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.
godardc wrote: Ahah of course, but I would have hoped that there were ...an other way of handling this
Nuclear weapons require very precise sequencing of their explosives to actually detonate (I.e. get the big white flash). If you hit with a laser, missile, or anything else that causes it to explode prematurely, it’ll just be the conventional explosives that go up, not a nuclear detonation. Now, admittedly you’ve just set off a form of dirty bomb, but a) that’s a lot better than a 500kt explosion, b) the nuclear materials in a weapon aren’t that dirty, compared to the nasty waste materials that are normally suggested for a dirty bomb and c) given the intercontinental nature of a likely nuclear exchange, it’s probably happened over the sea. Or maybe Canada(!)
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.
Grey Templar wrote: A simple solution is to have your attack satellite network actually be a series of Space Ships which, when on active duty, enter into stealth mode by orbiting Earth at a far greater distance than typical satellites. Most of which are around 36,000km from Earth. Just have them hang out around 100,000km or so, changing their orbit patterns periodically. Have them either be automated, or possibly with human crews and simply rotate the crews out periodically every few months or so.
Uh, no. Nothing at all about this idea is simple. First of all, that huge change of orbit isn't free. It's easy to say "just change orbits", but then you look at the delta-V requirements and how much fuel you have to burn (plus more fuel to haul the extra fuel, more fuel to get it into orbit in the first place, etc) and things get ugly fast. Even just getting to geostationary orbit has a high delta-V cost, and you want to go well beyond it and back again multiple times. Oh, and better add even more fuel to the budget to cover recoil compensation for every shot you fire. There's no law of physics preventing it, but it's a massive engineering problem and certainly way more complicated than tossing a conventional weapon at the target.
Second, there is no stealth in space. At 100,000km you will be just as visible as you would be at 36,000km or at 1km. And because the initial launch, plus any crew/fuel deliveries you make, is extremely visible it's going to be tracked the whole way out to its "stealth" position. There is no "huge volume" to search because it can never break contact to make its position ambiguous. If the railgun fires this will also be extremely obvious to ground observers, and the shell will be tracked the whole way in. That means plenty of time to intercept it, and plenty of time to arrange a retaliation strike using conventional weapons.
In short: congratulations, you just spent obscene amounts of money on a weapon that seems to exist for the sole purpose of being as inefficient as possible.
Vulcan wrote: Out of curiosity, how would you defend against a mass launch of ballistic weapons?
"Lol, thanks for bankrupting your country to build a weapon comparable to a single B-52 full of 500lb bombs."
There just isn't any plausible scenario where kinetic weapons are a meaningful threat. Anything they can do can already be done better by much cheaper alternatives, and nobody is going to be dumb enough to invest in building them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: Well, MIRV missiles kinda killed off the idea of a full missile defense. You'd need multiple defense missiles to kill a single attack missile, meaning the enemy can just overwhelm your defenses by the sheer numbers of their nuclear warheads.
Not entirely true. Anything that hits before MIRV separation can take out the whole bus at once, and point defense missiles can be smaller (and therefore cheaper) than an ICBM so you can buy multiple interceptors for the cost of each ICBM.
And given the relatively recent introduction of 'intelligent', course-correcting missiles that automatically change their trajectory when they detect an incoming defense missile, missile defense just became completely useless against ICBMs.
And this is not true at all. For an incoming missile to dodge it has to spend four times the fuel as the interceptor (dodge, reduce velocity to zero, accelerate to return to its original course, reduce velocity to zero), while the interceptor only has to match the initial dodge. If the missile fails to burn that extra fuel and return to its original course than the interceptor has done its job even if it doesn't hit. This overwhelmingly favors the interceptor, quickly creating a situation where the additional fuel payload is too much to be practical.
However, such a system would suffer from the weaknesses inherent to lasers, in that it would be very easy to counter. So such a system would only be useful for a relatively short period of time until missiles designed with countermeasures are put into production and are widely introduced.
Again, not true at all. Countermeasures are much more difficult than saying "I counter this". For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't. Armor costs too much payload capacity to be practical. The only possible response is to build and launch so many ICBMs that the laser can't keep up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 07:45:15
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.
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.
Yes, of course...
Might as well kill this project then. I mean, it would be ludicrous to think we could develop something like the U2 spy plane of even think about going into space at all when we are still trying to get off the ground with bi-planes.
Technology advancing? lol come on.
Oh wait, we did move on from bi-planes? How did that happen???
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never understood why laser guns wouldn't be countered by putting a mirror finish on the target, underneath a layer of camo paint.
That works to a point. The mirror will begun to heat up and eventually take damage.
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.
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.
Yes, of course...
