"the missile / torpedo... too dated for space?" Topic

I'm wondering if the missile is a dated concept for a future sci-fi universe.

If one has the ability to travel at astonishing rocket speeds, and if computing is going to continue to advance exponentially in capability, won't point defense and – this is sci fi – any kind of a weapon [laser, whatever you call it] that travels at the speed of light, just make missiles and fighters a redundant technology?

There's no way that a small object like a missile, or a bit bigger – a manned fighter – will be able to avoid such a light-speed weapon, is there?

About all they could do is be bigger, and more armored and with more shielding and ECM and… now it's not a small disposable object that goes boom on a budget.

So IF one has such light-speed weapons, it seems logical to me that a rocket-accelerating torpedo / missile / fighter will be dead technology, and we'd go back to larger ships that can withstand beam/lasers/blasters/zappers, et al.

The alternative is that we are in our present state of rocket propulsion, and a missile is still viable to fight bigger, slower rockets, like ships.

So my thought is that one either has laser zappers or one has rockets, but not both.

Anyone have some thoughts on these speculative pieces of technology??

Well, lasers and missiles are cool and that's why they feature in most sci-fi settings. Plus it's tech the audience should be familiar with.

On the practical side, by the time we get to interstellar wars the tech base is going to be a lot higher. We'll probably use things like asteroids accelerated to really high speeds, canisters of mono molecular filament fired on intercept courses, or just straight up nukes delivered via missile.

Directed energy is probably more likely (?) but missiles/torpedoes are cool and play to "space navy" themes I like.

Not really, since only missiles and torpedoes will have the ability to seek and follow their targets, adjusting course along the way, or in the terminal phase.

You can't do that with lasers, and at very fast speeds and very long ranges, those are just "spray and pray" weapons, which rely on predictive models made by a computer to determine where the target will/might be at some point in the future.

At one light-second plus of range, and very fast speeds, errors in aiming could be very large indeed.

Also, depending on how fast lasers advance in power, zapping a kinetic impactor might do next to nothing. Today's lasers disable drones and missiles, they don't vaporize anything that is armored.

And we never think about cost.

If a laser point defense system costs a billion dollars a ton, and anti-spaceship missiles are $3 USD / dozen at Wal-Mart, they look attractive for many uses.

Lasers – even today – have a massive energy requirement for very little hitting power. Unless something changes in that regard a space missile will still be feasible. Lasers also have really bad range attenuation problems. Getting a missile going fast enough and by the time a laser could hurt it the point is moot – the mass of the missile is still heading your way and will hit just as hard since it didn't have enough time to disperse after the laser "knocked" it out.

If your missile's power plant can get it up anywhere to a fraction of c., you won't really need a warhead on it… ;-)

Extra Crispy

LOL

There are also missiles with beam warheads which get just close enough to get around the lightspeed targeting limits and then use a nuke to pump an X-ray or gamma ray laser. Those things mean your point defense envelope has to be measured in light seconds.

Robert

Homing Missiles over lasers any day.

There is no point in discussing the realism of weapons when the ships themselves are mostly fantasy. But having a variety of weapons makes for a more interesting game or novel. (I'd add movies and TV, but I don't think I've seen a TACTICALLY interesting space battle since "Balance of Terror" which was lifted from WWII naval anyway.)

Party pooper.

Pew! Pew! Swoosh!

🤓

I always liked the idea of torps/missiles as a "throwback" weapon compared laser & plasma batteries. With older ships relying on torpedoes and newer ones having more advanced guns.

I liked their presence in Battle Fleet Gothic as well.

Missiles don't need to hit, they just need to get close enough to throw a ton of shrapnel in the path of their target… lasers need to hit…

And then there is a mount a magnetic particle beam in the missile tip powered by the nuke that is behind it in the missile.

One shot Particle Beam.

And yes, there is a DARPA paper out there on that one.

Hmmm, clearly the missile lobbyists to the Board for the Advancement of Space Weaponry are well funded.

I'm thinking of that acceleration factor. If we are a light second or two away from each other, isn't it going to take a few weeks for the missile to arrive? Isn't a speed of light weapon just crazy faster than an atomic rocket missile whatever?

That's my thought.

You certainly don't need to sell me on fun… that's why I tinker with space ships instead of just sticking to the Solomons campaign as the perfect naval contest.

