Discouraging missile alpha strikes
$begingroup$
I am looking at tactics for using missiles as space-to-space weapons. The missiles in question will be chemically fueled, higher acceleration but lower deltaV than the warships.
Since they are essentially self contained, you can chuck your entire missile load out out a hatch, and fire them in one massive salvo.
Against a single target this seems always like the ideal strategy. Laser/Particle Beam/Gun point defense is all limited by energy throughput, making it essential to minimize the time PD has to engage the salvo. Since active defenses are not degraded, saving missiles makes no sense. If your wave did not get through, neither will any equal sized follow-up.
Edit: Heat may degrade active defenses, but if you fire the second salvo along with the first one, you have a much better chance of getting them through than allowing engagement time.
What device or method could be used to draw out missile combat and make multiple waves a desirable tactic?
warfare spaceships
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I am looking at tactics for using missiles as space-to-space weapons. The missiles in question will be chemically fueled, higher acceleration but lower deltaV than the warships.
Since they are essentially self contained, you can chuck your entire missile load out out a hatch, and fire them in one massive salvo.
Against a single target this seems always like the ideal strategy. Laser/Particle Beam/Gun point defense is all limited by energy throughput, making it essential to minimize the time PD has to engage the salvo. Since active defenses are not degraded, saving missiles makes no sense. If your wave did not get through, neither will any equal sized follow-up.
Edit: Heat may degrade active defenses, but if you fire the second salvo along with the first one, you have a much better chance of getting them through than allowing engagement time.
What device or method could be used to draw out missile combat and make multiple waves a desirable tactic?
warfare spaceships
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I am looking at tactics for using missiles as space-to-space weapons. The missiles in question will be chemically fueled, higher acceleration but lower deltaV than the warships.
Since they are essentially self contained, you can chuck your entire missile load out out a hatch, and fire them in one massive salvo.
Against a single target this seems always like the ideal strategy. Laser/Particle Beam/Gun point defense is all limited by energy throughput, making it essential to minimize the time PD has to engage the salvo. Since active defenses are not degraded, saving missiles makes no sense. If your wave did not get through, neither will any equal sized follow-up.
Edit: Heat may degrade active defenses, but if you fire the second salvo along with the first one, you have a much better chance of getting them through than allowing engagement time.
What device or method could be used to draw out missile combat and make multiple waves a desirable tactic?
warfare spaceships
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I am looking at tactics for using missiles as space-to-space weapons. The missiles in question will be chemically fueled, higher acceleration but lower deltaV than the warships.
Since they are essentially self contained, you can chuck your entire missile load out out a hatch, and fire them in one massive salvo.
Against a single target this seems always like the ideal strategy. Laser/Particle Beam/Gun point defense is all limited by energy throughput, making it essential to minimize the time PD has to engage the salvo. Since active defenses are not degraded, saving missiles makes no sense. If your wave did not get through, neither will any equal sized follow-up.
Edit: Heat may degrade active defenses, but if you fire the second salvo along with the first one, you have a much better chance of getting them through than allowing engagement time.
What device or method could be used to draw out missile combat and make multiple waves a desirable tactic?
warfare spaceships
warfare spaceships
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
edited 5 hours ago
Cyn
9,09612146
9,09612146
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
asked 7 hours ago
WhitecoldWhitecold
312
312
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Whitecold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- You can never be certain that what is currently just one target will stay just one target. Each side would be wary of being tricked of flushing all of their missiles against a part of the enemy force.
- Missile seekers might observe the defensive EW of the target and transmit this data to the follow-up salvo, increasing the hit probability. This is balanced by adjustments in the EW.
- It could be easier to temporarily degrade the defenses of a target than it is to kill it outright. For instance, a near miss might blind the sensors of the target. So the 'main wave' of the attack could be preceded by a few 'defense suppression' missiles. (Since the 'main wave' knows the timing, it can cover or avert the seekers to protect them. Blinding countermissiles would still be a problem.)
- In a similar vein, the 'main wave' could be followed by a few missiles to 'clean up' cripples before the damage control teams can get them back into battle. Mixing them into the main wave could mean that these missiles are wasted against an intact point defense.
- Missiles could work better if they are guided for most of the flight. This requires sensors, computers, operators, and communications on the launching vessel. These could be in short supply.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Answer inspired by "The Matrix Revolutions"
One of the effective anti-missile weapons is an EMP charge. Once an incoming wave is detected, a powerful missile carrying an EMP device is launched. Once in proximity to the wave, the missile is detonated, making the entire wave ineffective. The EMP charges, however, are large missiles and are unlikely to be deployed against individual attacking missiles or small salvos.
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here are a few possible answers that come to mind:
Sure lasers can't punch through the armor of the enemy ship, but if the enemy was to deploy a large missile loadout out one of their hatches, the laser could destroy that. In addition to instantly wiping out most of the enemy ship's missiles, the explosion created by shooting the loadout would heavily damage the ship itself. That is why the ships would choose to deploy smaller loadouts one at a time- if a laser shot the loadout, the explosion would be smaller and the ship would still have missiles to use.
Maybe the ships are fighting near an object that neither of them want to destroy. It could be a planet, or a field of explosives (space mines) that will explode in a chain reaction if hit. If any of the missiles miss their target and hit the object, something bad will happen. If both sides want the planet intact or both have ships within the minefield, they will use precision strikes instead of carpeting the enemy with missiles.
@o.m. brought up the idea of sensor interference messing with targeting. Building on that, having large salvos of rockets fire at once blinds sensors, resulting in a lot of wasted missiles that miss their target. The rocket engines on the missiles and the flashes of light missiles create when they explode could both interfere with sensors.
The shielding on the ships might be thick enough to sustain several blasts from rockets. If the ship has a limited number of rockets, they will focus on one spot on the enemy ship to try and punch through the armor. Salvos would be single shots with a few seconds in between, with all of the shots focused on a single spot on the enemy ship.
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short-Term but High Effect Shield
Introduce a shielding capability that is extremely effective but had a short duration and long cool-down. Maybe a ship can run it in 5 second increments, store up to 30 seconds worth of shield, and needs to restock or take a huge amount of time to replenish the reserve.
This essentially gives it the ability to absorb the 6 largest salvos sent against it. IF you only send a few huge waves, they will all be blocked by the shield. If you keep up a steady bombardment or many smaller waves, the shield becomes much less effective.
There should be numerous physical/handwavium ways to create a shield liek this.
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The firing ship can only control so many
Missiles go fast. This causes some Doppler shift in... Most things. So, the launching ship is in control of the missiles from launch to hit. Bigger, better sensors and bigger, better computers. While the missiles have some on board targeting systems and computers (In case of effective jamming), the ships are better.
But a ship can only effectively target, track, update, and communicate with so many missiles. So while they could fire everything, it's less effective.
Similarly, fewer missiles means if the enemy can coopt the command and control mechanisms, fewer missiles are lost. Each salvo would have different, generated encryption keys, so while the enemy might manage to divert one salvo (Highly unlikely that there would be enough delta-v to get back to the launching ship), it'll be more difficult to do so for the second one since they have to start back at square one. If they are launched in one wave, they all have the same keys and can potentially all be messed with.
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Whitecold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139491%2fdiscouraging-missile-alpha-strikes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
- You can never be certain that what is currently just one target will stay just one target. Each side would be wary of being tricked of flushing all of their missiles against a part of the enemy force.
- Missile seekers might observe the defensive EW of the target and transmit this data to the follow-up salvo, increasing the hit probability. This is balanced by adjustments in the EW.
- It could be easier to temporarily degrade the defenses of a target than it is to kill it outright. For instance, a near miss might blind the sensors of the target. So the 'main wave' of the attack could be preceded by a few 'defense suppression' missiles. (Since the 'main wave' knows the timing, it can cover or avert the seekers to protect them. Blinding countermissiles would still be a problem.)
- In a similar vein, the 'main wave' could be followed by a few missiles to 'clean up' cripples before the damage control teams can get them back into battle. Mixing them into the main wave could mean that these missiles are wasted against an intact point defense.
- Missiles could work better if they are guided for most of the flight. This requires sensors, computers, operators, and communications on the launching vessel. These could be in short supply.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- You can never be certain that what is currently just one target will stay just one target. Each side would be wary of being tricked of flushing all of their missiles against a part of the enemy force.
- Missile seekers might observe the defensive EW of the target and transmit this data to the follow-up salvo, increasing the hit probability. This is balanced by adjustments in the EW.
- It could be easier to temporarily degrade the defenses of a target than it is to kill it outright. For instance, a near miss might blind the sensors of the target. So the 'main wave' of the attack could be preceded by a few 'defense suppression' missiles. (Since the 'main wave' knows the timing, it can cover or avert the seekers to protect them. Blinding countermissiles would still be a problem.)
