Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Muscado Mestica
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:24:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Muscado Mestica on 23/03/2010 21:24:43 ááááááááááHello all,
áááááHere's a query: Won't missiles be obsolete within the next few decades, given that, even presently, the combination of lasers and radar provide what amounts to an improvised "force field" around military vehicles such as tanks? Will missiles ever have a place in space-based warfare?
áááááAny opinions on this?
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:44:00 -
[2]
Depends, with enough mass the energy required to deflect a projectile would be problematic at best, so a large and heavy enough missile would still be dangerous, the problem however would be range, not defences. Space based warfare is most likely to be conducted at tens- if not hundreds-of-thousands of kilometres, missiles take to long to get to their targets at that sort of range. Unless you're going for FTL or very high end sublight drives on the missiles.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 21:53:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/03/2010 21:57:21 ATM all the defences being developed (lasers that shoot artillery shells out the sky, magnetic shielding on tanks, etc) are all designed to work vs low-tech threats, using weapons that are decades old and with no electronic warfare of any kind.
In Space, ATM Missiles are about the only realistic option when you think about it. As for counters, well you just need some counters to those counters (I mean, what if someone were to jam your radar? (sorry ))
- Malyutka (The Virus) - |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/03/2010 21:57:21 In Space, ATM Missiles are about the only realistic option when you think about it. As for counters, well you just need some counters to those counters (I mean, what if someone were to jam your radar? (sorry ))
There Ain't No Stealth In Space
"The Space Shuttle's much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt. And even a puny ship using ion drive to thrust at a measly 1/1000 of a g could be spotted at one astronomical unit. This is with current off-the-shelf technology. Presumably future technology would be better. "
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
u gotjacked2
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 00:52:00 -
[5]
Edited by: u gotjacked2 on 24/03/2010 00:52:21 when u think bout it though, missiles are fast and cool but b/c there is no gravity in space artillery could be just as effective as missiles, and of course cheaper maybe too. therefore maybe space missiles is just as realistic as space artillery
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 00:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: u gotjacked2 Edited by: u gotjacked2 on 24/03/2010 00:52:21 when u think bout it though, missiles are fast and cool but b/c there is no gravity in space artillery could be just as effective as missiles, and of course cheaper maybe too. therefore maybe space missiles is just as realistic as space artillery
Except the ranges are so long that by the time the artillery shell reaches the target, even the slightest move by the target will result in a complete miss. And as a nice consequence of no stealth in space, any incoming artillery shot that WILL hit will be shot down by point defense.
As for the question of missiles:
On the ground: either missiles will be fired with sufficient numbers to overwhelm the defenses, or they will switch to stealth and/or flying at low altitude to stay out of line of sight of a laser.
In space: the question of whether lasers or missiles will dominate space warfare depends generally depends on the effectiveness of lasers at shooting down incoming missiles vs. the number of missiles that can be carried for the same mass as a laser. This question depends on multiple factors that can not be predicted until we get to that point, so who knows. Read the atomic rockets site for more details. -----------
|
Jerid Verges
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:08:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/03/2010 21:57:21 ATM all the defences being developed (lasers that shoot artillery shells out the sky, magnetic shielding on tanks, etc) are all designed to work vs low-tech threats, using weapons that are decades old and with no electronic warfare of any kind.
The US airforce already has a jet that can ICBMs out of the sky during their launch phase. And another modified cargo aircraft with a laser powerful enough to melt a tank from the air.
It's only a matter of time before laser technology becomes more compact, powerful, and accurate.
I see space battles being battled with either lasers or railguns.
|
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:09:00 -
[8]
I've been having fun reading an old book by Larry Niven called "Protector" recently.
about a quarter of the book is given over to a small skirmish between three ships that takes the best part of seventy years to play out.
That's from the outside. The ships are all powered by Bussard Ramscoops so they're doing a respectable percentage of light speed the whole time. Due to relativistic effects, the occupants only experience it as taking about two and a half years. It's described as being not so much a fight as a "high-stakes game of poker". The pilots are all thinking several moves ahead and trying to outwit each other, with the penalty for being outwitted being that they run straight into a "bomb" full of compressed radon gas that gets sucked into their ramscoop and detonates, taking the ship with it. Entertaining reading, but deathly dull if you tried to present it any other way.
Give me fiction, with it's fifty-metre laser, missile and starfighter dogfights any day. Not so realistic, much more entertaining.
