@@antiheldd.3081 Beat me to it, quite a fascinating concept too, explode a nuke behind a set of gravitational lenses that focus the radiation into x-ray or gamma ray lasers that are destroyed by the explosion nanoseconds after they've done their job.
So this video had me thinking for a topic for you guys...flak guns in space. I'm currently watching BS Galactica, and the flak guns are heavily used to defend against cylon attacks, but wouldn't flak guns in space be just as dangerous to the person firing them as they would be to the enemy, because the flak material is exploding in an omnidirectional pattern, and ergo would hit the ship that fired it?
I've tried to explain this scene and how funny it is to like 20 different people who have never watched clear skies and I think most of them think I'm crazy.
7:35 I loved how in The Expanse, especially one of the battles (I think it was in S5?) the Belter missiles have yellow plumes/chemical engines, while the missiles from the Martian ships (the Roci and Free Navy ships) have blue plumes/Epstein drives. Kinda shows how the Belters are basically using whatever works while the MCRN spares no expense when it comes to weapons.
I love that detail too! I think they’re just meant to be lower efficiency fusion drives though? Like Epstein’s ship was yellow plumed before he activated his modifications.
@@kaitlyn__Lin the show fusion drives existed they used it to colonise mars, however, Epstein invented his “Epstein Drive” which was both more efficient in its fusion, had a greater mass to thrust ratio and could reach greater speeds.
I like how in the Honor Harrington series missiles are launched in tandem, one has an ECM suite and the other has the actual payload. They are also used as drifting mine fields to ambush ships.
It's one of the most developed universe in fiction. The honorverse IS the series to talk about missiles in space. Is so complex and rich that amazes me is not mentioned in the video.
In the Schlock Mercenary webcomic, they've developed teleportation, which is very effective when applied to missiles (so they can fly and teleport). The main characters even outfitted their entire ship's complement of torpedoes with sensor gear and deployed them in a radio telescope array, to detect incoming threats at a vast range. They called it the Very Dangerous Array.
on the point of shapes in space, its still important to consider leverage and momentum of different shapes and mass distributions and where thrusters are put.
Long thin missiles actually have a downside with higher moment of inertia, so they wouldn't be able to rotate as quickly. If you want your missile to be very agile for dodging countermeasures or hitting something that tries to dodge it, a shorter shape would work better. It would need to be balanced with how big of a target it is, though.
@@Br3ttM I would actually expect that style to be quite good though, assuming a single main thruster at the back, as well as much of its mass and payload, and small vector thrusters at its tip. that means it could rapidly change the direction of its main thruster in flight as the nose vector thrusters act like a long lever away from the fulcrum of mass heavy back. think the viper fighter from battlestar galactica. or a lot of the funnel missles in uc gundam.
It's telling that many of the visuals here are from The Expanse. 🙂 Loved the way that show had grounded physics. It's also the only time I can remember seeing an encounter on screen when the time between firing and hitting a target was measured in minutes.
Reminded me of Child of a Dead Earth for a second with all these sci-fi missiles..Pretty good game I recommend to those who like Space Warfare, and Realism.
Rockets, missiles and torpedoes all have a role in space warfare. Rockets can be fitted to very small & inexpensive vessels (or drones) and can be used like a modern navy fast attack craft and use to overwhelm defenses and PDW when launched enmasse. Missiles with proper guidance can be great at targeting smaller more nimble targets since a vessel with life support onboard can't outmaneuver a far smaller and even more nimble rod of explosive chasing it. The longer range, types of guidance be it by radar (from the firing ship or itself) or heat seeking can also play a factor. Then torpedoes, as shown in the Expanse, a large programmable multipurpose weapon which can be devastating to anything it hits as well as be launched/dropped/fired in many different ways. A great weapon to knock out large ships just like the water swimming predecessors have in WW1 & WW2.
Nuclear warheads in space is gonna be fun. Knowing the yield settings of the various nukes used in The Expanse and BSG was always a fun thing to ponder...
I can only cite on actual yield, and it wasn't a missile. When Miller was putting the charges on the Eros docks you could see 4.5 KT on the stencil. :)
Missiles are a military technology that people keep projecting into the future in various sci-fi shows and/or movies, but have no practical application in space. Any spaceship (especially involved in long distance travel) would not want to use something like missiles or guns with ammo as they take up space and once you run out you are defenseless. Energy based weapons of some kind are the most likely to be used instead because they are reusable as long as your ship is still in working order.
Have your missile launched out of electromagnetic launcher, and only use onboard motors for maneuvering. Not needing to deal with a gravity well, or air resistance, means much more of your weight can be devoted to warhead, or perhaps AI-driven electronic counter-countermeasures...
I think you would want to adjust the phraseology used in the video if you want to make it semi-scientifical. There would be no 'short' or 'long' range thing on missiles in space because missiles, like kinetci weapons (aka guns/cannons) have basically infinite range because there's no atmospheric drag to slow them down. Instead, you might want to think about something like 'effective range'. Aka the limit where the missile loses the ability to track the target or manouver. Also, not sure where you got your information about 'unguided weapons', but torpedoes have been guided for the most part of the last 80 years. And I'm talking about all types of torpedoes in use. Guided torpedoes (via wires being pulled from one place to another) have existed for over 100 years. As for shaped charges, that depends entirely on the setting. Personally, I would say they are the most dependent on the setting of all of the things we can imagine. If a warship has some time of 'force field' (like an electromagnetic skin -basically a giant, very dense, electrical fence running all over its hull), then the shaped charges can be detonated far from the ship or on contact and the jet is going to be deviated into outer space. Layered armour would also be more effective, especially if you have 2-hull defensive system, with one serving as arming hull and the other as main armour (fixed together with struts). HE fragmentation missiles might be more interesting. They might not be enough to damage capital ships or stuff like that, but they would be amazing at dealing with 'drones' (fighters -althouh highly questionable why would you have that in space, drone, missiles, shells, mines etc.) or with breaking layered defences before a main strike As for kinetic missiles, why not just use a gun?
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom yep. Firering at something more than a light second away creates a delay that makes you most likely miss the target. A missile can correct this and therefore has a bigger range.
An interesting aspect of missiles like those in The Expanse is that the more sophisticated missiles are essentially drones with considerable loiter time. The largest classes of missile carry Epstein Drives, and have interplanetary range. In principle they could be used to attack any target in the solar system by burning on an initial intercept, coasting for days, and then re-lighting their drives for the terminal engagement. This aspect of missiles is rarely mentioned in sci-fi - if they have sufficiently advanced sensors and guidance systems, and enough battery power to loiter for a while, they can be used as almost indefinite range weapons, and also as mines that can drift in a shipping lane and light up when a target gets close enough to strike at with little warning.
Yeah the Planet Busters come to mind. Whether the ground based ones favored by the UN or the platform based models employed by the MCRN, the mechanics of launching MIRV equipped IPBMs across the solar system was just... Whoa.
Later on In the Honor Harrington series someone develops the ghost rider missile system, launches with magnetic acceleration assistance from a missile pod, runs its drive for a pre-planed amount of time then shuts down making it invisible to sensors as well as saving onboard power and at a coordinated time, reignites its drives for final course correction and terminal attack maneuvers.
This. Absolutely this. [SPOILERS FOR THE LANCER TTRPG PLOT] In the Lancer TTRPG, Union (the descendants of Earth/Cradle) and the Aunic Ascendancy (descendants of a long-gone colony ship) are at war, and Union decides to yeet a bunch of asteroids at near-lightspeed towards the Aunic Homeworld of Aun'Ist. They aren't projected to see the light of a sun for thousands of years. This is PISTON-1. And when PISTON-1 does get to Aun'Ist, a literal god (Metat'Aun) just deletes 'em anyway.
One kind of warhead that you didn't mention was the bomb-pumped laser warhead, though it may be more fitting for your video on nuclear weapons as it uses a nuclear detonation to vaporize lasing rods to create X-ray lasers that are then used to damage a target. One example would be the laserhead in the Honor Harrington series of novels.
You could achieve a similar principle (albeit not bomb-pumped) with singke use particle beam projectors that destructively overload themselves to "detonate" the warhead. Both are non-shrapnel methods to give space missiles actual standoff ranges
The Honorverse also uses shaped nuclear charges to make their LaserHeads more destructive, and the LaserHeads are considered a standoff weapon while "old fashioned nukes" require a direct hit and almost never happens in "modern" combat thanks to point defense and "sidewalls"
As a kid I really liked Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. It's highly flawed as a series, but offensive missiles and defensive missiles both exist in the show. In both cases, the ship had multiple magnetic launch tubes that use gauss (coil) systems to fire them rapidly. Offensive missiles were designed for high endurance, low acceleration, high top speed. As a result, while they couldn't evade laser or defensive missiles as well, they came in to the target at significant percentages of light speed. On the other hand, defensive missiles had higher acceleration allowing them to quickly maneuver against fighters and intercept offensive missiles. All the missiles were kinetic kill. In terms of long range space combat, this is one of the more realistic depictions in soft sci-fi. Yeah, the expanse does it far better, but this is almost 15 years before the expanse aired.
Yes kinetic kill is all your ever going to need in space because nothing will be armored (too much mass), and the speeds are going to be so high that kinetic energy is all you need. At high speeds everything in the impactor is becoming a cone of destruction through the targets interior.
It's relative velocity that matters here. I agree, in a lot of situations, the kinetic energy is the main damage-dealer, but if you were at closer range taking snapshots, not so much. There's also the fact that if ships are maneuvering evasively, your missile needs to be able to execute terminal attack maneuvers, so there may be situations where a missile is rapidly decelerating to make a a hit. In those circumstances, a warhead is useful. I was always partial to the 'laser-head' missiles from Honor Harrington. Give your missiles standoff-range to avoid the thickest point defense and remove the necessity for direct hits; way easier on your guidance systems.
There's value in having a variety of warhead types. In a setting where you have the ability to travel at significant fractions of light speed, I imagine a mini-nuclear shaped charge would be a rather easy thing to incorporate to a missile. Also, nuclear warheads would make decent defensive weapons. The damage radius could detonate or damage incoming missiles, drones or strike craft in a decent area.
Contrary to belief, there is a point between making a missile too expensive and just be good enough to attain acceptable hitrates that you would need less missiles to destroy a target, hence saving costs and materials in the long run Case and point, HIMARS can deliver deadly accurate strikes and do the same job with far less rockets than something like multiple GRADS would require
suppose its like how you could for example pack a kinetic round with several times the explosive force needed to blow a tank up...but if its penetration is so bad or oversensitive it always explodes on the outside of the armour you often have a still combat capable tank with a nasty sun burn just making it angry... makes me wonder if not potential future space combat choses of delivery methods of guided munitions getting different names for the same method like some gotten on earth will remain and pick up archaic terms from early earth days.. like in real life how things are put in categories of 'personal fire arms' 'canons/tanks weaponry' 'artility' etc... maby future guided weapons be labeled after distance and prime functions like ...missile , most often short to medium range defensive weapon highly dexterous to hunt bombers or try nail long range guided weaponry... with little effect agenst capital grade vacum armour , wich if a hostile capital is close enough for that... pouring the power reserves into having the kinetic or other 'dumb' weapons fire rate be more effective anyway.. ..torpedo , long range guided weapon on the borderline of 'hunter seeker' regardless if it comes with extreme penetration capability or a nasty exoteric warhead named for its main design being to hunt down large targets at ranges where 'dumb' weapons can be avoided with ease unless its a full area saturation.. ...and rockets.... for when you just want to scorch a general region or area.. be it short range ,long range ,medium range... so ,aslong they get to the general area its all ok.. hmm..
@@DrBunnyMedicinal That's why you need to be as expensive as you need to one shot a target reliably, not more so. You don't launch the himars to blow up a hamster waddling down the road. For that, you just fire the unguided short ranged bullets or RPG-7 equivalent. If you are a military planning to fight capital ships made by other humans, you design missiles to reliably try and breach the given defenses and cause serious damage, if fighting human small fighter/drone craft you design some missiles that are much smaller if perhaps more agile to counter those. And if you might fight both, you carry both (in the fleet even if not on every ship perhaps). Now if some alien swarm of things shows up.... that's too tough for the anti fighter missiles but the big anti ship missiles are overkill against and they are quite numerous then oh well... fire everything as best you can, but it's hard to design and plan armaments for that unknown. No point designing and packing a pointless middle ground weapon on your ships just "in case" when you have no knowledge of such an actual threat before then, as it would just be reducing your viability against the threats you do know of and are planning to fight. Variable powered lasers and rail guns are the best for flexibility overall. You can raise/lower the power as needed per shot against a given target, letting you optimize your response to a given target. With missiles though, unless you are fabricating/wet printing them on the spot on your ship as you need them, you're limited by what you stockpile in advance and in that case the aforementioned rules of prepare for what you know are in effect.
Another advantage to missiles in space, as shown in one of the examples, is that the launcher isn't always necessary. The missiles can just float about or be in orbit, minefield like, and activate their vectoring and propulsion upon acquisition of an appropriate target.
This would make an incredible planetary devense weapon or as a secret suoer weapon was this your original idea? If so then can i maybe use it in my own sci-fi setting? and if not were did you got it from?
It is by no means an original idea as it floats around for decades, so you can go for it. As for inspiration I hightly, highly rwcomend the youtube channle "Isaac Arthur". He does podcasts every weak for almost a decade by now and talks about basicly every (hard) sci fi topic possible!
@@bakinginc.3844 I view this idea as generic enough to be considered public domain. I now forget which example was listed in the video regarding free-floating, or launcher-less, missiles. Another example of mines that vector and have propulsion is seen in an episode in Stargate. It is very similar to the "kamikaze drones" used in real life by various militaries over the last few years. In space air resistance isn't an issue, so the "missile" doesn't need to be missile shaped. The "self-propelled payload" could be as awkward and clunky as a shipping container stuffed with explosives and directed by vectoring thrusters on the corners. It could also be derelict small cargo vessels or shuttles similarly loaded and set to activate autopilot under set conditions or remote control. Most of the cost of a space ship is the necessity of keeping an air-breathing crew alive. It may be plausible in a setting for a "beater" spaceship to be rather cheap (scrap value essentially) because it can't pressurise but still retain functional sensors, controls, and sub-light thrust.
I think one the most unique missiles I've ever seen in Sci fi was the Skipper Missile from the Wing Commander movie. It's essentially a cloaked nuke, but since the cloaking device renders the missile blind while active, it must decloak periodically to ping and reacquire it's target. The film itself was kind of meh, but I feel that weapon as a concept merits a second look.
The movie was to me a couple of clicks below meh, they just tried to mash too many genres together, and holy crap, the kilrathi.....let's not go there lol. But yeah, the missile is an interesting idea, but I don't think it was portrayed well. It just did the linier hopscotch thing, w the target trying to keep a step ahead. A stealth weapon is best used stealthily. It should have been launched w a general map of the area, orbital mechanics and target, and hopped from cover to cover, updating its targeting each time, while getting close enough for its attack run. If you can see it and know it's coming after you, you could just put down enough fire on that vector.
@@blackc1479 Technically it was NOT a stealth weapon. It was not cloaking from memory but going into hyperspace for short periods of time. Because of that it could only acquire targeting data in real space. I did like the concept though.
I'm pretty sure Skipper missiles were cloaking. Wing Commander's primary FTL is jump point based so I don't think dropping in and out of hyper was a viable option plus small jump drives were rare and very expensive things which is why jump capable fighters are so rare in the setting. Also both Wing Commander. related wikis I found refer to the Skippers as cloaking. In fact I just checked my DVD. During the Skipper missile attack one of the Tiger Claw's crew specifically says they are only picking it up when it decloaks to get a radar fix.
