|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Mar 4, 2017 6:25:45 GMT
i think that we should add IR seeker lens to missile and drone , because drones and missiles in COADE is based on IR homing system , and i think it is more realistic to add the IR lens to them. What do your guys want?
|
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Mar 4, 2017 15:47:22 GMT
I think we can assume the remote control and crew modules have laser ring gyroscopes or fiber optic gyroscopes and accelerometer that provide very accurate inertial guidance. A distributed sensor network to provide targeting info seems valid too.
So a small missile that has been told to intercept a target would know its own orbital parameters in 3d space and probably wouldn't be fooled about where it was. If it was receiving a target info feed it probably can dead reckon to something close by. The accuracy will depend on the nonzero sensor drift. So missiles shouldn't go dumb even with a 0.01°/hour bias uncertainty.
In regards to CoDE we'd need to figure out how to make it interesting in regards to lasers. If it just gets blinded and destroyed instantly, well what was the point of that? There are also synthetic aperture technologies which can make it even more complex.
|
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Mar 4, 2017 15:52:25 GMT
In regards to CoDE we'd need to figure out how to make it interesting in regards to lasers. If it just gets blinded and destroyed instantly, well what was the point of that? There are also synthetic aperture technologies which can make it even more complex. But it is , you know , REALISM!!! |
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 4, 2017 15:53:54 GMT
In regards to CoDE we'd need to figure out how to make it interesting in regards to lasers. If it just gets blinded and destroyed instantly, well what was the point of that? There are also synthetic aperture technologies which can make it even more complex. But it is , you know , REALISM!!! |
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Mar 4, 2017 15:55:45 GMT
But it is , you know , REALISM!!! Finally somebody get it!!! |
|
|
|
Post by dragonkid11 on Mar 4, 2017 16:24:01 GMT
Yeah but with all the instant lens melting all lasers are currently suffering, won't IR seeker len caps make all missiles instantly fail as well?
MAYBE THAT'S THE POINT!!!
MAKE KINETIC WEAPONS GREAT AGAIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Mar 4, 2017 16:30:33 GMT
Yeah but with all the instant lens melting all lasers are currently suffering, won't IR seeker len caps make all missiles instantly fail as well? MAYBE THAT'S THE POINT!!! MAKE KINETIC WEAPONS GREAT AGAIN! Oh these "little gun" are the dominant again~ |
|
|
|
Post by vegemeister on Mar 4, 2017 16:54:48 GMT
Realistically, I don't think IR guidance is feasible, because any seeker could be destroyed so easily by lasers. The best thing I was able to think of was to have many IR cameras, and only open the lens cap on one of them at once, so it would take several on-off cycles of the laser to destroy all the cameras.
It'd be better to use command guidance, where missiles are launched along with a number of passive sensor drones, which would use cold gas thrusters to divert their trajectories slightly after the initial boost burn, so that the enemy wouldn't know exactly where they were in order to lase them. The sensor drones would measure the position of the target (and the missiles, to discipline their inertial guidance), and transmit it to the missiles by whisker laser or low-observability radio.
The side benefit of not using 1970s biggest-lump-of-heat IR homing is that the missiles don't have to all go for the same spot, so they still do damage if there's nothing important under the radiators, and can be split between targets (drones, flares, fleets, etc.). Also it'd make missiles immune to the thing where a ship spinning end-over-end appears to be constantly accelerating if the radiators aren't centered on the center of mass.
|
|
elukka
Junior Member
Posts: 73 
|
Post by elukka on Mar 7, 2017 18:43:58 GMT
Yeah but with all the instant lens melting all lasers are currently suffering, won't IR seeker len caps make all missiles instantly fail as well? MAYBE THAT'S THE POINT!!! MAKE KINETIC WEAPONS GREAT AGAIN! Yes, but I'd suspect in reality a missile swarm would be datalinked such that any one missile can guide all of them, so you'd have to fry pretty much every seeker. Which would still be easier than destroying every missile, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Mar 7, 2017 21:22:04 GMT
Realistically, I don't think IR guidance is feasible, because any seeker could be destroyed so easily by lasers. The best thing I was able to think of was to have many IR cameras, and only open the lens cap on one of them at once, so it would take several on-off cycles of the laser to destroy all the cameras. It'd be better to use command guidance, where missiles are launched along with a number of passive sensor drones, which would use cold gas thrusters to divert their trajectories slightly after the initial boost burn, so that the enemy wouldn't know exactly where they were in order to lase them. The sensor drones would measure the position of the target (and the missiles, to discipline their inertial guidance), and transmit it to the missiles by whisker laser or low-observability radio. The side benefit of not using 1970s biggest-lump-of-heat IR homing is that the missiles don't have to all go for the same spot, so they still do damage if there's nothing important under the radiators, and can be split between targets (drones, flares, fleets, etc.). Also it'd make missiles immune to the thing where a ship spinning end-over-end appears to be constantly accelerating if the radiators aren't centered on the center of mass. Well I don't think its going to be that easy... anti-shipping missiles started to "talk" to eachother, share targeting information since the 70ties and I somehow don't think ours are less sophisticated  . Also our targets are very hot and you don't need a very sensitive sensor to find them. The less sensitive the sensor the harder its going to be to burn it. |
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 7, 2017 21:37:46 GMT
Well, with regards to the sensors, if you simply ablate the lens so it is less and less transparent (to IR or whatever wavelength the sensor is using), it will functionally destroy the sensor. Also, you can simply ablate it such that it mechanically destroys the actual sensor aka the thing vaporizes or cracks.
