Opinion : Missiles and Beam weapons cannot exist in the same time period

[unity100]

The proposition is simple :

Missiles and beam weapons are inversely correlated - dominance of one prevents existence of other. Therefore, if one is dominant in warfare, the other cannot be.

Elaboration :

Nomatter how technology evolves, the fastest that matter can travel is the speed of light - according to theory of relativity, we enter a different realm if we go over the speed of light : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%8 ... quivalence Mass energy equivalence basically implies the matter which reaches the speed of light will be converted to energy - or, rather, will probably have same dual, changing-on-observation properties of quantum particles. (heisenberg)

Long story short, if any matter travels at the speed of light, their 'matter'ness becomes questionable, it becomes energy. Therefore, you can say that no physical matter can travel at the speed of light and can protect its physical form. simply, there will be no 'missiles' that can travel at the speed of light - they will become energy - ie beams themselves.

Therefore, the fastest projectile will always be a photon, and therefore fastest matter-based weapons will be light beams.

This makes it impossible for physical traveling missiles to be effective to any level in weapon environments in which beam weapons exist - beam weapons are instant, fastest, and in 1 second can transmit energy to 300,000 km distance.

In an environment which targeting and tracking devices exist (like x universe), this makes missiles sitting ducks even in long distances - track, beam and missile is no more. Therefore the promise of missiles which travel and deal damage in less than light speed becomes totally illogical.

Actually, this proposition does not require a future universe to hold true : even today, with our meager technological advancement, we are already at a level in which missiles are irrelevant with laser defense systems : Following video demonstrates how lockheed's new laser system can destroy missiles in-flight - http://www.geek.com/science/watch-lockh ... t-1554625/

Even if you go further back in history, the proposition holds the same - in naval warfare, at one point, rifled guns, cannons were dominant. The moment missiles became dominant (firstly in the form of aircraft-carried bombs, then self propelled missiles), the guns/rifles/shooting devices became irrelevant. And now with the advent of beam weapons, navies are already looking to laser cannons which are going to be deployed into major naval ships as soon as in the next 5 years.

For missiles to be able to exist in a future, sci-fi universe, beam weapons which have instant travel (at or close to light speed) must not exist. Even if you give shields to missiles, it will always possible to design a missile-destroying beam system which will deliver enough energy over time to destroy a missile due to the distance beam weapons can reach and sustain in very short notice.

what's your opinion ?

[Gazz]

Any missile that has accelerated to a sizable fraction of c does not have to worry about beams any more.

The target also won't appreciate the difference between 5 kg of missile warhead traveling at 0.15c versus 5 kg of molten slag... or even gas... traveling at 0.15c.

[Honved]

The limitation on that theory is that the energy has to have enough damage potential to destroy the incoming missle, despite shielding, armor, or whatever protective measures are employed. With a big inert "slug", the beam must quite literally vaporize the slug almost completely, or deflect it significantly, in order to render it ineffective.

At least using current technology, energy weapons are inherently more accurate than missle weapons due to their near-instantaneous speed, but require far more energy to produce than they deliver, due to efficiency losses. A missle weapon can deliver a container of stored energy, requiring far less power to deliver it to the target, thereby requiring less generating power for equivalent damage.

Also, unless an energy weapon can deliver enough destructive power to do its work in a tiny fraction of a second, it needs to track its target perfectly, else it will do a lot of surface damage and fail to penetrate to internal systems. A missle weapon that hits will deliver its charge to one point.

It's not as clear cut as it first seems.

[unity100]

Any missile that has accelerated to a sizable fraction of c does not have to worry about beams any more.

The target also won't appreciate the difference between 5 kg of missile warhead traveling at 0.15c versus 5 kg of molten slag... or even gas... traveling at 0.15c.

quite - the faster it becomes, the more plasma-like it will become. therefore, it will transform into a beam as it approaches the speed of light.

