homefleet

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

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.

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.

632,208 views 262 replies
Reply #151 Top
You cannot predict what space warfare will be like any more than people during the revolutionary war could predict what modern warfare would be like. Actually they did. Useful breech loading rifles were developed during this war and tested. Read up on the Ferguson Rifle.That much is simple logic.Which many people here including you have yet to show.There is no "fiction excuse fallacy." If writers of science fiction take no liberty in bending science, then all science fiction will be the same.Yes there is you dishonest child. Look I have valid and unassailable points you must disprove or concede to. Wanderer, repeating things over and over again does not make them true. You should learn this.It is you who must respect science. Stop dodging the points I made and either disprove them or concede.



"Dishonest child?" So now you go to ad-hominem attacks simply because you don't have a legitimate response?

Breech loading rifles has nothing to do with modern warfare, as most rifles now use a clip of ammunition, thus rendering breach-loading obsolete.

Do you honestly think anyone during the civil war could have predicted ICBMs, helicopters, guided missiles, computers, or infrared cameras? No, they couldn't have.

I'm finished with you, troll.
Reply #152 Top
So has any one have an ideal how espionage will work in space if there is no stealth in space, and as well as no interstellar trade?

Also does any one know if there is beam spread in outer space?
Reply #153 Top
Okay...espionage?

Let's see...sending a small probe with FTL capability to take pictures, record transmissions and FTL out? The thing is, the only possible way is to go in very close and use FTL drive to travel, since it's faster than light...

Beam spread out? Light normally has inverse square law, but not sure how much of it applies to laser though...
Reply #154 Top
I imagine space warfare will be fought with the use of fighters, bombers, stealth ships, andvarious others. Fighters will needed to get to places on the enemy ships the big guns cant target ,and for taking out enemy strikecraft headed for friendly ships. the element of suprize is one ofthe most useful battlefield tools a commander has, in the future,R.A.M(radar obsorbant material) andtiny cameras dispaying the imagery they pick up on the opposite side of the hull, could make a ship vurtually invisible. Scince traditional gunpowder weapons dont work in space rail guns, missles, and beam weapons would be the weapons of choice. Frigates would probably maintain thier current naval role, patrol and defence of larger ships against missiles and strikecraft. Cruisers would be "capital ship killers" and would also help in defending larger ships, andcapital ships would be for bombardment and siege of planets, and also anti"everything". So thats pretty much my 2 cents
Reply #155 Top
Then I think the real question is how big, is a FTL drive? Because if it the size of a destroyer, then we should arm the probe so that it could do counter intelligence missions. But if the FTL drive is small enought to put into a small drone, then why not a missile, which could jump right next to an enemy ship, in its blind spot, or better yet, into the enemy ship.
Reply #156 Top
When considering what Space warfare would actually be like as opposed to how its presented in popular fiction one has to consider a few basic concepts first

1) What would a space navy’s primary role actually be?

The answer to this should be quite obvious; the only objects of any 'true' value are habitable planets. Oxygen, water worlds (are) of immense value and any space navies primary strategic priority would be to defend said worlds from orbital bombardment invasion etc. Secondary targets would be valuable resource facilities (ie mines, research facilities, fragile installations such as sensor arrays on so). iow important economic targets. Lastly, defending freighters whether their moveing raw materials people against destruction would be a high priority as well. Empty space, regardless of whether its interstellar or intergalactic is of absolutely NO strategic value whatsoever, the only thing worth fighting over at the end of the day, are planets. Thus any Department of Galactic Defence is going to design ships and organize them in a manner consistent with these goals, anything else would be simply throwing resources down a black hole, so to speak.

2) What Kind of vessels would you use?

Like many here have pointed out, space 'fighters' ala Vipers, Tie Fighters X-Wings etc are of no value what-so-ever. Fighters would require large expensive vessels, vast maintenance, facilities and support, easy to counter-act, the list goes on. In short, they’re lousy bang for the buck. The one-man space fighter is pure Hollywood and should be considered as such. This leaves space warships proper. Given how space is such a uniform environment it makes sense that *most* space warships would also be fairly uniform as well. One could easily see a Small, medium and Large class of vessels, the only real difference being, how many weapons mounts they could employ, longer ranges etc. Your main front line ships wouldn’t really need to be all that different from one another. However I can see a wide variety of highly specialized Non-combat vessels being necessary to support main-line combat vessels.

3) The Nature of space Combat

In space there a number of factors that make it a lot different from conventional warfare. For one, its almost impossible to 'hide' the fact that your coming. Drives give off energy signatures, there going to know your coming every time. Unless you can blind enemy sensors each side is going to know pretty much where each other stands. Complete strategic surprise in space is unlikely (though not impossible). As for the weapons themselves, your going to see a combination of kinetic Energy-based weapons and missiles(conventional or nuclear). Defence against such threats presents a number of problems from a defence pov. For some types of weapons, for example X-Ray Lasers, Particle beams, no amount of physical shielding is practical. Even an indirect explosion from a nuclear weapon would dump enormous amounts of highly dangerous energetic particles that would burn out sensors, wreck vital computers due to emp, and worst of all, very damageing to liveing beings. Unlike a planet, there is no environment around to absorb or partially mitigate such after-effects. Beam kinetic and nuclear weapons are many times more effective(thus far more dangerous of course) than they would be in a atmosphere. Sensors technology would also be critical as well, the ability to plot an enemies actual location in space is again, not a trivial matter. It does not matter how powerful your weapons are, if you can’t get a targeting solution, you lose, every time. (The series Babylon 5 mentions this quite clearly. During the Earth-Mimbari war, EarthForce ships were simply unable to track their targets. It wasn’t a question of Earths weapons would be ineffective (they were), its just they couldn’t get good target locks and thus were easily defeated, to use a fictional example

Given the difficulty of shielding against many of the weapons systems your likely to encounter in space battles, it seems that the side that’s going to win are the ones that can strike further and faster than an opponent. Even the most heavily armored ships would imo relatively easy to knock out of action. This shifts the burden from Defence towards Offence. How 'durable' one could make an actual space warship of course is open to considerable debate. Its not difficult to asses even now what even hypothetical space weapons could do and the bottom line is, I don’t think an actual space battle would be anywhere near as glamorous as fiction makes them out to be. I certainly wouldn’t want to be anywhere near one: LOL:

Reply #157 Top
Good points,John Falkenberg, but I think that we should all ask are selfs is there any thing that a small, medium and large class of vessels can do, that can't be down be the class szie above it or below it. Lets say that we call the small size ship a destroyer, the medium size a cruisers and the large size a dreadnought. Then we would have the same class of ships as that of the RTS Sword of the Stars. Ihave noted, that the have asked the very same question on there Discussion tab, on there wiki for Sword of the stars.

From the Sword of the Stars wiki Discussion tab for Dreadnoughts

"Add some discussion on why Dreadnaughts do not displace Cruisers and Destroyers on making their Debut."

From the Sword of the Stars wiki Discussion tab for Cruisers

"add some discussion on why Cruisers remain viable ship designs thoughout the game instead of being discarded as Dreadnaughts make their Debut"

From the Sword of the Stars wiki Discussion tab for Destroyers

"add some discussion on why Destroyers remain viable ship designs thoughout the game instead of being discarded as Cruisers and Dreadnaughts make their Debut"

The same question is asked for all three class. But I would like to add, that they should of also asked, is there something that you get out of a bigger calls that you don't get out of the smaller calls, that economic, to build the larger class, over the smaller class?

I even look thought there froms for the answer. What I found it that if we have a small short weapons range ship with a lot of firepower, or some abilitie, then it can take down a larger ship with long range weapons. This produces the need for a medium size ship, to act like an escort for the larger ships.

So you could note, that it is like this.

Destroyers: Anti Dreadnaughts.
Cruisers:Dreadnaughts escorts.
Dreadnaughts: Anti Cruisers.

Sounds like the old Paper Scissors Rock system, that is in every RTS. THe only Question now, is this how the real world works?
Reply #158 Top
So does this means that everyone else has nothing more to add?
Reply #159 Top
I believe space warfare in the future is going to be less navy style standoffs and more siege. After all, the most valuable thing in space is a planet for the large amounts of resources close to a potential home for future populations.

The new craft will be large transport whose first role is to move soldiers to both unoccupied and enemy worlds. Their secondary role will to be siege units to disable planetary defense such as platforms and military installations.

The weapons we have on the craft will be less energy intensive and more practical. Imagine this, your light-years away from home and you have no reliable supply lines. You will need to produce your own ammunition and gather your own resources. Lets also speculate that you have the techno might to make more advanced weapons, however you could not have the ability to replace them if damaged. Our future warships will need to be colonizers, miners, factories, and siege units.

