Sci-fi Military Tactics and Strategy

The range chart I drummed up was for back of the napkin discussions on projectile travel time. It arose from a similar discussion that started this one. That is Planet to Orbit batteries and concerns about projectile travel time. It made a few assumptions to make things simpler. The first was that velocity was a constant from launch to target range. The second was a static target. Third projectile travel was perfectly linear. It also only covered velocities up to 50 km/s. I am thinking I should redo that chart with a wider range of velocities and ranges. I would need a completely different chart for something that could steadily accelerate over time.

For shrapnel/fragment/cluster munition, really for kinetics the distinction is almost academic, you have to consider things like dispersal patterns. Once the sub-projectiles are released by whatever mechanic is used to disperse them in the first place the pattern will have a fairly steady rate of dispersal over distance.

As for ablating fragments or shrapnel that would be fairly easy actually. The smaller the object the easier it is to use ablation to alter its course simply because there is less mass to move. Relatively weak lasers could be used to do it which is what they want to use to help clear space junk. It would take fairly large fragments, fragments released at a certain range to reduce engagement time for all pieces, and/or a very large number of any size of fragment to guarantee one gets through. When you start talking lasers with MW ranges of power and the host of other features like diable output and the ability to rapidly track, target, and pulse on even small targets with a turret mount it gets a bit harder to get small fragments through.

edited 20th May '16 4:06:57 PM by TuefelHundenIV

At relativistic velocities however you have no time to maneuver. At 100,000 km away, even .1c gives you just a few seconds (3.33 repeating to be precise) between launch and impact assuming no acceleration or variation in velocity. The target being fired upon doesn't need to move much to evade that.

Worse, at relativistic velocities, the energy and ability to maneuver at all is ridiculously expensive and impractical respectively speaking. First you'd need enough thrust or force to overcome the inertia of the round and secondly you'd need it fast enough to account for a very small window of opportunity. If you have the engineering to accomplish that, you probably have it good enough that directed energy weapons and particle beams are more feasible for use.

And given relativistic kinetic weapons are ridonkulously impractical at best relative to absolutely everything owing to the ginormous energy requirements needed to accelerate something to significant fractions of c, you're better off either closing the distance or using something a little less....massive.

edited 20th May '16 7:50:23 PM by MajorTom

If you have no time to maneuver then the target has no time to dodge. If the target has time to dodge then you have time to maneuver. The situation is entirely symmetrical : imagine the target is coming at you at .1c while the round is stationary and trying to gets in its path. It's the same thing.

Relativistic velocities does make it harder for you to maneuver, by increasing your mass^note Or maybe not : your exhaust is heavier too. Needs confirmation. But not much : at 10% of c your mass increases by 0.5%. You need truly ridiculous velocities (50% of c and above) for your maneuverability to significantly decrease.

edited 21st May '16 6:13:55 AM by Aetol

Not necessarily. If the target is moving relatively slowly and the projectile very fast, the only concerns the target has with evading is A) does he know he's been fired upon? and B) does he possess significant maneuvering capabilities?

Take the 100,000 km .1c scenario. Three seconds is a surprisingly long time if he's aware he's been fired upon since the moment of launch. And unless the relativistic projectile is many times his size and his ship absolutely gigantic with little ability to maneuver (+1 points in favor of a Space Fighter) all he needs to do is adjust trajectory just a few meters to the (relative) vertical or otherwise out of the way by less than a degree.

It's been done before in old school naval gunnery with far less maneuverable stuff so it's not impossible or impractical to evade a shot with a 3 second shot window.

At .1c guided weaponry is impractical for the stated reasons regarding inertia and thrust requirements. And if you have the engineering to Hand Wave away physics like that, then chances are you're dealing with a softer sci-fi. (Which might be better because overly hard sci-fi generally sucks. It focuses too much on how it is the hardest.)

Keep in mind that at 0.2 C, you're no longer using a railgun, you're using a particle beam. Now, there's nothing wrong with a particle beam but it's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Actually...

Let's say we shoot at t = 0 s. The projectile will either hit, or miss, at t = 3.33.. s.

The target becomes aware it's been fired upon at t = 0.33.. s and starts accelerating sideways at 10 m/s² (A smaller ship might do with 1 m/s²). At t = 3.33.. s it will be 45 m away from its initial position.

