Space combat

[raankh]

Barring FTL travel and instant communication: Missiles/Robots.

You have independent, very small tracking drones that use base-line interferometry over huge distances to gain enough resolution to target a ship from several light-seconds away, that guide missiles. They would likely be nuclear or purely ballistic, if your targetting and RCS is precise enough. That seems unlikely to be efficacious, so cluster munitions with nuclear payloads are most likely to kill your opponent with gamma-rays; near impossible to shield efficiently against and still maintain a sane mass/thrust ratio.

There's just no reliable way to hit something at any distance where relativity comes into play without active guidance, unless the target is relatively large and follows a predictable path (say, a planet). Getting close to an opponent would only be viable at known locations, such as a space station.

Space combat would involve firing complex sequences of missiles, since they would likely have to travel for days before hitting their targets, and the opponent would have plenty of time to fire countermeasures.

Any long-distance space combat is a MAD type scenario, so first-strike and interception is the only way you can "win".

Not exactly Star Wars, but that is a fantasy after all.

EDIT: BTW, I just did some handkerchief calculations, and those nuclear submunitions would have to be HUGE to reliably kill anything; say on the order of 100 submunitions each with a TNT equivalent of 100 megatons or more. Unless you have some pretty sofisticated AI in your missiles, I'd say alot more, like 1 gigaton per submunition. Even over relatively small distances on the astronomical scale, gamma radiation from a human-scale nuke isn't enough to reliably kill an opponent in a timely fashion. You don't wan't to wait for them to die a few days or weeks later, after they've fired their entire arsenal of similar or more powerful nukes....

 

[A Satanic Panda]

It'll somewhat similar to Submarine combat. Due to the prevalence of stealth technology and long range guided missles, much of space combat will simply be spent trying to find and target the enemy, and then destroy the life support systems or engines, or depressurize the hull.

Except, of course, that stealth is pretty much impossible in space. Space is a pretty empty place, and any decent engine is really going to stick out. Hell, even if you aren't firing, your crew compartment is a good 290k or so against the background, still fairly visible.

Except that you won't be using your engine all the time because there's nothing in space to decelerate you. Also, I'd assume that stealth technology would have vastly improved by the time we're fighting in space. Of course, even if both sides see each other, hitting a target would still be hard because most large space craft would be equiped with a CIWS or other effective anti-missile weapon.

Not only that, but ships may engage over vast distances, like say... hundreds of millions of kilometers.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's probably going to involve unmanned drones trying to destroy assets controlled by other unmanned drones belonging to different nations. Putting people into space is always going to be disproportionately difficult relative to their actual effectiveness once they're up there, and any craft capable of carrying humans is going to have a detection disadvantage a mile wide when compared to an unmanned probe.

Not very romantic though.

 

[sextus the crazy]

It'll somewhat similar to Submarine combat. Due to the prevalence of stealth technology and long range guided missles, much of space combat will simply be spent trying to find and target the enemy, and then destroy the life support systems or engines, or depressurize the hull.

Except, of course, that stealth is pretty much impossible in space. Space is a pretty empty place, and any decent engine is really going to stick out. Hell, even if you aren't firing, your crew compartment is a good 290k or so against the background, still fairly visible.

Except that you won't be using your engine all the time because there's nothing in space to decelerate you. Also, I'd assume that stealth technology would have vastly improved by the time we're fighting in space. Of course, even if both sides see each other, hitting a target would still be hard because most large space craft would be equiped with a CIWS or other effective anti-missile weapon.

Not only that, but ships may engage over vast distances, like say... hundreds of millions of kilometers.

Honestly Large scale emps designed to destroy enemy life support systems would be the best option. Hey, I found a use for all of our nukes!

 

[Reaper195]

The Halo books (Muuuuch better than the games, although only Fall of Reach and First Strike had actual space combat. And some of Onyx) had some rather realistic (Ish) space combat, and it was written really well.

 

[Da Orky Man]

It'll somewhat similar to Submarine combat. Due to the prevalence of stealth technology and long range guided missles, much of space combat will simply be spent trying to find and target the enemy, and then destroy the life support systems or engines, or depressurize the hull.

Except, of course, that stealth is pretty much impossible in space. Space is a pretty empty place, and any decent engine is really going to stick out. Hell, even if you aren't firing, your crew compartment is a good 290k or so against the background, still fairly visible.

