|
Post by Enderminion on May 25, 2017 21:24:10 GMT
There was a similar (and excellent) thread on doctrines a while ago. Here were my detailed thoughts on the matter; they are still relevant: linkOne change though: currently, point defense is effective enough that I'm moving away from nuke AoE as a counter to missile swarms, since big nukes are expensive. 1. All the ships in my ideal fleet are unarmed and unarmored carriers. The only difference among them is what they carry, and how much: a. Laser drone carrier (~90% of the fleet) The laser drone needs to be effective to as large a range as possible, since it is the main damage dealer. With the current 1 Mm vanilla range limit, this is my laser drone: b. Kinetic drone carrier (~10% of the fleet) The kinetic drone must have high muzzle velocity to be effective point defense against armored missiles, which lasers may have trouble against. My current drone has a railgun launching tiny flak rounds at 50 km/s: c. In case changes in CoaDE cause nukes to be cost-effective, I would also have a carrier for high-dV, high-yield nuke missiles to counter enemy missile swarms. (Due to the high specialization of this category, there would be few in the fleet.) 2. Propellants used: hydrogen deuteride (drones) and neon (capitals). I use almost exclusively MPDs for propulsion. Hydrogen deuteride gets excellent exhaust velocity for low power inputs (like the 100 MW on my current drones) and is overall better than pure hydrogen. Capitals don't have the limitation of low power (my carriers range from 1 GW to 100 GW), so they can use the absolute cheapest propellant available (neon). 3. Primary weapon: laser (one per laser drone). Secondary weapon: high velocity flak railgun (one per kinetic drone). The 3mm wide flak ammo masses 150 mg (100 mg nitrocellulose, 50 mg osmium), and I'm playing around with adding a small cap ("radiation shield," heh). The drone fires slightly over 30 shots per second at 50 km/s. 4. Carrier ships are never to enter battle, so they need no armor or weapons, and they don't need acceleration to dodge projectiles either. Carriers need enough dV that they can effectively avoid any encounters (> 100 km/s). High dV allows them to boost drones on interplanetary trajectories for fast long-range attacks. (If this was a strategic wargame, they would then return to dock to pick up more drones, refuel, and repeat.) The drones must have enough dV to control the velocity/range of encounters (~50/kms seems good). Slow encounters are preferred, to maximize the effect of long laser range. There should be enough dV to come back home for repair and reuse if they win (or go for multiple combat encounters). 5. There is no need for tankers, because MPDs provide plenty of dV for orbital maneuvers without much propellant (my drones are only about 1/6 propellant by cost; carriers much less). that works until I hit you with multiple independent warhead missiles (missiles with launchers for more missiles) they're missiles so the first wave is moving 10-12km/s, in a worst case of but 8km/s it would take two minutes and five seconds, given that I can have dozens of missiles in-bound in a wave, and the missiles are heavily armoured to survive ~Gw lasers I can sneak a warhead in every now and then, and one hit reduces you're laser network allowing more warheads in
|
|
|
Post by apophys on May 25, 2017 22:08:34 GMT
that works until I hit you with multiple independent warhead missiles (missiles with launchers for more missiles) they're missiles so the first wave is moving 10-12km/s, in a worst case of but 8km/s it would take two minutes and five seconds, given that I can have dozens of missiles in-bound in a wave, and the missiles are heavily armoured to survive ~Gw lasers I can sneak a warhead in every now and then, and one hit reduces you're laser network allowing more warheads in 2 minutes of survival against a single laser is about 12 cm of rubber, according to the spreadsheet by David367th . High velocity flak is more or less impossible to reasonably armor a missile against. Armor is expensive. No defense is perfect, of course. Losing some drones is expected. The cost-effectiveness of different doctrines remains to be seen (hopefully forum tournaments will help with that).
