User:Freighttrain/Speculation on Future Space-based Military Branches

( Updated as of 31/05/2021 )

Contact e-mail : freighttrain@email.com

I created this blog post to speculate on how future space-based branches of Western military forces, would be named and the specifics of their battlespaces, as well as the design elements of large military spacecraft.

Blog post contents :
 * 1) Terminology
 * 2) Notes
 * 3) Poorly named service
 * 4) Logistical and ethical issues with emerging military technologies
 * 5) The reality of hypersonic ICBMs is an insomniac nightmare
 * 6) Armed aerial and ground drone craft dehumanise warfare
 * 7) Technological issues with emerging military technologies
 * 8) The effectiveness of lasers at long-range or in adverse atmospheric conditions
 * 9) Space warship design
 * 10) Defence
 * 11) Active
 * 12) Passive
 * 13) Offence
 * 14) Railguns
 * 15) Hypersonic missiles
 * 16) Lasers and other DEWs
 * 17) Design innovations
 * 18) Modular structure
 * 19) Unmanned drone armour plate section escorts
 * 20) Space warship classes
 * 21) Patrol spacecraft
 * 22) Spacecruisers
 * 23) Aerospacecraft carriers
 * 24) Boarding-spacecraft carriers
 * 25) Stealth spaceships
 * 26) Later future developments in military spacecraft technology

Terminology :
 * Aerospace Force
 * Orbital Guard
 * Patrol spacecraft
 * Interorbital Force
 * Lunar Force
 * Space Navy
 * Space warship
 * Spacecruiser
 * Stealth space warship (submarine equivalent)
 * Capital spaceship
 * Aerospacecraft carrier (closer to amphibious assault ships than aircraft carriers)
 * Aerospace Marine Corps
 * Boarding-spacecraft carrier
 * Space Marine Corps

Notes :
 * The reason for a distinction between space marines and aerospace marines, is that the amount of specific training and specialisation required by members of each service, would be too high to comfortably maintain a large enough active force of those who are competent in both skillsets, namely ship-to-ship/space station boarding actions (space marines) and aerospace insertion (aerospace marines).

Poorly named service
The United States 'Space Force' should have instead been named the 'Aerospace Force' since it is heavily Air Force, if a force of purely orbital (non re-entry) military spacecraft was developed with an associated command structure and space station hangars etc., then that is something that could technically be called a 'Space Force', though the main station of such a purely space-based force would obviously be most effective if based on the Earth's moon, creating further options for more appropriate service nomenclature such as 'Lunar Force' or 'Interorbital Force' etc.

However once larger military spacecraft are developed in the likeness of naval capital ships including submarines (these would all be called 'capital spaceships', or 'space warships' when including lesser military spacecraft, and for obvious reasons would be far more similar in design to contemporary submarines rather than surface warships), which are capable of comfortably traversing and patrolling at length the distance between Earth, its moon and Mars (basically anywhere within the confines of the main asteroid belt), this force could conceivably be called a 'Space Navy' and then once the 'Space Navy' has developed 're-entry landing ships ('landing aerospacecraft')' capable of inserting ground forces on Mars and back up into space, a related force could be conceived of as the 'Aerospace Marine Corps', with the 'Space Marine Corps' being those trained and equipped specifically for boarding actions in space, rather than aerospace insertion.

And of course not forgetting the Coast Guard equivalent of a force in Earth's aerospace, the 'Orbital Guard', though technically an 'Orbital Guard' could only really function efficiently under a unified Earth government's military (not as progressive as it sounds, national sovereignty is always a higher priority) as the orbital space of Earth is of course not only available to the United States, but to all nations of Earth. This problem would not be one faced by a Space Navy or Lunar/Interorbital Force, as they have bases and patrol etc. routes whose territory would not always be fluctuating, unlike how the differential between a nation and its orbital space above Earth always would be.

Logistical and ethical issues with emerging military technologies
It may not occur to many that there are at least two worrying trends in the development of contemporary military technology, these are the insomniac nightmare that hypersonic ICBMs will likely create for military command structures, and how the use of armed aerial and ground drone craft dehumanises warfare.

