I like it!
And that brings me on to a related topic: often when talking about surface to orbit weapons, people seem to forget about missiles entirely.
For my own setting I have envisaged missile systems that are sort of like what the S-300/400/500 family and other nasty SAMs want to be when they grow up: mobile missile sites that can set up in relatively hidden areas, track and engage targets entirely autonomously and in extremely short timeframes, and then pack up and relocate before spaceborne forces can direct suppression missions (SESD?) against them.
On the smallest scale you have MANPODS (MAN Portable Orbital Defence Systems) - though they're bulkier than MANPADS (especially since modern MANPADS in the context of the setting are extremely lightweight, compact and easy to carry) they allow individual teams to engage ships in the lowest reaches of orbit or as they come into atmosphere. However, due to their design they can only down the smallest vessels, such as shuttles, light (or medium, if they get lucky) freighters, fighters, that sort of thing. They also struggle to acquire and follow targets below certain altitudes, as their seekers are optimised for picking out targets at the highest altitudes.
As a result, space forces tend to avoid getting too "low" and try to minimise the time spent transitioning from space to atmosphere to prevent pot-shots being made.
Locking you up on radar since '09The big limfac for a ship's delta V is the cargo and passengers. If the ship can't accelerate hard enough to evade the missile without killing the crew or potentially damaging itself in a mission-kill way, then the missile wins either way. The big limfac for a missile is probably fuel supply and having to claw its way out of a gravity well to get at the ship.
The biggest issue is missiles require a lot of fuel to expend to reach even LEO altitudes. They become big, hugenormous. As the HARP example showed a simple traditional 16 inch gun could reach beyond the lower limit for space. It's a lot smaller than a missile system be it a TEL or a static silo or what have you. Factor in that surface to space guns will be magnetically driven that takes away the need for fuel which minimizes the size of the site and the weapon.
Also compared to railguns, lasers and particle beams and such missiles be slow.
G limits for hardware are also an issue. Enough G's will break typically more fragile guidance and tracking gear of projectiles, a key concern for hyper velocity guided projectiles, but compared to squishy meat bags and other fragile internals of crewed ships the Missiles and projectiles have more leeway.
edited 30th May '14 9:05:54 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Ok had to close out and go home before I could post this. The HARP guns were modified. The one that made the record was firing a saboted projectile out of two 16" naval guns modified as a massive sectioned gun. They also used special propellant to work with the guns specifically.
In theory super guns could launch the projectiles much higher. You could use that to boost a missile high in the atmosphere before it fires off its engines.
Either the Sci fi weapons thread or this one there is a youtube example demonstrating that principle. There are other ways to help a missile out.
Other odd ways would be a aircraft or lifting bodies carry the missile up and then fire it. You would be surprised the size of missile you can fit on air planes. For example the B-52 could carry mutliple GAM-87 Skybolt/AGM 48 missiles.
We also pushed a very heavy load from the launch pad at Canaveral all the way out to the moon.
That is with decades old technology we have now. You start talking societies that are terraforming worlds and using any form of FTL tech getting stuff into orbit becomes child's play.
Even now there are two companies working on building space guns to launch refueling pods into orbit for refueling stations and lofting cargo.
Space guns, rail gun cannons, super gas guns, High power Star Trams, advanced chemical systems, etc. The more access you to power and technology the more options you have.
edited 31st May '14 6:16:59 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Maybe a hybrid system, a HARP-type gun fires a missile, thus the missile can be in the upper atmosphere before it even needs to start its engine. Hells, you could even fit a harp gun into a submarine if you could make the thing go up on end
. Hells, if you could do it with a nuclear sub you wouldn't even need propellant for the gun, just make it a rail-gun.
edited 30th May '14 11:40:00 PM by MattII
I think the big reason that guns can launch payloads into space with relative ease (if not relative practicality) is because the fuel is consumed on the ground when the gun is fired. For the rocket, it carries the fuel up with it as it goes, which means more weight for the missile to lift off, which means more fuel wasted just getting off the ground.
Most launches would probably be made as the spaceship in question is descending planetside; as a result the ship's speed would actually be working against it since the closure rate would be much higher and "help" the missile to close the distance more quickly. Another likely time for a launch would be when the target isn't expecting to be engaged by an anti-spaceship weapon. So basically any time when the ship is going low and slow (for relative values thereof, considering the scales in question). MANPODS are more suited to ambush scenarios (much like modern MANPADS) rather than being the backbone of anti-starship operations. The aforementioned SAM-alikes are better suited for providing a constant shield against orbital forces.
I will refrain from commenting for the most part on the technical issues because I feel that's better suited for the equipment thread (that and any explanation I could offer would probably ring false or lead to unintentional consequences), though I will note that the MANPODS guidance systems are durable (and sensitive) enough to perform their duties, and their motors are sufficient for the task as well. I'm also assuming that since we're talking future!tech things aren't quite as limited as they would be if we attempted to make a system today.
However, they're very bulky for man portable weapons and not something you want to lug around for sustained periods. Most MANPODS teams are deployed in the field by vehicle, though they can be (very uncomfortably) carried by a team whilst on the march for several days. It's just going to be a very bad experience.
I guess that from my descriptions their effectiveness would probably be closest to early generation MANPADS, right? As in, they give mission planners heart attacks (and woe betide you if you're caught with your proverbial trousers down) but could probably be defeated with sufficiently determined maneuvers.
