High Guard Update 2022 - News

[phavoc]

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.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Correction - modern anti-ship missiles are not obsolete against obsolete Russian guided missile cruisers

And therein lies the problem. Get too hung up on a particular real world tech and you miss the core concept of High Guard - to build and fight ships from TL7 to TL15+. Combat at every TL is likely to evolve as weapon and defence systems evolve

The reasons for real world missiles likely to be useless in space warfare is the ease with which they can be countered by the likely point defence weapons available at the same time as we have real world space warships - see as usual the Atomic Rockets page for the back and forth on this.

Personally I want missiles, and I want to have nuclear dampers, point defence, repulsors, ECM...

 

[Condottiere]

There's always the advanced technological level fourteen missile and torpedo variants.

Presumably you can manufacture early prototypes.

 

[phavoc]

Correction - modern anti-ship missiles are not obsolete against obsolete Russian guided missile cruisers

And therein lies the problem. Get too hung up on a particular real world tech and you miss the core concept of High Guard - to build and fight ships from TL7 to TL15+. Combat at every TL is likely to evolve as weapon and defence systems evolve

The reasons for real world missiles likely to be useless in space warfare is the ease with which they can be countered by the likely point defence weapons available at the same time as we have real world space warships - see as usual the Atomic Rockets page for the back and forth on this.

Personally I want missiles, and I want to have nuclear dampers, point defence, repulsors, ECM...

Ah, the world of refits! The Moskva has had it's defenses upgraded since it launched. The age of the hull isn't the issue, it's all the other stuff- sensors, offensive and defensive weapons, etc. The Neptune is a knock-off of the KH-35. It's essentially a bigger version with more range. I enjoy the irony that the Ruskies developed the underlying missile tech that cost them their flagship.

There are different rumors floating (or sinking...) that the ship had already suffered an ammunition explosion and was hit as it was being towed back. I don't trust Russian media much, so it may be some time before we know the whole truth. And, you have to wonder if arrogance played a role as well. Sort of like the examples I cited earlier, with Tier-1 navies taking hits from Tier-2 enemies (but using easily purchased Tier-1 missiles). That is something the game doesn't really cover - one can easily have a TL-12 hull firing TL-15 weapons (so long as you have the space and power, what the hull is doesn't really matter).

The issue is that real-world and game-world often have a lot of overlap. To say missiles are useless is a vast overstatement not reflected by either the game or reality. Yes, one can mount strong defenses of all kinds, but when a mistake is made or a crack is found and taken advantage of, then you take the damage. Sure, you can shoot a hundred missiles and intercept 99% of them. But the 1% may be all that it takes to knock out the enemy.

I think Traveller missile combat has always been underwhelming. Fire rates should be much higher, and VLS systems would make turrets pointless (one could argue a bay is a semi-VLS system, though it's firing rates are too low).

 

[john_q_traveller]

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.

Apparently read does not equate to understood. You seem to have missed the part about a new thread, and that I never said missiles are NOW obsolete. In fact, what I wrote, specifically, is:

In the present day, missiles are already challenged by anti-missile systems. Technological advancements and projects currently under way threaten to make missiles obsolete in coming decades. Projecting these trends and technologies into the future indicates missiles would most likely only be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances in those settings.

I will point out though, that you made my biggest point for me:

For every offensive there will be a new defense formulated to defeat it.

If you want to play with missiles, nobody is stopping you. My friends and I do not care for missiles in an advanced technology setting, so we have created rules to facilitate how we want to play.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I heard it was likely Murphy's Law.

2. Or Axiom.

3. Their operational pattern became predictable.

4. The Ukrainian sent them a Bayraktar to locate, target and distract the crew of the Moskva on the other side.

5. The Neptune had just become fully operational a fortnight ago.

6. It's a sea skimmer, reportedly ten metres.

7. Possibly too low for their two anti missile missile defences.

8. Post damage analysis says they weren't activated.

9. And possibly, neither the two close in weapon systems gatlings.

A. Could be the sensors didn't detect them.

B. Or too late.

C. Or the crew couldn't react in time, by the time they noticed.

D. Most, reportedly, being conscripts.

E. Ship layout not ideal for damage control.

F. Damage control was scheduled to be modernized, being Seventies era.

G. And on the whole, the crew might not really have been drilled in it.

 

[phavoc]

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.

Apparently read does not equate to understood. You seem to have missed the part about a new thread, and that I never said missiles are NOW obsolete. In fact, what I wrote, specifically, is:

In the present day, missiles are already challenged by anti-missile systems. Technological advancements and projects currently under way threaten to make missiles obsolete in coming decades. Projecting these trends and technologies into the future indicates missiles would most likely only be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances in those settings.

I will point out though, that you made my biggest point for me:

For every offensive there will be a new defense formulated to defeat it.

If you want to play with missiles, nobody is stopping you. My friends and I do not care for missiles in an advanced technology setting, so we have created rules to facilitate how we want to play.

Nope. I did read, and I did understand your post. What I did not, however, is agree with your assertions. You quoted me correctly above, but you apparently don't comprehend what it means. Here is what you wrote in your justification section:

The representation of missiles as being commonly used in high technology settings is illogical. In the present day, missiles are already challenged by anti-missile systems. Technological advancements and projects currently under way threaten to make missiles obsolete in coming decades. Projecting these trends and technologies into the future indicates missiles would most likely only be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances in those settings.


And, as I wrote above, "And as we can see from the recent sinking of the Moskva missiles are NOT obsolete". That was in direct response to the paragraph you wrote under your Justification heading. You make an opinion statement there and I used the recent attack on the Moskva (and two other ships that were damaged/sunk due to missile fire - all of which had active and passive missile defenses). You also ignore how missile attacks would work against heavy anti-missile defenses - by overwhelming the defender in hopes of getting a hit. I'm not sure if you comprehend how that works, but logically it's quite simple - if you can use expendable ammunition to destroy the enemies forces, you (usually) have a far better cost-to-loss ratio as well as not losing offensive platforms and personnel. This idea is also used for carrier-borne aircraft attacks and was put an end to the era of the big-gun battleship. We have yet to fight a modern war with missiles - though all major combatants believe in it enough to heavily invest in both offensive and defensive technology. Clearly the military planners and establishment don't agree with your opinion since they've invested in missile defenses (your opinion that minimizes the battlefield usefulness of missiles) AND offensive stand-off missile technology (in direct contradiction to your opinion that defenses have and will render them effectively useless). I want to remind you that your obsolescence argument (i.e. new tech renders older concepts obsolescent) has been made many, many times in the past and pretty much every time the person making such a statement was proven wrong.

As to my last quote, you again don't apparently seem to comprehend the meaning. You take the meaning to only support your view. But it both does, and also does not. Military technology throughout human history has always been a war between offensive and defense. Defenders built walls to keep invaders out, attackers came up with scaling ladders, trebuchet's and tunnelers. Attackers came up with arrows, spears, rocks and later explosive rounds. Defenders came up with shields, walls, trenches and counter-battery fire. New weapon systems always eventually get countered, and at time rendered useless. Look at the TOW missile. When deployed it was a definite tank killer. Then the Soviets deployed reactive armor which severely blunted the effectiveness of the TOW, so the US developed the TOW2 to offset the reactive armor. You chose to only take one part of the meaning rather than what it meant in its entirety because it basically shreds your argument that in the future missiles would be effectively rendered useless - you used the word "illogical".

Everything shows us that offensive technology will overcome defensive changes and put missiles firmly back on top - till the next set of defenses starts the process all over again. A laser isn't very useful if it can't hit it's target, or if it does and the target has ablative armor, the effectiveness of the laser is minimized. There ya go, a future (and current) way that lessens the effectiveness of laser defenses. Still think it's illogical? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, right or wrong.

