|
Post by Durandal on Jul 10, 2017 2:28:06 GMT
If sensors would be modeled, lasers would be more powerful IMO. Custom sensor arrays allow for greater range (reduced wobble), and sensors can be burned out at much lower intensities (and thus, greater ranges) than the intensities required for armour ablation. Also, even with modding, our lasers are limited to about 41%, much less then current gen military lasers (60+%) or existing FEL's (65%). If anything is going to nerf lasers, it will be more detailed modeling of radiators and coolant pipes (pressure, heat gradient, mass of the coolant in the piping, structural integrity, ...). You are going to need multiple types of sensors depending on what your trying to do, regardless of the ship type if we had to. One sensor for long range identification, one for optimal range of the primary weapons, and one sensor set for finding extremely small incoming objects (eg, meteors, micromissiles, gunfire). If you have all three of these, your weapons will become increasingly powerful, if you've only got one or two (or a directional gap in sight) that opens you up to huge weaknesses. These sensors are extremely weak, or extremely pricy too. It'd be interesting to see someone try and blind the opposite ship by pointing lasers at them though. If this were the case, it would push the meta back to large arrays of counter-battery lasers. Every engagement would revolved around sniping enemy sensors to blind their weapons. How would this effect missiles? I assume each missile would need a seeker, and I'm sure we've been over this several times on this forum. I'm with the consensus that modeling sensors and communications are beyond the scope of this game. I believe qswitched addressed this on the blog with the idea of ubiquitous system-wide sensor nets that all factions could easily access.
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Jul 10, 2017 2:40:07 GMT
You are going to need multiple types of sensors depending on what your trying to do, regardless of the ship type if we had to. One sensor for long range identification, one for optimal range of the primary weapons, and one sensor set for finding extremely small incoming objects (eg, meteors, micromissiles, gunfire). If you have all three of these, your weapons will become increasingly powerful, if you've only got one or two (or a directional gap in sight) that opens you up to huge weaknesses. These sensors are extremely weak, or extremely pricy too. It'd be interesting to see someone try and blind the opposite ship by pointing lasers at them though. If this were the case, it would push the meta back to large arrays of counter-battery lasers. Every engagement would revolved around sniping enemy sensors to blind their weapons. How would this effect missiles? I assume each missile would need a seeker, and I'm sure we've been over this several times on this forum. I'm with the consensus that modeling sensors and communications are beyond the scope of this game. I believe qswitched addressed this on the blog with the idea of ubiquitous system-wide sensor nets that all factions could easily access. Just because there's reconnaissance planes like U-2 doesn't mean you don't need AWACS planes like E-2, they are equally important. Data from early warning telescopes can tell you something about where and what the enemy is but it doesn't show you the full picture. The EM spectrum is definitely within the scope of the game as much as it is within the scope of any tactical simulation - a lot!
|
|
|
Post by Durandal on Jul 10, 2017 2:52:56 GMT
If this were the case, it would push the meta back to large arrays of counter-battery lasers. Every engagement would revolved around sniping enemy sensors to blind their weapons. How would this effect missiles? I assume each missile would need a seeker, and I'm sure we've been over this several times on this forum. I'm with the consensus that modeling sensors and communications are beyond the scope of this game. I believe qswitched addressed this on the blog with the idea of ubiquitous system-wide sensor nets that all factions could easily access. Just because there's reconnaissance planes like U-2 doesn't mean you don't need AWACS planes like E-2, they are equally important. Data from early warning telescopes can tell you something about where and what the enemy is but it doesn't show you the full picture. The EM spectrum is definitely within the scope of the game as much as it is within the scope of any tactical simulation - a lot! I agree completely that the EM spectrum and the associated sensors are within the scope of a tactical simulation, I just don't think that at this time it should really be a part of this game. I don't think factoring in the whole EM spectrum within ship design was the author's intent, which is why the issue is currently abstracted away. The same thing for cyberwarfare. Allowing for cyberwar "modules" would be entirely different game in itself, therefore I think it's best if it is abstracted away.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 10, 2017 4:45:49 GMT
Cyberwarfare (which is closer to espionage; also out of the game's scope) is not comparable to having explicit sensors. Programs cannot be destroyed by laser beams and projectiles, and programs are massless.
At the ranges we are reaching with our best lasers, and especially once pulsed lasers come into play, sensors will have non-negligible mass and size (and cost).
If we were tapping into a sensor drone network for in-combat data, sensor inaccuracy wouldn't be such an issue. So we are relying on sensors that we cannot currently improve by spending more mass on them.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Jul 10, 2017 8:39:22 GMT
... I agree completely that the EM spectrum and the associated sensors are within the scope of a tactical simulation, I just don't think that at this time it should really be a part of this game. I don't think factoring in the whole EM spectrum within ship design was the author's intent, which is why the issue is currently abstracted away. ... Just implementing IR sensors, active radar and passive radar would be a good start. IR seems the most important.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 13, 2017 3:56:15 GMT
active sensors take twice as long to find targets then passive sensors, with the long range lasers we have, that is not a minor issue
|
|
|
Post by omnipotentvoid on Jul 13, 2017 8:31:14 GMT
More complex sensor simulation is a necessity. Information is such an important part of tactics, that if the current sensor systems remains in place CoaDE may become a very good simulation of the physics behind future space combat, but it will be a mere farce of actual space combat.
The idea of system wide detection/communication nets both sides can use is fantasy. Both sides of an engagement would destroy it and attempt to replace it with one only they can use. And while IR would be the go to for target acquisition, advanced targeting methods would be used to aim missiles at different points on a ship and to avoid targeting flares.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 15, 2017 0:19:27 GMT
long range missiles are going to be autonomous. lasers are going to be limited by accuracy of sensors and light lag, railguns even more so, my best railgun takes over 100x as long to hit targets then a laser
|
|
|
Post by princesskibble on Jul 15, 2017 2:34:07 GMT
long range missiles are going to be autonomous. lasers are going to be limited by accuracy of sensors and light lag, railguns even more so, my best railgun takes over 100x as long to hit targets then a laser Missiles for fighting defended opponents probably won't be all autonomous, a forward piloted acquisition and control vehicle would allow for more accurate target tracking and discrimination, and for semi active radar homing, meaning the missiles wouldn't need large forward-looking vulnerable antennas.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 15, 2017 3:22:13 GMT
long range missiles are going to be autonomous. lasers are going to be limited by accuracy of sensors and light lag, railguns even more so, my best railgun takes over 100x as long to hit targets then a laser Missiles for fighting defended opponents probably won't be all autonomous, a forward piloted acquisition and control vehicle would allow for more accurate target tracking and discrimination, and for semi active radar homing, meaning the missiles wouldn't need large forward-looking vulnerable antennas. how close is that forward AWACS craft? if it has a one to two second control loop my latest lasers can scorch it, if it has a 10 to 20 second control loop I can still scorch it, you need to be at least 35 light seconds away for an AWACS style ship to survive long range laser bursts. the missiles may be semi active or fully active with side mounted forward looking sensors and a distrubited network among all elements of the swarm, blinding one missiles makes it go semi-active and be that much harder to detect, back up sensors are shielded until needed so nukes can not blind the whole swarm in one hit. tl:dr the control ship can be lased and the swarm can be networked until its imposible to blind, the swarm is fully autonomous and given a target ship or area. which opens the door to a military ship shifting heat to heat sinks and civie/passenger ships in the area eating missiles because the military ship was running silent.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Jul 15, 2017 4:19:06 GMT
which opens the door to a military ship shifting heat to heat sinks and civie/passenger ships in the area eating missiles because the military ship was running silent. Quite doubtful. Even if they could get the ship cold enough, it would take time and have to be done in response to the ship detecting the incoming missiles, and you can only hold it for so long. The ship would then have to coast, as the second they fire up an engine, a missile could track that heat movement. Even if they do "go cold", the missile will still have already been headed where the ship was going. Also disregards the ability of a ship to paint the target with a laser, nice big thermal dot on the hull for all the missiles to track on. Missiles having active or passive radar homing capability. Missiles having antennas and being guided to target by a ship receiving sensor data from several places. Hell they can even be guided in the visible spectrum, and missiles could be trained to only go after known military ship designs, while disregarding common civilian ship designs. Also the "I could just lase the AWACS ship". I dunno, can you? Do you actually think it takes a ship being within a few light seconds of you to track you, and share this data with a missile swarm? And you trying to lase that target (or the missiles) generates a lot of heat on the outside of your ship.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 15, 2017 5:00:07 GMT
Quite doubtful. Even if they could get the ship cold enough, it would take time and have to be done in response to the ship detecting the incoming missiles, and you can only hold it for so long. The ship would then have to coast, as the second they fire up an engine, a missile could track that heat movement. Even if they do "go cold", the missile will still have already been headed where the ship was going. Also disregards the ability of a ship to paint the target with a laser, nice big thermal dot on the hull for all the missiles to track on. Missiles having active or passive radar homing capability. Missiles having antennas and being guided to target by a ship receiving sensor data from several places. Hell they can even be guided in the visible spectrum, and missiles could be trained to only go after known military ship designs, while disregarding common civilian ship designs. Hypothetical situationAlso the "I could just lase the AWACS ship". I dunno, can you? Do you actually think it takes a ship being within a few light seconds of you to track you, yes if you want the swarm to get information before it's out of date, and share this data with a missile swarm? And you trying to lase that target (or the missiles) generates a lot of heat on the outside of your ship. again, that was a hypothetical situation that most likely won't every happen
|
|
|
Post by nerd1000 on Jul 15, 2017 11:51:25 GMT
You are going to need multiple types of sensors depending on what your trying to do, regardless of the ship type if we had to. One sensor for long range identification, one for optimal range of the primary weapons, and one sensor set for finding extremely small incoming objects (eg, meteors, micromissiles, gunfire). If you have all three of these, your weapons will become increasingly powerful, if you've only got one or two (or a directional gap in sight) that opens you up to huge weaknesses. These sensors are extremely weak, or extremely pricy too. It'd be interesting to see someone try and blind the opposite ship by pointing lasers at them though. If this were the case, it would push the meta back to large arrays of counter-battery lasers. Every engagement would revolved around sniping enemy sensors to blind their weapons. How would this effect missiles? I assume each missile would need a seeker, and I'm sure we've been over this several times on this forum. I'm with the consensus that modeling sensors and communications are beyond the scope of this game. I believe qswitched addressed this on the blog with the idea of ubiquitous system-wide sensor nets that all factions could easily access. Missiles don't need a seeker over shorter ranges. They can instead use command guidance or beam-riding, both of which can be carried out using small photoreceptors or radio antennae mounted on the rear of the missile. You may need to devise some scheme that prevents rocket exhaust from messing with the sensors- the Russians' answer to this problem in modern missiles is to put the rocket nozzles near the nose, exhausting to the rear and slightly sideways. The major downside to this method of guidance is that the missile becomes less accurate as the range to target decreases, wheras homing guidance systems become more accurate as the range to target decreases. As a result, the ideal approach may be to use a hybrid setup: Command guidance until the missile is within 50km or so of the target, then the missile switches to active radar homing (radar cannot be blinded by lasers, so any laser defense must instead destroy the seeker completely by overheating it) or passive IR homing for the final stages of interception.
|
|
|
Post by linkxsc on Jul 15, 2017 15:36:42 GMT
Everything's a hypothetical situation. Getting pedantic over my points being hypothetical, while your Yolo superlaser apparently isn't is silly. How about you actually try and refute some of my arguments? You've said nothing to painting the target with a laser (a very real technology) Active radar? Semi-active (another ship or missile paints the target with radar). HARMs? Visual spectrum guidance? Have you ever actually seen how effective ATGM-65 mavericks are with their TV guidance? Not to mention the silliest bit. Can you even chill yourself down enough that even a sidewinder wouldn't pick you out against the background? Isn't that like 5x more hypothetical than anything I've said? Big lasers? Sure. Missiles with a lot of intelligence? Perfectly reasonable. Ships "going cold" yeah doubtful. And that's one that has plenty of supporting evidence against it. >yes if you want the swarm to get information before it's out of date again There's nothing stopping me from deploying the missiles around that cone of uncertainty and getting something close enough that local terminal guidance can manage. Target prediction is very much a thing, even if your sensor data is several seconds or minutes old. And that also includes delays in sending data to the missile swarm themselves. And that's assuming you A know where my sensors even are (after all we can apparently "go cold" in your universe) And there's not much reason in an "awacs" ship anyways, as the missiles themselves can easily carry their own computers (they're getting pretty small these days) to handle combining their net sensor datas and handling the prediction, as well as receiving data from other sources. Honestly, how up to date do you need target data when shooting at something on a predicable course? Also do you really expect that missiles would be guided by a ship far away on terminal guidance? Also how in the hell are you going to NOT generate heat with your laser? I'd really love to hear your theorycrafting for that bit.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 15, 2017 17:58:36 GMT
Everything's a hypothetical situation. Getting pedantic over my points being hypothetical, while your Yolo superlaser apparently isn't is silly. Sorrey, it was late at night and I was tiredHow about you actually try and refute some of my arguments? You've said nothing to painting the target with a laser (a very real technology) minutes of warning because you need guidence all the way (I think) and a laser dot on my hull is a dead giveaway something is tracking my ship, which means I am very carefully going to use active sensors to find targetsActive radar? paint you'r own missiles for me would ya?Semi-active (another ship or missile paints the target with radar). Radar IIRC gets hit by the square cube lawHARMs? turn off the radar and use IR sensorsVisual spectrum guidance? Have you ever actually seen how effective ATGM-65 mavericks are with their TV guidance? you got me their, I don't know much about that and didn't really think about it, what happens when that sensor gets lased?Not to mention the silliest bit. Can you even chill yourself down enough that even a sidewinder wouldn't pick you out against the background? No sadly. Isn't that like 5x more hypothetical than anything I've said? Big lasers? Sure. Missiles with a lot of intelligence? Perfectly reasonable. Ships "going cold" yeah doubtful. And that's one that has plenty of supporting evidence against it. I agree>yes if you want the swarm to get information before it's out of date again. I ment like fire pattern data, and EW/ECM/ECCM data, if it (your sensors) are too far away it would be trivial to jam radio and lasercomsThere's nothing stopping me from deploying the missiles around that cone of uncertainty and getting something close enough that local terminal guidance can manage. Target prediction is very much a thing, even if your sensor data is several seconds or minutes old. And that also includes delays in sending data to the missile swarm themselves. And that's assuming you A know where my sensors even are (after all we can apparently "go cold" What I ment was that the warship chilled it's signutrue below that of the civvie ships in the target area in your universe) And there's not much reason in an "awacs" general targeting sensors ship ship anyways, as the missiles themselves can easily carry their own computers (they're getting pretty small these days) to handle combining their net sensor datas and handling the prediction, as well as receiving data from other sources. Honestly, how up to date do you need target data when shooting at something on a predicable course? Also do you really expect that missiles would be guided by a ship far away on terminal guidance? Also how in the hell are you going to NOT generate heat with your laser? I'd really love to hear your theorycrafting for that bit. turn it off
|
|