War in Space; how would you do it?

[Comrade Tortoise]

I suppose a good tactic would be to have your ships painted jet black, perhaps spotted with fake stars along it's hull as a method of impairing visual detection.

Detectable if your enemy has so much as a light based telescope for a passive sensor

Why does our military bother with camoflauge then? One would think deep space would be an excellent means of hiding visually this way, particularily at vast ranges...

Because you can compare a ship to the background. IE as you move, if the other ship is in your field of view, it will be moving relative to you, and thus visible.

[Robert Walper]

But the heat would still stick out. Against the extremly cold space any heat would be easily caught.

How manys times do I have to say "visual"?

[Robert Walper]

Why does our military bother with camoflauge then? One would think deep space would be an excellent means of hiding visually this way, particularily at vast ranges...

Because you can compare a ship to the background. IE as you move, if the other ship is in your field of view, it will be moving relative to you, and thus visible.

Military units nowadays also move relative to the background...so why do they employ camoflauge?

[Ace Pace]

Its all about heat and electromagnetic radiation, you want to dampen the ship, if your using any kind of engine, tune it so there is little to no scatter, work on passive sensors, basicly, its a sub.

[Robert Walper]

Its all about heat and electromagnetic radiation, you want to dampen the ship, if your using any kind of engine, tune it so there is little to no scatter, work on passive sensors, basicly, its a sub.

Nothing wrong with making the ships visually hard to detect either. Unless people here think a black ship will be just as easy to see as a grey/white ship in space.

[Ace Pace]

Depends, pure black will be easier to spot because of contrast, the COLOR dosn't matter, its the contrast.

A chameleon hull is the best, one that dynamicly fits the background.

[frigidmagi]

Rob, visual detection in space is so far down the list of worries you might has well save the cost of the paint. Has they have been trying to tell you, Heat, radition and other emissions are going to let the bad guys know where you are long before eyeball mk I does.

In fact I would submit that in space, even in orbit of a planet that the sheer distances would render the old eyeball next to if not totally useless for combat.

Also we use camoflauge for a number of reasons, the main one is to the break up the Silhouette, making it hard to get a good aiming point. This however is only good against things using visual cues. Sure you may be able to confuse the riflemen with a few buckets of paint, but paint won't do diddy squat against a heat seeking Tommahawk will it?

Also don't compare ground combat to space combat again, it makes me cranky.

[Robert Walper]

Rob, visual detection in space is so far down the list of worries you might has well save the cost of the paint. Has they have been trying to tell you, Heat, radition and other emissions are going to let the bad guys know where you are long before eyeball mk I does.

I don't see how that makes it useless. I've seen current jet fighters today employing camouflage despite eyeballing their targets being extremely low on the list.

In fact I would submit that in space, even in orbit of a planet that the sheer distances would render the old eyeball next to if not totally useless for combat.

Depends upon what ranges of combat we're talking about and size of the targets in question. I think in a dogfight in space it would be far harder to visually track a black fighter than a gold or silver one.

Also we use camoflauge for a number of reasons, the main one is to the break up the Silhouette, making it hard to get a good aiming point.

Why wouldn't this work in space?

This however is only good against things using visual cues.

Like pilots in a dogfight?

Sure you may be able to confuse the riflemen with a few buckets of paint, but paint won't do diddy squat against a heat seeking Tommahawk will it?

Then please explain why night mission stealth bombers are black, or this:

Also don't compare ground combat to space combat again, it makes me cranky.

Where'd I do that?

[frigidmagi]

I don't see how that makes it useless. I've seen current jet fighters today employing camouflage despite eyeballing their targets being extremely low on the list.

Because A: eyeball to eyeball dogfights still fucking happen it breaks up the silhoutte and makes excalt movement harder to track on the off chance he can't get a radar lock.
B: AntiAircraft Fire is mostly human operated guns still numbnuts, IT BREAKS UP THE SILHOUETTE!

Depends upon what ranges of combat we're talking about and size of the targets in question. I think in a dogfight in space it would be far harder to visually track a black fighter than a gold or silver one.

I promise that the range will be fucking huge. Look Rob, if you want to fight in space, you must accept the vastness of it. If you accept the vastness of it you must use long, LOOONNNNGGG range weapons. Not fucking spitballs.

Why wouldn't this work in space?

SPACE IS HUUUGGGGEEEE! You won't use your eyes, you'll use computer data! The compute is unlikey to even know what color is!

Like pilots in a dogfight?

