|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 6:51:00 GMT
I still maintain that anything unhardened is strategically irrelevant. Preferably you would leave things like power systems intact, since most military bases will have their own power supply, and it's useful and expensive to rebuild.
As for efficiency: a laser would have to melt/vaporize the target, kinetics must only deform it to a limited degree. The energy needed to destroy a target is thus orders of magnitudes less in kinetics than in lasers.
In addition to this, if I have all the time I need, I can just fire the kinetics from my home base. Railgun a can be made accurate enough, and it's irrelevant if the projectiles arrive in an hour or in a month for strategical bombardment. This cut out the need to ship anything to the target system for bombardment. The only operations that really need instant response ground strikes are tactical ground combat operations, thus only they need laser support. For everything else, kinetics are still more effective and efficient.
Also, you are correct in pointing out that it is difficult to maintain anti laser countermeasures, but it isn't impossible.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 7:03:43 GMT
I still maintain that anything unhardened is strategically irrelevant. Preferably you would leave things like power systems intact, since most military bases will have their own power supply, and it's useful and expensive to rebuild. As for efficiency: a laser would have to melt/vaporize the target, kinetics must only deform it to a limited degree. The energy needed to destroy a target is thus orders of magnitudes less in kinetics than in lasers. In addition to this, if I have all the time I need, I can just fire the kinetics from my home base. Railgun a can be made accurate enough, and it's irrelevant if the projectiles arrive in an hour or in a month for strategical bombardment. This cut out the need to ship anything to the target system for bombardment. The only operations that really need instant response ground strikes are tactical ground combat operations, thus only they need laser support. For everything else, kinetics are still more effective and efficient. Also, you are correct in pointing out that it is difficult to maintain anti laser countermeasures, but it isn't impossible. I posit that lasers are sufficiently cheap in usage you can cost effectively cripple their economy and logistics. Military bases will indeed often have their own power supply, but PV-panels are vulnerable against lasers and generators require fuel. If you can simply intercept all road traffic to and from the base, how long until they can no longer run their generators? But you needn't disable all military bases to make them a non-threat: you just need to disable the ones with anti-orbital weaponry and those providing targeting data. The other bases might be nice and fortified, but can't strike back and are therefore not a threat to the orbital forces conducting the siege.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 8:22:03 GMT
If we concider that there are permanent bases on/around mercury, we can assume that technology is mature enough to build completely self sufficient bases a kilometer or two (or more) below a planets surface, as well as transportation systems that lie just as deep. The main limitation of these bases would be power, but due to being far underground, they would have access to abundant and efficient geothermal power and large quantities of fissile materials. There would be no ob panels or roads to target. Destroying surface infrastructure would have no effect.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 8:36:02 GMT
If we concider that there are permanent bases on/around mercury, we can assume that technology is mature enough to build completely self sufficient bases a kilometer or two (or more) below a planets surface, as well as transportation systems that lie just as deep. The main limitation of these bases would be power, but due to being far underground, they would have access to abundant and efficient geothermal power and large quantities of fissile materials. There would be no ob panels or roads to target. Destroying surface infrastructure would have no effect. Sensors for anti-orbital weapons would be located at the surface. If you're located that deep in a geologically active celestial body, you'll need some way to carry away waste heat. These waste disposal units would lie closer to the surface (but still out of easy reach of lasers). I didn't say lasers would be the only weapon type,just that they would be the first line of offense. Destroying orbital, aerial, and surface assets blinds the enemy and leaves them vulnerable to other weapon systems.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on May 10, 2017 10:11:03 GMT
Well said, bigbombr . Properly designed, mature laser systems can be fired for near-zero additional cost, whilst a each crate of orbital bombardment railgun shells is quite finite in number and subject to the rocket equation (even if we cheat really hard with our MPD cruise mode ships); thus any given fleet commander would prefer to use the laser systems first and only kinetics when the laser simply won't do. As thorneel explained, the requirements for a successful invasion could vary; sometimes taking the orbitals is all you need to force a surrender - but remember, optimistic projections have a way of going horrifically wrong. I'd rather plan and prepare for fanatical zealotry levels of resistance and be greeted with gently falling flowers rather than the converse.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 10:28:17 GMT
