Anti proton guns for point defense in space ?

[Plushie]

And how do you keep the plasma dense enough for long enough to actually work as a defense?

It doesn't have to stay dense for any significant period of time, just long enough to detonate either the warhead in a regular missile or the fuel load in a kinetic kill missile.

We can get probes through our ionosphere and Van Allen belts wihtout very thick shielding.

Yes, but the idea is super-hot plasma that's going to raise the temperature of anything passing through it to the limits of its endurance so that anything combustable in it goes "boom".

Your super-hot plasma will not stick around for long in a vacuum.

It doesn't have to. Tie the launch mechanism into the sensors and set up a program that aims the mine at the in-coming missile(s) so that it blows up right near it.

And you could put nice super-conducting coils on the incoming missiles, whose magnetic field could sweep the charged particles in the plasma out of the way.

And you could mirror the surface or just plain armor the damn thing to prevent lasers or other PD type weapons. Nothings perfect. Of course, putting a powerful enough generator on board the missile would be pretty damned costly when the person is likely backing up their plasma mines with laser PD guns anyway.

Tags fixed

[Zor]

Relativistic buckshots.

Actually Shroomy, you left some stuff out, let me fix this for you

Relativistic buckshots with shrapnel that is microscopic and spread out extreamly thinly.

There you go.

Zor

[Winston Blake]

Why would a projectile weapon be less accurate than a laser in a zero-gee vacuum?

Tolerances. Tiny variations in the mass, shape, and finish of the projectiles as well as the propellant will throw off the aim of each individual projectile. And of course the tolerances in the aiming mechanism.

The laser weapon only has to worry about the tolerances of the aiming mechanism.

Fair enough ... we'd just be guessing about whether that difference in accuracy would be significant in point-defense scenarios, but that's a logical explanation.

There's also the fact that projectiles take much longer to reach the target, requiring lots of calculations to lead it by just enough. Lightspeed weapons are effectively just 'point and shoot'.

Tolerances. Tiny variations in the mass, shape, and finish of the projectiles as well as the propellant will throw off the aim of each individual projectile. And of course the tolerances in the aiming mechanism.

The laser weapon only has to worry about the tolerances of the aiming mechanism.

Instead of using one bullet, you might use more, like in a machine-gun.
Or instead of one big bullet, you use lots of smaller bullets.

Well yeah, but you could fire lots of laser pulses too. Also, you can't beat the rate of fire of a constant beam.

[Winston Blake]

My favorite idea for point defense involves mines placed at different areas around the ship that launch and explode in a cloud of super-hot plasma. Not only does it have inherent EW properties, but it has a chance of exploding any type of incoming missile before it hits, if not outright destroying it.

Plushie, yes your idea is cool, no it wouldn't work in real life (AFAIK).

Have you read these before?
'Plasma Weapons' on the mainsite.
Introducing the Particle-Beam Weapon.

[Shroom Man 777]

Relativistic buckshots with shrapnel that is microscopic and spread out extreamly thinly.

There you go.

Zor

Or how about: Relativistic buckshots as big as your standard ball bearings, and loaded up into a projectile armed with a proximity warhead that will spread the buckshots into a nice cloud of relativistic steel when it gets close enough to intercept the incoming missile?

Just think of it as Space Flak, or Space Frag. With the warhead detonating when it gets close enough to the incoming missile (or vice versa). You could have a missile, a space shotgun, or even space Explosive Reactive Armor.

For a guy who goes about "RAR! IMPERIUM DREADNAUGHT CHINESE SUPER FLOWER POWER LAZ0R! MELT YOUR FACE OFF! NANANANANA!!!", you seem rather uncreative

[Il Saggiatore]

And how do you keep the plasma dense enough for long enough to actually work as a defense?

It doesn't have to stay dense for any significant period of time, just long enough to detonate either the warhead in a regular missile or the fuel load in a kinetic kill missile.

And how long is long enough?
And how does it compare to the time the plasma stays dense and "super-hot" in a vacuum?

