck of light explode far off in the distance.

on sensors.

One light year away.