Switch Theme:

Near-future space combat  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Splitting off from the US politics thread:

What might near-future space combat look like? What would combat in space look like? Are laser weapons where it's at?

Please do not discuss the political aspects, motivations of, or President Trump in this thread. Those discussions belong in the US politics thread.


 Xenomancers wrote:
 KTG17 wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:

Ball bearings. I'm not kidding.


Too slow probably. I think lasers will be the weapon of choice. Can't beat the speed of light with our technology.

IDK about slow. In space their is no friction and projectiles maintain their muzzle velocity. They can also be arched around a horizon where a laser needs direct LOS.

IMO lasers are just a fantasy in space combat. They are just too easy to counter. I know it's not as simple as this - but lasers can be deflected by refective surfaces and need to stay on target for a while in order to do damage. So essentially things like (spinning your ship)(throwing bebris/mirors/ in front of your ship would render lasers useless.) I think high ROF projectile weapons and smart bombs in space (a missle that you launch into an area without rockets and it activates it's rocket motor when it finds a target) will be the prefered weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/13 23:52:33


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.

In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.
Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

It might not be the most accurate answer, but it is the coolest.

Giant robots

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/14 00:37:58


   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

There's that nasty 'Space Treaty' that puts a lot of this firmly in 'war crimes' territory.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Right Behind You

There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.
   
Made in us
Space Marine Scout with Sniper Rifle






Skaorn wrote:
There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.


Yeah, but that's for future humans to worry about, not us. /sarcasm

Off topic, but I feel somewhat bummed that I won't live to see large scale galactic colonization, if it's even possible. Maybe Mars, if I'm lucky, and provided we don't nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

More on-topic, satellites equipped with lasers for orbital bombardment or some other such thing might be more useful then any handheld/truck-mounted laser gun. Though, never effective as rearranging the tectonic plates with bombs, tungsten, or depleted uranium. Nothing like watching a mountain range rearrange from the safety of your command bunker, or what have you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 05:10:17


 
   
Made in ca
Fireknife Shas'el






Basically, missiles. The target is capable of maneuver, so your projectile must be capable of it as well, and ranges are large - bullets just aren't fast enough. Lasers might be good for messing with sensors, however. I'd expect attacks to only happen on close orbital passes where reaction times are minimized, but those are predictable, because ground based stations can track literally everything in orbit.

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I imagine near future space war would be done with explosive missiles, drones with the equivalent of big shotguns, and tactical nuclear weapons if you want to get really nasty.

I also think it's a really stupid idea.

There is already so much space junk in orbit that adding any more endangers the use of space for satellites we are very dependant on for earth observation, communications, navigation and other useful purposes.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Kinetic weapons can also be intercepted by lasers. The downside of cheap ballistic-trajectory weapons is that radar (remember, no ground clutter to hide in when you're in space) can plot exactly which shots are on an impact trajectory, aim a laser, and vaporize some of the material to push the kinetic shot off course.

In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.


The problem is that killing satellites very quickly turns into MAD because of space debris. The more likely outcome is that, as with nuclear weapons, everyone agrees not to fire the first shot and anti-satellite weapons effectively do not exist.

Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.


This is highly unlikely. Getting sufficient accuracy to be useful is an extremely difficult problem to solve, and requires an expensive guided weapon that slows to pretty underwhelming velocity as it enters the atmosphere. And, while a tungsten rod may be cheap, the payload capacity to put it into orbit is not. So you end up with an extremely expensive and awkward weapon that suffers from the same MAD problems as nuclear weapons, except with even more difficult engineering problems to solve and a lot more cost. There's a reason nobody has taken the concept seriously so far and tried to build one.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Ragin' Ork Dreadnought




Monarchy of TBD

Skaorn wrote:
There is also the problem that increasing the debris floating around in orbit is not the best idea for anyone.


That's how you're going to see lasers get into space. Some enterprising nation will put one of the debris clearing lasers into space in high orbit, and start clearing the lanes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936114001010

Then perhaps one is made that will work on larger debris- and then that technology becomes weaponized. Heck, maybe they just don't clear the lanes of nations they don't like, or that don't pay them clearance fees. Perhaps they'll even start forgetting satellites are in the way of their cleaning operations. But it will still be way more vulnerable to conventional attack. Orbits are known, and it's the easiest thing in the world to put a cloud of shrapnel in a satellite's path, if you have a space program.

Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.

 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 Peregrine wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Laser weapons are laughable. Both in space and anywhere else. It is just science fantasy, nothing else. It is technically possible to create deadly, destructive laser weapons, but they are completely useless when kinetic weapons are more destructive, simpler, cheaper and vastly more reliable.


Kinetic weapons can also be intercepted by lasers. The downside of cheap ballistic-trajectory weapons is that radar (remember, no ground clutter to hide in when you're in space) can plot exactly which shots are on an impact trajectory, aim a laser, and vaporize some of the material to push the kinetic shot off course.

Actually, the big advantage of both this and FOBS missiles is that it would be virtually impossible for radar to determine the trajectory. Tungsten rods would be especially hard to detect considering the fact they have almost no radar signature and travel at extremely high velocity, leaving little time for someone to react, calculate the trajectory, and aim a really powerful (and therefore ridiculously expensive) laser which needs to be exactly in the right spot to be able to intercept the falling rod. Such a defense is not very practical. Especially since the actual launch, and the weapon before launch, would be undetectable. A weaponised satellite could easily be put into orbit under the guise of being a military navigation or spy satellite or something equally secretive, and it won't be detected until after it launches its payload.

 Peregrine wrote:
In the near future, space warfare will mostly be about anti-satellite warfare, with countries using missiles, ECM and hacking to take out the other country's satellites. This is a vital part of modern warfare, since a modern military becomes virtually useless without satellites. You could cripple your opponent's entire military and end the war just by taking out their satellites.


The problem is that killing satellites very quickly turns into MAD because of space debris. The more likely outcome is that, as with nuclear weapons, everyone agrees not to fire the first shot and anti-satellite weapons effectively do not exist.
No, it is not MAD, because there is no possibility for a second strike. EMP and hacking produce no debris, and satellite destruction by missile can be planned in such a way that the resulting debris won't hit your own satellites, at least not within a relevant timeframe. The orbit around Earth is kinda a big place, and debris would not result into a threat on the timescale that a conflict on Earth would be playing out (which is going to last not much more than a few weeks once one side's satellite network is taken out).

 Peregrine wrote:
Another thing I could see happening is the use of satellites for kinetic bombardment. Even relatively small slugs fired from orbit can strike a city with a power comparable to that of a small nuclear bomb. The Outer Space Treaty forbids weapons of mass destruction in space, but something like a device that can fire off tungsten rods isn't normally considered a weapon of mass destruction. So I could see that happening. I also think FOBS missiles will become important again now that Russia has again developed and deployed missiles with such capabilities.


This is highly unlikely. Getting sufficient accuracy to be useful is an extremely difficult problem to solve, and requires an expensive guided weapon that slows to pretty underwhelming velocity as it enters the atmosphere. And, while a tungsten rod may be cheap, the payload capacity to put it into orbit is not. So you end up with an extremely expensive and awkward weapon that suffers from the same MAD problems as nuclear weapons, except with even more difficult engineering problems to solve and a lot more cost. There's a reason nobody has taken the concept seriously so far and tried to build one.
It is not cheap. But it is cheap compared to the big military benefit it brings. Again, the velocity of the rod when hitting the ground may be only a fraction of its initial velocity before entering the atmosphere, but it will still carry enough kinetic energy to strike with the power of a small nuke. The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time. It is not like countries such as Russia or the US aren't already putting loads of satellites into orbit, so the costs aren't the reason this isn't done yet. Nor are engineering problems, since this is already well within the capabilities of the US and Russia, and probably China as well. Accuracy is an issue, but far from an unsolvable one, and not at all an issue when your goal is only to hit massive, static targets such as cities rather than a smaller, moving target such as a tank. The real reason this isn't being done is a general reluctance against the weaponising of space and the fear that once one country starts designing such weapons, other countries will do the same. Then it might turn into MAD. Which is why such weapons probably won't become real.