@@roguerifter9724 I must be getting confused with a different setting then. The idea is not a new one after all. I think it was an old anime I'm thinking of that had the jump-capable weapons. Can't recall the name of it now for the life of me, but the more I think about it the more I remember hyperspace bubbles and ships needing to get within each others bubble to fire most weapons.
I thought for sure when you were talking about "kinetic missiles" you'd mention the Hellfire R9X which is currently in use as a precision weapon. It literally has swords that come out of it like a giant rocket propelled broadhead arrow. Assuming it's a soft enough target, that sort of design would be pretty devastating in space combat.
In my story, some bullets and rocket warheads are basically tinfoil umbrellas. They spin and that unfolds them, allowing for full transfer of kinetic energy and avoiding over-penetration or overkill since they want the opponent to surrender and not become a hazard to navigation.
What about relativistic kill missiles? Just a metal rod going so fast, the kinetic impact alone will cause HUGE devastation. And is more likely than not going to just plough straight through an unarmoured spaceship and keep on going!
@@PerfectAlibi1 I suspect no one is expecting that in space combat due to expectations of acceleration time to achieve such velocities against targets that are actively maneuvering.
One neat thing about high-tech missiles in space, which The Expanse touches on a few times, is that they can function perfectly well independently of any actual missile launcher. If you have a base on, say, an asteroid that needs defending, you can just leave a few shut-down missiles in its vicinity, tied into the base's telemetry system or even just using their own passive sensors, to be activated either upon an appropriate trigger or via remote control.
Many navies in the real world use mines in the ocean which basically do that. Instead of just being a floating or moored bomb that explodes when something triggers it (many trigger mechanisms even on primitive WWII era mines), these mines are a moored capsule that contains a torpedo - usually a smaller torpedo like what would be dropped by an ASW helicopter. The mine can release the torpedo when it detects an enemy ship, and the torpedo then swimms out and attacks the target. Pretty cool really.
To me the difference between rocket, missile, torpedo would be: Rocket: small unguided Missile: guided Torpedo: a miniature unmanned ship with a massive warhead
Miniaturization has already made rockets all but obsolete. You can make a very advanced guidance system with an Arduino. If you used a nano Jetson you would have a more advanced guidance system than anything the government has (at least declassified). They also have RCS for cubesats so making them for even the smallest munitions including bullets isn't unreasonable. With the added cost being negligible. Personally I define a missile as as a space ship too small to put a person in. A torpedo is a spaceship big enough to fit one person but too small to fit two people. Just my personal rule of thumb.
@@jtjames79 Rockets would probably be cheaply made by smaller factions with a relatively low technology base and rely on sheer volume to do damage. Pirates stuffing banks of cheap, disposable rockets into a souped up cargo hauler as a surprise first strike would be the kind of thing I would expect to see. Rockets also have another sort-of benefit. Since they have no guidance system, you can't pull them off their trajectory with flares or other such systems and have to rely purely on a point defense AMS.
One thing to consider is missile acceleration. At some point, if the missile has sufficient range, the missile is going to get to such a speed that making a 5 or 10 degree course correction would take a long time relative to combat pace. I believe this is what The Expanse’s “Hammerlock” refers to, and it seems similar to the Minimum Abort Range or MAR in aerial Beyond Visual Range combat. This idea of Hammerlock and MAR basically refer to the range of which a missile must either be decoyed or shot down to avoid getting hit, as it either is still too maneuverable or has too much energy to simply dodge or run away from.
Children of a Dead Earth shows this extremely well with its orbital mechanics combined with limited delta-v. If you send a missile too fast the opponent can evade on full burn because turn time + acceleration to hit takes too long and you miss. Go too slow and even light point defence can take it down. Because you need to keep the weight as low as possible for delta-v reasons missile armor is generally thin and becomes even less effective as the missile presents its side cross-section when maneuvering. That isn't saying that missiles are useless as even if one gets through it can deliver a nuclear or fragmentation payload or simply slam into the target and all of those can disable a ship in one hit and even if not direct hit a proximity detonation from a nuke can toast radiators and whipple shields leaving you wide open for a follow up.
Speaking of Children of a Dead Earth, the nuclear payload designer lets you make ridiculous, sub-kilogram nuclear hand grenades which you can then stuff into a very low-caliber missile and spam absolutely ridiculous numbers of on the cheap. Works against everything but very high-energy laser defenses, which will just say "no" and delete them. Heavily armored ships will still have a bad day if they suffer direct hits, and their radiators and weapons can get fried as well.
This is a problem for every offensive weapon type honestly. The solution is easy, your missile doesn't fly a direct path. It bypasses the target then comes at them from the rear of their line of motion. The missile catches up to the target rather than meeting it's path. Either way the smaller missile is still going to be able to make far more agile changes to it's trajectory than a huge ship can so it's not a serious issue.
@@MrBottlecapBill A smaller missile needs to first carry the necessary fuel in order to pass a target, constantly burn accelerate in order to change it's directional velocity, and then catch up to whatever it passed. Otherwise ships can essentially just run from missiles from behind. On top of that, the missile changing it's initial velocity will have a point where it is nearly still. When it overcomes the initial velocity, and then starts moving to come in from the rear. This critical point of near immobility makes it very easy to counter with some sort of point defense. Also as long as a ship travels in a straight line, then the missile coming from behind will also travel in an easy to intercept straight line in order to attack the ship. If you're missile still is moving erratically, then it is easy to dodge as it will constantly be having to burn in different directions in order to change course. If the missile dodges down, then move your ship up to dodge. A dodging missile will put itself off target. If you're missiles are coming from extreme ranges in order to avoid point defense at critical moments, then all a ship needs to do is turn into them as you have the same approach problem, but with extra steps. Now your missiles are larger due to necessary extra fuel reserves, and slower due to extra fuel mass. You cannot make a smaller, lighter missile that has to go through extra steps.
Pretty please review the Mecha and Ships from "Knights of Sidonia". Its a bit like Gundam but with more emphasis on realism like "The Expanse" or "Battlestar Galactica". Ps: The Tsugumori is one of my favorite mecha designs.
Eh, not so much "more emphasis on realism", IMHO, just telling a slightly different story. I love Sidonia and I love a lot of the stuff Gundam has done, (mainly the UC stuff for my tastes, but Ironblooded Orphans is also a damn fine show), they are really just about two different types of war, and they are both about How Much War Sucks in at least part. Aaaaand now I need to watch the Sidonia OP again, because damn it rocks. Probably gonna watch a couplefew Gundam OPs/EDs too, really. [s]How terrible.[/s]
Sidonia, realism? The one where the enemies that can only be killed with magic lances, where the ladies feed via photosynthesis, and where the mechas go faster when they use the same amount of propulsion to move the same amount of mass, but in a ring formation? I would say it's like Gundam but *less realistic*
@@remram44 The lances has a tip that causes a chemical reaction to the core of the gauna which is why at the early part of the series. The placenta surrounding it can still be damaged by normal weapons. its their only way to kill it early on the series but at the end, they invented specific ammunition to kill gauna in long range. Guana kill counts exploded from there, from killing one gauna to destroying entire colonies. The Photosynthesis is an invention after the 4th war, the inventor became an immortal because of it and it isn't strict to ladies but everyone and people still need to eat food because the energy they receive from photosynthesis isn't enough to fuel their daily activities, that's why plants doesn't move much after all. Its a sci but probable. The clasp formation, we don't know how that works, I mean their tech is in distant future and they are using hyggs particle to fuel them so its science gibberish. Sidonia is speculative science fiction. Due to lack of resources, most things are recycled, weapons, armor, even people. The dead are not buried but thrown into a biorecycler to be used as engine fuel. A third gender exist to balance out gender disparity. Honoka sisters exist (the clones) because Sidonia's population can't keep up the number of pilots dying. The Photosynthesis function exist because of the food problem. Safety rails are present just incase the artificial gravity fails or something like an acceleration occurred. For a post apocalyptic mecha anime where they might be the last surviving humans left (if you can still consider them as such) its realistic as it gets.
Quite surprised that you didn't include Macross within the video considering that they heavily use missiles in their setting and created the missile massacre trope that's common in sci-fi anime.
I would love nothing more than for Daniel or Hoojiwana to make an episode covering the SDF-1 Macross ...but unfortunately, considering their unfavourable stance on sci-fi anime (specifically their tendencies for inconsistent sources and constant reliance on the same tired tropes established by Yamato over and over) and "hero ships" (especially of the ludicrous variety), I highly doubt it will ever come to pass.
could you review something from the Honorverse books sometime? its a surprisingly realistic far future series with gravity powered ships and missile dominated combat(at least in the later books), and very fleshed out technical information on almost everything
It would be tough to do something like that, not because of lack of content, but because of excess of content. The ~25 year span of the main series, and definitely the 400+ year story of the changes to tech and doctrine often driven by Manticore as the unofficial center of the settled galaxy (with its huge wormhole junction, including into and around the Solarian League) makes a short video very difficult to handle with any detail. They'd need to dedicate a whole series of videos to that, but how wonderful it would be if they would do such a series :D Especially with the 2nd Havenite War and the Mesan Alignment/Solarian League conflict making such HUGE changes.
My personal favorite for missiles are the ones from the Honor Harrington series of books. gravity impeller drives and fusion laser warheads. Nothing says f*** you quite like enough radiation to cook earth twice focused into a beam only a few meters wide flying at you under 2k+ G's of acceleration. They got worse when they added swarm tactics to their design.
@@banebeard Haven: Hahaha, we've got them scared, they launched from way to far out... ... wait, what do you mean...? OH SCREW THIS, we're done, we're out.
I think my primary reason for enjoying your videos is retroactive appreciation for all the sci-fi I love when you help me realise how much attention to detail is present in shows like SG1 and BSG.
Surprised you never mentioned Weber's Honor Harrington series. Lots of stuff similar to what you've talked about. Also, interesting thing about most missiles in Star Wars: they're often unguided because of how prevalent EW and jamming were (at least in the old EU). And Trek undersells how much damage the photon torpedoes do, considering that by TNG they were each carrying a kilo of antimatter...
@@templarw20 the powerscaling got a bit silly though, like ok, they have absurdly powerful drives and shields that literally warp space itself to protect the ship, so the largest ships, super dreadnoughts, could shrug off several hits from antimatter bombs. Skip forward a couple books, suddenly the main ship of the line is a super monitor, like 2 orders of magnitude bigger than the already massive SDs
I do love the little bit of Starsector footage. I know the 2D aspect makes it a bit trickier, and it's really compressed in distance, but I would love to see you talk about some of the ships from that game some time!
I'm pretty sure it's just coincidence, but it's mildly amusing that this comes out when _NEBULOUS: Fleet Command_ is about to drop a major update on how its missiles function (TL;DR, you get to customize your missiles down to warhead type, guidance, and propulsion, plus all sorts of new/updated weaponry to shoot missiles out of or shoot them down with).
Starsector! I’ve been obsessed with that game recently! Literally just turned it off. I’d love to see some videos on it if you can think of a way to do it, it’s worldbuilding is surprisingly deep.
One of the most interesting missile weapons in scifi are the combat wasps from the Nights Dawn trilogy. They are disposable drones with a fusion drive (or antimatter but those are illegal) that can be equipped with a variety of mission pods allowing them to either act as a MIRV missile for kinetic or nuclear submunitions, a mobile point defense equipped with a laser or particle cannon or an ECM pod to protect other combat wasps from point defense. They are basically the unholy lovechild of a drone fighter and a missile. And because they are disposable munitions you only need a launch tube and not hangar since you don't plan on recovering them anyway.
My thoughts exactly. Not everything in the Honor-Universe may be realistic, but when talking about long-range space battles, I think is is pretty spot on. Even when closing to energy-weapon range - in other words point-blank range - means that there are vast distances between the attacking ships.
@@katarn999 I love how Weber mentions things that affect weapon envelopes, like the relative movement between ships and fleets. As for his knife-range fights, a 1km ship at 1 light-second is a target that's 0.000190986 degrees of arc. Pretty small damn target, and when your beams diameters are measured in meters, and a ship can move under accelerations measurable in hundreds of G's, including rolling to interpose their impeller bands? That can be a lot of movement in the single second it takes the graser beam to get there!
@@patrickdusablon2789 You are of course correct. Knife-fight distances is a relative term in the Honorverse. Not sure if I remember correctly, but max laser/graser distance is usually named as 1 mio. kilometers. That‘s something over 3 light seconds, and therefore a lot of time to evade the attack for such a small target that a ship would be in space.
@@katarn999 with respect, I believe you are misremembering. If I recall correcty, and I may be mistaken, while a beam can remain coherent enough to cause damage that far out, the odds of hitting are so low that opening up with the energy mounts is just wasting your time. That's while, when energy weapons are used, they're at most at 500,000 km, but more often within one light-second. It's the difference between dangerous range, and effective range. To use a real-world example, a .22lr round can travel to the tune of 1800 meters under ideal conditions. But good luck hitting with any kind of accuracy past 140 meters, also under ideal conditions.
@@patrickdusablon2789 I think you are correct. It's been a while since I re-read the series, but those distances sound about right. I remember that at the 4th battle of Jelzin's Star, Honor's fleet waited to the very last moment to reveal the Superdreadnoughts (SD) within its ranks for that very reason - while fighting missile-oriented Haven battleship (BB) detachments. I think I should start again with the first book anyway... good memories! 😁
one of the missile techs from the David webber series had 1 missile in each salvo to be the guidance missile (no warhead all sensor) which allowed closer guidance information relays that a ship could provide and also lessen the burden of the individual missile sensors assuming that missile doesn't get specifically targeted for kill first.
That missile doesn't just have guidance systems, it does have an FTL communication link to its mothership. Alowing the mothership to both update the missile's operational parameters over a distance of several light minutes, but also to recieve information on the target in close to real time. Making Apollo one of the few weapon systems in SciFi that can plausibly engage an aware and prepared enemy at a range of over an astronomic unit.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on nukes in space. RE: missile cost. That would be a great limiting factor in Master of Orion, where missiles were pretty much king until late-game.
Nukes are very inefficient in space. The explosion produces practically nothing but gamma rays, which would normally heat up the air, which in turn creates a shock wave. In space, however, this is missing and if the rocket explodes on the surface, 50% will go in the wrong direction anyway. B5 represented it well for me. Even 2 nukes from a short distance could not destroy the structure of the ship. But the gamma radiation really grilled the side that was hit. So you don't destroy the ship unless the bomb explodes inside the ship. PS: That's why MoO has very cheap antimissile missiles.
What I don't know is does the explosion remain in place when it detonates or does it move after detonation at the speed the warhead was going? Imagine launching nukes and catching a ship or a squadron or a flotilla by not aiming at the ships but their vicinity and catching them in the momentary spheres of heat and radiation. If they do move at the speed of the warhead when they detonate, then ouch.
@@Jasmin-lg3gf With a close enough near hit, a nuke might dump enough neutrons onto a vehicle to cause neutron activation and turn it into a radiation hazard for the crew... assuming the neutrons don't also cause excursions with any nuclear materials used in the engine and weapons.
Mentioning the nuclear shaped charge, the christopher paolini book "to sleep in a sea of stars" uses casaba howitzers, which basically use a nuclear shaped charge to allow nukes to be aimed at a target, as one of their only weapons that gives them somewhat of an edge against a technologically superior foe
The missiles in Honor Harrington are of the bomb-pumped laser kind. Basically, it’s a nuclear warhead that detonates tens of thousands of kilometers away from the target, with the blast powering a series of lasing rods that fire bursts of coherent energy, usually in the x-ray band. The missiles themselves try to find a good angle for their lasers before detonating. They later begin building multi-stage missiles to drastically increase the range. They also start using missile pods, single-launch auxiliary launchers they are towed by tractor beams and usually kept inside the ship. The idea is to overwhelm enemy defenses with a single massed launch, so there’s no need for a second salvo
Double nitpick on WWII's anti-air systems, or flak: 1)Most countries used TIMED fuzes, as proximity fuzes were an extremely new invention. In the Axis only the Germans experimented with them, and they never managed to make them work. Among the Allies it was the Americans who managed to make them work decently and mass produce them for the shells, and those shells were a great improvement over timed fuzes. 2)The point of flak wasn't to shoot down the enemy bombers, it was to keep them from dropping their payload on target (either by making them flinch and drop it early or by making the target area impassable) and make them vulnerable by forcing the more fragile escort fighters away and disrupting their formation so that the defending fighters could pick them off, and it did it quite well. Every time an enemy plane was actually downed by flak it was just a bonus.