The limitation on that theory is that the energy has to have enough damage potential to destroy the incoming missle, despite shielding, armor, or whatever protective measures are employed. With a big inert "slug", the beam must quite literally vaporize the slug almost completely, or deflect it significantly, in order to render it ineffective.

Also, unless an energy weapon can deliver enough destructive power to do its work in a tiny fraction of a second, it needs to track its target perfectly, else it will do a lot of surface damage and fail to penetrate to internal systems. A missle weapon that hits will deliver its charge to one point.

yes. technically, since we have 300,000 km a second on beam side, anything that is closer than 300,000 km will be instantly (1 sec) accessible with a system that uses beams. this is a huge range to apply good amounts of energy to an object. This becomes a question of shield technology vs beam technology. But since the beam technology we have even in x games is able to destroy any ship shield over a duration of time, shooting down something that is coming from 300,000 km away would not be a question.

At least using current technology, energy weapons are inherently more accurate than missle weapons due to their near-instantaneous speed, but require far more energy to produce than they deliver, due to efficiency losses. A missle weapon can deliver a container of stored energy, requiring far less power to deliver it to the target, thereby requiring less generating power for equivalent damage.

It's not as clear cut as it first seems.

first, notice that the lockheed system is not a huge system, and it destroys a missile which is the size of a AA missile. Indeed there are much faster missiles, however, faster missile becomes, the more straight its trajectory becomes and therefore it is easier to track and shoot down.

[unity100]

Lets go even crazier : Is it possible to stop a beam of light, with another beam of light ?

Well, for that to be possible, we need to be able to track the beam of light coming at us. But, if we track with electromagnetic means (radar etc), this will mean that tracking a beam of light coming to us even from distances further than 300,000 (say 600,000 for example, it will take 2 seconds) is impossible - since maximum EM waves can travel is the speed of light itself.

the only way to prevent this, would be to be able to detect firing of a beam weapon BEFORE it is physically fired. and this enters the realm of quite advanced theoretical physics.

[daniel001]

Missiles and Lasers can live perfectly well next to each others as long as there are external factors that make one not strictly better compared to the other.
One might be able to deflect/weaken beam-weaponry in a way that doesn't provide protection from a missile (mirrors, smoke).
More importantly, a laser requires a steady energy-supply, taking its toll on the ships reactor. A missile on the other side, has all the fuel stored inside of itself and thus can be fired multiple times without a delay to recharge the reactor.
Last but not least, there is also the question of what payload is wanted.
A laser cuts and burns.
A missile can smash, burn, produce wide or small areas of effect, kill living things with radiation, kill electronics with an emp.

So, regarding the initial question of the OP: Two different weapons with different points where they shine.
Perfectly justified to exist along each other.

[Lunif]

I think Rapid Response M7Ms have already proven you wrong. If an M7M jumps into a sector and launches 100 missiles at you, shooting them down one at a time is going to take a while. Also, the beam weapon could be like a Kha'ak beam and have a tendency to miss because it is not very accurate. Then on top of that, missiles are small and thus hard to hit. Does every ship have beam weapons on it? Can the missiles have some sort of stealth technology that makes them hard to track? All of these things could be a factor plus more.

[Nanook]

Swarm missiles and chaff (or a futuristic equivalent) can easily confuse targeting and overwhelm any weapons system. So no, missiles and beam weapons are not mutually exclusive.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

Beam weapons are precision devices like a scalpel, but have inherent limitations of range and energy use.

A missile can be many things from a precision small blast area device (e.g. AMRAAM) to a WMD with a wide blast area (e.g. a nuke). A missile can also be deployed from out of nominal detection range. The main disadvantage of missiles is they are typically limited in number on any given vessel.

Can a beam weapon destroy a missile before it can do any damage? Potentially, Yes.

Can a missile destroy a platform from outside of beam weapon range? Potentially, Yes.

Are they mutually exclusive? No.

[Lord Dakier]

I think actually that beam weapons are technologically not up-to date. Much like today's energy issues.

[unity100]

any of you watched the lockheed video ?

