Carrier battleship hybrids will be realized once we reach space.

Carrier battleship hybrids will be realized once we reach space.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    big guns aren't viable in space beyond literal knife fighting distance, they'll be as relevant as ramming or boarding (not at all)

    your swarm of drone fighters will get fried with lasers and then you'll be swarmed with missiles until you die, because missiles are inherently cheaper than something that has to return

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >big guns aren't viable in space beyond literal knife fighting distance
      since theres no atmosphere in space, it doesnt matter if you dump all the energy at once or over time, because it will retain its velocity until it hits something
      only limiting factor will be how much change in direction the launched projectile have

      if a linear cannon can accelerate a projectile to a much higher velocity than you could with a rocket motor, then you will almost certainly use that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if a linear cannon can accelerate a projectile to a much higher velocity than you could with a rocket motor
        the best railguns have a ~2km/s muzzle velocity, it doesn't take much rocket to get there and you can have your cake and eat it by firing the rocket out of the gun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not to mention missiles can be used to change angles of attack, making it physically to impossible to dodge a coordinated strike with multiple projectiles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That projectile would need to be guided, since there is a targeting problem once you start dealing with relativistic distances and speeds. Unguided munitions would be become worthless for anything other than hitting stationary targets or as some kinds of CIWS.

        For reference, the moon is 1.3 light seconds away from the earth. Say you have a cannon with a radar or lidar array on it. If there is a target 1 light second away from your cannon, it will take 1 second for any detecting signal to bounce back to your detector plus however much time it takes your projectile to reach the target. Even if the cannon could fire a projectile at half the speed of light, it will take a full 3 seconds for the projectile to reach the last known location of the target.

        >big guns not viable
        You'd pretty much be stuck with guided munitions in space and you need big guns for that.

        I don't know that you would strictly need big guns, but it would help to give your guided munitions a big boost on launch, allowing them to save fuel for more acceleration and maneuvering onto target.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I mean big is subjective, but basically all munitions would need sufficient guidance, initial propulsion, explosive filler, and mid flight adjustment propulsion (because one would need more than just fins to navigate in space)
          You can pack them in a small shell, but the costs would get ridiculously high. At least with current techs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Guided munitions are pretty much a requirement in space, even if you have a gun with a ridiculous muzzle velocity like the super MACs in Halo (4% the speed of light), it would take 32 seconds to travel the distance between the Earth and moon, which is pretty much point blank range in space. And that kind of acceleration out of a gun isn't even physically possible. Missiles have mogged guns in speed and acceleration for a pretty fricking long time now.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >cuts out right before SPRINT starts to glow white hot
          SAD

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just fire an obscenely large amount of projectiles in several salvos along the predicted path of the enemy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if a linear cannon can accelerate a projectile to a much higher velocity than you could with a rocket motor, then you will almost certainly use that
        yeah thats great when your fighting another, mostly stationary giant object also trying to do the sa-oh frick here comes the 12 million dro-AH FRICKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >big guns not viable
      You'd pretty much be stuck with guided munitions in space and you need big guns for that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > your swarm of drone fighters will get fried with lasers

      So they make more drones? This is like saying swarms of drones will be shot out of the sky by bullets today. Turns out they still work

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You know what's cheaper then a missile that has to go the entire distance? One that only has to go half or a quarter, and if you can keep reusing the launch platform to get more missiles to this shorter distance, it tends to pay for itself very quickly.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Does that still apply in space? In air you can have jet engines carry the missile 3/4 of the way there and only use a rocket for the final stretch and save loads of fuel, but in space the fighter needs to be a rocket too and it needs tons of extra fuel to reverse its velocity after approaching the target.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The math would certainly get a little fuzzier, but if you think of a fighter as a reusable booster stage for multiple missiles, you can still reasonably come to the conclusion that not requiring every missile to have enough fuel, and an engine capable of surviving that long of a burn, is probably going to more efficient in cost and almost certainly more space efficient which matters heavily on a space ship, even setting aside that having fighters as launch platforms would mean that it's easier to have a true saturation attack since you're not limited in the number of launch tubes you carry or having to do complicated operations with variable missile speeds to have them all arrive at the same time to overwhelm the point defense system. I'm not saying we're going to be making slow and casual strafing passes on the enemy space ship ala Star Wars, but you can make a reasonable argument for launching drone sensor packages and missile dispensers instead of trying to integrate all of it into the main craft. Schlock Mercenary made a good argument for this with it's Very Dangerous Array which was essentially a network of networked munitions which expanded the main craft's sensor range at a relatively low cost and then could engage targets that they identified.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if you can keep reusing the launch platform

        https://i.imgur.com/rCUziBv.jpg

        The math would certainly get a little fuzzier, but if you think of a fighter as a reusable booster stage for multiple missiles, you can still reasonably come to the conclusion that not requiring every missile to have enough fuel, and an engine capable of surviving that long of a burn, is probably going to more efficient in cost and almost certainly more space efficient which matters heavily on a space ship, even setting aside that having fighters as launch platforms would mean that it's easier to have a true saturation attack since you're not limited in the number of launch tubes you carry or having to do complicated operations with variable missile speeds to have them all arrive at the same time to overwhelm the point defense system. I'm not saying we're going to be making slow and casual strafing passes on the enemy space ship ala Star Wars, but you can make a reasonable argument for launching drone sensor packages and missile dispensers instead of trying to integrate all of it into the main craft. Schlock Mercenary made a good argument for this with it's Very Dangerous Array which was essentially a network of networked munitions which expanded the main craft's sensor range at a relatively low cost and then could engage targets that they identified.

        See this anon:

        Does that still apply in space? In air you can have jet engines carry the missile 3/4 of the way there and only use a rocket for the final stretch and save loads of fuel, but in space the fighter needs to be a rocket too and it needs tons of extra fuel to reverse its velocity after approaching the target.

        >Does that still apply in space? In air you can have jet engines carry the missile 3/4 of the way there and only use a rocket for the final stretch and save loads of fuel, but in space the fighter needs to be a rocket too and it needs tons of extra fuel to reverse its velocity after approaching the target.

        Remember there's no easy "turning back midway" in space.
        There's injection, and there's return trajectories that may be far longer or far more expensive in propellant.
        Cancelling your injection just after dropping the missile(s) is going to be costly and need high-thrust. Good only if you started right next to a propellant source.
        You only get a profit from a reusable-carrier if it is (actually) more efficiency.

        Also don't fall into the trap of presuming missiles will be cheap inefficient engine because it match atmospheric warfare, with space tech you can easily expect mass production of fission nuclear thruster for missiles, or use an expendable missile bus so you still get swarm benefit.

        The killing argument is going to be "What do you really need?"
        The niche you want for missile-carrier may not be the one you hoped, one must accept to give up soft-SF torpedo-fighter fantasy once it turn out an expendable missile-bus will ensure 100% success ratio with only a 10% upcost over a missile-carrier with barely a 50% success rate.

        To make a "reusable carrier" efficient you will need nuclear propulsion, you'll want other versatile use so it is more useful than a space-tug, you may want laser/gun to use it against cheaper target, you'll want defense because it has become a pricey target...
        ...basically a "minimal warship".

        Here are reasons for the minimal space-fighter tropes:
        - Important infrastructure to capture
        - anti-personal/disabling needs
        Do it right and the enemy won't even want to disable your space-carrier and make it drift uncontrolled near the 100y old superhub.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >To make a "reusable carrier" efficient you will need nuclear propulsion, you'll want other versatile use so it is more useful than a space-tug, you may want laser/gun to use it against cheaper target, you'll want defense because it has become a pricey target...
          >...basically a "minimal warship".

          Objectively wrong. Fighters can be attritable, and weapons that are being sent at them are ones not being sent at your mothership. The cost of a PDW system is also hardly breaking the bank when compared to the cost of sensors and thrusters. You also completely sidestepped the non-cost benefits of having a distributed network of sensors and munitions would have in meaningfully extending your ship's range to detect hostiles and proactively engage them, especially since now instead of your mothership being the big source of EM radiation as a shoot me sign, you have offloaded that danger onto a bunch of cheaper, and expendable fighters with the side benefit of your lethality now being distributed across multiple platforms instead of a single point of failure.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You know what's cheaper then a missile that has to go the entire distance? One that only has to go half or a quarter
        The final equation is "Peace is the Cheapest Missle".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >big guns aren't viable in space
      Until you get lightspeed lasers and then the big guns turn into ships.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >lightspeed lasers
        Lmfao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they'll be as relevant as ramming or boarding (not at all)
      if we ever get the propulsion to create big space ships we might as well construct ships out of so many asteroids that firepower becomes useless.

      >captcha MNAVY

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      coat the drone in fighters in reflective material, ezpz

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This would make your drones even more expensive. And reflective material is more tricky than you might think.
        If you want high reflectivity (>99.9%), you need to use dielectric mirrors, which only work with very narrow wavelength intervals (so the enemy can just use a slightly different laser).

        For a broad wavelength interval, you need to use regular metallic mirrors, but then reflectivity suffers and more of the laser's energy will be dumped into your mirror.
        This one seems pretty good, but it doesn't work at short wavelengths, and those are definitely achievable (shortest wavelength laser is apparently 157 nm). You'll find it difficult to find a mirror that has decent reflectivity at every wavelength.

        I'm not sure mirrors are really worth the cost/mass considering they either only work at specific wavelengths or don't reflect a lot of light.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      MAC / Gauss cannons. Trust me. I play Space Engineers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Decameters
        Whyd

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why not?
          >1 Large Block = 2 meters
          >5 Large Blocks = 1 decameter
          >Imperial II Star Destroyer = 1.6 kilometers long
          >needed a unit of measurement between meters and kilometers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >big guns aren't viable in space beyond literal knife fighting distance

      It depends on what kind of propulsion tech will be used. With today's technology, you have to make a compromise between thrust and specific impulse. If an engine has a lot of thrust (like a first stage booster), it will run out of propellant quickly; if it has a high specific impulse (like an ion thruster), it won't be able to generate enough acceleration for effective evasive maneuvers (if you think about it, a gun aimed at a target below a certain acceleration will hit every time).

      Basically, with low enough propulsion tech, a space ship (unless it's very light) can't even evade a slow (let's say <2.5 km/s, which is achievable with a conventional gun) projectile at short enough ranges (maybe 10s to 100s of km, which is definitely too far away to consider ramming).

      It also depends on what you still consider to be a "gun". An electromagnetic mass driver would be able to extend the guaranteed hit range substantially compared to a regular cannon with chemical propellant, and if you consider a particle a kind of bullet, you have to accept that in theory, a gun can have roughly the same range as a laser (which is still smaller than that of a guided missile, but not the sort of range I would call knife fighting distance).

