|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 21, 2017 19:28:46 GMT
If the VantaBlack coated object is not cooled, then it will emit IR far above background temperature and will show up on thermal scans. So will everything else if not cooled, I know from the Hydrogen Steamer discussion it absorbs radar but does it absorb Lidar and Laser Range Finders
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Feb 21, 2017 19:33:15 GMT
the energy density of a nuclear flash drops with the square of the distance. So you need to already have a good idea of where to detonate the nuke before doing anything. You can't just eject high energy nukes in all directions all the time. 1. Yes I can drop nukes everywhere, one of my bigger ships carries 2554 nuclear weapons 2. this is in relation to preventing a missile with Lidar being able to see a ship well enough to hit it okay you have 2554 nukes. How many minutes of defensive sensors does that give? What volume do the nukes reliability illuminate? How does this help when you don't know what hour or day the missiles you don't even know exist will arrive? You can explode lots of big nukes nearby your command ship, but you cannot do it for very long. If each nuke illuminated 1 a sphere a gigameter in radius you can get a rough estimate based on how long it would take the vantablock missile to cross the illuminated area to give how much time 2554 nukes buys. Let's say six hours. Which gives 638.5 days. Fairly decent if you aren't considering the expense.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 21, 2017 19:42:55 GMT
If the VantaBlack coated object is not cooled, then it will emit IR far above background temperature and will show up on thermal scans. So will everything else if not cooled, I know from the Hydrogen Steamer discussion it absorbs radar but does it absorb Lidar and Laser Range Finders Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 21, 2017 19:45:33 GMT
So will everything else if not cooled, I know from the Hydrogen Steamer discussion it absorbs radar but does it absorb Lidar and Laser Range Finders Yes. thank you
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 22, 2017 2:16:42 GMT
Sub comment, from the Dev Blog, Qswitched says that missiles in game use a mix of several different kinds of guidance systems all at once although IR is the strongest part, all rolled into something called "command guidance". childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/sensors-and-countermeasures/"Let’s go into the guidance techniques available in space. "Ultraviolet Homing", "Spectral Seeking", "Passive Radar", "Reactive Radar Homing", "Semi-active Radar Homing", "Laser Guidance", "Inertial Guidance"... "All are employed (in game) to a small degree, but the primary homing technique used is one of the simplest: Infrared Homing."Qswithed then explains in detail why decoy flares are used and not some other tech. "In the end, no exact technique trumps all other techniques, and most electronic warfare focuses around IR homing and counter-measures. And when counter-measures are effective, Command Guidance is the usual response."
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Feb 22, 2017 6:02:07 GMT
Sub comment, from the Dev Blog, Qswitched says that missiles in game use a mix of several different kinds of guidance systems all at once although IR is the strongest part, all rolled into something called "command guidance". childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/sensors-and-countermeasures/"Let’s go into the guidance techniques available in space. "Ultraviolet Homing", "Spectral Seeking", "Passive Radar", "Reactive Radar Homing", "Semi-active Radar Homing", "Laser Guidance", "Inertial Guidance"... "All are employed (in game) to a small degree, but the primary homing technique used is one of the simplest: Infrared Homing."Qswithed then explains in detail why decoy flares are used and not some other tech. "In the end, no exact technique trumps all other techniques, and most electronic warfare focuses around IR homing and counter-measures. And when counter-measures are effective, Command Guidance is the usual response."Command guidance is not a combination of guidance methods, it's when the missile is steered by the capital ship (like a drone).
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 22, 2017 14:33:00 GMT
Sub comment, from the Dev Blog, Qswitched says that missiles in game use a mix of several different kinds of guidance systems all at once although IR is the strongest part, all rolled into something called "command guidance". childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/sensors-and-countermeasures/"Let’s go into the guidance techniques available in space. "Ultraviolet Homing", "Spectral Seeking", "Passive Radar", "Reactive Radar Homing", "Semi-active Radar Homing", "Laser Guidance", "Inertial Guidance"... "All are employed (in game) to a small degree, but the primary homing technique used is one of the simplest: Infrared Homing."Qswithed then explains in detail why decoy flares are used and not some other tech. "In the end, no exact technique trumps all other techniques, and most electronic warfare focuses around IR homing and counter-measures. And when counter-measures are effective, Command Guidance is the usual response."Command guidance is not a combination of guidance methods, it's when the missile is steered by the capital ship (like a drone). Ah, that makes sense. Then that would seem to be how our missiles are guided perhaps. They use information from the command ship via the remote control in combination with other sensors on the missiles itself?
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 22, 2017 14:46:36 GMT
Command guidance at strategic ranges has a limitation on communication speed. That delay of several light seconds could be the difference between a hit and miss.
Command guidance also has countermeasures... You need a signal of some sort, and (in general) signals can be tampered with.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 22, 2017 16:55:19 GMT
Command guidance at strategic ranges has a limitation on communication speed. That delay of several light seconds could be the difference between a hit and miss. Command guidance also has countermeasures... You need a signal of some sort, and (in general) signals can be tampered with. whisker lasers...
