Warfare IN SPAAAAAAACE!

An Su-27 costs 35 million today. Russia, France and Sweden are major producers all of whom produce fighterjets at 65 million with stealth tech. American full stealth jets are at least 120 million a piece, with the new F-35 at 180 million a piece. Low-end fightercraft still rests below the 40 million dollar price tag as evidenced by Russia/China. The West tends to purchase nicer jets, with the cheapest thing being the Super Hornet at 65 million a piece but that is much more advanced than previous F-18 models. However, the Rafale is 65 million a piece and has stealth tech, which is pretty awesome for the price tag. You could double the price of the "low-end" space craft but then that implies a level of stealth tech included.

I actually forgot to put in the carrier but 4-5 billion sounds fine. Whether it's worth the investment is difficult because you don't use it exclusively. Real scenarios would involve mixed fleets, which is what we should look at more rather than single-ship engagements. I put up two of those scenarios and they end up really wonky because a lone-some cruiser without support, or a carrier that just has fightercraft, are both really idiotic fleets. You'll probably want to throw in a bunch of smaller purely ABM ships just to increase survival chance.

As for detection ranges, they're based on what WISE has detected in the asteroid belt extrapolated to ship sizes. Fightercraft is assumed to have a 200 m^2 dead-on facing cross-sectional area radiating at 300 K at an emissitivity of 0.05. For larger ships I used 10 000 m^2, same emissitivity. WISE is supercooled using liquid nitrogen to get the lowest possible internal temperature for the sensor, meaning that if we're still using modern-punk stuff like missiles and so on, the WISE detector is a fairly good estimation of detection ranges. Resolution range was based on the Very Large Array reduced to something that can fit into the size of a single radar dish.

Cruisers can't really fit 6+ CIWS systems on it. I'd like to but I don't think it fits. Especially with my highly generous 2 VLS with 150 missile capacity. Unless you want to get rid of one of the VLS, I think you'll have to live with just the one CIWS. Also, I was being generous with the 1 CIWS being given a 30% chance to intercept all 36 incoming missiles. That's doubtful. If you had 6+ CIWS, that would make more sense.

Also dangerous to any capital sized ship would be a spread fire of "dumb" missiles (they just fly straight at a target). They're usually upwards to 10x to 100x cheaper than smart missiles, so you can fire many more even if the hit chance is low.

Also debatable is rules of engagement. As you can see there's a lot of leeway with WHEN you can start shooting. The problem is firing at non-military targets by accident even if they are clearly artificial targets (ie. starships). It's not that unreasonable given political situations. For instance, the First World War with unrestricted submarine warfare downed a lot of civilian ships that were neutral. The biggest factor affecting fightercraft is when it is okay for them to start shooting. The earlier the more cost-effective they are but then the higher chance of hitting totally wrong targets.

edited 3rd Nov '12 9:23:33 PM by breadloaf

It does, take an octahedron, and make one face the front of the strip, and one the back, the CIWS mounts go on the vertices.

Oh, right, I was thinking of 6 banks, 3 fore, 3 aft, with about 20-24 launchers in each. See, the real cost of the cruiser isn't in its hull, it's the weapons systems (the USS Arleigh Burke cost 321.9 million to build, and then another $778 million to arm), so making a hull big enough to fit in a few more missiles is probably not going to be that expensive.

It's not going to be 36 incoming missiles if I can whack some of those fighters before they launch or get a few of the missiles via proximity charges (missile avionics are probably going to be pretty poor, and human reactions aren't exceptional, so I might have a shot).

That's good if you can get in to a few dozen km, but the chances of that would be minimal, unless the dumbfires are sub-munitions, rather than the initial projectiles, but then you're probably getting fewer missiles.

And that goes neither way, fighters get the edge because the pilot is there in the cockpit, but they present bigger targets than drones, which won't be independent, they'll almost certainly require okays to fire.

edited 3rd Nov '12 11:39:13 PM by MattII

Come to think of it, at realistic sizes, yes they will be. A missile that is 3 meters long would have very limited vernier fuel (provided it's not connected to the main fuel system) if any at all and would rely upon thrust vectoring to do it's maneuvers. Meaning it's very possible you'd see in a lot of missiles the kind of curving trajectories commonly depicted in the Macross Missile Massacre.

edited 4th Nov '12 6:13:23 AM by MajorTom

Bombardment with multi-ton KK Vs means carting these huge chunks of otherwise useless mass around and as long as a ship concerns it'self with newtonian physics then these weapons of mass destruction will be otherwise dead weight. This is a liability in a space battle and as such, they would only be carried on either the heaviest warships or specialized warships and would be a prime target for any defensive warships. The best defense against a kinetic kill weapon would be to hit it with another dense projectile and attempt to fragment it as it hits the atmosphere. Air friction would cause the pieces to scatter and while the pieces would still land, the effect would be less like a nuclear bomb and more like multiple strafing runs from an A-10.

