![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In my view, for space warfare lasers and missiles go together like peanut butter and chocolate. If you don’t like that analogy, consider lasers as analogous to guns or cannon, and missiles as analogous to missiles.
There is a reason most modern fighter jets and naval warships have guns and missiles. The gun is more reliable, reasonably lethal and its cheap and light ammunition means you can get a lot more shots off than with a missile. But missiles are more lethal, and operate at longer ranges, making the expense and weight of carrying them around worth the hassle.
A laser, then, would fill the “gun” role – its ammunition, energy, is really cheap. Unlike a gun, there’s no recoil pushing your ship around, and its “projectiles” (photons) although also not guided are very much point-and-shoot. You don’t lead a target with a laser. The more expensive missiles would be reserved for more specialized rolls.
When thinking about missiles in space, one thing to consider is that they really would be much more analogous to naval torpedoes than to modern missiles. Consider that the Exocet missile mentioned in Friday’s post travels at 687 knots – or 22.9 times faster than the guided-missile frigate it nearly sank. This is because the missile moves in a different medium than the ship does.
Since spaceships and space-missiles move in the same medium, space, using (presumably) the same basic engine tech, these massive speed advantages are unlikely. One will see the missile having some speed advantage, if for other reason than not needing to reserve fuel for a return, but I would be surprised to see absolute speed advantages of more than 3 to 1. This is comparable to the speed advantage held by the also highly-lethal torpedo. This slow speed means the only way to shoot at some targets that are moving too fast (relative to the shooter) would be by laser.
Tomorrow: Two missiles to rule us all!
There is a reason most modern fighter jets and naval warships have guns and missiles. The gun is more reliable, reasonably lethal and its cheap and light ammunition means you can get a lot more shots off than with a missile. But missiles are more lethal, and operate at longer ranges, making the expense and weight of carrying them around worth the hassle.
A laser, then, would fill the “gun” role – its ammunition, energy, is really cheap. Unlike a gun, there’s no recoil pushing your ship around, and its “projectiles” (photons) although also not guided are very much point-and-shoot. You don’t lead a target with a laser. The more expensive missiles would be reserved for more specialized rolls.
When thinking about missiles in space, one thing to consider is that they really would be much more analogous to naval torpedoes than to modern missiles. Consider that the Exocet missile mentioned in Friday’s post travels at 687 knots – or 22.9 times faster than the guided-missile frigate it nearly sank. This is because the missile moves in a different medium than the ship does.
Since spaceships and space-missiles move in the same medium, space, using (presumably) the same basic engine tech, these massive speed advantages are unlikely. One will see the missile having some speed advantage, if for other reason than not needing to reserve fuel for a return, but I would be surprised to see absolute speed advantages of more than 3 to 1. This is comparable to the speed advantage held by the also highly-lethal torpedo. This slow speed means the only way to shoot at some targets that are moving too fast (relative to the shooter) would be by laser.
Tomorrow: Two missiles to rule us all!
