Expensive Quality VS Cheap Quantity Space Battles

[Bab5space]

Which do you think is superior, given similar tech for both opponents?

If one opponent nation went all in for mass produced cheap space vehicles, would that not beat one that produced a limited number of heavily armed spacecraft ?

Scenario is a space battle only, from deep interplanetary space to orbital battle.

No planetary bonbardment.

 

[Vanadium 50]

How long is a piece of string?

You're asking us to compare "cheap" and "expensive", "many" and "limited number" for an unspecified level of technology. I think you can get any answer you want.

 

[Bab5space]

How long is a piece of string?

You're asking us to compare "cheap" and "expensive", "many" and "limited number" for an unspecified level of technology. I think you can get any answer you want.

I do not think a tech scale is necessary given the environment.

But let's use IRL for example.

At longe range lasers can mission kill a target by burning through engines.

At short range conventional weaponry (guns and missiles) would be most effective assuming speed and vector are roughly equal.
If not, there are only milliseconds of fly-by strafing anway, lending the battle to lasers again.Even so, a laser cannot fire indefinitely, and a large quantity of cheaper spacefraft can actually use disabled craft as shields to absorb laser fire to close the gap of distance toward the more expensve laser battleship. When it does, even cheap stuff can disable or kill it, if it hits.

 

[member 656954]

mass produced cheap space vehicles

How fast can these cheap space vehicles accelerate a chunk of metal up to? Because it's hard to dodge fast moving objects and they pack a punch.

heavily armed spacecraft

How heavily armed are these ships? Sufficient to absorb the kinetic strike from the cheap and cheerful opponents? Or lasers? And what type of firepower do they have? Can they fire fast enough and broadly enough to hit lots of opponents at once?

Basically, you can swing your story either way, just by tweaking the ship attributes or ratios of manufacturing output.

 

[Bab5space]

How fast can these cheap space vehicles accelerate a chunk of metal up to? Because it's hard to dodge fast moving objects and they pack a punch.
How heavily armed are these ships? Sufficient to absorb the kinetic strike from the cheap and cheerful opponents? Or lasers? And what type of firepower do they have? Can they fire fast enough and broadly enough to hit lots of opponents at once?

Basically, you can swing your story either way, just by tweaking the ship attributes or ratios of manufacturing output.

I am implying that regardless of how an author may want to swing it, the physics favors quantity over quality... no matter the tech level assuming both fighter roughly equal tech.

A few well armored and armed battleships will be clobbered by a fleet of oncoming fighters if they can close the distance.

Which is possible by usibg shot up fighters as body shields. Lasers only burn holes through stuff, they won't blast stuff as depicted in scifi unless overpowered to begin with.

Which means a fighter will be floating kinetic potential after being mission killed, usable as a makeshift shield for still operational fighters behind it. Grappling arms could hold onto killed fighters

At long range tight formations of fighters make this possible. At close range they would have to break up since enemy kinetics hitting them wpuld wreck the formation anyway.

 

[member 656954]

a fleet of oncoming fighters

Aha, seems you've something in mind that your OP does not describe. "Fighters" in space are flying coffins for the pilots - if manually directed - or easily avoided if AI directed. Unless you've an unobtanium fuel source, their ability to engage from a distance, maneuver up close, and return to base is really limited and they'd be sitting ducks for a barrage of rubble coming at them from the larger craft, as you noted.

makeshift shield for still operational fighters behind it. Grappling arms could hold onto killed fighters

How close together are they flying? Space is big, any 'shield' of this kind is going to have so many holes as to be ineffective. As for the grappling arms, that's gunna be an interesting dynamical phenomenon for the still active craft to 'grapple' with. Besides which, who is going to have time to hook up in the midst of a space battle, no matter how far or close you are?

 

[Vanadium 50]

wanna

Is not a word. If you want to be an author, I recommend using words.

In your example above, I would argue that your expensive ships have impenetrable shields and perfect targeting with unlimited firepower. They will make mincemeat of your cheap ships.

If you want to argue "my universe doesn't have this tech", that's your prerogative, but that's what I objected to in my earlier message. "I have some unstated assumptions, guess them!" is a game that is very, very boring.

 

[member 656954]

[wanna] Is not a word. If you want to be an author, I recommend using words.

Wanna is actually an informal contraction of 'want to' and is recognized in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it's not clear to me that the OP is for a story idea or a working novel and Post #5 (the wanna post) suggests this as well, with the "an author" comment.

