|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 22:27:12 GMT
If we're going to assume that something in CDE is done and can't be improved, then why do we argue adding anything to the game at all? The crew sizes are unrealistically high and we have good reasoning on where and why they could be fixed. We do have a list of jobs and how many hold that job. We do not have data on the way our crew does their jobs. We do know in space, the more minimal the crew, the better. We do know that in COADE money is no object, so we can logically conclude that COADE ships would use the most advanced automation, computers, and logistics tech to reduce the crew down to minimal levels. Therefore since we know automation/robots must be heavily used, and that all the resources to maximize the usage of these machines is available to COADE spacemen. For all these reasons, we must conclude that COADE ships have already been automated as much as they can be automated. However it can help us to analyze the crew compliment and their jobs and then see to what degree their jobs are redundant, or double crewed. And to compare them to real world examples. It will help us to understand COADE so much better and to improve it if possible. No one's arguing that the ships aren't highly advanced, we're saying that if they are supposed to be the pinnacle of technology why aren't jobs that could easily be multi-tasked or monitored by automation and software already be utilized? CDE portrayed railguns and coilguns as magical perpetual machines that could create energy out of thin fucking vacuum. We didn't keep it because we assumed that people in CDE are so advanced that they were able to broke the laws of physics so it was fixed to make more sense. Stop using the same very bad and stale argument that what's in the game now is perfect and the best it can be. If the engineers in CDE could reasonably cut staff by two thirds they would fucking do it there's no argument against it. We understand that using what we know today can help us speculate what orbital combat would look like, but if someone today can program an arduino to manage their whole garden I think someone in 2500 could program a spaceship to wake up a technician when coolant pressure isn't right in the reactor. If we also are going to assume the automation in CDE is in its fucking tip top shape, than we can assume that reliability of the spacecraft is 100% and we wouldn't need technicians. /salt
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 3, 2017 22:28:40 GMT
For all these reasons, we must conclude that COADE ships have already been automated as much as they can be automated. However it can help us to analyze the crew compliment and their jobs and then see to what degree their jobs are redundant, or double crewed. And to compare them to real world examples. Qswitched is not an omniscient god. It is certainly possible that he didn't notice something that could be automated. I agree with ALSO analyzing jobs to see what may be redundant, and even to see what jobs may have been overlooked entirely and would need to be added. For example, I'm not sure which of the current crew would be the IT guy(s) dealing with computer software problems.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 22:37:53 GMT
So I wanted to take a drone and see how many people you would need to crew it... 26 people! So that sounds crazy right? But only in light of the drone's mission which only lasts a couple hours at most, and is very limited. So I think to really most accurately model crew, we would need ship mission specs like, 1. Duration of mission. 2. Range away from control base of mission. 3. Amount of autonomy expected. Currently all COADE ships are crewed as if they were submarines, expected to be able to operate autonomously for up to six months, and all the brainpower, manpower, and machine power they will need on board, able to operate without any outside help. This works for deep space ships, but makes no sense for say orbital defense ships and the like. So some kind of rework of crew makes sense, but it depends on the mission of the craft.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 3, 2017 22:40:38 GMT
My expectation for a crewed ship would be like this: 2-3 captains 2 plumbers 2 electricians 2 metalworkers 2 reactor core techs 2 electronic warfare specialists (if applicable) 1 doctor/psychotherapist 1-3 generalist extras to follow orders of specialists, and as replacements in case somebody is unable to function That's it. A ship has one captain, no more no less. By "captain" I mean someone with the skill set to decide on plans of maneuvering and attack. Of course one has seniority, but the other(s) are capable of filling his/her shoes if necessary. There must be a naval term for it, but I don't know it.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 22:41:52 GMT
RE manual and my job: No, you can't become a civil engineer from a manual. BUT, I'm treating spacecraft maintenance as similar to aircraft or sub maintenance, where every detail is known and documented (unlike buildings). There are strict TOs to follow. Sure, that could be compared to depot(space base) level work, but some can be accomplished en route. Take a look at machinist mate responsibilities after just 9 weeks of training: www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/machinists-mate.htmlInteresting read on sub crew positions (matches up to our coade positions pretty well): navyformoms.ning.com/group/submoms/page/meet-the-crew-of-a-submarineNote that I'm only addressing maintenance folks, and making a point that checklist and procedure driven routine maintenance can be done with minimal training. Okay fair enough. But I would add as a skilled tradesman, that that guy after 9 weeks of training is working under strict supervision from someone with years of experience. And 9 weeks can be quite intense. I went through one such course. 75% of our class didn't finish. And that 9 weeks of training is not the same as handing a guy a manual and saying "get to work". That said. I agree with everything. Very reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 22:46:58 GMT
I'd also point out that working 12 hour shifts is entirely viable. We normally work 12 hour shifts for the entirety of 6 month deployments, with some sundays off. It's not uncommon for law enforcement and maintenance folks to also work 12 hour shifts.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 22:55:55 GMT
I want to mention that when having a discussion, it can be hard to hear the other's points, and also emotions can flare. If we are getting emotionally disturbed to the point we need to use profanity, or mischaracterize the arguments of others, we should go take a break, eat a sandwich, maybe have a beer, and come back to the discussion later.
Once emotions enter into it, the mind becomes closed to logic.