Locking you up on radar since '09"Most launches would probably be made as the spaceship in question is descending planetside; as a result the ship's speed would actually be working against it since the closure rate would be much higher and "help" the missile to close the distance more quickly."
How so? High speed implies that the approaching spaceship has little time for evasive manuvers, but that also means the missile has little time for course corrections too. It seems like a wash to me. Of course, once the ship is descending into the atmosphere, the missile effectively is a MANPAD.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.The missile has more wiggle room for maneuver since it is not undergoing the forces of re-entry like the target. That and a ship re-entering has a big fuck me I am right here sign. A shorter closing time is also to the advantage of the missile as it means less time for bad things to happen to it or for any possible evasion.
We already have high maneuver missile systems like the Pac-3 guided patriot missiles. There are also motor systems like this. Watch it dance
And the SM-2 and the AIM-9X (which can be aimed off boresight by a considerable margin As You Know) and I've heard those fancy Rolling Airframe Missiles can practically turn on a dime.
High maneuverability missiles are not a new technology.
edited 31st May '14 9:20:30 PM by MajorTom
rollin' on dubs
FOBS
: "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System"
Entering a planet from the other side or gliding to the objective from a point further away. There are all kinds of options. That's why most anti-missile systems can turn on a dime. It's called "terminal maneuvers": dives, cork screws, following a parabola then turning at the last second.
In space, yes, it's possible to use "balloons" or some chaff to confuse the enemy. Chaffe needs the wind to keep it aloft and to disperse it. It's really better for hiding behind than as a decoy (put the chaff between you and the enemy radar).
Once the fleet hits atmo, their best bet is terminal maneuvers with chaff and flares.
edited 31st May '14 10:29:56 PM by TairaMai
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....
rollin' on dubs
THAAD
and this picture
◊ of the missile trying to say inside New Mexico. Most of the missile interceptors have some form of steering to move into the path of an oncoming missile. Heck, once kill vehicle actually dips to drop it's shroud.
Not during the phase where the entire planet can see it because of the plasma envelope. Those chaff and flares then will just immediately burn up (and possibly damage the ship itself). In that phase there's little in the way of defense.
That isn't necessarily true tom. Discharging materials that has a useful life of several seconds is about the same you get from chaff and flares You could make it so the decoys are giving a thermal picture as big as the ship before it burns up. Shit enough fragments to burn and it can act like chaff.
Though I don't think doing any fancy maneuvers at reentry speeds would be good for any craft.
Who watches the watchmen?The required amount of mass for that to be effective would be a significant percentage of the ship. Then as mentioned there's the likelihood that anything jettisoned in the heating stage of re-entry will simply damage the vessel as well owing the very high velocities involved and the fact the shit won't really disperse but whip backwards. It is surrounded by hot plasma ya know. Even the jettisoning process may damage the ship.
The space shuttle Columbia reminded us EXACTLY what happens to a vessel that is not properly sealed or built for re-entry. Jettisoning stuff during the heating phase compromises the heat survival. Not to mention is probably ineffective if you are talking starships in the hundreds if not thousands of meters in length.
The only way to avoid the heating phase of re-entry is to decelerate to such a slow speed that it takes a fuckton of time to reach the surface from exospheric altitudes. A fuckton of time that you'd be easy pickings for planetary defenses of any kind.
You wouldn't need a fuck ton of mass at all. Do you remember how short lived thermal distractions work? While they are burning up they still have a few seconds to send out fals IR signature the same way flares do. You only need them for a few short seconds just like aircraft. You don't need a lot of mass to make a radar signal near something possibly larger for a short time either.
The Columbia had a puncture through the wing on the under side where it was relying on the heat shielding in the first place. You could easily jettison materials not on the heat shield side. You don't need a permanent hole to do it either. You can have pods that release and then spew out your counter measures instead.
Who watches the watchmen?Since I'm kind of worried we're drifting off topic for this thread (the multiple kill vehicle using its RCS to perfectly hover was awesome, though!) I'm just going to say that though the MANPODS is working against gravity, and De Marquis has brought several issues to my attention that I was perhaps not thinking hard enough aboutnote , both MANPODS and their targets can do things to improve their odds of success.
Since this is the tactics/strategy thread, then, what might be the best way to employ these systems? Should it be done similarly to how Integrated Air Defence Systems work today? Or would their pecularities necessitate tactics tailored to them?
Locking you up on radar since '09
rollin' on dubs
There would be some form of FDC: Fire Direction Center. Either a van or an armored vehicle that can move as the battlespace changes. For ships at sea, it'll be a ship that looks plain and commercial to not stand out. In orbit, it would look like all the other orbital platforms but maybe have some extra defense. And each would be able to take over as one is either taken out or bypassed.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....And surface defenses are going to be aiming for the head of that massive plasma envelope, not the widening area all around and behind it.
Except re-entry can take upwards of 90 seconds before the plasma envelope dissipates. That's why spacecraft have that minute of worry when they go into blackout.
You do if you want to last more than 10 seconds worth of targeting by sensor systems. (It can be argued you use EM jamming instead of chaff-like countermeasures but the dynamics of re-entry prevents aiming "down" with EM-band until the plasma envelope dissipates sufficiently.

Exactly T-hound. A ship could have a large radar and feed data to subs. The sub "fire units" move around. Heck, there could be a large sub that surfaces to expose a large radar array. Gets it's mates to fire, submerges, and then everyone does an underwater dosey-doe to prevent counter-fire.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....