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 22, 2017 17:56:15 GMT
Command guidance at strategic ranges has a limitation on communication speed. That delay of several light seconds could be the difference between a hit and miss. Command guidance also has countermeasures... You need a signal of some sort, and (in general) signals can be tampered with. whisker lasers... Ehhh... I know that laser communication would be the first reply, but countermeasures exist for that as well. I would suggest that countermeasures and guidance technologies would be neck in neck, and of such a broad variety that carrying a CIWS becomes the simplest, mass efficient option.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 22, 2017 17:58:47 GMT
Ehhh... I know that laser communication would be the first reply, but countermeasures exist for that as well. I would suggest that countermeasures and guidance technologies would be neck in neck, and of such a broad variety that carrying a CIWS becomes the simplest, mass efficient option. Just out of curiosity, what is the countermeasure for lasercoms?
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 22, 2017 18:03:45 GMT
Ehhh... I know that laser communication would be the first reply, but countermeasures exist for that as well. I would suggest that countermeasures and guidance technologies would be neck in neck, and of such a broad variety that carrying a CIWS becomes the simplest, mass efficient option. Just out of curiosity, what is the countermeasure for lasercoms? Obfuscating the laser beam path is the easiest method. If by chance during orbital maneuvering you get a glimpse of the backside of the missiles, you could attempt to spoof or jam the optical receptors. There are still likely to be plenty of ways to confuse the sensors of the missile, rendering any command input at extreme range moot. The simplest and cheapest answer still seems to be "shoot it"
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Feb 22, 2017 23:55:30 GMT
Excuse the haphazard post, lots of thoughts...
In reality, CIWS is the last ditch defense for a ship. I know there's a blog post claiming to the effect that the balance is tipping in favor towards the gun over the missile, but as somebody with some familiarity with the subject, that's absolutely not true. In fact, the US Navy is replacing CIWS with SeaRAM because it's much more effective against some supersonic threats.
While we're talking about theoreticals...
Command guidance should be pretty secure from tampering. Any communications would be encrypted... And if the adversary has broken those, you have bigger problems to worry about. You'd presumably have a hard time interfering when you're not between the enemy missile and ship if a laser link is being used. Even with RF, it would also depend on relative distances.
If we're in lightspeed lag territory, it's worth taking into account you have to make a round trip (Enemy ship to your ship, then your ship to your missiles) or worse (active radar from your ship to enemy ship first). Then there's also the question of sensor resolution - detecting a ship is one thing, seeing it well enough to target a specific module or to predict it's path is another.
Modern missiles have trended towards built-in terminal homing with midcourse guidance. Limited size and power of missiles means that from a distance, ships are better equipped to track target... It's only at a certain point the difference in distance between the firing ship and the missile that terminal homing becomes a better option. If costs are based on elemental abundance, then sensor costs should be very low.
Other things worth considering - data links between missiles could allow sensor fusion to make up for many of their inadequacies...
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 23, 2017 0:04:45 GMT
Excuse the haphazard post, lots of thoughts... In reality, CIWS is the last ditch defense for a ship. I know there's a blog post claiming to the effect that the balance is tipping in favor towards the gun over the missile, but as somebody with some familiarity with the subject, that's absolutely not true. In fact, the US Navy is replacing CIWS with SeaRAM because it's much more effective against some supersonic threats. While we're talking about theoreticals... Command guidance should be pretty secure from tampering. Any communications would be encrypted... And if the adversary has broken those, you have bigger problems to worry about. You'd presumably have a hard time interfering when you're not between the enemy missile and ship if a laser link is being used. Even with RF, it would also depend on relative distances. If we're in lightspeed lag territory, it's worth taking into account you have to make a round trip (Enemy ship to your ship, then your ship to your missiles) or worse (active radar from your ship to enemy ship first). Then there's also the question of sensor resolution - detecting a ship is one thing, seeing it well enough to target a specific module or to predict it's path is another. Modern missiles have trended towards built-in terminal homing with midcourse guidance. Limited size and power of missiles means that from a distance, ships are better equipped to track target... It's only at a certain point the difference in distance between the firing ship and the missile that terminal homing becomes a better option. If costs are based on elemental abundance, then sensor costs should be very low. Other things worth considering - data links between missiles could allow sensor fusion to make up for many of their inadequacies... Well thought out post. Great stuff. About the claim you mentioned that some had said that things may be tipping in favor of guns over missiles, I think they were talking about offensively, not defensively, do I understand what you mean correctly? The railgun system the Navy is developing packs the same punch as a Tomahawk, but has no guidance system or engine that can be knocked out, nor can it be spoofed, and it goes faster. Isn't that what they meant, not about anti missile defense in general, which is almost all missile based (Iron Dome, Arrow 2, Arrow 3), or Laser based (Iron Beam.) Do I understand you correctly? ------ Even if communications would be encrypted, they could be jammed with white noise no? Unless maybe they are on some sort of tight beam. Even then, perhaps narrow beam white noise could be pointed right at the missiles to try and block signals from their ship. I read that was the first ECM, invented by the Japanese during its war with Russia, simple white noise radio transmissions on the same frequency as their enemy jamming their communications with white noise. Even with all these measures as listed, there seems that always has to be a way to spoof missiles no? The small size of missiles means their on board computers and sensors couldn't be as powerful as those on a ship.
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 23, 2017 3:09:42 GMT
So will everything else if not cooled, I know from the Hydrogen Steamer discussion it absorbs radar but does it absorb Lidar and Laser Range Finders Yes. Ok, so, wouldn't that make a coated ship really, really vulnerable to lasers?
|
|