What do you guys, think space warfare should be like.

a post for all those who love and hate walls of ships killing other walls of ship.

from Sins Forums

What do you guys, think space warfare should be like.

Did you guy see it as walls ships killing other walls of ship. Or did you see space warfare as artillery duels. Or did you see space battles, as assassin or submarine battle in which ship had to find each other in order to kill each other.

What roles did you think that each class of ship should of fallen into. And what would of been the difference between each ship of the same time in the other factions. Like in star wars empire at war, how the empire had all of it capital ship be fighter carriers, and the rebel that had to build fighter and capital ship, instead of just the capital ship.

UPDATA SECTION

This part is my updata based on all of your guys great input. Also I will try to sum up some of the many points, so people will not have to read 10+ pages to understand, where we are.

First, we need to ask are selfs four important questions. These questions will change everthing, more then if there is stealth in space, or if space fighters make any sense.

Question

1. Is there FTL technolgy and how does it work? From what I have seen, there better be some FTL drive in the future, or there will be little to nothing to fight over. The second part of the question of how it work, changes weapons and tactics. If the FTL drive or technolgy is based on a point in spaces, then these points, become choke points. Also the size of the FTL technolgy is important, as if the technolgy is small enoght to be put into a fighter, then why not a missile, that you could FTL into your enemy.

2. Is there FTL sensors? Can I detect an enemy ship in real time moving at FTL speeds? Can my sensors see into the next jump point?

3. Is there FTL Communications? Can I send orders to a fleet in another system, or will I have to send a ship?

4. This is the most under asked question from my point of view. Can I use the FTL technolgy itself, as a weapon.

I'm right now working on some space warfare models to show what I thing space warfare will be like, after all your input. Please add try to answer these questions and any others I will post, as this helps with the models.

Thank you for all your post.

632,086 views 262 replies
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
As for fighters, they are probably the most viable space-war tactic. But they are likely to be either computer-controlled or remote piloted, since life support and the space for a pilot and his-her interface would take up a lot of space and weight. Think of it like this: A ship with a hundred guns attached, or a hundred guns with ships attached. The fighters would be expendable, they'd be able to accelerate, decelerate and manouver far in excess of that any 'real' ship wouild be able to due to lowered mass, they'd be able to reach the most vulnerable targets, both in terms of ships/buildings, whathaveyou, but also in terms of weakly armoured areas and sensor array, etc. They could also intercept incoming fire.

As for stealth, if a ship were to cut all power output, it could remain undetected. Apart from flying straight ahead, though, I don't see much that it could do. Good for crossing hostile space, though.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
The problem with fighter-drones is that the enemy could develop some kind of ECM to disrupt or even gain control of the fighters. The way fighters are depicted in say new Battlestar Galactica is perfectly viable - pilots in space suits with their own life-support.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
I imagine space warfare as being much like battlefleet gothic (see thread) where great warchips duel it out in battles similar to WWI naval engagements, where a ship or fleet would track down the enemy ship or fleet, which could take days or months, and then when they find each other, duke it out with long range fire, until one of the ships sink. In battlefleet gothic, ships are hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart, and so you wouldnt even be able to see your enemy, you would only see the flash of light as they explode under your fire. Also, everything is scaled up in size. Ships are centuaries old, often outliving several captains, and the actual ships are like 5 Km long. Cannons are massive things, 300 meters long, which require manual labour to pull back from the porthole in the wall to the loading magazene. great batteries are turrets the size of cathedrals, and resembel them too, with stained windows and great spires. just a glimps into the BFG univers ;) but yeah, the way i picture space battles to be is in a WWI style naval warfare, only scaled up withe verything else in space.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Initially I'd imagine space war would be waged with nukes. Masses and masses of nukes fired from glorified missile platforms in space. What comes after would depend on what defenses could be developed be it ECM, armour or whatever.
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
As for fighters, they are probably the most viable space-war tactic. But they are likely to be either computer-controlled or remote piloted, since life support and the space for a pilot and his-her interface would take up a lot of space and weight. Think of it like this: A ship with a hundred guns attached, or a hundred guns with ships attached. The fighters would be expendable, they'd be able to accelerate, decelerate and manouver far in excess of that any 'real' ship wouild be able to due to lowered mass, they'd be able to reach the most vulnerable targets, both in terms of ships/buildings, whathaveyou, but also in terms of weakly armoured areas and sensor array, etc. They could also intercept incoming fire.


Build a missile then. Bear in mind though, your opponents are moving at high speed, since they are bigger and carry more fuel, they are a hell of a lot faster than missiles.

In order to make an intercept with a PK of 20%, the missile must be 2.2 times faster than its target.

It also needs to be armed with an neutron warhead.

As for stealth, if a ship were to cut all power output, it could remain undetected. Apart from flying straight ahead, though, I don't see much that it could do. Good for crossing hostile space, though.


The life support would be detectable all the way from Pluto by today's technology. Not to mention it would occlude a star or another stellar body.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

It's fun to think of it as being Star Wars style, but I suspect that the reality would be very different. That's all I can say really. Without having any knowledge about what kind of technology is physically possible, it's impossible to say. Heck, it might not even be possible to travel to other stars; as much as we might not like the idea, it may be a physical impossibility and a magical warp drive or jump drive might not be possible even if we knew everything there was to know about the universe and physics.

(Doesn't really matter for us since the most we'll ever see in our lifetimes might be colonization on the Moon and perhaps Mars. Of course, this is assuming that human culture and knowledge continue to progress and that civilization doesn't turn on itself and go backwards. With all of the problems we have in this world--population explosion and its ensuing Malthusian crisis, environmental problems, etc., it's hard to say if we'll even see Martian colonies.)
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
I think the basics of today's air warfare still would come into play -

1) camoflouge/avoid being detected
2) speed/manuverability
3) killing power at both a distance or closer.
4) Frame strength/armor/shielding.

You would think that sensors could see in what we now call an over-the-horizen mode but that would all be predicated on the enemies ability to mask himself in some manner. The ability to kill at closer range is direclty proportional to this.

If shielding indeed becomes the norm, perhaps it would force the atttacker to be much closer to penetrate. Or a comparable missile of great power.

Hence speed and manuverability come into play.

However, in space, zero gravity mass of objects/ships should not come into play as to affect power requirements.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
The problem with fighter-drones is that the enemy could develop some kind of ECM to disrupt or even gain control of the fighters. The way fighters are depicted in say new Battlestar Galactica is perfectly viable - pilots in space suits with their own life-support.

But it would likely not be much harder to take control over a manned fighter, and likely as not the original owner would have some kind of dead man's switch, such as transmitting a specific code every .02 seconds - different one every time, of course.

Wanderer: Assuming limited resources, a fighter would be more efficient, as it could be reused. They'd be expendable - but not that expendable.

At our current level of tech, I suspect extreme long range may be the most practical - remember, in space, there is nothing to counteract inertia. A missile needs only exit speed and maneuvering thrusters to hit a target, and it could be fired at ranges in excess of the distance between the Earth and the moon.

Nevertheless, I suspect we won't have the answer for some time. Not until we have had actual space combat experience.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
As long as everyone brings their own booze they are ok...... ;) 
+1 Loading…
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
current tech:
smart missiles with heavy payloads. nukes maybe depending on the target. everyone saw what we did to the falling satalite this year right? that was a conventional weapon. guns and ballistics are not reasonable except and very close range.

future tech:
ships built in space for space combat. still reliant on missiles. but you will see ships capable of carrying ICBM sized weapons to use against the surface or other large vessels. engine tech will improve so lighter ships can be created and the first strike craft will be seen.

from stike craft you will get a class of ship designed for close combat included marine transports that can cut true hulls.

weapon tech will improve since ballistics inside of hulls is a bad idea. you will see expansion of tasers tech. however, demolishions will continue to be a maybe part of close combat.

mine type explosives will be smart and manuverable. imagine a predator drone but designed for one time use. when an object fails IFF it seeks and destorys with 20 of its brothers.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
But it would likely not be much harder to take control over a manned fighter, and likely as not the original owner would have some kind of dead man's switch, such as transmitting a specific code every .02 seconds - different one every time, of course.


Not so much, a manned fighter wouldn't be specifically designed to be piloted remotely, a drone would be. I suppose you could have automated drones, but then you're placing lives in the hands of your best AI which may or may not be a good thing.

At our current level of tech, I suspect extreme long range may be the most practical - remember, in space, there is nothing to counteract inertia. A missile needs only exit speed and maneuvering thrusters to hit a target, and it could be fired at ranges in excess of the distance between the Earth and the moon.Nevertheless, I suspect we won't have the answer for some time. Not until we have had actual space combat experience.


Only against targets that aren't moving, otherwise inertia is going to act against it if it overshoots, it will then need to use fuel to turn and accelerate in the opposite direction.
I can also see use of missiles near population centers (especially space stations) being banned much like land mines today, as stray missiles will trundle on forever and eventually hit something.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
The problem with fighter-drones is that the enemy could develop some kind of ECM to disrupt or even gain control of the fighters. The way fighters are depicted in say new Battlestar Galactica is perfectly viable - pilots in space suits with their own life-support.But it would likely not be much harder to take control over a manned fighter, and likely as not the original owner would have some kind of dead man's switch, such as transmitting a specific code every .02 seconds - different one every time, of course.Wanderer: Assuming limited resources, a fighter would be more efficient, as it could be reused. They'd be expendable - but not that expendable.


I find your lack of knowledge disturbing...

Those fighters are not viable. A well placed nuke would fry the pilots through the windows. Missiles are the way to go as they don't have to return, they can use their fuel to avoid counter fire. A piloted Fighter would have to abort due to lack of fuel.

Wanderer: Assuming limited resources, a fighter would be more efficient, as it could be reused. They'd be expendable - but not that expendable.


Doesn't work in space. If this were Stardestroyer.net you would be getting reamed and mocked by all the licensed engineers and scientists that reside there for your pitiful understanding of what space combat entails.

At our current level of tech, I suspect extreme long range may be the most practical - remember, in space, there is nothing to counteract inertia. A missile needs only exit speed and maneuvering thrusters to hit a target, and it could be fired at ranges in excess of the distance between the Earth and the moon.Nevertheless, I suspect we won't have the answer for some time. Not until we have had actual space combat experience.




Once again Licensed Engineers and Scientists have gone over this. Read this.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
Bombers would be a viable space tactic if you think about it.
One: Their a lot more maneuverable than larger Capital ships.
Two: It can carry a payload (ie. Torpedoes, Missiles, Tac. Nukes.) that would seriously put a dent in an enemy warship.
Three: An enemy ship would have a hell of a time hitting one it it’s not equipped with specialized Anti-Aircraft batteries or missiles
Four: You could build a hell of a lot more of them than you could a Cruiser or Dreadnought, and their just as lethal. (In numbers that is.)

And if Bombers are a viable tactic so to are Star fighters whose role would be to take eliminate bombers before they can drop there load on your fleet. The only real problem you would have would be miniaturizing a suitable power source. (Fusion, ,Cold Fusion, Fission, Lithium Fuel Cell and etc.) and life support. The rest is child play.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
I find it ridiculous that people here are trying to tell us whats possible with current tech. Absolutely stupid. If you can say that theoretically, FTL travel is possible - which is pretty much the foundation of all space battles, as if you can't travel FTL in space, there won't be much to fight over - then you can pretty much assume by that point it time, if indeed it happens, we will have sufficient tech to negate the other laws of physics as we currently understand them. - Personally i'm in love with space combat Halo novels style :O Hooray for science FICTION!
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
I find your lack of knowledge disturbing...Those fighters are not viable. A well placed nuke would fry the pilots through the windows.


Don't be dense. I wasn't referring to the design of the Viper, I was referring to it's role. A properly shielded fighter with the pilot in a protected suit would mitigate the damage, and that's assuming pilots are just going to drift and let a nuke blast hit them.

Missiles are the way to go as they don't have to return, they can use their fuel to avoid counter fire. A piloted Fighter would have to abort due to lack of fuel.


What the hell is fuel for maneuvering going to help against ECM or point defense? It's still going to have to work against it's own inertia unless it's so advanced that it's engines can maneuver freely in space.. but anybody advanced enough to do that could build a fighter with enough fuel to do so too.
Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
I always imagined far off in the future space battles to be fought similar to SoaSE, only I can't imagine that the ships would have so few guns on them. I mean come on! A big old capital ship isn't going to be equipped with only three main guns. They'd probably have a master cannon, hundreds of anti-fighter\bomber flaks\rail guns (probably some form of lasers to be honest), hundreds of missile pods, support weapons, and a lengthy crew of fighters.

As for the cruisers, its the same deal with the capital ships, only not nearly as much weaponry going on. I kinda hate in SOASE how almost all of the capital ships are pretty much support ships while all of the frigates are battle ships. Of course each race has their bad ass glorified fighter ship that you start out with, but the rest of the ships are either mini-carriers, friendly support, or anti-enemy ships that can't even attack.

Finally, I can't imagine that ships that far in the future would just kinda sit there and duke it out, sure the caps and the cruisers aren't as manueverable, but I don't think they are just gonna sit there ;) The frigates would probably be flying all over the place like the fighters and bombers.

I kinda like to imagine real life space battles kinda acting as the space battles would in Star Wars Battlefront 2.
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
As some people have pointed out, fighters are essentially useless in space. Why? Because they need 4x the delta-v of missles... and life support, a copit and other junk. Plus, missles don't die under ten gs.

So no fighters.

As for what ships are used, it depends on the strength of defenses. If defenses are stronger than offensive, than ships will be big- larger ones can soak up damage and have a critical advantage- laser batteries.

Lasers are a great weapon as they move at the speed of light and have no recoil, but they have a problem for most ships- they produce large amounts of heat. The only way to get rid of it is to have fins... which are ridiculously easy to blow off. So only large ships can have large enough heat sinks.

For everyone else, mass drivers and missles.

Of course, if space combat is nearly one hit, one kill, than ships would be small.

Someone know what these weapons would do to a ship? Are we talking about damage control (and surivable) or hit and die?
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
Something is wrong with you guys. If we have lasers, forget the missiles. Missles are a primitive long range weapon by sci-fi standards. And Fendryx has a point, ships won't just sit there and blow each other up. I mean sure the larger ships aren't as fast but that is what shields are for. You have to think in a realistic and logical sense.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
When I think of space battles I think of battlestar galactica. i think of really big ships with lots of armor and no shields duking it out with huge cannons and missiles and ships that can take a beating while dishing it out. Fighters wouldn't be as practical because of point defense weapons. But they could still be used to make surgical strikes against shipyards and planetary instillations. I don't think lasers will be all that useful because of the ridiculous amounts of energy it would take to power them. But i do think that we will be using rail guns as compared to artillery looking shells. I think of the shells sort of being the size of an suv or an f-350. As for traveling I think that FTL would be a good idea for making surprise attacks deep in enemy territory. If anybody know of any good books (or games other than SINS) with lots of space battles please tell me i love sci-fi.
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
It's fun to think of it as being Star Wars style, but I suspect that the reality would be very different. That's all I can say really. Without having any knowledge about what kind of technology is physically possible, it's impossible to say. Heck, it might not even be possible to travel to other stars; as much as we might not like the idea, it may be a physical impossibility and a magical warp drive or jump drive might not be possible even if we knew everything there was to know about the universe and physics.


I would imagine if and when we have the ability to colonise new worlds, great colony ships will be built, the size of cities, and would travel at the fastest possible speed to the nearest habitable world. They would probably travel for 10 or so generations, but they would eventually get there and colonise the planet. It will be impossible for them to communicate back with earth though, and so the colonists will be making a leap of faith - hope they are able to colonise the planet, or their screwed. as for earth, we will never hear from them again.... unless someone wants to make the 10 generation journy over there of course, or if FTL is discovered, but until then, humanity is restricted to spreading out into complete seclusion onto distant worlds.

and also, a note on big ships moving slower than smaller ships...... thats false, they will be able to move the same speed as smaller ships, only it will take more energy to get it going in the first place.
Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
As some people have pointed out, fighters are essentially useless in space. Why? Because they need 4x the delta-v of missles... and life support, a copit and other junk. Plus, missles don't die under ten gs.So no fighters.


This is what i was talking about earlier. Come on, if we have the tech for FTL, is it so hard to conceded we would have other scifi tech such as inertial dampners, anti-grav fields, etc. etc. that would allow pilots to easily survive forces we currently can't fathom?

But I have to imagine space combat would be all about mobility. I mean in the unlimited 3d of space, if you have one face of a planet blockaded, whats the best course of action? surely nobody here would agree its to come out of facing the bolckading fleet? why not just jump to the far side of the planet? or 100 KM away of the Z-axis even ? in the vastness of space, defense needs to encompass ultra-mobile fleets, ai-controlled super long range weps, and the chaos of electric warfare of all kinds.

Unless ofcoarse FTL does turn out to be Soase style (LoL) or we also have tech at that point allowing us to "fence off" the dimensions allowing FTL around our planets. :P But I guess the latter is currently depicted as the Sci-fi or future tech of Our scifi universes ATM.
Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
i picture it like in starwars. a capital ship is really the center of the fleet and a bunch of cruisers and frigates are there for support. also fighters can be shot by all units due to flak cannons on practically everything. Large battlestations at home planets and controlled planets sending missels, lasers and more fighters into the fray. so basically i picture it as naval combat in space.
Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
Don't be dense. I wasn't referring to the design of the Viper, I was referring to it's role. A properly shielded fighter with the pilot in a protected suit would mitigate the damage, and that's assuming pilots are just going to drift and let a nuke blast hit them.


Okay, let examine that theory. Some online Calculators.


What we are going to use.

Weapon Shape (12.566 indicates spherical burst):12.566
Weapon yield: 50 Kilotons

Armor Parameters: We'll use carbon here.
Atomic Mass: 12.01
Density: 2.26 g/cm3
Molar Volume: 5.34 cm3
Heat of Fusion: 100 kj/mol
Heat of Vaporization: 355.8 kj/mol

Simulate Nuclear Explosion
MegaJoules Discharged: 209200000 ; Armor Rating in MW/cm2: 45580

Range of Detonation in meters 3000

Surface Area of Burst at Range 113094000

Megajoules/cm2 0.0001849788671370718

MegaWatts/cm2 184.97886713707183; Armor thickness vaporized (mm) 0.09735873325347522


What does this mean? It means within three kilometers of a blast a Colonial Pilot will receive a lethal dose of radiation in space and his Viper would lose a bit of structural integrity. Nuke spam and no more fighters.

What the hell is fuel for maneuvering going to help against ECM or point defense? It's still going to have to work against it's own inertia unless it's so advanced that it's engines can maneuver freely in space.. but anybody advanced enough to do that could build a fighter with enough fuel to do so too.


Put forth the calculations to prove that when every license engineer and scientist has proven elsewise.

Here this will help you do it.Clickity click

This will help as well.