Well said, bigbombr . Properly designed, mature laser systems can be fired for near-zero additional cost, whilst a each crate of orbital bombardment railgun shells is quite finite in number and subject to the rocket equation (even if we cheat really hard with our MPD cruise mode ships); thus any given fleet commander would prefer to use the laser systems first and only kinetics when the laser simply won't do. As thorneel explained, the requirements for a successful invasion could vary; sometimes taking the orbitals is all you need to force a surrender - but remember, optimistic projections have a way of going horrifically wrong. I'd rather plan and prepare for fanatical zealotry levels of resistance and be greeted with gently falling flowers rather than the converse. True, a lot depends on circumstances and your goals. Occupation is not cost-effective, as the Middle East has shown. Occupying a major celestial body would prohibitively expensive, and whatever allied government you've put in place is likely to crumble as soon as your troops leave. Resources are a poor motivation for an invasion as those can be acquired elsewhere at less expense. So what remains as a reason for a ground invasion? What I proposed was purely to break your opponent's interplanetary capability and cripple or remove their presence in space, meaning they're neutralized as a threat.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 10:35:06 GMT
Well said, bigbombr . Properly designed, mature laser systems can be fired for near-zero additional cost, whilst a each crate of orbital bombardment railgun shells is quite finite in number and subject to the rocket equation (even if we cheat really hard with our MPD cruise mode ships); thus any given fleet commander would prefer to use the laser systems first and only kinetics when the laser simply won't do. As thorneel explained, the requirements for a successful invasion could vary; sometimes taking the orbitals is all you need to force a surrender - but remember, optimistic projections have a way of going horrifically wrong. I'd rather plan and prepare for fanatical zealotry levels of resistance and be greeted with gently falling flowers rather than the converse. True, a lot depends on circumstances and your goals. Occupation is not cost-effective, as the Middle East has shown. Occupying a major celestial body would prohibitively expensive, and whatever allied government you've put in place is likely to crumble as soon as your troops leave. Resources are a poor motivation for an invasion as those can be acquired elsewhere at less expense. So what remains as a reason for a ground invasion? What I proposed was purely to break your opponent's interplanetary capability and cripple or remove their presence in space, meaning they're neutralized as a threat. In that case, long range KEP bombardment is more than sufficient. Screw sending a fleet, just launch a few dozen tons of 1kg longrod penetrators going about 1.7Mm/s at the target and be done with it. They would be basically impossible to stop and devastating to the ground based ecology and infrastructure. If they are still interplanetary capable, send another few tons.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 11:05:52 GMT
True, a lot depends on circumstances and your goals. Occupation is not cost-effective, as the Middle East has shown. Occupying a major celestial body would prohibitively expensive, and whatever allied government you've put in place is likely to crumble as soon as your troops leave. Resources are a poor motivation for an invasion as those can be acquired elsewhere at less expense. So what remains as a reason for a ground invasion? What I proposed was purely to break your opponent's interplanetary capability and cripple or remove their presence in space, meaning they're neutralized as a threat. In that case, long range KEP bombardment is more than sufficient. Screw sending a fleet, just launch a few dozen tons of 1kg longrod penetrators going about 1.7Mm/s at the target and be done with it. They would be basically impossible to stop and devastating to the ground based ecology and infrastructure. If they are still interplanetary capable, send another few tons. Your rounds would be underway for a while. How would you deal with their returning fire and their attempts at deflecting your projectiles? And can you achieve sufficient accuracy without forward deployed spotters? Those spotters would be quite vulnerable. I think you'd wish to degrade their observational capabilities as much as possible to make retaliation and deflection ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 11:18:32 GMT
In that case, long range KEP bombardment is more than sufficient. Screw sending a fleet, just launch a few dozen tons of 1kg longrod penetrators going about 1.7Mm/s at the target and be done with it. They would be basically impossible to stop and devastating to the ground based ecology and infrastructure. If they are still interplanetary capable, send another few tons. Your rounds would be underway for a while. How would you deal with their returning fire and their attempts at deflecting your projectiles? And can you achieve sufficient accuracy without forward deployed spotters? Those spotters would be quite vulnerable. I think you'd wish to degrade their observational capabilities as much as possible to make retaliation and deflection ineffective. Sure, they'll be under way for a while, allowing for retaliation strikes. But then nukes today have the same problem and they're still the mainstay WMD. To pre-empt retaliation, simply don't tell the target you're firing. As for detection and deflection: How are you going to detect <5cm diameter, 1Kg rounds travelling at 1.7Mm/s? Sure, they'll glow for a bit after being fired, but by the time they come into detection range (which takes some time as you pointed out) they'll be extremely cold. And even if you detect them, how will you deflect them? Sure, lasers can cause them to drift off course, but you'd need big lasers to effect something with such a small cross-section at a range where the laser can divert them efficiently. Regardless if they can be countered, you could just fire enough to overwhelm the defences. Carbon is cheap (I used graphene in my 1.7Mm/s 1kg rod launcher), so hurling a few hundred or even thousand tons at a target isn't an issue. Better yet, make some of the rods out of a fissile material and get a few Kt of extra bang.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 11:46:51 GMT
