|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 4, 2017 4:13:17 GMT
why do I only have one tech for 800 missiles David367th You're right missile launchers do add crew slower than drone launchers for 800 seperate ship-killers in 8 tanks how does one tech keep them running
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Mar 4, 2017 5:48:02 GMT
What matters isn't the amount of crew you need when everything is running smoothly, it's the amount you need when shit hits the fan. Navy ships have more crew than they really need to run on a day-to-day basis because if the ship takes a hit, you need those extra hands doing damage control. And while there have been efforts to reduce costs by reducing manning and relying more on automation, what's actually been happening is that automation breaks down and the crew on the ship with reduced manning now have more things to fix.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 4, 2017 11:45:43 GMT
Navy ships have more crew than they really need to run on a day-to-day basis because if the ship takes a hit, you need those extra hands doing damage control. This does not have relevance to CoaDE , and it is slowly losing its relevance in the navy as well (ships are being minimally manned). Ships in CoaDE (as in the current navy) are not very armored, because modern weaponry has very high lethality, and the armor isn't worth it. So, there is less damage control that could be run in the first place. In CoaDE, there is actually no damage control to run while in combat. As soon as a needle pokes a tiny hole in the crew module, apparently everyone instantly dies. /s And you're not going to have crew outside of the crew module while you're being nuked, are you? CoaDE engagements are short and individual. The longest I've seen was a single laser burning an opponent from 1 Mm (without contest) for 15-20 minutes. Some navy engagements in the past had been multiple days long, with multiple engagements in a row before heading back to port for real repair. Several forum-goers, such as myself, avoid crewed ships in combat. Everything is done with drones (and/or missiles). TL;DR: There ain't no damage control crew in space.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 4, 2017 13:17:24 GMT
Navy ships have more crew than they really need to run on a day-to-day basis because if the ship takes a hit, you need those extra hands doing damage control. TL;DR: There ain't no damage control crew in space. Then why do we even have technicians in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 4, 2017 15:11:25 GMT
TL;DR: There ain't no damage control crew in space. Then why do we even have technicians in the first place? Techs are there to maintain military-spec systems in working order. In a 6-month deployment of a large vessel, reactors are running, thrusters are burning, sensors are scanning, and something will probably fail somewhere. There is plenty of time while drifting to fix minor things, like frozen propellant in the pipes, a micrometeoroid dent in the thermocouple, total meltdown of a reactor core, etc. Having techs and spare parts available is cost-effective when they mass far less than the rest of the ship. If you have a human commander to guide the ship/fleet, you also need to ensure his/her survival. This brings up another point, though. There is no reason to have crew on EVERY capital ship. One vessel in the fleet specifically designed for containing the commanders and maintenance crew of the entire fleet should be enough. Such a ship would be referred to as a control ship (with elements of a tender added on): www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarship.php#controlship
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 4, 2017 15:31:58 GMT
Then why do we even have technicians in the first place? Techs are there to maintain military-spec systems in working order. In a 6-month deployment of a large vessel, reactors are running, thrusters are burning, sensors are scanning, and something will probably fail somewhere. There is plenty of time while drifting to fix minor things, like frozen propellant in the pipes, a micrometeoroid dent in the thermocouple, total meltdown of a reactor core, etc. Having techs and spare parts available is cost-effective when they mass far less than the rest of the ship. If you have a human commander to guide the ship/fleet, you also need to ensure his/her survival. This brings up another point, though. There is no reason to have crew on EVERY capital ship. One vessel in the fleet specifically designed for containing the commanders and maintenance crew of the entire fleet should be enough. Such a ship would be referred to as a control ship (with elements of a tender added on): www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarship.php#controlshipYeah I remember a lot of people were adopting that in Aurora, there would be a couple of capital ship tenders and sensor ships that could only defend themselves, and the warships relied on them for guidance and maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by underwhelmed on Mar 4, 2017 18:14:49 GMT
This does not have relevance to CoaDE, and it is slowly losing its relevance in the navy as well (ships are being minimally manned). Which they are finding out has huge disadvantages because the automation that was supposed to enable reduced manning keeps breaking down. It is not losing relevance, it is an ongoing problem with the LCS. Overworked crew leads to lower performance and poor retention rates. The new DDG-51 Flight IIIs actually have more crew compartments. You are absolutely wrong. It's very important that ships be able to stop flooding and prevent fires from going out of control because it's the difference between sinking and limping back home to a port. If you don't stop a fire from reaching the magazine or a munition on deck, you're going to be in a world of hurt. There's a reason for the saying "Every sailor is a firefighter." Even in space, you have missiles with self-oxidizing fuels, punctures that need to be patched to prevent air and heat escaping, etc. [/quote] That's not how choked flow works. And if that's what it takes to reconnect the wire with control signals to the railgun or engine or whatever, you bet they're going to be out there fixing it.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 4, 2017 18:17:21 GMT
underwhelmed I'm pretty sure qswitched said in a blog post that repairs outside of a crew module was done by drone.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 4, 2017 19:50:09 GMT
