Laser battles in space.
POSTED BY: Hjermsted
UPDATED: Monday, March 22, 2004 21:20
VIEWED: 21470
PAGE 6 of 9
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:Quote:
Originally posted by BluebloodUK:
A submarine is only as good as the quietness of it's reactor.
Easily rectified, Collins or Amur Diesel-Electric submarines anyone?
Anyways new sub launched SAMs will become a serous threat to Helos and ASW aircraft (the real threats to subs) in the 21st century.
The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm
I don't think that lasers or railguns will be effective against subs. How did they get involved in this debate again?
--Anthony
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GunRunner:
LOS can be avoided by using a aircraft with a mirror to direct the laser over the horizon. Kind of like a targeting helo/UAV off a modern ship.
As soon as the aircraft is in the target vessels LOS it would likely get shot down since it would be using Lasers too and as everyone says you can't dodge them
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
Wait.. are you saying that a light laser cruiser would be nailed by a light mass-driver cruiser? Are are you bringing armour into the equation now? Which applies to either system ad infinitum. Arms Race, anyone?
If I knew I had the ability to hit the other side if I stayed out of LOS but they didn't I'd stay out of line-of-sight
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
These days, you can't shell Destroyers or Frigates. Their Over-The-Horizon Radar systems are too efficient, their turning circle/acceleration too good. Which is why we use guided-missiles.
You've got to take into account velocity. The Mass-Driver round is going many times the speed of any conventional projectile so manoevering wouldn't help. You haven't moved far enough before it hits you
It's going a lot faster than a missile too and isn't likely to be stopped by CIWS unlike an Exocet or equivalent
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueBloodUK:
However, in space, these disadvantages are removed from the outset. Lasers have clear line of sight. At the speed of light. Mass-Drivers hang around in the MACH-speed range. And once fired, they are incapable of in-flight path alterations (unless they become guided missiles, invalidating the mass-driver concept there and then).
The maximum velocity of a rail-gun is only determined by the amount of current you put into it. You could get a round going a good percentage of light-speed if you put enough current in
Also in the vacuum of space a railgun has infinite range whereas a Laser doesn't. They grow less focused over distance
You're also assuming the other side knows the railgun slug is actually coming...
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.
But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.
--Anthony
Oh, Now I get it, the realities of the show. So why all of the submarine, detroyer, and stuff we have today talk.
And, in your no pink bunny rabit universe, lasers take an enourmous amount of energy, remember the 'low battery' warning on the bulky laser pistol from HoG?
Accelerating a low mass slug requires much less output. And, everything in FF has been missiles and bullets, a different discussion altogether.
Of course, maybe in the reality of Firefly, Joss just thought lasers and blasters were done to death elsewhere.
SO, back to first question is this a real discussion or a pseudo-technobabble one?
Back to you...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The maximum velocity of a rail-gun is only determined by the amount of current you put into it. You could get a round going a good percentage of light-speed if you put enough current in
It seems to me that a LASER with that much juice put into it would be even more effective. Once again, instantaneous impact and complete undetectability prior to impact.
[quote[Also in the vacuum of space a railgun has infinite range whereas a Laser doesn't. They grow less focused over distance.
A railgun may have infinite range in theory, but there is something called 'effective range.' Effective range is controlled by things like accuracy. At extreme range, a railgun would be no more effective against a moving target than a laser would be. The target would literally have several seconds or (if you want to shoot from REALLY far away) possibly minutes to move before the slug would strike them.
Quote:
You're also assuming the other side knows the railgun slug is actually coming...
Let's say they DON'T know anyone is attacking them. A laser is still the stealthier weapon. It is also the more likely to strike a target before they change course. For whatever reason.
Scenario: Attacking vessel assaults target at a range of 30,000 kilometers.
Firing Solution A: Attacking vessel fires a railgun slug at Mach 10. Slug travels at 12,255 kilometers per hour. Impact occurs in 2.44 hours.
Firing Solution B: Attacking vessel fires a laser at c. Laser travels at 299,896.943 kilometers per second. Impact occurs in .1 seconds.
2.44 hours is a LONG time to move out of the way. .1 seconds isn't.
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Well SciFido, Antigravity does exist within the universe of the show, and ships can change direction quite suddenly without squashing passengers. They can also accelerate quite suddenly without squashing passengers.
But railguns don't get their power from a mystery universe filled with unicorns and pink bunny rabbits. They get their power from the same place a laser would.
--Anthony
Oh, Now I get it, the realities of the show. So why all of the submarine, detroyer, and stuff we have today talk.
Quite right SciFido, the discussion should be confined to the realities of the show.
Quote:
And, in your no pink bunny rabit universe, lasers take an enourmous amount of energy, remember the 'low battery' warning on the bulky laser pistol from HoG?
Actually, I was quite impressed that a laser power source capable of cooking a building's wall was able to be stored inside a pistol.
Quote:
Accelerating a low mass slug requires much less output. And, everything in FF has been missiles and bullets, a different discussion altogether.
Accerating a tiny bullet to the speed of sound requires a little gunpowder. Accelerating a cannon shell to a speed ten times the speed of sound would likely require as much energy as a comperable laser system. Unless you're suggesting a conventional cannon in space? That would likely be as useful at close range as a railgun would be.
Quote:
Of course, maybe in the reality of Firefly, Joss just thought lasers and blasters were done to death elsewhere.
I agree, he probably did think that. Kudos to him for trying something different. I even think that slugthrowers are more efficient as far as man-portable weaponry is concerned.
Quote:
SO, back to first question is this a real discussion or a pseudo-technobabble one?
Actually, this isn't a question so much as a discussion about a statement:
Quote:
Laser battles in space indeed look cool, but they're kinda silly if you think about it.
I thought about it. Laser battles in space make a lot of sense to me. Much more so than slugthrower battles in space.
Quote:
Back to you...
And to you. Do you object to the discussion itself, or merely to the conclusions I'm reaching?
--Anthony
"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't."
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-Benjamin Franklin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It seems to me that a LASER with that much juice put into it would be even more effective. Once again, instantaneous impact and complete undetectability prior to impact.
But less instantly devastating and far more easy to deflect (or rather reflect)
One good railgun strike out of the blue (or rather the black) and it's bye-bye target
Mass-Drivers are a more efficient way of transmitting energy in a big lump to the target and when you come right down to it weapons fire is just the process of moving energy from one place to another
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Let's say they DON'T know anyone is attacking them. A laser is still the stealthier weapon. It is also the more likely to strike a target before they change course. For whatever reason.
But its not stealthy because you know who fired it and where they are. If you fire a railgun you can be somewhere else when it arrives even if it's only a short distance away
The same principle is used in artillery. Shoot and Scoot before the counter-battery fire arrives
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SciFido:
For reality, the slug thrower would seem to work exceptionally well. You can't change the trejectory of a high mass object like a ship without squashing its passengers under a high-gee load.
But the gravity/anti-gravity generators presumably can compensate somehow, as evidenced by the crew not ending up as messy red splotches after the 'Crazy Ivan'
RIVER
Purple elephants are flying.
MAL
Good. Thanks for the update.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sort of off to one side, but this just reminded me of various episodes of Star Trek where baddies with some sort of personal shield proof against phasers would transport onto the ship and everyone would fight them with swords, clubs, batlefs(?) etc. Always wondered why somebody didn't run over to the replicator had have it whip up a Remington 1100 and some 00 buckshot rounds. If a club could hurt someone, 1.5 oz of fast lead should too.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I remember reading an article about anti-missle laser systems back in the late 80's or early 90'a. The point of the article was to discuss the unbelievable lethality of a high power laser. A very powerful laser does not burn or cut through the target. It is not like holding a really hot torch up to something until it melts. It is more like hitting a target with an incredibly powerful projectile made of light.
Many people are under the impression that if the target is mirrored or if the target is spinning that the laser will not be able to burn or cut through. A spinning target is protected from a terawatt laser blast about as much as a spinning ballerina is protected from a point blank shotgun blast. The sheer impact of the photons in a large enough laser blast are enough to blow the ever lovin' crap out of just about anything.
I do not know what the state of the art is in the Firefly universe. Maybe there was some catastrophe that led to the abandonment of Earth and the subsequent loss of much technology in the 'backwaters.'
Perhaps the planets visited by the crew of Serenity are on the outer reaches of the diaspora that has spread mankind out into the stars. And just like many places in the world today, technology is not evenly distributed. The state of the art in the United States is not the same as the state of the art in a tribe in the middle of the Brazilian rainforest.
What I do know is that just like most of us do not carry a howitzer in our cars on the way to work neither does the crew of Serenity pack huge anti-ship weapons on their little cargo ship. Kind of raises the attention of the Alliance cops the same way a howitzer on your car would probably upset your local sheriff.
Okay, to bring this back to the discussion at hand, I believe a mix of weapons would be desirable, but energy weapons would have to be the weapon system of choice. In space the distance to engage a target with a kenitic weapon would be so short that you would have to literally get right on someone's back in order to hit them. Energy weapons do not have that deficit. You can fire from a greater disctance with greater precision and after a protracted firefight you don't leave your current orbit littered with debris that will endager everyone in the area (can you say friendly fire?).
Well that is my way too long-winded $.02
Hanover Fist
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
I remember reading an article about anti-missle laser systems back in the late 80's or early 90'a. The point of the article was to discuss the unbelievable lethality of a high power laser. A very powerful laser does not burn or cut through the target. It is not like holding a really hot torch up to something until it melts. It is more like hitting a target with an incredibly powerful projectile made of light
It does burn through it just burns through so damn fast against unarmoured targets like missile boost stages it appears like a projectile hit (but it isn't)
During the work on SDI it really was shown that rapidly spinning an incoming warhead AND making it highly reflective meant you needed a Laser that was many times more powerful than it would need to be otherwise (I watched a documentary on the subject which showed some of the Laser Test-Firings which were often rigged to make Lasers look more effective than they were. In a couple of occasions a small explosive charge was planted on the missile "target" so it came apart spectacularly for the guest politicians and military)
If lasers were in common use you could use armour backed up by head-superconductors and heat-sinks to drastically increase the time taken to burn through a ships hull. You just need enough time to start spinning the ship and/or shoot back
Quote:
Originally posted by HanoverFist:
Okay, to bring this back to the discussion at hand, I believe a mix of weapons would be desirable, but energy weapons would have to be the weapon system of choice. In space the distance to engage a target with a kenitic weapon would be so short that you would have to literally get right on someone's back in order to hit them. Energy weapons do not have that deficit. You can fire from a greater disctance with greater precision and after a protracted firefight you don't leave your current orbit littered with debris that will endager everyone in the area (can you say friendly fire?).
Kinetic Energy weapons have an infinite range. The problem is the target moving whilst the round is in flight. That's why you would try for an ambush at Long Range. Use Lasers at medium range and go back to Kinetic Energy weapons at point-blank
It terms of damage a Kinetic Energy hit is far more devastating
Think of it this way. You have a 1 Gigawatt Power-Plant. You can use this to fire a beam but you would need to keep it on target for ten minutes to project the same energy to the target that you would if you charged capacitors for ten minutes to fire a single Railgun Round to a really high velocity
The Railgun round will likely disable the target with one hit whereas the Laser takes time to do the job (during which it fires back)
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME