Other than energy shields and heavy armor, how might a spaceship

>>52903248
Provide the engagement range is far enough, with maneuvering thrusters and an AI advanced enough to predict enemy shots and dodge them.

>Point defense guns
>Blackhole trapping of enemy kinetics, missiles, and light weaponry.
>Time control resulting in decay of enemy kinetic and missile weaponry
>NERA (Nuclear Explosive Reactive Armor)
>Being fast as fuck
>Point to Point wormhole redirection of enemy weaponry

Idfk I'm creatively bankrupt tonight sorry OP.

>>52903248
Getting out of the way.

>>52903248
Killing the other guy

>>52903248
Dimensional shift?

File: tanks and monkies.jpg (79KB, 793x665px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 793x665px

>>52903248
Structure.
certain shapes and designs can be produced that could dissipate the power of an attack.
Likewise redundancy and certain external armour can be used.
for instance I believe it's BBD armour is designed to explode detonate producing a warp in the outer second layer that makes it harder for the warhead (heat) to penetrate the armour.
Another method, which could be stupid is to hypothetically make the ship a collection of interlocking smaller ships that can separate to mitigate or avoid damage

>>52903248
Phase form
Cloak
Long range detection
Decoy of solid light hologram
Warp nullification zone

Stealth
Holograms
Hacking their ship
Speed
Point defence systems
Gravity Wells
Best defence is offence

File: logh18c_s.jpg (31KB, 518x259px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 518x259px

>>52903248

Figths are likely to be at long ranges, beyond light-seconds or even light-minutes. If someone fires at you, he's likely to not be there by the time your laser reaches the area.

>>52903248

There is no stealth in space.

File: A-350Zh-SH-04-Galosh-ABM-1S.jpg (239KB, 768x434px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 768x434px

>>52903248

Nuclear flares.

File: ORD_Phalanx_CIWS_Firing_lg.jpg (105KB, 800x570px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 800x570px

>Dodging guided munitions in space
You'd want to be able to dodge shit like railguns, but a spread of guided torpedoes wouldn't give much of a shit about your maneuvers when your ship has to take care not to splatter its crew against the wall.

>energy shields and armor
I can think of a pile of reasons extra armor is shit on a spaceship: requires exponentially larger engines to offset, makes your maneuverability shit/super fucking energy expensive, still won't save you from heavy munitions.
Energy shields are space magic, and I can't imagine a civilization capable of swatting significant amounts of kinetic/thermal/electromagnetic energy aside with "energy fields" wouldn't have weapons capable of drawing a vector through space, launching "energy" (read: particles) at near-c, and deleting whatever that line intersects.

You're going to want to active countermeasures to kill missiles/torpedoes before they tear the hull open, maneuverability to reduce the odds of a dumb projectile landing a hit, and enough armor and internal structure to keep the ship from popping like a soda can after a single hit.

Unless you're talking about a space opera setting. In which case, why outsource your imagination when you're free to magic away?

>>52903248
Watch some Battlestar Galactica and Mass Effect. Not be all, end all sources for the subject matter but it'll give you plenty of inspiration.

File: [Bunny_Hat]Macross_06_(A6E6D10F)_4.webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>52903248
I know you said energy shields, but I liked Macross' pinpoint defense shields. For some PLOT related reason they didn't have an omni-directional shield and instead had three small shields they could use to intercept enemy fire. Hilariously they used trackballs to control the shields.

>>52903634
Shields and weapons that phase through dimensions.

Traveller had Sandcasters for throwing chaff/ECM/literal sand in the way of delicate missiles or focused laser beams.

>>52903248
Alternity had deflection inducers which took gravity tech and tried to 'bend' things around the vessel, even beam weapons.

>>52904266
The entirety of Macross is wonderfully low-tech. They also couldn't use the shields if they wanted to fire the main cannon if I'm not mistaken.

>>52904349
>laser beams
Problem with those is that you cannot react to them at all if we're talking realism.

>>52905518
They do have an effective range, so you can preempt them at least.

>>52903248
Chaff?

>>52905518
You can be proactive in anticipation of lasers, and take evasive maneuvers or deploy diffracting countermeasures. It's just impossible to know if they've been fired or where they'll hit beforehand.

https://youtu.be/xvs_f5MwT04

I like the idea of using artificial gravity to defend a ship.
Either using it to curve the path of projectiles away from the ship using some negative gravity, or using it to direct projectiles into certain parts of the ship that have a ton of armour, leaving the rest of the ship unarmoured, but unlikely to be hit.

Doesn't work that well with lasers though, so it depends on the setting.

>>52906068
The trouble is getting a powerful enough gravity field to actually affect something significantly.

>>52905343
>>52904266
Don't forget focusing the shields on the carrier deck (forearm) in mech mode and using it to punch the enemy dreadnaught, then having all the destroids on the deck pop up and launch all their shit inside the enemy ship.

>>52903248

By outnumbering the enemy.

File: kouhai konfusion.png (332KB, 702x743px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 702x743px

>>52906068
>able to manipulate gravity
>still throwing kinetic projectiles at each other's vessels
This is why we don't give phasers to cavemen desu

May as well invent a tachyon laser that kills your enemies before they were born.

>>52906301
>Remember that time you spontaneously aborted in your mother's womb?
>IT WAS ME, BARRY!

>>52903917
>requires exponentially larger engines to offset
Offset what?

There is no gravity, you idiot. Instead of larger engines, you need MORE engines for maneuvering

>>52906277
>wasting energy on keeping a ball of energy hot and relying on heat damage
>Not just using a railgun that penetrates armour and gets just as hot, but only when it needs to be hot during and after penetration

>>52906210

^This

Why wouldn't large space ships have man/alien controlled or A.I. control small fighters held in ship bays. It's possible they could even have an infinite supply if Replicators are a thing. Imagine a race of 4armed, 2-headed mercenary aliens who can pilot 2 of these ships at once.

>>52903248
Dodge rolling.

>>52906721
>>52906721
>aliens who can pilot 2 of these ships at once.
By remote means from within the safe confines of the mothership that is

File: 1384708003810.jpg (131KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 720x540px

>>52903317
>NERA (Nuclear Explosive Reactive Armor)

>>52906721
Fighters are a poor choice for space combat, you don't need that kind of force projection as you can deliver the same payloads from the carrier.

>>52903248
CIWS/ Flak-cannons. Chaff, ecm, missilebarrage, drones, evasion...

