Space/Sci Fi Weapons Thread

[megaplayboy]

So, I'm working on my own starship design and classification system, and some interesting dilemmas have come up.  The first one is "what, practically speaking, is the distinction between a 'space torpedo' and a garden variety 'space missile'? "  

I tried to think about the qualities of a "torpedo" vs a "missile" and what I can come up with so far: torpedoes may be slower but harder hitting, and it may be possible to evade a space torpedo.  Another option is that the torpedo essentially becomes a ball of energy of some sort(plasma?) when fired, so that conventional missile defence/deflection tends to be less effective against it.  That might also explain it being less accurate.  

Any thoughts?

[Asperion]

The way that I have always seen the difference: writer. 

 

The torpedoes in system a have these attributes while missiles in system b have those attributes.  Break each down and discover that both are effectively identical in every way,  except six.  

Example: ST torpedoes are matter/antimatter reaction resulting in powerful explosive that travels at light speeds.  B5 missiles are more nuclear in nature, delivering the same damage,  travel at the same speeds as ST.

 

As a result,  however you choose to define your attack will be correct within your system.  Just remember to keep everything consistent. 

[IndianaJoe3]

In the real world, the fundamental difference between torpedoes and missiles is that missiles fly through the air and torpedoes are underwater. No such distinction applies in space (unless rubber science creates one).

[Sundog]

I've pretty much used the terms for guided vs. unguided weapons - a missile being a guided one, a torpedo being dead-fire. The other one I've seen, especially in fighter-based media, is missiles being fighter-vs-fighter weapons, while torpedoes are larger ordinance small craft use to attack capital ships.

[megaplayboy]

One suggestion I saw elsewhere--the missiles are straightforward guided weapons, while torpedoes are more like large "kamikaze" drones, with armor, ECCM, maybe even shielding to protect a heavier payload moving a bit more slowly towards the target.  In that scenario, the missile is akin to a fast moving anti-ship missile that follows a standard arc towards the target, while the torpedo is larger and slower but "smarter", performing evasive maneuvers and adjusting course en route.  

[pinecone]

1 hour ago, megaplayboy said:

One suggestion I saw elsewhere--the missiles are straightforward guided weapons, while torpedoes are more like large "kamikaze" drones, with armor, ECCM, maybe even shielding to protect a heavier payload moving a bit more slowly towards the target.  In that scenario, the missile is akin to a fast moving anti-ship missile that follows a standard arc towards the target, while the torpedo is larger and slower but "smarter", performing evasive maneuvers and adjusting course en route.  

That seems as good as any other...

In one old sci fi game I had torpedoes use explosions while "missiles" use nuke pumped lasers. Missile fly off to points to prevent the target manuevering away, and torpedoes try to just get close enough. So a Ship could well just use one or the other, or both.

[kjoatmon]

Star Trek chose torpedo because Gene used navel terms for everything. Many that follow the Air Force to space progression use missile. If you don't do something to make them different, they are both the same. Well, there might be one technical difference. A torpedo would always be launched from a tube. A missile may be launched from a tube or an external mount. Otherwise they are the same. Here is an example of a manufactured difference:

 

If a system uses both, a torpedo could be a wire guided system where it has a certain distance before it is off guidance and working with its last commands. Then, in contrast, the missile would use some other form of guidance right from the get go. This makes the missile more prone to issues where something spoofs or blocks that guidance. The torpedo, in contrast, has a huge length of fiber spooling out that will be added mass and eventually lost with each shot.

 

If it has no guidance, it is a rocket or a slug of some sort. The difference being the continued propulsion a rocket has. Hard fired rockets can have a nice stealth aspect. Say a rail gun to get the rocket out there at speed but low detection of firing location. Then, it uses propellant to get more speed to do more damage with the increased velocity. Tracking the rocket back to ignition will not show the location of firing in that sort of hard launch system.

 

The same sort of launch propellant could be used with the missile or torpedo. That leads to another difference that could be built in. The missile tends to go hot right when it is launched. A torpedo can be sent out slowly, saving fuel, and make a stealth approach. Then, when in a good firing solution, make speed under its own power.

[Duke Bushido]

On 6/27/2022 at 10:55 AM, megaplayboy said:

So, I'm working on my own starship design and classification system, and some interesting dilemmas have come up.  The first one is "what, practically speaking, is the distinction between a 'space torpedo' and a garden variety 'space missile'? "  

 

 

The space missiles will have incredible thrust.  The space torpedos will have little space propellers on the rear.

 

 

[Christougher]

For my Master of Orion game:

 

Missiles: Physical or energy damage depending on type, can fire immediately / fire multiple, guided weapons, finite charges, can be ECM'd.

 

Torpedoes:  Energy weapons, extra phase to charge before firing, no guidance (and no jamming).

 

[GDShore]

Historically, the only environment where missiles and torpedoes are both used  is naval. Until the late middle 20 th. century both forms were dumb weapons, fire and forget. the missile goes thru the air is generally faster and longer ranged, the torpedoes are slower, shorter ranged, but with a heavier punch. If they have seeking or guidance systems , they can be spoofed. If the enemy is able to spoof, better guidance systems is required, ect. ect. My recommendation would be missiles be faster, longer ranged, with smaller warheads, torpedoes would be shorter ranged, slower, with a heavier warhead. 

[cbullard]

A few differences I've noticed (many have been mentioned already):

* missiles are rocket-propelled through the air while torpedoes are propeller-driven through the water.

* missiles are subject to counter-fire.  Technically there ARE anti-torpedoes but these are not terribly common.

* missile guidance systems are not generally detectable by common senses (radar, heat-seeking, etc).  torpedoes are guided by wire or by sonar, and sonar can be heard without special equipment.

* missiles are generally carried externally on hardpoints, while torpedoes are usually in internal tubes.  This could affect original firing direction and could also mean that the external missiles might be subject to being directly targeted by the enemy.

I can think of one way to handle the difference, depending on how your group handles FTL.  If you have a separate "dimension" for subspace, maybe have torpedoes travel through that other dimension (harder to detect, locate, destroy) while missiles travel through normal space?  Even if you don't make them any faster than the missiles, it adds a definite "flavor" difference between them.

[GDShore]

If vessels were travelling at FTL speeds there could be no fighting. You would not be able to detect enemy vessels except by grav waves if they propagate faster than light. Battles would likely be fought within solar systems around planets at thousands++ of kilometers distances. 

[Sundog]

That depends on your method of FTL transit. If you're talking a hyperspace realm alternate to and smaller than ours that ships enter and leave, then combat at FTL speeds could be possible in that space, and effectively no different from combat in "real" space. A teleport system would make combat only occur around strategic targets, while largely guaranteeing the capacity of damaged ships to retreat safely absent a lucky hit on the drive. FTL in real space would depend on your sensor systems - and if you don't have FTL sensors, using FTL drive would be horribly dangerous, since you'd never see the asteroid that killed you. But if you do, then FTL equipped missiles could make long range fights be truly and absurdly long range - as in, over light years. In those circumstances, the battle might well take place anywhere BUT over places you want to take over, since a single FTL missile strike could easily shatter a planet.

[Asperion]

Given the nature of how FTL works in B5, it would be interesting to see combatants ducking it out in hyperspace. Would damage, kills,  etc be trapped there or return to conventional space? How about communicating? Is that even possible,  or would there be effective silence outside the ship?

[Old Man]

B5 canon describes hyperspace combat as effectively impossible because the unpredictably warped nature of hyperspace makes it impossible to aim weapons, even beams.

 

I don't remember B5 well enough to know what hyperspace looked like from the inside, though I dimly recall that it was possible for groups of ships to travel together and at least detect each other visually.  I think this is relatively rare in sf--in most settings there just isn't any interaction possible between ships moving at FTL.  Star Wars ships seem to be in their own hyperspace tunnel; in Traveller a ship in mid-jump is in a bubble of normal space surrounded by some seriously boring gray jumpspace.  BSG, Buck Rogers, Yamato, and Macross all had effectively instantaneous jumps.  The only property I can think of where ships routinely interact during FTL is Trek, and even there it's not consistent.  (Seriously starship combat in Trek is not well thought out; in such engagements every ship would be Picard Maneuvering all over the place in a multiplayer game of Phaser Whack-A-Mole, and sublight torpedoes would be useless.)

[Cancer]

Recognizing that we're talking science fiction here so you're free to ignore pieces of known physics as you choose ... it's pretty well established now that gravity propagates at the speed of light.  The gamma-ray (light) signal arrived less than two seconds following the gravity-wave signal from GW170817, which means that the two different types of waves travel at the same speed to better than 1 part in 10^14.  Given that the neutron star merger took a little bit of time to splash matter out into the surrounding space (where the debris would become large enough, and be hot enough, to make gamma rays visible across intergalactic distances), the 1.7 second interval between the two signals provides a very hard limit on how different the speeds can be.