To elaborate further, I think that any kind of combat in space in the near and even relatively distant future is highly unlikely, precisely because of concerns regarding MAD. Anti-satellite weapons are already a reality and might see use in a hypothetical future conflict between superpowers, but things like bombardment satellites? Probably not. Don't want other countries to build such things as well. Same reason we won't see armed spacecraft (apart from the fact that an armed spacecraft would be laughably ineffective compared to planet-based missiles) anytime in the near or distant future. No, it is all going to be about satellites and missiles and trying to get rid of MAD by removing another country's second strike capabilities through eliminating satellites and ways to counter that.

Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

I started pointing out which posts were war crimes, and found myself quoting all of them.

Let me remind you all, of the Space Treaty.

Achem: no celestial body may be used for testing, bases, fortifications, maneuvers, housing or in any way by any military anywhere. WMDs of any type other than kinetic penetraitors are prohibited from Earth orbit. These are effectively WAR CRIMES. So the proposed Space Farce is just that. Under both US and International law, they can't take military actions beyond espionage and reconnaissance.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






I don't see lasers in space for quite some time, or at least until there is a better power source for them. I can see more kinetic weapons being used in any early conflicts, perhaps akin to the gyrojet firearms (low tech bolters) or perhaps humans will invent the shuriken catapult.

If we go for a more traditional bullet I could see caseless ammunition being used because it eliminates debris hanging in the vicinity of the combatants, or clogging up vital equipment.

 
   
Made in nl
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






 BaronIveagh wrote:
I started pointing out which posts were war crimes, and found myself quoting all of them.

Let me remind you all, of the Space Treaty.

Achem: no celestial body may be used for testing, bases, fortifications, maneuvers, housing or in any way by any military anywhere. WMDs of any type other than kinetic penetraitors are prohibited from Earth orbit. These are effectively WAR CRIMES. So the proposed Space Farce is just that. Under both US and International law, they can't take military actions beyond espionage and reconnaissance.

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit. In other words, the Space Treaty has so many loopholes is like a sieve. Take FOBS missiles for example, which are nuclear missiles in orbit except that they are not technically in orbit because they do not complete a full cycle, and therefore are allowed under the Space Treaty.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't see lasers in space for quite some time, or at least until there is a better power source for them. I can see more kinetic weapons being used in any early conflicts, perhaps akin to the gyrojet firearms (low tech bolters) or perhaps humans will invent the shuriken catapult.

If we go for a more traditional bullet I could see caseless ammunition being used because it eliminates debris hanging in the vicinity of the combatants, or clogging up vital equipment.

Why would be bother inventing shuriken catapults or using gyrojets (or any kind of firearm at all) when we can just destroy everything much more effectively with missiles? Why invent a firearm to shoot at an astronaut when you can just take out his space station or spacecraft?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/14 17:33:18


Error 404: Interesting signature not found

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Right Behind You

I think if we do see satellite weapon platforms it would probably have to be UN controlled and for the specific purpose of hopefully preventing a massive impact from a space object. Otherwise you'd be tipping off an event that would probably be worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The problem with a rods from god weapon is that we live on the same exact planet. You have no idea what triggering a geological event in one area of the world will have on other areas, including where you live. It has the potential to be a blunder on the scale of Chairman Mao's 4 Pest campaign that nearly wiped out sparrows in China and let locusts devestate crops.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Iron_Captain wrote:
Actually, the big advantage of both this and FOBS missiles is that it would be virtually impossible for radar to determine the trajectory. Tungsten rods would be especially hard to detect considering the fact they have almost no radar signature and travel at extremely high velocity, leaving little time for someone to react, calculate the trajectory, and aim a really powerful (and therefore ridiculously expensive) laser which needs to be exactly in the right spot to be able to intercept the falling rod. Such a defense is not very practical. Especially since the actual launch, and the weapon before launch, would be undetectable. A weaponised satellite could easily be put into orbit under the guise of being a military navigation or spy satellite or something equally secretive, and it won't be detected until after it launches its payload.


You're confusing two things here. Lasers deflecting kinetic shots is about space vs. space warfare. IOW, what's the best way to shoot down an enemy spacecraft with your own. In the context of tungsten rods you wouldn't even need radar because the heat signature (unavoidable when you're entering the atmosphere at orbital velocity) is immense. And I don't know why you're talking about time for someone to react when all of this will be done by a computer in a fraction of a second.

No, it is not MAD, because there is no possibility for a second strike. EMP and hacking produce no debris, and satellite destruction by missile can be planned in such a way that the resulting debris won't hit your own satellites, at least not within a relevant timeframe. The orbit around Earth is kinda a big place, and debris would not result into a threat on the timescale that a conflict on Earth would be playing out (which is going to last not much more than a few weeks once one side's satellite network is taken out).


First of all, yes, of course there is a possibility of a second strike. Destruction is not instant and a few microseconds after the initial shots are launched they will be confirmed to be on collision courses with their targets and the enemy's anti-satellite weapons will fire. And ground-based anti-satellite weapons can always fire even if all of the space-based ones are wiped out in the initial attack. The resulting debris will chain reaction into mass satellite destruction and effective destruction of the ability to use space at all.

The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time.


Nonsense. The heat signature alone makes it easy to detect, and reentry time is more than sufficient to launch a retaliation strike and end the world. At that point who cares if you can intercept it in time, we can't intercept a Russian ICBM attack anyway. Both sides launch, MAD occurs. Congratulations, you've just made a really expensive ICBM which can never be used unless you're willing to commit nuclear suicide.

It is not like countries such as Russia or the US aren't already putting loads of satellites into orbit, so the costs aren't the reason this isn't done yet.


Of course cost is the reason. The US and Russia put useful satellites into orbit. Nobody wants to spend obscene amounts of money putting a useless paperweight into orbit just because some fanboys on the internet think it would be really cool.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit.


Might want to re-read it.

Article IV wrote:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited.


'installations' is a pretty broad category. So is 'any other kinds' of WMD.

Legal Definition of a WMD:

Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/14 23:33:17



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob




Crescent City Fl..

When I think of something like the roll of the future "Space Force" . I think a few things. I figure they will start as an entity doing satellite missions from the ground to be used to coordinate activities. I see it as an early use of them as a ranch and is't something they can build from for the future. I also think their game will become controlling the spectrum, so in space they may have a means of shutting down satellites and ships, stations that kind of thing. I am not sure I like the idea of them directly attacking the ground, but I would expect something like a precision strike with a tungsten rod hitting a ground target.
More realistically I see it as a cooperative unit more for search and rescue/recovery as space travel and tours pick up as an industry.
I guess boarding actions as a means of battle is probably also within their scope as well.
Who knows.

Sigh, Yet another doomed attempt by man to bridge the gap between the material and spiritual worlds 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Outer Space Treaty only forbids "weapons of mass destruction", and it only prohibits them from being "stationed" in orbit.


Might want to re-read it.

Article IV wrote:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited.


'installations' is a pretty broad category. So is 'any other kinds' of WMD.

Legal Definition of a WMD:

Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.


Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Grey Templar wrote:
Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.


Wait, you're saying every soldier with a hand grenade hasn't committed a war crime?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Grey Templar wrote:


Incorrect. The ‘legal’ definition you posted is the definition for criminal law. It is not the definition used for international treaties.

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.



Criminal law is the only one to get specific. 'weapon of mass destruction' gets bandied about a lot, but since it's inception it's been used to mean in treaty everything from conventional chemical explosive 'dumb' bombs to MIRV. the Space Treaty does not define this term, so we have to look to other treaties for context, and then it gets really wide.

It's 'crimes against peace' wide, for some idea of just how broad this could be argued to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
Wait, you're saying every soldier with a hand grenade hasn't committed a war crime?