Except that you won't be using your engine all the time because there's nothing in space to decelerate you. Also, I'd assume that stealth technology would have vastly improved by the time we're fighting in space. Of course, even if both sides see each other, hitting a target would still be hard because most large space craft would be equiped with a CIWS or other effective anti-missile weapon.

In the first and last instances, you would be correct. Many engines would have a single powerful burn initially, then sit idle for the rest of the voyage. And yes, CIWS would be very effective against missiles in space.

However, you still have that 280 Kelvin patch on your ship that you can't get rid of. All that waste heat has to go somewhere, or your crew will roast. All the enemy has to do is spot this hot patch, and they know your vector and velocity. And if you don't make another engine burn, revealing your position in greater detail, they'll know exactly when you'll get where.

And CIWS aren't exactly possible against laser, which could reach out and touch you from 300,000km.

I would recommend you spend a while looking over this site:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

It's a good read, especially if you're interested in rocketry or space combat. It explains how it came to the conclusions it did as well as showing all the maths behind it.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Stealth in space is a laughable concept. If you have engines, you create heat. If you create heat, you're visible.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

This is a good site.

Ah, a fellow Atomic Rocketeer, I see.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2504/4176905080_97dbafc3cb.jpg

 

[omicron1]

Heat will be the basic unit of combat. To wit: Everything you do in space creates heat. If you can radiate enough of it to maintain temperature stasis, you're good. If you can't... not so much. So things like energy-based weapons, missiles, kinetic projectiles, etc. will all create significantly more heat than your average ship can dissipate at once.

To combat this, radiators, heat-containing substances (think the plasma bomb from Homeworld/etc., possibly as a projectile), and temporary shutdowns will come into play; one of the most effective forms of indirect assault will, yes, be attacking thermal exhaust ports.

Barring hugely powerful, hugely focused beam weapons, the aforementioned talk of distances will be rather ineffective. A random-walk strategy would eliminate the vast majority of your opponent's possible hits, assuming you know he's there. Thus, in order to eliminate the opposition, it will be imperative to approach to minimum safe distance (EG close enough to react; hopefully far enough to dodge), and launch bombers/strike craft.

Speed will also likely be kept reasonably low - inertia being the most significant reason. While there's no Newtonian reason the Galactica couldn't accelerate to .6c, given enough time, it would at that point become nearly impossible for it to change direction in reasonable time. At the distances required to score hits, maneuverability will matter more than raw speed.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Except that you won't be using your engine all the time because there's nothing in space to decelerate you. Also, I'd assume that stealth technology would have vastly improved by the time we're fighting in space. Of course, even if both sides see each other, hitting a target would still be hard because most large space craft would be equiped with a CIWS or other effective anti-missile weapon.

However, you still have that 280 Kelvin patch on your ship that you can't get rid of. All that waste heat has to go somewhere, or your crew will roast. All the enemy has to do is spot this hot patch, and they know your vector and velocity. And if you don't make another engine burn, revealing your position in greater detail, they'll know exactly when you'll get where.

And CIWS aren't exactly possible against laser, which could reach out and touch you from 300,000km.

A Laser that's effective at dealing structural damage to a ship at 300,000 would require a ridiculously high amount of energy because its intensity would degrade over a distance.

 

[Erttheking]

I think I read somewhere that the most practical form of combat would be drones that ram into enemy ships. Check out the Ramming Always Works page on TV Tropes for more.

 

[Phlakes]

Realistically it'll be really boring, just sitting a few dozen/hundred/thousand miles away from the other ship and firing kinetic weapons from a computer until they stop shooting back.

 

[MammothBlade]

If there is warfare in space in the future, how do you reckon it will turn out?

Firstly, most unguided projectile and beam weapons will likely become useless outside relative short-medium range as ships will be warned well in advance to take evasive manoeuvres, and the unguided weapon cannot adjust its trajectory. Railguns and ion cannons might be used for attacking static targets, though. Drones would become a lot more important, as they close the distance and fire at an effective distance.

As for the types of spacecraft, unless effective shielding is developed, slow, large vessels could be at a massive disadvantage because of their large signature. Perhaps stealth would be a lot more important, as in space the person who gets the first shot will likely win due to the lack of effective protection. In space a piece of debris can be lethal. Spacecraft as they are now can't afford to take deliberate hits.

Also, are there any works of science fiction which cover space combat "realistically"?

Dive into this site for a while:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

And i;m sad to say that stealth is not going to work. Space is an empty place, so the heat signature of any spacecraft is going to be really, really easy to see.

Wow, thanks! That looks like an awesome site. I don't know where to start off... I'm not going to sleep tonight.

So, it wouldn't work even if a spacecraft used some sort of heatsink? Or perhaps waited in orbit with its engines off...

 

[Heronblade]

It would really depend on developed tech. For example, focused radiation based weaponry would be king, unless some kind of easily maintained protection (IE: energy shields) is developed. non guided projectiles are useless unless fired from point blank range or aimed against an unsuspecting target. Guided projectiles and fighters can easily be spotted and shot down at extreme ranges, etc.

A Laser that's effective at dealing structural damage to a ship at 300,000 would require a ridiculously high amount of energy because its intensity would degrade over a distance.

Not in open space, there is very little matter to warp or occlude the beam, focus it properly and hitting most targets up to perhaps a few light minutes away with a large percentage of the output energy is entirely possible. Of course, at that distance a lot of other targeting data must be accounted for.

Wow, thanks! That looks like an awesome site. I don't know where to start off... I'm not going to sleep tonight.

So, it wouldn't work even if a spacecraft used some sort of heatsink? Or perhaps waited in orbit with its engines off...

A well designed heatsink would help, but not by enough to prevent detection from a determined searcher, you'd still be outputting far more energy than your background. Stealth IS possible, but in terms of environmental camouflage, giving the enemy too much data to sift through, not being effectively invisible. Sitting in front of a very "loud" stellar body could be made to work, a bit like the old WW2 era pilots trick of approaching the enemy from the direction of the sun, but you cannot exactly carry such things around with you.

 

[emmettr3]

I was just about to post [http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php]...
Then I see that someone else already has. Oh well.
But yeah, everything that site says. No stealth, complicated balance of heat management and firepower, very decisive battles, etc, etc.

 

[rcs619]

If there is warfare in space in the future, how do you reckon it will turn out?

Firstly, most unguided projectile and beam weapons will likely become useless outside relative short-medium range as ships will be warned well in advance to take evasive manoeuvres, and the unguided weapon cannot adjust its trajectory. Railguns and ion cannons might be used for attacking static targets, though. Drones would become a lot more important, as they close the distance and fire at an effective distance.

As for the types of spacecraft, unless effective shielding is developed, slow, large vessels could be at a massive disadvantage because of their large signature. Perhaps stealth would be a lot more important, as in space the person who gets the first shot will likely win due to the lack of effective protection. In space a piece of debris can be lethal. Spacecraft as they are now can't afford to take deliberate hits.

Also, are there any works of science fiction which cover space combat "realistically"?

Keep in mind, lasers don't work in real life like they do in star wars.

A military-grade laser is going to travel at the speed of light... that's about 300,000 kilometers per second, which is a hair shorter than the distance between the Earth and the moon.

If you're within 300,000 kilometers of the enemy, you're still going to hit basically instantly. Even if you're 600,000 kilometers away, it would only take 2 seconds for your laser to reach its target. That just isn't enough time for someone to "see" your weapon fire, process it and evade. To even "see" incoming laser-fire you would need sensors capable of sending data faster-than-light, which is a feat in and of itself.

Assuming you know your target's speed, acceleration and trajectory... and had suitably advanced computing power, it isn't hard to hit with a laser. You can be 1,000,000 kilometers away and it'd still take just a hair over 4 seconds to reach the target. Granted, if they know you're there and are actively maneuvering like they should, it would be quite tough at that range. I'd prefer missiles from that far out, myself. Keep lasers for 1 or 2 light-second distances where they can't wiggle away from them >

Railguns really depend on the level of technology, but they're going to be slower than lasers. Let's say you can accelerate your projectile to 0.40c (40% of light speed). You'd need to be a lot closer to ensure a hit. I wouldn't get too far beyond 1.5 light-seconds myself, and preferably closer than that.

Of course, different weapons have different strengths. Lasers are good because they are fast. However, their entire damage is from heat and radiation, which *can* be defended against by something as simple as meta-materials in your armor and/or advanced armor coatings. They won't nullify them, but they should help some. Railguns on the other hand... those are kinetic weapons. They are slower than laser-fire, but they carry *massive* amounts of kinetic energy, and will also penetrate. If they get past the outer armor/shielding/whatnot, they are going to pierce deep into your ship, kill your crew and/or potentially damage critical systems.

Missiles are another option, but that greatly depends on the propulsion involved. If you can get them going fast enough, you can just start lobbing them at the other guy from a couple million kilometers away. They may take a 30 seconds to a couple minutes to reach the target, but missiles can have massive range, and can guide themselves to help negate enemy maneuvering. Of course, missiles *can* be intercepted by point-defense guns. That's really their main drawback. But then you can potentially screw with the point-defense guns by using electronic warfare, sensor decoys and so on. Missiles are also neat because they can potentially be loaded with a variety of munitions.

Take missiles in the Honorverse (excellent sci-fi book series by the way. I'll toss up a link at the end of the post). The preferred anti-ship missiles in the Honorverse are lobbed from around a couple million kilometers away, and when they get close (I think it's like 200,000 - 300,000 kilometers), they rotate their warhead to face the enemy ship and use a nuclear explosion to power a shotgun-blast of x-ray lasers that actually do the killing. They like these because they cut down the time the enemy ship's point-defense has to shoot down the missiles, since they explode at a distance, instead of requiring a direct hit.

Maneuvering is extremely important too, specifically acceleration. If the other guy gets the acceleration advantage, they will *always* be able to intercept you and maneuver along your trajectory in a way that is beneficial to them.

Anyway, if you're interested in a more realistic form of sci-fi space combat (more realistic than Star Wars, Star Trek or Warhammer 40,000 at least), I really do recommend the Honor Harrington books by David Weber. The first two in the series are up, in full, on the publisher's website for free. You can't beat free

http://www.baen.com/library/067157793x/067157793x.htm

 

[MammothBlade]

Anyway, if you're interested in a more realistic form of sci-fi space combat (more realistic than Star Wars, Star Trek or Warhammer 40,000 at least), I really do recommend the Honor Harrington books by David Weber. The first two in the series are up, in full, on the publisher's website for free. You can't beat free

http://www.baen.com/library/067157793x/067157793x.htm

That's an insightful post. True, I may have underestimated the effectiveness of lasers.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site too.

What I'm getting from this is realistic space combat needn't be boring. It has the potential to be a lot more macabre. Spaceship crews will know they're screwed if their vessel gets damaged beyond a certain point. They'll do a lot more to avoid conflict, hoping to put the other side into checkmate or destroy their will to fight. Considering they'll be so far away from any central HQ, commanders will have to be brilliant.

 

[rcs619]

Anyway, if you're interested in a more realistic form of sci-fi space combat (more realistic than Star Wars, Star Trek or Warhammer 40,000 at least), I really do recommend the Honor Harrington books by David Weber. The first two in the series are up, in full, on the publisher's website for free. You can't beat free

http://www.baen.com/library/067157793x/067157793x.htm

That's an insightful post. True, I may have underestimated the effectiveness of lasers.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that site too.

What I'm getting from this is realistic space combat needn't be boring. It has the potential to be a lot more macabre. Spaceship crews will know they're screwed if their vessel gets damaged beyond a certain point. They'll do a lot more to avoid conflict, hoping to put the other side into checkmate or destroy their will to fight. Considering they'll be so far away from any central HQ, commanders will have to be brilliant.

The Honor Harrington books really are a good read if you're into military sci-fi and/or space politics

It'd be a lot more... brutal. Like old ship-to-ship combat. Even minor hits are probably going to kill some of your crew.

To be fair, I do think small-craft (fighters, attack-craft and such) *could* be viable in more realistic space combat. They would however require one thing, some form of internal FTL drive. If you could jump them in close and get them to motor in close to the enemy ship, it's possible that the vessel's point-defense guns might have trouble tracking them. They would still be turrets and turrets can only track so fast. Not to mention things like electronic warfare coming from the small-craft and/or larger ships, sensor decoys and such.

The point is, if you could get "bombers" inside the enemy's point-defense envelope, you can start plugging at him with anti-ship missiles from a distance where his point-defense guns would have little to no time to react. Granted, a small-craft wouldn't be able to carry the same heavy-hitting anti-ship missiles as a full on warship... but even minor hits can do damage, kill the crew and such. Even something as simple as destroying his point-defense guns or damaging his engines could greatly stack the odds in favor of your big friends plugging away from 100,000's of kilometers away.

Even the enemy ship switching over some of it's point-defense to try and shoot down small-craft could potentially create enough of a wrinkle in its defense-grid for a big missile from down range to slip through.

However, faster-than-light technology small enough to fit into something the size of a starfighter or attack-craft would probably be... tough. Without that though, yeah, small-craft are probably not viable at all in more realistic space combat.