I have read on this post how many seem to have skewed views on fighters. While I agree space fighters will be impractical for space warfare, most battles will be fought not in the depths of space but nears a planet or another valuable gravity. That means that your big capital ship won't be doing most of the fighting. You may only have several of such craft even if your a multi-planet empire. This means that warships such as these will be merely mobile bases, staying out of range of planetary defenses and launching both missiles and fighters at the enemy defenders. The missiles will be to take out platforms in orbit, while the fighters will interplanetary vessels using this ability to quickly dodge planet-side defenses and doubling as a shuttle for strike teams on the ground. They will be smooth small and fast, a sharp comparison to the blocky squarish capital ships of tomorrow.

Now you may ask why drones couldn't be used instead of fighters? Well the answer is communication. Unless we develop a faster than light method of communication that is practical(i.e. messenger drones), we will be limited to human decisions will be to real men and women who leave their carriers with only a well drawn up plan at best, They will need to be able to adapt to unfamiliar and sometimes improbable things in a war zone.

I have one more point to make while I'm at this and that is the necessary design of reusable and multipurpose technology. The same fighter might be needed to transport troops to surface of a planet. A missile aimed at a platform might diverted to intercept an incoming armor piercing missile heading straight for your capital ship.

ps. Artificial gravity anyone? How long do you think it will be until we're able to perfect it. Otherwise we'll be using some of that spinning crap. But then that might not be a problem with cap ships being the mobile bases and not having any other major role.
Reply #160 Top
I believe space warfare in the future is going to be less navy style standoffs and more siege. After all, the most valuable thing in space is a planet for the large amounts of resources close to a potential home for future populations.The new craft will be large transport whose first role is to move soldiers to both unoccupied and enemy worlds. Their secondary role will to be siege units to disable planetary defense such as platforms and military installations.The weapons we have on the craft will be less energy intensive and more practical. Imagine this, your light-years away from home and you have no reliable supply lines. You will need to produce your own ammunition and gather your own resources. Lets also speculate that you have the techno might to make more advanced weapons, however you could not have the ability to replace them if damaged. Our future warships will need to be colonizers, miners, factories, and siege units.I have read on this post how many seem to have skewed views on fighters. While I agree space fighters will be impractical for space warfare, most battles will be fought not in the depths of space but nears a planet or another valuable gravity. That means that your big capital ship won't be doing most of the fighting. You may only have several of such craft even if your a multi-planet empire. This means that warships such as these will be merely mobile bases, staying out of range of planetary defenses and launching both missiles and fighters at the enemy defenders. The missiles will be to take out platforms in orbit, while the fighters will interplanetary vessels using this ability to quickly dodge planet-side defenses and doubling as a shuttle for strike teams on the ground. They will be smooth small and fast, a sharp comparison to the blocky squarish capital ships of tomorrow.Now you may ask why drones couldn't be used instead of fighters? Well the answer is communication. Unless we develop a faster than light method of communication that is practical(i.e. messenger drones), we will be limited to human decisions will be to real men and women who leave their carriers with only a well drawn up plan at best, They will need to be able to adapt to unfamiliar and sometimes improbable things in a war zone.I have one more point to make while I'm at this and that is the necessary design of reusable and multipurpose technology. The same fighter might be needed to transport troops to surface of a planet. A missile aimed at a platform might diverted to intercept an incoming armor piercing missile heading straight for your capital ship.ps. Artificial gravity anyone? How long do you think it will be until we're able to perfect it. Otherwise we'll be using some of that spinning crap. But then that might not be a problem with cap ships being the mobile bases and not having any other major role.


Fighters would be usefull near planets as they could lance and land on them. Except you're never going to fight near a planet. As posted before you could see enemies coming long before they arrive. And you don't really want to give them a chance to nuke your planet (which they will do right away or either if they're about to lose as a last resort). And asuming current nuclear science would be more advanced that would leave nothing on the surface. So the best defence would be offense, fight them off before they come too close, and then fighters are useless again.

Personally I think it would be pretty boring. It would mostly involve alot of long range weapons and no close combat. Basicly the side who can shoot the furthest away without missing would win.
Reply #161 Top
My vision of space combat... just look at the game "Nexus - the jupiter incident".

A mix of Nexus and SoaSE is my dream.
Reply #162 Top
Do you honestly think anyone during the civil war could have predicted ICBMs, helicopters, guided missiles, computers, or infrared cameras? No, they couldn't have.


You have too little faith in Human Imagination. More importantly, your knowledge of history is lacking...


American Civil War: 1861–1865

ICBM:
Jules Verne: From the Earth to the Moon: 1865
Rockets have been used as weapons since the 13th century.
Jules had the basic idea of the multi-stage rocket. If you can conceptualize sending a rocket to the Moon, the idea for an ICBM is sure to follow.


Helicopter:
Leonardo da Vinci: 1490,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
First Flying Ornithopter: 1870s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithopter

Guided Missiles: 1633: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockets#Early_manned_rocketry
In Ottoman Turkey in 1633, Lagari Hasan Çelebi took off with what was described as a cone-shaped rocket, glided with wings through Bosporus from Topkap Palace, and made a successful landing, winning him a position in the Ottoman army.

It's human guided, but guided is guided.


Computer: Babbage's Analytical Engine: 1837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine
Other computers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing


Infrared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
1835: Macedonio Melloni makes the first thermopile IR detector;
1860: Gustav Kirchhoff formulates the blackbody theorem E = J(T,n);

First Camera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera#History
The camera obscura was first invented by the Iraqi scientist Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) as described in his Book of Optics (1015-1021).



Breech loading rifles has nothing to do with modern warfare, as most rifles now use a clip of ammunition, thus rendering breach-loading obsolete


Breech-loading rifles may be obsolete, but a lot of the big guns are breech loaded. Such as the gun on the M-1 tank or the battleship USS Iowa's 16 inch guns.


+1 Loading…
Reply #163 Top
Do you honestly think anyone during the civil war could have predicted ICBMs, helicopters, guided missiles, computers, or infrared cameras? No, they couldn't have.You have too little faith in Human Imagination. More importantly, your knowledge of history is lacking...American Civil War: 1861–1865ICBM: Jules Verne: From the Earth to the Moon: 1865 Rockets have been used as weapons since the 13th century. Jules had the basic idea of the multi-stage rocket. If you can conceptualize sending a rocket to the Moon, the idea for an ICBM is sure to follow.Helicopter: Leonardo da Vinci: 1490, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci First Flying Ornithopter: 1870s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrnithopterGuided Missiles: 1633: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockets#Early_manned_rocketry In Ottoman Turkey in 1633, Lagari Hasan Çelebi took off with what was described as a cone-shaped rocket, glided with wings through Bosporus from Topkap Palace, and made a successful landing, winning him a position in the Ottoman army. It's human guided, but guided is guided.Computer: Babbage's Analytical Engine: 1837 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine Other computers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computingInfrared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared 1835: Macedonio Melloni makes the first thermopile IR detector; 1860: Gustav Kirchhoff formulates the blackbody theorem E = J(T,n); First Camera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera#History The camera obscura was first invented by the Iraqi scientist Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) as described in his Book of Optics (1015-1021).Breech loading rifles has nothing to do with modern warfare, as most rifles now use a clip of ammunition, thus rendering breach-loading obsoleteBreech-loading rifles may be obsolete, but a lot of the big guns are breech loaded. Such as the gun on the M-1 tank or the battleship USS Iowa's 16 inch guns.


Point is, that's still under 1% percent of the humans making a guess and actually being remotely right. That means there's probably a 5% chance of one person on this forum actually coming close to making a right guess. Being extremely optimistic that is.
Reply #164 Top
Point is, that's still under 1% percent of the humans making a guess and actually being remotely right. That means there's probably a 5% chance of one person on this forum actually coming close to making a right guess. Being extremely optimistic that is.

5% is still better than nothing, though...isn't it?

Actually, Jules Verne predict something like the Internet and pocket calculator too...you can't underestimate human imagination...
+1 Loading…
Reply #165 Top
Point is, that's still under 1% percent of the humans making a guess and actually being remotely right. That means there's probably a 5% chance of one person on this forum actually coming close to making a right guess. Being extremely optimistic that is.5% is still better than nothing, though...isn't it?Actually, Jules Verne predict something like the Internet and pocket calculator too...you can't underestimate human imagination...


I'm not, I'm sure there's a few people who are, more or less, right. Except there's no way to know who they are. There's like a hundred ideas, and one of them is correct.
Reply #166 Top
I'm happy that people still have something more to add.

I think we can figure out which person is right if we look at the problem form a logical point of view.

First I can only see 4 types of weapons that we can use in outer space.

Lasers: move at the speed of light, and therefore cannot be dodged by anything moving at no-relativistic speeds. It will always hit its target, unless it is poorly aimed. Lasers range, is limited by beam spread. Beam spread is were the laser light "spread out" which decreases the energy density. This means that the lasers range is not limited by accurate , or by speed of the target, but by the energy density at certain ranges. One watt per 0.01 cm^2 is powerful enought, to burn thought metal, while one watt per 1 cm^2 can only burn thought paper. Beam spread does not decrease the power, but increase the area in which the energy applied. This means that lasers are short range weapons as there abilitie to burn thought there target goes down with increase in range fired.

Missiles: we should think of them as small drone spcaecaft, that chase after enemy ships and attack them with their warheads. For all the same reasons, that you can target a ship you can also target a missile. Also like ships they can cahnge there velocity, which is also the reason that they can be targeted. Missiles, could shut down there engine, but this means missing the target. Missiles have an number of advantages, over shells and lasers. One is that they do not generate hugh amounts of waste heat. A missile can be pushed off with springs or cold gas. Once clear of the ship, the misile's propulsion system ignites. But then all the waste heat is the missiles's problem, not the ships. The other which I never seen talked about, is that if the missile launch system is desired right, is that the missiles have no reload time. If you look at one of the reasons that we now use a vertical launching systems, you find, that there is no reload time between missile launches, which also mena that you can fire all the missiles at the SAME TIME. Also beacuse these missiles need to track, they also act like sensor platform, which also could be called probes. Missiles should attack in swarms, so that they can overheat the lasers and allow at least some of them to get thought.

Shells: fired from coil guns the size of the ship, or from rail guns the shell act the same. Shells are dumb fired kintic kill weapons, that kill thought kintic energy. They use momentum over warheads. The power of the shell comes from its mass * in velocity after firing. Also we need to take into account what the force * time, when the shell hits, as if we increase time we decrease force, as M*V = F*T. Shells are more of an meduim range weapon as they do not decrease in power with increae in range fired, but can not change there velocity, to follow the change in velocity of enemy ships at long range.

Kintic kill missiles: are just like Katyushas from Attack Vector Tactical. Kintic kill missiles are kintic shells that are launched with springs or cold gas or an rocket engine. They produce no waste heat like missiles, and if designed right can all be launched at the SAME TIME. But because they are dumb shells they can not change there velocity and there for are mid range weapons. Even thought the shells are just like those fired from coil or rail guns, there are some difference. First kintic kill missiles have less energy then those fired by coil or rail guns, unless the launching system can produce the same power as one coil or rail gun rounds. Which means if the power is less, and the shell has the same mass, then how is it a meduim range weapon? Will, because you can launch all the kintic kill missiles, you can produce swarms of kintic kill missiles, like you can produce swarms of missiles. It becomes a meduim range weapon as you most get out of the way of a cloud. The Kintic kill missile trades "saturation" fire for speed and their for power of each round. An important side effect, is that this cloud effect, acts very much like an Phalanx styke weapons system. The Phalanx weapons system shot 4500 rounds per min, which produces a cloud of lead, which the missile runs into and is destroyed. This means that an kintic kill missile also on some level act like an laser system.

From what I have seen so far, people think that you should compare space weapons to an revolver, shotgun and a dog. The dog being a missile, the revolver is an laser and the shotgun is an kinetic weapon.

I think we should think of space weapons system more along the lines of weapons that we find in Role playing games. Think of an laser as a sword, which has short range, can be used to attack some one close to you or attack a hawk, but the main point is that it is both an close range offensive and defensive weapon. Also a sword does not run out of ammo, like a rifle, bow and arrow or a group of hawks. Think of the coil gun as a rifle, in which you must line up the shot. Think of kintic kill missiles as an wave of arrows, where the ideal is that one must hit, at the cost of power. Finally think of missiles like hawks, they work best in groups, and make coil guns useless against them, thought there numbers. You can't out run them, and they never miss, the only way to stop them, is with another hawks, hit them with an arrow or cut them in two with a sword.

Second the number of class in space warfare will be equal, to the number of least usefull types of ships. What does least usefull types of ships mean?