Your rounds would be underway for a while. How would you deal with their returning fire and their attempts at deflecting your projectiles? And can you achieve sufficient accuracy without forward deployed spotters? Those spotters would be quite vulnerable. I think you'd wish to degrade their observational capabilities as much as possible to make retaliation and deflection ineffective. Sure, they'll be under way for a while, allowing for retaliation strikes. But then nukes today have the same problem and they're still the mainstay WMD. To pre-empt retaliation, simply don't tell the target you're firing. As for detection and deflection: How are you going to detect <5cm diameter, 1Kg rounds travelling at 1.7Mm/s? Sure, they'll glow for a bit after being fired, but by the time they come into detection range (which takes some time as you pointed out) they'll be extremely cold. And even if you detect them, how will you deflect them? Sure, lasers can cause them to drift off course, but you'd need big lasers to effect something with such a small cross-section at a range where the laser can divert them efficiently. Regardless if they can be countered, you could just fire enough to overwhelm the defences. Carbon is cheap (I used graphene in my 1.7Mm/s 1kg rod launcher), so hurling a few hundred or even thousand tons at a target isn't an issue. Better yet, make some of the rods out of a fissile material and get a few Kt of extra bang. That can only be done from a body with negligible atmosphere, towards a body with negligible atmosphere. Otherwise, you'd need bigger, slower slugs/rods. And carbon might be cheap, but lasers are cheaper. How would I detect them? I'd not detect the projectiles (at first), I'd probably first detect their launcher (coilgun or railgun is not terribly relevant, though coilguns can be more efficient, resulting in less waste heat). Aiming and firing a weapon system of this size is not exactly subtle. That's the point at which I'd return fire. I'd try to send recon probes forward, to detect and track the enemy projectiles ASAP. As for interception, I'd expect any superpower at that point to have a lasernet around their main celestial bodies, the same way modern superpowers have an interlocking defense grid of navy, coastguard, anti-air batteries, airforce and more. Extending it's range by flinging mirror drones towards the enemy projectiles would seem trivial. Just like modern defenses, it certainly wouldn't be perfect, but you'd be able to retaliate and you'd be able to nearly negate an attack by a group/nation that has less military assets than you do. As far as superpower-to-superpower warfare is concerned, MAD still applies. Even if one side 'wins' and survives, it would be so weakened it would no longer be a major power. An excellent example of this is the European superpowers (let's include the Ottoman Empire) after the two world wars: they'd gone from controlling the majority of the planet to greatly weakened states, with some of them even ceasing to exist. This is modern warfare. Even the victor loses.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 12:59:58 GMT
Sure, they'll be under way for a while, allowing for retaliation strikes. But then nukes today have the same problem and they're still the mainstay WMD. To pre-empt retaliation, simply don't tell the target you're firing. As for detection and deflection: How are you going to detect <5cm diameter, 1Kg rounds travelling at 1.7Mm/s? Sure, they'll glow for a bit after being fired, but by the time they come into detection range (which takes some time as you pointed out) they'll be extremely cold. And even if you detect them, how will you deflect them? Sure, lasers can cause them to drift off course, but you'd need big lasers to effect something with such a small cross-section at a range where the laser can divert them efficiently. Regardless if they can be countered, you could just fire enough to overwhelm the defences. Carbon is cheap (I used graphene in my 1.7Mm/s 1kg rod launcher), so hurling a few hundred or even thousand tons at a target isn't an issue. Better yet, make some of the rods out of a fissile material and get a few Kt of extra bang. That can only be done from a body with negligible atmosphere, towards a body with negligible atmosphere. Otherwise, you'd need bigger, slower slugs/rods. And carbon might be cheap, but lasers are cheaper. How would I detect them? I'd not detect the projectiles (at first), I'd probably first detect their launcher (coilgun or railgun is not terribly relevant, though coilguns can be more efficient, resulting in less waste heat). Aiming and firing a weapon system of this size is not exactly subtle. That's the point at which I'd return fire. I'd try to send recon probes forward, to detect and track the enemy projectiles ASAP. As for interception, I'd expect any superpower at that point to have a lasernet around their main celestial bodies, the same way modern superpowers have an interlocking defense grid of