It would be much more beneficial and less inflammatory if during this era of relative global peace, that military spending were to focus more on strengthening the backbone of the armed forces with the development of more advanced and efficient logistical capabilities, this means basically anything that could also have a civilian application, such as the development of more powerful and mobile transport aircraft (a good example of this is the proposed Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor). Other worthwhile military spending would be well placed towards more advanced missile defence systems, and the joint US-Israeli developed Arrow 3 counter-missile defence system is a good example of this as it is able to intercept hypersonic missiles, and in the same vein it would also be appropriate to focus on the development of more advanced protection for, military personnel in the form of better vehicular and personnel defence systems.

The reality of hypersonic ICBMs is an insomniac nightmare
In a world where nations would have to contend with each other having hypersonic ICBMs; long-range missiles potentially armed with nuclear warheads; without competent and geographically comprehensive defences in the form of laser (or other DEW) CIWS and hypersonic counter-missiles (as well as high-hypersonic and above to counter the Russian Federation's Avangard HGV, which can reach Mach 27 and can also perform agile evasive manoeuvres at this speed) and with only their own nuclear hypersonic ICBMs as a deterrent, the resulting logistical and protocolary nightmare that it could create would lead to more acting power transferred from a nation's government to its military command structure, which would have to remain at a near-paranoid state of constant alert, simply because of the much smaller amount of time available to respond to a hypersonic/high-hypersonic ICBM launch after it has been detected, as they travel much more quickly and could potentially be armed with nuclear warheads, so with jittery hands and without enough time to think things through or communicate, an immediate retaliatory strike with nuclear-armed hypersonic ICBMs is likely.

The onset of militaries developing hypersonic ICBMs is literally MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), though technically this could be seen as a disparity issue to do with the technological/logistical dynamic between hypersonic nuclear offence and defensive countermeasures, for example the Russian Federation already has hypersonic missiles with nuclear capability in active service, but even they do not say that they have the capability to prevent a foe from striking them with similar weapons (except for possibly their highly mobile and globally-unequalled Rychag-AV active jamming system, though Israel's new and also unequalled Arrow 3 hypersonic exoatmospheric anti-ballisitc missile system, may also be able to defend against hypersonic missiles), meaning they have not stated that they have competent laser CIWS or high-hypersonic counter-missiles.

Armed aerial and ground drone craft dehumanise warfare
By replacing piloted military vehicles and aircraft (and even the soldiers themselves with armed man-sized tracked/quadrupedal robots) with remote control drone craft, the individual responsibility and sanity that comes with a sense of self-preservation; of a soldier; is replaced with something more akin to the mentality that could be expected of a child playing shoot 'em up video games, warfare needs to be conducted by soldiers in the field and in their vehicles as it always has been, warfare is a very serious matter and needs real people with their own sense of self-preservation and accompanying protocols/ethics there in the flesh, otherwise contemporary warfare could easily turn into the careless free-for-all of a child's shoot 'em up video game.

The medium of armed drone craft also means that there is plausible deniability if targets are maimed or killed unlawfully, this would mainly be in the case of ground drone craft in the form of tracked or quadrupedal robots having apprehended targets (who may even be innocent civilians) who may have already surrendered etc., while the robot is holding them at gunpoint, it could; without warning; suddenly fire and kill the target. I imagine that this could fairly easily be rigged to look like it were due to some kind of technical malfunction in the hardware or software of the remote controlled drone, basically allowing a force equipped with such robots to kill without fear of retribution, and drones equipped with artificial intelligence are even less ethical than those which are remote controlled.

So the scientists and engineers developing these weapons should keep in mind that it is they who will be blamed and punished for any 'malfunctions', this is a perfect example of 'bad' technology, technology which could not only be potentially manipulated to harm innocents, but also that which could easily become a liability to those who are developing it.

Though obviously there are valid uses for remote controlled drone craft, but they should be limited to unarmed roles and perimeter defence, however an example of an armed drone craft with a valid place, is the BATS 'loyal wingman' system in development by Boeing, which uses UAVs that function as extensions of a manned parent aircraft, directly transferring immediate decision-making responsibility to the pilot/personnel of the primary aircraft, who remain in the general vicinity of the UCAVs, this counteracts the ethical issue I mentioned before about the UCAV operator being removed from the immediate danger of the situation.