Planet based defense sites wouldn't need to rely on hiding in order to defeat spaceships and considering how much easier it would be to supply, repair, cool, and protect a land based site over a space ship we can generally assume that a head to head fight between a ship and a ground battery will end badly for the starship.

Airless moons with low gravity would make excellent starbases. The rock can be used as a massive heat sink and ablative armor while the lack of air and low gravity would allow it to compete with spaceships in terms of firepower.

Spaceships get easy over-the-horizon shots thanks to gravity, while planets have a much tougher job lobing stuff up. with Energy weapons though, yes the planet has a huge advantage, though you don't want to pump out too much power for fear of cooking/irradiating everyone nearby.

They'd have to fire tracking weapons though, given the relatively short horizon distance and the capability of the ship to manoeuvre while out of sight.

Ok. Back. And filters are blocking informational sites and listing them as some other sites. Oh the joys of Adsense. Let me get caught up on the collective conversation.

Holy crap this thread did move quite a bit.

edited 5th Nov '12 6:01:17 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

It does.

I just wanted to point out that (the calculations are in ranges because it's a little hard for me to map to real world ranges):

Fighters (no stealth)

Heat Dot Detection: 0.02 AU to 0.07 AU
One Pixel Resolution: 20 000 km to 40 000 km

Cruisers (no stealth)

Heat Dot Detection: 0.17 AU to 0.5 AU
One Pixel Resolution: 100 000 km to 150 000 km

So basically, my point is that Rules of Engagement does matter. If fighters can start lobbing at beyond 0.07 AU at heat dots, they'll be a lot more durable, not get hit back as easily (or at all really). Single-target missiles can be fired out at significant range, I don't see why there is a statement that one must come within "10s of km". Why would that necessarily be true?

Unfortunately, that would mean a lot of wasted munitions as well if they hit irrelevant targets, space objects and or civilian craft.

Additionally, it's more likely that everyone is firing sensor probes to ID targets before hand, unless it's just open season (which implies a certain political situation).

I'm unclear how the cruiser is going to "whack" some of the fighters coming in on it. It has no idea there are fighters approaching. Certainly, if one side had a clear intelligence advantage they would have a significant edge, but I'm not clear on how they gain this intelligence advantage. I mean if you increase the mass, the armament, the size and so on of a craft, certainly it would contain more and more weapons and it would cost more and more dollars to create. Therefore, an enemy of an equivalent size economy would have more and more to throw at it.

---

For a static planet, I was under the presumption that you don't just have an void planet waiting for an enemy space fleet to approach and take it out. Presumably, it has a defending fleet and space infrastructure to support ground based weaponry. Was the scenario that a planet had to be all by itself with no space-based defences? That just seems like the planet has already lost the war and is just resisting an occupation.

Or I suppose, the defending fleet has been defeated, then the planet is merely trying to hold out for relief forces. Then static defences are a question of how much longer can a planet hold out versus if it did not have those systems. I think that framing the question as "wins battle"/"loses battle" is incorrect. We should frame the question as "what does this defence system get me in terms of hold out time?". Afterall, if the scenario being presented is a planet under siege, then the first question any military leader would ask is "how long is it under siege for before it cracks?"

If indeed the time is "infinite", then it can "win the battle" but I don't think that is really an appropriate assessment. A multi-planet empire is likely to defend some worlds better than other worlds.

edited 6th Nov '12 3:04:32 AM by breadloaf

First off I wasn't specifying cities so you get real and pay attention to the conversation at large. Second there are number of other things that can be on the ground that are far more dangerous then a city. You going to waste your time shooting at a city when you are not entirely sure you zapped any every chance they can shoot back at all? We were chiefly discussing defenses. A defensive structure can have it's own short or long term support for simple logistics. You going to know what building does what on the surface from a few speed passes of the planet? Bet not. Your sure as shit not going to do it without getting into orbit in the first place.

Someone commented that a single ship could handle a whole planet. The point of the argument up to this point was that no way in hell could it do so with impunity. However you and I agree that a larger multi-role force would needed to successfully handle a planet. Something on the order of a fleet/flotilla/space ship group.

Quite a few actually can reach that far. Especially any missile that can reach LEO. There is a reason the SALT I and II treaties existed. Ships are not going to see every missile on the way up. Especially if they are fired from the opposite side of the planet as the ship. Until the missile crosses the horizon of the ship in relation to it's position in space it can't know to do anything less it is being directly fired at from the hemisphere it is guarding. Also a ship is not simply going to be able to casually change it's orbital direction without significant effort. Their path is much more predictable.

