|
Post by samchiu2000 on Feb 9, 2017 10:49:00 GMT
Well i already confirm that interceptor missile is impractical. Because i find out that my missile can intercept the missile because it is close enough to trigger enemy payload , not by impacting them. I done some KKV vs KKV test , and my KKV just keep missing enemy's one. In addition , i find out that silica aerogel is extremely tough against nuke. I just try to nuke my micro NEFP missile armored with 1 cm silica aerogel with one stock devastator missile next to ground zero , and ~10 missile are killed out of 30. From this experiment , i can prove that nuke can be shielded by a thin layer of silica aerogel.
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Feb 9, 2017 11:57:48 GMT
You can increase the effectiveness of nuclear interceptors significantly by making them explode behind enemy missiles. Those engines are vulnerable. For better interceptor design we really need a way to spread interceptors between enemy targets. That would even increase viability of cannons and EM accelerators as interceptor weapons.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 9, 2017 12:23:43 GMT
Anyone have a missile that is designed to kill enemy's one? Because i find out that both gun and laser are not cost effective against missiles, i think that tiny missiles (~3 to 5 kg) maybe a good way for missile defense. Although missile interceptors are feasible, especially armed with nukes, I don't think I can quite agree that they're the most cost effective. Just about any simple single-material gun projectile will be cheaper than a tiny missile. Laser systems, although they have a high "initial" cost, are basically free to operate for the service life of a vessel. Just as a rough mass comparison, a 30 Kt laser system may equate to 60,000 tiny missiles. So you could in theory intercept 45,000 enemy missiles with tiny missiles (assuming a generous 75% kill rate), OR intercept an infinite number of missiles with a laser system. How effective would interceptors be against similar micro missiles? Almost wasteful, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 9, 2017 15:58:31 GMT
You can increase the effectiveness of nuclear interceptors significantly by making them explode behind enemy missiles. Those engines are vulnerable. For better interceptor design we really need a way to spread interceptors between enemy targets. That would even increase viability of cannons and EM accelerators as interceptor weapons. If you can doge the inbound missile flights and shoot lasers up their a*s then you can kill them really fast
|
|
|
Post by caiaphas on Feb 9, 2017 16:35:41 GMT
You can increase the effectiveness of nuclear interceptors significantly by making them explode behind enemy missiles. Those engines are vulnerable. For better interceptor design we really need a way to spread interceptors between enemy targets. That would even increase viability of cannons and EM accelerators as interceptor weapons. If you can doge the inbound missile flights and shoot lasers up their a*s then you can kill them really fast The main issue being "if you can dodge them". Gets a little easier the higher their inbound velocity, but even micromissiles tend to have three or four times the acceleration available to a capital ship. Makes it a really tricky proposition.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 9, 2017 16:55:54 GMT
If you can doge the inbound missile flights and shoot lasers up their a*s then you can kill them really fast The main issue being "if you can dodge them". Gets a little easier the higher their inbound velocity, but even micromissiles tend to have three or four times the acceleration available to a capital ship. Makes it a really tricky proposition. I did it (once) with a cap ship with less then 1g of acceleration, its hard and nearly imposible to rely on but when it does happen then missiles die really fast
|
|
|
Post by Hicks on Feb 9, 2017 17:03:53 GMT
I agree. It seems to me that the most cost effective terminal missile defense is a CIWS conventional or rail gun; armor can't protect against a KKV, and proportionaly guided munitions that can out accellerate their target don't miss. If qswitched adds a feature to switch to another target after X shots, I expect to see less armor and a much larger secondary CIWS battery on basically everything.
I guess there's always decoys. Can you make a decoy that outputs more heat than your ship for less than it cost per incoming missile? If not, you'll run out of decoys before I run out of missiles.
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Feb 9, 2017 21:37:49 GMT
If you can doge the inbound missile flights and shoot lasers up their a*s then you can kill them really fast I actually tried to use laser drones for that and it worked well enough for missiles that are not set to target shots, otherwise its a waste of drones. On the other hand missiles that are set to target shots are easy to deal with almost anything else.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 11, 2017 6:41:44 GMT
Why need special design when you can just use your normal tiny missiles for intercepting enemy missiles?
|
|
|
Post by shiolle on Feb 11, 2017 10:19:50 GMT
Why need special design when you can just use your normal tiny missiles for intercepting enemy missiles? A couple of reasons: - Your anti-ship missiles will be much more resilient against interceptors if the 'target shots' option is turned off.
- If you intercept missiles in deep space all your interceptors tend to go after one enemy missile.
- Not all missiles are good interceptors. Ironically flak missiles and KKVs often miss their target (if the target is not set to explode as they get close).
- When intercepting missiles after they entered combat with the fleet, a specially tuned launcher will allow your interceptors in flight to retarget after one of the incoming missiles have been destroyed.
There is also the topic of so-called flare missiles, which also are dedicated interceptors and are supposedly quite effective, but they haven't been discussed in this thread. It may all change after the next patch, of course, since it is focused on weapons. Maybe a "spread fire" or "defensive mode" for weapons will be implemented to allow them to engage multiple incoming threats at once. Maybe flak missiles will become better at hard-killing missiles.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 11, 2017 10:56:29 GMT
Why need special design when you can just use your normal tiny missiles for intercepting enemy missiles? A couple of reasons: - Your anti-ship missiles will be much more resilient against interceptors if the 'target shots' option is turned off.
- If you intercept missiles in deep space all your interceptors tend to go after one enemy missile.
- Not all missiles are good interceptors. Ironically flak missiles and KKVs often miss their target (if the target is not set to explode as they get close).
- When intercepting missiles after they entered combat with the fleet, a specially tuned launcher will allow your interceptors in flight to retarget after one of the incoming missiles have been destroyed.
There is also the topic of so-called flare missiles, which also are dedicated interceptors and are supposedly quite effective, but they haven't been discussed in this thread. It may all change after the next patch, of course, since it is focused on weapons. Maybe a "spread fire" or "defensive mode" for weapons will be implemented to allow them to engage multiple incoming threats at once. Maybe flak missiles will become better at hard-killing missiles.
I mean, my missiles are nuke missiles, I already have 1,000 of them in my main battleship, and I just don't want to have another tank containing just reprogrammed identical missiles.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 13, 2017 5:34:25 GMT
I started revisiting decoys after being frustrated with interceptor missile performance in my attempts. Started making megadecoys that burn at 3GW plus (15 sec burn time). Paired with a 40m/s decoy launcher (1 every 10 seconds), 1000 flak missiles in a swarm were decoyed away from my lone modified ranger with 100% effectiveness. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 13, 2017 7:53:11 GMT
My latest attempt is a needle gun capable of firing at very fast velocity and high accuracy.
It's doing its job well.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 16, 2017 6:00:32 GMT
My latest attempt is a needle gun capable of firing at very fast velocity and high accuracy. It's doing its job well. My hypervelocity weapons fail pretty hard against micromissiles unless I use Ignore Range.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Feb 16, 2017 13:13:10 GMT
My latest attempt is a needle gun capable of firing at very fast velocity and high accuracy. It's doing its job well. My hypervelocity weapons fail pretty hard against micromissiles unless I use Ignore Range. Yep, that's the technique when using this weapon: pulse fire until the computer starts to lag, stop, and pick up one after one at over 500 km away.
|
|