The effectiveness of lasers at long-range or in adverse atmospheric conditions
This is primarily regarding the use of lasers as CIWS, the effectiveness of lasers suffers from degradation in humid atmospheric conditions, with their effectiveness decreasing at greater ranges, one way to compensate for this, would be to project some kind of sheathing or 'lubricating' coaxial energy or particle beam immediately before or during the firing of the primary laser, this coaxial beam would assist with neutralising adverse atmospheric humidity etc., or serve to focus/enhance the power of the primary laser along its trajectory, or even both.

Space warship design
Spaces warships would all be purely orbital (no re-entry capability, so that full focus would be on effectiveness in space) and their design would be centred around, focused on and with much structural space given over to defensive technologies and personnel safety/evacuation systems, and they would have to follow strict protocols regarding where space warships can travel and engage in combat, to ensure safe evacuation and rescue (since evacuation into lifeboats in space would be much more hazardous and unmonitored than at sea) of the crew in the event of destruction, space warships would also feature both automated and backup manual systems for increased reliability, and the personnel onboard would be more highly trained and valued than those of contemporary naval vessels.

Point-defence systems
The focus of these defensive systems would be primarily on point-defence with active/passive countermeasures and CIWS, which would be a combination of laser (and/or other DEW), solid projectile weapon systems and hypersonic counter-missiles, as well as anti-laser/DEW surface coating and outer construction materials.

The point-defence weapon systems would also likely even have one or more backup weapon systems underneath the visible weapon system, in case that one is destroyed, these backup weapons would simply be rotated into the place of the former after it is jettisoned, again showing the importance of defensive systems over offensive systems.

Active
Active defensive countermeasures would include the typical flares for infrared homing missiles as well as EW, laser/DEW beams/pulses and rapid diffusion of anti-laser/DEW particles.

Passive
Passive defensive countermeasures would include things such as EMP-hardened electronics, anti-laser/DEW surface coatings and outer structural materials, though lasers and other DEWs would not likely have been developed to the point where they could comfortably breach a space warship hull like a railgun or hypersonic missile, so it is unlikely that much focus would be on the outer structural materials being resistant to such an attack.

Offence
The primary weapons used by such spacecraft would include turrets armed with rail guns, strong focused laser (or other DEW) beams, and hypersonic missiles, these missiles would typically be coated to resist lasers and other DEWs, hence the continued use of solid projectile CIWS, each primary weapon system would also likely be jettisonable in the event of surrender, when it is certain the rules of armed combat will be followed and the vessel will not be fired upon if the primary weapon systems are jettisoned.

Railguns
Railguns would be particularly dangerous in space combat, as there is no effective counter to highly destructive hyper-velocity solid projectiles, other than having a railgun with a longer range, higher speed and better sensors, meaning combat between space warships would likely be extremely vicious and short-lived, with victory again usually going to those with the longest range, highest speed railguns and best sensors. Though for the projectiles to reach high enough speeds to be viable in space combat (for example the ISS orbits the Earth at 7 km/s), the barrel of a railgun must be quite long, so unless the ship is exceptionally large, turreted railguns may only be useful as point-defence weapons, rather than those used to engage other ships at great range.

Hypersonic missiles
The hypersonic missiles would usually be bunker-busting thermobaric missiles or tactical nuclear missiles, though some could also have multiple warheads programmed to launch from the parent missile when in range of specific CIWS or when a hypersonic counter-missile is detected, these missiles may be called MITVs (multiple independantly targetable vehicles) after contemporary MIRVs, this is to help ensure that damage is dealt, these multi-warhead hypersonic missiles would also likely be fired in barrages to overwhelm enemy point-defenses.

Lasers and other DEWs
These lasers and other DEWs would be stronger than those used for point-defence and would only be used for targeting specific systems visible on the surface an enemy vessel, rather than destroying an enemy vessel outright as with railguns and hypersonic missiles.

Modular structure
The structure of such vessels could also be modular, meaning that damaged and potentially dangerous sections or components could be jettisoned, with each section featuring it own manoeuvring vernier thrusters, while one or two of the more important sections (apart from the primary thrusters) would also feature more powerful thrusters in addition to the verniers.

With independent modular sections the likelihood of boarding actions against space warships would be unlikely, as a team of aerospace/space marines could easily become a liability when the modular section of an enemy space warship they have entered is jettisoned, and even more so if each section is also equipped with self-destruct systems.

Each section would also feature its own independent backup air supply (and enough space suits) and nuclear power source, if Russia has already created a nuclear-powered missile then this would be easy to implement throughout a spacecraft in the future.