We can get probes through our ionosphere and Van Allen belts wihtout very thick shielding.

Yes, but the idea is super-hot plasma that's going to raise the temperature of anything passing through it to the limits of its endurance so that anything combustable in it goes "boom".

So, I stick supeconducting coils in my warheads, charge them up before launch and the charged particles in your plasma are delfected away from my missile.
Now, how does your "super-hot" plasma increase the temperature of my missile, if the particles cannot touch it?
How effective would radiative heat transfer be in this case?
And even if the plasma could touch my missile, how long does it take to raise the temperature?

Your super-hot plasma will not stick around for long in a vacuum.

It doesn't have to. Tie the launch mechanism into the sensors and set up a program that aims the mine at the in-coming missile(s) so that it blows up right near it.

Why not use nukes then?
If you need mines to deliver your plasma, why use plasma in the first place?
What's the point of using plasma, if you have to aim and send a mine to the incoming missile?

And you could put nice super-conducting coils on the incoming missiles, whose magnetic field could sweep the charged particles in the plasma out of the way.

And you could mirror the surface or just plain armor the damn thing to prevent lasers or other PD type weapons. Nothings perfect.

Nukes would be pretty effective.

Of course, putting a powerful enough generator on board the missile would be pretty damned costly when the person is likely backing up their plasma mines with laser PD guns anyway.

You don't need a generator.
Superconducting coils can carry a current for months without decay.

[Lancer]

why don't you just use powerful magnetic fields to contain multiple layers of high-energy plasma offset from your hull, then line your hull with thermally superconductive material?

It's about as feasable as the multi-target tracking nuke-pumped X-ray warheads on a relatavistic platform...

[drachefly]

why don't you just use powerful magnetic fields to contain multiple layers of high-energy plasma offset from your hull, then line your hull with thermally superconductive material?

You can make a magnetic bottle, but you do need to go pretty much around what you're bottling.

Also, 'thermal cuperconductivity' is a fake concept, not corresponding to real objects. You can have something which conducts heat very well, but it won't be a 'heat superconductor' in the sense that you can make a normal 'charge superconductor'.

Given that, I'd say launching a missile to send out X-ray interceptor beams from the sides (to get around any forward shielding) seems comparatively sane.

As for mirrors, well, when you turn up the intensity (by using a laser meant to DESTROY THINGS) you get strong nonlinear effects, and mirrors don't reflect so well.

[Nephtys]

Relativistic buckshots with shrapnel that is microscopic and spread out extreamly thinly.

There you go.

Zor

Or how about: Relativistic buckshots as big as your standard ball bearings, and loaded up into a projectile armed with a proximity warhead that will spread the buckshots into a nice cloud of relativistic steel when it gets close enough to intercept the incoming missile?

Just think of it as Space Flak, or Space Frag. With the warhead detonating when it gets close enough to the incoming missile (or vice versa). You could have a missile, a space shotgun, or even space Explosive Reactive Armor.

For a guy who goes about "RAR! IMPERIUM DREADNAUGHT CHINESE SUPER FLOWER POWER LAZ0R! MELT YOUR FACE OFF! NANANANANA!!!", you seem rather uncreative

No point. In space, that flak would be akin to shooting plastic BB pellets to take down a fly at two miles. You'd never even begin to approach a tenth of C without prohibitive energy requirements, and you'd never get the accuracy or speed of a laser, and not to mention in space-war distances, a spread doesn't help accuracy at all.

[Shroom Man 777]

The thing is, you use these things up close and personal. And basically what I'm describing is a high velocity proximity warhead-armed anti-missile missile. A warhead loaded up with ball bearings or something. Anti-missile missile goes near to missile. AMM blows up. Buckshots kill missile.

Or a space-shotgun that fires only when the incoming missile is up-close and personal. Missile go near to ship. Space-shotgun fire buckshots. Buckshots kill missile.

Of course, lasers ARE much better. But it's an interesting sci-fi alternative, and much better than anti-matter particle cannons. In reality, lasers all the way man. My first post endorses lasers. If you got a missile swarm, all you need is just a lot of 'em.

[Sea Skimmer]

Or a space-shotgun that fires only when the incoming missile is up-close and personal. Missile go near to ship. Space-shotgun fire buckshots. Buckshots kill missile.

What you'd want is AHEAD ammunition, which is a shell that dispenses a pattern of pre formed fragments which it nears the target. You can see all the pre formed fragments stacked inside of this cut in half example of a 35x228mm AHEAD cartridge.

http://www.defense-update.com/images/ahead.jpg

[wilfulton]

What do you have against protons? What'd they ever do to you?


Actually, I would not expect a missile to be heavily armored, and it would probably have delicate guidance systems that could be easily damaged or destroyed with something as simple as a monofiliment net. The net could spread out over a large area to cover the ship, could drift a good distance away to give you plenty of standoff room, and kinetic energy takes care of the rest.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A standard proton particle beam weapon would be great... in atmosphere, same with electron based weapons provided they have enough oomph to negate gravity and the Earth's own magnetic field for a decent range. In space, you use neutral beams, so full atom particles would be used, and not anti-particles given how much more energy is needed and PBWs already deliver enough of a kick as it is in a different manner to a laser.

[Shroom Man 777]

What you'd want is AHEAD ammunition, which is a shell that dispenses a pattern of pre formed fragments which it nears the target. You can see all the pre formed fragments stacked inside of this cut in half example of a 35x228mm AHEAD cartridge.

http://www.defense-update.com/images/ahead.jpg

Shiiiny! The pre formed fragments are those things that look like watch batteries, right?

Actually, I would not expect a missile to be heavily armored, and it would probably have delicate guidance systems that could be easily damaged or destroyed with something as simple as a monofiliment net.

Or a rapid fire pulse laser. The arguements against the laser in the OP are flawed, or just require more lasers.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The nature of a PBW means it has certain advantages over your typical laser. The particles can exert their KE on deeper layers of the target rather than simply ablating and heating the outer layers as with lasers. The added electrical effects (mostly atmospheric) produce an EMP anyway that will play hell with the missile.

A laser or PBW need only take out the unshielded and fragile seeking unit of the missile and then it's pretty much a mission kill anyway. That or the fuel tank which will be somewhat easier to hit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Shiiiny! The pre formed fragments are those things that look like watch batteries, right?

Yup, those are them, each 35mn shell has 152 and they are dispensed into a 15 degree cone along the shell flight path when it nears the target. 35mm is too small to pack in a radar proximity fuse, but an ultra accurate device at the muzzle of the gun measures the exact velocity of each departing shell and uses induction to set the shells timed fuse just as it leaves the gun. A radar fire control system of course provides target course and speed to the fuse setter, and it all makes for an extremely lethal system.

AHEAD stands for Advanced Hit Efficiency and Destruction BTW, and thanks to the miracle of patents only refers to Oerlikon ammunition. But other companies have already copied the concept for various calibers, and there ammunition can be generically known as PFHE, Pre Fragmented High Explosive.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hrmm, what nation uses AHEADs? The US? And what weapon system is it found in?

[Sea Skimmer]

Hrmm, what nation uses AHEADs? The US? And what weapon system is it found in?

The US Navy is currently evaluating the Oerlikon produced Millennium 35mm Naval Gun System which fires AHEAD, as a shipboard CIWS. But that's it. Right now the only nation I'm aware of which actually has an AHEAD firing gun in service is Denmark, on some minor warships. The technology is relatively new as weapons go you so. So far I'm not aware of any other gun which fires AHEAD, but the Swedes have a 57mm cannon, which fires similar Bofors, developed PFHE ammunition. A 57mm shell is however big enough for a radar proximity fuse (the smallest shell which can hold one is 40mm) and so the fancy fuse setting function isn't required.

[Shroom Man 777]

Do you believe something like this could be used for space-based point defense?