Space Combat Techniques Discussion

[Urwumpe]

Perhaps.... IF you need to open all that stuff in advance.

But, lets play that game, let's assume the distances are that great, and you do need to open all that up (like the Minbari thing of opening gun ports, or the Argo (Yamato) swiveling it's deck guns at something) - ....when do you fire?

That's what I was saying. You're tracking, and you may be showing hostile intent. But when, as the target, do you jink, and where? Again, you're only going so far, and you don't know when they are going to pull the trigger, or if in fact they actually will (though you'll assume it). But in all probability, due to factors of your own size, direction, orbit, etc, the predictive targeting computer on the attacking ship will likely blast you no matter what you do - and if that same ship decides to hit all the potential places you could go with multiple pulses, then you're really hosed.

No, you calculate too one-dimensional.

First of all, I wouldn't use lasers as first-strike weapon. They are about everything that makes detection easy. Missiles would be better, even using MKV like guided projectiles fired by a gauss cannon would be stealthier.

Next, a guided projectile would have advantages at longer ranges, if it uses semi-active or active guidance, since the distance between receiving sensor and target gets shorter and angular errors make less problems.

So, how to deal with such a threat. First of all, you need a Doppler radar/lidar for detecting missiles in space. Which is bad, since it is active. But passive sensors would have too many stars and planets around for not becoming sophisticated or prone to false positives. For large ships, parallax could be a way for passive missile warning systems to tell close targets from background.

Once you have detected a salvo of projectiles, you can define an evasion plane and fire decoys and screens into the way of the projectiles. Reaction speed would be all. Laser weapons could be used for fighting those projectiles that still move towards you. Since bigger ships can't rotates quickly into the evasion plane, getting engines working ASAP and just go somewhere could already be helpful, though with lesser effect.

Important is that you react quickly, maybe even automatically. 100 km distance is a short distance in space.

That goes of course back: If you anticipate your target to react with screens and decoys, you will fire missiles at alternating directions to ensure that during end-game, the missiles approach the target from different vectors. Guided projectiles could be fired in large salvos into a target evasion cloud to ensure saturation.

But then, what if you are inside a campaign and simply have to use ammunition carefully... Or are fighting in task forces...

 

[docabn]

As for fighting in orbit:
It has been my experience that in RL, who every owns the top of the deck owns the battlefield and the battlefield is three dimensional.
In modern warfare LEO is the top of the deck
Satellites relay the information to your aircraft, UAVs and forces on the ground. They do the gross surveillance that helps the commanders to decide where and how to stack the assets between the commander and LEO. This is why such a fuss was made over china downing one satellite with another, and why we had to demonstrate that we could do so from the ground.
Most of the discussions so far have revolved around the classic buck rogers ship to ship combat that we get from the movies, however future conflicts will continue to involve higher and higher elevations of orbit. IMO they will progress in a logical fasion.
-satellite to satellite (demonstrated)
-surface to satellite (demonstrated)
-satellite to manned platform (untried but the know how exists)
-surface to manned platform (untried but the know how exists)
-air to LEO attack platforms (untried but the know how exists)
-LEO to air or surface platforms (untried but the know how exists)
-manned platform defenses against unmanned platforms. (this could include increasing standoff or EMP pulses conventional or energy weapons)
-manned platform defenses against surface / air attack.
-ect...
I have not worked this out to beyond lunar orbit in my own head, but I think that any realistic concept of space combat should follow this same pattern of defense and counter defense.

 

[T.Neo]

I have not worked this out to beyond lunar orbit in my own head, but I think that any realistic concept of space combat should follow this same pattern of defense and counter defense.

That's only if you're centering things around orbital support of planetary based combat. I would imagine interplanetary combat would differ (i.e. there would probably "ship-to-ship" combat of some kind, though it won't be anything like Buck Rogers), though your model is pretty much where I imagine orbital combat for OBSP would end up going.

After all, if we provide systems and suggest tactics that people find out are ineffective, better ones can always be developed to replace them. That is somewhere where I think this project has a lot of potential.