Well it means that you will not build a new class of ship, who job can be done better by another class of ship. Or if that class of ship can do more, or cost less.

Lets use Star Wars: empire at war as an example.

Lets uses the following class of ships in the example.
Strike craft = A
Corvette = B
Frigate = C
Cruiser = D
Capital ship = E

in the game:
A < B
B < C < D < E
E & C & D < A

What does this mean? The job of an frigate, is to destroy corvette. The job of an cruisers, is to destroy corvette and frigate. The job of an capital ship, is to destroy corvette, frigate and cruisers. This mean that you will never build a frigate, if you can build a cruiser. It also means, that you will never build a frigate and/or cruiser, if you can build a capital ship.

This means that even thought the number of class in game is 5, you only have 3 usefull class of ships. You need strike craft to destroy capital ship. Corvette to destroy strike craft, and capital ship to destroy crovette.

In a game, where we have only one class of least useful units, we call these units Uber units, as there is no reason to build any thing, but this class of ships.

So in real space combat, we need to ask are selfs is there a reason, that we one ship can't have the abilitie of other. Because lets face it. Is there a reason that a capital ship, can't have anti strike craft weapons?

Do you guy, read post, that are this long?
Reply #167 Top
I believe that in order to accurately predict space warfare, we still have to look at the objectives. Nukes and other high-yield weaponry would cause too much damage to planets to be part of any serious invasion plan.

Like homefleet said, the enemy will know your coming so you'd better be prepared to carve your way through their defenses and still be mobile enough to conquer the planet. That means large capital ships moving forward where any other vessel would be destroyed by the defenders.

Small ships will however still have their purposes. Scouts and couriers will be needed in these future wars were we might have FTL capability but not communication. Remember this when you think of war tomorrow. Every soldier from the most basic marine to a fleet admiral will leave dock with his orders and in order for him to have all possibilities open at anytime he will need a line of information. Smaller vessels will be expendable and numerous, allowing a chain to exist between a stationary base and its fleet assets.

There is one more type of ship that will be needed, a different category if you will. This is atmospheric entry craft. These will be the shuttles and fighters of our war. Since the objective is to capture a planet, not destroy it, you will need to get boots on the ground. The vessels should be reusable to effective and decently armored. The would also be armed with anti-air defense like flak. The next one will be sleek space-fighters capable of entering the atmosphere, bombing critical fortifications, dealing with other enemy strikecraft within orbit, and getting out for rearmament.

The reason I think space warfare will be a close-up knife fight and not a joust of missiles and lasers is because of the difficulties in actually hitting something when its really far away. The high probability of missing your target and wasting precious ammunition is why each side will try to get as close to one another as practical. Capital ships staying just in range of the planet hitting defensive platforms, while strikecraft are deployed to aid in the destruction of orbiting defenders and then moving into the atmosphere to clear the way for the oncoming shuttles. It will be a long and bloody affair but war has always been one.

4 Classes
-Capital Ship-Large
-Scout/Courier-Small
-Strikecraft-Tiny
-Shuttles-Medium

To be honest I don't think any of this will be possible unless we get FTL or something near it like anti-matter rockets which are still being worked on. Lasers, coil-guns, missiles and any other weapon will not be measured in power but in practicality.
Reply #168 Top
They use momentum over warheads. The power of the shell comes from its mass * in velocity after firing


Not momentum, kinetic energy: E=0.5*M*V^2 (V^2=V*V).

Also we need to take into account what the force * time, when the shell hits, as if we increase time we decrease force, as M*V = F*T.


Wrong, check your physics books again.

Missiles: we should think of them as small.... snipped.


I don't agree with the reload thing, all the other stuff is debatable.

Kintic kill missiles

I just like to point that in AV:t Missiles, Coil-guns, and katyusha fall under the definition of Kinetic kill weapons since they all rely on thier kinetic energy (E=0.5*M*V^2 (V^2=V*V)).

ps. Artificial gravity anyone? How long do you think it will be until we're able to perfect it.

Well, since we have no idea how gravity works it could take a while...




I believe that in order to accurately predict space warfare, we still have to look at the objectives.


Here is a nice scenario: Earth ~2080ish, we have finally kicked the door down and went to space in full force (i.e we found a cheaper way to get to space).
The moon have several colonies by several diffrent countries, space industry is booming with powersats and spaceyards and space station orbiting the earth and the moon, allmost every country got some kind of hold in space be it a rented powersta to beam down power from orbit or 1k ton torchships exploring the outer planets and the astroind belt.
Massive industrial effort by countries and privte companies full bring more and more wealth and prestige back home and there is even an effort to colonize Mars, with massive terraforming operations planed for the future.