It's all context. he chucks it through the door of a room full of civvies, he has. He throws it on the Moon, he has. He tosses it into a bunker full of hostiles on earth, he hasn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:

The treaty is pretty explicitly limited to only nukes and biological weapons. Kinetic and laser weapons are 100% allowed.


No it isn't. What i posted is what it says. That's not explicit anything. Read it. (and I'm going through here and you'd have to point me to where it mentions biological at all, and we get into things like voluntary inspections and abandoned space property)

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/15 02:10:53



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Steadfast Grey Hunter





The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in
   
Made in us
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain






A Protoss colony world

 Peregrine wrote:
The difference between it and an actual nuke is that it would be almost impossible to detect and intercept in time.


Nonsense. The heat signature alone makes it easy to detect, and reentry time is more than sufficient to launch a retaliation strike and end the world. At that point who cares if you can intercept it in time, we can't intercept a Russian ICBM attack anyway. Both sides launch, MAD occurs. Congratulations, you've just made a really expensive ICBM which can never be used unless you're willing to commit nuclear suicide.

I've heard it said that we'd realistically have next to no time to react to a natural space catastrophe like a major asteroid strike, because it would likely be undetected until it entered our atmosphere. And those come from a lot further out and are bigger (and theoretically easier to detect) than one of the Rods from God. I think the kinetic weapons would be pretty hard to stop or detect fast enough. They are basically a small man-made asteroid. As long as the location of the orbiting launcher were unknown, it would be impossible to predict where such an attack would come from, and they would enter the atmosphere and strike the ground pretty quickly. Unless you had a pretty good detection system in place and lots of assets to intercept one of these earthshakers, it would make it all the way down and make a pretty nice little crater where the target used to be.

Also, on the orbiting debris thing: have any of you seen the movie Gravity? This exact scenario is what plays out in that movie, and it is pretty catastrophic. No one wants to do that, because it would render space travel and exploration impossible for all of humanity, possibly for hundreds of years if not longer. Really they need to already be designing something to clean up our orbitals from all the junk like dropped tools, dead satellites, etc. that is already up there creating hazards.

My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/1/23, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~15000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Adeptus Custodes: ~1900 | Imperial Knights: ~2000 | Sisters of Battle: ~3500 | Leagues of Votann: ~1200 | Tyranids: ~2600 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2023: 40 | Total models painted in 2024: 7 | Current main painting project: Dark Angels
 Mr_Rose wrote:
Who doesn’t love crazy mutant squawk-puppies? Eh? Nobody, that’s who.
 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 ZergSmasher wrote:
I've heard it said that we'd realistically have next to no time to react to a natural space catastrophe like a major asteroid strike, because it would likely be undetected until it entered our atmosphere. And those come from a lot further out and are bigger (and theoretically easier to detect) than one of the Rods from God.


Two factors make the asteroid problem much harder:

1) There's a larger region of space to search. That's the main problem we have now, we have the ability to detect an asteroid large enough to threaten us pretty far out but we don't have enough search capacity to scan the entire volume of space fast enough to ensure that a threat can't slip through between cycles through its region. With kinetic bombardment satellites they're going to be in fairly predictable orbits (for a given purpose of satellite there's usually a limited range of orbits you can put it in that will be useful) and every military is going to know about all of the satellites and be tracking them in case they decide to fire.

2) The deflection problem is more difficult. Making a tungsten rod miss is fairly easy, one good hit and aerodynamic forces will tear it apart or at least cause it to tumble randomly and miss its target. An asteroid is much larger, has to be deflected far enough to miss the planet entirely instead of just far enough to miss a specific ground target, and has to be stopped long before it hits the atmosphere.

They are basically a small man-made asteroid.


Except not at all. Asteroids are moving much faster and have much higher mass. Orbital velocity is ~5-10km/s, an asteroid's relative velocity can be 50+km/s. And realistically the kinetic shot won't convert all of that orbital velocity into ground-level energy, it's going to lose a lot as it reenters the atmosphere.