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Venator
    >not the objectively superior Providence

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >rebel scum
      But tbf, CIS needs some love.
      They went with the CIS=CSA theme and CIS naturally got buried.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that subwoofer
        bass for parsecs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CIS designs are actually sick and I only realized that when looking back into the series many years later.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They're my favorite designs in the setting. Unlike the Republic where their ships had to become Imperials at some point, CIS ships are their own thing. You can tell that the Rebellion took some design cues from them here and there, but they're more like cousins than direct descendants.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      clanker hands typed this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      heard you shittalking my shipfu

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My go to is the Lucrehulk.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A regular Venator BTFOs Grievous' Super Providence in a pure gunfight
      Objectively superior my ass

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The Invisible Hand is a Provi carrier/destroyer, not the larger Provi dreadnought. It was modified, but to have more hangar space rather than more guns. You can build a Provi with any mix of carrier space or guns. A guns heavy one would have wiped the floor with it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          kinda sounds like cope but ok

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >flagship isn't the biggest baddest sonofab***h in the fleet
          no wonder a mere few million clones could whale on the Seps, they're moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      For me, it's the Carrack class. A single Carrack with some picket ships held off an entire fleet of Ssi-Ruuk drone carriers.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s really difficult to give an intelligent view of space combat before it’s even a thing. The issue with it is the very, very volatile and dangerous nature of space itself. It’s like the sea but infinitely worse. While submarines have to deal with a greater danger via pressure, spaceborne vessels have to deal with the vastness of space itself, as in distance not just the vacuum itself. Practically any vessel that’s not in LEO or nearby is going to be a small tap away from oblivion, it’s criminally easy to kill a crew with modern technology let alone future tech. I don’t think we will realistically see a space navy of sorts in any real sense. The logistics of space make for an exigent threat to life in any but the most momentary journeys.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think when we journey inti space it'll trigger a cultural renaissance with the end result being the widespread adoption of Marquess of Queensberry rules for space combat

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When we journey into space I am OWED a Ctarl-Ctarl wife

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you couldn't handle her

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you couldn't handle her
          (NTA) true but for me that's half the appeal. I feel like as long as I keep up the food supply she won't irreparable break me. maybe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Look, we can go ahead and wreck two billion dollar spacecrafts or we can have the machine shop crank out two swords and finish this like men.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Chinese Shijian-17 and Tiangong satellites can already do this

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem with space carriers as I understand is maunly, unlike blue navies where the carrier and fighter travel through different mediums, in space they're going through the same one. So in general it's usually more useful to use the resources on a single ship than a bunch of little ones.
    Space fighters are still cool as frick though.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We won't ever reach space.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because of the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this. anything else is cope and delusion from geeks watching too much star trek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Apollo Retroreflectors.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      meanwhile the starship program carries on without your input

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >16 launches to land on the moon
        wow i love the future.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah future is bright
          only 16 launches to land 100 ton skyscraper with up to 150 ton of equipment in cargo bay AND take it back to orbit
          5 ton Apollo module is getting mogged so hard after all those years

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, but we can make cool airships.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We won't ever reach space.
      He says, while watching satellite TV, prbably.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe you won't Bungutu.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Marquess of Queensberry rules
    imho fights and bombers will be relevant for one simple reason, heat generation from missle launchs, limited by quantity, reload time, and space to retrofit for lasers which shall also pull a frick ton of energy and heat. To much heat and you cook your titanium hull and overload your heatsinks and cook the crew or drones boards inside the hull. Redundant liquid cooling may help and treating star ships like over sized computer boxes may be the way to look at warships. but if blacks overtake whites on earth humanity can forget about going to space and enjoy extinction in mud huts cause muh dick.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what is cold gas launches?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the near term I think it will go like this
    >Everyone uses lasers to start because it's the easiest to aim and the longest range
    >Laser countermeasures develop and become widespread like intumescent paint or clouds of gas.
    >Since defense get good ships start closing the distance to use kinetic munitions or rockets

    That's kind of it. I think there's a good argument for non laser weapons in space. Also explosives are better for bombarding whatever celestial body

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the distances where kinetic weapons and missiles would be ineffective would require laser diodes the size of most sci fi capitol ships. It's funny when people that don't actually understand physics try to argue about space combat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Laser are incredibly efficient in space and you are guaranteed to require nuclear energy source to power ships.
        Just a few breakthrough in laser/maser technologies could turn them 80% energy efficient or allow easy laser pulse.

        Also don't overestimate how much armor you can afford and wether or not you can armor everything that matter.
        Having a ship that 90% laser-proof isn't going to matter much when it can either get its radiator disabled, get its sensors sniped or any unprotected engines. Plus laser is the only weapon you can still hope to armor against, the rest is futile, you can only do redundancy and spread every unit away.

        The cost-efficiency may also not scale equally. Lasers get increasingly better as numbers increase as they don't need ammo.
        If 1 railgun ship may utterly trounce 1 laser ship
        100 lasers ship may make it futile to send 100 or 200 railgun ship because the combined laser power would be enough to melt a target ship during it's travel and skip to the next ship twice before they get at destination.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Just a few breakthrough in laser/maser technologies could turn them 80% energy efficient or allow easy laser pulse.
          Nope! Maximum theoretical efficiency for Free Electron Lasers is 60% and FELs are as efficient as they come. That's also before you factor in inefficiencies on the target side.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Companies disagree, we are apparently only limited by engineering, it seem no physical law would prevent a 99% efficient conversion.
            For diode based design.
            https://www.photonics.com/Articles/Improving_the_Power_Conversion_Efficiency_of/a20824
            >the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s goal is 80 percent efficiency
            https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/High-power-conversion-efficiency-Al-free-diode-for-Kanskar-Earles/fa587b65ae7663a3d279157f0feb9046e91997dd
            other technology combining lasers:
            https://www.laserfocusworld.com/optics/article/16554883/photonic-frontiers-beam-combining-combining-beams-can-boost-total-power
            Myself I'm expecting breakthrough to come from metamaterial, that stuff is scary when you can manufacture at the scale it require.

            Lasers are not going to rules every scenario that could ever exist but it is absolutely going to be omnipresent, their advantages are simply to useful to ignore, no ammo, longest range, impossible to evade, greatest accuracy with the ability to disable stuff or plainly make a target melt unable to evacuate heat fast enough.

            Beside, if you start having a space based civilization and don't use lasers for industrial use, you might as well just space yourself.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Lasers won't disappear but they're going to be religated to secondary weapons. Good for point defense and for bullying smaller ships but not good for equal weight or greater.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lasers will be fully capable of destroying spaceship of any size and fleets.
                It's just that sometime you may to just set a plain kinetic bombardment in motion instead of needing to move your lasers.

                Weapon are indeed better as defensive platforms, it's just that it include spaceship. Plus despite all we say about the microgravity allowing large ships, making supership is not going to be economically efficient. Numbers beat quality and armoring spaceship will be an exercise in futility

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the future, dickhead, they’re smaller now.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think the farther we go into the future, the more dramatic the range disadvantage of lasers compared to missiles becomes. Laser's only shoot straight, so they can only hit targets within a few light seconds or so. With an incredibly advanced missile, you can shoot someone on the Moon while you're orbiting Saturn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hear me out... missiles with lasers.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Starsector has you covered

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              david weber already wrote all about em, missiles in that setting are a nuclear warhead surrounded by a cluster of gamma ray reflecting tubes, basically
              the nuke goes off at roughly 25k km, other forms of radiation are slowed down by an insulating material, the gamma rays reach the collecting arrays first and are oriented into a shotgun of beams before the whole thing is annihilated

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Hear me out... missiles with lasers.
              Well, as other pointed out repeatedly:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the future would be missiles and abusing shoot and scoot. ships will fire a shotgun spread of missiles and after a length of time the missiles will reorient themselves to hit multiple angles of the enemy target to try and minimise interception rates

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt lasers will see much use in the near term as serious ship-to-ship weapons because of how much energy they use and how much heat they release. You will heat your ship more than the enemy ship if you fire a laser at them, so it's just not going to get the job done. Maybe for blinding sensors, but that's about it.

      The best weapon for near-term space combat would be a conventional 5in naval autocannon firing projectiles with a small rocket motor that ignites in the terminal phase to correct their trajectory and counter evasive maneuvers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sure we will. Keep in mind there probably won't even be a reason for space fighting for 50 years. Think about how much radiators and laser tech will improve. Also there's no reason you couldn't have expendable heatsinks. gunpowder is just too slow. Putting rocket motors in the projectiles is going to take up all the mass of the shell making it impractical.

        the future would be missiles and abusing shoot and scoot. ships will fire a shotgun spread of missiles and after a length of time the missiles will reorient themselves to hit multiple angles of the enemy target to try and minimise interception rates

        Too expensive and future ai enhanced radar combined with cwis will be too good. Concept doesn't really make sense considering everything is constantly moving so one small burn will completely ruin your missile trap you set up.

        the distances where kinetic weapons and missiles would be ineffective would require laser diodes the size of most sci fi capitol ships. It's funny when people that don't actually understand physics try to argue about space combat.

        No it wouldn't. There's no atmosphere to diffuse the laser

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >laser
          How'd one get all the energy stored for the lasers, barring basic life supports and ship systems?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nuclear reactors. Space navies will be controlled by major world governments meaning they will use nuclear. 300MW should be very doable. Project Valkyrie only does 300kw. So you could definitely power a much bigger one. Also remember you could keep a beam on something for a few seconds before it reacts. You don't necessarily need to destroy it in one hit

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Nuclear reactors need cooling. Lasers need cooling. A warship with lasers is going to need huge, vulnerable radiators.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every spacecraft worth anything is going to need radiators. Even elons big space bus is going to need radiators. Being a military vessel doesn't change that. Where would you rather have us get power? Huge solar panels?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Actually, I was thinking that if you reduce power consumption you can reduce radiator requirements and make a smaller, more agile spacecraft. Or at least a cheaper one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA, a smaller spaceship is not going to have the good equipments.
                This energy debate will be defined by the size of the minimal fusion/fission reactor that can be designed. I assume the thrusters using that energy will scale more easily because it is not a closed system.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                like the other anon said something too small might not have good capabilities. Same reason why you don't see corvettes anymore. Maybe during combat a reactor can come on while during normal operations it could use stored energy in batteries and solar

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >"armor isn't valid in space due to insane warheads and projectile speeds"
                >snipe reactor
                >dead
                Pretty sure unless we get a better propulsion system, chemical thrusted missile that launches other missiles will always be more superior.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You might be replying to the wrong post, anon.

                That being said, armor would be very effective against lasers. There's upper limits to how fast you can burn through materials as the outgassing refracts light. Some materials are also good at deflecting light and don't darken as they're heated. One of the reasons I keep bringing up Synthetic Diamonds. Not only are they transparent, but they've got excellent thermal conductivity and specific heat. With some coolant tricks you can cool the armor faster than a laser heats it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                increasing temperature of coolant going into radiator will allow you to decrease area significantly according to Stefan-Boltzman law
                you can get away with much smaller radiators if you couple them with liquid metal cooled fast reactors (~800°C) and high temperature heat pumps (~200°C) for other equipment instead of the relatively weedy ammonia coolant loops used today

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Using liquid coolant means that there's a risk of coolant leaks. Taking any hits means that your overall radiator effectiveness is going to drop and there are additional maintenance costs. Far better to just use a solid radiator.

                Liquid metal actually becomes a huge handling hazard. Most freeze at high temperatures so there's a good risk of the metal freezing in the piples if you don't keep the radiators hot 24/7. Even packing it into the tanks has risks as you could put 500° F coolant on -50°F panels. The thermal shock would be downright dangerous. The type of coolant is also a factor. Mercury is a health hazard while Galium is so rare it would cost a fortune to load a ship with it.

                We use Ammonia because it's cheap and we know how to deal with it. Everybody can smell ammonia and we have a significant tolerance to it and only high concentrations of ammonia are any threat.

                Personally, I go with a combination of diamonds and carbides.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you need thermal medium to distribute heat from sub-systems to the radiators themselves
                solid radiating heatsinks can work for cubesats and maybe missiles, but not on anything larger than that

                you would not have coolant pipes or reactor inside pressurized living quarters anyway, so the health risks are minimal
                solidifying in tube is also not an issue - you cannot find a better insulation than hard vacuum and all you need is to pre-heat it with some resistive wire wrapped around it. Hell, you can use the tube itself as a resistive heating element.
                Soviets actually used these reactors in their spy sats (they were on very low orbit and solar panel drag would cause rapid orbit decay)
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BES-5

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If you need to use that much cooling for even normal operations then you may find that you can't sufficiently cool a laser armed ship at all. Eventually, you run out of hull space and simply can't fit any more radiators. Even the radiators you do have are interfering with eachother due to IR being emitted from one panel and being absorbed by another. This isn't just a matter of tech, this is a side effect of the square-cubed law with the volume of a ship growing faster than the surface area and only being able to radiate heat from the surface of the ship.

                Anyhow, you should use gasses for coolant since you can compress them. Ideal Gas Law means you can compress the gas for the radiators and decompress it for the components to get the internal components cooler than the radiators.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's nothing to do with atmosphere moron, lasers have a focal point and to increase it you need a larger diode. Learn actual physics and stop building your arguments on cartoons and video games.

          https://i.imgur.com/92Mp0vi.jpg

          Laser are incredibly efficient in space and you are guaranteed to require nuclear energy source to power ships.
          Just a few breakthrough in laser/maser technologies could turn them 80% energy efficient or allow easy laser pulse.

