Subject:
|
Re: Combat strategies and tactics in space. Was: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:46:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1240 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Niels Bugge wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Jordan D. Greer wrote:
| |
Yes, though I think our central disagreement stems from the fact that you’re
not thinking of the sheer scale involved in space. The energies, velocities,
and distances involved in anything relating to deep space are such that not
even nuclear weapons provide the kind of energy density that one would truly
desire for space combat.
|
|
| |
Ok, lets go straight to the roots then: In my view the basic disagreement is,
put to the extremes, if one should “shape reality to fit sci-fi” or “shape
sci-fi to fit reality”, where I have a bias toward the first one, and doesn’t
really consider the last one sci-fi as the fiction-part of sci-fi implies
being able to do something that’s impossible by today’s standards or
technologies. It’s incorrect that I don’t take the physics of space combat
into consideration, and it’s very much a part of my vision on how space
battles could be (made) possible, so in the following I’ll spend some time
trashing yours ;-)
|
I didn’t say that you didn’t account for the physics involved, I said that you
didn’t consider what impact the sheer scale of space would have on combat
strategies and tactics. One can postulate methods around the laws of physics
as currently known, but only within reason.
| |
1: Yes, space is very large, but that does only mean that you have to have
some kind of warp- or hyperspeed drive in order to get to the battlefield in
the first place (which probably wouldn’t be in deep space unless it was a
pitched battle which is already a thing of the past).
|
That much is obvious. At any rate, I should’ve specified that I meant distances
beyond the Earth’s (effective or measurable) gravitational influence. For the
sake of discussion, imagine a battlefield of not greater volume than the Solar
System.
How exactly is a pitched battle a “thing of the past”? One cannot say that such
would not occur in space unless specific technical parameters are previously
defined. I assume that if you can so decisively state such a thing, you have
already defined and analyzed relevant technical capabilities. Would you be so
kind as to share these along with your method of derivation? :)
| |
2: Closing the
remaining distance relatively fast shouldn’t therefore pose much of a
problem.
|
You have presupposed an assumption the validity of which is contingent upon
clearly defined technical parameters, and as such, must be stated. If such has
not been developed, this statement is not an argument but rather a technically
baseless opinion.
| |
3: And then we can have a good old style naval battle in sub
lightspeed, where fighters has been proved very useful.
|
This is an even less valid statement, as the environments in which theoretical
space fighters and atmospheric fighters (would) operate are completely
different. The main reasons (modern) naval fighters are so useful in an
anti-shipping role is that they are able to operate beyond the range of
surface-based weapons, within a faster time frame than a conventional surface
battle would occur (as atmospheric fighters are able to achieve much greater
velocities than surface warships), as well as operate over the horizon where
enemy vessels cannot be targeted. Space fighters would not be useful in any of
these roles, as none of the limitations of surface-based warships would exist in
space. In fact, larger warships would be better for both matters of logistical
economy and for purely physical reasons. For example, as the fuel capacity of a
space warship in relation to mass would be much greater than for a fighter, the
warship could eventually achieve greater velocities than a smaller vessel.
| |
If I understand you right, you envision a kind of battle where the fleets can
see each other from a huge distance and start firing nuclear weapons (and
anti-nuclear weapons?) until one of them is destroyed.
|
Somewhat, though anti-nuclear weapons is a misnomer, as there are many other
ways to avoid nuclear hits than through the use of purely defensive weapons.
Evasion and survival tactics would be a much more descriptive name.
| |
Here’s what I don’t
like about that:
A: If the fleets and nukes are moving above lightspeed, finding each other
would probably be the biggest problem as it’s impossible (AFAIK) to detect
anything above that speed before impact (or after it has passed you or
otherwise too late) given the lightspeed limit of waves, so in a battle
fought at that speed you wouldn’t be able to communicate with friendlies nor
pinpoint the enemy (as radio and radar works at lightspeed), so it would be
condemned to a big ridiculous mess of ships racing around blindly firing big
large area nuclear weapons hitting friends and foes alike.
|
Objects with mass in normal 4-space would have to consume an infinite amount of
energy to achieve lightspeed, and would not be able to exceed same. Any battles
in realspace would occur below lightspeed.
| |
So I believe that
battles have to take place in subspeed. B: Then there’s two possibilities:
Either my points 1-3 where the fleets slow down beneath lightspeed in order
to fight or they can’t get above that speed at all, in which case: C: Given
the large distances in space, no contact or hostilities is realistic,
|
Not at all true, you’re simply providing another opinion that cannot be verified
without first identifying and specifying physical and technical parameters.
| |
and an
approaching fleet or barrage of nuclear missiles would be spotted with
current wave detection technology.
|
Not true, radar and laser (active) detection are not practical above a certain
distance, depending on the ranges involved and the powers and resolution of the
transceiving sensors. Furthermore, active use of sensor systems isn’t a good
idea for general use, as it clearly identifies one’s position and vector, for
little gain. Even if one does have a good idea as to the enemy’s location,
return signals might take weeks to detect, at which time you might not even be
in a position to receive sensor echos. In order to do so, one would have to know
the vectors of the enemy in the first place, in which case it would be pointless
to even use active sensors. Passive sensor use would be much better for these
reasons. The situation is quite analogous to submarine warfare.
| |
LONG before they arrive = no element of
surprise, and you have plenty of time to prepare a warm welcome (assuming
that you’re able to defend yourself in the first place!).
|
See above.
| |
D: A battle fought
at that speed would probably be a test of how many nuclear and anti nuclear
rockets you’d brought, and who runs out first, so your money would be spend
wiser on building rockets than ships and send them alone,
|
With the current power of weapons technology, offensive weapons are always
preferable to defense, as it is far more economical to do so. Depending on the
ranges involved, winning the battle might rather be a test of who achieved the
most accurate targeting solutions than who can bring to bear more firepower. As
I’ve said before, a definite answer would of course depend on specific
parameters.
| |
and then we’re back
to a situation very much like the cold war and the philosophy behind the
Starwars project(s): Not sci-fi at all if you ask me.
|
How’d you reach that line of reasoning? You’re assuming that we will have
switched to a defensive type of warfare. The Strategic Defense Initiative
(Starwars was a name given by political and media detractors of SDI) would’ve
been much more useful in a scenario in which we executed a first-strike than one
in which we try to absolutely stop all enemy weapons from detonating on target.
One would use offensive weapons to destroy the vast majority of the enemy’s
retaliatory ability, and then use defensive systems to intercept the percentage
of the enemy’s weapons that would inevitably survive and be employed. I think
this scenario would be more applicable to space combat than any defensive based
warfare.
| |
BTW: How does those advanced nuclear weapons you talk about all the time
actually work?
|
What do you mean by “advanced”? The weapons of which I was speaking
(enhanced-radiation and bomb-pumped x-ray lasers) are merely different types of
nuclear weapons. Enhanced-radiation weapons work by maximizing the fusion output
of a bomb in relation to fission output, as the spectra of radiation emitted by
fusion is more applicable to the role of enhanced-radiation devices than the
radiation spectra of fission. This is accomplished with a multitude of
techniques, such as removing the third-stage of a fission-fusion-fission (FFF)
bomb, which would otherwise use the energy emitted by the fusion stage so as to
undergo fission and enhance the bomb’s yield. I’m not sure exactly how X-ray
lasers work, but somehow fibre optics are used to channel the radiation emitted
by the bomb (FF, I believe, though it might also be accomplished with an FFF
bomb or plain fission bomb) into a phased stream of x-rays.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
| (...) Ok, lets go straight to the roots then: In my view the basic disagreement is, put to the extremes, if one should “shape reality to fit sci-fi” or “shape sci-fi to fit reality”, where I have a bias toward the first one, and doesn’t really (...) (20 years ago, 17-Oct-04, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