Pilots who will be using fucking radar and other computer systems to get locks not a crossfuckinghair painted on their forwardhatch, it may shock you Rob but it's likey that pilots in space won't even be able to see the fucking outside has something like that would I don't know... FUCKING ASKING TO DIE FROM DECOMPRESSION IF THE SMALLEST PIECE OF RUBBLE HITS THE DAMN WINDOW!?!

Then please explain why night mission stealth bombers are black, or this

:

You're aware the paint is specally made to absorb radar waves? If not, use your mouth to chew not talk.

Where'd I do that?

The minute you used today military has an excuse to paint weapon platforms, in a completely different enviroment using a completely different tech level. The realities of air combat, ground combat and void combat are so damn different that you might has well rewrite the book you'll make less mistakes that way.

[Comrade Tortoise]

But the heat would still stick out. Against the extremly cold space any heat would be easily caught.

How manys times do I have to say "visual"?

All you need is a telescope that sees in the infared spectrum. It is technically visual

[Comrade Tortoise]

Why does our military bother with camoflauge then? One would think deep space would be an excellent means of hiding visually this way, particularily at vast ranges...

Because you can compare a ship to the background. IE as you move, if the other ship is in your field of view, it will be moving relative to you, and thus visible.

Military units nowadays also move relative to the background...so why do they employ camoflauge?

Breaks up the sillouette. But in space, not only will that not happen, but it will in fact highlight your sillouette against a background of stars.

Also, if you are in spitball range of an enemy ship, both of you are fucked

[Ace Pace]

One advantage that a color scheme might give is by 'tainting' it with other matirials you can help it become more stealthy, perhaps by adding some more chameleon style technology(I.E if you're infront of a gas giant, expell some of that EM radiation to mask yourself).

[Robert Walper]

Rather than reply to long winded flaming posts filled with Red Herrings and Strawmans, perhaps I should clarify my arguement.

Spacecraft colored black would more readily blend into the background of space and would be more difficult to identify by normal visual capabilities. Perhaps simplistic images would help illustrate:

Image 1 of unaltered star field:

Image 2 of spacecraft colored grey:

Image 3 of spacecraft colored black:


Now is that clear enough?

[Ace Pace]

Walper, thats fine, ASLONG as your assumming there is no data analysis layer between the sensors and the pilot.

An analysis layer can run the entire thing through a filter that will notice that place being 'blocked' out and then can create an easy overlay.

Computers change warfare even more when you consider the vast distance and the sheer ammount of information a ship would receive per second.

[Robert Walper]

Walper, thats fine, ASLONG as your assumming there is no data analysis layer between the sensors and the pilot.

Or that such systems are compromised via ECM or damage, both rationally expected in conflict.

An analysis layer can run the entire thing through a filter that will notice that place being 'blocked' out and then can create an easy overlay.

Computers change warfare even more when you consider the vast distance and the sheer ammount of information a ship would receive per second.

Such systems are not infalliable. It's a small edge, but anything that forces the pilots to rely even more on their advanced equipment can only be an edge, particularily if the equipment and detection methods can be either hindered, compromised or damaged.

[Ace Pace]

Walper, thats fine, ASLONG as your assumming there is no data analysis layer between the sensors and the pilot.

Or that such systems are compromised via ECM or damage, both rationally expected in conflict.

Somehow, I doubt every single sensor system will be damaged yet the craft will still be functioning.

ECM is to be expected and as people can tell you today, can be burned through and worked with, ECM is a double edged sword, since in this case ECM will be dumping alot of EM radiation and confusing radar returns, which also makes it harder on you.

An analysis layer can run the entire thing through a filter that will notice that place being 'blocked' out and then can create an easy overlay.

Computers change warfare even more when you consider the vast distance and the sheer ammount of information a ship would receive per second.

Such systems are not infalliable. It's a small edge, but anything that forces the pilots to rely even more on their advanced equipment can only be an edge, particularily if the equipment and detection methods can be either hindered, compromised or damaged.

This ALL depends on ranges, unless we are talking about low dozens of km's even if your black and i'm white, your not going to see me, you however might see my engine trail, far more easier to see and track.

Systems are not infalliable but they are redundent, if one side does loses its sensors, its dead, if both do, then they either(to use a CS term) knife fight at ultra close range and hope to kill each other, or one turns away and the other has NO way to find him aside from being lucky and finding an engine trail.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Walper, if you are within ranges that close, you are fucked anyway, you may as well save money on the paint. A radi-telescope would pick that up so fast... You think there will be windows on a ship walper? Are you insane?

How pray tell will people be looking outside? This is not Star Treck Walper. The only thing use for looking outside visually will be cameras used to dock, and light based telescopes which will pick up a pathetic little ruse like that in a few seconds

[Robert Walper]

Walper, if you are within ranges that close, you are fucked anyway, you may as well save money on the paint. A radi-telescope would pick that up so fast... You think there will be windows on a ship walper? Are you insane?

How pray tell will people be looking outside? This is not Star Treck Walper. The only thing use for looking outside visually will be cameras used to dock, and light based telescopes which will pick up a pathetic little ruse like that in a few seconds

I'll take that as a concession that a black ship would be harder to see in space than a brighter colored one (visually). You can argue all the other Red Herrings such are your pre determined combat range, computer enhanced sensors and other stuff to your heart's content.

[Ace Pace]

If your limiting the debate THAT narrowly, then yes, your right, except...its stupid as hell to imagine that thats how combat will be done.

[Robert Walper]

If your limiting the debate THAT narrowly, then yes, your right, except...its stupid as hell to imagine that thats how combat will be done.

I don't arrogantly presume to know how futuristic space combat (if ever employed by us) will function or how technological means may either improve or hinder modern day interpretations of it.

[Knife]

That won't help Rob, because your ship puts out a lot of emissions anyway. Heat, radiation, and so on. Stealth will come from controlling your ship's emissions, however you do that. (Handwavium)

I specified visual detection techniques, unless you guys are submitting that in space visual detection is not a concern.

I would see very few applications a starship would have to have it rely in anyway on 'visual' sensors. The submarine analouge would probably be closer to how someone would go about it. No windows, operate on known hazards and passive data. Heat being the tip top on of those, then going on to other bands of radiation, especially if some semblence of nuclear drives are involved. Then on to active systems, mostly radar and the like, but laser designators and rangefinders could be handy too.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Oh and Walper, here is what yous thip would look like to a UV filter

[Stofsk]

People are saying 'stealth is the way to go' but the question is, how do you practice stealth in space?

The UV filter picture shows us that a spaceship sticks out like a sore thumb due to all the heat and radiation a ship emits. How do you control/mask that?

Also, people are saying ECMs will have an impact, but again how so? How will ECMs work?

[Comrade Tortoise]

People are saying 'stealth is the way to go' but the question is, how do you practice stealth in space?

The UV filter picture shows us that a spaceship sticks out like a sore thumb due to all the heat and radiation a ship emits. How do you control/mask that?

Also, people are saying ECMs will have an impact, but again how so? How will ECMs work?

ECM wouldnt work against anything that passivly collects light.
You can mask that with insulation, much like specially designed hulls are used by subs in order to mask their noise.

The problem with being at that range is that they can detect you with external cameras, at longer ranges they would have to scan the area with telescopes, or risk using active sensors. It would take longer if they didnt want to give their position away.

Of course, with so much as a radio telescop, you better be running silent... Just coasting on your momentum, because if you move, your engines will release a burst of radio waves.

[Hotfoot]

Photons are a very fun part of physics. Photons range from radio waves and micro waves to visible light to X-Rays and Gamma Rays.

When a photon is "absorbed" by an atom, energy is transferred. Most commonly, this energy is re-transmitted on another wavelength, very commonly in the Infrared (especially when dealing with visible light). Even white ships don't reflect ALL visible light, some of it is absorbed and retransmitted as thermal infrared. Black ships, conversely, reflect very little visible light, but transmit quite a large amount of black-body radiation, quite often in the thermal infrared range.

So really, when you make yourself less vulnerable to one manner of passive photon detection, you often make yourself more vulnerable to others.

Black-body radiation is a considerable concern in space combat. Chances are, any power sources you have are going to generate thermal energy (lots of thermal infrared) and a hefty amount of high energy photons (X-Ray, Gamma, and so on). Even with proper shielding, that doesn't mean nothing escapes, but rather, none of the high energy photons escape. Lower energy photons (or longer wavelength, if you'd prefer), are still going to escape, and chances are the high-energy photons will be changed into low-energy photons.

Since the ship will actively radiate tons of black-body radiation, it's much more reliable than relying on reflective photon detection from a local star. Of course, simple occlusion monitoring will also allow for the detection of any object that may be approaching or nearby. Space may be black, but if your visual sensors are delicate enough to see billions upon billions of stars, to say nothing of nebulas and other galaxies, well, it gets harder and harder to hide.

Consider, also, that black-body radiation is not limited to the Thermal end of IR. It also includes radio and micro - wave transmission.

If required, I suppose I could dig up some calculations and crunch some numbers to see just how far away we could detect a nice, hot warship, given modern sensors. Especially one that's painted black and turning all that nice visual light into hot hot IR. :)