Unmanned drone armour plate section escorts
Space warships may even have escorts in the form of large, independently propelled and highly manoevrable, remote controlled armour plates that would flank a space warship on all sides, these would also have their own sensors and point-defence systems and would be able to manoeuvre in coordination with each other by way of both remote control and advanced contingency algorithms, these could be seen as the precursors of a possible eventual development of defensive force field technology, though they could also be seen as analogous to how screening destroyers would manoeuvre around aircraft carriers to protect them from submarines.

Space warship classes
Due to technological developments enabling competent comprehensive defensive and offensive systems in a single space warship of a relatively modest size, I see only four main variations at the moment, spacecruisers (likely the most numerous type of vessel), stealthy space warships (essentially space submarines), aerospacecraft carriers and boarding-spacecraft carriers, these boarding-spacecraft carriers would be distinct from aerospacecraft carriers in that they carry ship-to-ship/space station boarding-spacecraft transporting space marines, instead of landing aerospacecraft transporting aerospace marines and vehicles.

These space warships would be of a relatively modest size, due to not only technological innovations and developments allowing for it, but also because of the three dimensional nature of space combat and the destructive extremely high-speed weapons involved, making greater size a liability.

Patrol spacecraft
These vessels would be smaller than spacecruisers and used only by the Aerospace Force and Orbital Guard, to patrol the orbital territory of a nation's aerospace, they would feature maybe one railgun turret with a proportionate complement of hypersonic bunker-busting missiles with thermobaric warheads, and a few point-defence weapon systems.

Spacecruisers
Spacecruisers would be the most common example of space warships and would usually be escorting the larger boarding-spacecraft carriers and aerospacecraft carriers.

Aerospacecraft carriers
The development of fighter spacecraft for use solely in space would be unlikely due to overwhelming redundancy (because of the extremely fast paced and automated nature of space combat involving lasers, railguns and hypersonic missiles), and so aerospacecraft carriers would only really have use within the orbit of a planet or moon, aerospacecraft carriers would also be the primary assault platform of aerospace marines, usually carrying a combination of aerospace fighters/bombers and landing aerospacecraft (troop/vehicle dropships), meaning that aerospacecraft carriers would be seen as associated with the Aerospace Force and Aerospace Marine Corps, rather than the Space Navy.

It is also likely that even aerospace fighters/bombers would become redundant for use on an aerospacecraft carrier, which would mean they would likely carry more landing aerospacecraft than aerospace fighters/bombers, and landing aerospacecraft could easily be equipped with AAM and ASM missiles anyway, this also means that aerospacecraft carriers would have more in common with amphibious assault ships rather than aircraft carriers.

Due to their primary battlespace, aerospacecraft carriers would use lifeboats that are re-entry capable, and in addition to their complement of aerospacecraft would also carry a comprehensive hypersonic arsenal of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons to annihilate surface targets, as well as high-yield thermobaric missiles to support aerospace marines on the ground.

Boarding-spacecraft carriers
Unlike aerospacecraft carriers, boarding-spacecraft carriers would see more use in open space between orbital points, they would be escorted by spacecruisers and carry space marines for ship-to-ship/space station boarding actions.

Stealth space warships
Stealthy space warships would be more akin to contemporary submarines rather than naval surface warships, since they would not able to be easily tracked or monitored, though due to the nature of space regarding how activity can be visually monitored in every three dimensional direction from a single point, as well as the relative emptiness of space in comparison to a Earth's atmosphere and continued advances in sensor technology, it would be quite difficult to properly conceal stealth space warships until effective active camouflage technologies have been developed for use on spacecraft.

Later future developments in military spacecraft technology
Technological concepts not included above due to little or no contemporary technological pretense or adequate theoretical conceptualisation, would usually include; without getting too silly (e.g. instantaneous quantam teleportation of large masses); developments such as:
 * High-hypersonic (or greater than Mach 25 i.e. re-entry speeds) missiles and projectile weapons
 * Significantly more powerful DEW weapons
 * Energy efficient, high calibre, rapid-fire railguns
 * Atmospheric re-entry and exit capability for space warships
 * Instantaneous interstellar communication
 * Significantly higher sublight speeds
 * Artificial gravity
 * Force fields
 * True active camouflage
 * FTL interstellar capability