|
Post by Dhan on Jun 5, 2017 5:19:59 GMT
To get a costeffective interceptor, can you just take an existing missile design and remove the warhead to 1up it on cheapness, delta-v and acceleration? It would only work as a KKV in that configuration. And that limits it to taking out a single missile, requiring a 1 to 1 trade in a best case scenario (highly unlikely). Unless we are talking about cheesing the AI by intercepting a wave of missiles with a single crappy missile in order to have the entire wave waste their fuel trying to kill the single missile.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jun 5, 2017 5:39:41 GMT
To get a costeffective interceptor, can you just take an existing missile design and remove the warhead to 1up it on cheapness, delta-v and acceleration? It would only work as a KKV in that configuration. And that limits it to taking out a single missile, requiring a 1 to 1 trade in a best case scenario (highly unlikely). Unless we are talking about cheesing the AI by intercepting a wave of missiles with a single crappy missile in order to have the entire wave waste their fuel trying to kill the single missile. Wouldn't it be possible to scatter a formation wide enough for nearby missiles to escape the blast radius? Which effectively turns it into a 1-to-1 trade anyway? Also ignoring simulation limitations. At which point we get to escorting nuke missiles with laser drones... Or putting lasers on a nuke missile.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 5, 2017 20:58:57 GMT
It would only work as a KKV in that configuration. And that limits it to taking out a single missile, requiring a 1 to 1 trade in a best case scenario (highly unlikely). Which should be fine; all other things being equal, a stripped down version of a missile can theoretically always catch and therefore mission-kill the base model from which it is derived, for less than what the original cost. The trade isn't really 1:1, more like a 3:2 ratio minimum in terms of cost & mass expended, favouring the lighter & cheaper interceptor missile. As long as an interceptor has at least the same delta-v and manoeuvrability as its target (technically a little more to account for reaction time), it is a threat that the target must attempt to evade or be destroyed, wasting at least its own terminal phase propellant which is very likely to render it unable to penetrate final defence layers. At its most rudimentary (but versatile) you could build antiship missiles with a removable payload module so they can be modified in-situ for interception duty, while unused payloads are saved or fed into the carrier's own point defence weapons compatible with the same payload. By contrast, a dedicated kinetic interceptor could be vastly lighter and cheaper than any antiship missile it's designed to kill, to the extent that 2+ could be spent per target missile, since the interceptors will always be lighter/cheaper as they are not required to penetrate capital-level point defences at medium-short range. This seems to suggest that anticapital missiles are ultimately useless without even invoking laser arguments, simply thanks to other missiles. Interceptors would still need to carried though; they end up being like military gas masks, issued not because gas is an actual battlefield threat, but because if soldiers stopped receiving that protection then gas would immediately become a threat again. I fully expect that there may be something wrong with my line of thinking that I haven't considered, so fire away. Yesterday I designed a missile escort drone designed to counter countermissiles, but I haven't tested it yet.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jun 5, 2017 22:23:42 GMT
This seems to suggest that anticapital missiles are ultimately useless without even invoking laser arguments, simply thanks to other missiles. Interceptors would still need to carried though; they end up being like military gas masks, issued not because gas is an actual battlefield threat, but because if soldiers stopped receiving that protection then gas would immediately become a threat again. The interceptor argument might be continued down to railgun bullets. They are effectively missiles with 0 dV and the lowest cost possible, while still forcing an enemy missile to spend dV to dodge or be destroyed (with dV requirement increasing as the enemy missile nears). Trading ratios can freely surpass 100 to 1 and still be cost-effective (as long as the gun platform remains intact, but that also applies to missile launcher platforms). So in the end railgun PD could be carried, instead of interceptor missiles.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 5, 2017 22:26:57 GMT
This seems to suggest that anticapital missiles are ultimately useless without even invoking laser arguments, simply thanks to other missiles. Interceptors would still need to carried though; they end up being like military gas masks, issued not because gas is an actual battlefield threat, but because if soldiers stopped receiving that protection then gas would immediately become a threat again. The interceptor argument might be continued down to railgun bullets. They are effectively missiles with 0 dV and the lowest cost possible, while still forcing an enemy missile to spend dV to dodge or be destroyed (with dV requirement increasing as the enemy missile nears). Trading ratios can freely surpass 100 to 1 and still be cost-effective (as long as the gun platform remains intact, but that also applies to missile launcher platforms). So in the end railgun PD could be carried, instead of interceptor missiles. the problem with that is when an Excaliber warhead blows its top 100km away and you're ship has a new air-hole
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 5, 2017 23:04:27 GMT
The interceptor argument might be continued down to railgun bullets. They are effectively missiles with 0 dV and the lowest cost possible, while still forcing an enemy missile to spend dV to dodge or be destroyed (with dV requirement increasing as the enemy missile nears). Trading ratios can freely surpass 100 to 1 and still be cost-effective (as long as the gun platform remains intact, but that also applies to missile launcher platforms). So in the end railgun PD could be carried, instead of interceptor missiles. the problem with that is when an Excaliber warhead blows its top 100km away and you're ship has a new air-hole Why is 100 km the range here? sub-gram railguns can easily reach 1 Mm ranges for 1m^2 targets.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jun 6, 2017 5:02:01 GMT
Hit probability seems to be an issue for antimissile defenses and make 1:1 exchanges improbable.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 6, 2017 11:09:35 GMT
the problem with that is when an Excaliber warhead blows its top 100km away and you're ship has a new air-hole Why is 100 km the range here? sub-gram railguns can easily reach 1 Mm ranges for 1m^2 targets. can a sub gram round go through a wipple shield? or a CM or two of boron with P-aramid backing?
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jun 6, 2017 12:53:03 GMT
can a sub gram round go through a wipple shield? or a CM or two of boron with P-aramid backing? In-game? Yes, using sub-gram flak with a 1 gram armature.
|
|
|
Post by randommechanicumguy on Jun 6, 2017 17:06:00 GMT
oh god the subgram railguns have infested this thread, where will they strike next
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Jun 6, 2017 18:05:32 GMT
It would only work as a KKV in that configuration. And that limits it to taking out a single missile, requiring a 1 to 1 trade in a best case scenario (highly unlikely). Which should be fine; all other things being equal, a stripped down version of a missile can theoretically always catch and therefore mission-kill the base model from which it is derived, for less than what the original cost. The trade isn't really 1:1, more like a 3:2 ratio minimum in terms of cost & mass expended, favouring the lighter & cheaper interceptor missile. As long as an interceptor has at least the same delta-v and manoeuvrability as its target (technically a little more to account for reaction time), it is a threat that the target must attempt to evade or be destroyed, wasting at least its own terminal phase propellant which is very likely to render it unable to penetrate final defence layers. At its most rudimentary (but versatile) you could build antiship missiles with a removable payload module so they can be modified in-situ for interception duty, while unused payloads are saved or fed into the carrier's own point defence weapons compatible with the same payload. By contrast, a dedicated kinetic interceptor could be vastly lighter and cheaper than any antiship missile it's designed to kill, to the extent that 2+ could be spent per target missile, since the interceptors will always be lighter/cheaper as they are not required to penetrate capital-level point defences at medium-short range. This seems to suggest that anticapital missiles are ultimately useless without even invoking laser arguments, simply thanks to other missiles. Interceptors would still need to carried though; they end up being like military gas masks, issued not because gas is an actual battlefield threat, but because if soldiers stopped receiving that protection then gas would immediately become a threat again. I fully expect that there may be something wrong with my line of thinking that I haven't considered, so fire away. Yesterday I designed a missile escort drone designed to counter countermissiles, but I haven't tested it yet. Most of my missile cost and mass is propellant and the engine and some armor. Actual explosive payload is a very low %. Only heavy nukes have a significant % of mass dedicated to the payload.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 6, 2017 22:22:19 GMT
Why is 100 km the range here? sub-gram railguns can easily reach 1 Mm ranges for 1m^2 targets. can a sub gram round go through a wipple shield? or a CM or two of boron with P-aramid backing? Depends. You can fire 1.66 μg projectiles with 1 Kj of energy at ~6000 r/s. If one shot can't the next 300 probably can.
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Jun 15, 2017 6:55:08 GMT
So the 5 Teraton nuke interceptor. Dude, that is like 500,000x more powerful than the 10 Megatron nukes I've been able to make. Did you edit your limits.txt or did you use the wrong metric prefix? That is a hundred thousand times more powerful than the largest bomb ever built; That is not an interceptor, that is the most fearsome weapon ever designed by man. Srsly. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work Sir, my main 1.02 Kt missile costs 485c. It's shot out of a cannon at 2km/s every second (so 2km spacing). I only carry a thousand missiles on the battleship, but my missiles are also fused to go off on closest approach against everything. Your missile vs. my missile? I'll take that trade everyday. And furthermore the megameter laser on the battleship means that I can engage your interceptor at extreme range and take one or 2 pot shots for every giant "interceptor" sent my way.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Jun 15, 2017 7:45:19 GMT
So the 5 Teraton nuke interceptor. Dude, that is like 500,000x more powerful than the 10 Megatron nukes I've been able to make. Did you edit your limits.txt or did you use the wrong metric prefix? That is a hundred thousand times more powerful than the largest bomb ever built; That is not an interceptor, that is the most fearsome weapon ever designed by man. Srsly. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work Sir, my main 1.02 Kt missile costs 485c. It's shot out of a cannon at 2km/s every second (so 2km spacing). I only carry a thousand missiles on the battleship, but my missiles are also fused to go off on closest approach against everything. Your missile vs. my missile? I'll take that trade everyday. And furthermore the megameter laser on the battleship means that I can engage your interceptor at extreme range and take one or 2 pot shots for every giant "interceptor" sent my way. Did you make a typo? I don't think 1 Kt of anything is that cheap.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jun 15, 2017 8:11:14 GMT
Sir, my main 1.02 Kt missile costs 485c. Did you make a typo? I don't think 1 Kt of anything is that cheap. I'm pretty sure that is nuke yield, not mass.
|
|