History and technology, and even logic, disagree with you. I'm with them.

 

[Arkathan]

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.

Apparently read does not equate to understood. You seem to have missed the part about a new thread, and that I never said missiles are NOW obsolete. In fact, what I wrote, specifically, is:

In the present day, missiles are already challenged by anti-missile systems. Technological advancements and projects currently under way threaten to make missiles obsolete in coming decades. Projecting these trends and technologies into the future indicates missiles would most likely only be useful in a very narrow set of circumstances in those settings.

I will point out though, that you made my biggest point for me:

For every offensive there will be a new defense formulated to defeat it.

If you want to play with missiles, nobody is stopping you. My friends and I do not care for missiles in an advanced technology setting, so we have created rules to facilitate how we want to play.

Don't you compare tech levels of the missiles to the target? Tech advances give the missiles the capability to avoid old defenses, like the pop-up mode on a Harpoon, making it come straight down, so if the R2D2 with a woody tries to target them, it beats the crap out of its sponson, destroying itself (they did that in rough weather when their gyros couldn't compensate if not properly rigged for rough seas, too). And as to the argument for damage not getting in, Sandcasters and deflectors stop lasers. They aren't obsolete.
The better argument is if you don't like missiles, or mobile nuclear pumped xray lasers ala 2300, no one is stopping you from eliminating them in your game.

 

[phavoc]

1. I heard it was likely Murphy's Law.

2. Or Axiom.

3. Their operational pattern became predictable.

4. The Ukrainian sent them a Bayraktar to locate, target and distract the crew of the Moskva on the other side.

5. The Neptune had just become fully operational a fortnight ago.

6. It's a sea skimmer, reportedly ten metres.

7. Possibly too low for their two anti missile missile defences.

8. Post damage analysis says they weren't activated.

9. And possibly, neither the two close in weapon systems gatlings.

A. Could be the sensors didn't detect them.

B. Or too late.

C. Or the crew couldn't react in time, by the time they noticed.

D. Most, reportedly, being conscripts.

E. Ship layout not ideal for damage control.

F. Damage control was scheduled to be modernized, being Seventies era.

G. And on the whole, the crew might not really have been drilled in it.

The final post-mortem report is going to be interesting. Regardless of the high-tech factor of your defenses, humans can make (or break) stuff. Russians say the ship had already suffered an ammunition explosion, which if true could have caused systems to go offline. So the missiles had nothing to engage them. But Russians could be lying to cover their own incompetence as well. Conscripts wouldn't have been in charge of defensive systems, just all the scut work. Russian military uses regular service personnel for critical or technical jobs.

Could be, too, that the Russians were just arrogant and didn't think they were at any risk where they were and simply didn't have their active or passive defensive systems on at least automatic response. It sounds like no defenses were used, which could also mean they were caught totally unaware. Again, that plays into their potential arrogance (and stupidity).

This example is actually something that would be interesting to see some verbiage in High Guard rewrite. While there might not be a dice-roll table for any of it (how do you predict stupid/arrogance?), it IS something endemic to the human condition and would certainly be something seen in the 52nd century. I suppose one could lump together possible -DM's for a ship caught by surprise and/or arrogant command who aren't manning all the watch stations and monitoring systems. Or a ship at rest in what they think is a safe zone. I think there is something in there now about some systems and them being on automatic (like point defense and decoys). The thing to remember though is that pretty much any system that is active is getting wear and tear on it and will require maintenance eventually. So naval accountants will always push for regulations to minimize this and minimize the costs to budgets - in wartime that push would be lower, but in peacetime with no expected threat they'd pursue it pretty heavily. Clever players plotting sneak attacks might just try to take advantage of such a posture.

 

[phavoc]

Don't you compare tech levels of the missiles to the target? Tech advances give the missiles the capability to avoid old defenses, like the pop-up mode on a Harpoon, making it come straight down, so if the R2D2 with a woody tries to target them, it beats the crap out of its sponson, destroying itself (they did that in rough weather when their gyros couldn't compensate if not properly rigged for rough seas, too). And as to the argument for damage not getting in, Sandcasters and deflectors stop lasers. They aren't obsolete.
The better argument is if you don't like missiles, or mobile nuclear pumped xray lasers ala 2300, no one is stopping you from eliminating them in your game.

Haha! I had not heard of a CIWS called that before (R2D2 with a woody)! Though the analogy makes perfect sense once you think of what one of those systems looks like. What's the nickname of the RAM system? It's got a much bigger and stubbier woody than a standard CIWS (and no dome).

Interesting thing I had found about sandcasters - supposedly sand is TL6, and it's still effective against TL-15 lasers. That's a 9 level difference.

 

[Condottiere]

As some tend to point out: there is no stealth in space.

 

[Surge]

As some tend to point out: there is no stealth in space.

This isn't true.

Active sensing can be fought with radar absorbing material just like today's current technology (or whatever frequency you are trying to defeat).

Passive sensing is again a matter similar to working in today's EM Environment. Ship CONOPS will play a role, or periods of EMCON for particularly high periods of threat, even the physical design of the ship and where and how you manage your unpreventable emissions (heat) - active heat management to mostly radiate it away from possible threats will reduce detection probability.

As everyone seems to be interested in real world comparisons (with missiles at least), if you are interested, you could have a read of the DIA's Challenges To Security In Space publication. A new 2022 edition was put out only a few days ago:

https://www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/Military_Power_Publications/Challenges_Security_Space_2022.pdf

 

[Arkathan]

As some tend to point out: there is no stealth in space.

Let's put it this way, there's a difference between knowing it is there and not being able to hit it.
MTG calls that mechanism stealth instead of ECM or ECCM.

In the 1990's world, according to spoofed sensors, our Nimitz class aircraft carriers were capable of prolonged speeds exceeding 80 mph.
Now extrapolate that positional uncertainty over thousands of km, when you need to be within hundredths of a km to hit the moving target.
Stealth. In space.

 

[phavoc]

As some tend to point out: there is no stealth in space.

This isn't true.

Active sensing can be fought with radar absorbing material just like today's current technology (or whatever frequency you are trying to defeat).

Passive sensing is again a matter similar to working in today's EM Environment. Ship CONOPS will play a role, or periods of EMCON for particularly high periods of threat, even the physical design of the ship and where and how you manage your unpreventable emissions (heat) - active heat management to mostly radiate it away from possible threats will reduce detection probability.

As everyone seems to be interested in real world comparisons (with missiles at least), if you are interested, you could have a read of the DIA's Challenges To Security In Space publication. A new 2022 edition was put out only a few days ago:

https://www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/Military_Power_Publications/Challenges_Security_Space_2022.pdf

Yeah, sadly people think "you can't hide heat in space! Passive thermal sensors will always find you!!!" The guys on the Atomic Rockets boards like to say this same thing. Weapons need active sensors to get a target lock, and most Traveller weapons sensors are based on radar/lidar. As you correctly pointed out - no signal bounce back to the emitter, either through RAM or other electronic wizardry, means no target lock. At a distance you might be able to 'see' with an enhanced telescope but your sensors say they don't detect anything due to the aforementioned reasons.

Thermal detection is a big of a bugger. Traveller ships will run hot, and and everyone seems to think the only way to get rid of heat is to use radiators. And that would make you light up like a Xmas tree if you are in an area without existing heat to hide in. But space is B-I-G. And sensors have limitations. And you have limited number of sensors. Plus today we already convert heat to electricity in RTG's - who's to say that they won't lick that problem in the future and are able to convert thermal heat inside the hull to electricity? And if they have full fuel tanks, you can dump (some) heat there temporarily - the latest USAF fighters do that into aviation fuel.

