no bigger ships than battleships

[Dunbal]

How does any of this deal with entirely robotic craft being able to be far more maneuverable

Why the heck would you want to be maneuverable in SPACE. It's not like there's going to be anything in your way.... Planes need to be maneuverable because you can only fit one gun, it can't swivel because that would spoil the streamlining necessary for flight, and because of weight you can usually only have one pointed forwards.

But spaceships have no mass restriction (after all if you manage to get 1 million tonnes into orbit, 1.1 million is not such an impossible goal) and no aerodynamic streamlining to maintain. So there's no problem with sticking turrets all over the darned thing that will cover 360 degrees. No maneuvering required.

As for evading enemy shots - it's probably just simpler to destroy incoming enemy fire.

 

[lwarmonger]

How does any of this deal with entirely robotic craft being able to be far more maneuverable because the motions they can do would literally throw your heart out of your mouth, while also not bothering with all the life support or feeding the crews or the defenses against cosmic radiation and so being able to pack far, far more engines and dakka onto their frames? If a human pilot did a 100g maneuver; they'd at best, pass out instantly and at worst; die just as quickly, a machine could survive this maneuver but a human is quite thoroughly fucked. On the notion of firepower, due to the amount of space wasted on the human crew; the robotic craft will still have munitions to alpha strike and engage in point defense long after the human craft is out of any sort of munitions. Maneuver and firepower are king in this arena, and humans are a massive limiter to both.

You're just blathering about feel good scifi cliche gobbledegook without actually addressing the actual insurmountable physical disadvantages.

You don't fight with the platforms you have your humans on. You fight with the platforms they control. Simple enough? You are just ignoring the inherent limitations that computers possess because you don't understand the human element.

 

[The_Red_Star]

You don't fight with the platforms you have your humans on. You fight with the platforms they control. Simple enough? You are just ignoring the inherent limitations that computers possess because you don't understand the human element.

What prevents this platform from being alpha striked out of existence or ECM'd into uselessness?

What prevents this system from being a liability as the delays in command result in casualties piling up because light second long delays translates into instant losses?

This isn't ender's game or some other military scifi dime novel trash.

Why the heck would you want to be maneuverable in SPACE. It's not like there's going to be anything in your way.... Planes need to be maneuverable because you can only fit one gun, it can't swivel because that would spoil the streamlining necessary for flight, and because of weight you can usually only have one pointed forwards.

But spaceships have no mass restriction (after all if you manage to get 1 million tonnes into orbit, 1.1 million is not such an impossible goal) and no aerodynamic streamlining to maintain. So there's no problem with sticking turrets all over the darned thing that will cover 360 degrees. No maneuvering required.

As for evading enemy shots - it's probably just simpler to destroy incoming enemy fire.

For a space ship; you're likely going to have engines all over to allow for 360 degree thrust capacity to quickly change direction on the fly. This will likely mean very high G, very energy intensive combat that a human crew is simply not able to compete in on account of their blood suddenly rushing to places it shouldn't.

In addittion; at very long ranges (as space would take place in as stealth is functionally impossible in space) there would be very significant delays in even the fastest of projectiles, meaning that using thrusters to move out of the way of missiles and mass drivers is very doable. At extreme ranges, even lasers can be avoided by the slightest of deviations from the target location.

 

[Dunbal]

to quickly change direction on the fly. This will likely mean very high G,

Says you. I don't see the need for changing direction. Changing direction - especially changing direction quickly, means burned, wasted fuel. Of course if you can build space ships with unlimited power sources capable of massive energy demands on the spur of the moment, then G forces are the least of your worries since you probably also invented magical inertial dampers too. But from a physics point of view, any change in direction is a waste of fuel. Change in direction means you changed your orbit around the primary, or around the planet depending on whose frame of reference you are in, and now have much more serious problems if you're in a collision course with something, so you will have to correct again. And if you let your enemy get so close to you that only a very high G maneuver will "save you", you're going to die anyway.