That's not how choked flow works. And if that's what it takes to reconnect the wire with control signals to the railgun or engine or whatever, you bet they're going to be out there fixing it. I'm aware that this particular point is unrealistic; it was a little nugget of satire. Let me edit that to make it clearer... Btw, that's how CoaDE currently simulates it. It's not really a big deal, because if you're getting any holes in your crew module, you've clearly lost anyway by other means (usually being actively core drilled by a laser, with our current meta). They're not going to be able to get out there, find, and fix gun connection issues within the minute or two (literally) that a serious combat against a crewed vessel lasts for. If they're able to win without the use of that railgun, great, but if not there is no chance of a save. Otherwise we're talking about after-combat repairs, which, if damage is great enough, consist of trying not to die until the victorious extraction team arrives. Self-oxidizing fuels are terrible and almost nobody uses them here. The only fire you're likely to see is fluorine. Good luck stopping that without jettisoning everything that's on fire. Fluorine will consume sand. As for the rest, I was drawing parallels to things I read somewhere about the navy. If it's not accurate, thanks for informing me. But I (mostly) stand by my statements as they apply to CoaDE.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Mar 4, 2017 20:49:50 GMT
My only qualm with crew requirements is that large batteries of the same model of weapon ought to get bulk savings on crew count.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:34:15 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/ Your point #1. This is logical and based on real world data, so I agree. Your point #2. I looked into the B-29 gunnery system. Each person could only control 2 turrets at a time (not four) and was based on line of sight. www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsvLi8QyVwU go to 27:50 for more detail. With a system that uses sensor data and not line of sight, there could be fewer gunners, makes sense. AC-130's gun is fired by a gunner in the cockpit using a joystick assisted by computers, much like the gunner in the B-29. Still... Going to 1 gunner per 4 guns makes sense.Your point #3. Unlike the AC-130 and B-29 which are only out for a day at the most, COADE ships are supposed to be away from base up to six months at a time, so they will need to be maintained by staff on the COADE ship. But firing the gun is easier to learn than maintenance. So this could be done by the gun tech. So instead of the gunner doing maintenance, make the gun tech also the gunner. So mostly we agree, just disagree on who to get rid of.
I don't agree with the idea that Weapon System Techs and Weapon Component techs be eliminated. COADE ships are designed to be self sufficient for up to six months, and need to be able to repair every weapon on their ship whenever needed without going back to base, which may take months. Instead train the techs to run the weapons and get rid of the gunners. Also agree missile techs (but not missile launcher techs) can be eliminated. Also one of them should be the fly by wire missile pilot. So we should be able to eliminate the fly by wire pilot and the missile tech position.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:47:41 GMT
David367th Even if drones are used to repair areas outside the ship, since no AI, techs still have to remote control the drones and control all their movements, maybe with some type of VR suit. Maybe like that Star Trek episode with the VR suit controled repair drones.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:49:53 GMT
What matters isn't the amount of crew you need when everything is running smoothly, it's the amount you need when shit hits the fan. Navy ships have more crew than they really need to run on a day-to-day basis because if the ship takes a hit, you need those extra hands doing damage control. And while there have been efforts to reduce costs by reducing manning and relying more on automation, what's actually been happening is that automation breaks down and the crew on the ship with reduced manning now have more things to fix. Agree, military life is mostly hurry up and wait. Even if most of the repair action is after battle, the ship can be pretty beat up even if they "won". Makes sense to have number of techs based on emergencies, not normal day to day operations. It could be the difference between life and death.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 5, 2017 4:51:04 GMT
David367th Even if drones are used to repair areas outside the ship, since no AI, techs still have to remote control the drones and control all their movements, maybe with some type of VR suit. Maybe like that Star Trek episode with the VR suit controled repair drones. Yeah that's not wrong at all, it makes sense that someone would be piloting the drones, still don't see why we need 50 technicians on larger ships though. Also, I'll stop swearing if you stop double posting fucking triple posting, please stop. I high key believe that if we consolidated all your double and triple posts into edits like you're supposed to you'd have like 200 posts.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:54:08 GMT
Then why do we even have technicians in the first place? This brings up another point, though. There is no reason to have crew on EVERY capital ship. One vessel in the fleet specifically designed for containing the commanders and maintenance crew of the entire fleet should be enough. Such a ship would be referred to as a control ship (with elements of a tender added on): www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarship.php#controlshipAgree until the last point. In a fleet, having the ability to have ships individually and creatively pursue objectives is invaluable in theater war. This requires crewed ships with the best captains. The Germans used this to great effect in blitzkrieg and wolfpack tactics, with individual commanders given the freedom to accomplish their objectives anyway they choose, but call for help from other ships when needed. That's not to say drone ships don't have their place in the rear with the gear guarding supply depots and other places unlikely to see action, where good captians would be wasted.
|
|