          Also don't overestimate how much armor you can afford and wether or not you can armor everything that matter.
          Having a ship that 90% laser-proof isn't going to matter much when it can either get its radiator disabled, get its sensors sniped or any unprotected engines. Plus laser is the only weapon you can still hope to armor against, the rest is futile, you can only do redundancy and spread every unit away.

          The cost-efficiency may also not scale equally. Lasers get increasingly better as numbers increase as they don't need ammo.
          If 1 railgun ship may utterly trounce 1 laser ship
          100 lasers ship may make it futile to send 100 or 200 railgun ship because the combined laser power would be enough to melt a target ship during it's travel and skip to the next ship twice before they get at destination.

          >we just need imaginary advances in materials tech that I just pulled outta my ass and lasers will DOMINATE
          k

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            make a real argument instead of being mad

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              explain how you will increase the range of your lasers focal point without increasing the size of the diode

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nah the future will be lasers mounted on kinetik missles to blind and damage enemy sensors on aproach.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >you will heat you ship more than the enemy ship
        my ship will radiate the heat away a large radiator surface, facing away from the enemy

        their ship will get all of the heat at whatever weak point I choose: sensor clusters, radiators (to frick their heat management), weapon hardpoints, rcs thrusters (hydrazine is rather flammable), remote arms, etc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/r5oNohi.png

        >you will heat you ship more than the enemy ship
        my ship will radiate the heat away a large radiator surface, facing away from the enemy

        their ship will get all of the heat at whatever weak point I choose: sensor clusters, radiators (to frick their heat management), weapon hardpoints, rcs thrusters (hydrazine is rather flammable), remote arms, etc.

        >heat management
        already hard on Earth, harder in space.
        a spaceship is a closed system, if it can't radiate heat away faster than it accumulate the ship is doomed,
        if you cannot spread the heat fast enough even a giant radiator shield will melt locally and take out the rest,
        even if the laser isn't focused it can still destroy a ship simply by overheating it.

        the surfaces that's being slowly heated can only be cooled if you've invested into coolant lines throughout the entire ship and it is not a given since you want to reduce mass,
        if the heat reach above the structural tolerance the structure will twist and disassemble itself,
        if you isolate outer armor with vacuum it will still radiate inward toward the cold parts and if it turn liquid it won't hold,
        ablative armor is nice up to the moment you run out of it, with how long space travel take that race may not be tight. Multiple lasers can focus on one ship, melting it faster than if 1:1, then switch to the next one.

        if several ships take their turn in front of the laser, they'll be using propellant and still need to cool off faster than the energy is coming

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're missing some of the math here. As the armor vaporizes it takes some of the heat with it, both due to the Enthalpy of Vaporization and the simple fact that the vapors expand and leave the ship behind. The more you melt the armor, the less you melt the ship.

          You also need to factor in that a lot of hulls aren't going to be perfect absorbers. A little magnesium oxide and most of the energy is going back into space. Synthetic diamonds can then absorb and disperse most of the remaining heat to radiate from the armor it'self.

          Finally, cooling the armor just means venting compressed gas between the armor layers. Useful mostly as a temporary measure when you need to roll the ship to hide damaged armor sections.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >As the armor vaporizes
            In my context I was assuming a laser not focused enough to instantly vaporize what it hit.
            This is one problem with ablative armor.
            - if it vaporize easily you need to be the one constantly moving the armor.
            - if you spread the heat faster you cannot count on vaporization up until the armor is radiating white hot toward your ship and overheating it.

            >perfect absorbers
            I didn't assume that, which is why I said it need to radiate it faster than it take in.
            No "perfect radiator" either.
            Covered with "your entire armor is a radiator" but to increase the radiation rate you need a large surface, spreading the heat.

            >venting compressed gas
            You need a closed loop, else you aren't going to last for the duration involved in space travel.
            Also the quantity of pre-cooled material you can carry will limit your efficiency later.

            >roll the ship
            ...assuming the ship is homogeneously resistant and don't have weak parts you are desperately hiding from direct sight.
            I covered this with "take turn with other ship".
            You can obviously imagine a system of robotic arms that continuously move armor, but that's an incredibly mass-inefficient system.
            Also hope you weren't busy with a maneuver like decelerating to match orbit. Which is another reason missiles win over ship in interplanetary battle.

            Assuming the number match in the ship favor, here is a ship design that would survive one laser:
            - offset ship engine pull the ship instead of pushing it, think Charles Pellegrino valkyrie's
            - it accelerate then decelerate straight toward the laser
            - it pull a large self-contained radiator plate as armor built to continuously spread the heat, I'm assuming the laser isn't pulsing and piercing holes.
            - if damaging pulses: mechanical rail system exchange damaged cells with the outside
            It will be called "Icarus" for good luck.
            Only way to survive several spread lasers would be to keep them all busy in the final stretch.
            Basically economical win.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >- if you spread the heat faster you cannot count on vaporization up until the armor is radiating white hot toward your ship and overheating it.
              So you cut the armor into sections. The heat spreads to the edge of the section before it starts to vaporize. You can also divide by layers, alternating between thermally conductive and insulating layers so you have to vaporize one before even beginning to burn through the next.

              But you're gambling on the idea that the laser is going to have unlimited power and you're not going to have to turn it off to cool down.
              >You need a closed loop, else you aren't going to last for the duration involved in space travel.
              It's an emergency measure for battle damage.

              >I didn't assume that, which is why I said it need to radiate it faster than it take in.
              Which is a no-limits fallacy on the laser. Again. Between the native inefficiencies with a laser and it's associated power systems and the armor simply deflecting most of the energy you're going to melt down the laser before melting through the armor.

              You keep assuming that you can just make a more powerful laser when in practice the laser just gets less and less efficient as you need more and more secondary systems to manage the laser.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Everyone uses lasers to start because it's the easiest to aim and the longest range

      No, guided missiles have the longest range because they can adjust their trajectories and don't suffer from optical effects that limit a laser's effective range. A laser's range depends on the maneuverability of its target. A missile's range only depends on its Δv budget.

      A more serious issue with lasers is how inefficient they are. A laser that can seriously damage a ship draws a lot of power, produces a lot of heat, and has a very complicated and expensive targeting and aiming system (so the laser keeps hitting the same spot).

      So I think the order would be like this:

      1. missiles
      2. lasers (just for shooting down the missiles)
      3. point defense / dumb kinetics

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Carrier battleship hybrids will be realized once we reach space.
    If by carrier you mean drone/missile carrier and battleship you mean a spacecraft with powerful lasers and proton cannons, then yes. If you mean anything like what was on display in Star Wars then no.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just play Children of Dead Earth
    >tl;dr lasers are the king of space warfare, just melt shit from thousands of miles out
    >whoever has the most lasers and biggest lasers and fires first wins

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Doesn't know about the Macross Meta
      >Doesn't realize you can pack hundreds of missiles for the price of a laser
      >Hasn't custom made his own 100 km/s railguns.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't know that you can just 3d print more laserstars to burn those missiles and railguns from further out
        I was on the forums when the game launched anon and was there for the competitions. lasers win

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Doesn't realize that railguns are cheaper than lasers
          >Both in costs and heat.
          >Hasn't faced 3 cm of diamond armor.
          >Hasn't faced 1000 cm of Graphite Aerogel

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear reactors. Space navies will be controlled by major world governments meaning they will use nuclear. 300MW should be very doable. Project Valkyrie only does 300kw. So you could definitely power a much bigger one. Also remember you could keep a beam on something for a few seconds before it reacts. You don't necessarily need to destroy it in one hit

          problem with lasers is not power or cooling, which are eminently solvable, but diffraction
          lasers spread out over distance, the amount depending on wavelength; a 300 mj IR laser might concentrate that over a 1 cm circle on a target at a distance of 1000 km, but a 10 cm circle on a target at 10,000 km, which is a 100 times decrease in energy delivered per cubic cm
          you can increase the range by reducing the wavelength, UV lasers will have a longer effective range, going into xray and gamma ray lasers, but the difficulties of xasers and grasers are hard to understate, and they also have different methods of delivering damage to a target, causing pinpoint excitation of material into plasma rather than transferring a lot of thermal energy which is super hard to deal with in space

          xasers and grasers are difficult to make for many reasons, although we should technically be able to make them now using bomb-pumping, its not been tested and definitely has not been turned into an actual useful weapon
          you might have 500,000 km of range on a laser but aiming it accurately at a target, especially using disposable drones because you are limited to bomb-pumped laser generation, is gonna be a technical hurdle all its own

          meanwhile you can shoot accurate two-stage missiles at a target, with no need for a warhead, which can have a range of thousands and tens of thousands of km using just todays tech, and point defense will be mostly worthless because once a missile is on final approach, even if you damage it, the debris will still slam into your ship at energy conversion speeds

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you are right about diffraction but I don't think lasers will about big one shot kills but instead heating the enemy space craft past the point of it's heat dissipation ability. So your 1 and 10 and even 100 cm circle could still be small enough to hit the target in it's entirety and transit the same amount of thermal energy.

            The problem with missiles is that they will take hours to get to a target and your enemy may detect them and your ship firing them far far before they get hit. One maneuver could make the trajectory of your missile worthless. Now they may have some delta v to maneuver so I could concede that 2 ships could fire missiles from far range at each other to force each other to maneuver, but, at the same time I think they would also be shooting lasers to potentially force the enemy to back off from over heat or destroy missile at distance to out attrition the enemy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              it depends on the levels of deltaV that are assumed
              if it's near future stuff, where our assumed dV values will be measured in dozens of km/s, and missiles will pack something like 5 km/s, maneuvers to escape a missile's flight cone would be very limited, and definitely less than the amount of missiles you could pack on
              if it's past that, where ships have hundreds of km/s or possibly infinite dV, but the tech can't be miniaturized to fit on missiles, then they are suddenly worthless; but if missiles can also have infinite dV, then they are just as relevant as before

              overwhelming heat capacity over dozens of minutes or possibly hours (depending on range and actual tech involved) may not be viable if the vessels are properly designed as cones with ridges to spread a laser hotspot, active cooled armor, and a massive radiator array in the shadow of the ship; surely it would kill a ship, but it will NOT kill the ship before it launches a flight of missiles that will arrive at your position whether that ship is alive or not, and that ship might choose to disengage after launching
              if you have a total combat dV of 30 km/s and the incoming missiles are staggered so that at least some have enough dV to reach you...

              anti-missile missiles will be the only defense against an incoming missile, as nothing else packs the mass and range to take it out /and/ shift its vector before the debris slams into you with plenty of energy to take out a ship

              unfortunately there are so many variables when it comes to sci-fi, both in what tech is assumed to be available and what will end up, through actual trial and error, logistically and tactically expedient, so these sorts of arguments can never be resolved satisfactorily
              I can only point out that, if we extrapolate from existing tech without making any big leaps, missiles appear to be the dominant weapon system because dV values will be so limited for ships, and less limited for missiles which don't need to stick the landing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yeah you're right that without knowing exact conditions a real conclusion isn't going to be agreed on. I don't think we'll have anything like this be relevant in real life for at least 100 years. At that time ships will most likely use nuclear thermal NERVA style engines since it's figured out tech and might be a cheap option. Maybe looking at 5k-9k m/s delta v total. So missiles will probably not be out maneuvered.
                But I don't see a reason why you couldn't have a CWIS that spreads thousands of steel bearings into a patch of space. Missiles would detonate on them and the debris would continue of course but if you make them explode 100 km away then you could avoid that debris.
                In conclusion I think an over reliance on one weapon system will cause countermeasures to become very effective which will necessitate exploring other weapons systems.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                missiles themselves will not be that large, and enough ball bearings to form an effective screen at 100km is gonna cost a lot of weight which is at a premium with low dV values
                there's no particular reason a missile wouldn't also have whipple shields on the front specifically to stop sandblasting being an effective PD tactic, either

                the last point, that overreliance on one strategy is inherently exploitable, is a fallacy, however
                think about modern warfare, how brutally effective and dominant missiles are despite how long we have had to develop countermeasures, countermeasures which have actually gotten worse across time as the ability to detect the false signatures gets better than the ability to generate false signatures
                sometimes there is no rock paper scissors, at least not with the tech that is actually available right now