[daniel001]

Yes.
Doesn't matter.
Its a proof of concept, not a device that has shown its feasability in a hot (ie: with someone actually trying to kill the defended target) environment.
Besides, developing counter-measures to a certain weapon leads to the developlement of counter-counter measures and the developements of newer systems.
Planes->AA-Guns->faster planes->radar-guided AA-Guns->radar-invisible Planes
Continue this ad nauseam.

[unity100]

Yes.
Doesn't matter.
Its a proof of concept, not a device that has shown its feasability in a hot (ie: with someone actually trying to kill the defended target) environment.
Besides, developing counter-measures to a certain weapon leads to the developlement of counter-counter measures and the developements of newer systems.
Planes->AA-Guns->faster planes->radar-guided AA-Guns->radar-invisible Planes
Continue this ad nauseam.

it indeed matters :

even with our current 'slow' technology, a 'proof of concept' laser weapon system was able to destroy a missile (a fast one to boot) in a moment's notice. despite our comparably slow detection (EM), computing (semiconductor based computers), and response (mechanically directed) technologies.

and more importantly, the cycle you describe above, breaks at the point of speed of light, because there can be no 'faster' matter than light.

because there can be no faster matter than light, there can be no missile that can be faster than light or evade it, therefore, nothing can escape light. and anything that closes the speed of light as a matter, will transform into a pellet, then a cloud of plasma, before transforming into pure energy.

it seems you havent read the rationale i have explained in the original post. it is understandable that you think 'there is always an ongoing cycle in technology and counter technology development'. But, there is a limit for that and that limit is the speed of light, and the realm of quantum.

[Zaitsev]

any of you watched the lockheed video ?

I did, and the first thing that comes to mind is "with a 10 kW laser, how long does it take before it starts running hot?" It also took some time for the laser to burn through the hull of the missile and blow it up, so I kinda wonder how well it would do against a couple of Katyusha launchers.

Sure, beam weapons are effective, but they also come with their own problems. The most prominent, and the one that in my opinion will limit them the most, is heat buildup.

Heat in space is actually quite difficult to get rid of, and could easily limit the output and firing rate of a beam weapon, thus making it possible to overwhelm it. Missiles don't have that problem, and tossing a huge amount of small, relatively cheap missiles at the opponent might be enough to cause the beam weapon to overheat and force a shutdown. Then some heavy missiles could easily sink the whole thing.

One alternative would be to add a radiator, but they need to be pretty big to be effective, and they would then be vulnerable to missile strikes, meteorites, debris and such. Missiles, again, don't have that problem.

Also, in space there is no air resistance to hold the missiles back, and the beam is only as good as its aim. Hitting a missile moving at Mach 2 here on earth might not be too hard, but hitting a missile moving at relativistic speeds might be a tad harder. Besides, the beam in the video didn't destroy the missile outright, and as others have pointed out, if you can't insta-vaporize the entire missile it just creates a cloud of debris that can be equally destructive.

My two cents.

[unity100]

any of you watched the lockheed video ?


Sure, beam weapons are effective, but they also come with their own problems. The most prominent, and the one that in my opinion will limit them the most, is heat buildup.

Heat in space is actually quite difficult to get rid of, and could easily limit the output and firing rate of a beam weapon, thus making it possible to overwhelm it. Missiles don't have that problem, and tossing a huge amount of small, relatively cheap missiles at the opponent might be enough to cause the beam weapon to overheat and force a shutdown. Then some heavy missiles could easily sink the whole thing.

One alternative would be to add a radiator, but they need to be pretty big to be effective, and they would then be vulnerable to missile strikes, meteorites, debris and such. Missiles, again, don't have that problem.

I did, and the first thing that comes to mind is "with a 10 kW laser, how long does it take before it starts running hot?" It also took some time for the laser to burn through the hull of the missile and blow it up, so I kinda wonder how well it would do against a couple of Katyusha launchers.

valid points. however they pertain to our current technology. if, the points you raise were not issues in our current time and age, we would already be living in an age of laser/beam warfare.

however as you can imagine, laser running hot would not be a concern in that regard in a future universe - just like how beam weapons work properly in x universe for example.

