Interplanetary WAR!

[Seret]

Watch any sci-fi movie about space combat, then imagine the exact opposite.

[WestAir]

"Captain, there's an enemy ship about 85,000 kilometers away. It's coming inbound retrograde!"

"Red Alert! Open a channel."

"Ignored. They're preparing to fire missiles."

"Target that ship and destroy it!"

"Opening fire. Impact in 3... 2... 1..."

"Status?"

"Captain they've got some sort of hyper-polarized quantum energy flux shield. Our attacks did nothing. They're returning fire!"

"WHAT!?"

"Nah I'm just screwing with you. They're all dead. Military satellites shot them down already and destroyed the enemy countries launch sites days ago. War's probably over already. Anyone want tea or something?"

[Winter Man]

The opening sequence to Killzone 2 had it about right.

[Bobbydylan]

OP, have you read the Expanse series by James S. A. Corey? It's pretty much details what you're talking about.

It's a really good read, even if the 3rd book was disappointing. I highly recommend Leviathan wakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_Wakes

[Nao]

This site might interest you

It's a pretty interesting and fun (if you don't mind some simple maths) read about theoretical space combat and in general about starship designs. It has cool pictures too

[TheExplosionist]

Unlike in movies or videogames there would be no fires, big explosions or non-Newtonian physics.

Space vessels would engage at vast distances beyond visual range using x-ray lasers, missiles and projectile weapons.

[vger]

"Nah I'm just screwing with you. They're all dead. Military satellites shot them down already and destroyed the enemy countries launch sites days ago. War's probably over already. Anyone want tea or something?"

Oh dear, that one country, had Corbomite installed in its buildings.

This site might interest you

It's a pretty interesting and fun (if you don't mind some simple maths) read about theoretical space combat and in general about starship designs. It has cool pictures too

I knew about that site but the imagery threw me. Does it actually incorporate current science? It looked like it might be entirely based on speculative sci-fi from the 70's or earlier.

[Nao]

I knew about that site but the imagery threw me. Does it actually incorporate current science? It looked like it might be entirely based on speculative sci-fi from the 70's or earlier.

Images are funky, but some of the content is quite modern. You won't have Higgs boson in it but it has articles as fresh as 2000+ discussed in it (most content deals with ideas and technology from around 70'-90'-ties probably). And while there is sci-fi to some extent, the site tries discussing it in a semi-realistic manner.

Regardless of realism some articles/sections are not that good, but some are really good, based on current technology, informative and thought inducing. It's a question of finding the right ones.

edit: Hold on, there are KSP pictures there (as a help tool for understanding spacecraft controls), it looks like the site is still being updated!

edit2: Oh i know, this side is roughly how "XKCD:space and beyond" could look

Edited April 22, 2014 by Nao

[FenrirWolf]

The creator of the site happens to post here somewhat frequently. You might know him as the creator of the Orion nuclear pulse rocket mod:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28428-Orion-aka-Ol-Boom-boom

[WH40krules]

Hey you all, and thanks for posting.

Nibb31, when I created this thread, I had just combat in Earth/Kerbin orbit in mind, and also, that the war would be still fairly recent. My apologies for not making that clear.

WestAir, yeah, you have a point. Although, it would be interesting if the ship and launchpad had some sort of anti-projectile defense, like spraying a bunch of bullets in the path of the missile/bomb.

Also, I had in mind battles somewhat like Macey Dean's battles:

You guys do have a point though. Space battles would be fought long range. If, say, one ship launched a missile at another over a few kilometers, would the target have time to throw up a "debris field" to try to alter the course of the missile or just blow it up? Also, energy weapons would take up a lot of power, and would be relativley close range because of the inverse square law, unless you found a way to focus it or something...

[Seret]

If, say, one ship launched a missile at another over a few kilometers, would the target have time to throw up a "debris field" to try to alter the course of the missile or just blow it up?

There are two ways to stop a missile:

• Active: Fire another missile or a projectile weapon to destroy the incoming missile.
  
• Passive: Use ECM, decoys and maneuvering to try and defeat the missile.
  

Technically there's another passive method: armour. But this isn't going to be an option on spacecraft due to weight limitations.

[Comrade Jenkens]

Technically there's another passive method: armour. But this isn't going to be an option on spacecraft due to weight limitations.

Does armour even work on current missiles?

[Seret]

Does armour even work on current missiles?

Definitely.

There's always an arms race going on between armour and warheads. Vehicles have started using composite armour, reactive armour and active armour, and missiles have responded by doing sneaky things like tandem charges to deal with ERA, and top attack to try and hit where the armour is thinner.

[randomness5555]

My thought would be that missiles would be fairly worthless-a fast tracking machine gun turret could hit one before it got close. Recoil would be fun in space (Spinning in circles) and I don't think the wieght of armour would be a problem, as by this point you would probably have orbital factories and such. (Some) energy weapons work best (Or more importantly actually work at all) in a vacum, and with the likely energy output that they would probably have, lasers and such might actually feature as armaments.

[Scotius]

Orbital battles? Not very flashy i guess. Both sides would try to sneakily launch clouds of debris\shrapnel into orbits intersecting with their target's orbit. Then wait for several days\weeks for Laws Of Physics And Orbital Motion to do the deed. Or swarms of smart drones doing their best to stay hidden in space (no active comms, minimal energy output) until LOPAOM brings them close enough to target - then they would perform suicidal lunge trying to mission-kill target before they get destroyed by CIWS weapons. Which might be Metal Storm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_storm in style. Or basically overgrown shotgun shells placed around the ship\station exterior for maximum coverage. Lasers could be used for this too, but while they have the advantage of hitting the target instantaneously, lasers need time to "chew" through exterior to reach important elements inside. Cloud of steel ball-bearings hitting approaching target at 1-2 km\s combined speed would achieve the goal without so much fuss.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Scotius

[KerikBalm]

Why would you have orbital factories?

The raw material is down on the surface of a celestial body, why would you lift all the crude ore and such to orbit, when the refined and finished product is so much lighter?

[Soda Popinski]

What about a nuclear EMP? I recall a friend I had in the Army was worried a hostile nation could simply detonate a nuke in space, and the EMP would disrupt communication satellites and GPS (his main concern), as the military is completely reliant on it.

You wouldn't have to make a direct hit - just be within several hundred miles.

Or could these speculative future military spacecraft be hardened against EMP attacks?

[andrew123]

Spaceships would probably be hardened to emp strikes. I also believe that if the planet with resources in question has a thin atmosphere with weak gravity, a space elevator or even mass driver could deliver the materials. Most resources are actually in regions like the Oort Cloud, so asteroid and celestial mining are more viable. Do you think AI's would play an important role in the future of space combat, considering our advances in quantum computing?

[DoctorCruz]

"Captain, there's an enemy ship about 85,000 kilometers away. It's coming inbound retrograde!"

"Red Alert! Open a channel."

"Ignored. They're preparing to fire missiles."

"Target that ship and destroy it!"

"Opening fire. Impact in 3... 2... 1..."

"Status?"

"Captain they've got some sort of hyper-polarized quantum energy flux shield. Our attacks did nothing. They're returning fire!"

"WHAT!?"

"Nah I'm just screwing with you. They're all dead. Military satellites shot them down already and destroyed the enemy countries launch sites days ago. War's probably over already. Anyone want tea or something?"

That is hilarious

[Tommygun]

One side could just go the low tech approach. They could launch or pre-place large containers filled with a million small light weight hard plastic/ceramic like beads.

Put them in various retrograde and prograde orbits and at various inclinations. Then just open the containers and set off a small explosive charge to spread them out.

The closing speeds of two object in opposite orbits is around 15600 m/s. Basically a "Scorched Earth/Space" tactic that may prevent space access for a generation or more.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Tommygun

[WH40krules]

randomness5555: The machine gun anti-missile defense would probally be better and more effecient in stopping a missile. You would want 2 of them on either side to stop it from spinning out of control . I am also wondering if orbital factories would be such a good thing: they would be huge targets for a attack, like Tommygun said, or a EMP strike, like Soda Popinski said.

andrew123: I would think that a space elevator would still have the same weakness as mentioned above, but you could do covert mining in the Oort Cloud or something. I do think that either RC or AI droids would be in charge of most of the combat, seeing to minimalize deaths. I would think that humans would mainly be on repair craft or mining stations.

[Seret]

randomness5555: The machine gun anti-missile defense would probally be better and more effecient in stopping a missile. You would want 2 of them on either side to stop it from spinning out of control

You could either use a recoilless weapon such as a missile or rockets, or just compensate with RCS. RCS fuel is likely to be at less of a premium than ammo. Close-in defences also have the issue that you're still likely to get hit by fragments of the projectile. Defences would want to take a layered approach, with missiles further out and maybe guns in close as a last ditch effort. You'd be wanting to kill the missile as far out as possible. That's a similar approach to what naval vessels do. It's likely that only high-value targets like space stations would bother having that much defensive firepower, kill vehicles are likely to be small, expendable and have no active defences. They may not even have any weapons, since at orbital speeds your engine has more than enough smash to deliver a killing blow to an enemy vehicle or satellite. I suspect at most you'd need some kind of terminal fragmentation effect.

[SchildConstruct]

HMore specificaly, stuff like the tactics and new weaponry and spacecraft needed for warfare in space.

Kinetic Kill Vehicles are your friend. Nothing'll ruin your day quite like a soda can hitting you at 6-7 km/s. Cheap, virtually invisible, and difficult to dodge, too. Just seed all the orbits you don't want to ever use again with 'em, and Kessler's your uncle.

Logistically (amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics!), smaller ships are easier to deploy, faster to manufacture, but more difficult to service (fuel, repairs, life support, &c.), however they have way smaller heat signatures. In LEO to MEO, that'll be an advantage due to all the noise in lower orbits (natural and man made).

Large ships, however, are less fragile (more room for redundancy, and more room to let that KKV's plasma evaporate, like turret skirt armor for tanks), and require less support crew to service the ships, but they are far more intensive in construction. Way bigger heat signatures, too, so whoever is looking at the right spot at the right time with the best sensors wins.

Heat also eliminates any kind of weapon that is energy intensive, since water (the natural material with the highest specific heat, making for the best heat sink, is also danged heavy if you want to fire a weapon more than once). No lasers, no rail/coil guns. Missiles, maybe, but those are trivial to intercept at long ranges (and in space, everything is long range). Bomb-pumped lasers might work, being stand-off weapons, but are far-future sci-fi for now.

Ground based assets (including fighter/bombers like the F-15 Strike Eagle) with ASAT missiles, or ICBMs will also ruin your day. Contrary to what you think, nuclear weapons would be contact weapons, as there's no atmosphere to transmit the effects of a nuclear explosion. If it'd hit, though, you'd be dead.

I think sub-on-sub-warfare comes closest: He who sees the opposition first, wins. But it's far more difficult to pull that off, space having no places to hide (unless you like cooking your crew or fry your electronics. Thermodynamics are over-rated, anyway!).

[The Silent Majority]

Of course, ironically, the ammo you would need the RCS for is the cheaper of the two (missile or big chunks of metal), though that makes sense.

[Starwhip]

Billions of Ball Bearings. In Big Balls.

Launch it on a retrograde orbit from its target and then "carefully" detonate, so that they drift apart yet stay together, if you catch my drift. They would proceed to shred anything in their way.