Thanks for the link. I will take a look at that.

 

[phavoc]

As some tend to point out: there is no stealth in space.

Let's put it this way, there's a difference between knowing it is there and not being able to hit it.
MTG calls that mechanism stealth instead of ECM or ECCM.

In the 1990's world, according to spoofed sensors, our Nimitz class aircraft carriers were capable of prolonged speeds exceeding 80 mph.
Now extrapolate that positional uncertainty over thousands of km, when you need to be within hundredths of a km to hit the moving target.
Stealth. In space.

Good point there. It's like saying "here I am! And here's my cousin Nimitz, and our other cousin Nimitz", and so on. It's why aircraft like the Prowler make it hard to get radar locks on aircraft to hit them with radar-guided missiles. Same reason fighters have Lantirn pods as standard strike equipment. If you can't get a lock it's hard as hell to hit. Ground-based radars have more power than airborne, and usually whoever has the most power wins the electronics war - but distance, size and things like RAM are a bitch to defeat at a distance.

As a corollary to this, back during the Vietnam war the routes the BUFF used to take on their bombing runs were dictated to them by the idiots back in DC. So the BUFFs flew the same routes night after night. The Vietnamese blindfired about 40 missiles into the path and scored a few hits. All because command tried to run the war from DC and was too used to having total superiority over Hanoi/Vietnam.

Never can account for arrogance.

 

[shammond42]

In Sundiver David Brin postulates a "refrigerator laser" to dump enough heat to make penetrating a star possible. I suppose the same technology could be used to dump heat in a tight beam. Along the beam you could be detected thermally, but otherwise you would be invisible, or nearly so, to heat sensors.

 

[Sigtrygg]

This isn't true.

Yes it is.

Active sensing can be fought with radar absorbing material just like today's current technology (or whatever frequency you are trying to defeat).

And the absorbed radiation becomes heat...

Passive sensing is again a matter similar to working in today's EM Environment. Ship CONOPS will play a role, or periods of EMCON for particularly high periods of threat, even the physical design of the ship and where and how you manage your unpreventable emissions (heat) - active heat management to mostly radiate it away from possible threats will reduce detection probability.

Good luck hiding a few gigawatts of waste heat emissions...

Since you mentioned Atomic Rockets go and read it again, and the links to other discussions...

TLDR version - without magic technology there is no stealth in space.

Only people without an understanding of basic thermodynamics make this mistake, and they always think they have a work around.

 

[Arkathan]

This isn't true.

Yes it is.

Active sensing can be fought with radar absorbing material just like today's current technology (or whatever frequency you are trying to defeat).

And the absorbed radiation becomes heat...

Passive sensing is again a matter similar to working in today's EM Environment. Ship CONOPS will play a role, or periods of EMCON for particularly high periods of threat, even the physical design of the ship and where and how you manage your unpreventable emissions (heat) - active heat management to mostly radiate it away from possible threats will reduce detection probability.

Good luck hiding a few gigawatts of waste heat emissions...

Since you mentioned Atomic Rockets go and read it again, and the links to other discussions...

TLDR version - without magic technology there is no stealth in space.

Only people without an understanding of basic thermodynamics make this mistake, and they always think they have a work around.

Anything you can detect with tech, someone else can deflect with other tech. It only has to be effective enough to make you miss.

 

[Sigtrygg]

That's why I always add the magic tech proviso...

Traveller has to have some sort of magic heat management system that has been ignored/overlooked/deliberately obfuscated for decades.

I have been proposing for years that there must be a heat management system that is based on the gravitic tech that gives us maneuver drives, grav plates, acceleration compensation and jump drive.

It may even offer another option for ship combat if heat management becomes a factor - think Battle Tech but not as unforgiving.

 

[Condottiere]

A dead cat gives out no heat.

But does a cat that's both dead and alive?