I know you're thinking Hollywood space combat, which is basically airplanes in space with forward momentum and turn radii etc. But "real" space combat is likely to be very boring. Energy weapons you can't do anything about because you're never going to be able to dodge the speed of light - you are hit before you realize you're being shot at. And incoming projectiles can be dealt with much more fuel efficiently by dodging them early when they're still far away (which means small accelerations/G forces since they are not going to be coming in at the speed of light and space is BIG, remember?). And if they're smart-weapons that can correct for your maneuvering, then you just have to blow them up before they reach you.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Why not? You haven't given any evidence showing a computer is better than a human... except a basketball thing that seem like it is just a prediction algorithm...

See, I don't get that. To me a predictive algorithm which can predict the best way to win a basketball game can also predict the best way to win a one-on-one dogfight or a thousand-ship space battle. From there it's a very short leap to plugging that predictive algorithm directly into the controls. The human then only has to tell the algorithm to "go and win that battle" and it will.

We are already at the point where computers can beat humans at Go, at chess, at stock trading and now at basketball. Arguing that winning battles is somehow different is, to my mind, an artificial distinction.

 

[lwarmonger]

What prevents this platform from being alpha striked out of existence or ECM'd into uselessness?

What prevents this system from being a liability as the delays in command result in casualties piling up because light second long delays translates into instant losses?

This isn't ender's game or some other military scifi dime novel trash.

What prevents your autonomously controlled robots from being hacked from equally far away? How do you exercise mission command from across the solar system?

Look, since you clearly know nothing about warfare, and don't care to learn, and I clearly know nothing about physics, and don't care to learn, I'm going to stop this conversation here. We have clearly run out of productive things to talk about.

 

[The_Red_Star]

What prevents your autonomously controlled robots from being hacked from equally far away? How do you exercise mission command from across the solar system?

Look, since you clearly know nothing about warfare, and don't care to learn, and I clearly know nothing about physics, and don't care to learn, I'm going to stop this conversation here. We have clearly run out of productive things to talk about.

"Hacking" doesn't work like it does in the movies; and is easily thwarted by having different OSes or simply not having the protocols to receive unauthorized commands. And there is not a hacking method physically possible with the laws of the universe that can thwart a quantum cryptographic security system (which is something that we can make in the near future) in any case.

Also your accusations of my ignorance are rather amusing given that you've thrown around nothing but empty platitudes and pop history.

 

[Surimi]

It is much more plausible for something that is receiving instructions by remote to be hacked than something that is not. This is definitely already being worked on by numerous governments, and the Iranians may well have succeeded in hacking a US drone in 2011. That, and jamming, is the inherent liability with drones, and a strong reason for requiring remote weapon systems to be reasonably close to their controller to minimize the risk.

"Drone hacking" has been a constant fear pretty much from the moment drones were introduced. In practice, however, it's a bit more limited than it seems. The Iranians are believed to have managed something of the sort (although the Iranian regime has a long history of lying about stuff like this) by using radio jamming to cut communication from the drone to its handlers and to the GPS satellites it uses to navigate, then feeding it spoofed GPS data to manipulate its flight once it switched to autopilot. It wasn't "hacking" in the sense of accessing the operating system, as military drones do not use operating systems which are vulnerable to hacking (although some civilian drones do), more exploiting a weakness in the drone's navigation system.

While radio and radar jamming could potentially be used effectively in space, spacecraft cannot rely on GPS data for positioning and therefore cannot be spoofed in this way, they have to carry their own navigation data with them. I assume what Dunbal was referring to was the possibility of spoofing communications, such as broadcasting commands to stand down and thus "turning off" the guns. Suffice to say, this would be about as effective against an automated vessel as a manned one, which is to say not effective at all. Anyone in a warzone could pick up a radio, try to find the frequency the enemy are communicating on and tell them to go walk into a minefield. It wouldn't work because military communications are encrypted.

 

[Dunbal]

"Drone hacking" has been a constant fear pretty much from the moment drones were introduced. In practice, however, it's a bit more limited than it seems.

Of course on the other hand if I was your enemy I would make sure not to reveal ALL my tricks in advance, too. The drones could be a lot more vulnerable than you think they are and it would make sense to keep that one real quiet until you need it.

"You must not fight too often with one enemy or you will teach him all your art of war" -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

[The_Red_Star]

Of course on the other hand if I was your enemy I would make sure not to reveal ALL my tricks in advance, too. The drones could be a lot more vulnerable than you think they are and it would make sense to keep that one real quiet until you need it.

"You must not fight too often with one enemy or you will teach him all your art of war" -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

Quantum cryptography would essentially render hacking obsolete because there's no way around it barring having the actual key without quantum mechanics being wrong. And from nearly a century of testing, we can safely say that quantum mechanics isn't wrong.

 

[Dunbal]

Quantum cryptography would essentially render hacking obsolete because there's no way around it barring having the actual key without quantum mechanics being wrong. And from nearly a century of testing, we can safely say that quantum mechanics isn't wrong.

Quantum cryptography is just another one of those expensive overhyped toys that only a few people understand but lots of people attribute magical properties to. It is no less vulnerable than any other cryptographic system. In fact there is growing evidence that it is more vulnerable. Of course you'll never hear that from the guys trying to bill your government hundreds of millions of dollars for more investment in this field.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Disclaimer: I am not a computer scientist.

It is my understanding that with the ever-growing availability of processing power, the eventual fate of cryptography and of all hacking depends upon the solution to P = NP. Depending on what the outcome of that is, either all data can be made entirely secure or all data can be trivially compromised by anyone who feels like it. We don't yet know which one is the case but either way, security isn't going to be an issue.

 

[chassepatrick]

security isn't going to be an issue.

hahaha, well I'm out of a job then...

 

[mocoman2001]

The thing is that humans can't survive the G forces that would be involved in space warfare (you'd be mashed into pulp by the maneuverings) or react fast enough to handle the decision making process. This is a battlefield where making delays of simple microseconds means missing your target completely. You can't just eyeball things and you can't survive the maneuverings needed to compete in this battlefield, nevermind the waste of resources that would be needed to supply troops in an environment not meant for people to live in. And the short shelf lives of soldiers due to cosmic radiation. Judgement won't get you very far when just maneuvering to avoid a projectile will get you killed and ships that don't waste space on trying to support a human are going to be much more compact or better armed.

This post reminds me of this clip from mass effect 2

 

[PSarchi]

what about dreadnought, it should be biggest ship in the game ?

 

[Lexx2503]

what about dreadnought, it should be biggest ship in the game ?

Naming systems for ship scales are a mutable thing from setting to setting. Dreadnoughts ARE battleships historically. Militaristic societies in Stellaris though can build an oversized flagship. So arguably if you build one of those with battleship technology. If anything should be deemed a dreadnought it's those.

 

[BrotherArdis]

This image becomes particularly scary when combined with your signature, sir...

 

[13Foxtrot]

This image becomes particularly scary when combined with your signature, sir...

Death by .........well you get the idea

 

[Emperor Caligula]

Quantum cryptography would essentially render hacking obsolete because there's no way around it barring having the actual key without quantum mechanics being wrong. And from nearly a century of testing, we can safely say that quantum mechanics isn't wrong.

Quantum computers are very over-rated. The issue with them is that damn superposition principle, meaning a "qubit" can be in both a +/- state before it is observed and that is one of the big parts to a quantum computer and what makes it so fast, the ability to be in two places at once though the minute you "view" it, it breaks down in either a + or - which stops the whole superposition. If we do master quantum computing then what's to say the hacker uses a quantum computer aswell. The winner may just be who has the biggest computer.

This is how I understand it so you should take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing and maybe take a look into the superposition principle and you mkight understand why a quantum computer is not very fisable in the near future like a lot of people think it is.

 

[lwarmonger]

Also your accusations of my ignorance are rather amusing given that you've thrown around nothing but empty platitudes and pop history.

Your knowledge of conflict is clearly gained from books. It has always been annoying to talk with armchair generals, which is why I tend to try and refrain from it.