|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 12:22:21 GMT
Simple question: how effective can a flak CIWS (Especially against micro missiles with >10 cm diameter) be?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Apr 13, 2017 12:47:11 GMT
I messed around with this a few patches ago. It might be easier now that we can set timers on warheads, but back then the trick was getting your flak to detonate early enough to hit the incoming projectile but far enough away to not cut your own ship in half.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 12:48:49 GMT
I messed around with this a few patches ago. It might be easier now that we can set timers on warheads, but back then the trick was getting your flak to detonate early enough to hit the incoming projectile but far enough away to not cut your own ship in half. Yeah in the past we need flare to make a time bomb~ So, do flak CIWS effective at intercept missile?
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Apr 13, 2017 12:54:02 GMT
I messed around with this a few patches ago. It might be easier now that we can set timers on warheads, but back then the trick was getting your flak to detonate early enough to hit the incoming projectile but far enough away to not cut your own ship in half. Yeah in the past we need flak to make a time bomb~ So, do flak CISW effective at intercept missile? I never found it to be worth keeping. Again there may be a more workable solution post-patch, but I find interceptor missiles with sub-kilotons warheads to be far more effective. With the weight of the cannon (and it would need to be a conventional cannon) plus the ammo, plus the power draw needed to aim the cannon, you're better off either dodging or using missiles and using your cannon for an offensive shell.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Apr 13, 2017 13:00:25 GMT
samchiu2000 CIWS, I tried pre-patch but failed completly
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 13:19:25 GMT
Oh it seen that flak CIWS is not as effective as i thought...
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Apr 13, 2017 13:28:25 GMT
CIWS Close In Weapons System, It's CIWS not CISW
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 13:32:27 GMT
CIWS Close In Weapons System, It's CIWS not CISWAlright... I always get those pseudonym wrong...
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 13:49:54 GMT
It does decently against standard missiles. At really too close for comfort range though. I use 1g 14.8km/s microflak railguns as secondary defense weapon after laser (Because counter lasers keep burning my lasers.).
Had just pit my drone with 3 microflak railguns against a missile schooner with other weapon except microflak disabled. It shot down waves of 20 missiles starting from 20km and 200m/s easily. And the drone annihilate the missile schooner in direct confrontation, even with most of its weapon deactivated.
Edit: Add flak spec: the flak is 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel: 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:22:12 GMT
Another test: Attachment DeletedDefending against 20 striker nuclear missiles starting from 100km at 1.15 km/s velocity using 3 turrets of 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel are 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium. Attachment DeletedShot down 18, got hit by 2. The drone is still fully functional and proceeds to intercept and destroy enemy missile schooner.
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Apr 13, 2017 14:35:15 GMT
Another test: View AttachmentDefending against 20 striker nuclear missiles starting from 100km at 1.15 km/s velocity using 3 turrets of 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel are 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium. View AttachmentShot down 18, got hit by 2. The drone is still fully functional and proceeds to intercept and destroy enemy missile schooner. Nice, but I would still consider 2/20 hits to be a mission-fail for the defending ship. Those missiles *could* have managed a mobility-kill or could have destroyed a crew module on a manned ship. For the mass and cost of those flak launchers a single (or five if you don't like cheese) Interceptor Missile would likely have better results. I still love the idea though and would like to see it work. Battlestar Galactica-style flak shields...a man can dream. (I did have a design way back that used around a dozen micro-missile launchers with *very* short range payloads. Called it Explosive Reactive Armor. It was heavy, expensive, and not very effective)
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 14:39:55 GMT
Another test: Defending against 20 striker nuclear missiles starting from 100km at 1.15 km/s velocity using 3 turrets of 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel are 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium. Shot down 18, got hit by 2. The drone is still fully functional and proceeds to intercept and destroy enemy missile schooner. Not bad~ But how cheap/expensive the drones are?~
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:43:47 GMT
Nice, but I would still consider 2/20 hits to be a mission-fail for the defending ship. Those missiles *could* have managed a mobility-kill or could have destroyed a crew module on a manned ship. For the mass and cost of those flak launchers a single (or five if you don't like cheese) Interceptor Missile would likely have better results. I still love the idea though and would like to see it work. Battlestar Galactica-style flak shields...a man can dream. (I did have a design way back that used around a dozen micro-missile launchers with *very* short range payloads. Called it Explosive Reactive Armor. It was heavy, expensive, and not very effective) The problem wasn't that it cannot effectively shoot down missiles. It does shot them down very effectively with a few shots for each missile. The problem was the targeting algorithm. All three defense guns aims at the same target and shoot until the missile is destroyed before switching target. The time lost from waiting the bullet to reach missiles is a lot.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:45:25 GMT
Not bad~ But how cheap/expensive the drones are?~ 1.73 Mc 104t wet, 63.5t dry. That being said, two-third of its weapons were deactivated for testing purpose though.
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Apr 13, 2017 14:47:40 GMT
Not bad~ But how cheap/expensive the drones are?~ 1.73 Mc 104t wet, 63.5t dry. That being said, two-third of its weapons were deactivated for testing purpose though. Not too bad. And the performance on intercepting missiles is impressive for a 2MW railgun!!
|
|