Generic greetings and welcome to science insanity, a channel dedicated to bringing my love of sci-fi to you. Today we’re covering planetary defenses, how they work, what they do and what the different types of them are. So settle in and get ready to learn how to protect your world from all the nasty, filthy, disgusting xeno filth trying to invade it.
Want to support SCI? Check out our patreon to get access to our content a day early and send some space bucks out our way to improve the channel:
patreon.com/ScienceInsanity
source
I am surprised that there was no mention of the Ramiles Star Fortress from 40k in this one.
I find the idea of solar laser arrays, as sci-fi author John Ringo depicts in some of his books, quite interesting. Here, humankind is melting down silicone rich asteroids to create mirror arrays close(r) to the sun, which then collect sunlight and distribute it to mirror arrays all over the solar system. A system like this would be relatively cheap in maintenance, it could deliver energy in all dosages, from 'moderate' to 'insane', and usable for civilian usage as well and it would be hard to detect and destroy.
As long as you don't send energy to one of the smaller mirror arrays, it would be almost impossible to detect until it is too late and in case one gets destroyed, just switch over to another array. It also would have the advantage that you could cover pretty much everything you need to, without any real blindspots.
The ultimate in planetary defense The Behemoth Planetcraft.
AKA the planet that we made into a battleship.
Stellaris mods are fun.
We shall fortify this comment section in the name of Dorn!
or the bigger question, how do you make planetary defense systems that can't be used to enforce travel lockdown?
Classified.
Dam finally yay
I miss the old "PLANETARY DEFENSE | How to protect your world from invasion" 🙁
Dude… for a Canadian you're more cobra-chicken than stoner Victorian and I'm here for it.
I really like the "The Fleet in Being" idea. I love reading about a construction worker, lawyer, and doctor all receiving a letter from the government. Time to fulfill your promise of duty in their time of need. The three end up in the same warship as the bosun, captain, and doctor that is about 3 or even 5 generation older then what is currently deployed by the government. Since they have no time to update these old warships. The are place in units where one or two current gen warship are tied into their sensors to help the older gen warships to be able to throw more missiles or laser at one time. Making what you got work in the time you have.
I'm known by my gaming mates as the supreme turtle due to my nature of building bases/planets or empires with walls/stations or choke points/jump points festooned with weapons. In fact when we play cooperatively against an AI, it's usually my job to build defences with my call of "cover me whilst I build this shit" .
Another two things to touch on regarding megastructures: they take a very VERY long time to complete compared to other forms of defense, and they are quite likely to be detected during their build stage when they are at their most vulnerable as shown in Return of the Jedi. They're a sort of "win more" thing when it comes to game theory, because you would never invest the time and resources if your other defenses are weaker than a potential opponent because they would simply rush in and not let you complete it, if you're of equal strength you can't afford to divert said time and resources to not fall behind in the eternal arms race and become the weaker faction, and if you're the stronger faction then you never particularly needed the megastructure in the first place. They have their place when a faction is trying to futureproof itself from some unforeseen outside enemy like Stellaris' crises or stave off the inevitable turn of the wheel when their civilization collapses, but against one's immediate neighbors and rivals megastructural defenses seem to have more cons than pros.
space if unfathomably vast, so any kind of static defense is unfathomably stupid. there isn't stellar geography, you can't build a fort to project power. One, rocks can be accelerated to impact and destroy anything you have and you can't really do anything about a rock traveling near the speed of light to hit your anything. An orbital body, be it a planet or a station, is going to have a very static, predictable path of movement for any aggressions to set any volume of mass they can on a trajectory. Two, because space is so vast conflict realistically only happens when both sides want to fight. There's a speed limit in real space, and generally if I spend more time accelerating you're not going to catch up. Three- Shield world as safe places to assemble ships? My guy they can "assemble" anywhere.
If we humans are invaded by an intelligent species that has the capability of traveling an ocean of stars to reach here. We're no more powerful and no more intelligent than the smartest apes compared to them. Realistically, We wouldn't stand in chance. Our greatest weapons may be no more powerful than spears and arrows compared to their technology. We are centuries away from actually leaving our solar system for the stars, let alone thinking about colonizing another world within a single lifetime.
It is my personal analysis that the best fortifications aren't designed to stop an enemy attack, but to redirect it. The Maginot Line, while often cited as a failure, did exactly what it was designed to do: prevent a direct invasion across the Rhinelands. The intent was to encourage invading German armies to bypass the Maginot Line and instead attack through Belgium. The German army did indeed avoid the Maginot Line, but instead of attacking through Belgium, the bulk of the Nazi forces went through the Ardennes Forrest. This was not a failure of the Maginot Line but of the military planners who assumed the Ardennes were impassable.
So, designing a series of fortresses to encourage the enemy to take a predictable course is very useful if you properly predict their movements. This is why good recon is essential to defense as well. Ultimately, however, a mobile defense is often the most cost effective as it allows for fewer assets to defend a larger area. Even with gun platforms and the like being cheaper than full ships, the sheer number you need to fortify every star system quickly becomes cost prohibitive.
Static defense has always been my favorite part of warfare and strategy, I just build a fortress and from there I stage my massive strike force or jus tlevel the rest of the map with artillery. This is also the same reason i hate playing timed missions where I am limited by time to not only get a good base up and running, but to also build an army and coordinate it against tightly packed defenses the enemy already has.
Interesting video but a couple of things seem off.
First, Dyson Spheres and shield Worlds are 2 different concepts. A Dyson Sphere is a megastructure built in orbit/incapsulating a star, harnessing its energy to propel a civilization throughout a galaxy. It is not in itself a defensive or offensive weapon, simply a tool to harness nearly unlimited amounts of energy.
Second thing is the planetary shields in Star Wars are not indefinite or indestructible, what they do is force people to focus on a single point (the shield generator) which means instead of splitting your forces with a blockade, you can use less assets and have them all defending a single point.
Gotta argue pretty heavily against your perspective here on defenses. The worst method, is in most cases fixed defenses. Why? Because they are fixed. First, that means they can only defend that one area, and only once the enemy moves within range, of likely being able to attack that same area. And they are stupidly expensive, unless you only have a single city or location you care about in an area, you either need to build them everywhere, or just accept the enemy can ignore them by attacking those other locations, or through other means they can't counter. Massive anti orbital gun might stop space ships on that side of the planet, but what about then just going after the other side? And then doing a ground or air attack at a lower angle with smaller targets to get past it. Or you know the good old bombardment option, just lob lots of space rocks towards it, it's a fixed defense after all, gravity is probably on the attackers side. And if you do build defenses everywhere, for that massive cost… you get piss all actual defense value as most attacks made would be in one or two areas, likely ignoring the VAST majority of those defense you build all around your world or such.
And saying they are cheaper to build, lacking lots of special parts ships would have. Honestly… maybe… maybe not, depends on the setting. Total materials involved, if it's big it's big, so that's high. Complexity? They have massive reactors, capacitors, and guns, not to mention all the sensors and control systems to identify and engage enemies. A large fixed defensive weapon arguably shares most of the core expensive elements a mobile version would, minus the engines and design constraints around weight. But it's not like weight is that big of a factor for a spaceship either if it's not trying to exit gravity wells or zip around too fast, so with settings it varies how important that is. Though on the other hand, the guns/weapon often needs to be extra big to be worthwhile if it's built on a planets surface, so it can fire up into space, making it more expensive than a space based gun for the same fight. Orbital installations might win over this, but still have most of the other problems.
By comparison, a fleet of ships, or just figher squadrons, are mobile. Meaning they can move to and engage targets anywhere around your planet or system based on mobility tech. You could buy 1000 fixed defenses, or 200 fighters, and if the enemy attacks one area they might only deal with 10 or so fixed defeneses… but you can send all 200 fighters to deal with them if given a little time.
Now, for the caveats. Fixed defenses work well if paired with orbital shields, if you have the tech to have a stupidly high defense, and it has a fixed weakpoint, like a gate or generator, then loading up some fixed local deffenses on that one known point can be valid. Still… would you rather get into a fight over your defensive generator, or have ships that could go out and destroy/intercept the enemies before they got in range to actually start attacking said shield generator? Varies by tech and the rules of the setting, but mobility is extremely valuable, both in a local scale, and the large strategic scale.
Also, some fixed defense are more viable as they have long range. A site with long range cruise missiles or such for example might be able to cover a considerable amount of your own territory, making one instilation actually capable of doing a lot of work. Downside is they can be slower to respond or limited at the further edges of their engagement envelopes. Though, if they use the same amunition like missiles as your ships, these facilities could basicly just be munition warehouses with a few VLS tubes and sensors to let them also defend themselves, meaning the added cost is, while still notable, not too major. You will probably want at least one fixed sensor area to watch the skies over any area anyway, so pairing it up with a defense that can cover that whole area with it can save some money, but this still means like one or two of these across a country, or multiple like in the UE. Key part are these are indirect weapons though, not requiring line of site, but just massive area denial weapons.
Otherwise, just the most basic defensive weapons on key facilities, like a military base having a couple machinegun nests or sentry turrets. Nothing major, just enough to assist with some general lower end fighting on a key point, at the scale that might happen without obvious forewarning (like a large enemy force maneuvering in you could easily spot).
one thing to add to even the small defence stations they can be used as government check points for any ships coming into a system, scanning them and checking if there is any contra band so even if you are not at war they still have a use
Love the stealthed Mass Drivers they used in The Expanse.
Rogal Dorn style, simply slapping on guns and walls and fortifications ON TOP AND UNDER said guns, and wall, and fortifications would make for one of the best ways imo to deny opponents the ability to attack.
Add the additional idea of sci-fi where the whole solar system is constructed into a singular ship and you already have a mobile way of keeping your planets further out of harm's way while further allowing for greater weapons to be powered against literally anything in the vast universe. Should such a thing even be built at all.
One big caveat to megastructures is that the sheer traffick of a facility this large usually means it is relatively easy for aggressors to infiltrate. This is the key element that sets off the war that ensues between X3 Terran Conflict and Albion Prelude.
Basically, the Terrans (Earthlings) had created a massive ring structure around Earth called the Torus as a defensive measure agaisnt AGI attack (the AGI were Terran in origin but had gone rogue and nearly destroyed Earth), but the Argonians (who themselves were descendants of Terrans that sacrificed themselves to bait the AGI off Earth) became fearful of Terrans so they did a bunch of dumb shit that culminated in infiltrating the Torus and sabotaging one of the reactors. The destruction of the Torus crippled the Terrans, yet forced them into war, which they inevitably lost despite being the most powerful military force in the galaxy.
Nice to see a piece of lore from X-Wing Alliance referenced.
I have small problem with classification of what is dyson sphere- it is concept made by guy named Dyson (whoa) and it is a giant energy generaror- you envelop a star and harvest all the energy (light, heat) from its fusion- you cannot dyson sphere a planet- it requires star to be a dyson sphere
One of the things that may have been shown in Star Wars books or animated work, but not in the films, was the way the Empire wasted a lot of resources on overkill. Sure, a star destroyer is great as the backbone of a fleet or even as a single unit, but it's a waste when chasing down a handful of pirates or rebels. This is why most of the wet navies of Earth have warships for fighting and coast guards for anti-piracy and S&R operations.
Universe i built for a story i bounce back to on and off has battle cruisers and dreadnoughts, battlecruisers do a lot of enterprise type stuff they weight toward speed while defensively dreadnoughts wander around their assigned system, their ftl is good for in system reactions , stations for defense purposes are interdiction guns with exorbitant numbers of missiles , outer colonies might have a dreadnaught pair, the sol system has hundreds, battlecruisers are part of defenses in that they will turn up unannounced from out of system at the speed of holy f*** to run over any logistics or support elements with there squadrons.
Laser Web is my personal favorite defensive system, especially after reading "Live Free or Die" by John Ringo. Tears open just about anything and is a great "Castle Wall" for a star system. That and it can double up as a mining rig in it's down time, peeling asteroids like potatoes and selling them for scrap or making them into new mirrors. Self-Perpetuating to a point.
Star Trek Picard 1 Season 1 featured a planetary shield over the Romulan refugee planet, Discovery Season 4 featured a planetary shield and orbital defense satellites over 32nd century Earth.
There is also what I like to call system weapons: weapons which cover entire Star systems. Not sure of any actual examples, but I know of an IRL theoretical idea called the laser web, where you a laser somewhere (like around the star) and a bunch of satellites to refocus and redirect it as it reaches its target.
Other than something like that, you’d need an FTL weapon like a gun that shoots through a wormhole, some guided munitions with serious range and speed, or the volley approach (where even if they don’t get hit, you still force them to bob and weave or hid behind planets).
Also, presumably you’d have planet side orbital guns/silos/hangers be fortified from the ground, as well as against orbital bombardment, and have similarly fortified compounds for key things. After all, a great way to take out a space ship killing gun is tiny infantry, since often they won’t even be able to properly aim at the ground, let alone effectively engage such small targets.
In Battletech they have a different planetary defence mechanic that you overlooked, hidden forces to counter attack anyone landing on the world. The Star League (original name I know), built massive underground bunkers (called Brian Cache's) with multiple openings and fully stocked with supplies for their Garrison forces to retreat into upon invasion. Sure you cede the world temporally, but then you pick apart the enemy with guerrilla tactics and basically make it impossible for them to HOLD the world for any long time without taking huge losses.
How to defend a planet.
Step 1: Build a BOLO.
Step 2: Build another BOLO for the other side of the planet.
Step 3: Have a beer! You're done!
Many bothans died to get us these plan's, Rogue one completely ruined this line.
The Earth Space Dock from Star Trek has no weapons. It could be upgraded with weapons in 4 month time.
The Maw might have been a great place to set up a top secret military instillation, but wasn't it also a prison for something far scarier than even the Empire?
As a big man in yellow power armor once said "I shall begging fortifying this position."
Something else to mention that was overlooked here is building facilities deep inside a planet. You can mine resources, use them to make munitions, and build facilities in the cleared space, the deeper the better. Even if the enemy clears out your space-based defenses, if hatches keep appearing on the planet below and belching out missiles, railgun rounds, and attack craft into the orbitals and system beyond, it wouldn't do them much good. They'd need something Death Star tier to literally blow the planet apart if they want to fully control and utilize the system without constant streams of incoming fire.
There are a couple advantages to static defenses, orbital or ground. Big fleets are gonna generate a lot of attention with allies and enemies, the politics may become hard to justify. Static defenses while still raising some eyebrows will likely be less concerning than several new battlegroups, unless your universe operates on some futuristic version of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Planetary defense: broadcast twitter feeds to any assailing aliens. They will either self destruct, or make it quick and painless. And then self destruct.
Seriously though, planetary defense implies some alien life forms who would actually have the means to reach us would even bother. That type of tech would basicly already make them completely self sufficient. There is zero reason for anything off planet to even bother going through the headache that is occupancy of a primitive world.
I have Imperial Fist legion here ready to help planning your defense
I just love the Fermi Steam Cannon as an anti-invasion weapon. Imagine the utter disrespect of smacking down a ship capable of interstellar or even intergalactic travel with a manhole cover traveling at the *exit velocity of the solar system*.
Hippity hoppity got off my property? Is that Tex explaining the Taurian Concordat I hear?
I would love to have a planetary defense system…more like the Stonehenge complex from the Ace Combat games. XD
I've always been fascinated by the idea of planetary defences so vast, that the planet beneath them is more like a colossal heat sink that the enemy attackers must overcome.
Unless the mass of the enemies heat sinks matches that of the defenders, then they might need alternative methods of nullifying the threat. And that's before the enemy starts recycling the heat for more power!
The answer… use a gun… and if that don't work… use more gun.