navy, coastguard, anti-air batteries, airforce and more. Extending it's range by flinging mirror drones towards the enemy projectiles would seem trivial. Just like modern defenses, it certainly wouldn't be perfect, but you'd be able to retaliate and you'd be able to nearly negate an attack by a group/nation that has less military assets than you do. As far as superpower-to-superpower warfare is concerned, MAD still applies. Even if one side 'wins' and survives, it would be so weakened it would no longer be a major power. An excellent example of this is the European superpowers (let's include the Ottoman Empire) after the two world wars: they'd gone from controlling the majority of the planet to greatly weakened states, with some of them even ceasing to exist. This is modern warfare. Even the victor loses. Okay, so following scenario: I'm europa, and have a "defence platform" somewhere in Jupiter's SOI with said hyper velocity railguns. After making sure no one is close enough to the guns to see which way they're firing I fire a salvo at earth. Even if someone sees the guns firing, they probably won't assume an attack without a declaration of war. It'll probably be fairly common to use defence platforms to clear debris or meteors, so they'll probably assume that this is what's happening. Thus earth will have little to no warning because they can't see the flash and nobody that can will think that earth is under attack. At that point it is unlikely that the rods, being as small and fast as they are, will be detected until just before impact a few years later, making an intercept or deflection impossible. As for lasers being cheaper: how is hauling several thousand tuns of material and equipment to earth to build a orbital laser net to destroy interplanetary capability and then dismantling and redistributing what's left afterwards cheaper than just throwing a few thousand tons of stuff at the planet? The KEPs need no workers or fuel. Laser nets do. As for the atmosphere: The projectile would pass through the upper atmosphere to quickly for large effects on the projectile. The real problem is disintegration on impact of the inner atmosphere where the density is above .02kg/m^3. I this environment, the projectile would completely disintegrate in less than a minute. Luckily, the projectile passes through this layer of the atmosphere in less than half a minute. Sure, there'll be some ablation losses, but with a cross-section of less than .008m^2 (currently at .0041m^2 for my smallest achieved cross-sections) and a cross-sectional density of more than 125kg/m^2 these projectiles will punch right through the atmosphere. Even if they did disintegrate in the atmosphere, you're still effectively bombarding the planet with several million 300 to 600 ton airburst bombs. Spreading out the arrival times over a period of 1 day, would result in almost all surface structures being destroyed. If you're still unconvinced: I limited my rail length to 10Km. If you do not limit rail length and consider that specially formed armatures accelerating payloads of cheaper and denser material cost less and can accelerate the projectile faster without it shattering, it is not unfeasible to create a railgun capable of accelerating a 10kg slug to somewhere between .05% and 1%c. These projectiles would certainly wreak havoc on the surface and would be even harder to intercept.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 15:05:09 GMT
Okay, so following scenario: I'm europa, and have a "defence platform" somewhere in Jupiter's SOI with said hyper velocity railguns. After making sure no one is close enough to the guns to see which way they're firing I fire a salvo at earth. Even if someone sees the guns firing, they probably won't assume an attack without a declaration of war. It'll probably be fairly common to use defence platforms to clear debris or meteors, so they'll probably assume that this is what's happening. Thus earth will have little to no warning because they can't see the flash and nobody that can will think that earth is under attack. At that point it is unlikely that the rods, being as small and fast as they are, will be detected until just before impact a few years later, making an intercept or deflection impossible. Using projectile weapons to clear orbits is like cleaning the street of discarded glass bottles with machine guns. Deflecting debris by laser results in less objects in unpredicted orbits than shattering them with kinetics. Furthermore, kinetics require ammunition, lasers do not. Therefore, routine debris field/orbit cleaning would probably be done by laser. Lasers are a swiss army knife, projectile weapons are sledgehammers. If you start flinging projectiles around that isn't scheduled cargo by mass driver, everyone will assume it's an act of war. As for lasers being cheaper: how is hauling several thousand tuns of material and equipment to earth to build a orbital laser net to destroy interplanetary capability and then dismantling and redistributing what's left afterwards cheaper than just throwing a few thousand tons of stuff at the planet? The KEPs need no workers or fuel. Laser nets do. If your celestial body has little to no atmosphere, no lasers in orbit are needed for defense purposes (except if you want additional redundancy), only focusing mirrors. A few dozen tons in orbit is sufficient. For offensive systems, most of the weight would actually be power generation and radiators. Assembly in orbit seems feasible. As for the atmosphere: The projectile would pass through the upper atmosphere to quickly for large effects on the projectile. The real problem is disintegration on impact of the inner atmosphere where the density is above .02kg/m^3. I this