But that lies in the far future. I need to return to meshing...

 

[Kevon Daye]

The main problem with super-long range projectile weapons (like magnetic accelerators for instance) is the same at sniping at super-long ranges (2-2 1/2 miles +).Although it is possible to hit a target at that long a range, you have to ensure that the target remains stationary long enough for the projectile to hit it.
The only solution to this (that I can think of anyway) is high yield nuclear warheads, which present an entirely new set of problems (EMP for example)

 

[Talon1]

Well, this came outta nowhere! Looking forward to a useable release! (Sorry if I missed a post saying there is already a release :shrug

 

[Ghostrider]

The only solution to this (that I can think of anyway) is high yield nuclear warheads, which present an entirely new set of problems (EMP for example)

Nukes in space are way less effective that in the atmosphere. The energy releases in all directions, and a very small part of it will transfer to the target. There will be no shockwave and no fireball, and you can harden against EMP which will cause untold amounts of grief on the ground.

 

[jedidia]

and you can harden against EMP which will cause untold amounts of grief on the ground.

In space, there isn't even an EMP. the only destructive force you have is the pure radiation, which is spreading spherically (although technologies exist that might enable a focusing of the radiation release, but then you have an aiming problem again...).

You'll have to be almost as close with a nuke to seriously damage a spaceship as you have to be with a waterbomb to down a submarine...

 

[Ghostrider]

In space, there isn't even an EMP. the only destructive force you have is the pure radiation, which is spreading spherically

Yes, in deep space. But near the atmosphere (at altitudes up to 500 km)
the effect would still exist. Anyway, might as well use shaped charges if one wants to waste mass.

 

[Urwumpe]

You can also fire projectiles with thrusters and sensors for improving accuracy, essentially a cannon launched miniature kinetic kill vehicle. That is also no new idea.

 

[RisingFury]

You can also fire projectiles with thrusters and sensors for improving accuracy, essentially a cannon launched miniature kinetic kill vehicle. That is also no new idea.

I was thinking about something like that... a projectile fired out of an EM cannon with a warhead and a solid rocket motor. Fire it in the general direction where the vessel might be, then have the rocket motor correct...

 

[T.Neo]

The guided cannon shell concept existed as an experimental project. I can't provide a name or a link but it was apparently an Oerlikon project. I think it is very applicable to space combat; it allows the guidance afforded to a missle, but without the need for massive propellant.

Anyway, might as well use shaped charges if one wants to waste mass.

A W87 is said to have a mass of 200-270 kilograms. The original yield was 300 kilotons, but the ability has been announced for it to be upgraded to 475 kilotons.

For a purely kinetic warhead, the same energy (300 kilotons) would only be achieved by firing the same amount of mass at 3049225 m/s (about 1% of c).

So it might make sense to use nukes to deliver energy to the target rather than as area weapons (if you can get the warhead within 500 meters, you can make it impact the actual ship). If you get the nuke really close to the ship it'll be very effective, though of course without directionalising the energy a lot of it will be lost to space.

On the other hand, you'll be attempting to make your kinetic weapons faster and faster. But whereas a coilgun with a muzzle velocity of 1% lightspeed is only hypothetical, the W87 exists...

And there will also be limitations on the size of such an accelerator.

EDIT:

Continuing further;

A 20 mm cannon shell can withstand 26 500 G upon firing. Such a projectile contains explosives and fusing; a simple kinetic impactor would merely need to be a monolithic block of a material such as steel or tungsten to be effective. I am unsure of the maximum acceleration such a block could endure.

If we want a 7.7 meter long "barrel" for such a projectile, it will have to withstand 61 183 000 000 G. The Kinetic Weapons Calculator tells us that a single 270 kg 50 cm wide projectile going at 3 050 000 m/s will scrub 26 027 000 000 millimeters of armor. If the system is 23% efficient, it will have to use 3 550 000 000 000 MW of power per shot.

However a UV laser with the same input power (20% efficient) and a lens with a diameter of 7.7 meters could vaporise around the same thickness of material from 4.2 megameters away. And it could do the job in 8% of the time it would take for the kinetic weapon to travel to the target.

 

[jedidia]

I think it is very applicable to space combat; it allows the guidance afforded to a missle, but without the need for massive propellant.

I'm wondering at the cost efficiency though... I mean, such a bullet would cost almost as much as a missile (with independant guidance, onboard AI and all), but it will still be very hard to hit the target. I mean, you don't have to get close (as e.g. with a "cluster bomb"), you have to hit it dead on. Even with independant guidance, that's still quite a feat, considering the speeds and reaction times involved here (the lower the speed, the more chance of a hit, but also the less damage done). Throwing enough of these at an enemy ship to disable it sounds like one hell of an expensive undertaking...

 

[Urwumpe]

Throwing enough of these at an enemy ship to disable it sounds like one hell of an expensive undertaking...

Well, if the enemy spacecraft costs more. Tomahawk missiles also cost a lot more than dumb bombs, but the 1.2 million for each round is a good investment compared to the costs of a fighter with pilot.

If a smart round costs less than the average number of dumb rounds to hit a target from reasonable distance, they make economically sense. Of course, you could also still fire dumb rounds from a cannon at shorter distance. That reason is why cannon artillery is still popular, despite the advantages of missile artillery today. The rounds are still cheaper than their missile counter parts and you have a higher flexibility in firing them.

 

[T.Neo]

Would it be the guidance systems be that expensive though? I mean, these things will be travelling at huge velocities, but space is big.

On the other hand, if the target is performing any evasive manuvers it could get tricky. But those depend on the acceleration you can produce and withstand, and point defence will probably be more practical.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well in WW2, battleships fired 900 rounds in a battle for only having a single significant hit. Even if you have much better accuracy today and will be better in the future, artillery doesn't get better with unguided projectiles currently than 15 m CEP at 20 km distance...which is practically 50% of the projectiles hitting the same target.

There is a lot of uncertainty in gunnery, even in space you can't predict all factors accurately, and even if the existing factors are sure weaker than wind and water, the longer distances would compensate for that... commanders will likely choose to fire at the same odds as people did in WW2 or today...and at MUCH greater range.

 

[jedidia]

If a smart round costs less than the average number of dumb rounds to hit a target from reasonable distance, they make economically sense.

fair point. So one would have to see some budget plans and statistical data to tell if it makes sense or not. This project might even provide us with a pretty good platform to get the statistical data, so... go ahead. Then all we need is to calculate the aproximate price. :thumbup:

 

[Ghostrider]

I think I'm willing to participate if this addon comes with a private enterprise that specializes on cleaning up the mess. Waste disposal trucks, orbital debris removers, that sort of thing.

Hm, I'd rather raid the hulks for anything of value. Space pirates FTW.

 

[Izack]

I think I'm willing to participate if this addon comes with a private enterprise that specializes on cleaning up the mess. Waste disposal trucks, orbital debris removers, that sort of thing.

We'll call in the Half Section after the war is over. There has to be something to make the debris before we can think about cleaning it up.

 

[RisingFury]

We'll see about debris. With active vessels, bombs, missiles and all the combat whoop-dee-doo, we're looking at dozens, possibly hundreds of vessels in a scenario. As is we're looking into ways of minimizing CPU consumption.

Maybe we'll decide dynamically if we want to spawn debris or not, based on current FPS or average FPS over the last few seconds or something like that.

 

[Izack]

Maybe we'll decide dynamically if we want to spawn debris or not, based on current FPS or average FPS over the last few seconds or something like that.

Or maybe there could be a configuration option that dictates whether to spawn debris or not, and if so, how much. Something much like what the Deltaglider-IV has. Of course, this is only assuming a generic debris vessel.

If you wanted something simpler, you could try what Sputnik's Uragan does, which is to use dozens of small double-sided simple polygons instead of complex polyhedrons. It has very little impact on framerate, even with 50+ debris objects on-screen.