While a bunch of missile silos and their payloads which don't even have to be nuclear warheads btw don't even have to fire directly at a ship and into it's sphere of PD. They could carry a bundle of kinetic weapons and just lob them into a estimated intercept pattern and force the ship to waste precious fuel moving to dodge what it can't hit with pd. You don't need a very large projectile to damage something in space. Even small bolt going at at stable LEO orbital speeds hitting a ship is a very dangerous hazard that has potential to cause serious damage. Lofting a simple 100 lb projectile with 300lbs of fuel for boost and maneuver can be done very effectively. Having some small directional thrusters to nose the projectile at a higher orbit and firing off the booster can get it into higher orbits. Now the upside is that for ship is that if it is using energy weapons for pd it has nice window in high orbit to try and zap the incoming targets. However any single projectile doesn't have to be a solid. It can carry cluster warhead scattering many tens to hundreds of projectiles

This is true. Which is why traveling in space can be dangerous depending on how you are doing it.

Grand tactics have changed dramatically. Alexander the great didn't have tactical nuclear weapons, bombers capable of reaching other continents and firing cruise missiles, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps snipers, Abram Tanks, an airforce, Or have an arsenal effectively capable of ending civilization as we know it. That most certainly changed grand tactics.

The mongols tactics were significantly different from blitz krieg. Considering the blitz relied on something the mongols lacked like armored vehicles and airplanes for starters.

Adding in serious interstellar space travel alone with ships capable of attacking a planet surface successfully and any ability for the planet to fire back would be another dramatic alteration.

Actually the whole point of a missile is that it has improved accuracy over an unguided munition. The point of the sensors is so the missile can make course adjustments. Also this means the weapons can fired from longer distances then an unguided projectile. The point of a missile is to be a weapon that can be fired at longer distances because it can correct itself within a certain amount of reliability. Every missile made still needs some initial targeting information so it knows where to go. This would be very important in a space fight as a shift of a few degrees and few seconds of main engine burn means the targets orientation from long range shifted shifted significantly by the time the missile possibly reaches target so original position and course correction based on it's own sensor will be key.

I have to agree with this sentiment to a point. While war and people are rather complex if you start being absolutely brutal and showing you will go to any lengths to kill someone, you start tripping that innate human survival instinct. Humans have a nasty habit of choosing fight over flight.

We lost lots of troops doing D-Day, taking cities, taking fortified islands, whats your point? Society at large considers the cost worth it. Worth the cost is very subjective and open to immense speculation.

If your just trying to hit the planet in general and not a specific spot on the planet then yes. However barring the fact that quite a few planets rotate around their axis and they are also orbiting. This limits long range precision significantly. Your CEP (Circular error Probability) for any given attack is going to be huge. Also there is lots of time to intercept your projectile. Hence if you want accurate fire that arrives quickly you need the orbitals.

History says otherwise. Such defenses have frequently done significant damage to attackers which is why they are dangerous.

While they are quite happily studying it the defense a likely array of multiple threats are going to be attacking. Please take your time. The missiles are patient while they loft their pay loads. Unless your in high earth orbit your in danger from catching a missile or other projectiles in your favorite ships hull.

Asteroids also make big nice targets that are much easier to shoot down then a missile or ship. Also not all space rocks are created equal. Depending on the composition of the rock you intend to fling and it's size you could very easily be wasting time and fuel pushing around a rock that burns up due imperfections in it's chemical make up, stress fractures that you didn't detect, or it's irregular surface causing it miss it's target by large degree due to the effects of the constantly changing air flow which push it off it's intended course. Unless your using a really damn big rock they make poor weapons vs a purpose made projectile.

Really throwing/projecting sand? The sand simply lacks the mass to become something other then vaporized material in the upper atmosphere. Unless you start hurling it at relativistic speeds your wasting your time and mass throwing dirt. now if your shooting blast of it at high velocity at a target in space with no atmo that would be different. I would use something with a bit more mass then sand at least go in for claymore mine size ball bearings.

Rail guns have potential to be a serious threat but they need a lot of power to lob dangerously massive projectiles. You also need a bigger rail gun meaning more mass there as well as the mass for ammo.

Guess you skipped the rest of it. It is something the attackers wanted and is something the people dirt side still need access to, controlling access of the intact item is much more tactically and strategically sound then just menacing them. When you threaten someone for something you want but are not willing to destroy you are playing a game of bluff. Whoever goes the furthest to hold that object will win. If both sides have a good reason to not destroy or do serious damage to it for whatever reason may exist simply having actual physical control of it is much more valuable then threatening them from orbit. Even in orbit they still have access to it and they can gamble that you want it badly if your demanding access. However if you possess it you hold a big advantage (until you no longer need it or use it up) however they have to go through you to get it.

The first part is frequently correct but the quote is more then just about stabbing something. There are an array of options that can have tremendous effect on the human level. This is why Commandos, Spies, and saboteurs are so dangerous and considered a serious threat. Your last sentence is incredibly ignorant of that fact that these methods mean you may not have to even push the button as the work has been done for you at a much lower cost and risk to something like a space ship. Tell me what is more valuable risking your ship to take out a high value target or an infiltrator who has been there weeks, months, or years doing it for you? The value of the infiltrator is much higher then the ship in this case. Especially if they knock out key defensive structures, kill leadership that could organize effective ground resistance, or destroy key infrastructure with higher degree of precision then any orbit to surface projectile.

And where is your proof that he made a mistake? Both guys have done their home work and use sound logic and reasoning. No he is not Jesus but he made much better points then you have. He also gives reasonable explanations of movement into around orbit in a combat scenario. There is a reason I directed you to the blockade post and Gravity well post. I also mentioned the comments.

I am afraid he did. And he used simple logic to do it.Your argument amounts to an apples/oranges comparison and half assed smart people make mistakes comment.

He pointed out more then just simple missiles. This why I am dead certain you didn't read it. In both the blockade and gravity well scenario his posts have more detail and complexity then that. Your commentary on a knife vs gun comparison is way off target and is an apples and oranges argument and is a sloppy analogy.

The only problem caused by the gravity well is getting something into orbit. We have that already covered. Oh we suddenly talking about a fleet? Way to move the goal post, last I checked we were talking about a single ship being an end all threat to a planet from orbit. Even against a fleet of a dozen ships the ability to even loft a single missile in LEO means you can threaten, damage, and destroy a ship or ships in orbit.

One simple solution he suggested was using singular or a couple bundles of kinetic impactors with boosters and direction thrusters, and limited targeting capabilities. You can reasonably keep the weight low for the impactor while giving it a needed speed boost to improve the total velocity once it hits orbit. Once the missile releases the kinetic penetrator the ship has to either dodge or try and shoot that down. Much harder to do then shooting something loaded with fuel or explosives.

Ships have a much lower thresh hold for being mission/mobility/hard killed then the possible entirety of a planets possible missile forces alone. There are already several varieties of ICBM that have the ability to launch their payloads into stable LEO orbits. Chief among them is a Russian missile. On average the missiles are lofting up to 10 600 pound nuclear warheads plus penetration aides and re-entry vehicle. If I am not going to be launching back into atmo I do not necessarily need the MIRV or even the pen aides.

The ship is going to be more limited in its mobility in orbit and you don't have to fire a missile or projectile in the same hemisphere as a ship. It is physically impossible for a ship to cover every single point on a globe even from orbit. Once your LEO you are a credible threat to the ship. Also the likely hood of single ship or fleet waxing every single threat in the first past without casualties is slim to none. Can you pick out every camouflaged and dummy bunker, silo, or other surface to orbital threat? Not in this reality.

Even a rivet in orbit is a threat to ships much less a missile hurling multiple kinetic projectiles into a ships orbital path. Takes a lot more for a ship to perform a jink that close to planet and your main engines are not going to do you much good unless you plan to just leave the orbit. Your going to be relying on limited stores of fuel for thrusters to push you around for adjustments and dodging. It takes a lot less to kill the ship.

One since when did we say escape velocity? It is firing down not up. The weapon is meant to be put into LEO and fire at surface targets. Also the faster the projectile goes (especially in hyper velocity speeds) the more important shape of the projectile is along with uninterrupted airflow. Both of those are very feasibly interrupted with current conventional weapons much less possible future tech.

Mass does matter. It matters significantly. Not only does it determine if the projectile survive intact to the surface but how much of a potential effect it will have on what it is impacting.

So you have suddenly the ability to harvest, process, and refine metal on your ship, and then the machinery and equipment necessary to make a purpose made slug for shooting at a planet. Do you even have any clue how much mass that sort of set up would take, how much power it would take to run it, and how long that whole process would be? That is an asspull. A warship is not very likely going to have even a tenth of those facilities It is far cheaper mass wise to haul special made projectiles by a long shot.

There will be far more ground targets including likely dummy sites. The ship is not going to have perfect accuracy to begin with. Unless your sitting perfectly still directly over a target your accuracy is going to have a lot of variation to it especially launching projectiles into atmo while your clicking along at a minimum of 7.8 or so ks a second.

Also the ship is in a predictable travel path shitting out assloads of emissions that are easily tracked and targeted. Since the orbitals have been likely scrubbed that kind of narrows down what all that heat and em is coming from.

In a room painted black lit by a black light a ship is the guy in a white t-shirt. Your gonna stick out quite a bit.

The ship looking down you have decide which splotch of what on the surface is even worth shooting at. That a missile silo, waste dump covered over in concrete, storm shelter, storage silo, what? It is far easier to disguise something on the ground then in orbit or hide it altogether.

You actually can launch into orbit from any point on the planet with current tech. Your still not threatening every approach and again the more you fire up the less chances of the ship successfully stopping them all. Yes there are ICBM's capable of LEO again that is part of the reason for the SALT I and II treaties in the late seventies. Once you hit LEO you have quite a few more options.

Nothing is stopping the planet from using the same tech against a fleet before it even gets into range. Also see my comment about asteroids being less then ideal projectiles.

