|
|
Post by newageofpower on Feb 23, 2017 3:29:18 GMT
Ok, so, wouldn't that make a coated ship really, really vulnerable to lasers? Not dramatically more vulnerable; once the Vantablack has been heated up past a certain point it loses all it's properties. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 23, 2017 3:30:21 GMT
Laser flashlights to find hydrogen steamers, YEA!
|
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Feb 23, 2017 3:59:04 GMT
Laser flashlights to find hydrogen steamers, YEA! Yeah, I mentioned that in another thread. Lasers are a lot more spammable than nukes; you can be scanning empty space constantly. Particularly if you're located in the inner solar system, or by Jupiter. Lasers also have a farther illumination range, because you can focus their output with an arbitrarily large aperture. And you don't have to process the entire area of data at once; you can process as you scan. If you find something that shouldn't be there, you can just keep firing your lasers on it to kill it. |
|
|
|
Post by theholyinquisition on Feb 23, 2017 4:15:00 GMT
Ok, so, wouldn't that make a coated ship really, really vulnerable to lasers? Not dramatically more vulnerable; once the Vantablack has been heated up past a certain point it loses all it's properties. Good to know. |
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Feb 23, 2017 13:51:53 GMT
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? I'm referring to the game blog post by qswitched and he was talking about missile defense. Obviously there are important differences between Naval and space warfare - I just felt the need to correct the record. Between the signal strength and signals processing, it's complicated. But different ways of modulating the signal can make them more resistant to noise. Interfering with a laser signal if the receiver isn't in line of sight would be difficult. While true, powerful computers wouldn't do much to reduce your IR signature or make you harder to see. Or if you're the strongest source of RF, thats a signal that can be homed in on in of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 23, 2017 23:59:33 GMT
"I'm referring to the game blog post by qswitched and he was talking about missile defense. Obviously there are important differences between Naval and space warfare - I just felt the need to correct the record..." "While true, powerful computers wouldn't do much to reduce your IR signature or make you harder to see. Or if you're the strongest source of RF, thats a signal that can be homed in on in of itself." Differences from Naval to Space yes, but not that different when it comes to point defense. Incoming missiles have to either be spoofed, and/or intercepted, either with lasers, guns or missiles or a layers of all 3 just like on the sea. I mean isn't that so?  I said... "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." From that you thought I meant that computers would somehow reduce IR signature? Didn't mean or say that.  Only that missiles are easier to spoof (like I said), with less powerful sensors and computers to analyze that sensor data (right?).  |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Feb 24, 2017 4:12:00 GMT
There is a point where a missile is too dumb to be spoofed, IE you cant soft kill tiny tims, also a smart IR sensor should be able to distigues between flares and ship
|
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 24, 2017 4:18:41 GMT
underwhelmedWhy the switch to SeaRAM? Increased engagement range at least, I'd venture to guess. Fortunately, in space, our kinetic projectiles have essentially unlimited range. Once range is removed as a variable, chance to kill and cost effectiveness are about the only relevant attributes. At some extreme distance from your ship there is a tradeoff between those two. Of course, laser systems come with a steeper entry cost, but would be exceedingly effective. Bottom line, I'm suggesting that CIWS (as a concept, not specifically R2-D2) would be cost effective compared to carrying a myriad assortment of countermeasures.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Feb 24, 2017 5:08:00 GMT
There is a point where a missile is too dumb to be spoofed, IE you cant soft kill tiny tims, also a smart IR sensor should be able to distigues between flares and ship Ah "tiny tim", an ancient earth weapon, consisting of a solid rocket engine, with a crude bomb attacked, used for air to ground attack. Fascinating. Yes no guidance system, nothing to spoof that's for sure. But IR that can 100% tell a flare from a ship? As IR guidance systems advance, so will flare decoys, isn't that right? The price of not advancing countermeasures is just too high. www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2017/9070412/This war scientist analyzes decoy science in detail, and says essentially that as missiles employ more and more antijamming measures to ignore false signals from decoys, the decoys can also become more complex with different timings and sizes. It's cat and mouse, isn't that right? There's no end to it, neither missile nor decoy will win out. |
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Feb 25, 2017 22:17:45 GMT
underwhelmed Why the switch to SeaRAM? Increased engagement range at least, I'd venture to guess. That might be part of it. The other possibilities I can think of are CIWS being unable to cope with anti-ship missile terminal maneuvers or greater lethality (just bullets may not prevent a ton of metal continuing it's trajectory into your ship) Projectiles would continue going until they hit something yes, but given the time they take to travel, inaccuracies in sensors, weapon spread, turret control systems, etc, there is such a thing as a maximum effective range. If you're going to make the argument that the cost of lasers is mostly in the system itself and not the ammo, I'd also point out the same holds true for electronic warfare systems or lasers to dazzle IR/optical seekers. I think physical point defenses their place in missile defense, but disagree that they're the most cost effective option. |
|