Interceptor drones?
Ferrous asteroids manipulated by magnetic fields?

>>52903248
Strike first.
Evasive maneuver.
Chaff launchers etc. Stuff that can throw off enemy targeting systems.
Quick self repair.
Launching a bunch of small drones or fighter jets.
Large scale projections / effective cloaking.
Hacking enemy systems to prevent their weapons from firing.
Anti projective defense systems that shoot down projectiles en route.

>>52906496
More engine = bigger engine. Doesn't matter if you have two putting out a gee each or one putting out two gee.

>>52903248
Ablative shields like small drones or ships that take the hit.

Maybe collecting asteroids that are around you with some gravity field. If hit, the parts will refigure itselt.

Energy collecting devices for lasers.

Missile with stuff in it that either lessen the energy level of lasers or that re-routes projectiles.

Array of mini lasers that targets laser or projectiles and stop it

Considering "realistic" space combat would be taken at tremendous range with lasers, there's no real defense except specialized reflective plating and not getting hit.

>>52903248

As said above, CIWS, Chaff, Evasion are one way to go.

Another is to have jump engine. Small distance flicker jumps to evade, or another way to put such engines to torpedoes, to counter enemy ciws.

>>52903248
From a bit I'm working at:
Ships come in flying saucer and torch variants. Saucers don't care about fuel much, torches do. Torches can be faster while their fuel lasts.
Saucers can use stealth (senors are pretty bad and there is no AI) but a boosting torch is pretty much automatically spotted.
Primary weapon is the torch powered long range missile, typically with a directional warhead a la Casaba-Howitzer.
Missiles have limited automation and will typically be escorted by a torch fighter (500-1000 ton range). The fighter carries short range missiles and point defense. The fighter also carries a number of remote control operator station and communications gear, to control missiles.
Short range missiles carry megaton range basic nukes and use unreasonably efficient solid fuel rockets. (torches also have unreasonable Isp and thrust)
Point defense is typically short range missiles, lasers, rapid fire cannon or railguns shooting timer fuzed shotgun or nuclear shells.
Electronic warfare plays a part. Maneuver only really helps with setting up attacks and avoiding unescorted long range missiles.
Missile attacks are gambles. You want the missile in as close as you can to get a good probability of hit with the shaped nuke beam. A contact hit would be devastating but in practice that would only work with a cripple.
Outright destroying ships is something to be avoided. There are rare superheavy elements in saucer drives and to some extent in fusion reactors and torches.
(I want a setup where ship stats are relevant and logistics are a thing - if you have 20 LRMs in the launcher array and 30 in the hold unfueled, that's what you have.
Problem is the attempts I've made at a system for it - looking to make it around Savage Worlds - have been too defense biased, leading to no fun and magdumping being necessary.)

>>52906277
>This is why we don't give phasers to cavemen desu
What are you talking about? If you have strong gravity control, then kinetic weapons become and amazingly good idea. You could build massive gravitational synchrotrons, and hurl chunks of tungsten out at relativistic speeds. Electromagnetic weapons are all held back by either difficulties with coils, charging the projectile or the need for the barrel to make contact the projectile. A "gravity gun" has none of those limits, and can throw projectiles as speeds only limited by it's size and the strongest gravitational fields you could create.

Stealth
Onboard telepath mind-raping enemy gunners/tactical officers
Preemptive EMP mines to shut down incoming missiles before they get close enough to do damage.
Highly-conductive hull outer plating that distributes laser heat evenly across the surface so that damaging it takes stupid amounts of energy, especially for a large vessel.

>>52908330
Mine capsule encased brother of interstellar means.

>>52903248
Fragmentation of the ship into smaller, more manuverable ships.

>>52904014
Also, watch/read the Expanse for more realistic spaceships

>>52903248
On the realistic side of things, light armour IE wipple shields, and wide angle casaba howitzers as point defence.

If you want something cool but is just a variety of shield, look up Langston Fields in some of Jerry Pournelles books. Covers the ship in impenetrable black orb that absorbs all energy. Ships need to poke their sensors and weapons out through it and can be shot off, the field can only hold so much energy and it changes colours up through the rainbows as it radiates more and more energetically. Once it's too much it can burn into the protected ship. It helps developed a setting where ships tend to surrender rather than be destroyed.

>>52903917
Guided munitions would be easier to dodge because they're not going as faster as lasers and will run out of fuel if you go evasive.

File: [Bunny_Hat]Macross_06_(A6E6D10F).webm (3MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x360px

>>52906146

>>52908330
I'm getting PTSD flashbacks

File: 1484981186692.gif (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>52906418

File: 1404573822335.jpg (142KB, 330x500px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 330x500px

>>52904266
>trackballs

I never realized how adorable those are.

In a "realistic" setting that still has high-powered interplanetary spacecraft, delta-V differentials rule all.

Armor is mainly an anti-laser measure. Lasers are the main dedicated-military weapon, but missile buses are a cheap and effective alternative if you don't do a lot of war. Dedicated military ships will have banks of point-defence missile to stop leakers from missile salvos if they overwhelm the main lasers.

Then there's counterbattery with lasers, shooting the other ships mirrors through the lenses. So multiple output points are likely to be a thing.

>>52903917
>You'd want to be able to dodge shit like railguns, but a spread of guided torpedoes wouldn't give much of a shit about your maneuvers when your ship has to take care not to splatter its crew against the wall.

Same dynamic as airplanes with guided missiles, however: you can still dodge over a certain range. The missiles have more maneuverability, so inside a certain range you're screwed, but farther away the aircraft has more fuel. It can maneuver to force the missiles to maneuver instead of coast, and thus run them out of fuel.

>>52903848
In this scenario it is a good idea to launch multiple shots, both at him and the surrounding area he could move too

>>52903248
Like several anons have said, maneuvering will be more important than shields or armor.

Also, ECMs. Your ship's AI can hack enemy missile guidance systems to throw them off course, attempt to disrupt enemy sensors to create a false image on their radar, possibly try to forcefully override the enemy systems and lock them out of their own consoles. All kinds of fun stuff.

>>52908330
Good luck, I'm behind 7 falcons.

>>52913287
You might want to spend a bit less time taking EW knowledge from fiction.

You can absolutely jam their sensors. Everything else you mentioned is possible only if you're fighting gibbering retards who don't use encryption or basic computer security.

File: SPHERICAL.png (488KB, 765x766px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 765x766px

>>52906496
>mass an intertia don't exist in space
Square-cubed law applies to superstructure and engine cross-sections, dingus.

>>52910389
>Guided munitions would be easier to dodge
Only at close range. Given sufficient distance to accelerate, a modest spread of guided missiles is going to create a zone of interception that a crewed ship can't get out of without killing its occupants with g-force.

>>52903248
By repressing their heat emissions and deflecting signals. Something like stealth planes avoiding radar, except in space.

Because space is big, and spaceships- even amazingly huge ones- are pretty small.

>>52914770
Space is also pretty empty.
As a matter of fact, space is much emptier than spacecraft are small.

So your stealth ship stands out like a giant glowing beacon of "FUCK MY ASS PLEASE". Doubly so when it's accelerating.

>>52903248
No idea if this is already posted but.....
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardefense.php

>>52914770
Repressing.....

You do realize just how cold space is?
You would need to make yourself appear below zero.

For a spaceship, that is nigh impossible.

>>52915023
>>52914821
These are good ideas, and remind me why I'm shit at hard sci-fi. But wouldn't temperature not be easily-detectable at long range (because short-range would be figurative knifefighting with spaceships) due to the whole vacuum thing?

Maybe just doing 'the best you can', aided with a bunch of decoy ships that give off slightly more heat and radio noise...

>>52915067
The problem is heat spreads.

And in a vacuum, it can spread very quickly.

It would literally flow out like a beacon, screaming "Here is my ship"

So unless we're talking system-long distances that can have the heat blotted out by stars, you will detect them.

But then again, if you're attempting to shoot someone at that range, then clearly science has advanced to a point where powerful enough sensors would also exist for the express purpose of that.

>>52906277
Considering that gravity control will still probably decay with R^2 as a weapon it will be pretty close ranged. On the other hand making a sublight warp drive for dodging without acceleration will be a top notch defense.

>>52915067
A: Acceleration requires thrust. Thrust means throwing high-energy stuff into space so Newton's 3rd works. That means giant plumes of hot stuff. You CANNOT accelerate meaningfully without telling everybody in the system where you are. And if you don't accelerate meaningfully but do get detected, the enemy can just lob a missile at you from a month away and know they'll hit.
B: Space is cold and empty. And the only way to get rid of heat in space is to radiate it. So you either cook to death in an insulated shell, have nothing that generates any heat (so no computers, engines, life, etc), or give away your position.
C: Even if YOU aren't generating emissions, all it takes to break your stealth is a giant radio broadcast tower beaming EM in all directions. Whoops, you're either reflecting that EM and visible on radar or absorbing that EM and heating up.

>>52906721
Replicators don't make them infinite. You still need to haul mass from which fighters will be made. Which means you can as well carry ready fighters.

Replenishing destroyed fighters after a fight by eating asteroids is ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvs_f5MwT04
Reflective skin, evasion, hitting first and hitting hard.

>>52903248
Lots and lots of Flak and Chaff

File: necrotic bait.png (10KB, 1219x312px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1219x312px

>>52903248

Using massive amounts of negative energy a void in space is formed expanding outwards at the speed of light. Because the local expansion of space is greater than the speed of light it is physically impossible to traverse that distance. Therefore, a spacecraft with such a barrier would be absolutely impossible to hit.

Here's a novel idea. Rather than try to hide why not blast all frequencies and forms of detection with so much junk it makes monitoring with anything except direct caramas all but useless?

>>52903248
camo : look like a dead comet/asteroid lazily tumbling through space. Alternatively, look like a friendly instead of the enemy.

It's amazing how many folks say some variant of "there is no stealth in space". Translation : "I have no imagination." Everybody talks about trying to be cool like the background radiation so your heat doesn't give you away, but that it can't be done. Guess what is one of the many things our nuclear submarines do so as not to be detected by the enemy? Uh huh. They hide their heat. But hey, why not go the other way? Why not compress your waste heat emissions and turn them into a burst of x or gamma rays? Disguise yourself as an intermittent stellar phenomenon, a regularly pulsing neutron star.

Bribery.

>>52919441
long distance jamming:
>be advised fleet, we're getting some attenuated interference coming from this direction
>yeah, we're seeing it from this direction, let's triangulate
>visual confirms hostile vessel
>lob torpedo volley in that direction, which happen to have direct cameras among their array of targeting scanners
>RIP

close range jamming
>establish direct optic commlink to battlegroup
>hey, this fucker's jamming us
>triangulate
>pound them with kinetic rounds
>RIP

>>52903248
Drunkwalking. At range the ships jink and boost around using RCS thrusters and gimbals. It makes the ship almost impossible to track for a firing solution at extreme range.

File: naruhodo.jpg (53KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 900x675px

>>52919624
>gee that's weird, why are sensors suddenly picking up radiation bursts where there were none before
>and why is the astrometry software tracing it to this point 2.5au away
Natural celestial sources of radiation spikes would be well catalogued, and making loud noises out of nowhere in the middle of a silent room is the opposite of hiding. It might confuse an unsuspecting civilian transport for up to a minute before they figure it out, but a minute is fuck-all time to pull off a surprise in space.

>>52919690

Yes because the opposing force couldn't do something similar or breaking through the jamming is that easy.

>>52904266
>For some PLOT related reason they didn't have an omni-directional shield

They did. It was a very bad idea when they used it, but the second time they used it, it saved the human race.

>>52905343
>The entirety of Macross is wonderfully low-tech.

Just the macross itself, more important what the setting lacks in some forms of tech (before they develop shit like the black hole missiles) it makes up for in sheer firepower. Golg Boddole Zer's main battle fleet contained 4,795,122 capital ships, and it was one fleet out of a thousand. Of just the MALES of their species.

>>52919940
>breaking through the jamming
Pointing a laser at an allied ship's shielded laser receptacle - which they are conveniently aiming at the nearest allied ship per jamming protocol - and using it to tap out messages isn't hard.

First rule of stealth in space: don't try to sneak up on a fleet. Go full Sun Tzu with false ID mind games and isolation of an easy target, or go home.

>>52919441
Because noise jamming is basically putting a giant "MURDER ME" sign on your face.

And if your hardware is half-decent, you can just "cover up" the source of all low-penetration wavelengths. So it won't block IR detection.

>>52920754
>>52921489

My thoughts on the matter is not to use this in a mass engagement.

Single out and hunt down individual ships and use noise and violence to keep them from calling for help, pillage them and then be on your way before anyone can come and help.