Might just be me, but nothing in the discussion seems to be iterating to a specific story idea that @Bab5space might be working on, it's just a point-of-view post with unstated assumptions popping up to steer the conversation to the outcome the posters prefers.

 

[BWV]

What has actual military history demonstrated with tanks or aircraft? Why was the T-34 the most successful tank design on WW2?

 

[member 656954]

What has actual military history demonstrated with tanks or aircraft?

That is a common paradigm for space battles - WWII in orbit, essentially - but it's not obvious this will directly translate. With warfare on Earth, big or small seems to depend on how asymmetrical the fighting is. We know that small, technologically unsophisticated attacks can cripple civilian populations - take out a water supply, choke the roads, ground the planes, etc. - and we've seen how drones can be more effective for certain military tasks than more expensive hardware / on-the-ground specialists. Air support can decimate land-based weapons, no matter how hardened they are, but missiles can then take out the aircraft, depending on the plane vs. missiles capability.

In space, very small, stealthed, very fast moving shells would likely destroy any craft via kinetic energy transfer and unless your story has a fuel source so delta-v dense that it allows last minute jinks of a ship to avoid such hits (and the sensor capability to detect them), the readily calculated trajectories of moving from 'a' to 'b' in space make such strikes a near certainty. And despite how large the universe is, it's hard to hide in the local system, and that works both ways. So a ship is a sitting duck for a projectile because you can track the ship quite easily, but so is a fixed weapon, on an asteroid or a 'weapons platform', so that weapon is in an orbit that can be calculated down to the multiple decimal point.

Other tech is equally sketchy. Take space mines. They'd need to so saturate a volume that they'd be easily detected. They might work at the exit of a fixed jump point in a hyperspace story or around the entry point to a fixed base, but it would be easy enough to send a dummy object through and set the mines off before bringing the main fleet through, so they are of limited effectiveness. Plus, blast pressure has little effect in space, so a mine has to pretty much go off right next to the target to effect damage.

It's still fun to write / read about and many sci-fi novels are based on such concepts as fighters, battleships, submarines, carriers, frigates, etc., but space is such an inimical environment and the distances between habitats so vast that unlike on Earth, even a minor mechanical or environmental fault/damage would be tragic for the crew involved. Probably submariners are the closest in terms of psychological pressure to space warfare, but even that is not a direct comparison.

 

[hmmm27]

Generally - all else being equal (species, budget, manpower, tech level, locale parameters) - if starting from a clean slate, both sides will choose the same(ish) solution set, barring political interference.

So, any asymmetric (assetwise) battles are going to be very dependent on asymmetric external variables.

In regards many cheap weaponized minnows against an expensive shark... with any luck the spacecops come along and fine with-extreme-prejudice the crap out of both parties for littering.

 

[essenmein]

Which do you think is superior, given similar tech for both opponents?

If one opponent nation went all in for mass produced cheap space vehicles, would that not beat one that produced a limited number of heavily armed spacecraft ?

Scenario is a space battle only, from deep interplanetary space to orbital battle.

No planetary bonbardment.

I'd look at it basically like game mechanics. What it ultimately comes down to is damage per second*number of units then factor in range and velocity.

If you have one unit that has large health and large DPS, vs large number of smaller units with less health and DPS. You would then have to make some assumptions, it might be reasonable to say that the larger one has more range and less speed than the smaller ships. Then is each shot from the big one massive overkill or does it take a few hits to knock out the enemy? If the over kill situation is true, then each shot is wasting a lot of damage that could be used on other enemies etc.

So then the larger one can fire on the smaller ones before fire can be returned. So with some math you could work out how many of the smaller units are killed before they can engage, then when both sides are firing the smart thing for the big one is to concentrate fire to quickly reduce the numbers of the smaller craft firing on it rather than spreading out the damage evenly and having slightly damaged units remain in the fight and still shoot.

Then its likely weapon power follows some sort of cubic power law, so the when you double the diameter of say a spherical warhead you get 8 times more volume for explody stuff. This alone would likely put a lower size limit on ships that can do any damage at all to the larger ships. Think bugs on a wind shield, since each bug splatting on the wind shield is not able to damage the windshield, basically the world could throw infinity bugs at it and you'd have a messy but intact windshield. Which reminds me of a quote from a famous captain:

"Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it. On my command all ships will line up and file directly into the alien death cannons, clogging them with wreckage. " - Zapp Brannigan.

Ultimately though the tech you envisage for your world will be a far larger influence on potential tactics than anything else. Can one small ship with stealth sneak up on a big one and place an antimatter bomb on the hull? Do the big ships have amazing sensors and flak cannons or shields that make it impossible for any small object to get close then the only thing might take them out would be capital ship vs capital ship.

 

[BWV]

Generally - all else being equal (species, budget, manpower, tech level, locale parameters) - if starting from a clean slate, both sides will choose the same(ish) solution set, barring political interference.

So, any asymmetric (assetwise) battles are going to be very dependent on asymmetric external variables.

In regards many cheap weaponized minnows against an expensive shark... with any luck the spacecops come along and fine with-extreme-prejudice the crap out of both parties for littering.

every major power at the start of WW2 had a different tank doctrine, some of which was politics, but primarily because it was an unknown. Germany had the correct operational doctrine but its individual tanks were often inferior to the allies. It took the actual feedback of losing battles to force all the participants to adopt more or less the same design and operational philosophy by the end of the war. if writing fiction, these dynamics give a potential source of interest and drama lost if conflict is treated like a video game where the players know the rules with a certainty that does not exist in the real world

 

[Bab5space]

I'd look at it basically like game mechanics. What it ultimately comes down to is damage per second*number of units then factor in range and velocity.

If you have one unit that has large health and large DPS, vs large number of smaller units with less health and DPS. You would then have to make some assumptions, it might be reasonable to say that the larger one has more range and less speed than the smaller ships. Then is each shot from the big one massive overkill or does it take a few hits to knock out the enemy? If the over kill situation is true, then each shot is wasting a lot of damage that could be used on other enemies etc.

So then the larger one can fire on the smaller ones before fire can be returned. So with some math you could work out how many of the smaller units are killed before they can engage, then when both sides are firing the smart thing for the big one is to concentrate fire to quickly reduce the numbers of the smaller craft firing on it rather than spreading out the damage evenly and having slightly damaged units remain in the fight and still shoot.

Then its likely weapon power follows some sort of cubic power law, so the when you double the diameter of say a spherical warhead you get 8 times more volume for explody stuff. This alone would likely put a lower size limit on ships that can do any damage at all to the larger ships. Think bugs on a wind shield, since each bug splatting on the wind shield is not able to damage the windshield, basically the world could throw infinity bugs at it and you'd have a messy but intact windshield. Which reminds me of a quote from a famous captain:

"Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it. On my command all ships will line up and file directly into the alien death cannons, clogging them with wreckage. " - Zapp Brannigan.

Ultimately though the tech you envisage for your world will be a far larger influence on potential tactics than anything else. Can one small ship with stealth sneak up on a big one and place an antimatter bomb on the hull? Do the big ships have amazing sensors and flak cannons or shields that make it impossible for any small object to get close then the only thing might take them out would be capital ship vs capital ship.

Actually, I was somewhat wrong. Here is my modified view. Using current science understanding and current physucs limits.

Deep space battle? Big ship is preferred. Why? Propellant, little ships will take forever to get anywhere unless they are mini orion pusher plates (which don't scale down too super small levels).

Either way in deep space, a big propellant laden ship can afford to manever a lot more than a smaller one with a smaller propellant budget. I deep space distances are likely to be so huge between combatants that you may as well trade fighters for missiles.

Low orbit space battle? This is a total kill zone. Since spacraft orbit Earth every 90 min. It is relatively easy to shoot down satellites, and spaceships are much bigger targets. Did you know their are jet aircraft that can fire a missile into space a hit a satellite? Imagine what a whole volley of missiles would do to Star Destroyer WITHOUT scifi shields flying AGAINST the direction of the orbit? Hitting stuff flying toward you at 8 km per sec is serious business. And much worse can be done (nukes). So all those scifi tropes of Earth not having legit space defense just because they lack orbital weapons platforms are untrue.

The only way Earth won't be a problem for a big spaceship in LEO is if:

A: The ship has lots of propellant and thrust to jyst dodge missiles for days. Umfortunately... Earth has lots of missiles, so you may run out of propelkant before Earth runs out of missiles.

B: Scifi shields that can somehow tank missiles hitting you as slam into them,at 8 km per sec or higher.

C: Your cooling mechanisms are so good you can vaporize missiles regularly before they hit with lasers.

So you need one of those in LEO or if you're a big ship you're dead. Fighters are better for LEO actually.

Scifi scenarios: Often spaceships jump out of warp/hyperspace with a speed and trajectory autoshifted to match other nearby spacecraft . Thus relative tp each other they are standing still. In that case which ship is better deoends purely on DPS and range and nothing more.

