You sunk my...

[EadTaes]

Missiles in space wouldn't work as a long range weapon.

True as long they have fuel they will go faster and faster but not to infinity because of Einstein's law of relativity E=MC^2 witch means that for a mass to at a certain speed need energy and that on a missile energy is combustible which means more fuel mass and more mass for fuel tanks. Thus resulting in needed even more energy. Button line you will hit a max speed limit even if you had infinite fuel. Light goes that fast because it has almost no mass at all and lost of energy. And the Mass vs energy available to the ship will never be near that of a photon, much less on a missile.

2nd reason is simply because in space their is no friction and if a missile takes 200AUs and 2 hours to accelerate to it's current speed with it's main engine mean that it will take the same same amount of time and the same distance to reach 0 once again. This means that a high speed missile will be easily avoidable once they reach the half way point, a simply acceleration or deceleration of your ship will make the missiles totally miss their mark as they won't be able to compensate.

3rd missile are much larger then projectiles and if they want to be able to hit also slower. In addition they generate a lot of heat which thermal sensors can easily pick up and track making it easier to take them down.

A Standard projectile round is much cheaper. Alto slow and avoidable by accelerations and decelerations, their cheaper and more numerous to stock on. And the way they would be used is exactly the same way they were in WWII. Lead the target, but don't fire shots just at were the target is projected to be, but also in front and behind were it will be so that you prevent maneuvering from avoiding the shots.

In that concept big ships will be needed but also many many small ships with maybe just 1 or 2 long range guns. Why because every time you lose a big ship you would lose lots of guns. Thus losing your killing power.
With smaller ships you killing power isn't diminished to much since your only lost 1 or 2 guns, not 20+.

[Sponge]

Interesting research going on at the moment into materials that can bend light around them, or even straight back at the source could, if the theories hold and the tech developed, create anti-laser armour. At the moment such materials are limited to a quite specific band of the EM spectrum - the first was a material that could bend microwaves around it, rendering it invisible to the spectrum, currently there's work on making it work against visible spectrums.

I've read a bit about this. The article I read seemed more geared toward using materials like this to create cloaking materials: materials invisible to the human eye. While sensors would likely be able to see the stuff, this "laser armor" could have the interesting side effect of rendering the enemy ship completely invisible.

If this works, then lasers could be rendered useless or at least relegated to secondary weapons, forcing initial damage to be caused by cannon or missile fire to damage the surface enough for the lasers to transfer significant energy to the target - which would go some way to shortening engagement ranges and making smaller fighters and drones more viable (instant hit lasers are imba vs a small ship that intends to use manoeuvrability to survive in combat...).

This is an interesting point, and a potential advantage for conventional weaponry. Any sort of light reflecting surface is likely to be fairly fragile to kinetic projectiles. I'm curious, though; how much energy could light-reflecting materials handle? I don't understand the technology at all, but it seems tough to believe that they could reflect infinite amounts of energy. Mirrors don't have a problem reflecting most of a laser pointer, but something in the MJ range would melt through it like it wasn't even there.

Also with missiles and railguns - why not combine the two? Launch a smart projectile from a railgun: instant high speeds, less fuel mass needed in the projectile to travel the same distance, giving lighter, more manoeuvrable missiles. Throw in ecm warheads to counter enemy countermeasures and point defences, and add some laser warheads into the mix for added fun that detonates farther out than standard warheads and you have a fast moving, agile, defence-resistant and powerful long ranged weapon system.

Interesting. My first concern would be the targeting computer. I should think it would be incredibly difficult to shield a computer from some of the most powerful magnets imaginable.

[Draco18s]

Problem is even if you have very powerful lasers a well polished hull or one covered with mirrors would render them infective.

This isn't true. Mirrors wouldn't reflect high-powered lasers. While lasers would be very effective, they're very energy inefficient.

Interesting research going on at the moment into materials that can bend light around them, or even straight back at the source could, if the theories hold and the tech developed, create anti-laser armour. At the moment such materials are limited to a quite specific band of the EM spectrum - the first was a material that could bend microwaves around it, rendering it invisible to the spectrum, currently there's work on making it work against visible spectrums.

There's also those materials with a negative refraction index (that's right, negative). Works in 2 dimensions even with visible light.

Hmm. According to wikipedia you might be able to use a similar metamaterial to "block" heat emissions too (Heat is seen mostly via infrared electromagnetic radiation, which is a form of light), thus possibly allowing the stealth ships previously mentioned.

