|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 5:32:24 GMT
I think that the DRONE will be the best weapon in the game. think about it. You can launch a load of 100 incredinukes with 1 gigaton warheads and 30 centimeters of steel armour, and all it takes to destroy them all is a fleet of 100 individual 30 credit micro-drones. sure, lasers can destroy them easily, but if each one has a small gun on it, and you launched 1000 of them and had them all start firing from the beginning, there would be a lot of bullets in the air before the laser could kill them all.
But, outside of the in game limitations, I believe that casaba howitzer armed missiles that are smart enough not to go after a few drones would be the new OP thing. either that or relitavistic railguns as their ranges would be much longer than what is allowed in game
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 5:34:14 GMT
I think that the DRONE will be the best weapon in the game. think about it. You can launch a load of 100 incredinukes with 1 gigaton warheads and 30 centimeters of steel armour, and all it takes to destroy them all is a fleet of 100 individual 30 credit micro-drones. sure, lasers can destroy them easily, but if each one has a small gun on it, and you launched 1000 of them and had them all start firing from the beginning, there would be a lot of bullets in the air before the laser could kill them all. But, outside of the in game limitations, I believe that casaba howitzer armed missiles that are smart enough not to go after a few drones would be the new OP thing. either that or relitavistic railguns as their ranges would be much longer than what is allowed in game Relativistic railguns? Have fun with your multi AU barrel.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Oct 29, 2017 6:15:20 GMT
... And of all those, the missile swarm seems the most versatile and implementable enmasse. This will, of course, change with time and new technology, but that thereof becomes a question of mathematics clashing with the theoretical. Missiles in general are versatile. A missile isn't. You won't use the same missile for PDW, anti-ship and anti-surface. And what about policing orbit and debris field clearing? I'd argue lasers are more versatile: lasers can blind or cripple without shredding making them much more effective for policing (scalability of force, use only as much force as you need, exactly where you need it). They're also completely superior for orbital debris clearing. A FEL can vary it's wavelength by at most a factor of ten, so from 466-ish blue laser suited for atmospheric penetration to 47-ish for vacuum use. If that's insufficient, you could carry an even shorter wavelength FEL for vacuum operations, and a 200-2000 nm wavelength for anti-atmospheric operations. Your reentry capable missiles would need heavy heat shields, making them sub-optimal against targets not surrounded by an atmosphere. The main gap in capability of lasers is bunkerbusting and capability against underwater threats. These niches are excellently filled by missiles. Lasers are IMO the ultimate space weapon, not necessarily because they're more powerful than other weapon systems, but because they're versatile tools that can be scaled down to a laser pointer or up to a Nicoll Dyson beam, which is the both horrifying death rays and the easiest and most effective way of launching RKKV's.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 6:34:11 GMT
... And of all those, the missile swarm seems the most versatile and implementable enmasse. This will, of course, change with time and new technology, but that thereof becomes a question of mathematics clashing with the theoretical. Missiles in general are versatile. A missile isn't. You won't use the same missile for PDW, anti-ship and anti-surface. And what about policing orbit and debris field clearing? I'd argue lasers are more versatile: lasers can blind or cripple without shredding making them much more effective for policing (scalability of force, use only as much force as you need, exactly where you need it). They're also completely superior for orbital debris clearing. A FEL can vary it's wavelength by at most a factor of ten, so from 466-ish blue laser suited for atmospheric penetration to 47-ish for vacuum use. If that's insufficient, you could carry an even shorter wavelength FEL for vacuum operations, and a 200-2000 nm wavelength for anti-atmospheric operations. Your reentry capable missiles would need heavy heat shields, making them sub-optimal against targets not surrounded by an atmosphere. The main gap in capability of lasers is bunkerbusting and capability against underwater threats. These niches are excellently filled by missiles. Lasers are IMO the ultimate space weapon, not necessarily because they're more powerful than other weapon systems, but because they're versatile tools that can be scaled down to a laser pointer or up to a Nicoll Dyson beam, which is the both horrifying death rays and the easiest and most effective way of launching RKKV's. honestly, the best space weapon is a ship with the best of all of them to counter all threats and not just have one system to beat all, as there is always a way to counter one type of weapon system> "SIT THEY ARE LAUNCHING NUKES COVERED IN A METER OF GRAPHITE AEROGEL AND OUR LASERS WONT KILL IT IN TIME" "thats why we have railguns, you dumbass!!!" "SIR, their nukes now have advanced anti railgun armour!" "Well launch some flak missiles at it then" ... "SIR, THEY HAVE LAUNCHED A SWARM OF 500 NUKES WITH 10 METERS OF VANADIUM CHROMIUM STEEL ARMOUR ON EACH ONE! WHAT DO WE DO???" "uuh... launch the 100 dollar drone I have sitting in the back and hope they all swarm towards it because they forgot to make it not target drones..." "sir... how the fuck did that work" "I honestly don't know... Russian bias?'
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:34:29 GMT
... And of all those, the missile swarm seems the most versatile and implementable enmasse. This will, of course, change with time and new technology, but that thereof becomes a question of mathematics clashing with the theoretical. Missiles in general are versatile. A missile isn't. You won't use the same missile for PDW, anti-ship and anti-surface. And what about policing orbit and debris field clearing? I'd argue lasers are more versatile: lasers can blind or cripple without shredding making them much more effective for policing (scalability of force, use only as much force as you need, exactly where you need it). They're also completely superior for orbital debris clearing. A FEL can vary it's wavelength by at most a factor of ten, so from 466-ish blue laser suited for atmospheric penetration to 47-ish for vacuum use. If that's insufficient, you could carry an even shorter wavelength FEL for vacuum operations, and a 200-2000 nm wavelength for anti-atmospheric operations. Your reentry capable missiles would need heavy heat shields, making them sub-optimal against targets not surrounded by an atmosphere. The main gap in capability of lasers is bunkerbusting and capability against underwater threats. These niches are excellently filled by missiles. Lasers are IMO the ultimate space weapon, not necessarily because they're more powerful than other weapon systems, but because they're versatile tools that can be scaled down to a laser pointer or up to a Nicoll Dyson beam, which is the both horrifying death rays and the easiest and most effective way of launching RKKV's. The Nicoll-Dyson isn't the Nicoll-Dyson beam a dyson swarm phased array? You'd need kilometer wavelenght for those. Or can it be an normal visible-uv laser network that focuses all their might on a earth sized fresnel lens?
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 6:35:59 GMT
I think that the DRONE will be the best weapon in the game. think about it. You can launch a load of 100 incredinukes with 1 gigaton warheads and 30 centimeters of steel armour, and all it takes to destroy them all is a fleet of 100 individual 30 credit micro-drones. sure, lasers can destroy them easily, but if each one has a small gun on it, and you launched 1000 of them and had them all start firing from the beginning, there would be a lot of bullets in the air before the laser could kill them all. But, outside of the in game limitations, I believe that casaba howitzer armed missiles that are smart enough not to go after a few drones would be the new OP thing. either that or relitavistic railguns as their ranges would be much longer than what is allowed in game Relativistic railguns? Have fun with your multi AU barrel. what? I think I saw one break the light barrier using a 12 AMU projectile... (aka it fired carbon nuclei)
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 6:38:12 GMT
... And of all those, the missile swarm seems the most versatile and implementable enmasse. This will, of course, change with time and new technology, but that thereof becomes a question of mathematics clashing with the theoretical. Missiles in general are versatile. A missile isn't. You won't use the same missile for PDW, anti-ship and anti-surface. And what about policing orbit and debris field clearing? I'd argue lasers are more versatile: lasers can blind or cripple without shredding making them much more effective for policing (scalability of force, use only as much force as you need, exactly where you need it). They're also completely superior for orbital debris clearing. A FEL can vary it's wavelength by at most a factor of ten, so from 466-ish blue laser suited for atmospheric penetration to 47-ish for vacuum use. If that's insufficient, you could carry an even shorter wavelength FEL for vacuum operations, and a 200-2000 nm wavelength for anti-atmospheric operations. Your reentry capable missiles would need heavy heat shields, making them sub-optimal against targets not surrounded by an atmosphere. The main gap in capability of lasers is bunkerbusting and capability against underwater threats. These niches are excellently filled by missiles. Lasers are IMO the ultimate space weapon, not necessarily because they're more powerful than other weapon systems, but because they're versatile tools that can be scaled down to a laser pointer or up to a Nicoll Dyson beam, which is the both horrifying death rays and the easiest and most effective way of launching RKKV's. idk... I wouldn't be surprised if the main character decided to use a 10 megaton nuke to kill a Somali pirate ship...