Space isn't actually empty, it's just very low density so lasers will attenuate as someone mentioned above. It also assumes you are not firing through an atmosphere to hit a target part-way round a planet etc. You can also chuck in countermeasures such as ECM and, my favourite, firing a large cloud of sand particles (or ice) in front of the missiles to shield them. Missiles can also evade and, if they are near light speed, would have time to move out of the way for a laser beam. If nothing else, your ship designs are going to have to dedicate a hell of a lot of mass to PDS and power, leaving them weaker in other ways. And of course, the speed of light isn't actually a constant…..

To answer your question with any kind of significance we need to know your assumptions about the state of technology.

Primarily, the capabilities of the propulsion systems of the ships, the power, efficiency and thermal capacities of the weapons systems, and the type, power, resolution and stabilizing capability of the sensor systems.

The truth is that warfare *in* space between opposing mobile ship sized units is unlikely at all. If it does occur it will be short, brutal and costly and the outcome of any such engagement will be highly predictable before a shot is even fired assuming both sides are reasonably aware of the opponent's capabilities.

However, the detection distances and relative speeds involved pretty much dictate that missiles will be the predominant weapon systems used in any scenario even loosely based on our current understanding of the sciences.

In order of likelihood I'd guess missiles, rail guns, energy weapons in that order wth a huge drop off between each.

Torpedoes in Space combat games can be the best part of the game – try playing "Silent Death" (which admittedly is "Space Fighter" combat, rather than "Space Battle ship combat – but there is no reason the mechanics could not be used in other systems).

The missiles are put down on the 'firing' ships turn, but only that player knows their target. The missiles themselves then only move STRAIGHT AFTER THEIR TARGET HAS FINISHED MOVING – so their player doesn't know which ship has to take evasive action because they have been targeted until after they have moved.

It's one of the best parts of the game to zip right amongst enemy vessels, then release a load of torpedoes and watch them scatter!!!

> I'm thinking of that acceleration factor. If we are a light second or two away from each other, isn't it going to take a few weeks for the missile to arrive?

By the same token any reasonable laser would have to moved much closer then a light second to be effective. Diffraction makes lasers a short range weapon in space battle terms. The Transhuman Space RPG uses a firehose blast of radiation as the primary weapon. It doesn't destroy the ship but it ruins any external sensors and fries any humans on board. Realistic space warfare would be boring and brutally deadly.

@Dynaman8789
Yeah – reality sucks. That's why we play games. Modern naval combat right now is so deadly that it's more a matter of deciding what target is worth what ultra-destructive weapon, and probably only subs and planes will survive.

@ Daricles
"However, the detection distances and relative speeds involved pretty much dictate that missiles will be the predominant weapon systems used in any scenario even loosely based on our current understanding of the sciences.

In order of likelihood I'd guess missiles, rail guns, energy weapons in that order with a huge drop off between each."

This is what I'm looking for – likelihood "loosely based on our current understanding of the sciences".

So, I'm wrong about the missiles – they will be the primary weapon. Can you expand on that, and why they and rail guns will be the likely weapons, at least in the near future of science as we know it? Or, if you want to steer me to another reference [that a layman with a college degree can comprehend] that would be great!

Based on experience with "Red Chicken Rising" (very un-serious fleet game)-- big ships can be destroyed by overwhelming defensive batteries with large numbers of cheap, minimally- armed opponents. A kamikaze approach (or assume that the "crew" is robotic and expendable).

I used to dabble with 'Starfire'.

Similar experience there… starfighters were much more effective if you used them as suicide drones loaded with ordnance.

Missiles are #1 in any near term sense since they can hit from the farthest distance and no armor known would be able to do anything about it at the speeds most likely involved. The missile does not have to be a "direct hit" as such. Shortly before impact it could split off into lots of sub-munitions that would be just as deadly as the missile staying together. Maybe even more so. Missiles can also be loaded with a laser or railgun instead of needing KK type weapon too.

Rail guns and lasers are a toss up depending on how the science of lasers plays out. A railgun currently has a big advantage except for it requiring ammo and beyond a really short range could only hit things that are incapable of maneuver – once they leave the barrel they are on a set course and are very slow compared to a laser.

Missiles will dominate because we are talking about vaaaaaast detection distances that are far beyond the effective reach of any weapon.

You will know something is out there and may even be able to identify it based on size, speed and mass, but you will not have the sensor resolution to hit it with any kind of direct fire weapon. At the ranges you can detect at mere vibrations on your ship will throw your aim off probably by kilometers.

Realistic ships have limited delta-v and therefore a predictable maneuver envelope for a given time span. You can launch missiles into the enemy ship's maneuver envelope at that range and the missile can adjust to intercept as it gets closer. Even if the ship can outmaneuver the missile somehow, it wastes delta v doing so and you can repeat the process. If the enemy uses up it's delta v reserve before you run out of missiles you win even without landing a hit.

I think railguns are slightly better than energy weapons since both have Accuracy over distance problems but energy weapons also have diffusion problems that railguns don't have. Railguns May or may not be more thermally efficient. It depends on the power plant and cooling system assumptions.

Actually, small rail gun launched missiles will probably be the weapon of choice now that I think about it.

"Realistic ships have limited delta-v and therefore a predictable maneuver envelope for a given time span……… If the enemy uses up it's delta v reserve before you run out of missiles you win even without landing a hit".

I read this ALL the time, but think it is just wrong.

If you really think about it, even just the slightest nudge at tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of kilometers will be enough to evade a rail gun or laser, and it is very easy to do over the span of seconds or minutes.

You just need to set the thrusters on one side of your ship to fire for a tenth of a second or so in order to move the ship a few diameters of the vessel away from the original vector, and you're in the clear, assuming of course that the enemy's weapons fire was on target, previously.

Therefore, perhaps they'll fire in barrage mode, much like naval guns did in WWI and WWII, or they'll launch clouds of high speed pellets in your path to make life "interesting".

Thresher, no argument from me there. Absolutely true with regard to DF weapons.

My comment was regarding missiles and why they will dominate over DF weapons. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Guys, awesome answers. Really appreciate it!

One question: when you say "use up its Delta V" do you mean the fuel that allows it to maneuver?

Yes. Also a finite rate of acceleration or deceleration over a set time period. The maneuver envelope is a calculation of all the places they could be in, for example, five minutes from now or two hours from now, or two days from now.

The larger the time span the larger the envelope, but that envelope can be calculated pretty darn accurately.

Yeah, I was always amazed how Darth Vader can chase the Millenium Falcon thru space like that – he must be a maneuver envelope GENIUS!!!
:)

So Daricles, what spaceship battle rules do you think incorporate this likelyhood factor in a manageable way?

None that I have played personally.

I have heard others say that Attack Vector or Silent Death have semi-realistic movement rules, but when I looked the rulesets over ithey seemed overly complicated and not my idea of fun.

However, I like games that play quickly, don't have a lot housekeeping or upkeep from turn to turn.

My guess is that 'space missiles' will be a thing, but will probably be smart mini-manoeuvrable weapons platforms in their own-right to give them survivability against the inevitable point defence systems. The whole bundle of issues around things like manoeuvre envelope, delta-V heat generation and power requirements probably mean DF weapons will be secondary.

And yeah a nuke-pumped directed energy weapons may well be the weapon/warhead of choice.

> And yeah a nuke-pumped directed energy weapons may well be the weapon/warhead of choice.

The last thing I read on this is that it will not work. The nuke would vaporize whatever it was powering for a directed energy attack long (if the smallest unit of time you can imagine can be considered a long time) before the directed energy beam would be useful as a weapon. It had lots of equations that I had nowhere near the knowledge to make any use of however.

IIRC, there were military studies done on this and nuclear powered engines done back in the 60's. You don't really try to power any kind of device, just direct the radiation from the blast mostly in one direction.

The drive used a honkin big reflector to do this. I'm not sure you could do it in a missile sized package. If so, it would have to be with some kind of magnetic bottle, I guess.

IMO this idea, for missiles at least, is maybe sorta-firm sci-fi rather than the hard sci-fi the OP was asking about.

@ Daricles
I have just started to play Warp War – got a new copy for $10 USD thru BoardGameGeek. Interestingly, it incorporates a lot of what you're saying, albeit in a 1970s game sorta way. Record keeping is very modest.

The spaceship fighting is not tactical it is more like operational. If you are in a hex with an enemy ship, you basically compare the amount of Thrust you selected which affects the results on the CRT.

But the weapons are missiles and a DF weapon that they entitle "Beam" but could really be anything.

thanks to what I learned on this thread, I appreciate this old gem of a set of rules a lot more – thanks!

Missiles/torpedoes could accelerate/decelerate/maneuver without worrying about G forces crushing crewmembers.

Hit that missile with your laser and there's still a mass coming at you at high speed – so there's going to be a lot of kinetoc energy delivered if it hits. Your laser might be able to destroy/impair the missile/torpedoes ability to track and maneuver, but if it's close enough, the mass still smacks you.