Wiki: Negative Refraction

[Sponge]

True as long they have fuel they will go faster and faster but not to infinity because of Einstein's law of relativity E=MC^2 witch means that for a mass to at a certain speed need energy and that on a missile energy is combustible which means more fuel mass and more mass for fuel tanks. Thus resulting in needed even more energy. Button line you will hit a max speed limit even if you had infinite fuel. Light goes that fast because it has almost no mass at all and lost of energy. And the Mass vs energy available to the ship will never be near that of a photon, much less on a missile.

We're not talking about anything close to relativistic speeds. We're talking mach 200 ish. That's so far from a significant fraction of C that the energy requirements are well within achievable ranges, even with today's tech.

2nd reason is simply because in space their is no friction and if a missile takes 200AUs and 2 hours to accelerate to it's current speed with it's main engine mean that it will take the same same amount of time and the same distance to reach 0 once again. This means that a high speed missile will be easily avoidable once they reach the half way point, a simply acceleration or deceleration of your ship will make the missiles totally miss their mark as they won't be able to compensate.

What? I think what you're trying to say is that missiles wouldn't be maneuverable enough. I'm not thinking there's ANY reason why it would have to go from any speed back to zero. That would imply that the target ship is able to instantaneously move from in front of the missile to behind it. Any other type of movement would be automatically compensated for by the missile while still accelerating to its target. By the time the missile gets there, it'll be moving so fast that any large ship would have no hope of dodging it. Missiles are much more maneuverable, especially at long range, than ships. They're so much less massive. At longer ranges, even a fraction of a degree is enough compensation to hit a moving ship. The concept is that ships will be moving so much slower than a missile that it won't have any problems compensating along its flight path. Also, I think our definitions of "long range" might be a bit different. I'm talking no more than maybe 250 light-milliseconds. Even then you're looking at a significant hang-time. 200AU is so unrealistically out of range it's not even funny. It would take over a day to go that far at light speed. I don't know how you plan to do it in two hours.

3rd missile are much larger then projectiles and if they want to be able to hit also slower. In addition they generate a lot of heat which thermal sensors can easily pick up and track making it easier to take them down.

Yeah, they're larger. They also accelerate for long after they're launched. I think point two summarized why they can go fast and still connect, so I'll talk about the heat thing. Yeah, they'll be hot. Any missile advanced enough to track a target from a few million km away should be able to, at least some degree, compensate for interceptors. Be it maneuvering(which is a bit of a stretch at close range), armor, or even weaponry, I'd expect some sort of failsafe systems. The only thing that is likely to cause problems is a cloud of flak, which is countered by launching LOTS of high yield missiles, and hoping one or two make it through. Nukes would be potentially lethal, even if only one or two connect.

A Standard projectile round is much cheaper. Alto slow and avoidable by accelerations and decelerations, their cheaper and more numerous to stock on. And the way they would be used is exactly the same way they were in WWII. Lead the target, but don't fire shots just at were the target is projected to be, but also in front and behind were it will be so that you prevent maneuvering from avoiding the shots.

Lasers are also very expensive. Missiles are bigger, but you don't need as many as they're incredibly dangerous. Railguns would be good for closer ranges, but if they're limited to, say, mach 20, they wouldn't be capable of anything near 250 light-milliseconds.

[Malahite]

Talking about missiles - this: http://www.imi-israel.com/news.aspx?Fol ... &docID=731 could be as well used against any rocket-based weapons in space. Any shrapnel could be easy dispersed by the blast of the counter-projectile.

Basically, I think that space combat right now mainly focuses on three weapon categories and their counter-measures: rocket-chaff/antirocket, mass drivers/armour and beam/laser weapons-shields/energy absorbers.

Thus, we can still consider other weapons, like microwave or any other lethal to living matter wave emitters. Even now shielding from space radiation is a vital problem in space flight, so amplified radiation might be also used for space combat.

Main thing is, how close each ship will have to come to each other to fight. We can go from simple ship boarding and on-deck fighting, to blasting things from the other side of the solar system and so on...

[FIREST0RM000]

I'm for missiles being the weapon of choice in the near future of space combat. there are several reasons for this.

First, the missiles don't have to fire their engines immediately. The ship could cut its engines, drop some missiles off, while still giving the enemy very little Idea of where it is. An hour or so later, all of the missiles take off towards the enemy that has no Idea where the ship that launched them is. Sure they may have ECM and what not, but missile technology will advance as time goes on too. also, while the effects of distance on the launching ship's sensors will be a problem at first, the closer the missile gets(assuming on board guidance), the less the lag.

Next, a kinetic kill missile, once it gets going nice and fast, can hit with the energy of a tactical nuke. If even one gets through, the target ship is probably toast. even if it does survive the hit, most of the critical systems most likely won't, and the impact will give away the ships position to anyone in the system. Keep in mind that this ship more than likely just lost engines too. at .1% of light speed (299,792m/s), a 1 Kg projectile has about 9E10 joules of energy, or 21.4 kilotons. A 100Kg projectile at that speed has an impact energy of a large (megaton range) nuke.

A slightly more futuristic, but equally effective use of missiles would be to deploy a cloud of self replicating nanobots that would eat the enemy ship. if even one survived to hit the enemy ship (witch isn't to extreme since you could deliver more nanobots than could be counted), it would spell big trouble for the ship, as the robots would replicate exponentially. I'm no expert on nanotechnology, but I think that the implications are fairly obvious.

So, the point here is that instead of trying to close the distance to the opposing ship, while firing big, heat emitting engines that just say to the missiles "here I am, I'm the target, kill me.", it might be smarter to also stay at range and try not to be too obvious. it is much easier to evade/confuse a missile if your heat emissions aren't as obvious.

As for why I think engagements will take place at such extreme ranges, consider this: both ships start at a significant distance away, probably several light minuets at a minimum. to close the distance, a ship needs to fire engines to get at the right heading to make an intercept. The other ship can now just drop some missiles on a timer and go the other way. As the enemy closes on the missiles, they get going, and it's already too late.

Rail guns are useless at these ranges, as in the minuets or more it takes to get near where the other ship is, it will have changed its course by a fraction of a degree and evaded the shot.

Lasers have the same problem. without on board guidance, they could never hit anything for a long enough time to do damage. First, the ship must wait 2 times the distance in light seconds/minuets for targeting data, then wait that distance again for the beam to get there. At a distance of 20 light seconds, the ship is still shooting where the enemy was ONE MINUET AGO. if the enemy crew, traveling at a velocity of 1000m/s changes their course by one degree after the sensor ping hits, the beam will miss by a kilometer!

Another tactic that would be very useful if the use of some sort of probe or small craft that exists solely as a sensor platform. if that platform could relay targeting data back to the missile carrying ship or missile itself, cutting the lag in half for a missile or for a beam based on the main ship. It could also pack more powerful sensors, that if tied into the missile's guidance system, could get the missile very close to on target before letting the missile's inferior sensors take over for the last few to few hundred kilometers.

[Sponge]

While I do agree with you on the utility of missiles, I need to say that these ranges are terribly, terribly unrealistic. Do you know how long it would take a ship to move, say, four light minutes? Four light minutes is about 72000000 km. Warships are likely to be very large, meaning they're very tough to move, even in space. Even if you're moving at 50 times the speed of sound, which seems reasonable for long distance travel (keep in mind I'm not actually crunching any numbers here), it's going to take you about 49 DAYS to close that distance. That's just not realistic. Missiles will be able to go much faster, but it would still be days. Even lasers would have so much lag that they'd be all but entirely ineffective. These distances are simply absurd.

[FIREST0RM000]

I need to say that these ranges are terribly, terribly unrealistic.

what you aren't considering here is that the idea is not to get killed yourself. if you can detect the enemy, and they can detect you, you can engage them. why the hell would you get closer?

also, missiles don't care how long it takes to get to there target, and we are talking about distances less than that from earth to mars. not that unreasonable overall. spacecraft can navigate that, why can't a missile

[natan_j]

...Even lasers would have so much lag that they'd be all but entirely ineffective...

And so would the light or other EM radiation you're using to see the enemy with. Lag would be doubled due to this, though it's quite possible to predict where the enemy is going to be, especially since they won't be able to see the incoming bolt coming until it hits them.

[Sponge]

what you aren't considering here is that the idea is not to get killed yourself. if you can detect the enemy, and they can detect you, you can engage them. why the hell would you get closer?

also, missiles don't care how long it takes to get to there target, and we are talking about distances less than that from earth to mars. not that unreasonable overall. spacecraft can navigate that, why can't a missile

If you can see them, they can see you. So here's what you do: You drop your missiles and set them to launch in X days. They set theirs and set them to launch in X days. You know their missiles are there; they know your missiles are there. Why the hell would you then go towards them? You have cited one strategy that would never become commonplace. The object of war is to destroy the enemy. You can't do that if your only strategy is to employ missiles that will take 25 days to hit the enemy, especially if you're also banking on the enemy getting close to YOU when you already stated that would be a bad idea. Yes, in concept you want to stay as far away as possible. Even so, your weapons do have an effective range. Light minutes are WELL out of that effective range.

[FIREST0RM000]

you don't fight a war just to destroy ships. you fight a war to take planets and resources. if the enemy aren't a threat, and you are defending a planet, why chase them? When they retreat from missiles, the defender wins. also, if your missiles are going faster than the ship, even if it takes months, (assuming the missile still has fuel for maneuvering and power for sensors), it will catch up.

furthermore, I said that the opening range would be light minuets. I gave examples ranging from light minuets to light seconds. also, missiles would probably be set to go on remote trigger, and activated when the enemy finally did decide that they wanted to take the objective. the opening volley would most likely be launched days from the target, but most of the combat would more than likely be at distances of light seconds.

EDIT: also, why do you assume that the missiles would be obvious to the enemy before the thrusters kick in. if they are on passive sensors, or waiting for a signal, they just look like more space debris. you could also launch the missiles to coast closer into range as the enemy approaches whatever you are defending, and activate when they get close.

and, why would combat be short and quick when travel, even in system, takes months to years.

[Draco18s]

Even so, your weapons do have an effective range. Light minutes are WELL out of that effective range.

Given that the earth is 8 light minutes from the sun, that gives you an idea of how far away things are.

[Skrim]

Geez, this seems to have turned into some kind of lasers vs. missiles argument.

Basically, missiles and mass drivers(railguns & Gauss coilguns) would be long-ranged weapons that have the downside of being interceptable. Lasers would be short-ranged weapons that can't be intercepted.

Here's the weapons classification table from www.projectrho.com/rocket/ modified by me to fit BSF a little better :



____________________________________________________________


1. Deployment: How the weapons system is initially launched (fired).

* 1A Active: These weapons deploy themselves upon activation, with the propulsive mechanism integral to the unit; as a class, this includes commonly-termed missiles and torpedoes.

* 1B Passive: These weapons are deployed by an external device, launcher or other means.

- 1B1 Guns & Cannons: Deployed by common explosives, as through an artillery piece.

- 1B2 Mass Drivers: Deployed by electromagnetic launcher(railgun or coilgun), typically to much higher velocities than those possible by Guns.

- 1B3 Emitter: Deployed by a directed-energy emitter; this includes lasers and other radiation-based weapons.

* 1C Lay in wait: These are fired passively, and activated when they in a given proximity to their target (i.e., "mines").





2. Guidance: Describes methods of an individual weapon achieving its objective.

* 2A Dumb: No post-deployment guidance. Either you aimed right or you didn't.

* 2B Smart: Capable of post-deployment guidance.

- 2B1 Active: Weapon emits radiation to track targets (e.g., Active Radar Homing).

- 2B2 Passive: Weapon passively scans for target emissions (e.g., Infrared).

- 2B3 Illumination: Weapons passively scans for an illumination signature painted on target by a third object (e.g., Laser Guidance).





3. Trigger: Generally only for warheads, determines what causes weapon to detonate.

* 3A Command: Detonated by command from controlling ship.

* 3B Impact: Detonated by contact with target.

* 3C Proximity: Detonates within predetermined range of the target.

* 3D Timed: Detonates after a pre-determined time.





4. Kill Type: How the weapons system damages the target.

* 4A Kinetic: These weapons carry no warheads, relying on impact energy alone to damage the target.

- 4A1 Kinetic Slug: Self-explanatory.

- 4A2 Scattershot: Weapon segments into shrapnel upon deployment. 3B1C types on the other hand delay segmentation until activation(triggering).


* 4B Explosive: These weapons carry explosives of varying types, and rely on on-or-near-target detonation to damage the target.

+ 4B1 Chemical: Common chemical explosives.

- 4B1A Blast: Relies directly on blast effects.

- 4B1B Shaped Charge: Focuses blast energy to create an armor-piercing jet of liquified metal (e.g., HEAT warheads).

- 4B1C Shrapnel: Weapons that intentionally shatter or otherwise scatter shrapnel to incapacitate or kill (e.g., fragmentation grenades, anti-aircraft shells/missiles).

- 4B1D Squash Head: Squashes explosive on target surface and detonates to cause internal damage to armor (e.g., HESH warheads).

