Space Warfare - How would the ships be built/designed?

[Rakaydos]

in an enviroment where effective ranges are decided by evasion instead of loss of killing power, a particle beam has a shorter effective range than a laser. However, if you can get a drone armed with one into effective weapon range, well, we can make some pretty powerful particle beams from small emitters.

[Halsfury]

in an enviroment where effective ranges are decided by evasion instead of loss of killing power, a particle beam has a shorter effective range than a laser. However, if you can get a drone armed with one into effective weapon range, well, we can make some pretty powerful particle beams from small emitters.

I really don't know that much about the possibilities, or what effective range could be with a little R&D but from what I've seen, heard and read I'm certain that space warfare will be like ancient trireme warfare. Ships will attempt to disable one another, but not kill, just like the Greek trireme which was so light that even when holed it wouldn't sink. In ancient times sea battles often involved incapacitating with the ram and killing the crew of the disabled vessel. Then the enemy ship (which is very expensive) would be taken home and refitted and repaired.

This is likely the kind of warfare that you'd see in space, at least with human crewed ships. The reason being that intercepting the orbit of another ship isn't really a successful strategy since it will just move away to another orbit, and probably has more delta V than the missile being fired at it.

Instead lasers should be used to disable a target, then fighting either to take the enemy ship by storm, or sending in a kill vehicle with an explosive warhead would finish the job.

Also at this point drones would be even more effective at zeroing in on point defence systems and life support infrastructure from long range by outflanking and encircling the target thus allowing a boarding party to gain easy access. Any human crew would need to wear spacesuits during the fight even if there were no hull breaches, for survivability reasons.

EDIT: basically I may be mistaken but the particle beam design that you linked seems basically like a small nuke inside a container with a special geometry, thus being a shaped charge of sorts

Edited September 8, 2015 by Halsfury

[Rakaydos]

Boarrding actions require not just an intercept a missile requires, but a course-matching. Boarding actions in space are entirely impractacle.

Realistically, space combat will be defined by the range you can dodge lasers from, which is relateed to your size and your acceleration, but will be measued in light seconds, possibly as high as a light minute.

Close in lasers exist, but they will be a lst ditch wepon.

"missiles" are drones with enough DV to get into laser hit range, where the missie can fire a laser.

"torpedos" are precooled, railgun fired projectiles that are supposed to stay undetectable until they get to laser or even particle beam range.

[GeneralVeers]

I forget which game this was in, but there was a countermeasure called a "sandcaster" which did exactly that: fired a cloud of sand to a starship's front, side, or rear. The result being a smokescreen-style effect that severely attenuated laser fire.

[Xeldrak]

Since lasers seemed to be in favour right now, since they can shoot down rockets and reliable hit targets far away, I have a question:

What about the heat? Lasers need quite lot of energy and energy transformation is never without loss. In this case loss means heat. So might it be a viable tactic to just bombard a ship that is using lasers with shrapnels it needs to shoot out of the...well....vaccum and thereby cook itself?

[tater]

I forget which game this was in, but there was a countermeasure called a "sandcaster" which did exactly that: fired a cloud of sand to a starship's front, side, or rear. The result being a smokescreen-style effect that severely attenuated laser fire.

That is the traveller rpg (and associated board games like Mayday, Brilliant Lances, and Battle Rider). Unfortunately, while canon traveller, it's indefensible, though they tried to hand wave it with fields holding the sand, etc. It just would not work.

In Niven, many times the comm laser is used as a weapon. You point it at the other ship, and simply add that tiny amount of heat to the target that it is incapable of radiating away.

[Rakaydos]

Since lasers seemed to be in favour right now, since they can shoot down rockets and reliable hit targets far away, I have a question:

What about the heat? Lasers need quite lot of energy and energy transformation is never without loss. In this case loss means heat. So might it be a viable tactic to just bombard a ship that is using lasers with shrapnels it needs to shoot out of the...well....vaccum and thereby cook itself?

Unfortunately, if your shooting at a ship that can dodge lasers at the range you're at, dodging shrapnel is childs play.

[Halsfury]

Boarrding actions require not just an intercept a missile requires, but a course-matching. Boarding actions in space are entirely impractacle.

Realistically, space combat will be defined by the range you can dodge lasers from, which is relateed to your size and your acceleration, but will be measued in light seconds, possibly as high as a light minute.

Close in lasers exist, but they will be a lst ditch wepon.

"missiles" are drones with enough DV to get into laser hit range, where the missie can fire a laser.

"torpedos" are precooled, railgun fired projectiles that are supposed to stay undetectable until they get to laser or even particle beam range.

Actually I wouldn't discount boarding actions, where the vehicles in question are quite expensive commandeering will always be preferable to outright destruction.

Moreover lasers can target with pinpoint accuracy as has already been demonstrated. Therefore the doctrine for space warfare should be to immobilize and critically damage weapons systems. From that point on if it were a manned ship, life support should be targeted, then a team of marines should breach the hull and clear the ship of survivors.

After this point the wreck could be either harvested for components or docked with and maneuvered to a friendly space station for a refit so that it too could be used against the enemy.

With an unmanned craft however, the procedure would involve the same incapacitation of weapons, then, when manned craft or command stations are cleared out of the area the drone would be commandeered either by directly accessing enemy consoles or through a cyber attack.

Moreover should an incapacitated ship be too large to take over in a boarding action, missiles may still be used to simply destroy these vessels so that neither side can have them,

Also I disagree about how missiles would work, to my mind, once a ship is incapacitated, the victorious opponent would close in, and if he decides that boarding is too risky or not worth the effort in that particular situation, a typical anti-sat missile would be used to pierce thin hull areas and detonate inside, with the intention of blowing it into fragments.

Basically I envision that little armour would be the norm since greater amounts of armour impact delta V. Having a high delta V coupled with high acceleration is necessary for a warship. As the prominence of modern destroyers at sea tell us, speed is the key to successful warfare both offensive and defensive.

[PB666]

After this point the wreck could be either harvested for components or docked with and maneuvered to a friendly space station for a refit so that it too could be used against the enemy

That sounds like a very good point to use a hidden built in self destruct device. Meh you loose a ship, but pirates would be reluctant to steal the next.

[Rakaydos]

Moreover lasers can target with pinpoint accuracy as has already been demonstrated. Therefore the doctrine for space warfare should be to immobilize and critically damage weapons systems. From that point on if it were a manned ship, life support should be targeted, then a team of marines should breach the hull and clear the ship of survivors.

If you're already at a range where lasers can target you with pinpoint accuracy, you've already lost, either by running out of fuel for dodging or simply by letting drones get in WAY too close.

[cantab]

Actually I wouldn't discount boarding actions, where the vehicles in question are quite expensive commandeering will always be preferable to outright destruction.

If current trends continue, the loss of materiel - and materiel that wasn't even yours in the first place - will be unimportant compared to loss of life. A boarding action would be incredibly dangerous, you're sending your troops into an environment entirely under hostile control, with countless ways for the defender to slaughter the would-be boarding party.

[Rune]

If you're already at a range where lasers can target you with pinpoint accuracy, you've already lost, either by running out of fuel for dodging or simply by letting drones get in WAY too close.

Yup, at that point I imagine the radiators are out, laser optics are slowly turning to slag, and any pressure hull has taken so much spillover that its integrity if re-pressurized (going into battle with a pressurized hull is stupidly suicidal) is dubious. But more importantly, any crew is running like hell, away form the suddenly uncooled reactor, which is happily melting its way through the shadow shield.

If the ship is not that badly hit, then it means it still has a functional cooling system, and then they are still dangerous, since laser optics can be built to be the very last thing to go (you can actually armor then, so why wouldn't you), and all they have to do is pop out a sensor drone to target them (or use the laser optics themselves, though that would make them very vulnerable). Standard surrender diplomacy applies, of course, if they eject the reactor to signal they are truly out of the fight. But, since the high power lasers and reactors will be installed in drones most likely, one would imagine they would 'heroically' fight to the bitter end, saving the very last coolant in case anyone is stupid enough to try to recover them without the proper access codes.

Rune. Any wreckage would be too hot to bother recovering afterwards.

[Darnok]

Next step is evolution of electromagnetic shields that will cover ships from lasers?

[Jouni]

Again, I think these conversations are meaningless without a very specific universe to talk about. Set a "tech level" with some rough rules about what is possible, then add in whatever laws of physics are violated by the SF aspect (FTL, etc), THEN start talking. The very notion of warships requires a context, as well. What are the geopolitical (cosmopolitical?) goals?

I thought we were talking about the real world, not about a fictional universe.