Coding AI is very difficult indeed. Current AI projects are for just making a drone land by itself. Autopilots by comparison are very limited in what they can do. However drones can and do look for targets but they are remotely operated. Our atmospheric units however do actively hunt for targets to shoot at. They pick the general are and go looking. There are fewer reasons to use manned craft then drones. However I don't really see fighters working a sense we are familiar with. Maybe as close in defensive ships.

On pilot fatigue. On large craft that is not usually that bad. There are two pilots and often on board facilities. Fighter craft also have waste bags for starters. Also it is possible for pilots to fly long hauls do a mission then fly back. It is hard on the pilot but possible. We are talking 12-20 flights possible. There will be a point especially in the terms of distance where a space fighter pilot can snooze with relative safety.

My complaint isn't the fighter raider per se but so much as you can launch other things at it that are far more menacing like a spread of missiles. Also why waste the mass for engines for rocks that might be more easily intercepted (especially if fired at a distance) or ill suited to the job then using specialized projectiles?

Six fighters at once yes that would be impressive in atmo.

Someone already pointed out the detection ranges however I have to agree that the fighters will be seen coming from a longer ways off and having a better chance then a modern cruiser of shooting

Well the question is less of dial and more of mechanical function. Hitting something in space with a solid object is pretty devastating. That might be better for armored war ships. However a small bursting charge to cause a spread of projectiles to intercept the path of the fighters would be highly effective.

What you should worry about is fighters possibly carrying small fast Kinetic Weapons.

Actually the tech for fighter and missile defense is very very closely related. As they both deal with interception of a fast moving object. However if you swat the faster missile with smaller profile you can more easily swat the fighter if it gets close enough for pd.

Not necessarily true. A swarm of cheap but reliable impactors for example fired at a ship is a serious threat.

Except even terrestrial carriers are armed and frequently have picket fleets.

Planets are not utterly immobile also the gravity well at this point is the least of any challenge of deep space traveling society.

Try conventional warheads. Fighters firing long range cruise missiles have sunk or mission killed surface craft.

The actual success rate of today's missile defenses has long since been discovered to have been grossly overstated. The most recent exercise in a combined arms effort only downed 3 out of 5missiles. Two made it through. If they are packing nukes someone is having a bad day.

This is very true.

Also size is not always go to matter so much as what it is you can bring to the fight and how well it all works together in your given situation.

Comparing possible space fighters to an atmo fighter is kind of strange logic. However I hope by blast you mean fragmentation warhead. There is going to be limited effectiveness from HE warheads. The best part is you don't need proximity blast just the ability to projectile a cloud of high velocity metal into the targets path. Annular fragmentation weapons could do that nicely.

If it is a drone that easy to remedy. Work in shifts for crews at the remote station.

5 minute lag is still pretty significant at range.

CIWS: 6+tons not counting ammo, control, and power supply. That is the 20mm one. The Rolling airframe version is still 6 tons for the launcher plus another 6 or more for the missiles.

Better off developing energy PD's.

On anything with a flat surface remember large flat surfaces are more vulnerable to kinetic strikes. However adding more angles to a face or making it round can help give additional protection. When it comes to kinetic impacts speed and shape do matter.

A ship has a better advantage in high orbit yes. In low orbit that is a bad place to be. However over the horizon kinetic munitions are not going to be as effective as firing straight down will be.

If you ensure enough space or evacuation you can fire to your hearts content.

On simply dumping things into the atmosphere there are some catches or caveots. While the potential for massive damage is attractive it is also not quite so simple as shove it in really fast.

The more damage you want the more mass and projectile shape plays a big role in surviving atmo to surface at any serious speeds. Firing directly down or as close to it as you can get, into atmo with something like the tungsten dart is ideal. However at super sonic and hypersonic velocities that is a lot of friction and stress on the projectile (which is why the dart shape is important as well as angle of descent). If your fire at too steep and angle like with your over the horizon shots your projectile is wasting a lot of it's potential energy pushing through more surface area in direct contact with the projectile and greatly increases the chances it will suffer catastrophic failure and breach up, burn up, or deviate from the target by a large margin. This is why a lot of meteorites rarely reach earths surface other then issues with composition.

Also unless your projectile is going something like 15kms a second the impact effects are almost all blast energy. At around 15kms you get a blast of thermal radiation like from a nuke. Not a very good cratering charge because the projectile breaks up or vaporizes before it goes very deep. Hence why the Thor project only hit up 3kms second to keep the projectile from breaking apart or vaporizing before it penetrated far enough.

You could have a projectile or missile body that acts as a carrier to fire the weapons straight down for you on more ideal angle while you chill in high orbit instead of risking your projectile having a bad atmospheric entry.

I concede a ship in high orbit has easier time defending itself from attacks but I still say it has a more difficult time getting more precise shots and increasing the time it takes a shot to reach target in general allowing the ground side to fight back. I also say the LEO is and GTO are the most dangerous places for a ship to be if the planet has surface defenses at all. GTO being the the rough middle ground.