The weapon system in the video is actually the Unrotated Projectile launcher, which applied the idea of a minefield and *literally* put it in the sky. It was pretty much a failure in every regard except perhaps cool factor.
In modern warfare, most torpedoes are guided much like missiles, so the main difference between the two is the medium within which they operate (water versus air) and the method of propulsion - which is determined by that medium. What exactly would be the difference between torpedoes and missiles operating in a vacuum? In most sci-fi franchises, the use of the terms missile or torpedo seems to be a stylistic choice, used describe what is essentially the same type of weapon.
It appears that the difference mostly comes to effective range and yield, countered by the cost and bulk. Missiles are used at shorter range, in greater numbers, have smaller profile, simpler guidance and more effective maneuvering due to lower diminishing returns. It seem like a natural transfer from modern or last-century naval missiles and torpedoes, where te missile is something you use to damage the ship or to intercept planes, where a torpedo is a dedicated weapon for sinking ships. A torpedo is against something your size or greater; A torpedo is against something of greater size and defensive capabilities. Otherwise, when trying to stick to reality and whatnot, torpedoes are the type of a missile, because the term missile stand for anything that is launched towards the enemy target, including rockets, grenades, bombs, mines, bolts etc. There were no clear historical moment at which all guided self-propelled projectiles begun being called missiles, and for a good fraction of their use, torpedoes were also unguided.
@@EugeneParallax The statement "missiles are used at shorter range, in greater numbers, have smaller profile, simpler guidance and more effective maneuvering due to lower diminishing returns" is not an accurate reflection of modern military applications. Missiles range in size from small air-to-air weapons all the way up to ICBMs, and as the latter implies, can have ranges all the way up to intercontinental distances. The AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missile used by the US Navy has a range of over 200 miles and is pretty effective at sinking ships. I suspect that future terminology with respect to missiles will most likely evolve from current language, rather than calling back to antiquated terminology from the early 20th century, so the old-timey naval terms used in a lot of sci-fi is just silly.
@@Martiandawn >rather than calling back to antiquated terminology What like when RN brought back term corvette (and I think frigate) during WW2 just to categorize what were they building?
@@Poctyk Those were navy people, resurrecting terminology from their proud historical tradition. The crews of military spacecraft in the future will probably arise from modern day air forces and adapt terminology from that tradition. They are not likely to use terms that arise from the traditions of wet navies.
I'm happy to hear Star Trek called "fantastical" because I feel as though it is far more magical than most Sci-Fi, including pre-Disney Star Wars. In Star Trek, everything is magic using technobabble incantations to create whatever effect seems desireable at the moment.
8:03 really like the idea of "beamed power" however this always get's me thinking: Great thing about a guided missile is it's ability to hunt down a target autonomously. If it's power gets beamed in from a mothership, there needs to be an exchange of information between ship and missile, so the beam always points at the missile. First problem here: Any debris or whatnot could interrupt the beam and disable the missile. However my point is about long distances in space: Given a far enough distance between missile and mothership the signal delay would increasingly hinder the missiles ability to move freely thus making it useless at some point. That's what always got my bugging about the novel "Blindsight". The ship "Theseus" is powered by a beam of the Icarus-Array. The array is somewhat near earth (or the sun? Not sure anymore. I guess sun makes sense given the name...). However Theseus operates in the Orth-cloud, so outer solar system. The signal delay between Icarus and Theseus would be enourmus. The ship would somewhat say "Alright Icarus, I'm gonna change my course in like 4 hours! Be aware!". Let alone moons, planets or other things getting in the way. Refraction/diffusion of the laserbeam would also be a thing to consider...
Interesting point. If the flight path-including evasive pattern-is deterministic then the mothership could aim the power/comm laser where it knows the missiles will be even accounting for light lag. Then analyzing previous battles or good old-fashioned espionage for the purpose of reverse-engineering the software that determines those flight paths would be a massive military priority.
@@mluby7828 True! However this would only work for things like cruise missiles that are aimed at "static" targets (as static as things in space can be). For dog-fight/space battle situations it would your opponent require to also keep a deterministic flight path which I think is highly unlikely.
If command is being beamed to the missile it would be essentially worthless as an enemy an just point their own rays of radiation at it and scramble the signal. Even if just for power, same concept can be applied to overheat it. that or just... blow it up with a laser.
I really love how David Weber presents missile combat and point-defense in his Honor Harrington series of books. The powered envelope ranges, multi-drive missiles and embedded EW countermissiles effectively render energy weapons obsolete by the time of the Second Havenite War.
The honor harrington series comes up a lot, but another missile warfare item that wasn't discussed but is heavily featured there was that they are one of the few systems that can just be stapled onto a ship. A missile is (mostly) self contained. So whether free floating, pods, single use launchers, etc. You can mount missiles on most any ship with minimal structural work. Basically every other weapons system has to be incorporated into the structure of your space ship.
In the Traveller RPG (Mongoose 1st ed) a common anti-missile point defense system is sandcasters. Basically a cylinder or set of cylinders loaded with a whole lot of sand or other similar particulates. When a missile, spaceborne boarder, or sometimes light fighter-craft is detected (by whichever means; they can usually also be fired manually) the canister opens into hard vacuum, filling the void between the ship and the missile (or whatever) with debris. The incoming offensive will likely be destroyed, considering that this sand is often moving many times the speed of sound thanks to momentum from the ship or space station.
Shaped charge warheads are fine against relatively small tanks where the super heated liquid copper jet will kill the crew and damage all the controls but against anything ship sized and we are talking 1000tonnes or bigger they aren't very useful because the target just has to much volume. Historical battleship armour piercing shells aren't like tank armour piercing shells. Battleship shells have a bursting charge so they penetrate then explode inside causing more damage they are also large and heavy relative to the ships firing them.
They were also finicky as hell. So many AP bombs and shells in WW2 failed to explode because the fuse itself has to survive an impact that just *punched through the side of a battleship*. Often the fuse didn't survive the impact, and the bomb/shell failed to explode.
Depends on the shape of the charge. Different shapes produce different effects. One of my favorites is the Explosively Formed Penetrator. If the missile can spin and point at a specific point, then it might be explode as it passes along the side of a ship and hit the reactor or a weapon magazine or a fuel bunker. Maybe they can and will armor these areas in an aerospace vehicle, but a large EFP might still be able to at least damage the exhaust or radiators or sensors. I've also read that some designs can create a shotgun effect with multiple EFPs.
"But how can your slow missile have greater range then laser that literary travels at speed of light, huh? Checkmate!" "Laser can't hit anything beyond a few light seconds when you stop making correct course predictions while missile with AI onboard can guide itself for centuries. Not to mention if you can spare self aware AI, shields and FTL drive for your fighters, you can sure as hell spare them for ICBM sized antiship missile."
Despite what people might want you to believe. Lasers aren't a perfect line, it's a very tight cone, limited by very nature of light. Since total power of a shot is kinda same, doubling of radius of base of said cone will spread energy over 4 times as much area, so you will get
Gotta say, I love how you used the M-901 from war thunder as well as the railjack from warframe lol. Both games I play, and both vehicles I have/use lol.
The M-901 is just the tank that Spookston happened to be playing in his LOSAT video, which is what that clip is from. I do still play both Warframe and Thunder though, thats my railjack at the end there! - hoojiwana from Spacedock
@@hoojiwana The Railjack is honestly potentially one of the most terrifying ships in scifi. Handles like a chonky fighter, has a wave motion gun and can fire a warframe through ship hulls with the catapult. Though I will admit fully Orokin/Tenno technology is absolutely solidly into the science fantasy end of scifi.
Battletech makes great use of missiles and rockets, the MRM, SRM, LRM, and Arrow IV systems all have their own quirks and some have different warheads that allow for different effects. For instance, the NARC system sticks to enemy targets and turns it into a "hello I am here please shoot me" game. The 'inferno' package on LRMs is also surprisingly terrifying. Even though you're behind tons of armour, heating up your mech and stopping you from being able to easily vent your waste heat without shutting down is a terrifyingly good tactic. Nobody wants to be a cooked Mechwarrior after all.
Glory, glory, what a hell of way to die! Glory, glory, I just hope I can get by! Glory, glory, I just wish they'd pay me more, I guess I'll drop once more. ^^
My favourite craft will always be the Nestled Drone Ship. A large ship hits your sensors, then it breaks into 2... then 4.... then 8.... then 16.... Eventually you have a nice swarm of small ships heading your way, all of them armed with warheads and a few good shots. The whole system is deemed 'disposable' too, so it is easier to calculate your tactics... fire and forget!
Gundam has always had a funny relationship with this trope. Due to all the Minovsky particles spread all about that plays merry hell on sensors and unshielded electronics, pretty much all missiles have to be dumb bomb as tracking becomes impossible making hitting evasive targets a difficult undertaking. They are almost exclusively used as a form of area control and to hit bigger and slower targets. However, shrapnel bombs are still a thing if they are set up to detonate after a certain distance to try and hit an evasive target. However, you still don't want to get hit by one of those things so mobile suits often carry anti missile defenses in case they can't get out of dodge fast enough. That said, in terrestrial combat there exist guided weapons in the form of wire-guided anti mobile suit missiles. As distances aren't as extreme when on the ground these can be deployed by foot soldiers to try and take down an MS. While they are slower than usual missiles to allow for a human to reasonably steer them and have limited range due to the wire, they can be quite effective when properly utilized. Though there was an honest attempt at a long range guided weapon in the late UC era in the form of the funnel missiles that attempted to take the technology of funnels and apply it to missiles. Why this wasn't further developed I don't know, but my guess would be cause it is a sort of Newtype technology, something that tends to be notoriously fickle.
An advantage of shaped-charge warheads on missiles is that they might be able to turn and hit the target from the side or rear with the use of an Explosively Formed Projectile that might strike more vulnerable points instead of relying on head-on contact.
Off topic but it seems, you have some footage of gundam and other anime a bit frequently. So.... why not do a video of what's the purpose of giant robots in combat or something idk...
I hoped for a mention of Nebulous Fleet Command, as it's modular missile update will release soon. :( Nevertheless, an amazing and informative video as always.
Some of my favorite missiles include: Node Missile (Sword of the Stars): an FTL-capable, ~300 ton warhead on an expendable lightspeed drive, which can travel to a system on its own or in the company of a fleet, then be launched in combat or upon a hapless world. Salamander MRM (Starsector): Heat-seeking missile that intelligently curves around obstacles and locks onto the red-hot engine signature of a ship, then disables the engines with an EMP burst. Polaris Missile (Sword of the Stars 2): A missile armed with a single-shot heavy beam weapon normally seen on capital ships or in spinal-mount artillery. Closes on target and then unleashes the beam. Complex Ordnance Launcher (Sword of the Stars): A hybrid missile system that can be equipped with different packages. These include the "Crybaby," an ECM-equipped drone that spoofs enemy radar tracking; the "Cracker," which creates a cloud of explosive space mines; and also one that creates several tactical drones (i.e. strike craft) that attack targets independently.
2:37 If you are refering to the "unrotated projectile", that was more of a aerial mine field. Plus they were afaik equiped with a contact fuze, not a proximity fuzes. The first real, practical proximity fuze was the VT fuze. And this thing was FAR from ineffective.
The VT fuse was almost twice as effective as regular time fuses. But it wasnt a wonder weapon. Even with VT fuses the US Navy still needed 340 shots of 5 inch ammunition to destroy a single enemy aircraft, without VT fuses it was 654 rounds to kill a single plane, both numbers are averages over the entire war (or in the VT duses case from the moment they were introduced in 1943). Source: US Antiaircraft Action Report from October 1945. To put that in numbers one can work with: the heavy anti aircraft battery of an Essex class carrier would need almost 3 minutes to shoot down a single aircraft (8 guns in 4 twin mounts fireing at 15 rounds per minute for a total of 360 rounds in 3 minutes). Even the most effective AA batteries needed time to shoot planes down and thus were ineffective when multiple enemies attacked at the same time.
I've been binge watching your stuff since I found this channel and love it. But I've noticed that there's no Space Above and Beyond content. Have you guys seen that show? Would love to see your analysis of it. Keep up the good work.
Speaking of missiles, being confused about stuff, let's just a quietly ignore the sparrow that liked to confuse ground reflection for enemy aircraft Or the fact that for the longest time you could only fire heat seeker like the sidewinder if you had a rear aspect shot so you were forced to get into a turning fight in order to get your missile off because if you tried to fire it head on it just wouldn't see the other aircraft
This video was much too long. Here: "Begin with On Basilisk Station, by David Weber. Continue through the series until you run out. There. That's missiles in space combat. End of video." I mean seriously, Honor Harrington is the absolute, definitive example of missile combat (and frankly space combat in general) in modern literature.
I liked the torpedoes in the Crest of the stars. They were basically very utilitarian boxes(with minor stylistic differences between factions) with thrusters all around for maneuvering and held antimatter for the payload.
Of note in Gundam (at least Universal Century Gundam) we might actually see the evolution of "missles" to counter Mobile Suit warfare. Early on when Zeon was the only power fielding mobile suits their bazookas were mostly anti-ship weapons. Minovsky particles, being what they are, absolutely screwed with targeting systems. So we see guided weapons against smaller and far more nimble targets usually launched in a barrage/swarm. We see plenty of scenes where missles have to make direct contact with mobile suits rather than proximity hits. However later on, like in MSG: Unicorn, we see anti-mobile suit missiles dentonate before making contact and showering an area with a cone of high velocity shrapnel. Good examples of what I'm talking about can be seen in the MSG: The Origin series with Zaku I vs Iron Cavalry Guncannons. With both using dumb fire rockets and missles. Later, during the Battle of Loum, we see Federation Saberfish spam missles to hit a single mobile suit. However these same weapons are eused in attack runs against ships. Probably why they have to mass fire them as targeting tech is not good, low priority (because who else other than the Federation has fighters), or they're not meant for fighter vs fighter (or anti-mobile suit) combat. Battle doctrine in early UC Gundam was around anti-ship/anti-fleet warfare. But later on the tech caught up and adapted to include counters to mobile suits.
For a really, really long and in-depth analysis of how missiles might be used in space, you can't really do much better than David Weber's Honorverse in my opinion. If you can stand his delirious verbosity, that is.
Im surprised you never mention RKV..... skip the space ship all together and and shoot a missle straight at the target from *extremely* long range.... in fact, missles would be the longest range weapons in most setting with at least modern guidance systems. If you dont know what i mean, look up the USN LRASM. It can search for and strike ships over 500 miles away iirc.... and i think some of the long range anti air missles can go 900 miles (its called something like SM 6, i cant remember)
I just had this Douglas Adam's moment. A ships producal that no one talks about what missles are for in the armory to keep the missle AI's in the dark. Whenever they find out the entire missle magazine gets depressed and either stop working of blow up in a fir of anger
Missiles and guided munitions are the best for long range but are very slow compared to lasers or close to light speed directed energy weapons . It's all good to have a weapon that is long range and guided but can it catch up to or intercept the target ? Space is huge and objects like spacecraft go really fast in space especially if the is trying to evade missiles . Ideally you want a missile but that cover long distances and have agility at the speed of light . Lasers are the best weapons for range and speed to get the target . The problem is they and other dew are not guided . Not with real physics . The expanse got it wrong by not diversifying its weapons . Ideally you want a mix of all weapons , Kinetic guided and directed energy weapons . It is also a nightmare to be using so many rounds to hit ships and missiles . Like thousands . One problem with storing so much ammunition like bullets even today is the space taken up by kinetic ammunition and its associated mass . Imagine thousands of bullets to be stored in a space ship . Especially when kinetics are much less efficient due to the extreme sizes of space . Yes if you have good guidance and targeting it could work but that opens up some problems itself when talking about sensors in space . Those same guidance and targeting could be used for pulse lasers . Ideally you should save kinetics for when you need hard hitting.
