Re:Essay on Realistic Space Combat
by stcredzero on Friday June 13, 2014 @03:59PM
(#7890572)
Attack ships/missiles that need to carry a payload and/or accelerate will always be orders of magnitude more expensive and easier to detect than a sensor that essentially remains motionless.
In general. I'm basically arguing that this can be subverted in limited geometric/temporal contexts. Given a sufficiently motivated arms race, it will be exploited.
And even if Side A knows where all 10,000 of Side B's sensors are located around the solar system, then what?
Then if Side B has completely discounted stealth, Side A has the opportunity to circumvent all of Side B's sensors and mount attacks with units that "stay quiet until nearby," as you outlined. Also, if Side B's sensors are so minimalist and cheap, what's to keep Side A from destroying them all, or enough of them to make them moot? If you've completely discounted stealth from a simplistic thermodynamic argument, you've not thought through the nuances.
Ultimately, what the ease-of-detection means in space is that battles will much tougher to win for the underdogs, as it will be harder for them to overcome a deficit in resources with the use of stealth or surprise.
Stealth as I've outlined it isn't going to benefit the underdog. It will benefit the side with the greater industrial and technological resources.
EDIT: Alternately (or complimentarilty? is that a word?) another effective strategy might be to park a bunch of dormant ships/weapons around the area you wish to attack/defend. Dark and cold, they'd be nearly undetectable... until they're needed.
It seems like we're thinking along the same lines. Only in space, there is no reason to limit yourself to distance proximity. There will also be proximity by delta-v. If you extrapolate improving detection technology, there will be a point at which a little bit of active effort will be required to maintain stealth in the face of enemy reconnaissance.
In general. I'm basically arguing that this can be subverted in limited geometric/temporal contexts. Given a sufficiently motivated arms race, it will be exploited.
And even if Side A knows where all 10,000 of Side B's sensors are located around the solar system, then what?
Then if Side B has completely discounted stealth, Side A has the opportunity to circumvent all of Side B's sensors and mount attacks with units that "stay quiet until nearby," as you outlined. Also, if Side B's sensors are so minimalist and cheap, what's to keep Side A from destroying them all, or enough of them to make them moot? If you've completely discounted stealth from a simplistic thermodynamic argument, you've not thought through the nuances.
Ultimately, what the ease-of-detection means in space is that battles will much tougher to win for the underdogs, as it will be harder for them to overcome a deficit in resources with the use of stealth or surprise.
Stealth as I've outlined it isn't going to benefit the underdog. It will benefit the side with the greater industrial and technological resources.
EDIT: Alternately (or complimentarilty? is that a word?) another effective strategy might be to park a bunch of dormant ships/weapons around the area you wish to attack/defend. Dark and cold, they'd be nearly undetectable... until they're needed.
It seems like we're thinking along the same lines. Only in space, there is no reason to limit yourself to distance proximity. There will also be proximity by delta-v. If you extrapolate improving detection technology, there will be a point at which a little bit of active effort will be required to maintain stealth in the face of enemy reconnaissance.