Speed and 1 on 1 combat is essential for this strategy to work.

>>52921746
So your idea is to shout REALLY LOUDLY so nobody notices you blowing up ships?

>>52921789

The goal is to interrupt the targets coms and scanners. Are you saying it's impossible point all that at a single target rather than broadcast it everywhere?

>>52921859
Shitting EM at a ship will in absolutely no way hinder their ability to emit. And if you're shitting EM at just them, everybody in the system will hear them loud and clear.

>>52921942

Hence the need for speed and violence.

That said, it's not as if we have a set of rules to go by so we may as all well be making shit up according to our individual tastes. I suppose electronic warfare can be coupled with physical hacking, like say having an inside man on the target vessel or a missle probe that intereacts with the ships systems and attempts to subvert them.

All equally viable unless we have something concreate to work with.

>>52921997
You're confusing the hell out of me.
If you plan to swoop in and wreck some fucker, why do you care if they can hear replies to their distress calls?

Furthermore, how the fuck do you expect to be able to sustain this? You'll swoop in, guns blazing and broadcasting your position systemwide. Then you'll, what? Somehow avoid combat while still picking off ships?

Fuck, how would you even "single out and hunt down" a single ship?

>>52922249

Trading vessels, luxury liners, personal vessels, smugglers trying to stay off the main paths?

>>52922332
Will all have escorts in a state of war.
And you can't smuggle in space by "staying off the main paths".

Seriously, get this through your head already. EVERYBODY in a system with basic detection gear knows where everybody else is.

>>52906146
DIdnt that backfire one time?

Provided the ship Is large enough, flight decks to launch smaller squadrons of fighters/bombers. Anything else I'd normally recommend Is all over the thread. Full of really great points, you guys know your shit.

File: Jamming - Copy.gif (12KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x200px

>>52903248
Electronic countermeasures.

And then simply not getting hit. Weapons scale so much faster than armor does.

>>52921942
>What is look-through?

Sensors scan the frequency range randomly at super quick intervals and see if the jammed target is still broadcasting. The moment they stop, it turns off its jammers. It detects it again? It turns on the jammers.

This shit has been around since the 60's.

>>52922681
And again, how in the world is shouting at the target going to stop them from sending a distress call?

>>52903314
>AI predicts a shot
>moves
>Opponent AI predicts that movement
>shoots where it thinks that AI will go
>Your AI predicted his prediction and so, in fact, did not move
>etc etc etc

File: lockheed_sr_71_blackbird-1920x1200.jpg (253KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1920x1200px

>>52903248
OP , you leave a lot of shit unclarified. what kind of propulsion do the ships use? whats the general technology level? are we talking total war between battlefleets or small skirmishes?

any ship capable of interplanetary travel should be able to dodge unguided kinetic attacks at all but extreme close ranges. at medium ranges , they should be able to doge lasers too.

then we get to guided weapons. first , what propulsion do your torpedos use? if they cant go as fast or faster then the ships , theyre pretty useless. you know , theres a stealth plane that the US used to take pictures during the cold war . If a missle is fired on hat thing , the crews trained response was "accelerate" since that plane could outspeed any missle available. (pic related)

I'm going to be honest, I figured most real big space battles would take place near 'chokepoints'. Planets, stations, even solar systems and asteroids, stuff you wanted to take.

In cases like these, can't you hide behind planets andeteors, or keep the sun to your back so infrared and optical sensors have difficulty finding you?

>>52925618
Also great for making it to club practice early
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXy0FDlCUbI

>>52903248
bending space in such a way that the attacks don't hit them

>>52925810
>hide behind asteroid
You'll only be out of sight if you're dealing with a fleet in very tight formation, and engine emissions will give your position away anyway.

>hide behind planet
Pretty tenuous proposition. Could be useful in an uninhabited system if you haven't been spotted and aren't being actively looked for, but well-designed torpedoes could presumably coast in orbit until they spot you and any sort of enemy-aligned installation, ship, or beacon with line of sight would be inclined to feed positioning data. Most importantly, you wouldn't know where to sit to hide unless you spotted the ship you wanted to hide from in the first place in which case their passive sensors will likely have seen you in return and spoiled the surprise.

>hide in front of local star
You are now casting a blatant shadow of "less bright/colder than the sun" that basic sensors will be screaming at.

If your ship is rated for atmo and capable of reaching escape velocity, hiding ON a planet is your best bet. Landing in an asteroid crater could do you in a pinch, aside from thermals giving you away at a bad angle.

>>52925618
The blackbird was not at all stealthy.
The plane itself was large, and had a large radar signature. The exhaust from its engines had an even larger radar signature, three times that of the plane's.

>>52903248
By making it so sensor technology in your setting hasn't advanced much from today, and thus can't scan 360 degrees of space in all distances and directions all at once and pick out subtle differences easily

>>52926002
Doesn't that fact in itself prove the point that being a pain in the ass to hit is better than trying to be hard to see if you're far from cover?

File: 2011-04-15-beartato-iknow.png (69KB, 800x1051px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x1051px

>>52925525
>keikaku.jpg

>>52926002
where in my post did i argue that its defense was in its stealth?

>>52926194
Not >>52926002 but the SR-71 was never a stealth aircraft in any way, shape, or form, despite being painted black.

Enormous radar signature, and you can see it on infrared from a continent away. The advantage that it had was speed, pure and simple; you overflew an area that would take too long to for the enemy to conceal, compared to the known orbits of keyhole satellites.

>>52903314
>far enough
This is what bugs me the most about most sci-fi space battles.
A 21st century battleship can already fight without even seeing its target and hit it from afar. Same thing with carriers who can just send planes for max damage without exposure to danger.
The same logic would apply in space. Why would you approach an ennemy when you can just send him a nuke, missiles, or an armada of small ships with high damage output ?

>>52926344
Those missiles and fighters would be destroyed en route or be unable to make the intercept due to the velocity and distances involved.

>>52926375
It all depends on the detection abilities and firepower of the ennemies, anon. Space is fucking huge. I don't see why today's logics can't be scaled in space. Even with better techs, there will be better countermeasures, meaning you could very well have stealthy drones capable of approaching an ennemy ship sufficiently to start firing before it's detected and so on.

>>52926405
>I don't see why today's logics can't be scaled in space
Well two things
First, space is fucking huge and has no brakes, so you need fuel to go to stop to turn to do anything moving. That a whole lot more than you would for a plane, a car, a boat ,anything not moving in space.
Second which is because of the same reason for the first, unlike planes, drones and missiles launched from a ship on the sea, those launched in space move in the same medium as their launcher. As a result when you guys think of launching planes in space, you are actually thinking of launching tiny boats from a bigger boat. And that is as retarded as it sound.