Also an orbiting ship is not exactly moving slowly. If your firing off projectiles at the earth at that velocity that is going to complicate your shot angles and introduce larger margins of error giving you larger CEP if your hoping for precision.

Who watches the watchmen?

True, but OTOH, I'll be seeing your carriers from plenty far away as well, so the fight won't be going entirely your way.

Dumbfire missiles. A related issue is that while they're cheap, they take up a lot more space for their price than smart missiles, and so may not turn out to be actually that good.

You didn't mention originally that the fighters would be more-or-less invisible.

I was thinking of a planet with limited space-based (satellite) defences, but a number of ground based weapons, mostly projectile launchers, but also a few high-energy high-efficiency (relative, maybe 40-60%, compared to perhaps 15-30% normally) lasers that would make some places to avoid.

Most individual structures will be hard to pinpoint, it's true, but against a relatively poorly defended planet (ie, mostly launched-projectile rather than laser defences) threatening to destroy a good portion of the local population might induce an enemy to surrender.

Agreed, it wouldn't IMO be possible with less than 4 ships, and I'd prefer a much higher number simply because I'd want redundancy of detection.

Unless you can make a missile that is invisible to radar or whatever broad-sweep sensor I'm using I'm going to be seeing most of what you send up.

Of course 'seeing' and 'dealing with' are two different things, I have a limited number of anti-missiles, which means that if you have enough missiles (or enough duds, I'm probably not going to be able to tell a missile with a nuke from one with a lump of concrete) and enough launch sites (I'm going to nuke every site you launch from if I can) you'll eventually win.

I hadn't thought of that, good point, though if I treat all missiles as dangerous it's quite possible I can hit it before it's in a position to inconvenience me. Still requires an anti-missile though, and will probably cost you a lot less than a nuke missile.

Really? Persian cataphracts were faster than normal troops and well armoured, doesn't that make them the equivalent of tanks, with horse archers doing due for artillery? As for the rest, snipers are just skirmishers writ large and the rest don't generally affect tactical combat.

However, against men armed with but swords or pikes (most of what the Mongols faced), a rain of arrows is as deadly and demoralising as would be your average modern soldier when faced with a tank, here is a fast moving enemy that can kill him with almost total impunity.

Ah, so it isn't considered a writ-large extension of traditional naval tactics whereupon you attack the enemy's ports, bombard them, and force them to surrender? It's not of course identical, but many of the same intricacies play out, I think, provided each side has some idea of what code the other is using and can thus make best-guess estimates as to grand movements.

Agreed. However, in the same respect, even a lightly armed populace that's prepared to fight can be a serious inconvenience to an overstretched invasion force (and they will be overstretched, a regiment couldn't hope to hold down a large city, and even a brigade would at least struggle, and no even corps sized force could afford to spend a brigade on a single city if the planet had dozens of cities), never mind any actual military in the area. Ergo, unless you have an actual victory in your pocket landing troops is just sending the enemy hostages and intelligence about your best technology.

Unlike with D-Day, no interplanetary invasion is going to have the luxury of fuel on tap (as supplied by the Pluto Pipeline), and nor will it likely have a glut of troops on which to call. As you say yourself, planets are difficult to hurt if they have any real defences, and unless you're attacking an already-occupied planet (unlikely, given how difficult it is to do so) you're not going to be getting local assistance, in fact the best you're probably going to get from the locals is lies and half-truths if you can coerce anything at all out of them.

Agreed. There's an excerpt from Harry Turtledove's Homeward Bound that shows this up:
"Actually, by comparison with the orbital traffic around Earth, Home was pretty tidy. The Lizards were neat and well organized. They didn't let satellites that had worn out and gone dead stay in orbit. They cleaned up spent rocket stages, too. And they didn't have any missile-launching satellites cunningly disguised as spent rocket stages, either."

Yep, and those that are most likely to resist the nukes are probably the least likely to be able to survive the atmosphere.

Again, agreed, though throwing something like uniform rock (ie concrete) would be almost as cheap and still have reasonable survivability. Of course, you'd still need to give it a hell of a thrust (in the first place I heard of this particular tactic, Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, they used a magnetic catapult, and the long drop from the Moon to Earth).

That is one possible scenario, but far from the only one, so please don't consider it the whole prospect.

Noted, however, what else have we got to go on? Also, I wasn't making a direct comparison, I was just noting the relative sizes.

That was my thought as well, drones have almost the same capabilities as fighters (exempting the communication distance), and present much less risk to the crew.

However, on a ship massing in the thousands of tons range that is chump-change.

Fair enough. In all but the most diehard situations once the defenses are thinned enough to stop providing serious protection the attacker starts to have much more operational room. In a general planetary assault where the populace is not desperately clinging to something precious .