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't agree on your last point. israelite missile defense is better than ever now and getting better with iron beam. There hasn't been a lot of development because the last 80 years have not had developed nations fighting each other. Israel has the best missile defense because they actually have a need for it. Why would we be developing advanced missile defense if all it's for is selling to Taiwan to make them feel better? There won't be development without a need

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                sure, iron beam and ciws stuff work, but the way that they work are exclusive to atmosphere
                a modern missile or rocket only needs to take a small amount of damage to come apart from aerodynamic forces, and then it drops its payload wherever gravity wills
                but without gravity to shift the course of the payload, without air resistance to tear a missile apart when it takes a bit of damage, and when two tons of kinetic kill vehicle moving at 5 km/s have enough energy to destroy your ship whether it has a functioning warhead or not, things are a little different

                you can't just take out the guidance package or make a missile non-functional, you need to change its vector so that it no longer intersects your own, which is going to be a bit difficult when your combat dV budget is 3 km/s

                countermissiles will be effective since they have the mass to shift vector and the range to actually do something about a missile while it's way out there, but based on how effective they are now, it won't be a 100% defense, and letting even one incoming missile in means your ship becomes multiple ships, so its very likely they will still be a primary, if not the primary, weapon system of tomorrow
                especially if dV is low and you can fire off two-stage missiles from far beyond effective beam range as a target only has a limited ability to change vectors and a fixed destination

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >effective screen at 100km is gonna cost a lot of weight
                Forget the screen, distance in space are such that can't leave anything to chance, one hit one kill, not forgetting that without atmosphere explosions will have no shockwave.
                That's why lasers have the best chance to hit. Even more so if your enemy use some kind of bola missiles (funny how old concept come back).

                In atmosphere where it is hard to fly at all missiles are single self-contained unit.
                In space with no friction, missiles would inevitably turn into swarm of tiny projectiles with just enough guidance to hit.
                Countering missiles with other missiles isn't going to work unless you intercept them before they split and they can split far away without missing a slow warship full of missiles, with their own propulsion system & propellant.
                Having CIWS point defense would at least be sustainable as mass goes but a single vessel would easily be swarmed by a missiles bus a tenth its cost.

                Beyond that we can't discuss this without a proper setting.
                Different weapons for different needs, a missiles-bus would be a ship killer, lasers would be defense, kinetic bombardment for cheap harassment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                all reasonable, except for the concept of lasers as defensive weapons; I'm completely unconvinced they will be effective against any properly engineered kinetic kill vehicles
                lasers have relatively short ranges in space for catastrophic kills, and they don't actually change an incoming missiles vector
                sure, a laser might melt a missile half to slag on approach, but if that slag slams into your ship at appreciable speeds its still over
                if missiles are designed with sacrificial ablative armor on the nose specifically to deal with laser energy, it could surely survive up to terminal approach, especially if, as you pointed out, it's just one of twelve submunitions and they coordinate telemetry to intercept most of a ship's possible evasive maneuvers

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We have no basis for "properly engineering KKV", I'm sure you imagine your KKV to be exactly as armored as they need to be to cross the final stretch, but maybe you won't afford that mass without reducing by a fraction the number of missiles you can carry or maybe the "properly engineered laser" do enough damage to pierce a KKV control thrusters or cooling, changing its trajectory more than enough.
                Or simply disabling the KKV when it is still 10,000km away and couldn't split or do final course correction.
                "Ablative armor" become laser-pusher propellant, use a pulsed-laser and maybe the "ablative armor" transmit the shockwave inward to the core system.
                And that was for a minimal KKV, a larger reusable vessel could not protect everything, afford much armor, or travel fast enough to not be overheated over time.

                Lasers are the one weapon that give the longest range, most accurate shooting and near immediate result with no dodging.

                We cannot remove the economy/setting from the equation.
                Maybe for the cost of fielding a missile-ship with enough counter-missiles for a swarm you can field 10 laser-ships and not worry about missile resupply as you spend it in more laser-ships.
                Or maybe we skipped the missiles entirely and are using magnetic slug launchers to overwhelm defense, making it economically unfeasible to intercept 1000 cheap shells using 1000 costly missiles, whereas a laser defense is enough to push out of trajectory the shells.

                The very existence of laser can make warship pointless, leaving only tug-ships preparing wave of KKV-bus.
                Missiles have their use but twist the needs (or make them even more realist) and they are limited to niche job.
                Space debris alone will shape warfare, with orbits where ship vs ship battle aren't acceptable so the battle is about constantly putting obstacle in someone's way and taking control of infrastructure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this is what I mentioned earlier on when it comes to not being able to come to a satisfactory conclusion with scifi, since there are just too many variables
                how much energy can you generate on a ship safely? how powerful can you make a laser in the setting? at high enough energies, the mirrors and lenses won't be able to take the tiny percentage of energy they absorb when passing the beam, but how high is that with the materials we create in the future? how good are our anti-laser materials going to be, how heavy, how bulky, how much can you pack on a missile and have enough dV to remain effective?

                a change in any of those changes the actual effectiveness of any weapon relative to another, so arguing about it is moot except for those of us working on near-future settings ourselves, and even then, we just need to make a choice which is half opinion and half math and play it out

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The debate can continue if we accept to specify various setting and manage to convey them in our posts.

                Thinking in term of conventional warship is probably an error.
                We love our WWII in space but without planetary horizon and atmospheric drag there's far less reason to have ships, and with space debris any missiles solution in orbit might be treated as a nuclear option (like it is right now).
                Having long range lasers might be considered as politically superior to an enemy who only have missiles and thus cannot finely disable target to make a point.

                If we need unit to reduce the timelag between decision it will require to set border, political maps, strategic point and so on. Still won't guarantee a need for space-frigate.
                If we need unit for local enforcement of a place you control, it turn into police work and it's even harder to justify warship vs warship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ships will always be useful and needed as mobile platforms. stationary installations of any kind in any enviroment can only ever do so much - even with the radical changes in zero-g warfare. sometimes, you just need something in the zone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Mobile platform =/= ships
                They don't need to be self-propelled other than station keeping, nor be multirole warship, nor manned, nor need to move regularly because unlike EARTH environment SPACE environment make hiding above ground futile and you'll always be in the orbits that are mathematically the best for your needs.

                The memes against anything similar to a Maginot line need to update to our modern era when your enemy can nuke vital infrastructure without sending conventional unit and nothing but a static array of defense will be close/fast enough to intercept.
                In space you can't really hope to sneak near the defense to make a hole.

                >something in the zone
                Go ahead and define "zone" without needing to create a setting with politic, borders, rules of engagement.

                You'll have ships sure.
                But no promise it will be the "warship" kind instead of the small "police-car" kind.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are going to need something to protect power over factual geographical control zones - like moons, or asteroid bases, or whateve. you cannot do this with station keeping. you could need to move something around rapidly through hostile space on raids (because the idea that you will always be able to hit a target with your emplaced weapon and the other side won't just go 'man it sure is great we know where all the foes weapon systems are, we should just build and position our defenses in such a way to mitigate or eliminate their threat' is goofy).

                or you could just need to move soldiers to occupy a location, or important dignitaries to an ally, or humanitarian aid to a ailing colony, and if you're at war with someone or there are space terrorists or something, are you seriously going to trust the defense and transport of this cargo to something millions of miles away?

                I'd compare it to the idea that the navy was unneeded because of nuclear bombs but this is frankly more moronic. It's like saying any military force of any form isn't needed because you have emplaced ballistic missile positions and you can fit more then one type of warhead to those missiles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                project. and also to counter opposing mobile forces seeking to do the same.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What the hell are you imagining?
                Of course you'd have spaceship to carry and move around stuffs, even in a hurry.
                But I suspect you guys have been fed too many "naval warship in space" to understand the dynamic would be radically different from Earth.

                >terrorist
                First: don't let them take over anything that require anti-spaceship weapons.
                Second: protect from lesser risk you accepted.
                If you need "space fighter" anti-personal unit for that, give them to the local garrison so they are in place BEFORE you need them.

                >transport of cargo
                You do know spaceships cannot realistically be attacked midway other than with single pass killing strike?
                Btw: space piracy have no economical reason to exist.

                >Important payload/dignitaries
                Costly brachistochrome trajectories.
                Send people ahead to see that local force are acceptable.

                >War
                For the sake of simplicity I'm assuming the political stance here start with: "enemy may be about to declare war and capture area to bully you into concession" and not genocide.

                Space do NOT allow you to move "surprise" level of fast at interplanetary range even with drop-tank.
                Any hostile act in space that involve either genocidal missile-swarm or moving assault spaceship around is going to be extremely visible and take months
                Any build up for such attack is going to be carefully monitored.
                If you didn't prepare yourself at the same rate or have no good orbital parameter, you cannot overtake an enemy in speed, you could only arrive after the fact, they might even have left already.
                Any quick enemy movement involving continuous burn & movement is best intercepted if you have laser/missiles ready to shoot them at the destination, ideally during their fleet deceleration maneuver.

                >I'd compare it to the idea that the navy was unneeded because of nuclear bombs but this is frankly more moronic
                I'd compare yours to the idea that you do not need nuclear missiles or anti-missiles defense because you have a navy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >don't let them take over antithing that requires anti-spaceship weapons
                'Just don't let them' is moronic. If we're at a level where large-scale space combat is a possibility it's also likely there's a substantial civilian industry built around it - and no matter how restrictive the process is, eventually there's going to be a crack and someone that shouldn't have one is going to get a ship. Or they board one as it docks. Or they aquire it legally. Etc., etc. So is 'just have prepared the garrison already' - you might not have had a garrison because you don't garrison literally everything. Maybe it wasn't even yours beforehand, its not like modern nations dont go to other nations to aid anti-terror operations all the time. Maybe they're being funded or supported.

                >'Spaceships cannot realistically be attacked midway other than with single pass killing strikes'

                If they don't comply, yes, but a relatively unarmed freighter is far more likely to abide by the demands of whatever is attacking them if the opposing party is better armed - and with missiles (or railguns if you're close enough, though this is really unlikely) you could potentially disable the primary drive on a ship, though obviously this carriers the possibility of just killing everyone inside - you're firing on them, that's always a possibility.

                And I never mentioned pirates. Though pirates may still exist for ideological reasons (rebels, secessionists, ancaps, terrorists), be government-funded, or just outright be state military commerce raiders.

                >important payload/dignitaries

                I less thinking 'the other side could be hostile' and more 'you could have to send them a long way where potential interception by hostiles or ordinance could occur' and you need to secure corridors with more then just emplaced positions on both sides.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I am sorry but I feel you have a really soft-SF understanding of how orbital travel work.
                So I need to explain the basic and see where you are surprised.

                All realistic trajectories in space are ballistic and need to be planned days/weeks/months in advance.
                Meeting&matching velocity with anything in motion can go from "easy if it cooperate" to "need 20 times your ship mass in propellant" followed by "don't even dream of coming back if you have no propellant source at destination" or plain impossible, it is possible to deny an intercept.

                You cannot "wait near a route" because there is no such thing.
                It is impossible to depart to intercept a ship without phoning your intent days/months/weeks because it cannot look accidental.
                If your destination cannot promise it won't turn enemy just as you arrive you were never safe.
                Speed is in fact a great safety, it raise the difficulty of intercept from anything NOT at your destination exponentially.

                >'Just don't let them' is
                Common sense, what is moronic is
                'I'll aim for a society where anyone can privately own weapon of mass destruction and keep security forces days/weeks away'.
                You have to know that any (interesting) spaceship can do more damage than a 9/11, more like "New York gone in a flash" even after you destroy the thruster because its inertia still made it impact with nuke-level power, without even trying.

                Truth, I said garrison because we were in a military context but terrorism is more 'civilian' police work. Nevertheless you need to have police force close enough to matter.