About what comments are helpful to the discussion, comments should be... 1. Statements. Goal: Provide more evidence of your point. 2. Questions. Goal: Clarify the point of the others.
If we feel a need to repeat the point of someone else, it is best to use their exact words, and ASK about what we don't understand or don't agree with.
That is enough for me today. Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 23:03:53 GMT
I want to mention that when having a discussion, it can be hard to hear the other's point, and also emotions can flare. If we are getting emotionally disturbed to the point we need to use profanity, or mischaracterize the arguments of others, we should go take a break, eat a sandwich, maybe have a beer, and come back to the discussion later. Logically once emotions enter into it, the mind becomes closed to logic. So we should be writing comments to... 1. Statements. Provide more evidence of your point. 2. Questions. Clarify the point of the others. If we are unclear about the point of someone else, we ask them, even better use direct quotes. If we are rephrasing the point of someone else as a statement, we probably don't understand their point anyway. >Doesn't want arguments to be mischaracterized >Continues to mischaracterize others with the same stale argument that's been proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 23:08:03 GMT
I want to mention that when having a discussion, it can be hard to hear the other's point, and also emotions can flare. If we are getting emotionally disturbed to the point we need to use profanity, or mischaracterize the arguments of others, we should go take a break, eat a sandwich, maybe have a beer, and come back to the discussion later. Logically once emotions enter into it, the mind becomes closed to logic. So we should be writing comments to... 1. Statements. Provide more evidence of your point. 2. Questions. Clarify the point of the others. If we are unclear about the point of someone else, we ask them, even better use direct quotes. If we are rephrasing the point of someone else as a statement, we probably don't understand their point anyway. >Doesn't want arguments to be mischaracterized >Continues to mischaracterize others with the same stale argument that's been proven wrong. This is inappropriate. The profanity, etc. Is not going to work. We've had a friendly discussion up until now, and really I was having quite a bit of fun. But no, not this. I'm done with this discussion for today. Please think about the problem and let's finish this when all are calm. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 3, 2017 23:14:07 GMT
So I think to really most accurately model crew, we would need ship mission specs like, 1. Duration of mission. 2. Range away from control base of mission. 3. Amount of autonomy expected. Alright, let's do this. Typical characteristics
These are the typical characteristics as stated by the U.S. Joint Interagency Task Force South:
Hull material: wood, fiberglass, or steel Length 12–24 m Freeboard 0.5 m Engines: single or twin diesel Fuel capacity: 5.6 cubic metres Range: 3200 kilometers Speed: 11 km/h or more Crew: 4 Capacity 4–12 metric tons en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine1. To reach that range at 11 km/h, the mission would last 4 months. So, comparable. 12 days, my bad. 2. There is no control base. If there was, it could be easily traced by following the comms. They only have GPS. 3. It expects complete autonomy. It's a drug-smuggling submarine. Note that there are no weapons, the systems are different, and the people's lives don't depend on these systems. But overall, these things are cost-effective and successful at their missions with extremely small crew.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 23:15:15 GMT
The crew argument also begs the question why do Launchers need 4 people for each launcher? I have the same amount of missiles and drones so why do I need 4 more pilots and technicians for each hole I put in my armor?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 4, 2017 1:56:47 GMT
why do I only have one tech for 800 missiles David367th
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 4, 2017 2:03:37 GMT
why do I only have one tech for 800 missiles David367th You're right missile launchers do add crew slower than drone launchers
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Mar 4, 2017 2:38:38 GMT
I'd also point out that working 12 hour shifts is entirely viable. We normally work 12 hour shifts for the entirety of 6 month deployments, with some sundays off. It's not uncommon for law enforcement and maintenance folks to also work 12 hour shifts. I have been working 80+ hour weeks for the last three and a half months now. On the other hand, I've been pretty close to snapping a few times.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 4, 2017 2:59:57 GMT
Alright, here's some food for the weapons side:
Missiles (and drones, by extension) are designed to be "shelf stable". IE, 20+ years for the Hellfire (solid rocket), 50 years for the Minuteman (solid rocket), 30+ years for the R36 (liquid rocket). Looking at the roles of a navy missile technician, their primary focus is on launch and support systems. Army 94S focuses on the same launch and support systems for the patriot missile system. Neither works on the missile itself, that is a depot-level task.
1: Therefore, I suggest that the COADE Missile Technician be eliminated, and the Missile Launcher Technician maintained since it bears similarity to modern military roles.
Based on the B-29, having four turrets controlled by one gunner (under the guidance of a fire control officer), and with modern computers, we should easily be able to match and/or exceed the rate of 1 gunner per 4 guns.
2: I suggest that all kinetic weapons should require no more than 0.25 crew ("Gunners"), with a minimum of at least one per armed ship.
Looking at the AC-130, Aerial Gunners have a distinct role of simply supplying ammunition and relying on computer control for firing the weapon system. Maintenance work on the weapons themselves occurs at a depot-level. The simplest of preventative maintenance could easily be accomplished by the COADE Gunner.
3: I suggest that COADE Weapon System Technicians and Weapon Component Technicians be eliminated, except for their possible presence on fleet tenders.
Gunners Mate anecdote below showing how much time is spent on mundane tasks: https://www.reddit.com/r/newtothenavy/comments/2tt86m/daily_life_as_a_gunners_mate/
|
|