Our ship becomes aware the target has started dodging at t = 0.66.. s. Let's give it a bit time of to confirm, measure the target's acceleration, and for computations : it sends out guidance instructions at t = 0.9 s.

The projectile receives the instructions at t = 1.0 s. It has 2.33 s to change its course enough to hit the target : this can be done with an acceleration of 16.5 m/s². And as I said before, at .1c the projectile's inertia is not meaningfully affected by relativistic effects.

So even in that small window of time, the guided projectile does not need to out-accelerate its target by much. Of course, the later the target starts dodging (or changes its dodging parameters), the less time you have to adapt : because of the light lag, it's impossible to react to anything the target does after t = 2.66... s (assuming the projectile relies on the ship for guidance instead of having its own sensors and computer, that is). But the target would also need more acceleration to get clear of the projectile's trajectory in that reduced time.

edited 21st May '16 7:39:42 AM by Aetol

Which effectively means dodging is at best very difficult at those sort of short time frame windows. Better hope your enemies equipment's margin of error is enough to compensate.

Seems a little dead, so here's a topic. You all know about the various levels of BS that go into the process of selecting new weapons systems (Pentagon Wars and all that crap), I'm guessing.

If you could redesign this system, how would you try to eliminate the bias that goes into selections and make sure that the military ends up with the best gear available?

I think that I would have the selection process be conducted like a court case mixed with a blind taste test, with much more discretion and thorough procedures to ensure that the people choosing the weapon have no idea which company's product they are dealing with. That, and make sure that the personnel who are meant to use whatever is being tested are present and part of the process. Then again, I'm not an expert, so what do you all think?

To be honest there is no real way to get around the problem. There is no way to really do a blind test or reliably isolate any equipment testing and budget approval process in a way that would stop the problems of acquisition. Which is nearly universal in all militaries to varying degrees and has been around for almost as long as there has been military acquisition of the state.

The best things you can do is limit buying insiders ie the testers and people who give the big official stamp by preventing them from ever going into anything related to the defense industry in the private sector if they do any work on weapons procurement. Make sure all your people are loyal and generally free of problematic vices that might incur large monetary debts. Also ensure their time after the military is guaranteed. Troops already test various pieces of equipment in a variety of scenarios the problem comes when it is time for the big decision and official approval.

Even assuming use of Expert System type AI an AI can have programming altered to make favourable calls for one group or another.

So the best you can really do is minimize the incentive and ability for corruption to seep in by limiting who can take advantage of various offers and bribes and/or ensuring such things are a lot less attractive.

Easiest way? Put a military into an extremely attrition-heavy war. As in "we ain't got time to do pork projects or dick sucking! We might very well lose!" kind of war.

The prospect of absolute defeat or annihilation has a tendency to bring about a lot of innovation and quality control provided you have enough of an intact industrial base. It happened for the US and Britain in the Second World War. A lot of projects eliminated or avoided problems modern day projects have because simply there wasn't the time or money or military leeway to allow major boondoggles. They needed guns, tanks, ships and planes and they needed lots of them and they needed them yesterday kind of situation. Sure you can't achieve 100% success rate or avoid every boondoggle or bad idea (for example the "bat bombs" of WW 2) but existential threats do put a lid on a lot of it.

The best way would be to treat the acquisition process like an experimental study. Rotate each piece of equipment among a set of teams that are matched on abilities, measure the performance outputs across the teams. The highest averages wins.

Tom; Not really. Take a look at all the junk projects churned out in WW II for example especially when various powers were becoming increasingly desperate at various points. We get things like Bat bombs, The Rocket Drum, Suicide Rocket Planes, and the various Wunder Waffen. Desperate times are only guaranteed to breed one thing. Desperate reactions including considering things that should be wholly ignored.

edited 25th May '16 7:33:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV

And I mentioned a sufficiently intact industrial base. Half of those projects do not meet that criteria. The Ohka for example was developed because in part the Japanese aircraft (and munitions) industry was in complete shambles from both a material supply and intact facilities standpoint. They needed something, anything that could hope to damage the enemy and they pretty much had more recruits than bombs at that point.

edited 25th May '16 7:41:31 PM by MajorTom

Tom: Numerous other junk projects though fit your criteria from all sides and would outside of desperate consideration be considered less then viable ideas. My point stands that desperation does not solve the issue at all and in fact is significantly more likely to exacerbate it.

The amercians tried a remote control suicide plane.

Suposed to bail, still had a tendancy to kill the pilots.

Plus the bat bomb was you guys as well.

And the rocket drum was the brits.

So no you cant say that Tuefel is wrong here.

Well the rocket drum was a product of the DMWD, who's brief seems to have been to come up with this stuff, and who, it must be said, had big hands in the Hedgehog and Squid anti-submarine launchers, as well as degaussing and the Mulberry Harbours.

edited 25th May '16 8:59:59 PM by MattII

Well, to have minimal bias, you should ask the end user, i.e the troops using it. A randomly selected quartermaster or a field captain will do, I presume.

Wait, are we trying to figure out how to select the best weapon systems, or to avoid designing weapon systems that end up getting rejected? Because I'm not sure that the latter is possible or even desirable.

edited 26th May '16 5:15:27 AM by DeMarquis

Rbomber: Simply asking a grunt isn't a viable idea either. Asking a quartermaster less so.

The problem with any sort of weapons procurement is a weapon has to fit both small picture and big picture considerations. It has to be good enough for the troop and easy enough to use that all of them have no issues with it. It also has to match with manufacturing and logistical capabilities.

'You could have a fantastic weapon system but the cost, difficulty in manufacturing, or supply issues could make it a less then viable option over say something that is not quite as good but is cheaper, can be made in bulk and has simple supply and logistics foot print.

@De Marquis:

I think it's the former - trying to design a procurement system that doesn't succumb to bias, boondoggles, etc. It's a very interesting question, to be sure!

Also, I'm like 99.5% sure this is something I've already asked before, but here goes nothing: let's say you want to make invading (and holding) your territory as agonising as possible for any would-be conquerors. First off, how would you go about it?

And secondly (and this is the main thrust of my question), how could you make your civil society (in the form of infrastructure etc.) useful for military work (presumably in an emergency scenario)? Like for example, I've toyed with the idea of a "naval militia", where even lowly starships like freighters have at least some armament - so even if you managed to defeat their actual navy, you're still finding yourself with the interstellar equivalent of a rifle behind every blade of grass.

edited 26th May '16 1:22:23 PM by Flanker66

Well one of the best ways to defend anything is in an ability use a layered defense forcing an enemy to constantly fight through layer upon layer of defensive measures. Anyone dumb enough to try and blitz through finds themselves under increasing amounts of defensive measures. A mix of mobile and static defenses is always useful as is a defense that is reasonably capable across the range of common threats.

As for use of infrastructure we have that already in the US. Highways and Freeways can be built to handle heavy military traffic. Same for your rail lines and where you can with water ways to be able to shift military assets quickly and effectively. Production is a bit tricky as these days it isn't that simple to convert GM automotive plants from ones that churn out SUV's to ones to churn out tanks. You could probably build some ability to adapt into manufacturing plants but it is far better to have pre-built ready facilities even if they have to sit in a standby until needed and periodically updated.

Houses and buildings could contain emergency bunker spaces or be hardened against attack or damage and the populace trained to react to attacks.

Basically gear your entire society from infrastructure, common buildings, industry and the like towards having some use towards resisting invasion.

As for the gunboat Navy. History hasn't been kind to the gun boat navies vs a full fledged warship navy. Freighters are far better used for hauling cargo or maybe being used as blockade runners then trying to tangle with a purpose built warship.

Basically you have your society built around the concept of resisting invasion right down to your buildings,

edited 26th May '16 3:40:06 PM by TuefelHundenIV

So, we all know that most fiction gets space combat completely and utterly wrong from a physics standpoints.

Yet, I'm having a slightly difficult time visualizing what realistic space combat using three-dimensional space would even look like.

Anyone got an explanation or video that can help a brotha out?

Pretty much it would look akin to air to air warfare or Hot Sub-on-Sub Action. Three dimensional warfare is nothing new. The main difference in space is there's no air to aid in or hinder maneuvers or acceleration or target acquisition.

Subs or helicopters might be better reference points in a general sense for terms of movement. Both platforms are reliant on human directed automated systems for weapons and sensors as well. Humans aren't physically aiming a gun the machines are and missiles are fired with guidance equipment. Torpedoes use firing solutions prior to firing to ensure hits especially at range.

Sorry but no, Homeworld and similar games are probably the best reference points we have. Trying to model it with aircraft is like trying to model air combat with antigravity battleships.