                >pirates may still exist for ideological reasons
                Economically nonviable in way that involve spaceship. Corsair only existed because they could hide/kill witness + cheap maintenance.
                https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/pirate.php
                That website will also tell you why "there's no stealth in space".
                https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--Strategic_Combat_Sensors--There_Ain&#039;t_No_Stealth_In_Space

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but you're missing two things.
                First, you'll have various moons and planets being used for gravity boosting. That means you've got "Straits" to set ambushes around.

                Second, simply being monitored doesn't mean anything. Modern piracy still occurs and we've got it on orbital surveillance. All the pirates need is a safe harbor to operate from. Sometimes this is independent like Tortuga and sometimes this is State Sponsored like Port Royale. In fact, Piracy usually flourished in wartime simply because there were no ships available to wipe them out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                even if you have 'straights' the problem is matching velocities and picking up cargo and then having enough fuel to get back home after doing all that
                even if it is strictly military raiding and the goal is to destroy cargo and ships, avoiding an intercept is trivially easy (rather, setting up an intercept on a target already at a cruise speed is very hard) in low dV settings where gravitational boosting and hohmann transfers are used often, unless weapon ranges end up being very high (at least half a light second)

                setting up an intercept in high dV settings where brachistochrone trajectories are standard would be much more reliable, because nominally civilian vessels would have very high mass and not be outfitted for maximum performance or endurance and their paths would be essentially public knowledge, allowing your high-performance craft to match up, hit them, and get out before any kind of response could be formulated, but even that might not be economically feasible unless state-funded because any independent ports that housed pirates would be priority targets for any nation that ships in space unless, as you pointed out, there is a war on

                I do hope for an age of space piracy because its cool but I can't see it happening

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm the anon you answered.
                >gravity boost
                Are for desperate propellant saving, to reach the speed you need for surprise (even in a logistic way) you'd already have all you need, using drop-tank, reaching escape velocity faster than finding a moon/planet on your way
                Also the lesser the gravity of the moon, the less they give

                >you've got "Straits" to set ambushes around.
                IMO we should add one more quotation mark when making any reference to naval warfare in space warfare, then be ashamed of making it anyway.

                What you call ""straits"" I just call known launch windows between planets, their predictability remove a lot of surprise and the distance we are talking about are still so huge even drop-tank as massive as your ship + brachistochrome burn will still take around a week for Earth-Mars

                >Modern piracy
                Modern piracy look nothing like old Caribbean pirates tropes.
                The old pirates existed only because disguise was just a matter of flag, information could only travel by human or the witness you failed to kill and resupply was easy.
                The difficulty of space technology is going to move the difficulty from "dinghy boats in a breathable atmosphere" to "airplane" range.

                >All the pirates need is
                Well maintained spaceship, access to extremely complex parts on a public market, a source of compatible ammo, nuclear energy/propulsion for any range, the power of a state shielding them from reprisal, changing spaceship each time the previous one is identified and localized from the other side of the solar system.
                Put all the requirement together and you are left with paid mercenaries/regular force for a faction no one care to counter.

                Most "modern space piracy" I expect would be akin to small chemical thrusters pods, hiding in a political clusterfrick too cheap/corrupt to identify/fight the nuisance, within a space-habitat cluster where debris cannot remain in orbit, it would be more about smuggling/ransom.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                there will always be a need for ships in order to project force as you can never win a war on the defensive, and any missile that has interplanetary range is just a spaceship without crew
                arguing against the use of spaceships is absolute nonsense, the space debris will happen, there will likely be laws against it just like how the geneva conventions forbid military forces garrisoning civilian structures like hospitals, but those laws will be broken to a greater or lesser extent

                Laser range are no more infinite than missile range but they could be scaled to reach anywhere in the solar system while still distributed/modular enough that there is no way to disable them all in a single strike.
                Similar to stockpiling missiles just in case.
                The efficiency of a laser wouldn't even be solely measured against military unit. Having a weapon that can destroy/disable your enemy unprotected infrastructure would be a game changer requiring the enemy to have their own laser to counter yours.

                It's no Wunderwaffen in the pejorative sense, or no more than nuclear missile are now.
                Every countries who can are racing to develop anti-missile laser, and China already demonstrated the ability to hit satellite with a ground laser.
                https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/in-first-uk-test-fires-13-per-strike-dragonfire-laser-weapon-against-aerial-targets/

                only grasers could possibly be scaled to that level of range, and grasers that aren't bomb-pumped are hard asf to make, not to mention the actual difficulties of aiming them any more than a couple dozen light seconds out except against static installations

                also drone carriers could do a lot of things - especially support-related- but technology might get advanced enough for them to be able to fit morbillions on every ship so who knows.

                a drone carrier where the drones are disposable is called a missile boat

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                see

                https://i.imgur.com/y2gfEvZ.jpg

                Mobile platform =/= ships
                They don't need to be self-propelled other than station keeping, nor be multirole warship, nor manned, nor need to move regularly because unlike EARTH environment SPACE environment make hiding above ground futile and you'll always be in the orbits that are mathematically the best for your needs.

                The memes against anything similar to a Maginot line need to update to our modern era when your enemy can nuke vital infrastructure without sending conventional unit and nothing but a static array of defense will be close/fast enough to intercept.
                In space you can't really hope to sneak near the defense to make a hole.

                >something in the zone
                Go ahead and define "zone" without needing to create a setting with politic, borders, rules of engagement.

                You'll have ships sure.
                But no promise it will be the "warship" kind instead of the small "police-car" kind.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >only grasers could possibly be scaled to that level of range
                It's only an engineering problem and a matter of combining multiple laser to cover the loss.
                Shooting across the solar system with a laser would obviously be hard and require a lot of distributed power sources and mirrors, but if you have the infrastructure to do so, it would be extremely cost-efficient with other uses.

                >targeting
                Everything in space is defacto in movement, orbiting something or rotating.
                If you can hit a target in another planet orbit you can hit anything.
                Spaceship can't hide, can't afford to waste propellant (forcing them to waste it would be worth it), can't get rid of their heat faster than what they were designed to (assuming they are prepared to actively cool their outer surface)
                The only question is wether you can pump enough energy to make a ship/fleet overheat/melt before it/they arrive at destination.

                Again it is subject to what was said about setting.
                You don't build a swarm of missiles, a manned missile-bus, or laser sats without a need and maybe the political landscape isn't about building weapon that will destroy everything mankind took 200y setting up.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                diffraction across massive distances is not something that can be solved with more overlapping lasers
                diffraction radius is linear across distance, but hotspot area increases exponentially with radius
                that means energy delivered per cubic centimeter is reduced /exponentially/ as the range to target increases, and exponential decreases cannot be significantly countered by linear increases (adding more lasers)

                unless you are arguing for some kind of dyson swarm with literally a million lasers that can all focus on one target, what you are talking about is the realm of space fantasy, not extrapolative science fiction
                and if you do have a dyson swarm then you probably don't need a million tiny lasers to point at a spaceship light minutes away anyways

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Huge loss of energy but that's an economic problem, electricity is the one resource that's not likely to be a problem by the time a civilization have a need to shoot across the solar system (for a laser-sail or else).
                Assuming no new high-energy diffraction-free laser tech.

                >dyson swarm
                By that scale you are killing planet in other solar system.
                https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/340521/observable-effects-of-a-nicoll-dyson-beam

                >space fantasy
                Like assuming space war will have sea-like force projection?
                In space, dV budget don't allow 'patrol' cruise and I don't believe in CoadE style force projection, too easy to isolate a fleet.
                Plus who know what "space border" would look like? sphere of Influence?

                How about we actually do extrapolative expectation?
                If mankind is limited to industrially exploiting Earth & Moon, spacedock, nuclear spaceship, industrial lunar base.
                I'd argue a missile war would be suicidal, we would still have enough problem making spaceship to have armor against anything other than debris. If trouble arise it would be either terrorists or organization/states taking hostage.
                Laser is a leading solution for space debris and is a go-to to exploit asteroids.
                https://www.space.com/space-debris-lasers-space-tugs-nasa-report
                A laser-sat effective range would easily be in the hundreds thousand kilometers range, you'd more for precision.

                If mankind expanded with self-sustaining colonies.
                Now that's when lasers would get into range problem that require multiple sat / huge installations.
                I'd put the effective range of a laser-sat in the single digit million(s) of kilometers, 10x more if worth extra effort.
                Wether missiles dominate would depend of wether its a genocidal Earth vs spacenoid or political clusterfrick peacekeeping.
                Lasers are direct/precise/no warning instant and make less debris.
                Missiles not so much, you need to plan hours/days/weeks in advance, dV budget, submunition miss/loss, lot of debris...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its not just energy spent to create laser arrays, but also all the materials to assemble them, mirrors and lenses dozens or hundreds of meters across that need to be extraordinarily precise, more so the more energy going through each laser, which is no doubt going to cost an extreme amount, in time and labor if nothing else
                additionally, if your laser efficiency is 90%, that means for every 10 watts of input, 9 watts become output and 1 watt is converted to heat energy, if you have a laser system that needs to handle 100 mw, 10 mw will be converted to waste heat, which is 5265 degrees celsius PER SECOND of operation, which requires an absurdly large and heavy heat disposal system if you want any sort of uptime at all
                your massive, heavy laser installations are by necessity very slow if they are mobile at all, and that makes them the perfect target for a swarm of missiles launched from outside detection range and programmed for a cold approach

                your entire argument about not using missiles in space comes down to 'people will choose not to use them against my static installations because it will create debris fields'
                do you honestly believe that? that individuals or even nations would limit themselves to suboptimal weaponry because it would create a few debris clouds when used against their enemies superweapons? that any side of a conflict would choose to lose rather than firing frickoff huge volleys of missiles at your lasersats which you've decided to park in a crowded orbit to discourage someone shooting at them?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How do you think your missile-swarm or nuclear spaceship are going to come into existence? Lasers are not magical tech and used industrially. They just suck in atmosphere and ask power we can't move around easily.
                We are developing lasers to cheaply kill missiles. Laser are reusable. Any gram is costly in space. Economic is in favor of lasers.
                Your own argumentation so far can be summed up by 'missiles&ship exist, therefore Earth-based strategies will port in space 1:1'.
                It's like you don't care how the medium would impact everything from grand strategy to the smallest missiles.

                >outside detection range
                Seriously? There's reasons we say "no stealth in space".
                Even if you put your missiles-bus into a 100tons -270°C steamer you'd need an unseen/enclosed hot acceleration area or month long cruise starting millions of kilometers away.
                Forcing you to do that is already a win for laser-sat.

                >mobility
                A ship isn't going to outmaneuver or have more dV than a missile/laser tracker, be happy if you get 0.1G acceleration.
                Making you waste your dV budget would be a mobility kill, good luck protecting tankers, that is why I say you likely won't have Earth-like force-projection.
                Beside a laser-sat is one space-tug away from being a warship, with their range they could shoot for pretty much any orbit.

                >would limit themselves to suboptimal weaponry because it would create a few debris
                Nice loaded question from someone saying we will never develop superior laser weaponry because 'they just won't trust me'.
                Did you forget half the missiles arguments are "whatever you'll be saturated"?
                Think the submunition will disappear after you had your kill?
                Think any side of a conflict will not treat debris near vital space installation as an existential war?
                MAD much?

                THAT is why I said that if you want a genocidal war, you use missiles won't need 'warship'.
                If you want ship on ship action then we can discuss place/motive where it is safe to use missiles/laser/railgun.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >a drone carrier where drones are disposible is called a missile boat
                only if you severely stretch what you call a missile.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But this is a no-limits fallacy assuming that we can scale lasers infinitely or make breakthroughs in laser technology but not anywhere else.

                Practically speaking, laser centric doctrines lead to Wunderwaffen that never work and are expensive to make.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Laser range are no more infinite than missile range but they could be scaled to reach anywhere in the solar system while still distributed/modular enough that there is no way to disable them all in a single strike.
                Similar to stockpiling missiles just in case.
                The efficiency of a laser wouldn't even be solely measured against military unit. Having a weapon that can destroy/disable your enemy unprotected infrastructure would be a game changer requiring the enemy to have their own laser to counter yours.