In this enviorment, with every country trying to grab a piece of real estate, the the super powers "battle" for prestige and wealth, with lots of traffic around the earth the moon and outward toward the NEO's, Mars, Venus and the astroid belt, it your job to define and designe a space force for you country.

Notes:
No fancy shmancy techs, meaning no FTL of any kind or anti-grav techs.

Warder
Reply #169 Top

They use momentum over warheads. The power of the shell comes from its mass * in velocity after firingNot momentum, kinetic energy: E=0.5*M*V^2 (V^2=V*V).
Also we need to take into account what the force * time, when the shell hits, as if we increase time we decrease force, as M*V = F*T.

Wrong, check your physics books again.


Thanks for pointing out that mistake on my part. Can you then give me the equations that allows me to get form the voltage and current of a coil gun, to the Kineitc energy in the round that it fires, Warder?



Missiles: we should think of them as small.... snipped.

I don't agree with the reload thing, all the other stuff is debatable.


For this one I will have to say that your the one that is wrong. There is no reason, why you would need to reload if you have an Vertical Launching system, or any system, that allow for each missile to have its own independent way to launch. Think of fighter craft today. All the missiles are mounted on hard points, with each missile having its own independent way to launch. A fighter craft does not have to launch only two missiles, and the have to wait for those hard point to be reloaded in the middle of a fight. If the an fighter craft has four hardpoint, and a target lock, there is no reason why that fighter can't launch all four missiles at the same time. That why we went form the twin-arm launcher system to vertical launching system. The twin-arm lancher could only fire two missiles, and then would have to reload. But the vertical launching system has all the missiles "pre-loaded" and there for can fire and one of them at any time, including at the same time.




I just like to point that in AV:t Missiles, Coil-guns, and katyusha fall under the definition of Kinetic kill weapons since they all rely on thier kinetic energy (E=0.5*M*V^2 (V^2=V*V)).



I'm happy to see, that some one understands what I was talking about. But I would like to point out that seem to find that missiles just seems some time to be smarter kinetic kill weapons that can be targeted like any ship.



Reply #170 Top


I believe that in order to accurately predict space warfare, we still have to look at the objectives. Nukes and other high-yield weaponry would cause too much damage to planets to be part of any serious invasion plan.

Like homefleet said, the enemy will know your coming so you'd better be prepared to carve your way through their defenses and still be mobile enough to conquer the planet. That means large capital ships moving forward where any other vessel would be destroyed by the defenders.

Small ships will however still have their purposes. Scouts and couriers will be needed in these future wars were we might have FTL capability but not communication. Remember this when you think of war tomorrow. Every soldier from the most basic marine to a fleet admiral will leave dock with his orders and in order for him to have all possibilities open at anytime he will need a line of information. Smaller vessels will be expendable and numerous, allowing a chain to exist between a stationary base and its fleet assets.

There is one more type of ship that will be needed, a different category if you will. This is atmospheric entry craft. These will be the shuttles and fighters of our war. Since the objective is to capture a planet, not destroy it, you will need to get boots on the ground. The vessels should be reusable to effective and decently armored. The would also be armed with anti-air defense like flak. The next one will be sleek space-fighters capable of entering the atmosphere, bombing critical fortifications, dealing with other enemy strikecraft within orbit, and getting out for rearmament.

The reason I think space warfare will be a close-up knife fight and not a joust of missiles and lasers is because of the difficulties in actually hitting something when its really far away. The high probability of missing your target and wasting precious ammunition is why each side will try to get as close to one another as practical. Capital ships staying just in range of the planet hitting defensive platforms, while strikecraft are deployed to aid in the destruction of orbiting defenders and then moving into the atmosphere to clear the way for the oncoming shuttles. It will be a long and bloody affair but war has always been one.

4 Classes
-Capital Ship-Large
-Scout/Courier-Small
-Strikecraft-Tiny
-Shuttles-Medium

To be honest I don't think any of this will be possible unless we get FTL or something near it like anti-matter rockets which are still being worked on. Lasers, coil-guns, missiles and any other weapon will not be measured in power but in practicality.


You bring out a good point/question there. It would seem that are class of ships would be based on what we can do and can't do with FTL technolgy.