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:39:08 GMT
Relativistic railguns? Have fun with your multi AU barrel. what? I think I saw one break the light barrier using a 12 AMU projectile... (aka it fired carbon nuclei) Thats called a particle accelerator, and they are begging for an excuse not to spread at dozens of kilometers per second, sorry I meant megameter.
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 6:39:47 GMT
what? I think I saw one break the light barrier using a 12 AMU projectile... (aka it fired carbon nuclei) Thats called a particle accelerator, and they are begging for an excuse not to spread at dozens of kilometers per second, sorry I meant megameter. spread?
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:40:45 GMT
Thats called a particle accelerator, and they are begging for an excuse not to spread at dozens of kilometers per second, sorry I meant megameter. spread? Electrostatic and thermal blooming
|
|
|
Post by 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖒𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖈𝖑𝖊 on Oct 29, 2017 6:42:37 GMT
Electrostatic and thermal blooming ahhh Well, if its powerful enough to get carbon atoms up to near C, I'm sure they can have an electron neutralizing device at the end of the barrel to make the beam a neutral particle beam.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:49:54 GMT
Great! That's some blog post quality stuff! How well does this work against tandem/spearhead missile formations? What if there are breacher submunition used? Small Nukes/Guided heavy fragments. How can it be avoided that missiles hide behind the shields shadow? What if the nails have impact driven seperation charges? Also 12km/s is pretty good in CDE and near future standards, but my thinking was in terms of MicroAIM's. Few hundred km/s delta-v, and in quantities of a thiusand. Thanks. The staged fragmentation warhead is technically a tandem warhead, but sub-optimal. You could improve your penetration efficiency through multiple whipple shields by dividing the projectiles into stacks of thin disks that precede the main projectile. Each disk blows a hole through the whipple shield large enough to let the rest of the stack through. Instead of multiplying the fragmentation warhead's mass by each Whipple shield layer, you only increase it by a small fraction. However, the enemy can defeat this tactics by using paper-thin layers of Whipple shield on the outside, and thick anti-main-projectile layers on the inside. Of course, these thinner layers become very vulnerable to laser strikes preceding the missile wave... and so on. I'm not sure what you mean by 'spearhead missile formations'. A directed explosive charge preceding a bunch of missiles is a very effective tactic. It would create a large hole through multiple whipple shields by using explosive force to push each layer down and on top of each other. The problem comes from the poor coupling between the explosive charge and the first Whipple shield layer - there is no air to transmit the explosive force, so it can only rely on the momentum transfer of high velocity gasses. These are more likely to bounce off then push the Whipple shield efficiently. Impact driven separation charges aren't terribly reliable when the impact has enough energy to vaporize all of the missile's components. At a few hundred km/s, there's an interesting tactic for defeating incoming kinetic projectiles. A thin plasma can be held a few dozen meters away from the target spaceship. This plasma is enough to vaporize incoming projectiles and then ionize the gasses. These ionized gasses are strongly affected by magnetic fields - they can be deflected. Here's an example: 300km/s incoming projectile, made of iron and massing 10kg. It can be a cylinder 10cm wide and 18cm long. At one atmospheric pressure, a room-temperature plasma will contain 1.2kg/m^3. The projectile traversing this plasma would encounter 9.42 grams of plasma per meter depth. This releases 423.9MJ of energy. Since the projectile crosses this meter in about 3.3 microseconds, it is safe to say that it absorbs all of this energy before dispersing. 423.9MJ of energy is enough to vaporize the iron projectile (-78MJ) and then heat up the rest to (very roughly) 67000K. There's about 1.07e26 atoms in that projectile. They gain an energy of 24.5eV. That's enough to ionize iron twice over and then some. I don't know the magnetic field equations nor can I quickly determine the answer to 'what magnetic field strength is needed to contain a plasma of temperature A of conductivity B and composition C to a pressure D at a distance E?' nor can I determine 'how is a particle of mass F with a charge G travelling at a velocity H at angle I to a magnetic field of strength J for a distance K displaced by a distance L and a final lateral velocity M?'. Doesn't that assume that the energy is instantly coupled into the entire projectile? Isn't it more likely that only the front will ablated? And that it's plasma shields it from further plasma collision. I mean you get a high density region of iron plasma which should deflect the plasma shield by the electrostatic repulsion.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 6:53:30 GMT
Electrostatic and thermal blooming ahhh Well, if its powerful enough to get carbon atoms up to near C, I'm sure they can have an electron neutralizing device at the end of the barrel to make the beam a neutral particle beam. Imagine something, If you have 12kg projectile moving at 0.99c, how well will it react if an 1g objects collides with it? Proton electron collision will cause your beam to atleast spread out at a few kilometers per second.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Oct 29, 2017 8:25:33 GMT
[honestly, the best space weapon is a ship with the best of all of them to counter all threats and not just have one system to beat all, as there is always a way to counter one type of weapon system> "SIT THEY ARE LAUNCHING NUKES COVERED IN A METER OF GRAPHITE AEROGEL AND OUR LASERS WONT KILL IT IN TIME" "thats why we have railguns, you dumbass!!!" "SIR, their nukes now have advanced anti railgun armour!" "Well launch some flak missiles at it then" ... "SIR, THEY HAVE LAUNCHED A SWARM OF 500 NUKES WITH 10 METERS OF VANADIUM CHROMIUM STEEL ARMOUR ON EACH ONE! WHAT DO WE DO???" "uuh... launch the 100 dollar drone I have sitting in the back and hope they all swarm towards it because they forgot to make it not target drones..." "sir... how the fuck did that work" "I honestly don't know... Russian bias?' 1) Different weapons do different things well. In my previous post I identified where lasers excel (everything except bunker busting and submarine hunting) and where they're found lacking. 2) Graphite aerogel wasn't that effective AFAIK. And ingame anti-laser armour heavily leans on maximum ablation speed, which isn't credible. According to the game, rubber laser armour would last equally long against 75 MW/m² and 75 GW/m², which is ridiculous. I'm aware laser ablation doesn't scale linear with power (I made several posts about it), but pumping orders of magnitude more energy into a target should result in at least slightly faster ablation. 3) Lasers are really effective against a wide variety of targets, and if your facing bunkers on an airless world, then you can smash your laser drones into them at a high velocity. A few tons at a dozen km/s will crack most bunkers. This would relegate missiles to an anti-submarine role.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Oct 29, 2017 9:59:58 GMT
Glad to see my thread led to a such high quality conversation Just one question: how heavy will these pellet gun are? Either the 12 km/s or 300km/s one. For my micro missile horde is still my favorite, followed by laser. I got u fam. Let's take matterbeams advanced 0.01c pellet gun. The projectiles are 2mm wide so let's assume a 3mm wide inner barrel. 20 Coils per meter for an 90m barrel. The needed thickness of the coil reproduce 25T at the center is 0.12cm. But we want an 25T average throughout the barrel. Using 1cm wires should be enough. Each coil weighs at around 32.5g. We need 58.5kg of BSCCO, plus an 1cm wide barrel made out of CNT weighting 40kg. The problems arrise with cooling system. At 99% (Very optimistic) efficiency and 1GW input we get 10NW waste heat. The heat pumps, radiators etc. Would most likely have an performance of 1kW/kg. Which means that this system needs roughly 10.1t of equipment. If you go with a more realistic efficiency you get 50t.
|
|