Anyway, point being that in that setting, the fight DOES make use of missiles - to try and force the target ship onto certain predictable courses so the laser that constitutes the main weapon can be brought to bear. They don't expect the missiles to actually damage the target, just to corral it. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:12:00 -
[9]
plasma cannons? altho I really dunno how to create a short-lived self-sustained magnetic container for plasma.
coil-guns/railguns? seem feasible, altho hi-tech missiles would dominate long range battles, and lasers heat dissipation would probably make them only viable at short range, provided that creating a "seeking" railgun/coilgun projectile would make it viable at longer ranges, making such guns dominating on the med ranges.
probably like: missile -> long range bombardment, used with probably saturation tactics magnetic guns -> mid range (or probably orbital bombardment) main batteries lasers -> point defence vs missiles. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:33:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Stitcher on 24/03/2010 01:36:34
Originally by: Grimpak lasers heat dissipation would probably make them only viable at short range
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would heat dissipation impact the effective range of a laser weapon?
If you mean dissipation of the beam, I should point out that the function of a laser is that they don't dissipate quickly at all, especially not in vacuum. the limiting factor on the range of a weaponised laser in space will be defined by the speed of light and the agility of the target ship and nothing else. If the target's far enough away that it can move its own body length in any direction in the time that it takes for the laser light to reach it, then the laser is effectively useless. that distance will be substantially closer than the distance at which the laser dissipates to the point of not being able to damage the target.
To give you an idea of how coherent laser light is, SETI reckon that any signals targeted at Earth by extraterrestrials would probably be lasers rather than omnidirectional radio emmissions, for the simple reason that the latter kind of signal dissipates according to the inverse square law, whereas lasers aren't, which massively increases the distance the signal can be transmitted before it is lost in the background noise. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
|
Grimpak
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 02:02:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Stitcher Edited by: Stitcher on 24/03/2010 01:36:34
Originally by: Grimpak lasers heat dissipation would probably make them only viable at short range
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would heat dissipation impact the effective range of a laser weapon?
If you mean dissipation of the beam, I should point out that the function of a laser is that they don't dissipate quickly at all, especially not in vacuum. the limiting factor on the range of a weaponised laser in space will be defined by the speed of light and the agility of the target ship and nothing else. If the target's far enough away that it can move its own body length in any direction in the time that it takes for the laser light to reach it, then the laser is effectively useless. that distance will be substantially closer than the distance at which the laser dissipates to the point of not being able to damage the target.
To give you an idea of how coherent laser light is, SETI reckon that any signals targeted at Earth by extraterrestrials would probably be lasers rather than omnidirectional radio emmissions, for the simple reason that the latter kind of signal dissipates according to the inverse square law, whereas lasers aren't, which massively increases the distance the signal can be transmitted before it is lost in the background noise.
entropy
it's also a simple matter of lens quality for the range. more focussed beams require better, frailer, lenses, meaning harder to produce en masse, and most likely, hard to maintain quality when everything arround you is being hit by mass or missile type weapons.
so it's really a matter of practicality, not physics. point-defence laser weaponry is the best due to the precise nature of the lasers. Beyond that, either missiles or magnetic guns. ---
Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.
ain't that right. |
Sarajo
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 09:50:00 -
[12]
Lasers have the added benefit that it's impossible to see them coming. If you can detect them, you are already being hit. Not so with mass-based weapons. Also I'd think the tracking of a laser weapon would be much better, I imagine adjusting a series of lenses takes less time and engineering difficulty than properly aiming an artillery shell.
However with artillery you could possibly deliver some area effects (EMP blasts maybe?) so you would'nt actually have to hit the target. Same with missiles.
|
Zzander Solus
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 13:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: u gotjacked2 Edited by: u gotjacked2 on 24/03/2010 00:52:21 when u think bout it though, missiles are fast and cool but b/c there is no gravity in space artillery could be just as effective as missiles, and of course cheaper maybe too. therefore maybe space missiles is just as realistic as space artillery
Actually gravity does exist in space. Gravity is a factor of mass. Every object in space has its own gravity that effects the gravity of other objects in space. Depending on the distance projectiles are launched and the proximity of celestial objects, gravity can effect both missiles and artillery.
|
Zzander Solus
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 14:02:00 -
[14]
There is interesting work being done on missiles. The US is currently testing missiles that can fly at mach 9 (9x the speed of sound) and faster. Also missiles are being developed that use swarm intelligence. That could mean that as missiles find a way to strike a target, they could relay the solution to other missiles. After a target is destroyed, the swarm of missiles could move on and locate a new target. Something along the lines of a swarm of bees, but at hypersonic speeds.
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Zzander Solus There is interesting work being done on missiles. The US is currently testing missiles that can fly at mach 9 (9x the speed of sound) and faster. Also missiles are being developed that use swarm intelligence. That could mean that as missiles find a way to strike a target, they could relay the solution to other missiles. After a target is destroyed, the swarm of missiles could move on and locate a new target. Something along the lines of a swarm of bees, but at hypersonic speeds.
Seems that the Australians were first there though. Try Mach 10 with a missile Although it is in collaboration with the US DARPA. Those missiles are air-breathers though, so they'd need an atmosphere to work.
As for the swarmers, it's a neat idea, but considering most longer range US AA missiles already cost around 6 million bucks a pop, would you really want to fire an entire swarm of even more expensive networked missiles at anything?
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Heavens Gate Consortium Dead Reckoning Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:42:00 -
[16]
Well since my job is making and designing missiles, I hope they don't become obsolete. ____________________
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:49:00 -
[17]
well, thats the point. You dont fire something that costs anything, you fire a ****load of missiles with 'just' a rocket and an explosive. You want massive saturation, not guided destruction. If anyone has read the revelation space series (not sure exactly which book i remember it from), the basic idea is just that the more 'stuff' you have in the air.. space, the better your chances of hitting
(as mentioned earlier, active stuff can be jammed, but shooting 500+ missiles *that way* cant be)
Originally by: CCP Shadow Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Heavens Gate Consortium Dead Reckoning Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 21:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lance Fighter well, thats the point. You dont fire something that costs anything, you fire a ****load of missiles with 'just' a rocket and an explosive. You want massive saturation, not guided destruction. If anyone has read the revelation space series (not sure exactly which book i remember it from), the basic idea is just that the more 'stuff' you have in the air.. space, the better your chances of hitting
(as mentioned earlier, active stuff can be jammed, but shooting 500+ missiles *that way* cant be)
No.
No no no no no no no bloody hell no.
Indiscriminate missile spam not only costs a great deal of money, it breaks a good number of international laws on minimising collateral damage. And despite your sci-fi fuelled wet dreams, jamming a missile is not yet as easy as pressing a button. The reason for this is because if it's close enough for your directed energy weapon to disable the missile guidance system, it's close enough to still hit you on pure inertia. Lasers could do it, but they require humongous amounts of energy and only a few have been made afaik. The best way to take out an incoming missile is to hit it with a missile of your own. ____________________
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 22:29:00 -
[19]
Quote: BTW, that Atomic Rockets site has really interesting essays on what realistic space combat would be like. Long story short, space combat is going to be really boring.
I just wasted 7h reading this stuff. Awesome.
Brb reading Poul Anderson's Tau Zero.
____ Rockets need a boost. CCP status: [_] Told. [x] Not told.
◕◡◕
|
ChaeDoc II
Gallente Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 07:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 23/03/2010 21:57:21 ATM all the defences being developed (lasers that shoot artillery shells out the sky, magnetic shielding on tanks, etc) are all designed to work vs low-tech threats, using weapons that are decades old and with no electronic warfare of any kind.
In Space, ATM Missiles are about the only realistic option when you think about it. As for counters, well you just need some counters to those counters (I mean, what if someone were to jam your radar? (sorry ))
True enough about the technology intended to defend against but in the 1700s mail armour was invented, it didn't stop musket rounds but it did stop more primative weapons technology such as arrows and slashing weapons. This technology lead to more advanced personal defence technology such as flak jackets that do stop most bullets today.
New defences for tanks might only protect against technology that is a few decades old but it's the beginning of a new kind of defence, like mail armour was, and will get better with further technolocical advances.
|
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 21:51:00 -
[21]
I always liked how space combat was described in David Webers honorverse. It felt somewhat realistic and could not be further away from the pewpew in Star Wars.
Most of the technology was made by manipulating gravity and inertia. Ships accelerated and decelerated by generating two wedges of powerful gravity upside and downside of theirs ships. These wedges also provide protection against incoming weapons since they are impenetratable by any known weapon. However the nature of the field allows only a much weaker shield on the sides and no shield on the front and backside.
Spaceship combat on a small scale is mostly about two sides trying to cross the T of their enemies. At the beginning Gamma-Ray-Lasers dominate the battlefield somewhat since they can punch through an enemies side shield and inflict devastating damage at point blank range (less then 300k from their target).
Missiles are at the beginning considered an inferior weapon system. Since they could be easily destroyed by point defense systems or specialised anti-missile systems. Missiles still have some use because of their range and that a massive number of missiles could overload a ships defenses. This changes after while when the Missile-Pods are introduced that allow warships to fire a single but massive salvo missiles.
Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |