|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 19:55:51 GMT
I don't think this assumes AI at all. We have algorithms that can accurately (more or less ) pilot drones and fire weapons in this GAME. A military organization would have far more advanced software at it's disposal. I think that we can easily get away with one or two operators for the ship's entire arsenal. All the Drones or Missiles, no matter how many, are controlled by 1 fly-by-wire pilot per type per ship. The drones and missiles already use "algorithms that can accurately... pilot drones..." But without AI you still need someone to tell the drones what to target and where to go. That is a matter of tactics, for that you need AI or a person that knows backwards and forwards the weaknesses and strengths of his or her system. So at least regarding missiles and drones in COADE, the crew requirement is already at bare minimum.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Mar 2, 2017 19:58:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 20:03:14 GMT
Even our current CIWS system are much more complicated than that. (Of course I get your point.) Perhaps 1 gunner per 2 guns is unneeded, I have to think about it. But you would need at least one weapon operator per person for each weapons system at a minimum (as already exists with drones/missiles). Perhaps the same tech the maintains the weapon can also operate it, that is a good point. But in space we need/want redundancy in crew personnel. Also it may be that these crew work in shifts, and that is the reason for the number of 1/2 guns. I have to think about it. Here's the calculations 1 automated CIWS system must do... "The CIWS does not recognize identification friend or foe, also known as IFF. The CIWS only has the data it collects in real time from the radars to decide if the target is a threat and to engage it. A contact must meet multiple criteria for the CIWS to consider it a target. These criteria include:1. Is the range of the target increasing or decreasing in relation to the ship? The CIWS search radar sees contacts that are out-bound and discards them. The CIWS engages a target only if it is approaching the ship.2. Is the contact capable of maneuvering to hit the ship? If a contact is not heading directly at the ship, the CIWS looks at its heading in relation to the ship and its velocity. It then decides if the contact can still perform a maneuver to hit the ship.3. Is the contact traveling between the minimum and maximum velocities? The CIWS has the ability to engage targets that travel in a wide range of speeds; however, it is not an infinitely wide range. The system has a target maximum-velocity limit. If a target exceeds this velocity, the CIWS does not engage it. It also has a target minimum-velocity limit, and does not engage any contact below that velocity. The operator can adjust the minimum and maximum limits within the limits of the system. There are many other subsystems that together ensure proper operation, such as environmental control, transmitter, mount movement control, power control and distribution, and so on. It takes six to eight months to train a technician to maintain, operate, and repair the CIWS."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 20:22:08 GMT
The best comparison to our guns would be naval ship guns of any current tech. They were controlled by a director, a device that tied in info from sensors and calculated firing solutions, and then relayed that info to the gun crews. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_(military)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_gun_fire-control_systemen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-control_systemSo the questions are 2. 1. How many people would you need to run each system? 2. Why did Qswitched set up a need for 1 person for every 2 guns/turrets. Does he know something we don't? Maybe they are on shifts? or Perhaps there is some other factor we are missing? If we are serious about wanting to change COADE we have to think it through and make a good case. If we do that it's possible to get Qswitched to change things, but we have to make sure we have considered everything he has considered and perhaps even more.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Mar 2, 2017 21:23:12 GMT
I don't think this assumes AI at all. We have algorithms that can accurately (more or less ) pilot drones and fire weapons in this GAME. A military organization would have far more advanced software at it's disposal. I think that we can easily get away with one or two operators for the ship's entire arsenal. All the Drones or Missiles, no matter how many, are controlled by 1 fly-by-wire pilot per type per ship. The drones and missiles already use "algorithms that can accurately... pilot drones..." But without AI you still need someone to tell the drones what to target and where to go. That is a matter of tactics, for that you need AI or a person that knows backwards and forwards the weaknesses and strengths of his or her system. So at least regarding missiles and drones in COADE, the crew requirement is already at bare minimum. " 1 fly-by-wire pilot per type per ship. " Ops, maybe I should read. I totally agree that drone and missile systems are already at or very close to the minimum possible crew. My main complaint is with the crew requirement for individual turrets. 3 techs per system (on 8 hour shifts) to direct weapons fire and to operate repair drones should be enough for most systems.
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Mar 2, 2017 21:39:40 GMT
While you're all bellyaching about crew complements, it's worth noting a Virginia class submarine has a complement of 135 and is less than 8 kt displacement. All you're thinking about is people at the consoles, but real ships need people to do important things like inspecting and maintaining all the machinery and electronics on a ship so they haven't lost the fight before it even begins. If the argument is that advanced automation will solve those problems, it begs the question of why have manned ships at all...
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on Mar 2, 2017 22:01:38 GMT
While you're all bellyaching about crew complements, it's worth noting a Virginia class submarine has a complement of 135 and is less than 8 kt displacement. All you're thinking about is people at the consoles, but real ships need people to do important things like inspecting and maintaining all the machinery and electronics on a ship so they haven't lost the fight before it even begins. If the argument is that advanced automation will solve those problems, it begs the question of why have manned ships at all... Because AI isn't sufficiently advanced to make tactical and strategic planning. Remote control is not viable at long ranges due to light lag.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 23:28:00 GMT
While you're all bellyaching about crew complements, it's worth noting a Virginia class submarine has a complement of 135 and is less than 8 kt displacement. All you're thinking about is people at the consoles, but real ships need people to do important things like inspecting and maintaining all the machinery and electronics on a ship so they haven't lost the fight before it even begins. If the argument is that advanced automation will solve those problems, it begs the question of why have manned ships at all... Because AI isn't sufficiently advanced to make tactical and strategic planning. Remote control is not viable at long ranges due to light lag. Most the crew in COADE as much as 75% is maintenance staff.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 2, 2017 23:31:56 GMT
Because AI isn't sufficiently advanced to make tactical and strategic planning. Remote control is not viable at long ranges due to light lag. Most the crew in COADE as much as 75% is maintenance staff. Which makes sense really. The people maintain things necessary for the life of the ship and its crew.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 1:28:58 GMT
robots
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 1:43:06 GMT
COADE uses current tech that as minimum has been made into a prototype. No current robots can maintain equipment even close to a human. They can assist but that's it. That would require AI, or something very close.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 3:03:54 GMT
COADE uses current tech that as minimum has been made into a prototype. No current robots can maintain equipment even close to a human. They can assist but that's it. That would require AI, or something very close. Let me re-phrase, Semi-Autonomous vehicles, and ROVs
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 11:46:24 GMT
COADE uses current tech that as minimum has been made into a prototype. No current robots can maintain equipment even close to a human. They can assist but that's it. That would require AI, or something very close. Let me re-phrase, Semi-Autonomous vehicles, and ROVs NASA is already using a prototype pseudo ROV on the ISS. 1943 tech in the B-29 "computer-controlled fire-control system that directed four machine gun turrets that could be operated by a single gunner and a fire-control officer." sets a precedence for a minimum of two weapons per crew, 6 decades ago. Of course, aircraft don't carry maintenance crews on board. The prior mention that~75% of space crew in coade are support roles is shared across the modern military. That ratio varies per service/situation but definitely stands to reason. Here at my base we have around 5000 folks total to support about 36 aircraft. You could put that at around 138 people per aircraft, 4 of which are aircrew. So 97% "support" staff. The hard part to estimate is the actual maintenance requirement. How do systems degrade in space?
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Mar 3, 2017 13:06:05 GMT
Let me re-phrase, Semi-Autonomous vehicles, and ROVs NASA is already using a prototype pseudo ROV on the ISS. 1943 tech in the B-29 "computer-controlled fire-control system that directed four machine gun turrets that could be operated by a single gunner and a fire-control officer." sets a precedence for a minimum of two weapons per crew, 6 decades ago. Of course, aircraft don't carry maintenance crews on board. The prior mention that~75% of space crew in coade are support roles is shared across the modern military. That ratio varies per service/situation but definitely stands to reason. Here at my base we have around 5000 folks total to support about 36 aircraft. You could put that at around 138 people per aircraft, 4 of which are aircrew. So 97% "support" staff. The hard part to estimate is the actual maintenance requirement. How do systems degrade in space? A lot slower would be my guess. Look around your base and the aircraft, ask the crews what the biggest factors are in degrading systems. My guesd is weather, rust, airturbulence, rough landings, things like that (tho I could be very wrong). Very little of that would apply in space
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 13:35:36 GMT
We can draw a few parallels...
UV degradation (for composites/plastics) Metal fatigue (flexing from aggressive maneuvers)
We don't have water in space, so the associated external rust/corrosion are out. We're also not landing our ships, so that particular shock loading won't apply.
With perfect manufacturing, I'd think that mean time between failure for just about any system will be drastically longer.
I'd suggest that damage control, focused on expedient repairs, would constitute the majority of "maintenance" personnel. Sure, some systems will have periodic maintenance and upkeep (filtration, water purification, etc).
In support of that, what is a radiator technician supposed to do on an 8 hour shift? Reactor technician? Weapon system technician? How many spares is each ship carrying for turrets?
How many non-combat personnel would be repurposed during an incident?
|
|