Subject:
|
Re: Combat strategies and tactics in space. Was: Jormungand Carrier Strike Craft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Oct 2004 03:55:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1106 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jordan D. Greer wrote:
| |
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.
|
Wow OK your all missing a big concept here “why we use space fighters”
Its actually a simple reason planet bombing/raiding and not just any kind the
kind were you have friendly forces on the planet as well other wise you could
bomb from orbit (assuming carriers can’t land). They could easily be used to
pick at the larger ships as multiple targets are hard to deal with even with
multiple guns, assuming larger means they can’t move near as fast which you can
argue can . But I doubt it the fuel involved would be massive to get a star
destroyer to move like a smaller fighter. However unlike StarWars larger ships
would be the most dominate in such space battles. but ships of all size are
needed for whatever task they may have to perform. Also the best weapons for
space are Particle beams/blasts, lasers, or homing missiles.
plasma is one form of weapon that confuses me why would somebody use a hot gas
gun? Wouldn’t it float up into the air or away from the target?
not really having anything to do with this but I thought I Should bring that up
Also somebody made a comment about greebly being stupid because of reentry. What
if the greebly was made out of the same material as the armor? Besides the fact
that most sci-fi ships have some sort of shielding nowadays that will protect
them from reentry. As for fighters with no wings simple: use anti gravity (isn’t
sci-fi fun?) Then this would bring up that fact as to why we don’t just bring
the larger ships out of orbit to fight on the planet. As I have brought up
before the fuel or power required to make them move near as fast as a ship with
less weight is massive not to say it can’t be done but it would be much easier
to use smaller more agile craft for such jobs.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