                It's no Wunderwaffen in the pejorative sense, or no more than nuclear missile are now.
                Every countries who can are racing to develop anti-missile laser, and China already demonstrated the ability to hit satellite with a ground laser.
                https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01/in-first-uk-test-fires-13-per-strike-dragonfire-laser-weapon-against-aerial-targets/

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                just say velocity you fricking midwit jfc that's painful to read

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                except that dV is not velocity, its acceleration, the ability to change velocity
                you are complaining about widely accepted and understood space combat terms in a thread about space combat

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Carrier battleship hybrids

    Oh God no…

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh God yes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Battlestars have awful turret placements. They only cover one hemisphere, and are also extremely limited along the horizontal since they get in eachothers way.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    battlestars my beloved

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Man, that looks like shit.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's the Sova

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like how the honorverse did Space combat. Missile spam, stealth tech, and ecm reigned supreme. Ships would tow extra missile launchers. Missile swarms would have their own specialised ecm cousins. Combat was basically setting up as much stealth, missile launcher wingmen drones, ecm, and near-ftl or FTL AI target tracking and guidance nodes that were either semi or full autonomous, then waiting for all those things to affect the 1000+ missiles each side would throw at each other.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why have fighters when you can just ram a thermonuclear warhead into the enemy ship on the end of a missile instead?
    Fighters make zero sense in space until you get beyond the realms of thinking about propulsion mass and deltaV.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You are right to give a cold shower to fighter anon
      That said we can imagine smaller scale battle that happen too close to everyone's infrastructure to be worth turning ship into a nuclear melting husk you cannot control or move away.
      Fighter would be a way to have small scale engagement that still produce political result.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Carrier battleship hybrid
    To give what may or may not be a moronic idea: the principal mission of the spacefaring fleet is to transport A force to B planet. So the "carrier-battleship" would be a literal aircraft carrier that drops aircraft from space into the atmosphere (fighters to gain air superiority, small bombers to attack ground forces, strike fighters doing a bit of both, wild weasels to protect the aerial force, troop transports, etc.) - with guns on all sides to destroy enemy spacecraft (orbital superiority) as well as opportunistic bombardment whenever possible in support of the planetary assault force.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, but hyper dreadnoughts will be.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Vs

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >15,000 manned ship
    >only 5 turrets

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    *blocks your path*

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what about a big super soaker with some heavy fluid? Should be easy to pressurize and squirt out no?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's how the Reapers do it in Mass Effect.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would there even be a niche for a carrier to fill that a missile bus could not? There's not much of a horizon in space outside extremely low orbits.

    Maybe in whatever cheat method would be used to get around the speed-of-light time limit, as in the carrier plopping the strike craft through portals/hyperspace/aether whatever that the fighters could have more of their mass dedicated to their roles over getting there

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      also drone carriers could do a lot of things - especially support-related- but technology might get advanced enough for them to be able to fit morbillions on every ship so who knows.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Would there even be a niche for a carrier to fill that a missile bus could not? There's not much of a horizon in space outside extremely low orbits.

      see

      https://i.imgur.com/8P0XUtr.jpg

      >if you can keep reusing the launch platform
      [...]
      See this anon: [...]
      >Does that still apply in space? In air you can have jet engines carry the missile 3/4 of the way there and only use a rocket for the final stretch and save loads of fuel, but in space the fighter needs to be a rocket too and it needs tons of extra fuel to reverse its velocity after approaching the target.

      Remember there's no easy "turning back midway" in space.
      There's injection, and there's return trajectories that may be far longer or far more expensive in propellant.
      Cancelling your injection just after dropping the missile(s) is going to be costly and need high-thrust. Good only if you started right next to a propellant source.
      You only get a profit from a reusable-carrier if it is (actually) more efficiency.

      Also don't fall into the trap of presuming missiles will be cheap inefficient engine because it match atmospheric warfare, with space tech you can easily expect mass production of fission nuclear thruster for missiles, or use an expendable missile bus so you still get swarm benefit.

      The killing argument is going to be "What do you really need?"
      The niche you want for missile-carrier may not be the one you hoped, one must accept to give up soft-SF torpedo-fighter fantasy once it turn out an expendable missile-bus will ensure 100% success ratio with only a 10% upcost over a missile-carrier with barely a 50% success rate.

      To make a "reusable carrier" efficient you will need nuclear propulsion, you'll want other versatile use so it is more useful than a space-tug, you may want laser/gun to use it against cheaper target, you'll want defense because it has become a pricey target...
      ...basically a "minimal warship".

      Here are reasons for the minimal space-fighter tropes:
      - Important infrastructure to capture
      - anti-personal/disabling needs
      Do it right and the enemy won't even want to disable your space-carrier and make it drift uncontrolled near the 100y old superhub.

      >Here are reasons for the minimal space-fighter tropes:
      >- Important infrastructure to capture
      >- anti-personal/disabling needs
      >Do it right and the enemy won't even want to disable your space-carrier and make it drift uncontrolled near the 100y old superhub.

      The key is to make it too dangerous to have large size vessel or structure blown up, scale down the size of conflict and you'll need more agile units capable of precision battle than a space-battleship shooting nukes per minutes.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what is this

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "In the Dark"
          Still not released.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Would't the most lethal weapon in space be some sort of sandblaster?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lethal against spaceship I guess?
      It's not much a question of lethality because it's not hard with relative speed and kinetic energy.
      It's more about efficiency. A sandblaster made of small projectiles might more be like torture, crippling damage everywhere but not enough to kill the ship.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Dustblaster, actually.
      https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/11/hypervelocity-macron-accelerators.html

  25. 1 month ago
    >>455392974

    Honest question, why not just bring space down to us?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    bros the venator is so fricking sexual oh my god
    I'd remove those rabbit ear bridges though, and make it top/down symmetric

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be a crewman on the USSF Clarence Thomas class space-destroyer
    >our mission is to patrol for hostile Taiwanese space ships
    >the computer on their ship is 0.0001ms faster than ours
    >get microwaved into dust without even realizing it

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Walkers will be realized once we understand that looking cool is superior to practicality

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Tiananmen Square 2345 colorized

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I never mentioned suprise attacks, either, even though one could very much disable defenses via sabotage or through disguise (q-ships) and this is even easier if all your positions are static.

    >Any hostile act in space that involve a genocidal missile swarm
    This is what I have the most problem with your idea. You repeatedly say that there's no stealth in space to support your theory that emplaced weapons will be the completely domininant, maybe only, force for warfare, but completely ignore that same fact making intercepting those missile swarms comically easy when done over such large distances. Unless it's something like the US attacking jamaca, the other side WILL have defenses, they WILL have sensors, and they WILL see it coming. Missiles cannot defend themselves beyond taking evasive and annoying trajectories. If you're operating on interplanetary distances, the vast majority - more likely all - will get shot down by the other side unless you use mobile forces of any sort to disable their defenses.

    >Any build up for an attack
    Mobile forces allow you to keep them moving, thus making whether you're going to attack or where you're going to launch it from ambigous.
    >Even left already
    Yes. Space warfare means ships can evade each other. That doesn't make ships useless or minor, especially given not all ships can reach all speeds
    >Best intercepted
    You keep acting like missile defenses don't exist and that the ranges they're launched at doesn't mean the side intercepting them doesn't have a massive advantage in such. Especially if lasers as AMS are introduced, and given we're working on them RIGHT NOW, that's absolutely going to happen.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This is what I have the most problem with your idea.
      >completely ignore that same fact making intercepting those missile swarms comically easy when done over such large distances
      Again I don't trust you understand the dynamic at play.
      It do not favor anti-missiles missiles while the attacker can set his own pace.
      It is possible, but far costlier for the interceptor, see what I said about ballistic & denying intercept.
      Missiles are way harder to intercept than ships, a missile-bus is just a ship engine except no need to match speed, once in motion they only need enough propulsion for course correction.

      Orbital dynamic make "fleet waiting in-between" essentially impossible, a cheap burst from the attacker missiles and your fleet is out of position while the swarm simply hit target at its next orbit/rotation.
      The only area where you can perfectly plot a kinetic intercept are cones in front of each target and orbital dynamic prevent you from keeping a static wall.
      The only weapon that ignore orbital dynamic are lasers, forcing swarm to split/need armor/evasion, thereby reducing their flexibility.
      - a kinetic interceptor need to maneuver in front of that 'cone'.
      - a laser don't. It greatly simplify where you can put it.

      This is also why "ship mobility" is overblown.
      When I said "build up" I ain't talking of "near border" in space there's none. Launch windows change all the time.
      Unlike Earth hitting your vital infrastructure isn't a question of first getting in range or flying over enemy territory. It's just a matter of setting target to a missiles swarm with enough propellant.
      With space travel time being very long and missiles not needing to brake, your ship are either distributed for equal protection, or were baited to "fully repel a swarm" while unable to go back in time to block a second swarm launched when too late

      Btw: If you want a setting with close range spaceship battle, I can imagine one. But it won't match your expectation.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I also take umbrage to your mobility point in your reply to the anon talking about detection ranges. A missile isn't as mobile as a ship, because the entire point of mobility is being able to use it. All a missile can do its go point A to point B, maybe stop along the way. A ship can go anywhere you want it to go and do anything you equip it to do.

    No. A laser sat with a tug on it would not be a warship. It'd be a missile platform with a tug.

    >with their range they can shoot any orbit

    While lasers technically have infinite range in space, in practice they do not, as over distance the area exposed to the laser when it actually hits increases, spreading their thermal energy and making them less effective.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what that anon is talking about when he says 'lasers have infinite range' is that the focal point of a laser is relative to the wavelength of the beam and the size of the aperture
      a laser with a small wavelength, like upper uv or lower xray, and a very large aperture, say 80m diameter, will have an effective range of tens of thousands of km, possibly up to 200,000km, though as distance from focal point increases, energy per cm^2 decreases, actual damage dealt to armor or components per unit of time decreases, and the light lag makes stochastic evasive maneuvers more effective against them, but perhaps not possible depending on the dV values of the setting

      this can be scaled up almost infinitely, ie, a graser with an aperture of 1km diameter would have an effective range of hundreds of millions of km, aside from any issues of light lag and the precision and stillness of your aiming platform, as even the smallest vibration will cause massive deviation at distance

      actual problems with this massive laser installations, which I brought up but he did not engage with or dismissed, is heat generation and the inherent weakness of static platforms
      all lasers have efficiency values which determine how how much of the energy used is converted into waste heat, and our current best is somewhere around 40-65%, which means that something like 40% of the energy fed in is converted to heat, instead of laser
      assuming we advance lasers significantly up to 90% efficiency, that is still an immense amount of heat being poured back into your lasing platform, and that doesn't count any of the loss from energy systems prior to feeding the laser nor the heat from generating the power, likely using some form of reactor with an efficiency of 40-80% depending on too many factors

      the problem of static installations are self-evident and impossible to ignore, though he does so anyways, which is impressive

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >1km wide lens
        Wunderwaffe, I tell you. It's the Maus all over again.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >1km wide lens
          not a problem as a distributed system
          >SAPL: Solar Array Pumped Laser. A gigantic mining laser, built from countless mirrors scattered in clusters throughout the solar system. When the civilian laser is turned on an enemy ship in military combat, though, it melts through it like hot butter. Useful for extracting resources from metal-rich asteroids, and distributing laser-power so as to provide a redundant energy system.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which is good for asteroids but not agile enough for combat. Too many blindspots and it takes too long to adjust the focus. The mirrors also can't move while adjusting focus due to center of mass issues. The system is also very vulnerable to damage since it's a lot of surface area and is ineffective unless you have most of the sysytem targetting a single point.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >ineffective unless you have most of the sysytem targetting a single point.
              spoiler: as it happens the enemy assault is constrained to a single warp gate, not to get chokepointed they have to do the travel in real space

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >how many missiles do you want on the cover art?
                >yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Which is fine in context but isn't an option when your FTL can have you pop into a starsystem at any number of points.