Might as well kill this project then. I mean, it would be ludicrous to think we could develop something like the U2 spy plane of even think about going into space at all when we are still trying to get off the ground with bi-planes.
Technology advancing? lol come on.
Oh wait, we did move on from bi-planes? How did that happen???
Just amazed what I read on dakka sometimes.
Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.
While lasers are significantly cheaper and have virtually unlimited magazines, their beams can be disrupted by atmospheric and weather conditions (especially when operating at the ocean's surface) and are restricted to line-of-sight firing to continuously keep the beam on target.
The reason they are looking into this technology is because shooting a laser is cheaper than shooting a missile but has longer range than CIWS. Basically, it fills in a niche. But that niche will disappear should laser technology become common enough to develop countermeasures against, which with laser is much easier than with kinetic weapons. That laser can for example detonate an incoming RPG round. But if a mirror coating had been applied to said RPG round, or simply if it is a misty day, the laser would need to be far more powerful to be able to detonate the grenade, making the laser useless again. In other words, just because a weapon technology can currently fill a certain niche, doesn't mean it will see widespread use.
Kilkrazy wrote: I've never understood why laser guns wouldn't be countered by putting a mirror finish on the target, underneath a layer of camo paint.
That works to a point. The mirror will begun to heat up and eventually take damage.
Yes. Mirrors are an effective laser countermeasure, but they indeed do not make something impervious to a laser. A mirror deflects only a portion of the light it receives, meaning a portion still gets through and transfers heat to the mirror. In other words, a mirror increases the length of time a laser needs to destroy its targets (the exact length of time depending on the power of the laser), but it does not offer full protection. Basically, anything that defocuses a beam or dissipates heat wreaks havoc with a laser. While theoretically, a sufficient powerful laser would still be able to get through if focused on a target long enough, the problem in warfare is the time you need it to be focused on the target. More than a few seconds, and it becomes pretty useless except in niche situations.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/16 19:48:29
Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.
As of right now. We're still in the infancy.
But, maybe you are right, maybe we should just box the whole thing up.
What a shame, since the last laser they were testing took up a whole 747. Looks like they were making progress... but I guess if you can't go right from thought to implementation without proof of concept, development, testing and further development and all that, you should just not pursue it.
Just because the US decides to test a laser point defense weapon (it isn't actually really a weapon, it is a defense system) does not mean it is a good idea or works better than conventional point defense weapons. If you read a bit more into it, you will see that the US military itself acknowledges the weaknesses of a laser weapon and states that it therefore is meant to supplement, nor replace conventional systems.
As of right now. We're still in the infancy.
But, maybe you are right, maybe we should just box the whole thing up.
What a shame, since the last laser they were testing took up a whole 747. Looks like they were making progress... but I guess if you can't go right from thought to implementation without proof of concept, development, testing and further development and all that, you should just not pursue it.
Its amazing technology advances at all.
Lasers are always going to come with these weaknesses - which are not weaknesses that are worth their development beyond a defensive countermeasure.
-Requires Direct LOS.
-Range/effectiveness limited based atmospheric conditions.
-Very easy to counter as an offensive weapon should they every become prevalent.
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
godardc wrote: Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?
IIRC, "detonate", in the context of setting off a nuclear weapon, refers to setting off the initial conventional explosive charge which brings the two sub-critical uranium masses together (gun-type bomb) or causes the implosion of the uranium, which then results in the critical mass of Uranium creating a runaway fission reaction. "initiation", is, I think, the term for the aactual nuclear explosion.
Anyway, if you blow up the nuclear weapon by hitting it with another missile before it has a chance to go off properly, you won't get a nuclear explosion; you'll just get a conventional explosion and scatter the nuclear material - much less destructive than a nuclear explosion. If it happens at s sufficiently high altitude, the fissile material will burn up and be scattered. Not ideal, but I would think that any given area will have a negligible increase in radiation as a result.
godardc wrote: Detonating ? Like, making the missile explode ? But if it has a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it be a bad idea anyway, even if above the oceans / others countries ? Especialy if you detonate several missiles ?
IIRC, "detonate", in the context of setting off a nuclear weapon, refers to setting off the initial conventional explosive charge which brings the two sub-critical uranium masses together (gun-type bomb) or causes the implosion of the uranium, which then results in the critical mass of Uranium creating a runaway fission reaction. "initiation", is, I think, the term for the aactual nuclear explosion.
Anyway, if you blow up the nuclear weapon by hitting it with another missile before it has a chance to go off properly, you won't get a nuclear explosion; you'll just get a conventional explosion and scatter the nuclear material - much less destructive than a nuclear explosion. If it happens at s sufficiently high altitude, the fissile material will burn up and be scattered. Not ideal, but I would think that any given area will have a negligible increase in radiation as a result.