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 25, 2017 22:14:30 GMT
that works until I hit you with multiple independent warhead missiles (missiles with launchers for more missiles) they're missiles so the first wave is moving 10-12km/s, in a worst case of but 8km/s it would take two minutes and five seconds, given that I can have dozens of missiles in-bound in a wave, and the missiles are heavily armoured to survive ~Gw lasers I can sneak a warhead in every now and then, and one hit reduces you're laser network allowing more warheads in 2 minutes of survival against a single laser is about 12 cm of rubber, according to the spreadsheet by David367th . High velocity flak is more or less impossible to reasonably armor a missile against. Armor is expensive. No defense is perfect, of course. Losing some drones is expected. The cost-effectiveness of different doctrines remains to be seen (hopefully forum tournaments will help with that). I don't use rubber, I have diamond coated boron or diamond coated amorphous carbon backed by aramid fiber with about a CM and a half of each (the diamond is 0.5mm thick), and If I lose a few then one or two will leak through and kill some of you're drones meaning the next wave will have more leakers
|
|
|
Post by David367th on May 26, 2017 1:31:46 GMT
I don't use rubber, I have diamond coated boron or diamond coated amorphous carbon backed by aramid fiber with about a CM and a half of each (the diamond is 0.5mm thick), and If I lose a few then one or two will leak through and kill some of you're drones meaning the next wave will have more leakers Gib specifications so I may conduct science.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2017 3:18:56 GMT
I don't use rubber, I have diamond coated boron or diamond coated amorphous carbon backed by aramid fiber with about a CM and a half of each (the diamond is 0.5mm thick), and If I lose a few then one or two will leak through and kill some of you're drones meaning the next wave will have more leakers Gib specifications so I may conduct science. Here it is: Attachments:AShM-001.txt (2.8 KB)
|
|
|
Post by David367th on May 26, 2017 4:46:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2017 11:02:03 GMT
How bout EndingArmour™? one last question, was the armour sloped when you tested it?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on May 26, 2017 14:07:00 GMT
How bout EndingArmour™? one last question, was the armour sloped when you tested it? Nope its flat
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2017 15:29:38 GMT
How bout EndingArmour™? one last question, was the armour sloped when you tested it? Nope its flat that will reduce effectiveness, a lot, thinking about switching the A-carbon to Boron, or maybe layered TaHfC and Diamond 0.5mm layers
|
|
|
Post by David367th on May 26, 2017 15:37:00 GMT
that will reduce effectiveness, a lot, thinking about switching the A-carbon to Boron, or maybe layered TaHfC and Diamond 0.5mm layers Specifically every material is flat to get a good comparison of everything else. I have been thinking to do 30 45 and 60 degree tests at some point for most materials.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 26, 2017 15:42:48 GMT
that will reduce effectiveness, a lot, thinking about switching the A-carbon to Boron, or maybe layered TaHfC and Diamond 0.5mm layers Specifically every material is flat to get a good comparison of everything else. I have been thinking to do 30 45 and 60 degree tests at some point for most materials. yeah I know
|
|
|
Post by cyborgleopard on Jun 7, 2017 4:49:00 GMT
Note [ID] Means the ship is in development or is simply a concept that may or may not prove combat viable.
1. What is the composition of your fleet? Please list all classes/roles of spacecrafts of your preferred fleet. -SI Cruiser: Primary Combat Ship. Heavy broadside Railguns, heavy armor, made to strafe the enemy. Can function as point defense, but made for long-range capship engagement. -SI Carrier: Secondary Combat Ship. Carries compliments of several class of drones. -SI Siloship: Secondary Combat Ship. Carries compliments of two class of missile. Missiles are due for upgrades or redesigns. Missiles kept separate of other ships due to explosion hazard of missiles. -SI Tanker: Non-Combat Ship. Carries extra butane. (Duh)
In development/considered projects.
-SI Beamship: [ID] Primary Combat Ship. Broadsiding point defense escort ship designed to eliminate incoming enemy missiles and drones via lasers. -SI Destroyer: [ID] Primary Combat Ship. Larger variant of the cruiser; will have a new more powerful class of railguns, more redundancy, possibly thicker armor. May also come equipped with lasers and a small compliment of Microdrones. -SI Supercarrier: [ID] Secondary Combat Ship. Larger variant of carrier to offer all types of drones, and thousands of microdrones, and sub capital drones. -SI Patrol Ship [ID] HIgh DV ship for reaching difficult targets, lightly armed and armored; may be exempt from butane NTR doctorine; Hydrogen NTR or MPD propulsion will likely be used. Primary design goal of 20+km/sec dv.
2. What are the propellants consumed by your fleet?
-All current capships utilize butane NTRs. I find it has a preferable balance of exaust velocity and density along the spectrum of hydrocarbons, and do not like the extensive amount of power and radiators required, and slow acceleration of MPDs. NTRs make it viable for ships to maneuver in combat. -Drones and missiles cannot be refueled and may make use of whatever propellant or propulsion system bet suits their role.
