Misconceptions about space battles

Hello. This is a translation of the article " Misconceptions about Space Warfare " from the blog of the creator of the game Children of Dead Earth - the most realistic space simulator at the moment.

There are many misconceptions about space in general, and in particular about the battles in space, and I'm going to dispel some of them. And I will tell you how these very cosmic battles take place - step by step.

Invisibility in space

Zero error - no, in space it is impossible to hide, let alone use invisibility in battle. This is possible with the help of some hypothetical technologies, but in fact it does not make sense due to limitations on the mass and cost of ships.


Anti-aircraft guns are trying to shoot down flying missiles. The rockets are marked with red dots, as they are too far away to see them with the naked eye.

Rockets

Now the first is a real misconception. Will missiles dominate space battles after being launched from a distance of hundreds and thousands of kilometers? Is the real exchange of shells never happen in reality?

The answer is no. There is a predominant hypothesis that missiles will soon be the only effective weapon in space battles, as evidenced by the current trends in modern weapons. ATGMs have already turned over tank battles, and anti-ship missiles are doing the same in the navy. Extrapolating this trend, we will come to the conclusion that space battles will soon turn into an exchange of missiles from a long distance.

But it is not. Anti-aircraft guns and automatic guidance systems are already shifting the balance away from rocket attacks. As I suggested in an earlier post - military strategies in naval battles will soon make full circle and return back to battleship battles - as in the First World War. I'm not saying that rockets are useless, on the contrary - huge volleys of rockets can overload any defense, and therefore they remain in the game.


Kanonerka immediately after hitting nuclear missiles. The first layer of spaced armor has evaporated, the inner armor glows from the heat. But the ship is still functioning.

Kinetic tools

Let's talk about the limitations of other weapons. Firearms use the energy stored in the throwing agent. But, due to the low velocity of projectiles, it cannot effectively hit fast moving targets, such as rockets. Rail guns, gauss guns and lasers are free from this drawback, but consume a huge amount of electricity. And the fact of energy consumption is limited to the mass of radiators. More power => more reactors + more radiators for cooling => more mass => less delta-V.

On the other hand, rockets are also limited in mass. A volley of 100 missiles will penetrate any defense, but the mass of these missiles will make the carrier too heavy. Ultimately, the Tsiolkovsky formula indicates how effective missiles and protection against them can be.
In the game, various types of weapons were surprisingly balanced. There is no dominant type of weapon - each type can be stronger in one combat situation and weaker in another.


The armor has cooled. Silver color - the remnants of exploded armor. Pay attention to the holes near the radiators.

Lasers

The next mistake is whether lasers will rule the battlefield? Lasers do not suffer from problems with accuracy typical for weapons with projectiles, and the laser beam moves at the speed of light, making it impossible to dodge it. Therefore, the laser - the king on the battlefield?

Not really. Lasers suffer from diffraction. Ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/diffraction. The power of lasers falls off very much with distance and frequency doubling * does not save the situation. Lasers have a much smaller effective range compared to kinetic tools. But even this is not the main problem. If you compare the damage from a collision with a hyper-velocity projectile and the damage from laser ablation, you can see a huge difference in efficiency. Where the shell splits and pierces the armor, the laser spends energy on evaporation, radiation and heating of the surrounding armor. On the other hand, at a short distance, where diffraction is no longer a problem, lasers are more effective than kinetic tools. Unfortunately, only rockets will fly up to such a distance.

But still, lasers will be useful even at a great distance and will occupy their niche in space battles. And this niche is the destruction of poorly armored parts of the ship and of individual systems. Lasers will be able to disable sticking parts of weapons, rocket nozzles, and most importantly, shoot down drones. If rockets have few vulnerable parts, then drones on the contrary - have arms protruding from under the armor and radiators vulnerable to lasers.

But if we talk about large ships, lasers can try to break through armor for days without any visible effect (I measured the ablation of monolithic armor in one place and saw that its speed was micrometers per second).


Lasers do not compare with the continuous rail guns.

AI

And finally - will computers not control all aspects of space battles?

And yes and no, but for the most part not. Already in our time, anti-aircraft guns are controlled by computers and in the game, aiming also occurs automatically. All controls in which a computer can easily find a local maximum are given to algorithms in the game. But there are many options for events in battle, where there is no obvious winning strategy, and this requires a person to make decisions. In other words - the player and the captain must choose tactics and strategy in battle. In the end, it is the decisions that are made that will lead to victory or defeat.

In the game, the player does not have to aim and shoot from the guns. You can not even fly around on the drone. All this computer can do better. And will do. And really, can a person be able to aim at a luminous point 50 kilometers and flying at a speed of 1 kilometer per second?)


Enemy ship at 30 kilometers. A person will not be able to surpass the computer in aiming at that distance. Against the background of the lights of the night city.

The person will make high-level strategic decisions. And in battle to give orders to rockets, drones and ships. Do I need to send missiles in a straight line, or it may be better to order to spend a little fuel on evasion maneuvers from anti-aircraft guns? Do I need to add radiators to reduce the thermal signature and avoid missiles? And if it cost precious firepower for a few seconds? Is it worth keeping drones in reserve near the carrier, or is it to order them to arrange a rain of fire for enemy ships?

And yet - one of the most important choices is to target on the enemy ship. Each enemy ship system is simulated in real time. Reactors generate energy, radiators dissipate heat, guns and turrets consume energy. If you want to disarm the enemy - the obvious goal is his weapon. But guns are a difficult goal, unless of course you have a laser. The destruction of radiators can be an alternative strategy — they are large and, therefore, an easy target. Despite this, they are well armored and can withstand many hits.


Exploded armor saw better times.

Orbital mechanics

But the most important thing in space battles is orbital mechanics. Of course, orbital mechanics are the main mechanics of the game, and even, although it may seem strange, combat. When the ship approaches the range of destruction of its weapon, the orbital mechanics loses its value, but everything up to this point depends on it.

The speed of convergence and the angle of entry into the battle - the two main factors on which the development of the battle depends - are entirely determined by the ability of the captain to use orbital mechanics to create an advantage. The distance to the nearest massive body (planet, moon or asteroid) has a huge impact on the speed in battle. In the appendage - avoidance maneuvers before entering the battle can be a decisive factor. If you can force the enemy to maneuver before entering the battle, losing the precious delta-V with the help of orbital maneuvers - the enemy will act less effectively in combat. And even more than that - by stretching the enemy's fuel before the fight, you can win without a single shot!


Decrease of orbit height in the game on delta-V. Low orbit forces you to spend a significant amount of fuel on attempts to intercept and evade.

Glossary

Some terms are difficult to translate literally without losing meaning, some are quite specific. And I find it necessary to bring them here.
Conventional guns - firearms. The tools in which the speed of the projectile gives the energy stored in the throwing substance.

Railgun - wikipedia.org/wiki/Relsotron
Coilgun - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushka_Gauss
Kinetic tools - all of the above.
Delta-V (Δv) - orbital maneuver characteristic speed
Whipple shield - spaced armor. The most effective mass armor for spacecraft. When meeting with an outer thin layer of armor, the projectile is crushed (or even transformed into a plasma) and then its kinetic energy is absorbed by the inner thicker layer of armor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
Frequency doubling - doubling the frequency of a laser wave in a nonlinear optical crystal. It is recommended to use in the game, since a higher laser frequency reduces scattering as a result of diffraction.
Point defense - I will translate as anti-aircraft guns, as there is no more precise definition in Russian. In real life, this term refers to small-caliber anti-aircraft guns on the ships Mark_15_Phalanx_CIWS and AK-630 .

Translator Comments

For a long time, I am annoyed by the fact that science fiction is slowly degrading to fantasy in space. In games about space - a liquid vacuum. In the movies - the feeling that the writers did not hear about the orbital mechanics. There are small vents: KSP, the Expanse series, potatoes on Mars, but this is not enough. And recently, I saw a ray of light - lozga articles about the game Children of dead Earth. After playing it, I can say that this is the most honest simulator of space battles for today. Looking for information, I found a game developer blog . And I wanted to translate this article in the hope that it will be able to open my eyes to the battles in space.

My comments on the theses of the article and a little above

Stealth in space is impossible
Yes, any maneuvering body will radiate a lot of heat and will be detected. Of course, you can disguise yourself as space junk, but only if our satellite will not do anything. But then what's the point?

Firearms
Most likely it will exist in the form of anti-aircraft guns. Here it is convenient because the energy is stored in advance in the throwing substance and does not require powerful energy sources for firing.

As for increasing the speed of projectiles, telescopic guns are already coming into service. A small charge first pushes the projectile out of the sleeve, and then the main charge ignites. This allows you to increase the number of propellant and the speed of the projectile without breaking the barrel.

Also, the speed of projectiles can increase thermochemical tools .

Railguns and Gauss cannons
They can accelerate small projectiles to enormous speeds. In space, such projectiles will not be decelerated against the air and will be very effective.

Lasers
The author did not take into account that lasers can have a pulsed mode of operation. Then at the point of contact there will be not just evaporation of the substance, but microexplosions, which should increase efficiency.
Also, the laser can be used to disable the optics. I think any optical systems will be equipped with automatic shutters and light filters.

AI
The question is whether a strong form of AI will be created.

Radio electronic fight
I agree with the author that it is impossible to hide in space - guidance systems will always know the exact direction to the enemy ship. But for aiming you need to know also the exact distance to the target. This opens a window of opportunity. EW is likely to distort the radar data. As for the laser range finder, I'm not sure, but if the target shines on the laser attacker, then the optics may suffer.