A VT fuse-equiped allied fleet: "Actually, yes. You kinda do." sorry, couldn't resist... The VT fuse was a big deal for surface to air defence. Not only in the pacific but also for the british isles. With it, british AA had a reasonable chance of taking down V1 cruise missiles. Fewer of those getting through helped with public morale.
Nano missiles made of antimatter. You fire a missile and it dissipates into a cloud of antimatter nanites, and subsequently anything made of matter sets off explosions. You could also just detonate it yourself by launching any object at it. Bonus points if the antimatter itself is also chemically or energetically explosive.
@@SuperThest you can mix this into a plasma stream near a star, or in a gaseous planet or nebula to make it harder to detect. Because they're nanites, too, you can scale the size of the explosion to very small amounts. It's a near-invisible minefield that can potentially nuke someone.
@@brokensky2378 I don’t see how you’re going to mix anti matter with regular matter to disguise it. Are the nanites holding the anti matter, or is the anti matter the nanites? The delivery method is irrelevant though because the end result is still only a “nuke”. Once the antimatter annihilates it will give off large amounts of gamma ray radiation and other forms of energy which is exactly how a fusion weapon would work, just ~300x more powerful per weight. You also have to ask yourself: if a civilization is advanced enough to make complex chemicals and devices out of antimatter, why are they using antimatter weapons instead of just pulling energy out of nowhere using some type of fantastical zero point energy weapon or something? Why are they going to the extreme effort of making thing out of antimatter rather than just throwing simple antimatter at a target using a normal matter device? That device though is basically a nuke with a more efficient yield. Also, antimatter would not be invisible. It is just as easy to detect as normal matter. That cloud of antimatter would immediately show up on a LiDAR scanner. We actually have the technology right now to spot that nanite cloud in the atmosphere of a gas giant. At that point the counter measure would be to just throw matter at it which is such an extremely cost effective method that militaries would likely stop using the weapon.
One note on fragmentation warheads. While it won't damage the primary hull if the ship is armored nobody thinks what this is going to do to sensor arrays, communication antennas and the like. Small high speed fragments will shred conventional dishes or cone antennas, or batter and pit the reflective surface so badly that you get inaccurate readings. Not going to do optic systems any favors either. And if the fragments are ball bearings fired in a Claymore type arrangement.... Its really hard to fight blind. Another possible use is chaff. A low explosive charge and sending out a cloud of small reflective foil particles to blind sensor arrays. (credit: Iron Blooded Orphans)
Having a manually-loaded "torpedo" tube on a spacecraft could be an incredibly useful feature. It doesn't just have to shoot offensive ordinance, instead launching probes, decoys, orbit-to-surface supply drops, and even personnel. Why have a big, expensive mini-craft that someone has to pilot when you can just load a missile-shaped surveillance drone into the tube and send it on it's way? Maybe a single-use, high-powered laser weapon could be loaded into the tube to avoid initial detection or legal restrictions. Capturing a fleeing spacecraft might involve a missile that magnetically latches onto it and then uses it's own thrust to slow down or disorient the target. The possibilities are really endless.
Ah, but a simple solid fuel rocket motor *isn't* short ranged in a space battle. There's no air. The missile/rocket will keep on going until it hits something, even after the fuel has run out. Preservation of momentum, remember.
Missiles/torpedoes would be better if launched by Mass Drivers. Allowing for the benefits of kinetics and missiles to combine into a singular powerful system.
Usually if there's any sort of "launcher" hardware, it's some kind of mass driver to give some initial velocity (see: Star Wars, Star Trek, Honor Harrington, etc...).
True but if your opponent has advanced manuevaring thrusters than they can just easy dodge it and all that speed will be to waste. In space, you can go pretty much anywhere, so guidance for weapons is very important.
You know the U.S. Military has talked about that and base it on the electromagnetic catapult on the Ford class carrier it was called something like the Electromagnetic missile launcher however idk if YT will let me share the real link to it.
Mass Driver launched missile-type weapons are for unguided attacks ONLY. Guided missiles will overshoot due to excess speed that thrusters cant manage any manouver.
Why have a video about missiles in space and not mention the Macross franchise? The Macross Missile Massacre is a well known trope. Kind of disappointed with your dislike of such a great franchise, Spacedock.
Video recommendation: watch paw patrol jet to the rescue and review it because I think it’s a sci fi but I want to hear what you think of it. You can do it on the 30th
I always found it weird how short the ranges of missiles were on star fighters some only go a few kilometres or even just a few hundred meters while in real life they can fly for dozens of kilometres and even over 100km with the aid of AWACS planes. Why isn’t that a thing actually? Having the capital ship help guide friendly missiles farther than they usually can.
It could be a resource concern issue? Devils Advocate, because most of the missile tech in Sci-fi should be more terrifying. Most times you don't want to fire the missile from it's maximum range in any case, due to the time it will take to reach max acceleration and hit it's target. While a missile could be designed to effectively use the fuel, just course corrections as it is space, the designers could be trying to enforce the 'get closer' doctrine of it's use. Especially if the missile is using much more basic guidance systems, because it is on a small version designed to be strapped to a space craft. Keep the fuel and parts cost down so you can make a lot of them, and just train the pilots to use them better.... I can easily see a Military making that decision. Oh, and added: Secondary guidance, such as from a Capital Ship, is open to Electric Counter Measures. Internal systems can't easily be hacked, even if they are often cheaper because 'disposable.'
@@lostbutfreesoul that seems a bit contradictory. If a missile relies on a kinetic kill, it would want used at the longest possible range in order for it to accelerate to such a velocity. Not to mention that the faster the missile is moving, the less time the opponents point defense has to react. (I think the effective distance of your point defense measures would be more important that the distance of the target.)
I think missiles in space warfare is going to combine intel, long range and stealth. Missiles in atmosphere are always limited in range because of drag, you have to burn propellant in order to reach your target. In space, a missile launcher can be "soft" launched with a mass driver, giving it considerable kinetic energy and speed without igniting its propellent. Then during this crusing phase (assuming intel is good at the location of the enemy ship) it can go complete radio silence. With stealth coating and shaping, it will be nearly impossible to see it coming from long range. As long as the kill chain is preserved, intel is updated and mid course correction can be implemented, the missile can just use a little propellant to correct its heading. Once it is close to the target, it switches on its own detector and start burning at extreme G forces to reach insane speed for the terminal phase dash to penetrate the defenses with the element of surprise and speed. It's actually how some of the deadliest antiship missile work today.
Buzz droid missiles might actually be pretty effective anti-captial ship weapons, since the "payload" can spread out and do targeted damage to critical systems instead of blowing a hole in the predesigned countermeasures. Though at that point it's less a missile and more a boarding craft.
If it could land on an unshielded ship yes, which would actually mean they'd best be used against ships trying to regain there shields and in that role could easily cause millions of dollars worth damage to a ship if they were equipped with a mini blaster and the abylity to feed off a ships electrical system
I've always wondered why space missiles aren't shot out of gauss or rail guns. Yeeting the missile at high speeds so that you can save fuel space and mass from the initial burn makes it so much more efficient. Greater efficiency leads to a smaller, harder to be countered by PD, and more maneuverable missile.
-Rockets are rather small, have a large payload than most missiles and use a solid fuel booster as an engine. Good in short range battle or against slow and preferable large targets. Beware that a good pilot or gunner can use 'em for long range combat, which can be as devastating as Torpedo or Bomb. Rockets are sociable creatures and are most effective when fired in burst. Thanks to their very short acceleration phase, Rockets tend to be more stealthy than Missiles. -Missiles are in the small to medium sized area, are guided ordnance (either by themselves or external sources). They come in a myriad amount shapes, methods of propulsion, type of warhead, type of guidance, type of target acquisition and of course, price-tags. These range from super agile heat-seeking short-range Missiles for fighters, long-range all-aspect Cruise-Missiles for Interceptors or even Vacuum-to-Surface Missiles that can switch from closed-circuit to air-breathing in a second. All in all, with Missiles there is a solution for every problem, you only need to know what you need and what. The can shred a target with expanding ammunition, blowing holes with shape.charges and even roast electronics with some EMP. Also, Swarm-Missiles. They're great. -Torpedoes are like Missiles in every aspect, except size and price. Not as agile as their smaller brethren, but multiple amounts more devastating. You can even outfit them with Jump-Drives and Stealth-Systems that rival those of spacecraft. In short, they are what you use when Rockets and Missiles lack the oomph for the job or if that enemy Cruiser needs to cease to exist now. -Bombs. Yes, you read right. Bombs. Use them against surface targets, space-stations and enemy vessels that think that their shields are thick and their engines strong enough. You can fill most ships up to brim with these cheap firecrackers on steroids and even cargo holds are no hindrance to store and launch them. Bombs can be incredible painful for an enemy commanders ego when combined with high momentum (Remember what that in Gunny in Mass Effect said about Isaac Newton). They come in all sizes from "over glorified hand-grenade" to "Only mount these in Zero-G, we have no forklift big enough for the job".
If "those weird rocket propelled things in WWII" are what i think you mean, those were MORE EFFECTIVE than regular depth charges. Reason they are considered "less effective" or even "not working at all" is because they don´t create those huge and satisfying explosions. My source is a UA-camr, "The Mighty Jingles", himself a former Navy in his royal Majesty´s service, and thus knows his sh*t when talking about these thing.
You're mixing up Hedgehog and Squid launchers with an experimental anti-air rocket system which had a similar outward appearance but was rocket rather than mortar based.
@@stamfordly6463 That can very well be the case. There were so many outlandish prototypes and exdperimental weapons tested in WWII, no way i know all of them. But yes i remember Jingles mentioning the "Hedgehog", that´s what he called it.
I see clips of the Expanse and wonder what happens to all those projectiles that missed. They don't just vanish. One day, maybe in the distant future, they'll hit something.
They'll either end up in various eccentric solar orbits, or go flinging off for a long tour of the Milky Way, where they are unlikely to hit anything larger than a grain of dust for the next few billion years. OR they might shred a large solar mirror over Ganymede and trigger a massive economic crisis in the belt because some moronic destroyer jockey forgot to check his downfield trajectories.
In immortal words of Mass Effect 2, "I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty! Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going 'till it hits something! That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime!"
Gundam in general has a lot of good space combat. The weapon's aren't _too_ outlandish (at least in the 80's and 90's series, it kinda got derailed after that) and so it kinda makes sense.
Two things are a counter measure in battle tech for anti missile and anti fighter is a missile like device that spreads a screen of matter , anti sensors matter, so blocks physical and sensor so when missiles or fighters , and even potentially ballistics will impact and just add more matter to this screen, it sprays out like a 20 square mile or something like that . Also “space above and beyond “ has a good missile episode in which there is an advanced enemy fighter and the earth forces build an advanced missile in an attempt to deal with this fighter , it fails but still has a lot of elements of great space combat.
In the vauge sort of Sci fi setting i occasionally think about, missiles serve a very particular role of being a really efficient way of making your opponent worse. Bassically, the sensors and point defense systems of the setting are advanced and effective enough that unless you have a gigantic number of missiles, or are in super close range (by space standards) you're not going to hit the enemy with any of the missiles. But because that not hitting is entirely dependent on the enemy having point defense, by simply stocking a number of missiles you are forcing the enemy to pack point defense, and the sensor suites necessary for their effective operation, reducing there anti ship capabilities and the energy available for shields and energy weapons systems.
And that's why battleships would have escorts of Corvettes/Frigates/Destroyers. The Escorts deal with the pesky missiles so that the battleship can focus on shooting lazors (Or Plasma or [Insert Energy Weapon of Choice Here]).
Check out our partners over at #TheSojourn, an original sci-fi audio drama:
www.thesojournaudiodrama.com
horahheeheeheeeh ee ee
Please dont forget the warheads from the honorverse, like the bomb-pumped laser warhead.
@@antiheldd.3081 Beat me to it, quite a fascinating concept too, explode a nuke behind a set of gravitational lenses that focus the radiation into x-ray or gamma ray lasers that are destroyed by the explosion nanoseconds after they've done their job.
Dear Spacedock how would you run the Galactic Empire?
So this video had me thinking for a topic for you guys...flak guns in space. I'm currently watching BS Galactica, and the flak guns are heavily used to defend against cylon attacks, but wouldn't flak guns in space be just as dangerous to the person firing them as they would be to the enemy, because the flak material is exploding in an omnidirectional pattern, and ergo would hit the ship that fired it?
“Don’t worry, this is a shaped charge.” “What shape?” “Spherical!” - Clear Skies 3
Ah, I see you are person of culture as well. 😅
You are my mother fucking hero.
I've tried to explain this scene and how funny it is to like 20 different people who have never watched clear skies and I think most of them think I'm crazy.
@@nomar5spaulding they've not seen Clear Skies, they're clearly the crazy ones.
@@nomar5spaulding I've never even heard of Clear Skies 3, and that line is still hilarious. Also, I need to go look it up, right now.
7:35 I loved how in The Expanse, especially one of the battles (I think it was in S5?) the Belter missiles have yellow plumes/chemical engines, while the missiles from the Martian ships (the Roci and Free Navy ships) have blue plumes/Epstein drives. Kinda shows how the Belters are basically using whatever works while the MCRN spares no expense when it comes to weapons.
I love that detail too! I think they’re just meant to be lower efficiency fusion drives though? Like Epstein’s ship was yellow plumed before he activated his modifications.
@@kaitlyn__Lin the show fusion drives existed they used it to colonise mars, however, Epstein invented his “Epstein Drive” which was both more efficient in its fusion, had a greater mass to thrust ratio and could reach greater speeds.
Cool
I like how in the Honor Harrington series missiles are launched in tandem, one has an ECM suite and the other has the actual payload. They are also used as drifting mine fields to ambush ships.
It's one of the most developed universe in fiction. The honorverse IS the series to talk about missiles in space. Is so complex and rich that amazes me is not mentioned in the video.
In the Schlock Mercenary webcomic, they've developed teleportation, which is very effective when applied to missiles (so they can fly and teleport). The main characters even outfitted their entire ship's complement of torpedoes with sensor gear and deployed them in a radio telescope array, to detect incoming threats at a vast range. They called it the Very Dangerous Array.
on the point of shapes in space, its still important to consider leverage and momentum of different shapes and mass distributions and where thrusters are put.
Long thin missiles actually have a downside with higher moment of inertia, so they wouldn't be able to rotate as quickly. If you want your missile to be very agile for dodging countermeasures or hitting something that tries to dodge it, a shorter shape would work better. It would need to be balanced with how big of a target it is, though.
@@Br3ttM I would actually expect that style to be quite good though, assuming a single main thruster at the back, as well as much of its mass and payload, and small vector thrusters at its tip. that means it could rapidly change the direction of its main thruster in flight as the nose vector thrusters act like a long lever away from the fulcrum of mass heavy back. think the viper fighter from battlestar galactica. or a lot of the funnel missles in uc gundam.
It's telling that many of the visuals here are from The Expanse. 🙂 Loved the way that show had grounded physics. It's also the only time I can remember seeing an encounter on screen when the time between firing and hitting a target was measured in minutes.
Reminded me of Child of a Dead Earth for a second with all these sci-fi missiles..Pretty good game I recommend to those who like Space Warfare, and Realism.