Because of those two things anything you wanna lob some guided ammo at, you would be shooting using the same weapons you would use to launch dumb ammo. Except that ammo would have tiny control thrusters and some reaction mass.
That way you save on the weight of [insert amount of missile ammo] tiny engines, plus their individual tanks, pressure systems ect.

Also for those thinking "tiny control thrusters can't do a barrel roll and carry nukes", speed is involved. Space things go sanic fast, but because of space distances you can push a few newtons perpendicular to your trajectory and end up a 100 kilometer of target and with another the opposite direction. That means unless you royally fucked up your targeting you don't miss that often unless the target moves hard enough to break electronics. You don't need explosives either, that empty reaction mass container and tiny control thruster bundle going at a hundred thousand rape miles per hour is more than enough to fuck up anything that not armoured by a fucking planet. And those that are tend to not be able to move really fast so you can just lob more at them until they break.

>>52926693
Also lasers are super short range come space time, sure light speed shenanigans, but getting that much needed concentrated beam on a target even a few light seconds away is gonna suck hard balls. Also because of convergence long range lasers would require fuck huge lenses.

>>52903248
Deflection is a good one, if you angle a flat surface at a near flat enough angle you can deflect almost anything.
Spaced armor, a layer of thin abrasive materials a cm or two in thickness placed a meter or two from the hull. When a projectile hits it becomes superheated and starts to vaporise, as a result you need much less armor under it to protect yourself. Just hope you don't get struck twice in the same space. Can be coupled with deflection. Also it helps channel emissions to some degree.
Directed energy, like just push the thing off target by radiation pressure. Its guided? keep pushing and waste its fuel then move off course.
Good ol' flak works in a pinch too, same thing just bump the projectile off target.

>>52926693
Again. It all depends on the technology we have at hands.

>launching tiny boats from a bigger boat
You say it's retarded but I can see reasons to do that. Preserving the carrier from direct attacks, while having a numerous fleet of tiny ships carrying high damage output weapons.

Also if the carrier is built to fight in multiple environments (eg atmosphere), we kinda close the loop.

I understand your argument and can agree that having guided ammo is good too and can replace those "planes" but it's a question of setting and technology.

>>52927001
Also I forgot to say, but modern navies had to adapt to take into consideration terrorists strategies such as tiny high speed boats targeting bigger ships such as a carrier, meaning this shit works

>>52927001
>a question of setting and technology.
Totally
Same for the carrier, but at this points it is essentially a tanker/support ship or a mothership depending on size.

>>52927079
Speed boats tend to be cripplingly short ranged in the scale of sea borne fighting. And therefor easy to simply avoid.

>>52927001
>numerous fleet of tiny ships carrying high damage output weapons
Certainly a range of ships with varying designs and mission specialties would be the optimal arrangement for a space fleet, since building a BIG FUCKOFF BATTLESTAR is a really good way to get RKVs thrown at your wasteful blob of metal nonstop. And you'll want some of those ships to be large enough to carry supplies to replenish their smaller escorts in between visits to port. However, dedicated "carriers" simply make no sense. Being really far away doesn't make you unassailable, and investing in space fighters is a really good way to spend more money on slower, more complex, and ultimately less effective forms of attack than just keeping a healthy supply of guided missiles on hand for long-range attack. See >>52926693 for an explanation of why missiles can do what ships and reuseable drones can't.

Let's reword that metaphor to be more accurate: it's like building a jet fighter that replaces its high explosive missiles with a bunch of RC planes with handguns strapped to them. Launching a craft carrying guns to go plink away at a full sized craft is a colossal fucking waste of energy and resources compared to just firing a guided weapon of similar size that IS the final projectile itself. Both will get shot down in droves by robust countermeasures, but only one of them can you afford to throw in sufficient numbers to overwhelm defenses.

>if the carrier is built to fight in multiple environments
If a ship's got big enough engines to handle interplanetary travel while hauling around the supplies to wage interplanetary war, you'd better believe it isn't going to come anywhere near a planetary atmosphere without regretting it immensely.

>>52926405
Atmosphere, water and soil are built-in physical countermeasures to detection that militaries past and present have frequently taken advantage of.

In space you don't get any free countermeasures against the laws of physics. So no, the logistics don't scale at all because the environment is completely different.

>>52927155
>Being really far away doesn't make you unassailable, and investing in space fighters is a really good way to spend more money on slower, more complex, and ultimately less effective forms of attack than just keeping a healthy supply of guided missiles on hand for long-range attack
Dude it's already the same situation today, and yet we still use planes. Ok soon they will all be drones, but still.
Maybe those missiles are too small for long distance, so you need an intermediary vessel for optimal damage that would be fast and resistant enough to get close and fire your missile accurately, I don't know.
I'm not saying that long ranged missiles is not the way to go, but it all depends on the scale of damage and capacities of the missile itself. If you want surgical damages because you don't want the nearby planet to go sterile, you'll need to avoid using a big missile to just to fuck an ennemy fleet.

>only one of them can you afford to throw in sufficient numbers to overwhelm defenses
That's a good argument, but a combined attack would be best imo. First a high capacity wall of missiles to fuck unaware/retarded ships and tire them, and then close assault for more delicate, precise damage.

>If a ship's got big enough engines to handle interplanetary travel while hauling around the supplies to wage interplanetary war
Nimitz classes are only 300 meters long. I mean even if we put a hundred tiny ships inside a space carrier, we're still far from something that would break if it was near a planet. Once again, setting and all. You suppose that interplanetary travel necessitates fuckhuge engines, but we don't know ant it all depends on tech

>>52927233
So you're saying going back to XVIII century naval warfare with ships facing themselves just a few yards afar makes more sense ?

>>52913122
You mean, like we used to and still do with non-guided AA?

>>52903248
By being undetectable, space is fucking huge.

>>52927266
>already the same situation
No, carrier and plane move in two mediums, Water and air. Space carrier and space plane move in one medium space. Different situation. Anon even provided you with an easy example.
>combined attack would be best
It's like you didn't read. If you want precision launch precise missiles, the whole point of the example is to show going to and then back is a waste.
> that would break if it was near a planet
The roche limit doesn't apply to things that are held together by anything but gravity. But anyway there is far worse than breaking up, the bigger the mass of a craft the heavier it will be in a gravity field. the heavier the harder to move. The hard to move the more difficult to get away from said orbit. As a result a craft of 300 meter like a nimitz would be stuck pretty early in the gravity well, which mean getting an approach would suck and getting somewhere else would suck even more. unless it had bigger engines, save those engines weight more and now the rocket equation is ruining your designs.
But the fact you mention hundred of tiny ships inside the nimitz class lets me conclude you probably will ignore this and keep on saying carriers in space in sense.

>>52903248
Speaking of Roche limit and things breaking up. Blowing dense clouds of dust, to obscure vision and royally fuck up the delicate instruments of spaceships and any other thing that wants to know stuff about the outside without looking out the airlock would be a good alternate defence. Bonus sci fi points for magnetic dust trapped and moved with magnetic fields.

File: IMG_0159.png (222KB, 480x452px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 480x452px

>>52927266
>space is the same as the surface of the ocean
>anti-ship torpedoes are at risk of sterilizing nearby planets somehow maybe
>moving objects in space might not take large engines, you can't say for sure until we put our naval carriers in space
If you want Spelljammer or Saga or Doctor Who or latter-day Mass Effect, just come out and say "I want cool space fantasy". But at that point discussion of what "makes sense" isn't particularly relevant, since the rules of what sensibility means in an imaginary world is entirely up to you.

>>52927233
Space is not empty though, its full of radiation, magnetic fields and plenty of unrecorded rocks flying around. You don't need zero emissions, just low enough and only facing your opponent. Since there are no sold stuff you can emit all the radiation you want if it's not aimed at a sensor.

>>52927323
Being a physical thing in the huge emptiness of space makes you VERY detectable. Unless you mean undetectable by means of being in a completely different solar system, which is more a case of being impossible to practically interact with.

File: 389fb7063b3d32954e36339b60e542ea[1].gif (115KB, 450x369px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 450x369px

>>52903248
>Other than energy shields and heavy armor, how might a spaceship defend itself from attacks?

I don't know if anybodies said it yet, but your ship could just be 'alive' and naturally respond or even regenerate to any damage it receives, like how if your body gets stabbed the muscles clench up.

You could have a biotech ship or maybe you're a particularly lucky/lazy civilization and you domesticated some species of horrifying space whale.

>>52927444
>>already the same situation
I was refering to the fact that today, we have missiles that would supposedly be more efficient to do the job than sending planes, and yet we still send planes. It's a question of tools.

>But the fact you mention hundred of tiny ships inside the nimitz class
Didn't say that either. I was saying that even if you imagine a ship capable to carry a hundred of ships inside it, it wouldn't be that much bigger than a nimitz, which can board as much as 90 planes.

>>52927463
Again, reading comprehension.

As for the engine size, I'm just saying that reasoning in terms of "more power = bigger" is restrictive. You can imagine different techs for different sizes with different results, and as you say, its pretty much up to your imagination.

And since we're here, a vessel capable to do both atmospheric and space combat could be useful

>>52927531
I could see it be technological as well, either some regenerative/selfsealing hull
>grimdarker the crew uniform doubles as a short term void suit.
Whenever hull is breached those near the site scramble there and use evenly placed caches of sheet metal and disposable welders to reestablish athmo, or suffocate.

>>52903248
Divinations and psychics to dodge incoming attacks

>>52927563
>Didn't say that either.
You just said that again just 90 instead.
Anon's whole post was that the post before it was right.
Going for tiny ships is retarded. You go for independent ships so as to minimize back and forth as much as you can possibly do. so you remove the planes from the nimitz and turn it into a upsised zumwalt. And if you need more range to those missiles you use a tanker, not a carrier.

>yet we still send planes
Still, not the same situation.
>Two mediums, you use a boat (water) to carry plane (air) to use weapons.
Planes are used to delivers faster over water and farther over ground, Boats are used for strategic scale movement because of its better endurance and planes need to land anyway. This ONLY happen because of the different mediums.
>One medium (space) you are using a bigger ship (space) to carry smaller ship (space) to carry weapons.
Which translates into (pick your own): a big plane carrying small plane carrying weapons; a big boat carrying small boats carrying weapons. Does that sound retarded ?
Just in case it doesn't: all the tiny planes/boats/spaceships are wasted space made of unnecessary structure, armor, life-support, engines, electronic, [anything your wannabe planes might have that is covered by the wannabe carrier]. All of which is better used for either more weapons or more fuel/supply efficient cargo.
You can argue your way around it somewhat on earth but it doesn't apply in space in any fashion without going mushy soft scifi tier because newton hates fun with a passion unless you like to learn sciency things with your fun.

>>52927563
>>52927835
>What about losing a big ship? Wannabe planes are easier to replace.
That's why you have different classes, from orbital patrol, to fuck all your system's infrastructure. Its also a matter of economy of scale and scale of your economy. (don't forget that you kill all the planes if you kill the carrier too)
>What about if its space marines, or non missile weapons. What about e-war stuff?
Same thing, your stuff's got a range and you get a ship that can get in range, if it can't from a supply point, you put engines on the supply points and move it to the most efficient fraction of the trip.
>What about warp drive and antigrav or massless stuff ?
That's mushy soft scifi.

>>52903248
Psyops to make your enemy build carrier fleets

>>52927835
>a big plane carrying small plane carrying weapons
Frankly if we had the tech it would be better than a carrier ship since it would also be able to move above ground. So it's not that retarded.

Also you talk about waste of resources, such as life support and all, but it can be reduced by using drones. Point is. Drones are reusable and missiles aren't, which can balance the lack of efficiency with cost on the long term. Sure an autonomous ship carrying a fuck load of missiles will be devastating but different situations can require different tools, and different logistics.

>You can argue your way around it somewhat on earth but it doesn't apply in space in any fashion without going mushy soft scifi tier
I'm saying you're a bit too sure about what "realistic" sci fi space combat coulb be like.

>>52927906
>Drones are reusable and missiles aren't
>can be reduced
Exactly, once the weapons are spent the drones are dead weight. Even reduced its still dead weight you could have used for more [anything] , extending your operational range/efficiency.
>different logistics
But same physics problems, you want to be as light as you can at all times, to save as much as you can, to do as much as you can.
Space is huge and everything is a matter of reaching there with enough to do the did and come back.
>what "realistic" sci fi space combat coulb be like
I'm talking realistic as in it doesn't break physics.
The ideal rocket equation boils down to the more mass you have the smaller the returns on said mass. So unless you break physics you want to always be as close as comfortable to minimum requirement for a given anything. Meaning you want to shed all the extra weight, maximize space/weight efficiency and minimize the back and forth to one trip to, one back.
Better engines, fuels, weapons, automation, even paths don't change anything to that equation but simply factor into the number you get or the one you need. Unless they break physics.
Rereading, I feel the whole argument comes down to me coming come out as saying carriers are impossible, they are not. They are just incredibly inefficient.

>>52928081
>once the weapons are spent the drones are dead weight
They're dead weight for the immediate combat, but can be reused for another one.

Alright. Why do we still use planes today when we have missiles that can go anywhere we want them to go ?
Legit question at this point. We have cruisers carrying missiles, ground batteries, intercontinental missiles, and yet we still use planes too. Wouldn't it be more efficient, following yout logic, to only build better missiles ? Yet even the future projects don't give up on planes and just want them to make autonomous and smarter, while also trying to build smarter missiles

>>52913749

Also if you presume that each ship has a magic AI supercomputer.

The moment you add AI to space war, you remove humans from space war, and thus make the entire conflict immediately less interesting.

"How goes the war?"
"Let me check. The computer says that we are winning, because we have more drones than they do. And apparently we also invaded the territory of someone called the Goraxians."
"What, why?"
"Not sure... Oh, it was the most efficient route to some big supply depot, so we conquered an entire planet and took control of their star system."
"Why didn't anyone ask us?"
"Well, the AIs did send us an email..."

>>52928585
It sounds awesome though

>>52919690
>>lob torpedo volley in that direction, which happen to have direct cameras among their array of targeting scanners

Which they effortlessly shoot down because if they are throwing out that much EM then there is no way a physical object is getting close to them without reflecting back.

Also, to triangulate their position you had to spread out your fleet for the multiple vantage points. This means that you just took what WAS a large force and turned it into multiple smaller and more easily engaged forces, which are still individually limited to using a small part of their tradition arsenal (optical guided torpedoes).

Sounds to me like thats a pretty fucking effective military technology.

>>52920069
>They did. It was a very bad idea when they used it, but the second time they used it, it saved the human race.

The end of space war one was a fucking trollfest

"Here's what we do. We put our pinpoint barrier on the front of the ship, and just fly straight into that enemy base. The pinpoint barrier is indestructable, their base isn't. We'll punch straight into the middle of the, fire nukes in all directions, and then raise our bubble shield so our own nukes don't kill us."

"Won't the bubble shield overload and explode?"

"Yes, but we'll be fine. Its everything around us that suffers for that... so why should we care?"

"Okay. What can the Zentradi do to stop us?"

"As far as I know? Not a damn thing."

>>52914821
>>5291506

Y'all niggers need to read outsystem. The trick in hiding your fucking ship is pointing your engine wash at a star as you enter the system. Try to find all that radiation in the shit coming from the star

Outsystem also points out scenarios in which fighter craft might be useful. A lower mass requires less fuel to accelerate, so they are suitable to intercept enemy vessels already moving at high speeds. If your enemy is already moving at 0.x c, it's going to be difficult to accelerate anything big quickly enough to actually intercept it.

Also, moving at relativistic speeds v > 0.5c is a pretty good defense mechanism since the time dilation makes hitting your enemy much more difficult.

>>52915124

>The problem is heat spreads.

>And in a vacuum, it can spread very quickly.

nigga there is nothing in space that fucking heat can spread to. The only way to spread heat in vacuum is via radiation, and that doesn't work fast. That's why you suffocate in space instead of getting shockfrozen

>>52908358
No it would not. Laser spots widen nigga. You likely don't have enough intensity to do actual damage if your beam is wider than the enemy ship by the time it hits. Lasers would likely only be useful as point defense weapons.

>>52922837

Broadcast and receiving equipment is, by nature, sensitive equipment. You don't jam it, you burn it the fuck out with an overload. Anything that would protect their comms system from burnout also means it can't transmit, so their choices are 'don't use it and be silent' or 'try and use and and risk having it break until we physically replace it'.

>>52928153
>Why do we still use planes
Because different mediums.
Just a reminder before we start again
The most efficient pattern, as per the ideal rocket equation
(which does somewhat applies to air and water mediums as well)
>Ship leaves from a supply station - goes to target - fire - then returns empty.

Airplanes repeat the same pattern I'm describing
>Plane leaves from runway (carrier whichever it's supply station) - goes to target - fire - then returns empty.
Waterships follow the same pattern too
>Boat (carrier) leaves port - goes to target - fire (launch planes expanding ammo) - then returns empty.

Two different mediums, twice the same pattern. The return does not have to be to the same station, and can even be to a midway point (a supply ship for example). The only reason Carrier retrieve their weapons(planes) is because they use another medium and form their own pattern making it worth it. If you remove access to another medium i.e. space, the carrier system becomes unwieldy.

You just keep on saying that to move the whole supply station to the target there is more advantageous, its not, it possible, but its extremely wasteful.

> reused for another one.
And lose twice the fuel and time expanded. Although you can argue returns from tech that it balances out you also have maintenance which is nearly non existent for weapons compared to reusable equipment. Not mentioning the increased supply train of multiplying models. But still sure depending on tech drones can be cheaper. However you would be hardpressed to develop tech for efficient reusable drones while not developing cheaper missiles.
Because one medium

>missiles
Missiles, railguns, lasers, rockets, rocks, bullets, anything be it weapons or which ever you might need on target and whichever the target, you will always be more efficient if you remove unneeded trips, and weight. It doesn't matter if its wifi it's got a range and you gotta get into it nothing more.

>>52903248
Micro-jumps
Stealth technology
Anti-sensor systems
False target projectors

Basically any system designed to avoid being hit is far preferable superior to a system designed to survive being hit.

>>52928713
>Laser spots widen nigga.
The Focal size for ranges into the light second would also be stupid huge

>>52928722
Hmm. So the most efficient ship fighting in space would be an autonomous vessel carrying a fuck ton of nukes and other weapons and firing until it's empty ?
Sounds reasonable now, but I'm wondering if we forget some variables there, it's too simple

>>52903248
How about attacking at night so the enemy can't see you?