First we are going to need the FTL technolgy, or there will be very littile to fight over in the first place. But once we have the technolgy how does it work. Can I make FTL sensors? Can I send communication at FTL speeds? Do I need an object or point in order to go to FTL speeds? Each could produce its own class of ships, if yes or no. But then we need to ask, our selfs some other questions after that.

You said in you last two post, that we still have to look at the objectives. Planets are a dead give away and will be the main target, no matter what FTL technolgy we use, but are FTL technolgy could also give us other objectives. If our FTL technolgy is based on gates or points in space, then they themselfs would become targets. You could produce choke points with not just the planets alone, but with these gates and/or points. This would be much like we see in Sword of the Stars, were planet that have a lot of node points become become the main target, even if the planet itself is dead. Or for the hive with there gates being targeted around your planet or theirs', as this would force them to use STL drive to get to those planets.
Reply #171 Top
Lets assume that we cannot violate the laws of physics to travel through space. What would we use to propel our vessels through space? Antimatter rockets, ramjets, or any other proposed method?
Reply #172 Top
That a good question HeroicHerald, and I only have two ideals, of who it could be done. One is with wormholes, the other is to warp space or fold space so that you can move one point of space to other. Both ideals will require a lot of energy, and there for I can not see very small ships with FTL Drives.

Wormholes as far as I under stand them are caused by gravity. How much gravity do we need, to have an wormhole is other question that needs to be answered.

Lets say any planet over some mass has the abilitie to natural wormholes. Then the only energy need to use them is to find them and go thougth. Then the question is what type of sensors or drive we need to go thougth them, because of it was so easy for a ship to find and move thougth, something should around earth should of hit a wormhole already.

If we could produce Artificial gravity, then we could produce an artificial wormhole. And therefore we world have gates between world. But this means that we would have to send ships at STL speeds to other planet to build gates on the ones that do not have them.

The warp, fold thing is too much for me, you will have to ask some one for help on that one.

All I know, is no matter how we get FTL Drive, there going to need a lot of power, and therefore a of fuel.


Reply #173 Top
I don't want to break the party, because everything that has been posted here has been very interesting and I want the discussions to continue, but I was wondering this one thing:

aren't all these discussions useless if FTL travels are impossible?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it happen. But if it is impossible, all these theories about warfare and such will remain... theories.
Reply #174 Top
With out a question the answer would mostly be yes, Vaihlor. There is no point in space combat if all the sides in the war had only one planet to fight over. Not only do we need to ask if FTL Travel is possible, but also ask, if we can have FTL sensor and communication.
Reply #175 Top
If you mean by theory, conjecture speculation guess etc, well, then you are most likely wrong. There is nothing even at this point 'theoretical' about Lasers, masers Particle beam weapons, Fusion weapons, Rail Guns, missles, superconductive materials, etc. Our scientists and tecnichians at this point understand the principles behind pretty much all the underlying concepts needed to make space warfare possbile. Many of the technologies required are questions of engineering now, not of theory, and of course, infastructure. A good example would be powered flight. As soon as heavier than air flight was shown to be both possible AND practical, it quickly occured to people that cities and countries could be linked via things called 'airports'. Of course at the dawn of the air age, there was no infastructure and the techology was immature to say the least. Now a century later, a vast network of airports and an entire areopace industry supports a world-wide infastructure whose scale and efficeny, im sure dwarfs what early thinkers thought would be possible. In space, now at this point in history, the technology is immature and the infastruture does not exist for all practical purposes. Nor Does 'FTL' really have anything to do with...well anything. Even here in the solar system we are quite capable given the time and resources to build colonies in the inner and outer planets, asteriod belt etc, then decide its only appropriate to build warships capable of threatening the facilites which would be built at great cost in skill and resources...with destruction. 'FTL' never really enters in to it. Think of if this way, if interplanetary war is dangerous and impractical(in any real sense), then interstellar warfare is an..... absurdity. Even if, what NASA refers to as 'Breakthrough Physics' were to be discovered. The distances and energy required to maintain even a 'simple' low level, interstellar war, would imo, be staggering.

'Theory' is not a synomyn for not-as-yet realized. As in all things, some may come to pass, some maybe never. Maybe all and then some on top, who can say? As for 'theory' well...at one point constructing atomic weapons and turning them against our fellow man was 'only a theory' too...