Rockets, missiles and torpedoes all have a role in space warfare.
Rockets can be fitted to very small & inexpensive vessels (or drones) and can be used like a modern navy fast attack craft and use to overwhelm defenses and PDW when launched enmasse.
Missiles with proper guidance can be great at targeting smaller more nimble targets since a vessel with life support onboard can't outmaneuver a far smaller and even more nimble rod of explosive chasing it. The longer range, types of guidance be it by radar (from the firing ship or itself) or heat seeking can also play a factor.
Then torpedoes, as shown in the Expanse, a large programmable multipurpose weapon which can be devastating to anything it hits as well as be launched/dropped/fired in many different ways. A great weapon to knock out large ships just like the water swimming predecessors have in WW1 & WW2.
ohhhhhh~
I love seeing Starsector footage. such an adorable little niche game
Wished for some Honorverse style "We put an energy weapon on a missile to extend the range of the energy weapon" kinda thing.
Nuclear warheads in space is gonna be fun. Knowing the yield settings of the various nukes used in The Expanse and BSG was always a fun thing to ponder...
I can only cite on actual yield, and it wasn't a missile. When Miller was putting the charges on the Eros docks you could see 4.5 KT on the stencil. :)
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I remember that. It's hilarious that rock hopper mining nukes can be picked up at your local Ceres hardware stores. Lol
7:50 I will always remember how Elite: Dangerous nerfed torpedoes by making them cook your ship faster than a beam.
Missiles are a military technology that people keep projecting into the future in various sci-fi shows and/or movies, but have no practical application in space. Any spaceship (especially involved in long distance travel) would not want to use something like missiles or guns with ammo as they take up space and once you run out you are defenseless. Energy based weapons of some kind are the most likely to be used instead because they are reusable as long as your ship is still in working order.
Except the demand a lot of power and impose a thermal load on the ship. Which means more mass of ship is required. There are always trade offs.
Where do I get me some "handwavium" that shit sounds awsome
One of favorite missile is the from the movie Wing Commander. Where there is a missile that turns invisibles.
Have your missile launched out of electromagnetic launcher, and only use onboard motors for maneuvering. Not needing to deal with a gravity well, or air resistance, means much more of your weight can be devoted to warhead, or perhaps AI-driven electronic counter-countermeasures...
Andromeda's and Stargate's Ancient Drones/missiles are awesome. They are basically drones on meth, frighteningly fast and devastating
I think you would want to adjust the phraseology used in the video if you want to make it semi-scientifical.
There would be no 'short' or 'long' range thing on missiles in space because missiles, like kinetci weapons (aka guns/cannons) have basically infinite range because there's no atmospheric drag to slow them down.
Instead, you might want to think about something like 'effective range'. Aka the limit where the missile loses the ability to track the target or manouver.
Also, not sure where you got your information about 'unguided weapons', but torpedoes have been guided for the most part of the last 80 years. And I'm talking about all types of torpedoes in use. Guided torpedoes (via wires being pulled from one place to another) have existed for over 100 years.
As for shaped charges, that depends entirely on the setting. Personally, I would say they are the most dependent on the setting of all of the things we can imagine. If a warship has some time of 'force field' (like an electromagnetic skin -basically a giant, very dense, electrical fence running all over its hull), then the shaped charges can be detonated far from the ship or on contact and the jet is going to be deviated into outer space. Layered armour would also be more effective, especially if you have 2-hull defensive system, with one serving as arming hull and the other as main armour (fixed together with struts).
HE fragmentation missiles might be more interesting. They might not be enough to damage capital ships or stuff like that, but they would be amazing at dealing with 'drones' (fighters -althouh highly questionable why would you have that in space, drone, missiles, shells, mines etc.) or with breaking layered defences before a main strike
As for kinetic missiles, why not just use a gun?
Kinetic missiles have a much bigger range than a gun.
@@emilsinclair4190 No really.
@@TheEvilmooseofdoom yep. Firering at something more than a light second away creates a delay that makes you most likely miss the target. A missile can correct this and therefore has a bigger range.
An interesting aspect of missiles like those in The Expanse is that the more sophisticated missiles are essentially drones with considerable loiter time. The largest classes of missile carry Epstein Drives, and have interplanetary range. In principle they could be used to attack any target in the solar system by burning on an initial intercept, coasting for days, and then re-lighting their drives for the terminal engagement.
This aspect of missiles is rarely mentioned in sci-fi - if they have sufficiently advanced sensors and guidance systems, and enough battery power to loiter for a while, they can be used as almost indefinite range weapons, and also as mines that can drift in a shipping lane and light up when a target gets close enough to strike at with little warning.
Yeah the Planet Busters come to mind. Whether the ground based ones favored by the UN or the platform based models employed by the MCRN, the mechanics of launching MIRV equipped IPBMs across the solar system was just... Whoa.
Later on In the Honor Harrington series someone develops the ghost rider missile system, launches with magnetic acceleration assistance from a missile pod, runs its drive for a pre-planed amount of time then shuts down making it invisible to sensors as well as saving onboard power and at a coordinated time, reignites its drives for final course correction and terminal attack maneuvers.
ICBM vs Cruise Missiles of our time then.
This. Absolutely this.
[SPOILERS FOR THE LANCER TTRPG PLOT]
In the Lancer TTRPG, Union (the descendants of Earth/Cradle) and the Aunic Ascendancy (descendants of a long-gone colony ship) are at war, and Union decides to yeet a bunch of asteroids at near-lightspeed towards the Aunic Homeworld of Aun'Ist. They aren't projected to see the light of a sun for thousands of years. This is PISTON-1.
And when PISTON-1 does get to Aun'Ist, a literal god (Metat'Aun) just deletes 'em anyway.
I love the Expanse’s missiles.
One kind of warhead that you didn't mention was the bomb-pumped laser warhead, though it may be more fitting for your video on nuclear weapons as it uses a nuclear detonation to vaporize lasing rods to create X-ray lasers that are then used to damage a target. One example would be the laserhead in the Honor Harrington series of novels.
Yes, when I think space missiles I think Honorverse
You could achieve a similar principle (albeit not bomb-pumped) with singke use particle beam projectors that destructively overload themselves to "detonate" the warhead.
Both are non-shrapnel methods to give space missiles actual standoff ranges
Ah yes, the one sci fi I know of that looked at the Macross Missle Massacre and said "lol. Cute" Invictus 2 SD(P)
The Honorverse also uses shaped nuclear charges to make their LaserHeads more destructive, and the LaserHeads are considered a standoff weapon while "old fashioned nukes" require a direct hit and almost never happens in "modern" combat thanks to point defense and "sidewalls"
Not really decided whether bomb pumped lasers will go into the laser video or the bomb video just yet, maybe both!
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
As a kid I really liked Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. It's highly flawed as a series, but offensive missiles and defensive missiles both exist in the show. In both cases, the ship had multiple magnetic launch tubes that use gauss (coil) systems to fire them rapidly. Offensive missiles were designed for high endurance, low acceleration, high top speed. As a result, while they couldn't evade laser or defensive missiles as well, they came in to the target at significant percentages of light speed. On the other hand, defensive missiles had higher acceleration allowing them to quickly maneuver against fighters and intercept offensive missiles. All the missiles were kinetic kill. In terms of long range space combat, this is one of the more realistic depictions in soft sci-fi. Yeah, the expanse does it far better, but this is almost 15 years before the expanse aired.
Yes kinetic kill is all your ever going to need in space because nothing will be armored (too much mass), and the speeds are going to be so high that kinetic energy is all you need. At high speeds everything in the impactor is becoming a cone of destruction through the targets interior.
@@kennethferland5579 The speeds can be "so high", but there's no guarantee that they will be or have to be, or that the target will stand still.
Depends on surface area, too small and your projectile can just rip through the enemy ship leaving entry and exit wounds with minimal spalling
It's relative velocity that matters here. I agree, in a lot of situations, the kinetic energy is the main damage-dealer, but if you were at closer range taking snapshots, not so much. There's also the fact that if ships are maneuvering evasively, your missile needs to be able to execute terminal attack maneuvers, so there may be situations where a missile is rapidly decelerating to make a a hit. In those circumstances, a warhead is useful.
I was always partial to the 'laser-head' missiles from Honor Harrington. Give your missiles standoff-range to avoid the thickest point defense and remove the necessity for direct hits; way easier on your guidance systems.
There's value in having a variety of warhead types. In a setting where you have the ability to travel at significant fractions of light speed, I imagine a mini-nuclear shaped charge would be a rather easy thing to incorporate to a missile. Also, nuclear warheads would make decent defensive weapons. The damage radius could detonate or damage incoming missiles, drones or strike craft in a decent area.
Contrary to belief, there is a point between making a missile too expensive and just be good enough to attain acceptable hitrates that you would need less missiles to destroy a target, hence saving costs and materials in the long run
Case and point, HIMARS can deliver deadly accurate strikes and do the same job with far less rockets than something like multiple GRADS would require
It’s also important to note that fewer, better weapons, are easier to supply for the same effect (less trucks/cargo ships needed).
suppose its like how you could for example pack a kinetic round with several times the explosive force needed to blow a tank up...but if its penetration is so bad or oversensitive it always explodes on the outside of the armour you often have a still combat capable tank with a nasty sun burn just making it angry...
makes me wonder if not potential future space combat choses of delivery methods of guided munitions getting different names for the same method like some gotten on earth will remain and pick up archaic terms from early earth days..
like in real life how things are put in categories of 'personal fire arms' 'canons/tanks weaponry' 'artility' etc... maby future guided weapons be labeled after distance and prime functions like
...missile , most often short to medium range defensive weapon highly dexterous to hunt bombers or try nail long range guided weaponry... with little effect agenst capital grade vacum armour , wich if a hostile capital is close enough for that... pouring the power reserves into having the kinetic or other 'dumb' weapons fire rate be more effective anyway..
..torpedo , long range guided weapon on the borderline of 'hunter seeker' regardless if it comes with extreme penetration capability or a nasty exoteric warhead named for its main design being to hunt down large targets at ranges where 'dumb' weapons can be avoided with ease unless its a full area saturation..
...and rockets.... for when you just want to scorch a general region or area.. be it short range ,long range ,medium range... so ,aslong they get to the general area its all ok..
hmm..
@@aidanmattson681 True, but it really increases the clench factor if you've fired most of them and still haven't run out of targets.
@@Amoth_oth_ras_shash Look up HESH... because you've described it without realizing it and what the real effect would be:D
@@DrBunnyMedicinal That's why you need to be as expensive as you need to one shot a target reliably, not more so. You don't launch the himars to blow up a hamster waddling down the road. For that, you just fire the unguided short ranged bullets or RPG-7 equivalent. If you are a military planning to fight capital ships made by other humans, you design missiles to reliably try and breach the given defenses and cause serious damage, if fighting human small fighter/drone craft you design some missiles that are much smaller if perhaps more agile to counter those. And if you might fight both, you carry both (in the fleet even if not on every ship perhaps).
Now if some alien swarm of things shows up.... that's too tough for the anti fighter missiles but the big anti ship missiles are overkill against and they are quite numerous then oh well... fire everything as best you can, but it's hard to design and plan armaments for that unknown. No point designing and packing a pointless middle ground weapon on your ships just "in case" when you have no knowledge of such an actual threat before then, as it would just be reducing your viability against the threats you do know of and are planning to fight. Variable powered lasers and rail guns are the best for flexibility overall. You can raise/lower the power as needed per shot against a given target, letting you optimize your response to a given target. With missiles though, unless you are fabricating/wet printing them on the spot on your ship as you need them, you're limited by what you stockpile in advance and in that case the aforementioned rules of prepare for what you know are in effect.
Another advantage to missiles in space, as shown in one of the examples, is that the launcher isn't always necessary. The missiles can just float about or be in orbit, minefield like, and activate their vectoring and propulsion upon acquisition of an appropriate target.
This would make an incredible planetary devense weapon or as a secret suoer weapon was this your original idea? If so then can i maybe use it in my own sci-fi setting? and if not were did you got it from?
It is by no means an original idea as it floats around for decades, so you can go for it.
As for inspiration I hightly, highly rwcomend the youtube channle "Isaac Arthur". He does podcasts every weak for almost a decade by now and talks about basicly every (hard) sci fi topic possible!
@@bakinginc.3844 I view this idea as generic enough to be considered public domain. I now forget which example was listed in the video regarding free-floating, or launcher-less, missiles. Another example of mines that vector and have propulsion is seen in an episode in Stargate. It is very similar to the "kamikaze drones" used in real life by various militaries over the last few years. In space air resistance isn't an issue, so the "missile" doesn't need to be missile shaped. The "self-propelled payload" could be as awkward and clunky as a shipping container stuffed with explosives and directed by vectoring thrusters on the corners. It could also be derelict small cargo vessels or shuttles similarly loaded and set to activate autopilot under set conditions or remote control. Most of the cost of a space ship is the necessity of keeping an air-breathing crew alive. It may be plausible in a setting for a "beater" spaceship to be rather cheap (scrap value essentially) because it can't pressurise but still retain functional sensors, controls, and sub-light thrust.
I think one the most unique missiles I've ever seen in Sci fi was the Skipper Missile from the Wing Commander movie. It's essentially a cloaked nuke, but since the cloaking device renders the missile blind while active, it must decloak periodically to ping and reacquire it's target. The film itself was kind of meh, but I feel that weapon as a concept merits a second look.
The movie was to me a couple of clicks below meh, they just tried to mash too many genres together, and holy crap, the kilrathi.....let's not go there lol.
But yeah, the missile is an interesting idea, but I don't think it was portrayed well. It just did the linier hopscotch thing, w the target trying to keep a step ahead.
A stealth weapon is best used stealthily. It should have been launched w a general map of the area, orbital mechanics and target, and hopped from cover to cover, updating its targeting each time, while getting close enough for its attack run.
If you can see it and know it's coming after you, you could just put down enough fire on that vector.
@@blackc1479 Technically it was NOT a stealth weapon. It was not cloaking from memory but going into hyperspace for short periods of time. Because of that it could only acquire targeting data in real space. I did like the concept though.
I'm pretty sure Skipper missiles were cloaking. Wing Commander's primary FTL is jump point based so I don't think dropping in and out of hyper was a viable option plus small jump drives were rare and very expensive things which is why jump capable fighters are so rare in the setting. Also both Wing Commander. related wikis I found refer to the Skippers as cloaking.
In fact I just checked my DVD. During the Skipper missile attack one of the Tiger Claw's crew specifically says they are only picking it up when it decloaks to get a radar fix.
@@roguerifter9724 I must be getting confused with a different setting then. The idea is not a new one after all. I think it was an old anime I'm thinking of that had the jump-capable weapons.
Can't recall the name of it now for the life of me, but the more I think about it the more I remember hyperspace bubbles and ships needing to get within each others bubble to fire most weapons.
What you are describing sounds very familiar to me but I can't recall what the setting was either.
I thought for sure when you were talking about "kinetic missiles" you'd mention the Hellfire R9X which is currently in use as a precision weapon. It literally has swords that come out of it like a giant rocket propelled broadhead arrow. Assuming it's a soft enough target, that sort of design would be pretty devastating in space combat.
In my story, some bullets and rocket warheads are basically tinfoil umbrellas. They spin and that unfolds them, allowing for full transfer of kinetic energy and avoiding over-penetration or overkill since they want the opponent to surrender and not become a hazard to navigation.
So good against bioships?
I like to refer to this as the "Knife Missle".
What about relativistic kill missiles?
Just a metal rod going so fast, the kinetic impact alone will cause HUGE devastation.
And is more likely than not going to just plough straight through an unarmoured spaceship and keep on going!
@@PerfectAlibi1 I suspect no one is expecting that in space combat due to expectations of acceleration time to achieve such velocities against targets that are actively maneuvering.
One neat thing about high-tech missiles in space, which The Expanse touches on a few times, is that they can function perfectly well independently of any actual missile launcher. If you have a base on, say, an asteroid that needs defending, you can just leave a few shut-down missiles in its vicinity, tied into the base's telemetry system or even just using their own passive sensors, to be activated either upon an appropriate trigger or via remote control.
Many navies in the real world use mines in the ocean which basically do that. Instead of just being a floating or moored bomb that explodes when something triggers it (many trigger mechanisms even on primitive WWII era mines), these mines are a moored capsule that contains a torpedo - usually a smaller torpedo like what would be dropped by an ASW helicopter. The mine can release the torpedo when it detects an enemy ship, and the torpedo then swimms out and attacks the target. Pretty cool really.
To me the difference between rocket, missile, torpedo would be:
Rocket: small unguided
Missile: guided
Torpedo: a miniature unmanned ship with a massive warhead
I pretty much agree, except I'd swich around the rocket and torpedo
Add Drones to that:
Unmanned Ships that can fire a gun at your friend before hitting you to explode!
Miniaturization has already made rockets all but obsolete. You can make a very advanced guidance system with an Arduino. If you used a nano Jetson you would have a more advanced guidance system than anything the government has (at least declassified). They also have RCS for cubesats so making them for even the smallest munitions including bullets isn't unreasonable. With the added cost being negligible.
Personally I define a missile as as a space ship too small to put a person in.
A torpedo is a spaceship big enough to fit one person but too small to fit two people.
Just my personal rule of thumb.
This. I would also add that *Missiles* fit more in the anti-fighter/small craft role with *Torpedoes* being, as you said, capital ship killers.
@@jtjames79 Rockets would probably be cheaply made by smaller factions with a relatively low technology base and rely on sheer volume to do damage. Pirates stuffing banks of cheap, disposable rockets into a souped up cargo hauler as a surprise first strike would be the kind of thing I would expect to see. Rockets also have another sort-of benefit. Since they have no guidance system, you can't pull them off their trajectory with flares or other such systems and have to rely purely on a point defense AMS.
One thing to consider is missile acceleration. At some point, if the missile has sufficient range, the missile is going to get to such a speed that making a 5 or 10 degree course correction would take a long time relative to combat pace. I believe this is what The Expanse’s “Hammerlock” refers to, and it seems similar to the Minimum Abort Range or MAR in aerial Beyond Visual Range combat. This idea of Hammerlock and MAR basically refer to the range of which a missile must either be decoyed or shot down to avoid getting hit, as it either is still too maneuverable or has too much energy to simply dodge or run away from.
Children of a Dead Earth shows this extremely well with its orbital mechanics combined with limited delta-v. If you send a missile too fast the opponent can evade on full burn because turn time + acceleration to hit takes too long and you miss. Go too slow and even light point defence can take it down. Because you need to keep the weight as low as possible for delta-v reasons missile armor is generally thin and becomes even less effective as the missile presents its side cross-section when maneuvering. That isn't saying that missiles are useless as even if one gets through it can deliver a nuclear or fragmentation payload or simply slam into the target and all of those can disable a ship in one hit and even if not direct hit a proximity detonation from a nuke can toast radiators and whipple shields leaving you wide open for a follow up.
Speaking of Children of a Dead Earth, the nuclear payload designer lets you make ridiculous, sub-kilogram nuclear hand grenades which you can then stuff into a very low-caliber missile and spam absolutely ridiculous numbers of on the cheap. Works against everything but very high-energy laser defenses, which will just say "no" and delete them. Heavily armored ships will still have a bad day if they suffer direct hits, and their radiators and weapons can get fried as well.
This is a problem for every offensive weapon type honestly. The solution is easy, your missile doesn't fly a direct path. It bypasses the target then comes at them from the rear of their line of motion. The missile catches up to the target rather than meeting it's path. Either way the smaller missile is still going to be able to make far more agile changes to it's trajectory than a huge ship can so it's not a serious issue.
@@MrBottlecapBill A smaller missile needs to first carry the necessary fuel in order to pass a target, constantly burn accelerate in order to change it's directional velocity, and then catch up to whatever it passed. Otherwise ships can essentially just run from missiles from behind. On top of that, the missile changing it's initial velocity will have a point where it is nearly still. When it overcomes the initial velocity, and then starts moving to come in from the rear. This critical point of near immobility makes it very easy to counter with some sort of point defense.
Also as long as a ship travels in a straight line, then the missile coming from behind will also travel in an easy to intercept straight line in order to attack the ship. If you're missile still is moving erratically, then it is easy to dodge as it will constantly be having to burn in different directions in order to change course. If the missile dodges down, then move your ship up to dodge. A dodging missile will put itself off target.
If you're missiles are coming from extreme ranges in order to avoid point defense at critical moments, then all a ship needs to do is turn into them as you have the same approach problem, but with extra steps. Now your missiles are larger due to necessary extra fuel reserves, and slower due to extra fuel mass. You cannot make a smaller, lighter missile that has to go through extra steps.
Pretty please review the Mecha and Ships from "Knights of Sidonia".
Its a bit like Gundam but with more emphasis on realism like "The Expanse" or "Battlestar Galactica".
Ps: The Tsugumori is one of my favorite mecha designs.
It's 106 AUs to the Lem system. We got a full tank of bosons, half a magazine of artificial Kabis, it's dark... and we're wearing catheters.
@@Anon26535 Hit it!
Eh, not so much "more emphasis on realism", IMHO, just telling a slightly different story. I love Sidonia and I love a lot of the stuff Gundam has done, (mainly the UC stuff for my tastes, but Ironblooded Orphans is also a damn fine show), they are really just about two different types of war, and they are both about How Much War Sucks in at least part.
Aaaaand now I need to watch the Sidonia OP again, because damn it rocks.
Probably gonna watch a couplefew Gundam OPs/EDs too, really. [s]How terrible.[/s]
Sidonia, realism? The one where the enemies that can only be killed with magic lances, where the ladies feed via photosynthesis, and where the mechas go faster when they use the same amount of propulsion to move the same amount of mass, but in a ring formation? I would say it's like Gundam but *less realistic*
@@remram44 The lances has a tip that causes a chemical reaction to the core of the gauna which is why at the early part of the series. The placenta surrounding it can still be damaged by normal weapons. its their only way to kill it early on the series but at the end, they invented specific ammunition to kill gauna in long range. Guana kill counts exploded from there, from killing one gauna to destroying entire colonies.
The Photosynthesis is an invention after the 4th war, the inventor became an immortal because of it and it isn't strict to ladies but everyone and people still need to eat food because the energy they receive from photosynthesis isn't enough to fuel their daily activities, that's why plants doesn't move much after all. Its a sci but probable.
The clasp formation, we don't know how that works, I mean their tech is in distant future and they are using hyggs particle to fuel them so its science gibberish. Sidonia is speculative science fiction. Due to lack of resources, most things are recycled, weapons, armor, even people. The dead are not buried but thrown into a biorecycler to be used as engine fuel. A third gender exist to balance out gender disparity. Honoka sisters exist (the clones) because Sidonia's population can't keep up the number of pilots dying. The Photosynthesis function exist because of the food problem. Safety rails are present just incase the artificial gravity fails or something like an acceleration occurred. For a post apocalyptic mecha anime where they might be the last surviving humans left (if you can still consider them as such) its realistic as it gets.
Quite surprised that you didn't include Macross within the video considering that they heavily use missiles in their setting and created the missile massacre trope that's common in sci-fi anime.
There were some clips of Macross Missile Massacre in the video.
I would love nothing more than for Daniel or Hoojiwana to make an episode covering the SDF-1 Macross ...but unfortunately, considering their unfavourable stance on sci-fi anime (specifically their tendencies for inconsistent sources and constant reliance on the same tired tropes established by Yamato over and over) and "hero ships" (especially of the ludicrous variety), I highly doubt it will ever come to pass.
All I can think of with using Macross content is *Harmony Gold would like to know your location*
Macross, by extension Robotech, multi-missile launches are epic.
could you review something from the Honorverse books sometime?
its a surprisingly realistic far future series with gravity powered ships and missile dominated combat(at least in the later books), and very fleshed out technical information on almost everything
I imagine the response is that there isn't much in the way of video for that, outside of fan made stuff or that terrible mobile game.
No visuals I would say.
It would be tough to do something like that, not because of lack of content, but because of excess of content. The ~25 year span of the main series, and definitely the 400+ year story of the changes to tech and doctrine often driven by Manticore as the unofficial center of the settled galaxy (with its huge wormhole junction, including into and around the Solarian League) makes a short video very difficult to handle with any detail. They'd need to dedicate a whole series of videos to that, but how wonderful it would be if they would do such a series :D Especially with the 2nd Havenite War and the Mesan Alignment/Solarian League conflict making such HUGE changes.
My personal favorite for missiles are the ones from the Honor Harrington series of books. gravity impeller drives and fusion laser warheads. Nothing says f*** you quite like enough radiation to cook earth twice focused into a beam only a few meters wide flying at you under 2k+ G's of acceleration. They got worse when they added swarm tactics to their design.
Then came the pods...
@@Sephiroth144 Republic of Haven: Wtf? They're using pods.... How cute lmao
Two minutes later: WTF happened to our fleets?
@@banebeard Next week- its LAC time, baby!
@@Sephiroth144 Star Kingdom of Manticore: Deploy the attack bees
Haven: The f****** what!?!?!?!??!
@@banebeard Haven: Hahaha, we've got them scared, they launched from way to far out... ... wait, what do you mean...? OH SCREW THIS, we're done, we're out.
I think my primary reason for enjoying your videos is retroactive appreciation for all the sci-fi I love when you help me realise how much attention to detail is present in shows like SG1 and BSG.
Surprised you never mentioned Weber's Honor Harrington series. Lots of stuff similar to what you've talked about.
Also, interesting thing about most missiles in Star Wars: they're often unguided because of how prevalent EW and jamming were (at least in the old EU).
And Trek undersells how much damage the photon torpedoes do, considering that by TNG they were each carrying a kilo of antimatter...
and the RCN series by David Drake.
Another Weber series that featured missiles heavily is the Starfire series.
The invention of particle shielding protected against missiles and jars of raspberry jam alike.
@@Khymerion Starfire was a kitchen sink of stuff. The force beams and primaries were interesting ideas. Weaponized tractor beams.
@@templarw20 the powerscaling got a bit silly though, like ok, they have absurdly powerful drives and shields that literally warp space itself to protect the ship, so the largest ships, super dreadnoughts, could shrug off several hits from antimatter bombs. Skip forward a couple books, suddenly the main ship of the line is a super monitor, like 2 orders of magnitude bigger than the already massive SDs
I do love the little bit of Starsector footage. I know the 2D aspect makes it a bit trickier, and it's really compressed in distance, but I would love to see you talk about some of the ships from that game some time!
I'm pretty sure it's just coincidence, but it's mildly amusing that this comes out when _NEBULOUS: Fleet Command_ is about to drop a major update on how its missiles function (TL;DR, you get to customize your missiles down to warhead type, guidance, and propulsion, plus all sorts of new/updated weaponry to shoot missiles out of or shoot them down with).
Starsector! I’ve been obsessed with that game recently! Literally just turned it off. I’d love to see some videos on it if you can think of a way to do it, it’s worldbuilding is surprisingly deep.
One of the most interesting missile weapons in scifi are the combat wasps from the Nights Dawn trilogy. They are disposable drones with a fusion drive (or antimatter but those are illegal) that can be equipped with a variety of mission pods allowing them to either act as a MIRV missile for kinetic or nuclear submunitions, a mobile point defense equipped with a laser or particle cannon or an ECM pod to protect other combat wasps from point defense. They are basically the unholy lovechild of a drone fighter and a missile. And because they are disposable munitions you only need a launch tube and not hangar since you don't plan on recovering them anyway.
YES. peter f hamilton's stuff is so cool, and is an excellent example of hard sci-fi not burdened by excessive detail in realism
Best use of missiles in space is from the Honorverse books.
Read them, love them, bleek!
Bleek!
Bleek! 😸
David Weber's Honorverse book series is a good example of space combat almost exclusive reliant on missiles.
My thoughts exactly. Not everything in the Honor-Universe may be realistic, but when talking about long-range space battles, I think is is pretty spot on. Even when closing to energy-weapon range - in other words point-blank range - means that there are vast distances between the attacking ships.
@@katarn999 I love how Weber mentions things that affect weapon envelopes, like the relative movement between ships and fleets.
As for his knife-range fights, a 1km ship at 1 light-second is a target that's 0.000190986 degrees of arc. Pretty small damn target, and when your beams diameters are measured in meters, and a ship can move under accelerations measurable in hundreds of G's, including rolling to interpose their impeller bands? That can be a lot of movement in the single second it takes the graser beam to get there!
@@patrickdusablon2789 You are of course correct. Knife-fight distances is a relative term in the Honorverse. Not sure if I remember correctly, but max laser/graser distance is usually named as 1 mio. kilometers. That‘s something over 3 light seconds, and therefore a lot of time to evade the attack for such a small target that a ship would be in space.
@@katarn999 with respect, I believe you are misremembering. If I recall correcty, and I may be mistaken, while a beam can remain coherent enough to cause damage that far out, the odds of hitting are so low that opening up with the energy mounts is just wasting your time.
That's while, when energy weapons are used, they're at most at 500,000 km, but more often within one light-second.
It's the difference between dangerous range, and effective range. To use a real-world example, a .22lr round can travel to the tune of 1800 meters under ideal conditions. But good luck hitting with any kind of accuracy past 140 meters, also under ideal conditions.
@@patrickdusablon2789 I think you are correct. It's been a while since I re-read the series, but those distances sound about right. I remember that at the 4th battle of Jelzin's Star, Honor's fleet waited to the very last moment to reveal the Superdreadnoughts (SD) within its ranks for that very reason - while fighting missile-oriented Haven battleship (BB) detachments.
I think I should start again with the first book anyway... good memories! 😁
one of the missile techs from the David webber series had 1 missile in each salvo to be the guidance missile (no warhead all sensor) which allowed closer guidance information relays that a ship could provide and also lessen the burden of the individual missile sensors assuming that missile doesn't get specifically targeted for kill first.
I felt so sorry for the Havenites when Apollo was first deployed, It was one a whole other level..
@@jameshuke354 Admiral Giscard's final line, as Apollo tore his flagship up around him, made me tear up.
Apollo, the archer of the gods.
That missile doesn't just have guidance systems, it does have an FTL communication link to its mothership.
Alowing the mothership to both update the missile's operational parameters over a distance of several light minutes, but also to recieve information on the target in close to real time.
Making Apollo one of the few weapon systems in SciFi that can plausibly engage an aware and prepared enemy at a range of over an astronomic unit.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on nukes in space.
RE: missile cost. That would be a great limiting factor in Master of Orion, where missiles were pretty much king until late-game.
Nukes are very inefficient in space. The explosion produces practically nothing but gamma rays, which would normally heat up the air, which in turn creates a shock wave. In space, however, this is missing and if the rocket explodes on the surface, 50% will go in the wrong direction anyway.
B5 represented it well for me. Even 2 nukes from a short distance could not destroy the structure of the ship. But the gamma radiation really grilled the side that was hit. So you don't destroy the ship unless the bomb explodes inside the ship.
PS: That's why MoO has very cheap antimissile missiles.
What I don't know is does the explosion remain in place when it detonates or does it move after detonation at the speed the warhead was going? Imagine launching nukes and catching a ship or a squadron or a flotilla by not aiming at the ships but their vicinity and catching them in the momentary spheres of heat and radiation. If they do move at the speed of the warhead when they detonate, then ouch.
@@theofficerfactory2625 The explosion retains the momentum of the rocket, but the explosion also propagates in all directions at the speed of light.