Armored horsemen do not equate to the tank. Especially modern Main battle tanks. The horsemen were chiefly anti-infantry. A tank can kill infantry, other tanks, defensive structures, helicopters, and other similar targets. Also how they are used in modern warfare is also different. As for artillery archers don’t even come close. They are closer to mechanized infantry. Artillery would be for targeting enemy troop concentrations with a single or small group of weapons also can be fired at vehicles and to breach or destroy fortifications.

We would be looking at siege weapons as more of a artillery counterpart. A sniper is not a skirmisher. That would be a rifleman.

A sniper is an infiltrator, scout, and assassin rolled up into a single bundle. Also every single modern weapon has made the pace of ground far faster and at longer ranges. Infantry today can bring down small buildings with a six man team and a few rockets. That is something Alexander could only dream about. There are also other infantry weapons that would blow Alexanders mind. A single infantry man that can toast an entire chariot by themselves would be a frightening thing.

The Khans would have loved tanks and mechanized infantry but their horsemen are still used differently by comparison.

The catch is armed populace does not equal compitent in a fight or in using military tactics and again armed militia groups have a very varied success rate ranging from another pile of corpses to a dangerous threat.

In general armed militias have fared rather poorly against dedicated military bodies ready for a fight. Also kinda hard to capture someone who is fighting you tooth and nail. Ground side forces can also circumvent cities to take out military objectives.

If you can scrape the defenses from the surface and scrub the orbits that threaten LEO the planet is in deep shit. You can start running supply ships while ground forces capture what ground supplies they can. They can also siege a city or slowly and carefully direct orbital fire from a ship in stationary orbit.

If the guys ground side have any substantial ground forces and actual ready military aside from armed citizens and militia that would be a different story. You would need to spend time ground side fighting the actual military.

The ships arrived with enough fuel to play ball. Also while parts of the beach were bogged down others were far more successful due to pre-emptive measures like commando raids, air strikes, and prepatory bombardments.

That had better be one smooth rock and not raw concrete or cement texture you know the rough porous surface that would be murder on reetry for the projectile. Or it was one really big concrete rock with one hell of a catapult.

In this case large premade kinetic weapons like the Tungsten darts still work better. That point helps it push more aside with less energy loss where as say a large blunt object is going to pushing against more air by comparison and lose some of it's velocity.

How much of that mass limit is taken up by hull, hull armor, crew quarters, engines, fuel, maneuver and fuel for that, all the equipment to run all of that, life support and supplies for the crew, main weapons and munitions for expendable stores.

CIWS is pretty damn heavy. Considering the rate of fire your going to have to have hefty ammo magazine for that alone and 20mm ammo is not exactly petite in mass. It is going to be even heavier for something like the Rolling air frame missile which fully loaded is over 8 tons total and each reload pack is nearly two tons. Roloading might be a bit more difficult.

Part of the problem of just picking weapons systems off of terresterial systems like ships, is that ships are on a surface with the water helping to support their bulk. they also don't need life support systems in the same way a space vessel does and their engines take up less total mass.

I think options more along the lines of a rail gun and lasers for PD is a better set of options. One handles the kinetic option while the other the energy weapon side of it. I would save the mass the missiles take up for missiles from main weapons. Because we are not fighting atmo when we shoot we can afford to fire smaller munitions at higher velocities. The weapon would have a smaller cross section and would be harder to intercept then a large projectile.

Who watches the watchmen?

I disagree on this, but this isn't the place for it.

Noting that militias are not the be-all-and-end-all of the enemy defences, merely the first wave, rest assured that any planet that can reasonably support a spaceship will have plenty of professional soldiers around as well.

Nice, except you're not getting commando raid, prepatory bombardments are going to be 'best-guess' only, and you don't have the wealth of information about minor defences the allies had.

True enough but I also expect the ground forces to take some damage prior to landings. In that case as a delay it might help buy some time.

Commando raids can still happen. Getting people onto the planet via commercial traffic and smuggling or stealing weapons would be highly effective.

As for the bombardment I have to agree in general. That was partly why some parts of the landings were a lot harder then others.

Gathering intel will still be a key component of a major military strike preperation. Anyone playing the long game strategically and tactically will very likely have various assets to aide in that capacity.

Things like Spy netorks, gleaning data from their own satelites, and people on the ground doing info gathering ahead of time are likely to be just some of the key components of warfare.

That was the other thing the allies had an extensive and effective spy network that was hard too root out a single asset out of a single country. Try doing that with a planet.

Who watches the watchmen?

Well it would be hard to disguise a tank, but you could probably disguise a AA rocket (something like a patriot) launcher as a container truck. Hand weapons would be almost impossible to spot too, which means that even armour might not be too effective (no RPG, not even a -29 can destroy a modern tank, but that's not a lot of help if the enemy's hit you with enough firepower to leave the thing immobile and unarmed).