3. What are your fleet primary/secondary weapon types, their ammunition types, and their ammo consumption?
-Various class of railgun are the main armement of capital ships. These railguns generally fire 2.5g slugs (I sometimes find 1g slugs sometimes have trouble with some armor configurations, but still prefer high velocity and fire rate over more massy projectiles.) -Most ships are also armed with 80mm conventional cannon turrets. -Drone combat is emphasized. -[ID] classes of flak and nuclear based coilguns.
4. What are your doctrine in ship design? For example: multiple small ships or few large ships, narrow angled frontal engagement ships or broadsiders, micro drones or capital drones, ETC.
-Primary Combat Ships are ships that are designed to be used in tactically aggressive moves and engage directly with the enemy. These ships are broadsiders that can move sideways to avoid enemy fire. (All weapons mounted to one side, all radiators on the reverse, with some staggering.) -Secondary Combat Ships are ships that are not designed to engage the enemy directly but are likely to see combat and can be effectively defended with weapons and armor. These ships are armed traditionally with radiators and guns on all sides. -Ships come in a wide range of masses and price points. Large ships always come with redundancy, utilizing multiple crew cabins, reactors and propellant tanks scattered throughout the hull. Whatever is most efficient for the design goal of the ship. -All ships should possess at least two engines to ensure rollabout capability. -All ships should posesss at least 2/5th of a gee of acceleration fully loaded to ensure orbital maneuvers can be completed in a timely manner and some evasion is possible in combat. -Drone combat has proven effective, and distances crewmembers from combat. Many variations of drone are used. Some are microdrones designed to swarm in waves and defeat enemies through attrition. Others are designed for interception of enemy drones/missiles. Heavily armored high power sub-capital drones and staged drones have been considered but not yet developed.
5. Any other special logistic demand.
-All Capships must have at minimum 5km/sec of DV when fully loaded. (Because I'm bad at orbital stuff) -All Drones must have at minimum 4km/sec of DV when fully loaded. -All Missiles must have at minimum 4km/sec of DV. (This doctrine was not recognized when the first generation of missiles were developed.) -All turrets are extruded and armored with Amorphus Carbon, at least 10cm of capships to ensure survivability against lasers and kinetic attacks. -[ID] Armor standardization for Primary and Secondary combat ships has been considered. -Most modules are designed with a 6m or 9m form factor in mind.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 7, 2017 6:20:27 GMT
... -SI Destroyer: [ID] Primary Combat Ship. Larger variant of the cruiser; will have a new more powerful class of railguns, more redundancy, possibly thicker armor. May also come equipped with lasers and a small compliment of Microdrones. ... Minor nitpick: traditionally, cruisers are larger than destroyers. Destroyers are versatile all-around performers at an acceptable cost, the workhorse of a navy. They were originally developed to protect capital ships from torpedo boats, but grew through the ages as their role become more cruiser-like (fleet escort and scouting). Cruisers were larger ships used for scouting, supporting other capital ships and for neutralizing destroyers. They are (generally speaking) larger and less versatile. While destroyers (both now and during WW2) often serve anti-sub, anti-air and anti-surface roles, cruisers are almost exclusively used for anti-air and anti-surface. If you're looking for something bigger than a cruiser, you're probably meaning a heavy cruiser (if greater in size, armour and firepower, but still less than a battleship's firepower and armour) or a battlecruiser (also known as a 'pocket battleship', they are cruiser sized and have typical cruiser speeds and armour, but battleship-grade cannons). If you mean a versatile ship smaller than a destroyer, you probably mean frigate or corvette (which are even smaller than frigates and only barely larger than torpedo-, gun- and missile-boats). Not that navies always keep themselves to these rules. The USSR had a class of cruisers they called destroyers because "cruisers are too bourgeois". And the US Navy has the Zumwalt class 'destroyer', which is a cruiser in function (anti-air and anti-surface, but no anti-sub) and size (larger than a Ticonderoga class cruiser).
|
|
|
Post by cyborgleopard on Jun 7, 2017 12:19:48 GMT
*Quietly flips cruiser and destroyer naming scheme while the commanding officers are at lunch*
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 7, 2017 12:20:53 GMT
*Quietly flips cruiser and destroyer naming scheme and the commanding officers are at lunch* that has less confusion
|
|