@@Jasmin-lg3gf With a close enough near hit, a nuke might dump enough neutrons onto a vehicle to cause neutron activation and turn it into a radiation hazard for the crew... assuming the neutrons don't also cause excursions with any nuclear materials used in the engine and weapons.
Mentioning the nuclear shaped charge, the christopher paolini book "to sleep in a sea of stars" uses casaba howitzers, which basically use a nuclear shaped charge to allow nukes to be aimed at a target, as one of their only weapons that gives them somewhat of an edge against a technologically superior foe
The missiles in Honor Harrington are of the bomb-pumped laser kind. Basically, it’s a nuclear warhead that detonates tens of thousands of kilometers away from the target, with the blast powering a series of lasing rods that fire bursts of coherent energy, usually in the x-ray band. The missiles themselves try to find a good angle for their lasers before detonating.
They later begin building multi-stage missiles to drastically increase the range.
They also start using missile pods, single-launch auxiliary launchers they are towed by tractor beams and usually kept inside the ship. The idea is to overwhelm enemy defenses with a single massed launch, so there’s no need for a second salvo
Double nitpick on WWII's anti-air systems, or flak:
1)Most countries used TIMED fuzes, as proximity fuzes were an extremely new invention. In the Axis only the Germans experimented with them, and they never managed to make them work. Among the Allies it was the Americans who managed to make them work decently and mass produce them for the shells, and those shells were a great improvement over timed fuzes.
2)The point of flak wasn't to shoot down the enemy bombers, it was to keep them from dropping their payload on target (either by making them flinch and drop it early or by making the target area impassable) and make them vulnerable by forcing the more fragile escort fighters away and disrupting their formation so that the defending fighters could pick them off, and it did it quite well. Every time an enemy plane was actually downed by flak it was just a bonus.
The weapon system in the video is actually the Unrotated Projectile launcher, which applied the idea of a minefield and *literally* put it in the sky. It was pretty much a failure in every regard except perhaps cool factor.
@@yobeefjerky42 Who came up with it? Who authorized the funding? And who was their pusher?
@@lordMartiya I don't know, perhaps that would be something to look up later.
I'm slightly disapointed by the lack of Macross clips. Though I understand the potential copy right issues.
Right? There's a reason the Macross Missile Massacre is a trope...
In modern warfare, most torpedoes are guided much like missiles, so the main difference between the two is the medium within which they operate (water versus air) and the method of propulsion - which is determined by that medium. What exactly would be the difference between torpedoes and missiles operating in a vacuum? In most sci-fi franchises, the use of the terms missile or torpedo seems to be a stylistic choice, used describe what is essentially the same type of weapon.
It appears that the difference mostly comes to effective range and yield, countered by the cost and bulk. Missiles are used at shorter range, in greater numbers, have smaller profile, simpler guidance and more effective maneuvering due to lower diminishing returns. It seem like a natural transfer from modern or last-century naval missiles and torpedoes, where te missile is something you use to damage the ship or to intercept planes, where a torpedo is a dedicated weapon for sinking ships. A torpedo is against something your size or greater; A torpedo is against something of greater size and defensive capabilities.
Otherwise, when trying to stick to reality and whatnot, torpedoes are the type of a missile, because the term missile stand for anything that is launched towards the enemy target, including rockets, grenades, bombs, mines, bolts etc. There were no clear historical moment at which all guided self-propelled projectiles begun being called missiles, and for a good fraction of their use, torpedoes were also unguided.
@@EugeneParallax The statement "missiles are used at shorter range, in greater numbers, have smaller profile, simpler guidance and more effective maneuvering due to lower diminishing returns" is not an accurate reflection of modern military applications. Missiles range in size from small air-to-air weapons all the way up to ICBMs, and as the latter implies, can have ranges all the way up to intercontinental distances. The AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missile used by the US Navy has a range of over 200 miles and is pretty effective at sinking ships. I suspect that future terminology with respect to missiles will most likely evolve from current language, rather than calling back to antiquated terminology from the early 20th century, so the old-timey naval terms used in a lot of sci-fi is just silly.
@@Martiandawn >rather than calling back to antiquated terminology
What like when RN brought back term corvette (and I think frigate) during WW2 just to categorize what were they building?
@@Poctyk Those were navy people, resurrecting terminology from their proud historical tradition. The crews of military spacecraft in the future will probably arise from modern day air forces and adapt terminology from that tradition. They are not likely to use terms that arise from the traditions of wet navies.
I'm happy to hear Star Trek called "fantastical" because I feel as though it is far more magical than most Sci-Fi, including pre-Disney Star Wars. In Star Trek, everything is magic using technobabble incantations to create whatever effect seems desireable at the moment.
8:03 really like the idea of "beamed power" however this always get's me thinking:
Great thing about a guided missile is it's ability to hunt down a target autonomously.
If it's power gets beamed in from a mothership, there needs to be an exchange of information between ship and missile, so the beam always points at the missile.
First problem here: Any debris or whatnot could interrupt the beam and disable the missile.
However my point is about long distances in space:
Given a far enough distance between missile and mothership the signal delay would increasingly hinder the missiles ability to move freely thus making it useless at some point.
That's what always got my bugging about the novel "Blindsight".
The ship "Theseus" is powered by a beam of the Icarus-Array. The array is somewhat near earth (or the sun? Not sure anymore. I guess sun makes sense given the name...).
However Theseus operates in the Orth-cloud, so outer solar system.
The signal delay between Icarus and Theseus would be enourmus. The ship would somewhat say "Alright Icarus, I'm gonna change my course in like 4 hours! Be aware!". Let alone moons, planets or other things getting in the way. Refraction/diffusion of the laserbeam would also be a thing to consider...
Interesting point. If the flight path-including evasive pattern-is deterministic then the mothership could aim the power/comm laser where it knows the missiles will be even accounting for light lag. Then analyzing previous battles or good old-fashioned espionage for the purpose of reverse-engineering the software that determines those flight paths would be a massive military priority.
@@mluby7828 True! However this would only work for things like cruise missiles that are aimed at "static" targets (as static as things in space can be).
For dog-fight/space battle situations it would your opponent require to also keep a deterministic flight path which I think is highly unlikely.
If command is being beamed to the missile it would be essentially worthless as an enemy an just point their own rays of radiation at it and scramble the signal. Even if just for power, same concept can be applied to overheat it.
that or just... blow it up with a laser.
Curb your Warframe slander
I really love how David Weber presents missile combat and point-defense in his Honor Harrington series of books. The powered envelope ranges, multi-drive missiles and embedded EW countermissiles effectively render energy weapons obsolete by the time of the Second Havenite War.
and the ideal explosion type is gaussian energy destribution
The honor harrington series comes up a lot, but another missile warfare item that wasn't discussed but is heavily featured there was that they are one of the few systems that can just be stapled onto a ship. A missile is (mostly) self contained. So whether free floating, pods, single use launchers, etc. You can mount missiles on most any ship with minimal structural work. Basically every other weapons system has to be incorporated into the structure of your space ship.
In the Traveller RPG (Mongoose 1st ed) a common anti-missile point defense system is sandcasters. Basically a cylinder or set of cylinders loaded with a whole lot of sand or other similar particulates. When a missile, spaceborne boarder, or sometimes light fighter-craft is detected (by whichever means; they can usually also be fired manually) the canister opens into hard vacuum, filling the void between the ship and the missile (or whatever) with debris. The incoming offensive will likely be destroyed, considering that this sand is often moving many times the speed of sound thanks to momentum from the ship or space station.
Shaped charge warheads are fine against relatively small tanks where the super heated liquid copper jet will kill the crew and damage all the controls but against anything ship sized and we are talking 1000tonnes or bigger they aren't very useful because the target just has to much volume.
Historical battleship armour piercing shells aren't like tank armour piercing shells. Battleship shells have a bursting charge so they penetrate then explode inside causing more damage they are also large and heavy relative to the ships firing them.
They were also finicky as hell. So many AP bombs and shells in WW2 failed to explode because the fuse itself has to survive an impact that just *punched through the side of a battleship*.
Often the fuse didn't survive the impact, and the bomb/shell failed to explode.
Depends on the shape of the charge. Different shapes produce different effects. One of my favorites is the Explosively Formed Penetrator. If the missile can spin and point at a specific point, then it might be explode as it passes along the side of a ship and hit the reactor or a weapon magazine or a fuel bunker. Maybe they can and will armor these areas in an aerospace vehicle, but a large EFP might still be able to at least damage the exhaust or radiators or sensors. I've also read that some designs can create a shotgun effect with multiple EFPs.
"But how can your slow missile have greater range then laser that literary travels at speed of light, huh? Checkmate!"
"Laser can't hit anything beyond a few light seconds when you stop making correct course predictions while missile with AI onboard can guide itself for centuries. Not to mention if you can spare self aware AI, shields and FTL drive for your fighters, you can sure as hell spare them for ICBM sized antiship missile."
Despite what people might want you to believe. Lasers aren't a perfect line, it's a very tight cone, limited by very nature of light.
Since total power of a shot is kinda same, doubling of radius of base of said cone will spread energy over 4 times as much area, so you will get
Gotta say, I love how you used the M-901 from war thunder as well as the railjack from warframe lol. Both games I play, and both vehicles I have/use lol.
The M-901 is just the tank that Spookston happened to be playing in his LOSAT video, which is what that clip is from. I do still play both Warframe and Thunder though, thats my railjack at the end there!
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
@@hoojiwana The Railjack is honestly potentially one of the most terrifying ships in scifi. Handles like a chonky fighter, has a wave motion gun and can fire a warframe through ship hulls with the catapult. Though I will admit fully Orokin/Tenno technology is absolutely solidly into the science fantasy end of scifi.
Battletech makes great use of missiles and rockets, the MRM, SRM, LRM, and Arrow IV systems all have their own quirks and some have different warheads that allow for different effects. For instance, the NARC system sticks to enemy targets and turns it into a "hello I am here please shoot me" game. The 'inferno' package on LRMs is also surprisingly terrifying. Even though you're behind tons of armour, heating up your mech and stopping you from being able to easily vent your waste heat without shutting down is a terrifyingly good tactic. Nobody wants to be a cooked Mechwarrior after all.
Glory, glory, what a hell of way to die!
Glory, glory, I just hope I can get by!
Glory, glory, I just wish they'd pay me more,
I guess I'll drop once more.
^^
That is, until you encounter the Corsair with its quad AMS.
My favourite craft will always be the Nestled Drone Ship.
A large ship hits your sensors, then it breaks into 2... then 4.... then 8.... then 16....
Eventually you have a nice swarm of small ships heading your way, all of them armed with warheads and a few good shots.
The whole system is deemed 'disposable' too, so it is easier to calculate your tactics... fire and forget!
Gundam has always had a funny relationship with this trope.
Due to all the Minovsky particles spread all about that plays merry hell on sensors and unshielded electronics, pretty much all missiles have to be dumb bomb as tracking becomes impossible making hitting evasive targets a difficult undertaking. They are almost exclusively used as a form of area control and to hit bigger and slower targets. However, shrapnel bombs are still a thing if they are set up to detonate after a certain distance to try and hit an evasive target.
However, you still don't want to get hit by one of those things so mobile suits often carry anti missile defenses in case they can't get out of dodge fast enough.
That said, in terrestrial combat there exist guided weapons in the form of wire-guided anti mobile suit missiles. As distances aren't as extreme when on the ground these can be deployed by foot soldiers to try and take down an MS. While they are slower than usual missiles to allow for a human to reasonably steer them and have limited range due to the wire, they can be quite effective when properly utilized.
Though there was an honest attempt at a long range guided weapon in the late UC era in the form of the funnel missiles that attempted to take the technology of funnels and apply it to missiles. Why this wasn't further developed I don't know, but my guess would be cause it is a sort of Newtype technology, something that tends to be notoriously fickle.
Well to be honest late UC did get a little out of hand
An advantage of shaped-charge warheads on missiles is that they might be able to turn and hit the target from the side or rear with the use of an Explosively Formed Projectile that might strike more vulnerable points instead of relying on head-on contact.
Off topic but it seems, you have some footage of gundam and other anime a bit frequently. So.... why not do a video of what's the purpose of giant robots in combat or something idk...
I hoped for a mention of Nebulous Fleet Command, as it's modular missile update will release soon. :(
Nevertheless, an amazing and informative video as always.
The missile update isn't out yet!
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
Me too, but we can always hope for next time!
Some of my favorite missiles include:
Node Missile (Sword of the Stars): an FTL-capable, ~300 ton warhead on an expendable lightspeed drive, which can travel to a system on its own or in the company of a fleet, then be launched in combat or upon a hapless world.
Salamander MRM (Starsector): Heat-seeking missile that intelligently curves around obstacles and locks onto the red-hot engine signature of a ship, then disables the engines with an EMP burst.
Polaris Missile (Sword of the Stars 2): A missile armed with a single-shot heavy beam weapon normally seen on capital ships or in spinal-mount artillery. Closes on target and then unleashes the beam.
Complex Ordnance Launcher (Sword of the Stars): A hybrid missile system that can be equipped with different packages. These include the "Crybaby," an ECM-equipped drone that spoofs enemy radar tracking; the "Cracker," which creates a cloud of explosive space mines; and also one that creates several tactical drones (i.e. strike craft) that attack targets independently.
2:37 If you are refering to the "unrotated projectile", that was more of a aerial mine field. Plus they were afaik equiped with a contact fuze, not a proximity fuzes.
The first real, practical proximity fuze was the VT fuze. And this thing was FAR from ineffective.
The VT fuse was almost twice as effective as regular time fuses. But it wasnt a wonder weapon. Even with VT fuses the US Navy still needed 340 shots of 5 inch ammunition to destroy a single enemy aircraft, without VT fuses it was 654 rounds to kill a single plane, both numbers are averages over the entire war (or in the VT duses case from the moment they were introduced in 1943). Source: US Antiaircraft Action Report from October 1945.
To put that in numbers one can work with: the heavy anti aircraft battery of an Essex class carrier would need almost 3 minutes to shoot down a single aircraft (8 guns in 4 twin mounts fireing at 15 rounds per minute for a total of 360 rounds in 3 minutes). Even the most effective AA batteries needed time to shoot planes down and thus were ineffective when multiple enemies attacked at the same time.
I've been binge watching your stuff since I found this channel and love it. But I've noticed that there's no Space Above and Beyond content. Have you guys seen that show? Would love to see your analysis of it.
Keep up the good work.
Every time I see a Gundam scene in one of these videos, I smile. Thanks for giving it the sci-fi cred it deserves.
Warhammer 40k: What's more dangerous than a torpedo with high explosives... A torpedo with a load of genetically engineered super soldiers inside.
Speaking of missiles, being confused about stuff, let's just a quietly ignore the sparrow that liked to confuse ground reflection for enemy aircraft
Or the fact that for the longest time you could only fire heat seeker like the sidewinder if you had a rear aspect shot so you were forced to get into a turning fight in order to get your missile off because if you tried to fire it head on it just wouldn't see the other aircraft
and the fact that some of the older missiles would lock onto the forbidden heat source and sore through the skies towards the sun.
This video was much too long. Here:
"Begin with On Basilisk Station, by David Weber. Continue through the series until you run out. There. That's missiles in space combat. End of video."
I mean seriously, Honor Harrington is the absolute, definitive example of missile combat (and frankly space combat in general) in modern literature.
I liked the torpedoes in the Crest of the stars. They were basically very utilitarian boxes(with minor stylistic differences between factions) with thrusters all around for maneuvering and held antimatter for the payload.
Of note in Gundam (at least Universal Century Gundam) we might actually see the evolution of "missles" to counter Mobile Suit warfare.
Early on when Zeon was the only power fielding mobile suits their bazookas were mostly anti-ship weapons. Minovsky particles, being what they are, absolutely screwed with targeting systems. So we see guided weapons against smaller and far more nimble targets usually launched in a barrage/swarm.
We see plenty of scenes where missles have to make direct contact with mobile suits rather than proximity hits.
However later on, like in MSG: Unicorn, we see anti-mobile suit missiles dentonate before making contact and showering an area with a cone of high velocity shrapnel.
Good examples of what I'm talking about can be seen in the MSG: The Origin series with Zaku I vs Iron Cavalry Guncannons. With both using dumb fire rockets and missles.
Later, during the Battle of Loum, we see Federation Saberfish spam missles to hit a single mobile suit. However these same weapons are eused in attack runs against ships. Probably why they have to mass fire them as targeting tech is not good, low priority (because who else other than the Federation has fighters), or they're not meant for fighter vs fighter (or anti-mobile suit) combat.
Battle doctrine in early UC Gundam was around anti-ship/anti-fleet warfare. But later on the tech caught up and adapted to include counters to mobile suits.
For a really, really long and in-depth analysis of how missiles might be used in space, you can't really do much better than David Weber's Honorverse in my opinion. If you can stand his delirious verbosity, that is.
Im surprised you never mention RKV..... skip the space ship all together and and shoot a missle straight at the target from *extremely* long range.... in fact, missles would be the longest range weapons in most setting with at least modern guidance systems. If you dont know what i mean, look up the USN LRASM. It can search for and strike ships over 500 miles away iirc.... and i think some of the long range anti air missles can go 900 miles (its called something like SM 6, i cant remember)
First yay
I just had this Douglas Adam's moment. A ships producal that no one talks about what missles are for in the armory to keep the missle AI's in the dark. Whenever they find out the entire missle magazine gets depressed and either stop working of blow up in a fir of anger
Hey I love seeing starsector in a spacedock video hoping I see more!
Spacedock - confirmed Doom spammers.
@@patbracken It's a fun ship okay
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
6 reaper torpedoes at once!
Missiles and guided munitions are the best for long range but are very slow compared to lasers or close to light speed directed energy weapons . It's all good to have a weapon that is long range and guided but can it catch up to or intercept the target ? Space is huge and objects like spacecraft go really fast in space especially if the is trying to evade missiles . Ideally you want a missile but that cover long distances and have agility at the speed of light . Lasers are the best weapons for range and speed to get the target . The problem is they and other dew are not guided . Not with real physics . The expanse got it wrong by not diversifying its weapons . Ideally you want a mix of all weapons , Kinetic guided and directed energy weapons . It is also a nightmare to be using so many rounds to hit ships and missiles . Like thousands . One problem with storing so much ammunition like bullets even today is the space taken up by kinetic ammunition and its associated mass . Imagine thousands of bullets to be stored in a space ship . Especially when kinetics are much less efficient due to the extreme sizes of space . Yes if you have good guidance and targeting it could work but that opens up some problems itself when talking about sensors in space . Those same guidance and targeting could be used for pulse lasers . Ideally you should save kinetics for when you need hard hitting.
Spacedock: "...Proximity fuses didn't really work.
WWII Japanese Air Force: "...Do I look like a joke to you?"
A VT fuse-equiped allied fleet: "Actually, yes. You kinda do."
sorry, couldn't resist...
The VT fuse was a big deal for surface to air defence.
Not only in the pacific but also for the british isles. With it, british AA had a reasonable chance of taking down V1 cruise missiles.
Fewer of those getting through helped with public morale.
Nano missiles made of antimatter. You fire a missile and it dissipates into a cloud of antimatter nanites, and subsequently anything made of matter sets off explosions. You could also just detonate it yourself by launching any object at it. Bonus points if the antimatter itself is also chemically or energetically explosive.
That wouldn’t be that functionally different that a nuke.
Easier to put the penning traps into sabots and launch them. The traps shatter on impact, and the antimatter within goes brrr.
@@SuperThest you can mix this into a plasma stream near a star, or in a gaseous planet or nebula to make it harder to detect. Because they're nanites, too, you can scale the size of the explosion to very small amounts. It's a near-invisible minefield that can potentially nuke someone.
@@brokensky2378 I don’t see how you’re going to mix anti matter with regular matter to disguise it. Are the nanites holding the anti matter, or is the anti matter the nanites? The delivery method is irrelevant though because the end result is still only a “nuke”. Once the antimatter annihilates it will give off large amounts of gamma ray radiation and other forms of energy which is exactly how a fusion weapon would work, just ~300x more powerful per weight.
You also have to ask yourself: if a civilization is advanced enough to make complex chemicals and devices out of antimatter, why are they using antimatter weapons instead of just pulling energy out of nowhere using some type of fantastical zero point energy weapon or something? Why are they going to the extreme effort of making thing out of antimatter rather than just throwing simple antimatter at a target using a normal matter device? That device though is basically a nuke with a more efficient yield.
Also, antimatter would not be invisible. It is just as easy to detect as normal matter. That cloud of antimatter would immediately show up on a LiDAR scanner. We actually have the technology right now to spot that nanite cloud in the atmosphere of a gas giant. At that point the counter measure would be to just throw matter at it which is such an extremely cost effective method that militaries would likely stop using the weapon.
One note on fragmentation warheads. While it won't damage the primary hull if the ship is armored nobody thinks what this is going to do to sensor arrays, communication antennas and the like. Small high speed fragments will shred conventional dishes or cone antennas, or batter and pit the reflective surface so badly that you get inaccurate readings. Not going to do optic systems any favors either. And if the fragments are ball bearings fired in a Claymore type arrangement....
Its really hard to fight blind.
Another possible use is chaff. A low explosive charge and sending out a cloud of small reflective foil particles to blind sensor arrays. (credit: Iron Blooded Orphans)
Having a manually-loaded "torpedo" tube on a spacecraft could be an incredibly useful feature. It doesn't just have to shoot offensive ordinance, instead launching probes, decoys, orbit-to-surface supply drops, and even personnel. Why have a big, expensive mini-craft that someone has to pilot when you can just load a missile-shaped surveillance drone into the tube and send it on it's way? Maybe a single-use, high-powered laser weapon could be loaded into the tube to avoid initial detection or legal restrictions. Capturing a fleeing spacecraft might involve a missile that magnetically latches onto it and then uses it's own thrust to slow down or disorient the target. The possibilities are really endless.
I think Star Trek probes are shot from torpedo tubes, and they do also have the coffin torpedoes.
Ah, but a simple solid fuel rocket motor *isn't* short ranged in a space battle. There's no air. The missile/rocket will keep on going until it hits something, even after the fuel has run out. Preservation of momentum, remember.
Missiles/torpedoes would be better if launched by Mass Drivers. Allowing for the benefits of kinetics and missiles to combine into a singular powerful system.
Sure, though the tolerances of the missile may be a problem if its components can't handle the sharp acceleration of being shot out of a gun.
Usually if there's any sort of "launcher" hardware, it's some kind of mass driver to give some initial velocity (see: Star Wars, Star Trek, Honor Harrington, etc...).
True but if your opponent has advanced manuevaring thrusters than they can just easy dodge it and all that speed will be to waste. In space, you can go pretty much anywhere, so guidance for weapons is very important.
You know the U.S. Military has talked about that and base it on the electromagnetic catapult on the Ford class carrier it was called something like the Electromagnetic missile launcher however idk if YT will let me share the real link to it.
Mass Driver launched missile-type weapons are for unguided attacks ONLY. Guided missiles will overshoot due to excess speed that thrusters cant manage any manouver.
I’m liking more Gundam visuals as of late. Hopefully we see a breakdown of the Musai-class.
Why have a video about missiles in space and not mention the Macross franchise? The Macross Missile Massacre is a well known trope. Kind of disappointed with your dislike of such a great franchise, Spacedock.
Video recommendation: watch paw patrol jet to the rescue and review it because I think it’s a sci fi but I want to hear what you think of it. You can do it on the 30th
Not the children's show. 💀
You probably know this but the Spookston footage is just of a M901 firing a regular shaped charge warhead.
I always found it weird how short the ranges of missiles were on star fighters some only go a few kilometres or even just a few hundred meters while in real life they can fly for dozens of kilometres and even over 100km with the aid of AWACS planes. Why isn’t that a thing actually? Having the capital ship help guide friendly missiles farther than they usually can.
It could be a resource concern issue?
Devils Advocate, because most of the missile tech in Sci-fi should be more terrifying.
Most times you don't want to fire the missile from it's maximum range in any case, due to the time it will take to reach max acceleration and hit it's target. While a missile could be designed to effectively use the fuel, just course corrections as it is space, the designers could be trying to enforce the 'get closer' doctrine of it's use. Especially if the missile is using much more basic guidance systems, because it is on a small version designed to be strapped to a space craft. Keep the fuel and parts cost down so you can make a lot of them, and just train the pilots to use them better....
I can easily see a Military making that decision.
Oh, and added:
Secondary guidance, such as from a Capital Ship, is open to Electric Counter Measures.
Internal systems can't easily be hacked, even if they are often cheaper because 'disposable.'
@@lostbutfreesoul that seems a bit contradictory. If a missile relies on a kinetic kill, it would want used at the longest possible range in order for it to accelerate to such a velocity. Not to mention that the faster the missile is moving, the less time the opponents point defense has to react. (I think the effective distance of your point defense measures would be more important that the distance of the target.)
I think missiles in space warfare is going to combine intel, long range and stealth. Missiles in atmosphere are always limited in range because of drag, you have to burn propellant in order to reach your target.
In space, a missile launcher can be "soft" launched with a mass driver, giving it considerable kinetic energy and speed without igniting its propellent. Then during this crusing phase (assuming intel is good at the location of the enemy ship) it can go complete radio silence. With stealth coating and shaping, it will be nearly impossible to see it coming from long range.
As long as the kill chain is preserved, intel is updated and mid course correction can be implemented, the missile can just use a little propellant to correct its heading. Once it is close to the target, it switches on its own detector and start burning at extreme G forces to reach insane speed for the terminal phase dash to penetrate the defenses with the element of surprise and speed. It's actually how some of the deadliest antiship missile work today.
Buzz droid missiles might actually be pretty effective anti-captial ship weapons, since the "payload" can spread out and do targeted damage to critical systems instead of blowing a hole in the predesigned countermeasures. Though at that point it's less a missile and more a boarding craft.
If it could land on an unshielded ship yes, which would actually mean they'd best be used against ships trying to regain there shields and in that role could easily cause millions of dollars worth damage to a ship if they were equipped with a mini blaster and the abylity to feed off a ships electrical system
They seem to be more like a smart version of a scatterable minefield.
In space... lines are always a bit blurred. What IS a spacecraft, except a very expensive missile with self-defense? 😁
I've always wondered why space missiles aren't shot out of gauss or rail guns. Yeeting the missile at high speeds so that you can save fuel space and mass from the initial burn makes it so much more efficient. Greater efficiency leads to a smaller, harder to be countered by PD, and more maneuverable missile.
-Rockets are rather small, have a large payload than most missiles and use a solid fuel booster as an engine. Good in short range battle or against slow and preferable large targets. Beware that a good pilot or gunner can use 'em for long range combat, which can be as devastating as Torpedo or Bomb. Rockets are sociable creatures and are most effective when fired in burst. Thanks to their very short acceleration phase, Rockets tend to be more stealthy than Missiles.
-Missiles are in the small to medium sized area, are guided ordnance (either by themselves or external sources). They come in a myriad amount shapes, methods of propulsion, type of warhead, type of guidance, type of target acquisition and of course, price-tags. These range from super agile heat-seeking short-range Missiles for fighters, long-range all-aspect Cruise-Missiles for Interceptors or even Vacuum-to-Surface Missiles that can switch from closed-circuit to air-breathing in a second. All in all, with Missiles there is a solution for every problem, you only need to know what you need and what. The can shred a target with expanding ammunition, blowing holes with shape.charges and even roast electronics with some EMP. Also, Swarm-Missiles. They're great.
-Torpedoes are like Missiles in every aspect, except size and price. Not as agile as their smaller brethren, but multiple amounts more devastating. You can even outfit them with Jump-Drives and Stealth-Systems that rival those of spacecraft. In short, they are what you use when Rockets and Missiles lack the oomph for the job or if that enemy Cruiser needs to cease to exist now.
-Bombs. Yes, you read right. Bombs. Use them against surface targets, space-stations and enemy vessels that think that their shields are thick and their engines strong enough. You can fill most ships up to brim with these cheap firecrackers on steroids and even cargo holds are no hindrance to store and launch them. Bombs can be incredible painful for an enemy commanders ego when combined with high momentum (Remember what that in Gunny in Mass Effect said about Isaac Newton). They come in all sizes from "over glorified hand-grenade" to "Only mount these in Zero-G, we have no forklift big enough for the job".
8:57 Tenno/Orokin Sigma Series Railjack, If that thing shows up on your sensors you have a lot more to worry about than just missiles.
If "those weird rocket propelled things in WWII" are what i think you mean, those were MORE EFFECTIVE than regular depth charges.
Reason they are considered "less effective" or even "not working at all" is because they don´t create those huge and satisfying explosions.
My source is a UA-camr, "The Mighty Jingles", himself a former Navy in his royal Majesty´s service, and thus knows his sh*t when talking about these thing.
Those are Unrotated Projectiles, a British rocket anti-air/artillery system that didn't work great.
- hoojiwana from Spacedock
You're mixing up Hedgehog and Squid launchers with an experimental anti-air rocket system which had a similar outward appearance but was rocket rather than mortar based.
@@stamfordly6463 That can very well be the case.
There were so many outlandish prototypes and exdperimental weapons tested in WWII, no way i know all of them.
But yes i remember Jingles mentioning the "Hedgehog", that´s what he called it.
I see clips of the Expanse and wonder what happens to all those projectiles that missed. They don't just vanish. One day, maybe in the distant future, they'll hit something.
They'll either end up in various eccentric solar orbits, or go flinging off for a long tour of the Milky Way, where they are unlikely to hit anything larger than a grain of dust for the next few billion years.
OR they might shred a large solar mirror over Ganymede and trigger a massive economic crisis in the belt because some moronic destroyer jockey forgot to check his downfield trajectories.
In immortal words of Mass Effect 2,
"I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty! Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going 'till it hits something! That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime!"
Gundam in general has a lot of good space combat. The weapon's aren't _too_ outlandish (at least in the 80's and 90's series, it kinda got derailed after that) and so it kinda makes sense.
Two things are a counter measure in battle tech for anti missile and anti fighter is a missile like device that spreads a screen of matter , anti sensors matter, so blocks physical and sensor so when missiles or fighters , and even potentially ballistics will impact and just add more matter to this screen, it sprays out like a 20 square mile or something like that .
Also “space above and beyond “ has a good missile episode in which there is an advanced enemy fighter and the earth forces build an advanced missile in an attempt to deal with this fighter , it fails but still has a lot of elements of great space combat.
Spaced armor would have to be in vacuum. Imagine a massive HESH round spalling the inside of a space ship
In the vauge sort of Sci fi setting i occasionally think about, missiles serve a very particular role of being a really efficient way of making your opponent worse. Bassically, the sensors and point defense systems of the setting are advanced and effective enough that unless you have a gigantic number of missiles, or are in super close range (by space standards) you're not going to hit the enemy with any of the missiles. But because that not hitting is entirely dependent on the enemy having point defense, by simply stocking a number of missiles you are forcing the enemy to pack point defense, and the sensor suites necessary for their effective operation, reducing there anti ship capabilities and the energy available for shields and energy weapons systems.
That is an interesting thought. Even in real life it's cheaper to carry a pair of missiles than to defend against them.
And that's why battleships would have escorts of Corvettes/Frigates/Destroyers. The Escorts deal with the pesky missiles so that the battleship can focus on shooting lazors (Or Plasma or [Insert Energy Weapon of Choice Here]).