Requires a greater degree of planning though, and you have to be able to insert the team onto a passenger ship from another planet that's not under suspicion.

The thing about clandestine efforts is that there final results are ultimately worth the effort and cost.

Who watches the watchmen?

If they go the whole nine yards (The Nazis attempts in WW 2 didn't). Of course an entry that gets discovered could be a good way to spark a war...

edited 7th Nov '12 1:55:05 AM by MattII

Oh indeed it could. But the spy game is one of those things that is pretty much part and parcel of state craft.

I was thinking about some of the similarities between the first days of the steam ships and early space travel. We had coaling stations all over small islands.

Would you think it plausible to set up refueling stations in space habitats at certain between points or would they go whole hog and make the long run?

edited 7th Nov '12 9:57:47 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?

An invading force is going to be hard up for fuel. Each pound they carry is more weight they need to move and more fuel they need to expend so there is an upper limit to the quantity of fuel a starship can efficiently carry. You can conserve fuel if you're willing to travel slowly but the slower you move the more likely the enemy will recieve reinforcements. I suppose fleets may need dedicated tankers if the fuel to thrust ratio is sevear enough.

Fuel might be a key motivator in the capture of a given planet. A fleet might need to capture a colony world to use as a staging point in order to reach the enemy capital world in a timely fashion. In that case keeping as much of the defenders infrastucture intact as possible may be in the best interests of the attackers. Annnd, we're back to ground combat as the defenders wage delaying actions. How quaint.

edited 7th Nov '12 8:00:13 AM by Belisaurius

Of course, if it's a colony world, unless it's noted as being fairly strategic then it's probably going to be lightly defended, which is probably going to mean even a relatively small fleet will be able to land enough troops to capture the planet. Of course, if there's a fuelling station, the locals will want to keep it, but might just be loyal enough to wreck it and ruin the enemy's plans.

I think colony and outpost worlds would be the prime targets for invasions. They would be easier to capture compared to a more heavily settled and they may be help fueling their parent planets economy. Cut off all of their colonies, choke trade lanes, economically starve an enemy instead of outright invasion.

Who watches the watchmen?

While at the same time the enemy is both trying to prevent you, and do it to you.

Would certainly for an interesting political and military land scape.

Who watches the watchmen?

Historically, that's prone to backfiring. It was tried on multiple occasions against Britain in war and in every case it failed. And yet had those enemies tried outright invasion (especially in early 1941), they would have won or stood a very strong probability of winning.

Blockade like that is only effective if there is no such thing as self-sufficiency on the place being blockaded.

When you can't receive resources, ships, and troops from a location it hurts a lot. Go ask the Imperial Japanese how effective the anti-shipping efforts were. Or the South in the Civil war what it was like to have your supply lines from the sea and land cut to a trickle and your territory choked out.

Cutting off major sources of income, materials, and supplies works. It is also hard to run a fully self sufficient economy when your being blockaded. You will only have your local economy to support you instead of being bolstered by trade from other locations.

If the enemy chooses to clean your orbitals and zap any and all ships that try to leave your planet it is going to impact your economy, especially if you do a lot of trade.

A planet can only feasibly support so many ships and other space borne assets on it's own. They still need to also support their groundside assets as well. Expanding to have an influx of materials and goods from additional locations helps tremendously.

Like one colony supplies regular supplies of industrial grade crystals, diamonds, and other similar goods because the planet has some very rich untapped stores of it. Those ar used in circuits, lasers, and variety of both space and terrestrial machines. Another has very rich supply of ferrous materials that have a huge variety of uses in both terrestrial and space applications alike and having extra sources means you can afford to allocate more towards something like trade fleet and military assets in space.

Choke out out those sources the planet still has to support everything ground side and without the extra they do not have as much for space born assets which means fewere merchant vessels and fewer military assets.

Who watches the watchmen?

The problem is, in a realistic sci fi setting, there's no such thing as interstellar trade and interplanetary trade is kept to an ABSOLUTE minimum. Space travel is just so costly and space is so big that there's no way to justify not settling somewhere you'll have everything you need to become self sufficient with the resources you can bring with you.

This is a signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

And in the Hard Mundane scifi we typically don't go beyond the moon or past mars because it is too expensive, technologically difficult, logistically hard to support, and has little to return in value that we couldn't get with cheaper robot probe. What is your point?

In real scifi we don't have any colonies and we are stuck on earth with maybe a moon base and some junk in the asteroid belt.

Last I checked hard sci-fi meant stories have a focus on an scientific or technical details. Or feature some sort of scientific accuracy or even combination of all of those. That doesn't necessarily rule out all possibilities of trade, war, politics, and conflict.

Someone somewhere will work out something worth trading between planets, be it ships, people, materials, goods or other supplies especially if they can profit off of it.

Plus the discussion in general was assuming things like trade and warfare are generally possible so it is kind of moot.

edited 7th Nov '12 5:24:56 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?