Can you jump within a few kilometers or a few meters? If a few meters... big ships are preffered, as they can take more DPS and dish it out too. If several kilometers is the jump range then fighters and missiles can rule again... why? The kinetic energy they gain from acceleration alone will increase their DPS to kill big ships anyway.

 

[member 656954]

Honestly, @Bab5space, you can write it however you want to. It's science fiction after all.

But if you are intending a hard science fiction story, then interstellar space warfare is probably a non-starter because you don't have FTL, which means you're into The Expanse territory - local territory disputes, essentially, with a lot of politics muddying the waters. Any serious conflict against a planet will have to include bombardment - it really is a convincing demonstration of intent and capability. Kinetic strikes on a major city would take the fight out of the general population really quickly because there is very little they can do sitting down the bottom of a gravity well.

That's the asymmetric aspect I mentioned in a previous post. Heinlein conveyed this really well in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but if you've any type of asteroid-based society, they'll be able to fling a reasonable sized rock at Earth (Mars, Venus, the Moon, etc.) and there would be previous little that could be done to stop it. And Earth can't duck!

So, write it up however you want, use whatever methods you want - handwavium, unobtanium - because if you make the cast compelling, the action engaging, and the plot interesting, people will read it forgive that it's fiction based on impossible science.

 

[Bab5space]

Honestly, @Bab5space, you can write it however you want to. It's science fiction after all.

But if you are intending a hard science fiction story, then interstellar space warfare is probably a non-starter because you don't have FTL, which means you're into The Expanse territory - local territory disputes, essentially, with a lot of politics muddying the waters. Any serious conflict against a planet will have to include bombardment - it really is a convincing demonstration of intent and capability. Kinetic strikes on a major city would take the fight out of the general population really quickly because there is very little they can do sitting down the bottom of a gravity well.

That's the asymmetric aspect I mentioned in a previous post. Heinlein conveyed this really well in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but if you've any type of asteroid-based society, they'll be able to fling a reasonable sized rock at Earth (Mars, Venus, the Moon, etc.) and there would be previous little that could be done to stop it. And Earth can't duck!

So, write it up however you want, use whatever methods you want - handwavium, unobtanium - because if you make the cast compelling, the action engaging, and the plot interesting, people will read it forgive that it's fiction based on impossible science.

I know, I was merely showing how scifi space combat would be with certain amounts of realism added.

The most realistic scifi battles I have seen on TV just ignore the orbital speed differences or autoshift speed and trajectory, lending battles to be Newtonian slugfests.

Which missiles would rule if any modicum of reality eas applied, since in scifi big ships usually have one big forward gun and plenty of of blindspots a missile could hit.

Reality of the situation applied? A big ship's hull would be covered with gun barrels shooting flack, only leaving bare ports for docking. That'ts the only way to survivr a close range Newtonian slugfest.

 

[essenmein]

The "how war would actually happen given certain technologies" has been the most interesting part of thinking about my little story as well.

The best thing I can come up with regarding having tech in a world like FTL, FTL communications and antimatter weapons that doesn't just result in jumping radio controlled planet killing AM bombs inside enemy planets are treaties much like START and INF because the both sides of the conflict realize that as soon as someone does wield them its MAD (ie mutually assure destruction), or, the key aspect to surviving is not being found at all costs.

 

[stefan r]

Colloidal gold nanoparticles in retrograde orbit should be ideal for planetary orbit space. You get fratricide but there will be full Kessler syndrome regardless of the type of ships involved. Heavier shielding just makes Kessler syndrome worse because more mass is involved. At orbital velocities small particles still penetrate. You only need pin holes to drain fuel tanks. A small thin gold smear will still short circuit electronics. A ton of microgram particles is a trillion projectiles. Damaged hardware becomes extra ammunition.
Kessler syndrome may not be much fun in a story. I would recommend reviewing the game paper-scissors-rock or paper-scissors-rock-lizard-Spock. Set up the story so that each strategy works against something and fails against the other.
Consider F22 raptor flown by AI, P-51 mustangs flown by humans, and plywood/ plastic propellor craft guided by laptops. The first costs hundreds to thousand times as much as the p-51 which also costs hundreds of time as much as the cheap WW1 equivalent drones. An F22 only carries 400 bullets and a rack of missiles. A swarm of 100,000 can fly through and trash the airstrips and support grounding the F22 and damaging any on the ground. The p-51 pilots would have a really bad day getting stalked by an F22 even if they were in a large formation.