John--
You are correct in all of your points. And I want to be careful when
presenting a different point of view so that it doesn't sound like I'm
telling you you're wrong. We did the same paths of thinking and just came
up with a different answer that made sense to us. And I liked the idea of
lots of missiles with various HE, HEAT, gas, or flechette warheads, but
was eventually persuaded that nuke-pumped X-ray lasers was the answer that
would probably stand the test of time.
So PLEASE forgive me if any of this sounds snotty or superior, I'm just
laying out what persuaded me.
1. A lot of the reason that missiles and fighters seem so persuasive to us
is because of our experience in this world*. But the key difference
between our world and space combat is the lack of atmo. Planes are
effective because aerodynamics allows them to do something that ships
can't, move fast through the air due to aerodynamic lift, and maneuver the
same way. In atmo, maneuverability comes from control surfaces which you
use over and over again, and consume (effectively) no power. In space,
maneuvering is only accomplished by expending reaction mass. The more
maneuvering you must do, the more reaction mass you must carry, the larger
you get, the bigger a target you become (easier to shoot down), the more
reaction mass you require (the maneuvering mass spiral), the more you
become another spaceship.
2. Closing vectors in space combat are tremendous, and to hit a
maneuvering target would require a tremendous proportion of reaction mass
to "bend" your vector in the final milliseconds to hit a maneuvering ship.
And that reaction mass makes you larger, easier target, etc, back to that
spiral. The only way to spend less reaction mass bending your vector is to
have less of a vector to begin with, which makes you slower, takes longer
to get to the target, easier to hit on the way there. Even in atmo, when
the target and missile launcher are much closer, closing vectors are so
hard to make up that the standard defence against a SAM or AAM is to
"break" into it so that it can't follow your turn and misses you. Same
would happen in space.
3. As you point out, if even one in 100 or one in 1000 hit, it's
cost-effective. But only in isolation. Compared to other possible weapons
systems, it might be less cost effective. If it took 100 or 1000 missiles
per hit, that would require X or 10X launchers to fire them, plus
magazines and fire control systems, AND you'd have to replenish those
missiles from somewhere after the battle or you're toothless. If you could
get that same one hit from a laser turret which takes up less surface
area, less space within the hull, and does not require replenishment, but
just waits for the HPG to spool back up, then ship designers will end up
using laser turrets as being more cost-effective for most purposes.
4. BUT, since missiles are useful, i.e., the ability to fire a screen of
them out in front of you, or to carry a bunch of them if you don't have
the internal power for a laser, they do have a real role. But, given the
requirements of reaction mass to get close to maneuvering target as
rapidly as possible, those missiles grow to become, as you describe, a
small/disposable weapons platform. Which is exactly what a nuke-pumped
X-ray laser is. So our reasoning brought us back full circle.
And then, as you describe, there are issues of spoofing, jamming, etc., to
add on top of the issues above.
That was our reasoning, and in my mind, I'm still persuaded by it, but I
always like to hear other good ideas.
I think that probably the reason this was jarring to long-time Traveller
players is that it is in fact the consequence of a very basic rule change
in TNE: no reactionless drives. If you have reactionless thruster plates
on missiles, as presumably they did in CT and MT, then everything I said
above is null and void, because turning is "free," comparable to using
aerodynamic control surfaces in atmo, and does not require reaction mass.
However, when we changed to no reactionless drives, the logic above
followed from it. I suspect that maybe we didn't lay out very often how
that one rule change rippled through a lot of TNE.
But please respond with additional thoughts or possibilities that I did
not consider. And I have not done the math on the cost of one laser vs.
umpteen missiles. Clearly, if we had wanted, we could have arbitrarily set
prices to make one approach preferable over the other. However, to the
extent that expendable missiles require hull additional hull volume for
additional stowed kills (larger engines, more reaction mass, etc.), and
logistical considerations as well, there are operational costs that can't
be quantified as easily.
Dave
*And because they're cool in Star Wars
> We don't have to call it a fighter. its just a small/disposable weapon's
> platform.
>
> If its possible but rare having 100 (arbitrary number) per wave make it
> more possible?
> Does that 100 platforms result in causing the target from being combat
> effective?
> Does that 100 platforms cost less than the target you crippled.
>
> At the end if its yes, yes, and yes. then its efficient to use them. If
> any
> of them is no then its not efficient to use them.
>
> Human (or sentient species) loss in the use can have a disproportionate
> effect on cost factors.
>
> If TNE can allow for a cheap effective platform to make skin-to-skin
> contact possible. It could be used effectively.
>
> Problems as I see them. effective 'powered' approaches to 'spoof'
> defenses.