                possibly. it will definitely take a long time to build up the space infrastructure to allow for the construction of something like that and while the range is great, the accuracy is low even against very predictable targets because of hours of light lag, not to mention the heat problem and the massive stationary target it presents

                however, the more reasonable sized versions are still a distinct possibility, with an 80m aperture and upper UV beam presenting a threat all the way out to half a light second, which is pretty much the effective combat range of any laser that requires significant time on target
                a station built around such an array might actually be constructed by a wealthy nation

                but I cant see them functioning as anything other than an evolution of shore batteries and antiair missile battery
                they are a deterrent and force your enemy to dedicate resources knocking them out, but they can't stop an invasion by themselves because they are generally known and easy targets because they cant move
                you may lose some assets destroying them but that is acceptable in warfare

                Putting laser batteries on an asteroid base or moon base would be OP. You can use all that rock as both armor and heatsink and since the base doesn't have to move you can scale up both the reactor and emitter without the normal limits on dV.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          possibly. it will definitely take a long time to build up the space infrastructure to allow for the construction of something like that and while the range is great, the accuracy is low even against very predictable targets because of hours of light lag, not to mention the heat problem and the massive stationary target it presents

          however, the more reasonable sized versions are still a distinct possibility, with an 80m aperture and upper UV beam presenting a threat all the way out to half a light second, which is pretty much the effective combat range of any laser that requires significant time on target
          a station built around such an array might actually be constructed by a wealthy nation

          but I cant see them functioning as anything other than an evolution of shore batteries and antiair missile battery
          they are a deterrent and force your enemy to dedicate resources knocking them out, but they can't stop an invasion by themselves because they are generally known and easy targets because they cant move
          you may lose some assets destroying them but that is acceptable in warfare

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Laser range are not infinite, never claimed they were.
      But their range is ridiculously high (and ignore orbital mechanic) and since you aren't using ammo it is very economical.
      They have 'self-evident' advantage that are even clearer if you can don't have a bias regarding ship armor. The slightest damage can lead to a mobility/mission kill.
      Good luck fixing a nuclear thruster or being towed to base from a crazy fast brachistochrome+droptank trajectory chosen to reduce interception.

      what that anon is talking about when he says 'lasers have infinite range' is that the focal point of a laser is relative to the wavelength of the beam and the size of the aperture
      a laser with a small wavelength, like upper uv or lower xray, and a very large aperture, say 80m diameter, will have an effective range of tens of thousands of km, possibly up to 200,000km, though as distance from focal point increases, energy per cm^2 decreases, actual damage dealt to armor or components per unit of time decreases, and the light lag makes stochastic evasive maneuvers more effective against them, but perhaps not possible depending on the dV values of the setting

      this can be scaled up almost infinitely, ie, a graser with an aperture of 1km diameter would have an effective range of hundreds of millions of km, aside from any issues of light lag and the precision and stillness of your aiming platform, as even the smallest vibration will cause massive deviation at distance

      actual problems with this massive laser installations, which I brought up but he did not engage with or dismissed, is heat generation and the inherent weakness of static platforms
      all lasers have efficiency values which determine how how much of the energy used is converted into waste heat, and our current best is somewhere around 40-65%, which means that something like 40% of the energy fed in is converted to heat, instead of laser
      assuming we advance lasers significantly up to 90% efficiency, that is still an immense amount of heat being poured back into your lasing platform, and that doesn't count any of the loss from energy systems prior to feeding the laser nor the heat from generating the power, likely using some form of reactor with an efficiency of 40-80% depending on too many factors

      the problem of static installations are self-evident and impossible to ignore, though he does so anyways, which is impressive

      >but he did not engage with or dismissed, is heat generation and the inherent weakness of static platforms
      Anon, I told you it is a fully controllable technical factor. Your argument is as empty as saying "missile is weak because it need fuel".
      What you seem to be unable to understand/accept is that even a 10% efficiency wouldn't matter as long as IT WORK.

      >self-evident and impossible to ignore, though he does so anyways
      Orbital dynamics are hard to understand, so I'm not surprised most people fail to get them, especially when fed soft-SF pretending to be hard like The Expanse.
      But I am surprised by how smug you act saying dumb counter-argument that actually favor laser.
      like:
      >stochastic evasive maneuvers
      Having your spaceship/missiles with very limited dV budget required to constantly move, never safe from being hit by lasers who can shoot reliably LIGHT-MINUTE away? Never knowing which ship/missile will be targeted?
      I do chuckle each time you use 'static' as if it was naval warfare.
      If I was petty I could go on saying you "dismiss ship needing lot of propellant", but I know like most people you simply have a ship-bias and can't imagine the consumption.

      As a much smarter anon said earlier: it is ridiculous to have a one-weapon strategy.
      My points are only that lasers are fully capable of being main anti ship/missile defense system, missiles are so offensive it's MAD, niche in between need careful setting (and space-warship is grossly overrated trope)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        let me try to say it in a way you will understand

        your laser installations are multi-megaton structures that are mostly radiator because of the need to sink massive amounts of heat when you generate and use massive amounts of power
        that makes them very difficult and expensive to move in a setting where dV values are very limited, so they won't be moved very often at all, having fixed orbits

        because they have fixed orbits, an assault on them can be planned weeks and months in advance
        you can fire low albedo, low radar signature two-stage missiles at the projected location of an installation from hundreds of millions of km away, where their initial burn will not be detected except by freak accident, and then they go cold for the journey until the time comes to initiate terminal approach

        detecting even a large swarm of small, cold, radar optimized objects in space is difficult, increasing with distance
        they will be detected, but whether or not they will all be detected before its too late to intercept is another thing entirely

        this is without even considering more conventional and far simpler methods of surprise attack, like a q-ship that could get within 50,000 km before launching missiles, or a civilian transport dropping a cloud of sand at orbital velocity; with only 15 minutes warning and megatons of material to move, sabotaging your immensely expensive, fragile superweapon before initiating a conventional attack doesn't sound all that difficult
        and even if it were exceptionally difficult, militaries would find out how to do it anyways because taking out the basket with all your eggs in it means they win

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Stop posturing when you don't understand basic orbital mechanics.
          Your plans are literally as moronic as "the US will be decapited by civilians ships/trucks/aircraft simultaneously moving bombs/missiles near every defense".
          Also quit the strawman "superweapon", laser-sats are basic stuff and functionally simpler than any "space warship" I'm sure you imagine with soft-SF googles.

          Do you know what else will mass multi-megaton? Space warship, needing nuclear reactor, thrusters, fragile radiators, HUGE propellant tank, the missiles missiles need their own engine/propellants... all this before adding drop tank.
          The mass fraction you can dedicate to weapon/PDS/armor will be lesser than a "static" platform that can be moved with temporary engine/tanks even if slowly, we have time.

          Your mobility argument was a lost one, ships won't be dodging missiles even less lasers.
          Your "keep them guessing" mantra don't matter without horizon/stealth or a medium that reduce ranges and prevent direct attack on your vital infrastructure.
          Go ahead and try to attack the laser-sats/moon-lasers. It's their reason of existence, laser range is incredible so they can protect others from any orbit.

          >cloud of sand
          1) light enough to heat-propel away with a laser
          2) good luck not being melted the light-minute your civilian ship (under your flag) move outside his authorized trajectory to get a trajectory that intercept 1x laser sat.
          3) declaration of war before you launch any real weapon? Thanks for giving me time to arrest all your """civilian""".
          4) "static" position allow heavy/spaced armor

          >detection
          Nothing prevent observing you accelerate "cold", unguided projectiles from several AU away. Any hot course correction = detection
          The dV cost for an interplanetary projectile is 90% at launch where you can't reach and it is costlier to intercept it midway.
          Lasers ignore orbital dynamic, dV cost and shoot without warning.
          Even worth sacrificing a laser-sat by sending it along a swarm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but a static laser cannon not tied to an asteroid would be vulnerable to Macron Cannons. Using a 10 nanometer graphene shell accelerated by a synchrotron you can get up to about 19000 km/s or about 0.6 C. If fired at one light-second the target will have a little less than 2 seconds to respond. The rounds themselves are so small that they wouldn't show up on radar and would radiate all their heat away in seconds.
            https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/11/hypervelocity-macron-accelerators.html

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              > If fired at one light-second the target will have a little less than 2 seconds to respond.
              Why fire at one light second, when you can fire it at anywhere? The ranges are infinite. Building a slow anti-stealthy spaceship and braving waves of missiles and lasers to get to launch point is stupid compared to actively cooled stealthy guided projectiles that you fire from home base.

              The correct range of RKKV is infinite and you don't need a transport for that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                True, but it becomes a matter of accuracy. You'd need arcsecond accuracy to hit a target at 1 light second and practically speaking we have enough issues with arcminute accuracy. This would apply equally to both macron guns and lasers but not missiles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                another thing that people don't think about much

                a projectile or laser might have a range of light hours, but even after correcting for light lag, actually ensuring that your instrument is on target across that distance where being off by 1/100000 of a degree ensures a miss is an insane feat of engineering

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >macron cannon
              Mix between particle accelerator except with a physical nano projectile.
              Up to interpretation wether it's the best or worst of both world.
              IMO it's just another gun, also I'm skeptical about the firerate you need to make it worth it, skeptic about the size requirement to reach fraction of C.
              (yes I looked at the practical example given)

              And I'd argue in my context that physical projectiles with no ability to correct course are going to be very hard to aim.
              Lasers achieve their incredible range by shooting massless photon, they are not subject to much.

              >Since only one particle can be accelerated in a ‘pushrod’ accelerator at a time, it would make sense to also have those generators feed a multitude of accelerator tubes in sequence. 10 generators, each capable of producing 1 GHz of nanosecond pulses, could feed 10 tubes with a continuous supply of pulses each; if each macron clears a tube in 0.1 milliseconds, then ten tubes would have a maximal firing rate of 100,000 projectiles per second.
              >This might seem like a lot, but each projectile is expected to carry very little energy. A nanogram at 1000 km/s is still only 0.5 joules

              >A) A single-stage 10 MV electrostatic accelerator.
              B) A 100m long multi-stage electrostatic accelerator with an average acceleration gradient of 3 MV/m, for a final energy of 300 MV.
              C) A 100m diameter ring of 10 Tesla field strength.
              D) A 100m long electron ‘pushrod’ accelerator.
              E) A 100m long proton ‘pushrod’ accelerator.

              Against a constellation of laser sat/expendable drones, I'd rather overwhelm defense with simultaneous massive projectiles that split as small as they can while remaining guided. Costly but that's the price of winning.

              Reminder that for all this, I'm assuming a GENOCIDAL kind of war between distinct faction (even if they faked to trade and sent anon's disguised murdermachine).
              A setting that involve regular warship would IMO have requirement no one expect after looking at soft-SF

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Lasers achieve their incredible range by shooting massless photon, they are not subject to much
                At the same time they have no ability to course correct either so the accuracy of a laser is down to it's mechanical precision. The difference is that with Macrons you can afford to roll the dice. Individual macrons will still cause damage while brief flashes of laser light won't notably heat the target.
                >Against a constellation of laser sat/expendable drones, I'd rather overwhelm defense with simultaneous massive projectiles that split as small as they can while remaining guided. Costly but that's the price of winning.
                Well yes, there is that. Of the Big 3 weapons, Missiles are the undeniable king of long range. A lot of warfare will be massed waves of missiles trying to overwhelm point defenses in true Weberite fashion.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A laser trajectory is kinda easy to predict. Mechanical precision is the ONLY requirement and cooling is only a matter of preparing for it.
                A nano projectile is heavy enough to be subject to gravity or perturbed by various forces, magnetic force along mechanical precision & mechanical feeder.
                Rolling the dice with a laser is just a matter of charging/shooting again with essentially free energy.
                While I'm not dismissing the possibility of a reaction producing 100k nano projectiles, those need precises identical specs to achieve the same trajectories.
                It's more a weapon of saturation than precision or range.

                >A lot of warfare will be massed waves of missiles trying to overwhelm point defenses in true Weberite fashion.
                As I see it, you may not see a lot of space warfare using missiles because none will survive it.
                It is easy to destroy a space civilization, even spreading away massively.