Also, in space there is no air resistance to hold the missiles back, and the beam is only as good as its aim. Hitting a missile moving at Mach 2 here on earth might not be too hard, but hitting a missile moving at relativistic speeds might be a tad harder. Besides, the beam in the video didn't destroy the missile outright, and as others have pointed out, if you can't insta-vaporize the entire missile it just creates a cloud of debris that can be equally destructive.

My two cents.

in space, there is no air resistance to hold missiles back - and this is a double edged sword - there is also nothing to help them maneuver : missiles maneuver by using their wings and the normal air flow dynamics. take them out, and missiles become sluggish. because airflow is hampered in high speeds for example, both missiles and aircraft (like sr71) have to be equipped with huge or dual wings - so that bigger wings will be able to catch airflow and direct the craft.

in space, a missile would basically behave as how ships behave in frontier : elite - with real dynamics. this would make a missile harder to control, because the only way to manifest a move in another direction is to totally cancel/nullify an already existing momentum in one direction, and apply it to the other direction. in atmosphere, this is done by wings in much more energy efficient fashion.

as for potential of a missile moving at relativistic speeds - as per theory of relativity and conservation of matter, anything that approaches relativistic speeds wont be a missile any more.

[Jumee]

valid points. however they pertain to our current technology.

there is a problem with this type of thinking - it works both ways, sure beams in the future will be better then they are now, but who's to say missiles wont have some extra trick up their sleeve?

we really have absolutely no idea about what the combat in future will be like, so arguments like this one are always inconclusive (especially the moment you justify either side by saying - "oh, but its the future they got better stuff"

[unity100]

valid points. however they pertain to our current technology.

there is a problem with this type of thinking - it works both ways, sure beams in the future will be better then they are now, but who's to say missiles wont have some extra trick up their sleeve? (especially the moment you justify either side by saying - "oh, but its the future they got better stuff")

not at all - i take it as granted that missiles will also get better.

however, notice the initial post, and the point about theory of relativity and conservation of energy/mass. when you take this into consideration, there is a point to the development of physical objects and their relevant technologies - no matter can approach speed of light, and remain as 'matter'.

and at the point we pass speed of light, we already enter the realm of 'paranormal' - quantum mechanics :

http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantu ... light.html

teleporting particles. photons again, in this case. however as you can see, everything changes when we pass speed of light. leave aside come close to it.

[daniel001]

it indeed matters :

even with our current 'slow' technology, a 'proof of concept' laser weapon system was able to destroy a missile (a fast one to boot) in a moment's notice. despite our comparably slow detection (EM), computing (semiconductor based computers), and response (mechanically directed) technologies.

A "missile" running along a steel rope, on a fixed path and with 1. known speed and 2. no turning-capabilites.
Its a fancy POC, but nothing to deduce practical viability from it.

and more importantly, the cycle you describe above, breaks at the point of speed of light, because there can be no 'faster' matter than light.
because there can be no faster matter than light, there can be no missile that can be faster than light or evade it, therefore, nothing can escape light

If an attacker manages to accelerate an object of relevant size to almost c, there is no need for an explosive payload (that one could destroy with a laser) anymore. The impact-force of a solid block of metal (against which a laser doesn't really do anything usefull) traveling with a fraction of C is already devestating.

You assume that simply "hitting" the target with a laser is enough.
This is a false assumption as it a) implicates the total absence of shielding/deflecting-technology
and b) requires the missile to actually have parts that can be destroyed by lasers in such a way, that it stops the attack.
An already flying missile in space will continue to do so, even if you disable its engine.

it seems you havent read the rationale i have explained in the original post. it is understandable that you think 'there is always an ongoing cycle in technology and counter technology development'. But, there is a limit for that and that limit is the speed of light, and the realm of quantum.

Don't go this road.
I might assume that you didn't read my posts above.

Speed is only one of many factors in weaponry.
If you can't make a missile any faster because of physical constraints, you still have plenty of options to bring it into your target.
From cloacking the launch and missile, to overwhelming the defender with sheer numbers, electronically faked missiles, or simply creating a payload that isn't affected by being hit with a laser (for example, a big chunk of metal).
There are plenty of ways to secure the weapon does its trick, even under the constraint of the enemy having an energy-weapon that will always "hit" a tracked missile.

Regarding the maneuvering of missiles in space:
IMHO this is a point not worth to discuss, since the target of the missile will have to face exactly the same problem.
If the problems rising can be solved for one, they most likely can be solved for the other. [/quote]

[unity100]

it indeed matters :

even with our current 'slow' technology, a 'proof of concept' laser weapon system was able to destroy a missile (a fast one to boot) in a moment's notice. despite our comparably slow detection (EM), computing (semiconductor based computers), and response (mechanically directed) technologies.

A "missile" running along a steel rope, on a fixed path and with 1. known speed and 2. no turning-capabilites.
Its a fancy POC, but nothing to deduce practical viability from it.

no turning capability would be able to match speed of light.

and more importantly, the cycle you describe above, breaks at the point of speed of light, because there can be no 'faster' matter than light.
because there can be no faster matter than light, there can be no missile that can be faster than light or evade it, therefore, nothing can escape light

If an attacker manages to accelerate an object of relevant size to almost c, there is no need for an explosive payload (that one could destroy with a laser) anymore. The impact-force of a solid block of metal (against which a laser doesn't really do anything usefull) traveling with a fraction of C is already devestating.

you are getting stuck at that point in your thought process - remember :

anything that approaches speed of light, will not be a matter anymore. leave aside solid block of metal.

You assume that simply "hitting" the target with a laser is enough.
This is a false assumption as it a) implicates the total absence of shielding/deflecting-technology
and b) requires the missile to actually have parts that can be destroyed by lasers in such a way, that it stops the attack.
An already flying missile in space will continue to do so, even if you disable its engine.

if you go and reread, you will notice i have calculated shielding possibility into the equation.

it seems you havent read the rationale i have explained in the original post. it is understandable that you think 'there is always an ongoing cycle in technology and counter technology development'. But, there is a limit for that and that limit is the speed of light, and the realm of quantum.

Don't go this road.
I might assume that you didn't read my posts above.

Speed is only one of many factors in weaponry.
If you can't make a missile any faster because of physical constraints, you still have plenty of options to bring it into your target.
From cloacking the launch and missile, to overwhelming the defender with sheer numbers, electronically faked missiles, or simply creating a payload that isn't affected by being hit with a laser (for example, a big chunk of metal).
There are plenty of ways to secure the weapon does its trick, even under the constraint of the enemy having an energy-weapon that will always "hit" a tracked missile.

you cant 'cloak' a missile unless you enter the realm of quantum mechanics - and when you enter there, physicality does not mean much anymore, and therefore physical missile argument will be in vain.

as for sheer numbers, 'fake' missiles and so on - anything which is a physical object, will be instant-hittable with a strong enough laser to destroy it, in a future setting like x universe.

as for creating payloads that are not affected by a laser - that is an invalid point : if there exists lasers that can destroy capital ships (like in x universe), then no such technology exists.

[Lord Dakier]

Ok let's just settle this argument.

A turrent can and will destroy a missile. A ship with 10 turrets will destroy 10 missiles.

Now can a ship with 1 turret destroy 10 missiles? Without a splash like effect of laser burst, no it can not as it's a beam and the turret needs to fire at different targets.

Now if we talk about splash damage laser energy like the traditional PSG use that in X2 or X3 on a missile barrage and watch them go boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom...

Now we can all argue what would happen if we apply another factor the fast is we cannot as we do not know. Our closest evidence is Lockhead. Can it acquire several targets well we don't know as far as I'm aware R&D didn't share that with us.