john_q_traveller said:Welf said:Therefore I would be careful with your assumptions on missiles and computers. We are talking about a future we can't really comprehend today. Hitting small fast moving things doing even minor evasive actions over large distances, while being in a fast moving spaceship doing evasive actions yourself, might still be quite complicated even with advanced technologies. And I don't think we have any real experience with those. You just need to take the margin of error into account: Your sensors might not be tuned perfectly, your acceleration has minor fluctuations, your point defence system might be off only a bit and if we still take into account most things run on electricity there always is some background noise ready to ruin your day. Your gun mustn't be a micrometre off, size, shape, relative velocity, relative acceleration, and heading need to be right on point and you have to shoot at the exact right moment. And why can't missiles carry basic countermeasures aimed at your sensors? Who knows what our sensors or missiles will be capable of or what their limitations might be?
Same goes for computers: Will computers really be that much more effective and if so, how complicated are the calculations they will need to do in space combat. How much data do we need to take into account at the same time and how fast do we need the result?
If you have read https://github.com/johnny-b-goode/traveller/blob/main/doc/overhaul-missiles.md#justification and would like to have an in-depth conversation rebutting any of the assertions made there, then I would be glad to take that up in another thread. Bear in mind that the vast majority of what is currently up is written for the average person, and does not include most of the technical discussion behind the assertions presented.
I did read your opinion piece. And as we can see from the recent sinking of the Moskva missiles are NOT obsolete. The points/websites you cite do NOT state that missiles are now meaningless, though your own point is that they are. That viewpoint has been proven to be false in pretty much every naval conflict that involved missiles. The Argentinians did it to the UK in the Falklands War, Iraq did it to the USS Stark (both used Exocet's). The USN invested a great deal of funds because they were very concerned about the Soviet Union / Russian / now Chinese navies overwhelming their defenses and sinking ships . So lets address your reasoning:
1) Inability to turn - that's not correct. Just like ships, missiles can turn and change direction. And, just like ships, missiles DO have to obey the laws of physics. Which means that the aforementioned missile cannot just dump all it's delta-V if it misses (which obviates the need to correct HG's description of 'smart' missiles that get more than one attack...). Missile attacks may come in from any direction and missiles can alter their courses during flight. They just can't REVERSE their course or make changes outside the relative cone of their launching direction. But since most people tend to launch a missile AT a target, that is of no consequence.
2) Limited Fuel - correct, all craft have a time-period they are limited to. Missiles are smaller and have less tankage than say a starship. But they are smaller and lighter and require less fuel. So they have an operational range far inferior to a ship. The idea here being that you launch within the range of your missile, which is also based upon the course, speed and direction of your enemy. That's no different really than any weapon.
3) Point defenses - It's true CIWS defenses can be formidable to penetrate (let's not forget a ship should have layered defenses, including both active and passive). That's why missiles are launched in swarms to overwhelm a ships (or fleets) defenses. That has been Missile 101 since missiles were invented. I think the primary error here you are making is that defenses cannot be overwhelmed, and more importantly, they are always 100% accurate. Reality tells us that overwhelming defenses IS possible and that no defense will every be 100% effective ALL the time.
You leave out a few things about missiles, the biggest is that a missile doesn't need to impact it's target to cause damage. Just like a ship, a missile can simply cut it's drive and rotate 360 degrees to engage it's target with it's payload. Space combat is going to see more bomb-pumped nuclear missiles than standard HE contact round exactly for the reasons you are citing. Which would mean an attacker just needs to get his missiles downrange and close enough to detonate and lase their target, making it much harder for point defense to engage.
And to engage such small and maneuverable targets (there is no reason that they would not do a random cork-screw style maneuver as they make their way to their target) you need an ACTIVE solution - especially for point defense since space is so vast and distances so large - every defense has it's limits. Jammers, decoys and the like will make it hard to see, let alone hit, incoming missiles. And if you are firing stand-off missiles the chances of engaging it before it detonates are even smaller. You could even launch larger 'carriers' that launch smaller warheads with no active drive signatures that continue in the general direction. Assuming you put a stealth-coating on the outside you may not even detect them before they enter terminal range, which decreases your ability to engage them before impact or detonation.
Technology has a nasty tendency of rendering absolutes meaningless. For every offensive there will be a new defense formulated to defeat it. That is a maxim that has been proven over and over throughout history. Unless something fundamentally changes that maxim would remain a truism to the 52nd century and beyond.