- In a similar vein, the 'main wave' could be followed by a few missiles to 'clean up' cripples before the damage control teams can get them back into battle. Mixing them into the main wave could mean that these missiles are wasted against an intact point defense.
- Missiles could work better if they are guided for most of the flight. This requires sensors, computers, operators, and communications on the launching vessel. These could be in short supply.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
- You can never be certain that what is currently just one target will stay just one target. Each side would be wary of being tricked of flushing all of their missiles against a part of the enemy force.
- Missile seekers might observe the defensive EW of the target and transmit this data to the follow-up salvo, increasing the hit probability. This is balanced by adjustments in the EW.
- It could be easier to temporarily degrade the defenses of a target than it is to kill it outright. For instance, a near miss might blind the sensors of the target. So the 'main wave' of the attack could be preceded by a few 'defense suppression' missiles. (Since the 'main wave' knows the timing, it can cover or avert the seekers to protect them. Blinding countermissiles would still be a problem.)
- In a similar vein, the 'main wave' could be followed by a few missiles to 'clean up' cripples before the damage control teams can get them back into battle. Mixing them into the main wave could mean that these missiles are wasted against an intact point defense.
- Missiles could work better if they are guided for most of the flight. This requires sensors, computers, operators, and communications on the launching vessel. These could be in short supply.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
$endgroup$
- You can never be certain that what is currently just one target will stay just one target. Each side would be wary of being tricked of flushing all of their missiles against a part of the enemy force.
- Missile seekers might observe the defensive EW of the target and transmit this data to the follow-up salvo, increasing the hit probability. This is balanced by adjustments in the EW.
- It could be easier to temporarily degrade the defenses of a target than it is to kill it outright. For instance, a near miss might blind the sensors of the target. So the 'main wave' of the attack could be preceded by a few 'defense suppression' missiles. (Since the 'main wave' knows the timing, it can cover or avert the seekers to protect them. Blinding countermissiles would still be a problem.)
- In a similar vein, the 'main wave' could be followed by a few missiles to 'clean up' cripples before the damage control teams can get them back into battle. Mixing them into the main wave could mean that these missiles are wasted against an intact point defense.
- Missiles could work better if they are guided for most of the flight. This requires sensors, computers, operators, and communications on the launching vessel. These could be in short supply.
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
answered 7 hours ago
o.m.o.m.
59.7k686197
59.7k686197
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I really like the EW suggestion, but I am not sure how to model it best. There should be some over-time component, but also number of sensors observing.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I built an entire ‘world’ (two battleships over Io) based on missile/drones fighting each other for juuust enough local supremacy to hit the other guy. Electronic warfare was a big part of it, and all the drones were tiny little learning machines that the ‘gunners’ tuned over the course of the battle, but for the most part relied on observing the destruction of their comrades as a means to eventually employing the winning tactic. Long story short both ships blew up.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Answer inspired by "The Matrix Revolutions"
One of the effective anti-missile weapons is an EMP charge. Once an incoming wave is detected, a powerful missile carrying an EMP device is launched. Once in proximity to the wave, the missile is detonated, making the entire wave ineffective. The EMP charges, however, are large missiles and are unlikely to be deployed against individual attacking missiles or small salvos.
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Answer inspired by "The Matrix Revolutions"
One of the effective anti-missile weapons is an EMP charge. Once an incoming wave is detected, a powerful missile carrying an EMP device is launched. Once in proximity to the wave, the missile is detonated, making the entire wave ineffective. The EMP charges, however, are large missiles and are unlikely to be deployed against individual attacking missiles or small salvos.
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Answer inspired by "The Matrix Revolutions"
One of the effective anti-missile weapons is an EMP charge. Once an incoming wave is detected, a powerful missile carrying an EMP device is launched. Once in proximity to the wave, the missile is detonated, making the entire wave ineffective. The EMP charges, however, are large missiles and are unlikely to be deployed against individual attacking missiles or small salvos.
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
$endgroup$
Answer inspired by "The Matrix Revolutions"
One of the effective anti-missile weapons is an EMP charge. Once an incoming wave is detected, a powerful missile carrying an EMP device is launched. Once in proximity to the wave, the missile is detonated, making the entire wave ineffective. The EMP charges, however, are large missiles and are unlikely to be deployed against individual attacking missiles or small salvos.
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
answered 5 hours ago
AlexanderAlexander
20.9k53381
20.9k53381
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, whatever the mechanism, any defense which can affect an entire salvo regardless of size (but which has some other limits) would tend to argue against firing all missiles in one salvo.
$endgroup$
– Dronz
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here are a few possible answers that come to mind:
Sure lasers can't punch through the armor of the enemy ship, but if the enemy was to deploy a large missile loadout out one of their hatches, the laser could destroy that. In addition to instantly wiping out most of the enemy ship's missiles, the explosion created by shooting the loadout would heavily damage the ship itself. That is why the ships would choose to deploy smaller loadouts one at a time- if a laser shot the loadout, the explosion would be smaller and the ship would still have missiles to use.
Maybe the ships are fighting near an object that neither of them want to destroy. It could be a planet, or a field of explosives (space mines) that will explode in a chain reaction if hit. If any of the missiles miss their target and hit the object, something bad will happen. If both sides want the planet intact or both have ships within the minefield, they will use precision strikes instead of carpeting the enemy with missiles.
@o.m. brought up the idea of sensor interference messing with targeting. Building on that, having large salvos of rockets fire at once blinds sensors, resulting in a lot of wasted missiles that miss their target. The rocket engines on the missiles and the flashes of light missiles create when they explode could both interfere with sensors.
The shielding on the ships might be thick enough to sustain several blasts from rockets. If the ship has a limited number of rockets, they will focus on one spot on the enemy ship to try and punch through the armor. Salvos would be single shots with a few seconds in between, with all of the shots focused on a single spot on the enemy ship.
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here are a few possible answers that come to mind:
Sure lasers can't punch through the armor of the enemy ship, but if the enemy was to deploy a large missile loadout out one of their hatches, the laser could destroy that. In addition to instantly wiping out most of the enemy ship's missiles, the explosion created by shooting the loadout would heavily damage the ship itself. That is why the ships would choose to deploy smaller loadouts one at a time- if a laser shot the loadout, the explosion would be smaller and the ship would still have missiles to use.
Maybe the ships are fighting near an object that neither of them want to destroy. It could be a planet, or a field of explosives (space mines) that will explode in a chain reaction if hit. If any of the missiles miss their target and hit the object, something bad will happen. If both sides want the planet intact or both have ships within the minefield, they will use precision strikes instead of carpeting the enemy with missiles.
@o.m. brought up the idea of sensor interference messing with targeting. Building on that, having large salvos of rockets fire at once blinds sensors, resulting in a lot of wasted missiles that miss their target. The rocket engines on the missiles and the flashes of light missiles create when they explode could both interfere with sensors.
The shielding on the ships might be thick enough to sustain several blasts from rockets. If the ship has a limited number of rockets, they will focus on one spot on the enemy ship to try and punch through the armor. Salvos would be single shots with a few seconds in between, with all of the shots focused on a single spot on the enemy ship.
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here are a few possible answers that come to mind:
Sure lasers can't punch through the armor of the enemy ship, but if the enemy was to deploy a large missile loadout out one of their hatches, the laser could destroy that. In addition to instantly wiping out most of the enemy ship's missiles, the explosion created by shooting the loadout would heavily damage the ship itself. That is why the ships would choose to deploy smaller loadouts one at a time- if a laser shot the loadout, the explosion would be smaller and the ship would still have missiles to use.
Maybe the ships are fighting near an object that neither of them want to destroy. It could be a planet, or a field of explosives (space mines) that will explode in a chain reaction if hit. If any of the missiles miss their target and hit the object, something bad will happen. If both sides want the planet intact or both have ships within the minefield, they will use precision strikes instead of carpeting the enemy with missiles.
@o.m. brought up the idea of sensor interference messing with targeting. Building on that, having large salvos of rockets fire at once blinds sensors, resulting in a lot of wasted missiles that miss their target. The rocket engines on the missiles and the flashes of light missiles create when they explode could both interfere with sensors.
The shielding on the ships might be thick enough to sustain several blasts from rockets. If the ship has a limited number of rockets, they will focus on one spot on the enemy ship to try and punch through the armor. Salvos would be single shots with a few seconds in between, with all of the shots focused on a single spot on the enemy ship.
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
$endgroup$
Here are a few possible answers that come to mind:
Sure lasers can't punch through the armor of the enemy ship, but if the enemy was to deploy a large missile loadout out one of their hatches, the laser could destroy that. In addition to instantly wiping out most of the enemy ship's missiles, the explosion created by shooting the loadout would heavily damage the ship itself. That is why the ships would choose to deploy smaller loadouts one at a time- if a laser shot the loadout, the explosion would be smaller and the ship would still have missiles to use.
Maybe the ships are fighting near an object that neither of them want to destroy. It could be a planet, or a field of explosives (space mines) that will explode in a chain reaction if hit. If any of the missiles miss their target and hit the object, something bad will happen. If both sides want the planet intact or both have ships within the minefield, they will use precision strikes instead of carpeting the enemy with missiles.
@o.m. brought up the idea of sensor interference messing with targeting. Building on that, having large salvos of rockets fire at once blinds sensors, resulting in a lot of wasted missiles that miss their target. The rocket engines on the missiles and the flashes of light missiles create when they explode could both interfere with sensors.
The shielding on the ships might be thick enough to sustain several blasts from rockets. If the ship has a limited number of rockets, they will focus on one spot on the enemy ship to try and punch through the armor. Salvos would be single shots with a few seconds in between, with all of the shots focused on a single spot on the enemy ship.
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
answered 6 hours ago
John LockeJohn Locke
2,419324
2,419324
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short-Term but High Effect Shield
Introduce a shielding capability that is extremely effective but had a short duration and long cool-down. Maybe a ship can run it in 5 second increments, store up to 30 seconds worth of shield, and needs to restock or take a huge amount of time to replenish the reserve.
This essentially gives it the ability to absorb the 6 largest salvos sent against it. IF you only send a few huge waves, they will all be blocked by the shield. If you keep up a steady bombardment or many smaller waves, the shield becomes much less effective.
There should be numerous physical/handwavium ways to create a shield liek this.
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short-Term but High Effect Shield
Introduce a shielding capability that is extremely effective but had a short duration and long cool-down. Maybe a ship can run it in 5 second increments, store up to 30 seconds worth of shield, and needs to restock or take a huge amount of time to replenish the reserve.
This essentially gives it the ability to absorb the 6 largest salvos sent against it. IF you only send a few huge waves, they will all be blocked by the shield. If you keep up a steady bombardment or many smaller waves, the shield becomes much less effective.
There should be numerous physical/handwavium ways to create a shield liek this.
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short-Term but High Effect Shield
Introduce a shielding capability that is extremely effective but had a short duration and long cool-down. Maybe a ship can run it in 5 second increments, store up to 30 seconds worth of shield, and needs to restock or take a huge amount of time to replenish the reserve.
This essentially gives it the ability to absorb the 6 largest salvos sent against it. IF you only send a few huge waves, they will all be blocked by the shield. If you keep up a steady bombardment or many smaller waves, the shield becomes much less effective.
There should be numerous physical/handwavium ways to create a shield liek this.
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
$endgroup$
Short-Term but High Effect Shield
Introduce a shielding capability that is extremely effective but had a short duration and long cool-down. Maybe a ship can run it in 5 second increments, store up to 30 seconds worth of shield, and needs to restock or take a huge amount of time to replenish the reserve.
This essentially gives it the ability to absorb the 6 largest salvos sent against it. IF you only send a few huge waves, they will all be blocked by the shield. If you keep up a steady bombardment or many smaller waves, the shield becomes much less effective.
There should be numerous physical/handwavium ways to create a shield liek this.
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
answered 2 hours ago
CainCain
1,823921
1,823921
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The firing ship can only control so many
Missiles go fast. This causes some Doppler shift in... Most things. So, the launching ship is in control of the missiles from launch to hit. Bigger, better sensors and bigger, better computers. While the missiles have some on board targeting systems and computers (In case of effective jamming), the ships are better.
But a ship can only effectively target, track, update, and communicate with so many missiles. So while they could fire everything, it's less effective.
Similarly, fewer missiles means if the enemy can coopt the command and control mechanisms, fewer missiles are lost. Each salvo would have different, generated encryption keys, so while the enemy might manage to divert one salvo (Highly unlikely that there would be enough delta-v to get back to the launching ship), it'll be more difficult to do so for the second one since they have to start back at square one. If they are launched in one wave, they all have the same keys and can potentially all be messed with.
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The firing ship can only control so many
Missiles go fast. This causes some Doppler shift in... Most things. So, the launching ship is in control of the missiles from launch to hit. Bigger, better sensors and bigger, better computers. While the missiles have some on board targeting systems and computers (In case of effective jamming), the ships are better.
But a ship can only effectively target, track, update, and communicate with so many missiles. So while they could fire everything, it's less effective.
Similarly, fewer missiles means if the enemy can coopt the command and control mechanisms, fewer missiles are lost. Each salvo would have different, generated encryption keys, so while the enemy might manage to divert one salvo (Highly unlikely that there would be enough delta-v to get back to the launching ship), it'll be more difficult to do so for the second one since they have to start back at square one. If they are launched in one wave, they all have the same keys and can potentially all be messed with.
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The firing ship can only control so many
Missiles go fast. This causes some Doppler shift in... Most things. So, the launching ship is in control of the missiles from launch to hit. Bigger, better sensors and bigger, better computers. While the missiles have some on board targeting systems and computers (In case of effective jamming), the ships are better.
But a ship can only effectively target, track, update, and communicate with so many missiles. So while they could fire everything, it's less effective.
Similarly, fewer missiles means if the enemy can coopt the command and control mechanisms, fewer missiles are lost. Each salvo would have different, generated encryption keys, so while the enemy might manage to divert one salvo (Highly unlikely that there would be enough delta-v to get back to the launching ship), it'll be more difficult to do so for the second one since they have to start back at square one. If they are launched in one wave, they all have the same keys and can potentially all be messed with.
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
$endgroup$
The firing ship can only control so many
Missiles go fast. This causes some Doppler shift in... Most things. So, the launching ship is in control of the missiles from launch to hit. Bigger, better sensors and bigger, better computers. While the missiles have some on board targeting systems and computers (In case of effective jamming), the ships are better.
But a ship can only effectively target, track, update, and communicate with so many missiles. So while they could fire everything, it's less effective.
Similarly, fewer missiles means if the enemy can coopt the command and control mechanisms, fewer missiles are lost. Each salvo would have different, generated encryption keys, so while the enemy might manage to divert one salvo (Highly unlikely that there would be enough delta-v to get back to the launching ship), it'll be more difficult to do so for the second one since they have to start back at square one. If they are launched in one wave, they all have the same keys and can potentially all be messed with.
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
answered 6 hours ago
AndonAndon
8,38322155
8,38322155
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
The ship doesn't really need to control the missiles. An infrared seeker makes them fire and forget, and even with semi-active lidar one target illuminator can control unlimited missiles. The only missiles that I see possibly fully command guided would be countermissiles, as you want those as tiny as possible.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
What does the Doppler shift have to do with it? Can't that be corrected for?
$endgroup$
– John Locke
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I should point out that this solution(limited control links) is the reason used for multiple missile salvos in David Webbers Honor Harrington series. Given how popular that one is, I'd say steal from the best.
$endgroup$
– Eugene
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Whitecold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Whitecold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Whitecold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Whitecold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139491%2fdiscouraging-missile-alpha-strikes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Although you posit that "active defenses are not degraded", that is not necessarily the case. Any active defense will generate heat, and the amount of heat that can be radiated over the course of a single engagement will probably be low. Therefore, missile defenses will use up heat-sinks, although this doesn't really mean that staggered salvos will be better than a single massive salvo.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
You may have backed yourself into a corner here with the constraints. If defense systems aren't degraded by attacks, then you're right that there's no reason to do any attack other than what is most likely to overwhelm the defenses and destroy the target in one strike. Any attack that doesn't get through the defenses is a waste, so one big attack makes sense. Perhaps if a smaller attack with only a few missiles had some non-zero chance of success, it might make sense to try that attack repeatedly to keep rolling the dice.
$endgroup$
– Jared K
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
also, where do the missiles come from? i only ask because you wouldn't want to launch everything in one go obliterate the enemy ship and then turn around and find another ship and have nothing left. so surely making resupply a significant factor in the battles would mean conserving ammo is important which in turn would remove the usefulness of a massive alpha strike
$endgroup$
– Blade Wraith
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Of course you may retain a reserve against additional targets. You still want to throw a large salvo against the first ship that you expect will kill it in one go.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As for heat degradation, yes, the defenses will work worse the second time around, but the active defenses cannot engage the second salvo at all if it flies simultaneously with the first one. So launching together is still advantageous, even with degrading active defenses. So I am looking at additional defensive mechanisms that would make multiple launches advantageous.
$endgroup$
– Whitecold
7 hours ago