The more assumptions we make, the less meaningful this discussion becomes. We should start with just the existing scientific and technological understanding and extrapolate from there. The further we deviate from the present, the more uncertain everything becomes, and the more there are plausible mutually incompatible scenarios.

Your ships have to go from A to B. Space travel has to be a thing for combat to happen. Just being there makes heat. If it is manned, it's at crew temp inside, which means it is hot.

The ship is probably not manned. All kinds of manned combat vehicles are slowly becoming obsolete, and space warfare doesn't sound like it's going to reverse the trend. For unmanned ships, the thermal output could be milliwatts or less.

Your weapon drone in orbit around planet X is not an offensive weapon unless it moves to planet Y to attack something. The act of moving it makes it entirely known. If it corrects course... it is also known. "Sir, we saw 10 craft leave Mars yesterday with burns consistent with a transfer to Earth. We should prepare our defenses for possible action in 230 days." No surprises.

"Sir, we saw some activity around Mars yesterday. There may be an attack coming, but the flashes were too dim and intermittent and the patterns too chaotic to say anything for certain."

The bottom line is that tactically, there is no stealth in any real sense. Planning done 10 years in advance is strategy, not tactics. Once a fight is in progress, nothing is hidden under normal circumstances.

Tactical level is about winning battles, not fights. On Earth, some battles have lasted for months, and the preparations for many battles have also taken months. In space warfare, that may increase to years, if reaching the battlefield takes years.

[tater]

I thought we were talking about the real world, not about a fictional universe.

The more assumptions we make, the less meaningful this discussion becomes. We should start with just the existing scientific and technological understanding and extrapolate from there. The further we deviate from the present, the more uncertain everything becomes, and the more there are plausible mutually incompatible scenarios.

So we are entirely limited to earth orbit? Are we assuming bases someplace? Where? Every single launch from earth is detected, as is the orbit or transfer.

The ship is probably not manned. All kinds of manned combat vehicles are slowly becoming obsolete, and space warfare doesn't sound like it's going to reverse the trend. For unmanned ships, the thermal output could be milliwatts or less.

Then all the ships are missiles, basically. Why bother carrying weapons, make them bomb-pumped x-ray laser "cubsats" (writ large).

"Sir, we saw some activity around Mars yesterday. There may be an attack coming, but the flashes were too dim and intermittent and the patterns too chaotic to say anything for certain."

Then they would track it. If they detected it, it's not too faint. Also, apparently someone is around Mars, yet they have nothing closer that earth? What are they fighting about when Mars is not even remotely valuable compared to Earth?

Tactical level is about winning battles, not fights. On Earth, some battles have lasted for months, and the preparations for many battles have also taken months. In space warfare, that may increase to years, if reaching the battlefield takes years.

There are no battles that will take years, I'm not seeing a plausible scenario where there is any possible compelling reason for this.

Seriously, set up a specific alternate history here, all weapons systems exist within a context of history and doctrine.

We want Mars to ourselves and blow up Chinese space probes en route? How would this not just become terrestrial war? In any terrestrial conflict, past sat warfare, what possible value is there in fighting over places BEO? If you postulate Martians fighting for independence (as if anyone would waste money fighting this), why would they do anything but threaten to bombard earth, or knock down any incoming crafts? What is gained, and is the whole earth somehow united in the goal of subjugating Mars?

[Jouni]

So we are entirely limited to earth orbit? Are we assuming bases someplace? Where? Every single launch from earth is detected, as is the orbit or transfer.

We're not assuming anything. We're considering all possible futures at once. Because we're talking about hypothetical futures, we can't come up with answers, just with ideas, scenarios, and questions.

Then all the ships are missiles, basically. Why bother carrying weapons, make them bomb-pumped x-ray laser "cubsats" (writ large).

Maybe such x-ray lasers aren't possible, practical, cost-effective or stealthy enough.

Then they would track it. If they detected it, it's not too faint. Also, apparently someone is around Mars, yet they have nothing closer that earth? What are they fighting about when Mars is not even remotely valuable compared to Earth?

As I've said, there's a huge difference between detection and tracking. Maybe both sides know the surveillance capabilities of the other side quite well. Maybe the launches use engines that have been designed to be as stealthy as possible. Maybe be engines don't fire continuously, but in short bursts at random intervals. Maybe only one out of a hundred flashes is related to a launch, an only one launch in ten is related to the attack, while the rest are decoys. Maybe the pattern of flashes has been carefully designed to fool the tracking algorithms used by the enemy.

The reason for fighting could be anything. Maybe the dictator of Earth insulted the mother of the dictator of Mars, and the dictator of Mars wants revenge in a suitably artistic way.

There are no battles that will take years, I'm not seeing a plausible scenario where there is any possible compelling reason for this.

There have been battles taking months, and wars lasting for generations. We know that space travel can require a lot of time. Why would space battles lasting for years be out of question?

[RainDreamer]

I really see the possibilities of just hosting giant rail guns on moons and captured asteroids and do interplanetary bombardment.

Ever see this game?

[shynung]

There have been battles taking months, and wars lasting for generations. We know that space travel can require a lot of time. Why would space battles lasting for years be out of question?

Because a single battle is just a single confrontation between two opposing fleets. Space warships zapping each other with lasers for years at a time would be a silly waste of energy. A laser gunfight between two warships would end immediately when one side either attempts to flee, surrenders, or gets destroyed. Looking at realistic energy requirements for ship-destroying laser weapons, efficiency limitations of thermal-electric energy conversions, and the fragility of high-performance (=large) radiator panels, I think it's safe to predict that warship laser gunfights would last somewhere between minutes to hours, depending on internal heat sink capacity.

Wars, on the other hand, can last for years.

[Jouni]

Because a single battle is just a single confrontation between two opposing fleets.

That's not a battle, that's a confrontation or an engagement. A single battle may consist of multiple confrontations, with periods of relative quiet between them. A battle typically lasts until at least one side achieves their mission goals or abandons them.

[tater]

Battles (like a siege) taking months is not at all relevant to ship to ship actions, and other modern analogies to what we are talking about, which is air or naval engagements. Months are certainly possible, if you talk in terms of launch of an attack to resolution, heck, in space, possibly years if you posit such attacks have some worth (10 years to get to Pluto, then bang, missile hits and "battle" is over).

All possible futures doesn't really help. Honestly, you need a context. Who is fighting, and why? Weapons will be designed with a specific mission/task in mind. A-sat weapons, or A-sat weapons with a kicker stage to put them in some other orbit. Everything launched from earth is known. Are we talking about a future with a Mars colony making its own craft/weapons? What are their goals? To destroy the earth? If not that harsh, what could earth possibly do, send ground troops to invade in a couple years, which would be impossibly vulnerable, since a Mars-launched missile could simply kill it during reentry.

Near future is pretty silly to contemplate, frankly, I think it's implausible.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a battle, that's a confrontation or an engagement. A single battle may consist of multiple confrontations, with periods of relative quiet between them. A battle typically lasts until at least one side achieves their mission goals or abandons them.

This will rapidly become a semantic battle, frankly. Midway, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, Savo, or the chase of the Bismarck are typical naval battles in the modern sense. The "Battle of the Atlantic" is just a catch-all for vast numbers of actual battles felt too small to justify naming them, by the same metric the entire system of PTO naval engagements would be one "battle" (which is absurd). So real naval battles are very time-limited.

[Jouni]

Battles (like a siege) taking months is not at all relevant to ship to ship actions, and other modern analogies to what we are talking about, which is air or naval engagements. Months are certainly possible, if you talk in terms of launch of an attack to resolution, heck, in space, possibly years if you posit such attacks have some worth (10 years to get to Pluto, then bang, missile hits and "battle" is over).

There are many scenarios, where long space battles could make sense.

Maybe the opposing forces are in different orbits around the same planet, and they don't have that much delta-v to spare. The effective range of their weapons is low enough that they can only fire at each other during close passes. They also don't have enough firepower to completely destroy the enemy in one pass. With suitable initial orbits, the battle can last for a long time.

Or maybe there are a lot of tiny ships belonging to both sides, all of them orbiting the same planet in different orbits. The ships are not that different from the other satellites and debris orbiting the planet, unless you get close enough. Initially neither side has an accurate picture of enemy forces and their disposition. If you just start shooting at the enemies you have identified, the enemy shoots back at the ships you revealed, and so on. If the two forces are evenly matched, the result is going to be a Pyrrhic victory or worse. It might be a better idea to start shooting only when you have local superiority in numbers, but then you have to figure out where the enemies are. (To be honest, I have no idea what kind of emergent behavior could occur in a situation like this.)

All possible futures doesn't really help. Honestly, you need a context. Who is fighting, and why?