As long as the location of the orbiting launcher were unknown, it would be impossible to predict where such an attack would come from, and they would enter the atmosphere and strike the ground pretty quickly.


It's probably not going to be that fast. Remember, orbit changes (including changing from a stable orbit to a reentry trajectory) require burning fuel, and the faster you want to make the change the more you need to burn. For example, the space shuttle took about 30 minutes from initial reentry burn to reach the atmosphere, and then another ~30 minutes to reach the ground. You can save some of that time through the atmosphere if you're not braking, but that's still plenty of time to identify and track the shot. The first ICBMs will be in flight long before the kinetic shot reaches its target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the effects of kinetic weapons are being severely overstated. To equal a single 300 kiloton warhead (out of 12) carried by a US Minuteman ICBM you'd need a 50,000,000 kg mass moving at 7km/s (roughly terminal velocity for an ICBM). To put this number into context the low earth orbit payload capacity of a Saturn V rocket was 118,000kg. IOW, you would need 424 Saturn V launches just to put your ridiculous tungsten rod into orbit, and that's not even counting the fuel mass required for the de-orbit burn and guidance (and you do want to de-orbit this thing in less than a decade after giving the order to fire, right?). Or you could fill those Saturn Vs with nuclear warheads and deliver ~200,000 of them, approximately 30 times the entire US nuclear arsenal, anywhere in the world on depressed trajectories that would leave minimal warning time.

And I've actually been extremely generous in this analysis, assuming that the kinetic shot will deliver a meaningful percentage of its total energy across a wide area (as you'd need to destroy a city) instead of massively overkilling whatever point target it hits and spending most of its energy digging a really deep hole. To equal the destructive power of a 300 kiloton airburst you'd likely need considerably more kinetic energy, taking the comparison so far past the point of lunacy that it's not even worth trying to do the math on it.

TL;DR: orbital kinetic weapons are not a strategic threat. They are potentially capable of killing point targets like enemy bunkers, but then you're back to needing a guidance system and heat shielding and such, vastly increasing the complexity of the system.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/15 08:30:16


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Fireknife Shas'el





Leicester

Satellites have to exist in a very harsh environment, with high temperature extremes and intense solar radiation in the form of electromagnetic waves and high energy particles. I suspect this already makes them fairly resistant to lasers and EMP, so I think kinetic kill shots are probably much more effective, but with the downside of risking a cascade.

So weirdly I come back round to the idea of lasers, not for destruction of the entire satellite, but for blinding sensors and frying communications antennas. If you can get the accuracy (which would be a bitch, to be clear), it could form a very good “soft-kill” capability against satellites, that mitigates the cascade risk.

As for space-to-surface kinetic weapons, I think Peregrine is right; it’s far cheaper, easier and less trouble to just build ICBMs. Hell, you don’t even necessarily need to fit them with nuclear warheads; the Nazis made a hell of a mess with a few tonnes of high explosive on the V2s. Also, even if you could build a high-energy kinetic weapon cheaply and easily, it would automatically become a WMD, by dint of being a weapon that causes massive destruction!. Too many people assume WMD=nuclear, it doesn’t. That’s why the treaties were written that way, to prevent a loophole where some future technology suddenly allowed you to sidestep nuclear technology.

DS:80+S+GM+B+I+Pw40k08D+A++WD355R+T(M)DM+
 Zed wrote:
*All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob




Crescent City Fl..

I'm sure they will develop some kind of weapons for space but in space combat I think taking racecourses or deny resources is more important than killing or destroying. If I take your Oxygen you will surrender to live or die in the vacuum of space. No one wants that. Boarding, recovery and attacking other ship, station or satellites electrical systems, communications and life support will be key early on. If your ships just start going dark and no one can say why, that could be interesting. I think though ground retaliation would be inevitable, as a means of safe guarding space assets.
For boarding I expect gas attacks to neutralize crews as well as brutal hand to hand to put down any resistance in confined spaces. Zero G hand to hand.

Ship to shop could be as easy and a targeted projectile to disable an engine, or blow out an airlock. But I would expect that to happen at close range for fast recovery. Ships will be taken to the other side for parts and refitting. Or later used as a decoy or kamikaze mission.

If we're just controlling the spectrum, deploying unmanned satellites to jam out activities is a good start. Why not win with out firing a shot.

Deciding on goals and plans of action will be crucial as the costs will be enormous. Racecourses from space will be a large motivations well as global dominance. I think it will be a global effort but will split into two or three factions along with the shifting global politics. Then it becomes do we squabble over the home world or brake off into zones.

Sigh, Yet another doomed attempt by man to bridge the gap between the material and spiritual worlds 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

dekinrie wrote:The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in


No, they'd shoot it down. Oops, terrible accident, space debris. What's the US gonna do, go to nuclear war with, say, Russia over what might have been a accident? Remember, it allows the other signatories to enforce it, not just the UN.

ZergSmasher wrote:
Unless you had a pretty good detection system in place and lots of assets to intercept one of these earthshakers, it would make it all the way down and make a pretty nice little crater where the target used to be.


'Little' being the operative word there. The actual explosive yield on a 'rod from God' is actually less than it's equivalent mass of chemical explosives. A 11 ton Tungsten Rod would only have the equivalent explosive force of 9 tons of TNT, and cost a hell of a lot more. That's why the 'crowbars from God' idea never took off. They tried to get around the logistics issues with trying to put 20 ton Tungsten rods in space by opting for dozens of smaller rods. The problem is that each rod had less impact than the average artillery shell, with comparable penetration, at least, once the math was run.

So, tactically, it's useless. There are already weapons that can do as good or better jobs, cheaper by orders of magnitude.

The reason asteroids are dangerous is they both have titanic mass, and are traveling at velocities far faster than orbital speeds. To produce the 10 megaton yield that created Barringer Crater, for example, took an object 150 feet across that weighed in at 300,000 tons traveling at something like 20km/ps.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 15:38:24



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Right Behind You

 dekinrie wrote:
The space treaty only comes into effect if it's enforced and who's going to enforce it ,if say the USA decided to place a nuke armed satellite in orbit what could the UN do go to war , place sanctions
so many U.N. edicts have been ignored by now it's toothless their would be a scramble by the big countries to do the same it's like the nuclear club everybody wants in


I'd recommend reading up on the Cuban Missile Crisis for figuring out a likely response to this scenario.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






I think we are vastly overestimating the ability of a laser to intercept high velocity projectiles. Especially if we are talking about a rapid fire weapon shooting something like 600 rpm of marble sized DU or whatever they decide to make projectiles out of in space. Then of course there are railguns - which are bound to improve a lot. Right now the big ones can launch a good sized projectile around 5000 mph. Eventually we are going to be firing projectiles at 50,000. They have both huge defensive and offensive capabilities with those speeds.
Really though to get the kinds of materials into space we'd need to build warships - we would really need to develope an infatructer for getting things into space cheaply.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think we are vastly overestimating the ability of a laser to intercept high velocity projectiles. Especially if we are talking about a rapid fire weapon shooting something like 600 rpm of marble sized DU or whatever they decide to make projectiles out of in space. Then of course there are railguns - which are bound to improve a lot. Right now the big ones can launch a good sized projectile around 5000 mph. Eventually we are going to be firing projectiles at 50,000. They have both huge defensive and offensive capabilities with those speeds.
Really though to get the kinds of materials into space we'd need to build warships - we would really need to develope an infatructer for getting things into space cheaply.


Railguns suffer from one of the same weaknesses as a weaponised laser, power supply. A load of superconducting magnets, each with extremely high energy requirements as well as needing to be supercooled using liquid helium is not a reliable weapon in any combat scenario where you will be susceptible to return fire. Temperature control is difficult enough in space without needing to take heat of your liquid helium to keep your weapon working.

The weapons used will be good old fashioned propellant-accelerated projectiles and missiles.

In space, the most important thing is ruggedness and reliability.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 18:46:39


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: