Space Based Weapons

[data_link]

Realistically, which is the most effective direct-fire offensive system for a future starship? (note: this does not include missiles)

[The Yosemite Bear]

My vote is for good old fashioned KE, lot's of bang for the tech buck, not to mention raaaaaaaannnnnnngeeeee

[Kuja]

Kinetic.

[Kuja]

Kinetic.

Urk, wrong button.

Kinetic. The closer to realism, the better.

[Vympel]

I take it you pushed gravitic, IG-88?

Kinetic all the way. Are we thinking railguns here?

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuke via railgun.

[HRogge]

Kinetic...

easy to build, nearly unlimited range ( depending on the ability to HIT the target ), cheap ammunition...

and there are "large" versions available...

[data_link]

Kinetic...

easy to build, nearly unlimited range ( depending on the ability to HIT the target ), cheap ammunition...

and there are "large" versions available...

Which have a lot of recoil and will place a lot of stress on your hull.

Besides, last time I checked, reactive armor blocked that stuff pretty well.

[Kuja]

I take it you pushed gravitic, IG-88?

Kinetic all the way. Are we thinking railguns here?

No, I meant I clicked 'submit' before I meant to.

[SWPIGWANG]

LAZZZZZZZZEEEEERRRRRRRRRR

It is nice having the fastest weapon possible.

[Dodge]

Plasma Cannons.
(or railguns to deliver whatever)

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Nuke via railgun.

You mean, "nuke encased in a fissionable shell of heavy metals with variable-time or command detonator allowing it to be blown up as a flak burst or as a surface-penetrator explosive, delivered via railgun at fractional-c speeds."

But IMO energy weapons would be better - by the time we can launch combat spacecraft we would probably have good enough energy generation and control techniques yto make their use practical. Also, energy weapons require less mass than kinetic because they don't need to store as much ammunition.

Although both have their advantages - for planetary bombardment I wholeheartedly recommend orbital nuking. At least until we develop 200 GT turbolasers.

[Yogi]

Kenetic is not that great. Each shot would rock the ship (conservation of momentem) and would have to be manually corrected. Lasers would colve that problem. There's also the issue of carrying ammo, and in space cargo space is at a premium.

[The Dark]

Depending on the level of technology, either kinetic or directed energy. At near-future, with engagements at close quarters (under a couple light-seconds), kinetic will rule. Given that spaceships must be built lightly in order to have a decent acceleration (thrust/mass rule), armor will be light, and kinetic energy weapons will do heavy damage. Further in the future, if combat takes place at any further than a couple light-seconds, directed energy will be superior due to the speed of the "projectile." Even railguns cannot strike as quickly as a laser. If we assume a .9c railgun projectile (highly optimistic, IMO) comapred to a laser at 1 light-minute, the laser takes 1 minute to strike, while the slug takes 66 seconds. Additionally, light-speed sensors would not detect the laser, whereas the railgun slug could be detected and avoided. Thus, it depends on technology level.

[SirNitram]

Fuck kinetic. You have to supply all the energy for the weapon from your own reactor. You have to deal with recoil. Nuclear ordinance. Not only do you get extreme bang for your buck, but they can be fitted with guidance for extreme range, and even a near miss will bathe your opponent with rads.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Besides, last time I checked, reactive armor blocked that stuff pretty well.

Reactive armor is for HEAT rounds. I dont think it is effective against a plain old slug or a penetrator.

[Beowulf]

Nukes.

[Neko_Oni]

I voted Lasers. Lasers and Particle Beams, light-speed (or very close). Very accurate. Efficiency isn't so good, but assuming that gets better by the time we get into space combat it should be fine. It also depends what ranges your fighting at, if you can detect opponents from light seconds away or further than lasers/p.beams will probably be the only way to actually score a hit, unless you throw shotgun style spreads of railrounds at him. Nukes are good, but you do need to get very close (or have a very powerful warhead) to do any damage.