Since one of the prime concepts of armouring missiles is to make an absolute minimum cross section facing your target and severely sloping that cross section, it will actually be a challenge to affix good sensors to that type of design. You could end up with varying grades of sensors that are used at various times of the missile's flight. Either way, more granularity and simulation of vital systems will only improve the game, removing abstraction and ways of "cheating" that bias various weapon systems.
It may not be very practical to destroy all the sensors on a constellation of 100 missiles, but on 5 or 10 drones? Perhaps. One more limitation that can bring things closer to reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Mar 7, 2017 22:18:45 GMT
If sensors are small enough, sacrificial sensors can be ejected every X seconds (probably more with terminal guidance) for negligible cost.
How small can be a missile IR sensor?
|
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 7, 2017 22:32:25 GMT
Well, if you take the developer's blog post about sensors, he uses the example of a 10cm radius IR sensor having a pixel being about 14m at 1000km ( childrenofadeadearth.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/sensors-and-countermeasures/ ). However, you can't simply dump a sensor overboard and hope for the best. It will require a transmitter of some sort to send the sensor data back to the missile. Since you want to make it very small and light (so you can carry a lot - "sacrificial"), you will by necessity have low power capabilities. This, unfortunately, puts you right into easy pickings territory for EW. Electronic warfare will kind of need to become a factor if sensors are made more complex and people start wanting to decouple sensors from their missiles and use data links and other communication methods. Weak radio communication is incredibly easy to jam. Trying to use laser point to point comms will be challenging on a small object, and will also be quite fragile. Wire comms could be a possibility, but also fragile at the points of connection between sensor and missile. Also opens the larger can of worms with regards to our remote controlling of drones and missiles. If EW now is a thing, controlling that missile constellation on terminal guidance to it's target will become much more difficult. If you are using radio communication, there will be a point of no return where you can no longer maintain comms over enemy EW. If using laser comms, hard maneuvering or enemy fire can kill your comms. I think the wire guided solution's drawbacks are self-evident ... |
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Mar 7, 2017 23:22:36 GMT
I think the wire guided solution's drawbacks are self-evident ... Actually no, they aren't to me. The sensor doesn't have to go far, just outside of the missile/drone armour. Why wouldn't cable work? |
|
|
|
Post by samchiu2000 on Mar 7, 2017 23:44:38 GMT
Well, with regards to the sensors, if you simply ablate the lens so it is less and less transparent (to IR or whatever wavelength the sensor is using), it will functionally destroy the sensor. Also, you can simply ablate it such that it mechanically destroys the actual sensor aka the thing vaporizes or cracks. Since one of the prime concepts of armouring missiles is to make an absolute minimum cross section facing your target and severely sloping that cross section, it will actually be a challenge to affix good sensors to that type of design. You could end up with varying grades of sensors that are used at various times of the missile's flight. Either way, more granularity and simulation of vital systems will only improve the game, removing abstraction and ways of "cheating" that bias various weapon systems. It may not be very practical to destroy all the sensors on a constellation of 100 missiles, but on 5 or 10 drones? Perhaps. One more limitation that can bring things closer to reality. I can destroy 20 lasers with one 100 kw counter laser within one second , so it take only a few seconds to destroy 100 sensors. But it could be a bug , because if it is not a bug a flashlight should destroy any type of laser instantly... |
|
. Also our targets are very hot and you don't need a very sensitive sensor to find them. The less sensitive the sensor the harder its going to be to burn it.