This. Nuclear weapons work by creating a scenario where there is enough fissile material to go critical, meaning you have enough fissile material in a volume that it can commence a self sustaining fission reaction. There are multiple ways of going about this. You could just dump a pile of Uranium on the floor. Get enough there and you're going to reach critical mass. In a weapon you want a bit more control over this, and there are two main ways of accomplishing this.
The first is called a gun type fission weapon. This is where you have two sub-critical masses of your nuclear material and you rapidly bring them together, typically by firing (through the use of a shaped conventional explosive) a bullet of the material into the centre of a larger mass of that same material. Little Boy was a gun-type fission weapon using uranium-235 as the fissile material.
The second is called an implosion type fission weapon. This is where you have a sphere of your fission material. Shaped charges surrounding the sphere go off simultaneously and the resulting pressure collapses the sphere, increasing the density and therefore reaching critical mass. Fat Man was an implosion type weapon, with plutonium-239.
Thermonuclear weapons use a conventional fission nuclear weapon to generate the energy required to initiate the fusion process, and so will use one of these methods for their initial phase.
If the explosive forces of either type of weapon are not exact (such as some of the implosion type charges not firing at the same time, or the firing of the bullet not having enough force in a gun type weapon), then instead of causing the whole mass to undergo fission, some of the material may undergo fission and the resulting reaction will push the other material away, massively reducing your total energy yield. This is why you can intercept a nuclear weapon with a conventional missile without needing to worry about causing an atomic explosion, without the exact environment initiating and containing the nuclear reaction, the material will just push itself apart before releasing all of the energy you intended to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/16 20:45:38
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.
Peregrine wrote: For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.
The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.
Peregrine wrote: For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.
The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
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
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.
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.
Peregrine wrote: For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.
The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
The weight penalty on an ICBM makes this impossible. And if my laser forces you to replace your ICBM arsenal with a handful of Saturn V clones, each lifting a single warhead and the ridiculous cooling system, well, I just removed 99% of your nuclear threat without firing a shot.
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.
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
There is no reason to assume that reflective alloys are going to have a significant weight difference compared to aluminium or whatever they use in ICBM construction.
The cooling systems (if they are even needed) Could be as simple as a heat sinks on important sections of the hull. Who knows?
Plus - there are other ways of getting a payload into orbit than building a giant rocket. You can build 2/3 stage rockets. Launch assist with space catapults. There are lots of ways to overcome adding some weight to a missile.
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.
ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 15:53:22
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
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.
ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.
Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface. I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/17 16:13:04
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.
ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.
Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface.
I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.
Course correction is much more effective against a railgun than a missle. A missle can change course to follow the ICBM. I guess the main advantage of a rail-gun is (granted the velocity is high enough to effectively shoot one) is it might be harder to detect and incoming slug than a missile. The ICBM might not know to dodge.
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
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
Ok, this is one I've had to bring up before, but the more stuff you add to a missile, such as heavy cooling systems, the more easily it's taken out by more conventional defenses. You can build it to be protected from one, or the other, but not both.
Yup. A missile that can absorb laser attack will be one that is easily taken out by a smaller Anti-ICBM missile, or maybe a ground based railgun emplacement.
ICBM are already doomed if they have an anti ICBM missle locked on.
Not if they are the course-correcting kind. They can just slightly shift their course to evade the incoming missile. Or if they are MIRVed. Then you need lots of missiles to stop a single ICBM. Of course, course-correcting ICBMs would also be highly effective against a laser, considering a laser needs to be able to focus on a single point. An ICBM with a reflective coating that spins as it flies would be very hard to stop with a laser, considering the heat will be largely reflected with the remainder spread out over a large surface.
I really think railguns are more promising as ICBM defense systems. You'd need a pretty good targeting computer though.
Course correction is much more effective against a railgun than a missle. A missle can change course to follow the ICBM. I guess the main advantage of a rail-gun is (granted the velocity is high enough to effectively shoot one) is it might be harder to detect and incoming slug than a missile. The ICBM might not know to dodge.
Exactly. Plus the Railgun can fire multiple rounds to improve the chance of a hit, and the ammunition will cost a tiny fraction of the cost of a missile. Thats really the advantage of railguns. They will be far cheaper to operate than a missile, with comparable damage output and even accuracy vs a stationary target. While also being basically impossible to shoot down, and very difficult to detect.
Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.
A series of railguns could easily blanket the path of an incoming ICBM with shells making it impossible to dodge. ICBMs can course correct, but only to a point. If they turn too sharp they'll either miss their target or rip themselves apart, so there is a finite amount of evasive space they can use.
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.
Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.
The navy had that fantasy too, they found out that your course correction anything burns off before the projectile leaves the coils. Oh, and they make it tumble, too.