+ 4B2 Nuclear: Self-explanatory, includes both Fission and Fusion devices.

+ 4B3 Antimatter: Self-explanatory, includes weapons carrying on-board matter or weapons that annihilate with the target's hull.


* 4C Directed Energy: These weapons transfer energy directly to the target, at range.

- 4C1 Electromagnetic: Lasers and kin(masers, heat-rays, x-ray lasers, gamma lasers etc.)

- 4C2 Particle Beam: Charged or neutral particles, not to be confused with small kinetic projectiles. Typically limited to atomic or sub-atomic particles.


* 4D Chemical: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to poison the biological processes of the target to incapacitate or kill.
* 4E Biological: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to infect the target and incapacitate or kill.
* 4F Radiological: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to expose the target to incapacitating amounts of radiation.


_____________________________________________________________


Any guided weapon in space would, of course, have to have some amount of onboard fuel and a propulsion mechanism, regardless of how it was deployed.

Also, flamethrowers and incendiary/thermobaric warheads haven't been included because they wouldn't work in space, and wire guidance has been excluded because it would be extremely impractical in space too. 4D/E/F would be mainly of use against inhabited planets, space stations, manned ships and far-out sci-fi bioships/plantships/organic ships/space creatures.

So, a laser would be 1B3 2A 3B 4C1.
A railgun-launched heat-seeking kinetic missile would be 1B2 2B2 3B 4A1.
A modern AIM-9X Sidewinder would be 1A 2B2 3C 4B1C.
A modern AGM-114 Hellfire would be 1A 2B1/2B3 3B 4B1B.
I could classify BSF's weapons into this code, but I'm too lazy to do that at the moment.

[Kane]

Isn't it funny how were talking about "real" space combat. We haven't gone to a stellar body in how long?

[Sponge]

you don't fight a war just to destroy ships. you fight a war to take planets and resources.

Okay, great. The enemy has a ship guarding their planet. What are you going to do? Sit there taking potshots at eachother for months, hoping someone forgets to fire a counter-missile (which would be a pretty big fuckup, seeing as you'll know of a missile threat at least 20 days beforehand)?

if the enemy aren't a threat, and you are defending a planet, why chase them?

Did I say chasing them in such an instance would be a good idea? I think you did, actually.

to close the distance, a ship needs to fire engines to get at the right heading to make an intercept. The other ship can now just drop some missiles on a timer and go the other way. As the enemy closes on the missiles, they get going, and it's already too late.

Why would said "enemy" go toward the "other" ship? They can engage from afar. This missile dropping strategy hinges largely on the enemy getting very close before the missiles become active (ie, give off heat signatures).

When they retreat from missiles, the defender wins.

You can't retreat from something capable of accelerating considerably faster than you. Here enters counter-missiles, or, more simply, heavy missiles designed to target and pursue oncoming missiles. Alternatively, swarms of light missiles could be used instead.

also, if your missiles are going faster than the ship, even if it takes months, (assuming the missile still has fuel for maneuvering and power for sensors), it will catch up.

Hence why you shoot them down. At a distance of under a light second, this becomes a chore. When you have a few weeks notice, it's just a matter of launching some counter missiles.

the opening volley would most likely be launched days from the target, but most of the combat would more than likely be at distances of light seconds.

This is sort of inconsistent with what you were saying earlier, but I agree. Opening volleys are still likely to be fairly ineffective, because light minutes just grant too much reaction time for anything not moving at the speed of light.

EDIT: also, why do you assume that the missiles would be obvious to the enemy before the thrusters kick in. if they are on passive sensors, or waiting for a signal, they just look like more space debris. you could also launch the missiles to coast closer into range as the enemy approaches whatever you are defending, and activate when they get close.

I didn't mean to make any such assumption. You made a statement that seemed as if you were implying the drop and run technique to be viable. It would never be used simply because no ship would needlessly chase another full well knowing that a trap is very likely. Rather, both ships would fire opening volleys and then try to close the distance so that their weapons would actually become effective. The problem with launching missiles and letting them coast is that if you were to then accelerate toward the enemy, you'd pass up your missiles. Sure, they'd be all but invisible to sensors, but they would realistically never reach their target. The advantage of missiles is that they're light enough to achieve nice speeds. If they're coasting, they loose their viability. Now, if you were defending a planet, this would become more viable, as you are less likely to approach the enemy-- they'll probably come to you.

and, why would combat be short and quick when travel, even in system, takes months to years.