[Crossover_Maniac]

Further in the future, if combat takes place at any further than a couple light-seconds, directed energy will be superior due to the speed of the "projectile." Even railguns cannot strike as quickly as a laser. If we assume a .9c railgun projectile (highly optimistic, IMO) comapred to a laser at 1 light-minute, the laser takes 1 minute to strike, while the slug takes 66 seconds. Additionally, light-speed sensors would not detect the laser, whereas the railgun slug could be detected and avoided. Thus, it depends on technology level.

Actually, if the technology allows for a guided projectile at relatistic velocities, you're better off with the missile than the laser. Unlike the laser, if you're off, the missile can change course. Also, if you're projectile going at .9 c and can accelerate to that speed in, let say, 5 seconds while your target is a light-minute away, by the time the light from the missile that left just before the missile started heading towards its target, the missile would only be 9.2 seconds away and you wouldn't see the missile where it is but where it was when it was fired at you.

[Neko_Oni]

But as the missile approaches the light-speed delay gets smaller so by the time it reaches the ship the lasers might have a decent chance to shoot it down (assuming they can track a near c-target, and assuming the attacker can launch near-c weapons).

[Crossover_Maniac]

But as the missile approaches the light-speed delay gets smaller so by the time it reaches the ship the lasers might have a decent chance to shoot it down (assuming they can track a near c-target, and assuming the attacker can launch near-c weapons).

The thing about the laser is that you're sacrificing accuracy for a 10% increase in speed.

[Crossover_Maniac]

Worse, when you see your enemy from one light-minute away, you're seeing him where he was one minute ago. You have to aim your lasers where you believe he will be. A ship would have to zig-zag through space and avoid being hit not unlike ships in WWII zig-zagging in order to avoid being hit by a submarine's torpedo. A missile has a better chance of hitting its target since it can correct its own course.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Realistically, which is the most effective direct-fire offensive system for a future starship? (note: this does not include missiles)

Let us see. We have the following choices:

Kinetic weapons

Kinetic weapons are doable with even low technology. However, your ship has to absorb the recoil of firing the round. This will limit the energy you can impart on each round. Not to mention the round will be slow, and will be unguided.

Particle weapons

Particle weapons are a good compromise between kinetic and laser and plasma weapons. You can hurl atomic nuclei at your enemy at really high speeds, and the impact will produce nice bursts of radiation to cook their crews and blind their sensors. They're also quicker than kinetic weapons.

Directed-energy (lasers)

Lasers are as fast as you can go in normal space. They do their damage by focusing lots of radiation into relatively small spaces. However, lasers are pretty inefficient at converting reactor energy to real destructive energy. They may become more efficient in the future though.

Plasma

Plasma weapons involve hitting something hard enough to strip it's electrons from it's nuclei, then hurtling the resulting mess at your enemies. It has to be contained in some sort of magnetic bottle to prevent it from becoming a big, diffuse cloud of hot gas. It is pretty corrosive, but very energy intensive.

Gravitic

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Got mountain-sized masses to crunch up into singularities to hurtle at your enemies? Got solar-sized masses to create strong gravitational gradients to crush your enemies with?

Exotic (anything with the word "quantum")

If you're going to have such fine control of EM fields that you can afford to use them to throw plasma at your enemies, you can use strong EM fields to do nasty things to your enemies.

Antimatter

Very expensive, but very destructive. It's not a commodity you'd want to waste on something like weaponry. Best keep it in your engines where it belongs.

other (please specify)

You forgot missiles. A missile can pull much higher accelerations than the ship that launched it (on the account of the ship's crew, which generally turns to a thin red paste on the ship's bulkheads under seriously heavy acceleration.) And it can correct it's course en-route. A missle can either go off in an uncontrolled spherical blast, a directed cone-shaped blast. Or it can generate X-ray lasers or potent EMP pulses. The best combination for a future starship might be a potent magazine of warheads, backed by particle beams for that energy-bite. Keep the lasers on hand to toast your enemy's missiles.

[MirrorUniverseSpy1]

Kinetic.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also note Lasers also produce a lot of heat, which can be a bad thing if you want people to survive on board your ship.