Also, the fins would not work in space, because fins work by effecting drag. There's no drag in a vacuum.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Peregrine wrote: For example, how do you counter a laser burning a hole in the side of an ICBM and allowing aerodynamic stresses to tear the missile apart? You don't.
Right conclusion, wrong reason.
A laser powerful enough to use for combat purposes is going to vaporize enough metal in the first milliseconds that it'll cause the metal to shatter not unlike a water-soaked rock in a campfire. It's almost a detonation in speed. That'll send shockwaves through the missile every bit as deadly as an actual high explosive would. Hit the missile in the boost phase and the fuel detonates. BOOM. Hit the warhead in the ballistic phase and you've wrecked the delicate electronics required for the nuke to work.
The trick is lasers that powerful are not, as yet, combat-capable. One shot, then a lot of cooling down and recharging capacitors and the like. Aiming and maintaining beam cohesion over intercontinental distances is no trivial challenge either.
Then countries start using highly reflective metals with internal cooling systems and your laser is completely useless against it. The majority of the heat energy is deflected away and what remains wont be enough to melt the hull of the missile.
So tell me. How does one deflect and cool the same magnitude of energy delivered in a bolt of lightning?
Railgun slugs could be made with course correction fins and such as well. Just like smart artillery shells do today. Much more expensive than a dumb slug of course, but still cheaper than your typical SAM.
The navy had that fantasy too, they found out that your course correction anything burns off before the projectile leaves the coils. Oh, and they make it tumble, too.
Also, the fins would not work in space, because fins work by effecting drag. There's no drag in a vacuum.
In this specific case we were talking about shooting an ICBM while it is in the atmosphere.
And Railguns are in their infancy. They'll most likely develop course correction that doesn't burn off when its fired. Just like they'll eventually make barrels that last more than a few shots.
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.
Grey Templar wrote: They'll most likely develop course correction that doesn't burn off when its fired. Just like they'll eventually make barrels that last more than a few shots.
I expect Warp Drive before that. Due to the velocities and level of friction involved, the computer managing course correction would have to be able to transmit instructions at superluminal speeds in order to calculate the course correction and then implement it before either missing entirely or or hitting something other than the target. You'd also need a mechanism to adjust the fins at similar speeds that also won't tear off from the stresses involved.
Effectively, for the foreseeable future the railgun is a line of sight dumb weapon, like any other bullet.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Thats probably a bit excessively pessimistic, but yeah it probably is a ways away.
And being a dumb weapon isn't necessarily a problem. Its one of the strengths that makes it difficult to defend against.
And its not actually a LOS weapon, thats lasers. A railgun can fire over the horizon because it follows a ballistic arc.
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.
And its not actually a LOS weapon, thats lasers. A railgun can fire over the horizon because it follows a ballistic arc.
That's another thing the Navy thought that it turns out it really doesn't. Not and have the sort of impact they wanted anyway. See, due to it's super flat trajectory, the horizon creates a sort of blind spot it can't hit without firing a high arch into space. Meaning that it's limited by terminal velocity coming back down. You'll do more damage with a regular explosive shell. And that's assuming you got the math right and the shell comes back down at all.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
What about using a railgun to fire what is basically like birdshot at an approaching missile? Like, the shell is fired by the railgun, travels a ways, then explodes and hits the missile with a cloud of shrapnel. Then the round doesn't have to be as precisely aimed, and the missile still won't be able to easily course correct around it due to a large cloud of little metal projectiles filling the air. And a missile with armor thick enough to withstand the fast moving projectiles won't be able to launch unless it's on a really big rocket.
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: 12 | Current main painting project: Dark Angels
Mr_Rose wrote: Who doesn’t love crazy mutant squawk-puppies? Eh? Nobody, that’s who.
ZergSmasher wrote: What about using a railgun to fire what is basically like birdshot at an approaching missile? Like, the shell is fired by the railgun, travels a ways, then explodes and hits the missile with a cloud of shrapnel. Then the round doesn't have to be as precisely aimed, and the missile still won't be able to easily course correct around it due to a large cloud of little metal projectiles filling the air. And a missile with armor thick enough to withstand the fast moving projectiles won't be able to launch unless it's on a really big rocket.
What you're describing is known as a beehive round, and it was discovered those don't work back in WW2.
Also, again, you run into the issue of the projectile. These would have a very high tendency to explode before clearing the barrel. As the round travels down the coil, the metal it's composed of is boiling off as a gas. Needless to say, putting an explosive in that is probably a bad idea.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
~15000 Astra Militarum: 
~1200 | Adeptus Custodes: 
~2000 | Sisters of Battle: 
~3500 | Leagues of Votann: 