>>52928863
That's why eugenism is good after some time. You can't let primal instincts get the better of you when they're not needed anymore

>>52928779
it's too simple
Thats because its simplified.
the actual math is a super annoying conundrum of your ship doesn't do enough but can't do more that you need to prop up somehow
As for the weapons see my post >>52926693
The part about speed and why its enough

File: gillian.webm (603KB, 750x420px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 750x420px

>>52903248
stealth
CIWS
defensive rockets
super maneurving
teleporting
phase shifting
reflecting
ECM
flares/chaff
hacking
illusions
decoys

File: 1359737160102.gif (697KB, 176x119px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 176x119px

>>52905986
HOW THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE NOT ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES AFTER POSTING A VIDEO OF THEIR SPEECH IMPEDIMENT?!?!?!?!

>>52929206
Yeah about that...
>so you need fuel to go to stop to turn to do anything moving
But in space, apart from gravitational forces, an object will always conserve its speed without getting slowed down by air, water or earth or whatever, so it should actually be more economical, scale wise, to move. The only problem is that space is fuck huge so you need to move a lot but apart from that, if you predict ennemy's movement and fire a missile, it'll just need a few correction but the overall energy needed for the travel wouldn't be too much

File: Sm-3_Block_IA_launch.jpg (112KB, 950x1022px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 950x1022px

>>52903248
Missiles and lots of them.

Preferably in either nuclear shaped charge or unitary warhead flavors.

>>52928779
Not Nukes, generally.
Nukes disperce heat via radiation, and a massive shockwave.

There are no shockwaves in space, and if you are in space you need ways to deal with massive amounts of radiation.

Odds are the missiles will simply be kinetic in nature (IE they are self propelled bullets) simply because at high enough speed (which you will reach in space) you dont need chemical energy to break things in half

>>52903248

Do you want a scientifically possible answer or a space opera answer?

>>52929304
Yeah, nothing to say here, by no brakes I just meant that you have to spend energy to do really anything movement related even slowing down, to catch an orbit for example. And by stop I meant a stable orbit, generally docked to something.

As for how much you need it mainly depends on your engine efficiency, the more efficient the more you can move.
But the more payload the more fuel you need for the same mobility which is more payload in itself, exponentially until you can't get any more mobility for a given engine.
The thing is, being a military craft you'd be called to do some intercepts, probably lots of 'hem. And tracking either enemy or criminal craft those would probably approach from "exotic" orbits, forcing you to do complicated and fuel expensive manoeuvres with full or partial payload from. However here position is key like I can't stress enough and the amount of mobility required varies from "did the gauge even move" to "can we even go home" when doing the same thing from two different positions. It's also very dependent on whether or not you can get resupplied mid patrol or not via station, RdV, etc.

>>52928888
>Eugenism
>implying it needs time to be good

>>52929283
Americans don't experience shame.

>>52926194
You didn't argue that its defense was stealth.
You did, however, call it a stealth plane.

>>52928634
>all this smug
An effective missile volley in space needs to be of sufficient size and have jinking patterns to get just one or two through past point defenses. Regardless of warhead, any one of a cloud of missiles that's been freely accelerating for a half hour or more through space is going to land a devastating blow on any habitably-designed vessel.

Meanwhile, a fleet is going to be spread the fuck out normally. No matter how vastly dispersed a fleet of ships is, they can still adjust formation in response to this screeching stranger's apparent hostility by adjusting formation long before it can get close enough to do anything other than launch its own torpedoes. And triangulation doesn't take much when you're in fucking space, presumably with a computer doing it for you constantly for anything on scanners - like a stray ship that may or may not be bleeding EM spikes everywhere.

>>52903317
Trapdooring; manipulating spacetime to shunt an attack 'above' or 'below' relative to the target in the fourth spatial dimension.

Maybe try something a little different?

Let's establish basic tech:

Kinetic shield - deflects kinetic projectiles and weakens particle beams. It can be beaten by large and fast enough projectiles but they will be robbed of a lot of energy. When two shields meet they merge allowing to murderize your opponent without any impediments.
Minimal size of the generator around 3 meters in radius.
Shield strength scales with square root of radius of generator. So bigger generators while more powerful are less mass/energy effective.

Anti-laser armor + Energy field radiators - Armor with high thermal conductivity and capacity coupled with radiators with no need for physical petals outside the ship. Radiators allow to drop a lot of heat in short time but make ship heat signature really stand out. This combination means that only spinal or other big variants of lasers can dump enough energy into a ship to deal damage to it. And even then it probably should be done at a pretty close distance.

Warp drive - Allows FTL and sublight warp travel. But ship course must be pre-calculated. Time for calculation scales with ship size proportional to cube of size increase. So ship that is 2 times bigger will need 8-10 times more time to do the same calculations. Sublight warp calculation takes around 30 seconds for a ship of around 30 meters in length (it is a minimal size for installing warp drive). FTL warp calculation takes around 30 minutes for the same ship.
Actual speed of sublight warp depends on how much acceleration the ship has got during the calculation through normal reaction engines.

So, what types of military ships and weapons may be in use with such tech?

>>52933449
You don't want your armor conducting lots of heat if you're fighting laser spammers, you want it reflective.
Also, I can't tell what you're trying to say about radiators there. Unless it's a physical coolant system that's getting dumped in emergencies, which really limits your operational lifespan before having to dock and restock, a machine that just "dumps" excess heat from solid mass into empty space is the most magical thing in your post.

>>52933527
Yep. It's literally space opera magic which allows to have radiators with insane size without actually exposing them for damage.

High conductivity on armor allows to spread the thermal energy over maximum surface. High capacity allows not to melt during that part. And radiators allow to drop the heat unless you are being burned from all sides at once continuously.

>>52927531

But anon, your muscles don't clench up when you're stabbed, they clench up when you've been shot.

Clenching when you've been stabbed forces viscera and organs out of the wound.

>>52928746

>false target projectors

They aren't going to have visual most of the time, you could probably get away with Beacon and heat/surface area based decoys

>>52934441
Anon never said visual

>>52934441
Heat is visual tho. Life support is 295 kelvin, a fusion drive shines at thousands of degrees; vs background temp which is 5.

Even in atmosphere, flares are only useful vs obsolete missiles. Modern ones are imaging IR, not "follow that blob."

>>52935177
And modern flare launchers put out blobs of heat that are damn near identical to the blobs of heat on the airframe.
There's a reason they censor flare patterns.

>>52935177
Then stick a hot engine on the tiny decoy craft with barely any heat sink, and you'll get your heat signature, where a hologram might never be able to.