Perhaps we have different goals here. I'm more interested in ideas about how space combat could play out in different scenarios than in any specific scenario.

[Kibble]

Near future is pretty silly to contemplate, frankly, I think it's implausible.

People fight for dominance, and in space dominance is observation, because permanent stealth is impossible. With optical reconnaissance of what's going on at enemy orbital launch complexes and a fully functional system early-warning type/infrared observatory spy satellites monitoring and tracking launches from said complexes, you know exactly what their space program is up to at all times.

But they don't like that (presumably because they don't like you) so they try to get rid of your pesky probes populating their precious planetary space. AKA, space war.

[shynung]

Maybe the opposing forces are in different orbits around the same planet, and they don't have that much delta-v to spare. The effective range of their weapons is low enough that they can only fire at each other during close passes. They also don't have enough firepower to completely destroy the enemy in one pass. With suitable initial orbits, the battle can last for a long time.

Assuming the combatants has laser weapons, there's hardly any reason why would this scenario be true. Even then, missiles/autonomous spacecrafts could simply spend their entire deltaV budget to close the distance, engage, and be thrown away immediately after that.

Or maybe there are a lot of tiny ships belonging to both sides, all of them orbiting the same planet in different orbits. The ships are not that different from the other satellites and debris orbiting the planet, unless you get close enough. Initially neither side has an accurate picture of enemy forces and their disposition. If you just start shooting at the enemies you have identified, the enemy shoots back at the ships you revealed, and so on. If the two forces are evenly matched, the result is going to be a Pyrrhic victory or worse. It might be a better idea to start shooting only when you have local superiority in numbers, but then you have to figure out where the enemies are. (To be honest, I have no idea what kind of emergent behavior could occur in a situation like this.

Very improbable. Any active spacecraft would emit more heat than a similarly-sized space junk. Electronics, even low-powered ones, create heat when operating, which means IR emissions. Unless the vast majority of orbiting space junks are RTGs, anyone with a decent passive IR sensor would know which ones are active ships.

Also, assuming that tiny ships mean unmanned satellites, that means they have radio, otherwise they can't be controlled. Identifying friend from foe via radio (IFF, transponders) has existed for several decades now.

Edited September 9, 2015 by shynung

[Halsfury]

I really see the possibilities of just hosting giant rail guns on moons and captured asteroids and do interplanetary bombardment.

Ever see this game?

No I've never seen that game but thanks for pointing it out.

The game seems very realistic in terms of how solar system battles would go, after all the trend in modern warfare favours plenty of collateral damage and the trend seems to be for collateral damage to increase as weapons systems get better.

Sending you opponent to the stone age and then invading sounds like it would be the way to go. After all this is how modern battles work, the breakdown is about 80% disrupting supplies, 15% shelling targets, and 5% direct engagements.

In war the most important and most overlooked area is merely keeping your troops fed and supplied with bullets, even in a frontline area little really happens unless an assault is underway.

Space combat could be more like this, with limited direct attacks and ship to ship battles which often take place on a small scale only by accident and on a larger scale, only when victory is largely assured.

Perhaps a space battle would be more like the normandy landing, with troops deploying by drop-ship only once an extensive orbital bombardment has occurred.

Also, as to countermeasures, one could imagine that chaff would find extensive use.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Halsfury

[Jouni]

Assuming the combatants has laser weapons, there's hardly any reason why would this scenario be true. Even then, missiles/autonomous spacecrafts could simply spend their entire deltaV budget to close the distance, engage, and be thrown away immediately after that.

Remember that this isn't Kerbin. For example, the horizon isn't that far away at LEO, and the delta-v requirements for any meaningful maneuvers are quite steep.

Very improbable. Any active spacecraft would emit more heat than a similarly-sized space junk. Electronics, even low-powered ones, create heat when operating, which means IR emissions. Unless the vast majority of orbiting space junks are RTGs, anyone with a decent passive IR sensor would know which ones are active ships.

With passive sensors, the heat output could be just milliwatts in sleep mode. And unlike in deep space, low orbits have a plenty of reasons why debris would radiate a tiny amount of heat.

Also, assuming that tiny ships mean unmanned satellites, that means they have radio, otherwise they can't be controlled. Identifying friend from foe via radio (IFF, transponders) has existed for several decades now.

If you send an IFF query to an enemy, you reveal yourself as hostile, and the enemy may end up shooting first. The situation resembles the Cold War quite a bit.