                If you want lot of warfare you need weapons that do not kill everyone and destroy all infrastructure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >people won't use the most effective weapons in space because it will kill their enemies

                thats just silly
                people will definitely use missiles even if they create massive debris clouds that cause a kessler syndrome on a planet held by someone else, but at the same time, they likely wouldn't do it with that explicit goal
                just like how the US doesn't mind striking a wedding to kill a VIP, some collateral damage is acceptable
                if lasers end up being as good and free as you anticipate, then there is nothing stopping you from parking some lasersats in high orbit and using lasers to push every piece of debris into decaying orbits after you capture the planet, it might take years, but the energy is free and detecting the debris isn't hard, right?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >kessler syndrome
                >striking a wedding to kill a VIP,
                >some collateral damage is acceptable
                >some
                The Kessler effect would destroy the entire infrastructure, if Earth wasn't fully sustainable on its own it would kill everyone a civilization ending scenario.

                It would be like the US accidentally destroying China's Three Gorges Dam to kill a terrorist on top of it and call the resulting flood "acceptable collateral damage", acting surprised that China make such a big deal of it.

                This is why I call missiles the MAD equivalent in space. Used for genocidal war.
                Again, we could count the place where missiles don't have long term effect (ex: deep space, sun's orbit or Lagrange points...).
                I can imagine a setting that have warship combat and even "some" missiles, but it involve everyone wanting actually acceptable collateral damage.

                >cleaning debris with lasers
                Lasers would be the only weapon capable of operating without constant resupply and we do in fact easily detect debris in the micro range despite having no good radar in space. If illuminated with a laser even small debris would be trackable.
                Yes lasers also work for detection.
                https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576514003397

                There's however a "minor detail" you forgot in your context.
                The sheer scale of the damage here mean you are essentially sweeping the remain of your entire space infrastructure.
                Meaning you have lost economically.
                The laser-sat defense was meant to destroy/deflect missiles before they get a chance to start a Kessler effect.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It would be like the US accidentally destroying China's Three Gorges Dam to kill a terrorist on top of it and call the resulting flood "acceptable collateral damage", acting surprised that China make such a big deal of it.
                Didn't read anything else in the thread but I support this action

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >cleaning debris with lasers
                You've missed the point of laser sweeping. The point is that kessler syndrome is a solvable minor inconvenience, not a doomsday scenario.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The other anon was postulating the destruction of spaceship or major infrastructure in orbits.
                A Kessler effect happen if debris are created faster than they are swept, that's what the Kessler effect is about.
                If it already happened you are merely cleaning your destroyed infrastructure.

                Lasers are the best solution I can imagine but at this level, let's just say the threatening ship was disabled before any further debris could be generated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                a real war scenario between nations, not even a genocidal war, but a war of conquest or doing enough damage to cause surrender, would not spare military targets just because there would be civilian casualties if those targets were hit, and we all know that, that is why the geneva conventions are written the way they are (military units cannot use civilians or vital infrastructure as a shield)

                this idea you seem to have, that everyone will agree to 'fight fair' and only shoot each other with lasers rather than massacring static installations with swarms of missiles from beyond engagement range is just beyond silly, no agreement of that kind would ever be made or kept

                if kessler syndrome is a distinct possibility of the type of warfare we engage in in the future, we will work on ways to mitigate or prevent it, not back away from the most effective and longest range weapon systems we have

                you might think that a system of lasersats is immune to missiles because of their range, but if you converted the mass and industrial capacity used to create those millions of tons of station and used them to create missiles and missile carriers instead, you would have enough missiles to overwhelm them
                even if it took a 100k 20 ton missiles to bring each station down, it would be worth it because you can fire those missiles from outside of laser range and risk zero damage to your own forces

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are reversing everything.
                From the start of this discussion, I'm assuming a genocidal war.
                Missiles swarm launched from the attacker and we defend against them.

                If we change the scenario away from "genocidal war" a lot change and I explain in other post we'd likely use even less missiles.

                >if kessler syndrome is a distinct possibility of the type of warfare we engage in in the future, we will work on ways to mitigate or prevent it
                >or prevent it
                Logical conclusion:
                missiles create more debris = debris in orbit = kessler effect = (unacceptable) collateral damage = preventing mean less missiles in orbits
                If it were a colony that need space-infrastructure to function, this is a genocide.

                It's typical of soft-SF fan to be in denial because Kessler effect go against the contained space war they were sold.

                >converted the mass and industrial capacity
                That's the "economical war" we are bound to keep disagreeing over.
                But as I see it you start with a very poor understanding of orbital dynamic likely corrupted by naval analogy.

                You cannot just "stop" a ship interstellar trajectory midway between planet/moon without huge dV budget, launching missiles would then require huge dV to regain the speed you cancelled.
                Wasted dV budget = less missiles you can cam move.
                So what I give you instead are glorified tugs meant to launch the swarm then let it go on its trajectory, it would actually be cost-efficient.

                Lasers-sat (or moon laser) are functionally simpler and no more complex than "flexible warship", lasers power add-up the more of them you have and they can attack by ignoring orbital mechanics.
                If the attacker swarm isn't enough to overcome a predominantly laser based defense, it is left with nothing but glorified tugs and using its industries to match whatever counter-missiles is produced in return.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The Kessler effect would destroy the entire infrastructure, if Earth wasn't fully sustainable on its own it would kill everyone a civilization ending scenario.
                Not true, the thing about the Kessler syndrome is that by the time debris gets so small it can't avoid being pulled into the gravity well of a planet, it also means it's too small to survive the heat of reentry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he's talking about lack of space infrastructure and communications and inability to launch more serving as a civilization-level dark age and blockade of out-system supplies and possible collapse event, not debris raining down and killing everyone
                at least I hope he is, but maybe he is that moronic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        let me try to say it in a way you will understand

        your laser installations are multi-megaton structures that are mostly radiator because of the need to sink massive amounts of heat when you generate and use massive amounts of power
        that makes them very difficult and expensive to move in a setting where dV values are very limited, so they won't be moved very often at all, having fixed orbits

        because they have fixed orbits, an assault on them can be planned weeks and months in advance
        you can fire low albedo, low radar signature two-stage missiles at the projected location of an installation from hundreds of millions of km away, where their initial burn will not be detected except by freak accident, and then they go cold for the journey until the time comes to initiate terminal approach

        detecting even a large swarm of small, cold, radar optimized objects in space is difficult, increasing with distance
        they will be detected, but whether or not they will all be detected before its too late to intercept is another thing entirely

        this is without even considering more conventional and far simpler methods of surprise attack, like a q-ship that could get within 50,000 km before launching missiles, or a civilian transport dropping a cloud of sand at orbital velocity; with only 15 minutes warning and megatons of material to move, sabotaging your immensely expensive, fragile superweapon before initiating a conventional attack doesn't sound all that difficult
        and even if it were exceptionally difficult, militaries would find out how to do it anyways because taking out the basket with all your eggs in it means they win

        Barring dirt cheap and lighter than feather fusion, singularities or antimatter, it is likely that civilization works on lasers. Free energy from the star powering massive laser arrays that powers the entire system. Laser sails and laser heated reaction mass are cheap mobility that is easily controlled by centralized authority thus likely to accepted unlike handing WMD to everyone.

        From a non-covert ops perspective, there isn't much of a benefit in launching a missile from a ship that is actually "close" to the enemy since it is velocity and perhaps stealth that ensures success. If there is a launch "ship" it would likely release projectile far behind your own defensive positions. However lasers is also propulsion, so laser arrays would be throwing out laser sail missiles all the time that it is not intercepting incoming projectiles.

        There'd be no ship vs ship conflict outside nomads that no inner system folk would care about. For proper space civilization it is installation vs installation blasting each other, either via laser directly if in range, or via missiles if not in range.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Barring dirt cheap and lighter than feather fusion, singularities or antimatter, it is likely that civilization works on lasers.
          >Limited power so go with most power intensive option
          No?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    page 10
    is /k/ not interested in space combat?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      even if you give everyone a gorillion dollars and super high tech ships it's just boring as frick. aerial and naval combat are way cooler.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's mostly a stalemate between missile saturation attacks and super lasers.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And Bofors 40/70, M2 Browning, AKM and M1911 will still be in service

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Star Trek actually gives a pretty good reason as to why fighter craft won't really be a thing in space. Because if shields become a thing (and they kinda have to just to protect your ship from random space debris ripping holes in your ship over time), no small ship would be able to produce enough power to energize a weapon capable of piercing the shield of a big ship while at the same time, computer-guided targetting means lasers are instantly lethal to fighters. And space is too damn big for fighter to fighter combat to really be a thing.

    Anyone have the TNG webm of a bunch of fighters trying to take down the ENT-D and it just flies past them, swatting them like flies?

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ships are a joke compared to statics

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ah yes, a literal death star

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I was going to write a response but it's obvious you have some autistic fascination with static weapon platforms. This is really the only reason I can think of for this behavior.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    guided missiles are the only thing that make sense in space, in space they have unlimited range, you could launch of missile from the Earth and hit something on Saturn if you let it coast in between, anything like guns or lasers will simply be too close range to be practical.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But how effective are explosives in a vacuum?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >how effective are explosives in a vacuum
        they're not

        explosions in space produce almost no shockwave of course, but nukes generate a lot of radiation, though energy delivered to a target decreases exponentially with distance from epicenter so even a very large nuke would need to land a nearly direct hit (within 50km) to do much, and if your missile is getting that close you might as well have made it a kinetic kill vehicle that impacts the ship directly and actually kills it, as any projectile moving at 3 km/s delivers energy equivalent to its mass in tnt, obviously increasing as speed increases

        nukes still have two uses though, one is delivering thermal energy to the hull of a spacecraft which is really hard to deal with in space, and the second is the emp effect which is also really hard to deal with
        we might see a few nukes carried on military vessels as some kind of just-in-case doctrine for emp to disable rather than completely destroy certain important targets, or to bust fortified targets that wouldn't be killed by a 2 ton missile moving at 10 km/s like a base inside an asteroid, but its unlikely they will end up the primary payload system for taking out something as fragile as a ship or space station when velocity is so much more effective

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >but nukes generate a lot of radiation
          The thing space is absolutely filled to the brim with already?

          Who says you need explosives? Just ram the missile into the target at 10 km/s and it'll pulverize any armor currently known to man. Space doesn't have a speed limit so it's a KKV heaven.

          At that point that's less a missile and more a really big bullet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >moron doesn't read
            classic

            captcha hahah

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who says you need explosives? Just ram the missile into the target at 10 km/s and it'll pulverize any armor currently known to man. Space doesn't have a speed limit so it's a KKV heaven.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Who says you need explosives? Just ram the missile into the target at 10 km/s
          either you need to increase size of the missile to include additional engine stage or drop its engagement envelope range significantly because it still needs to be burning at the end of the run

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's inevitable. EFPs only get 2 km/s.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That doesn't sound right

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's because 2 km/s is only slow in astronomical terms. In practical terms it's 7200 kph.

                >Space doesn't have a speed limit
                I get where you're coming from, but space does in fact have a speed limit.

                Fiiiiiine. Space does have a speed limit. About 3x10^8 meters per second.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Space doesn't have a speed limit
          I get where you're coming from, but space does in fact have a speed limit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >But how effective are explosives in a vacuum?
        even dust clouds will be a threat

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are a lot of clever ways to do space warfare but I don’t think we’ll know what works until anyone tries it, like WWI.
    That said, I think the Expanse did it best with just ciws and torpedoes(n00ks)

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Space battles will be using heat seeking missiles. Given the ranges fighters and bombers are near useless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What about space PT boats? Going for a quantity over quality approach has it's own appeals and smaller ships give a better surface to volume ratio.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s a possibility but I’d say drones are more likely. Toss out all the life support for extra munitions the issue with any of it is just range

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sending out drones long distance makes them vulnerable to EWar. Not necessarily hacking but jamming and decoying.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This kills the R*bel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That dies like a b***h to the first hit on the bridge.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Planetary shields became a thing in the EU specifically to prevent scenarios like this after Taris was burned.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Venator looks like a stupid ass snail from the front

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *