Space Combat Techniques Discussion

[orbitingpluto]

If humanity gets to the point travel between the planets is trivial, then all you need to do to damage a opponent is to get close enough to make him eat your exhaust.

I hope this would be part of OBSP at some point, if you guys want to do it. I think this is a fun thing to add to orbiter, as the guys behind it said they are keeping it realistic as they can. It would be a plus if by wanting realistic space combat people come and get interested in nonviolent Orbiter fun. Go for it!:thumbup:

 

[SolarStorm]

Okay. It almost seems to me that we need to set up some hypothetical scenarios, each with its own distribution of space and ground sensors, weapons platforms, countermeasures, decoys, etc. But then, isn't that partly what the OBSP is being designed for? To test and research these ideas?

Also, more questions: what would be the monetary cost of these systems? Wouldn't it be too expensive to simply saturate the solar system with sensors? Would the weapons platforms be expensive, multi-mission, massive dreadnought-like monsters or just simple, low cost, single use modules or pods?

 

[T.Neo]

to get close enough to make him eat your exhaust.

Which turns out to be pretty close, actually, though how close depends on exhaust stream collimation. If it's anything like that of VASIMR, then the exhaust would end up being pretty much useless as a weapon.

After all, building an artificial wormhole is only an engineering hurdle too...

AFAIK the physics involved isn't fully understood yet. I think we're a long way away from the "ok, but how do we make it work?" stage there...

I think it's a bit pessimistic to be... well, pessimistic about fusion power. By analogy, nobody would expect the people of ancient Egypt to build a working steam engine...

So I think as things go here, we're limiting things to what is possible in physics, but also what is plausible in engineering and applied science, while not being overly optimistic or pessimistic.

 

[jedidia]

AFAIK the physics involved isn't fully understood yet. I think we're a long way away from the "ok, but how do we make it work?" stage there...

Yeah, I'm fully aware of that. It was just the first example comming to mind...

I think it's a bit pessimistic to be... well, pessimistic about fusion power.

I'm really undecided on that matter. On the one hand, it seems so close, on the other, we were going to "make fusion work within the next 20 years" for about 60 years now. I sure HOPE they'll make it work (and rather sooner than later), but as far as solving the upcoming energy crisis goes, I'd rather treat it as a number, while placing the big money on color (hmmm... no idea how well roulette analogies are understood here).

So I think as things go here, we're limiting things to what is possible in physics, but also what is plausible in engineering and applied science, while not being overly optimistic or pessimistic.

For OBSP, that sounds like the best aproach.

 

[Ghostrider]

If humanity gets to the point travel between the planets is trivial, then all you need to do to damage a opponent is to get close enough to make him eat your exhaust.

We're already there. Ever been behind an idling moped?

 

[Brycesv1]

only read this to page 7 so i MAY be completely off here but some of these questions could be answered by a battletech approach. during combat there were orbital bombardments and surface destruction on such a large scale that many technologies were destroyed while some advanced ones still existed such as the ability to build high powered energy weapons but they cant build missiles with targeting computers. Space combat was reduced to close range as a result of this loss of targeting. sure you could SEE the large warship coming at you but you couldnt shoot accurately enough to hit it effectively until it got to knife "fight-range".

also because of the dramatic cost of building warships and the time it takes. it is often preferable to damage a ships defences and then board it to increase your own assets instead of smashing all of the pretty, shiny, expensive tech to itty bitty pieces

just my 2 cents,
-Bryce

 

[T.Neo]

In combat, you don't want to bring things to a knife-fight. By an analogy, the USAF could field Cessnas mounted with M249 machine guns, and it would cost far less than fielding F22s. But F22s are orders of magnitude more capable.

Military technology is designed to survive war, and it isn't like a good deal of the technology needed in, say, targeting is that vulnerable. In fact, you'd be far more likely to lose the ability to make high-power lasers than you would to make missiles. And lasers are longer range weapons than missiles or nukes.

Your idea of capturing ships is an interesting one though, if it could be accomplished... not only might it give you an extra "playing piece" as it were, but also provide an oppurtunity to better understand the technology of the enemy.

EDIT:

This is trying to be as mercylessly realistic as they can get it.

Indeed... that is because "mercilessly realistic" is our idea of fun.

 

[eyu100]

Since you're making all the arguments that have already been rejected on this page, perhaps you should go read that instead of arguing with us.

Specifically:

So smaller spacecraft are stealthier because they have a higher surface-area-to-volume ratio?

 

[Hielor]

How would you maintain the tech to build effective laser weaponry but lose the tech to make guided missiles? Missiles are significantly simpler than lasers...guided missile tech has existed since the 1960s, and we still don't have viable laser weaponry in 2010.

Plus, weren't LRMs in the BattleTech universe guided?

And lasers are longer range weapons than missiles or nukes.

I'm not so sure about this... I mean, if you think about it, the Apollo system (or something similar) could essentially be used as a "missile" to hit a target on the moon with a fairly sizable destructive payload and fairly high accuracy, whereas lasers get much less effective over distance. I think it would be the other way around--lasers are decent for short/medium range, while missiles are good for medium/long range.

So smaller spacecraft are stealthier because they have a higher surface-area-to-volume ratio?

Potentially, yes...they'll also have a much smaller drive signature, but I don't think that'll mean that they're particularly "stealthy," just "less obvious."

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not so sure about this... I mean, if you think about it, the Apollo system (or something similar) could essentially be used as a "missile" to hit a target on the moon with a fairly sizable destructive payload and fairly high accuracy, whereas lasers get much less effective over distance. I think it would be the other way around--lasers are decent for short/medium range, while missiles are good for medium/long range.

Depends on your laser. Wavelength, lens size and output power will all effect the range of the laser. X-ray and gamma-ray lasers would have the longest ranges, but they need to be powered by exploding nuclear devices.

Still, an apollo cruise stack travelling to the Moon will take something like 3 days to get there... ample time to intercept it with some sort of countermeasure system. You'd be able to vastly increase your chances with multiple impactors/warheads though.

That's one large advantage with a laser; you can't detect it, you can't shoot it down, and you can't dodge it (doing so in the short timeframe of a laser firing would require huge RCS motors and would probably turn your crew to jelly, not to mention rip off half the spacecraft structure).

Of course, lasers have other disadvantages- one being that we haven't really built lasers of such power and energy outputs. Another is that lasers require a large power source, and that they produce a lot of waste heat- waste heat which you need radiators to get rid of, and as I've learnt with high-power drive systems, trying to get rid of a large amount of waste heat is a royal pain. The same could really be said of railguns or coilguns (though they have their own, specific problems). The only space weapon we know how to make work (and make work well, and that we've actually stockpiled thousands of) are nukes, which are conveniently outlawed by treaty (for now ).

Casaba-Howitzer sound interesting, and they could potentially be very effective (and not only as a propulsion unit). They're still classified, which is kinda spooky...

 

[jedidia]

an X-ray laser that practically fits into a spaceship is kind of a pipe dream for the next few hundred years, though. But they would be one hell of planetary fortifications. Almost impassable, unless severly tank-rushed, and the attacker might waste a large amount of his fleet to take out a moon-based X-ray laser.

anyways, let's not get into another Green vs. Purple debate...

 

[Izack]

Almost impassable, unless severly tank-rushed, and the attacker might waste a large amount of his fleet to take out a moon-based X-ray laser.

That's no moon...

 

[Urwumpe]

Of course, the laser needs power plants and radiators, which would still make it pretty vulnerable. And if you use the orbital mechanics for your advantage, at the expense of some fuel, you could ruin the day for the X-Ray laser faster than it can be rebuild.

Would maybe be a nice challenge for orbiter, avoiding the deadly hemisphere of such a laser for a modern Wild Weasel mission.

 

[Wishbone]

Starting with the UI is necessary if that's the bottleneck. As I see it RisingFury is 100% correct in starting with damage and sensors (the existing Orbiter takes care of kinematics). What I don't get is the emphasis on land-based weapons or such things as DEW whether near-tech or already existing.

 

[Brycesv1]

@heilor: from what i understand. no real research has been done in weapons technology for some time. during the large scale bombardments, databases containing (and people who knew) data on targeting systems were destroyed. the idea is that while it is simple tech, nobody knows how to do it and no research is being done to figure it out. as for laser tech, databases or instructions survived so they can still build them. while a mech can "target" something its more of a "keep a box around this object". aiming and such are all done manually by the mechwarrior. old school "crosshairs" style.

LRM's are fired in an arc and drop down on the target. it wasnt until the clans showed up with "old technology" that inner sphere armies re-learned how to make guidance systems

 

[RisingFury]

What I don't get is the emphasis on land-based weapons or such things as DEW whether near-tech or already existing.

The idea is to replicate all aspects of war. If (or when) war goes into space, it won't disappear from the surface. Space dogfighting probably won't happen, simply because of how difficult it would be to find the enemy, catch up or to target from different orbits.

Interplanetary fighting would also only take place at planets and moons and not in deep space.

That leaves you somewhat with orbital and mostly atmospheric and surface combat, if you want anything to happen at all. Dogfighting plane to plane might be fun for a while, but introducing ground forces would make things exciting. Imagine having to attack or defend airfields or space ports, with SAM sites and AAA shooting at you. Imagine being able to fly close air support for your tank force. That's where things would get fun.

 

[T.Neo]

Space dogfighting probably won't happen, simply because of how difficult it would be to find the enemy, catch up or to target from different orbits.

Space dogfighting won't happen, because spacecraft don't make swooping and diving manuvers in reality.

Interplanetary fighting would also only take place at planets and moons and not in deep space.

Correction: Interplanetary fighting would take place near planets, moons and points of interest. Of course there isn't any sense in fighting in the middle of nowhere, but there's also no rule that says you have to pull up into a 350 km orbit, especially if you have weapons with ranges in megameters.

 

[Brycesv1]

Why should you drop troops and not bombs? Bombs can withstand more acceleration than humans, and won't complain if they are dropped 300 miles away from designated DZ in unmerciful thunderstorm. There exists only one valid reason to design dropships - to strap on politicos and show them what it's like.

say the enemy had a very advanced security and defence system that was run on a closed system. or maybe they had something that was far more useful captured than destroyed. it could be favorable to send units on the ground to infiltrate/assume control of said target. while i love blowing stuff up id much rather steal something of value or use their defences against them instead of wasting my own resources destroying it

 

[Wishbone]

Special forces? on a reentry vehicle? oh dear... The infiltration has to be done stealthily, and there's no such thing as a stealthy re-entry. (you are detected before launch, during launch, in mid-course and at re-entry).

 

[RisingFury]

Special forces? on a reentry vehicle? oh dear... The infiltration has to be done stealthily, and there's no such thing as a stealthy re-entry. (you are detected before launch, during launch, in mid-course and at re-entry).

You don't need to reenter over your target. You can reenter sooner, then fly to your destination.