environment, the projectile would completely disintegrate in less than a minute. Luckily, the projectile passes through this layer of the atmosphere in less than half a minute. Sure, there'll be some ablation losses, but with a cross-section of less than .008m^2 (currently at .0041m^2 for my smallest achieved cross-sections) and a cross-sectional density of more than 125kg/m^2 these projectiles will punch right through the atmosphere. Even if they did disintegrate in the atmosphere, you're still effectively bombarding the planet with several million 300 to 600 ton airburst bombs. Spreading out the arrival times over a period of 1 day, would result in almost all surface structures being destroyed. If you're still unconvinced: I limited my rail length to 10Km. If you do not limit rail length and consider that specially formed armatures accelerating payloads of cheaper and denser material cost less and can accelerate the projectile faster without it shattering, it is not unfeasible to create a railgun capable of accelerating a 10kg slug to somewhere between .05% and 1%c. These projectiles would certainly wreak havoc on the surface and would be even harder to intercept. We're comparing a defense system that has only a few dozen tons in orbit to something that large? Even if you build it out of graphene, how heavy would it be? If it's build on a celestial body with noticeable gravity, how would you aim it without having it collapse under it's own weight? If such a monstrosity can be build in orbit, imagine the kind of orbital laser defenses and early warning systems that can be build for the same mass. I will concede, however, that the projectiles would be much more capable of surviving atmospheric reentry than I first assumed.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 15:20:11 GMT
In that case, long range KEP bombardment is more than sufficient. Screw sending a fleet, just launch a few dozen tons of 1kg longrod penetrators going about 1.7Mm/s at the target and be done with it. They would be basically impossible to stop and devastating to the ground based ecology and infrastructure. If they are still interplanetary capable, send another few tons. Also, this assumes there is no permanent orbital settlement/infrastructure/assets capable of retaliation, which with the technology and massive resources assumed to be present seems to be a dangerous assumption.
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on May 10, 2017 16:35:52 GMT
Those rail guns are heavy and expensive, true. And they are probably not going to be used. I concede, it would be stupid to invest billions if not trillions of credits worth of materials and work into such a powerful but impractical weapon, that will only be used once or twice and the use of which will probably assure mutual destruction if used.
Apart from that: On an individual basis, setting up lasers is more efficient than the railguns, but if you plan to attack multiple settlements, it quickly becomes cheaper to shoot kinetics at them, than to fly lasers everywhere. As for orbital structures, if you saturate the surface of the planet with several thousands to millions of projectiles, chances are you'll destroy a large percentage of the orbital infrastructure. Without the surface to support them, the rest will quickly shut down.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on May 10, 2017 18:52:41 GMT
Those rail guns are heavy and expensive, true. And they are probably not going to be used. I concede, it would be stupid to invest billions if not trillions of credits worth of materials and work into such a powerful but impractical weapon, that will only be used once or twice and the use of which will probably assure mutual destruction if used. Apart from that: On an individual basis, setting up lasers is more efficient than the railguns, but if you plan to attack multiple settlements, it quickly becomes cheaper to shoot kinetics at them, than to fly lasers everywhere. As for orbital structures, if you saturate the surface of the planet with several thousands to millions of projectiles, chances are you'll destroy a large percentage of the orbital infrastructure. Without the surface to support them, the rest will quickly shut down. Most 'warships' would probably use lasers though, so you have access to laserstars. As you stated earlier, people don't always use what's best, they'll use what they have available. My reasoning is that laserstars can clear orbits of debris at low cost and can be used for law enforcement. With kinetics, you either shred their hull or you don't. With lasers, you can disable sensors, radiators, weapon mounts, ... without endangering the crew. Scalability of force. For short wars, kinetics would be more cost-effective. But modern conflict doesn't seem to end swiftly, instead dragging on for years (the various wars in the Middle East, the Krim-conflict, the many insurgencies all over the world, ...). And what if the opposition has submarines? They can easily be equipped with anti-satellite missiles, though target acquisition and tracking might prove challenging. But they'd be a pain to hunt down and destroy from orbit, and making planetfall would end up like Irak, but a thousandfold. So, as far as I can tell, any conflict either boils down to convincing the enemy to surrender, genocide or sustained bombardement of their infrastructure, logistics and economy until they no longer have the resources, logistics and production capability required for space warfare. The last one boils down to genocide, as crippling transportation like this means densely populated cities starve, hospitals run out of supplies and life support (if needed) might cease to function due to a lack of power and spare parts.
|
|