|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 18, 2017 8:25:11 GMT
EMP is extremely short ranged and irrelevant in space combat. If the communication signals are bounced around by satellites currently abstracted away, then the introduction of these satellites as physical entities would make laserstars more potent. Lasers are after all, the most cost-effective means of dealing with lots of tiny unarmoured targets. Yes, short-range. Just shoot the nuke near the missile fleet and it should get the job done.
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 18, 2017 12:10:39 GMT
EMP is extremely short ranged and irrelevant in space combat. If the communication signals are bounced around by satellites currently abstracted away, then the introduction of these satellites as physical entities would make laserstars more potent. Lasers are after all, the most cost-effective means of dealing with lots of tiny unarmoured targets. Yes, short-range. Just shoot the nuke near the missile fleet and it should get the job done. AFAIK it's pretty standard for military electronics to be shielded against EMP. It's more of a problem for the terrestrial power grid because there are really long transmission lines strung all over the place to induce currents in.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Mar 18, 2017 13:17:36 GMT
Yes, short-range. Just shoot the nuke near the missile fleet and it should get the job done. AFAIK it's pretty standard for military electronics to be shielded against EMP. It's more of a problem for the terrestrial power grid because there are really long transmission lines strung all over the place to induce currents in. Let's include the effects of EMPs and add the said shield. Would be fun for it to get modeled.
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Mar 18, 2017 16:23:01 GMT
Unless Qswitch decided to add more into it, we can assume that control modules of missile and drone are already hardened against nuke.
Which seemed like an obvious thing to do when everyone is throwing nuke everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Mar 18, 2017 17:33:03 GMT
Er, I thought nuclear detonations in a vacuum don't produce EMPs? Don't you mean e-bombs?
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Mar 18, 2017 20:09:53 GMT
EMP is produced with a nuclear explosion causing lots of high-energy electrons simultaneously in a magnetic field (eg. the Earth's). Primary mechanism on Earth-based studies is gamma rays striking air molecules, implying this may be mitigated in an area without an atmosphere (deep space, many moons & asteroids). Also, in an area without a sufficient magnetic field to keep those electrons captured and coherently orbiting in circles, it will not form the large RF broadcast that composes an EMP. See wiki.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 20:11:34 GMT
Would there be a flash of light then as the visual component of the EM spectrum?
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 20:44:36 GMT
With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No. As an internet security professional, I don't think you understand how hacking works. Engineers suck at predicting all edge cases. And edge cases are how hacks happen Ok, how are you going to hack a bunch of drones relying primarily on tightbeam comms and inertial guidance? Some exploits may no doubt emerge from time to time, but these are exactly as you say - edge cases. No one is going to have electronic warfare as their first, second or even third line of defense. A lucky break, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 21:00:23 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links.
Not all attacks are based in software
Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 21:42:10 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links. Not all attacks are based in software Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough. I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 21:59:21 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links. Not all attacks are based in software Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough. I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too. Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic.
|
|
|
Post by darthroach on Mar 18, 2017 22:10:20 GMT
I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too. Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic. Directional communications are literally as simple as occluding the enemy fleet to your receiver. Instead of thinking about how to jam the drones' comms, how about investing the time and effort into means of destroying them? You could do things like shoot out nukes and detonate them in off positions to blind optical receivers, for example, but at that point you might as well explode the nukes close enough to knock things out too. Impairing enemy communications is always going to be a factor, but it's not significant in the tactical stages of battle.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 22:12:49 GMT
Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic. Directional communications are literally as simple as occluding the enemy fleet to your receiver. Instead of thinking about how to jam the drones' comms, how about investing the time and effort into means of destroying them? You could do things like shoot out nukes and detonate them in off positions to blind optical receivers, for example, but at that point you might as well explode the nukes close enough to knock things out too. Impairing enemy communications is always going to be a factor, but it's not significant in the tactical stages of battle. So your saying the transceivers on the ship giving orders is pointed at me then? Who says I'm trying to jam the drone/missile?
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Mar 19, 2017 1:00:04 GMT
So your saying the transceivers on the ship giving orders is pointed at me then? Who says I'm trying to jam the drone/missile? Go on, jam a laser transceiver. (If you can do that, you can probably blow up the command ship as well. Just. Saying.)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 19, 2017 1:36:39 GMT
|
|