|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 28, 2016 13:44:21 GMT
I wish we could place other modules as we can place weapons around a ship. I was trying to make a star streak like missile....but you cant place a trio of long rod penetrators around a common long rod explosive ( without a frag liner ) to disperse em b4 impact.... Experiments with a trio of plate shaped penetrators hovering partially over a smaller central explosive pie have come to naught Hmmm Maybe lighter pie plate penetrators...... I also wish we could place ammo modules like we can place weapons.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 25, 2016 6:50:06 GMT
Does it look like reduced-distance proximity fusing will come with the next missile guidance update? I was attempting to create a crude tandem-warhead design today. By putting an additional warhead in the tail of my go-to small missile I was hoping to exploit the hole the nose-mounted EFP charge created by then detonating the secondary fragmentation warhead inside the armor of the target, but the 1 meter minimum was preventing that. Now that I think about it, a negative distance could be useful too, considering that's how the actual delay fusing on bunker busters works. I think the focus at the moment is on getting the fuses to actually fulfill their current specifications. I do notice more rear armor hits and com plete penetrations on dual and triple EFP packages as well as more ragged entry holes in general. I'm going to experiment with reduced explosive charges on the rear explosive drivers. Aint Science! grand
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 24, 2016 11:30:37 GMT
Anyone have anything good in the 250kt to 500kt range ? My 106 kt nuke weighs about 138 kg. 200kt weighs about 180~190 kg. Its fairly easily upscaled. Ill post the text tonight.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 23, 2016 19:36:20 GMT
Are the poly ethylene specs right....Molar mass is noted as 30g/mol. Thats ethane.
Is it supposed to be LDPE or HDPE or VHMWPE ? Because some middle ground options between LDPE and UHMWPE would be nice. Perhaps polycarbonate as well ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 23, 2016 19:00:58 GMT
Huh, interesting. So a pure RCS design would be surprisingly resistant to nukes? Though it wouldn't be able to roll, since we can't place thrusters tangent to the hull right now. Even if we could, a pure RCS design would need a minimum of seven thrusters (up/down yaw, left/right yaw, clockwise roll, counterclockwise roll, main engine). It'd be thirteen if you want your yaw and roll to be vector-neutral, because you'd have to put another set of yaw thrusters at the other end of your ship and another set of roll thrusters on the other side of the cylinder to make torque pairs. Though an additional advantage to a vector-neutral setup is you can lose half a torque pair and still perform the maneuver associated with it, it just won't be vector-neutral anymore. Well....I made a 600kg missile variant that used 8x 40gram 400N fluorine/methane thrusters as RCS (4 above/under CoG) and they always seemed to be taken out by laser NPCs. The missiles themselves never exploded because the main body used Si-gel as armor. Gimballing the RCS seemed to increase vulnerability and made things less stable though it did seem to increase turning time. Overall the static RCS seemed more stable ( way less pronounced wobble) than gimballed main thruster though this might have been a side effect of a lower overall turning time ( 3.45s instead of 1.3s). Overall I didnt like it. I may have undersized the RCS fuel tanks relative to overall dV.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 23, 2016 16:22:46 GMT
Perhaps, but the fusing has a 125m standoff. I was also watching from the missiles pov and they seemed to be detonating properly. I make sure to disable the friendly ship minimum range. ( since missiles are ships ).
It sure didnt have the telltale signs of unfused missile impacts. The missile body I used for these tests goes straight through without any payload, it has a 1cm iron armor ring over the engines to pull the CoG back.
Nukes going off inside a ship should heat it far more than what was observed.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 23, 2016 11:12:08 GMT
Hmmm some interesting Science! with a 3 kt pocketnuke and a 26cm diameter 40cm thick aluminium (50~60kg IIRC) rad shield on top.
It seems to generate alot of spalling and fragments on the rear armor in the usual stock ships armor lay outs. Entry hole seems like the usual you expect with a big EFP.
I wonder if the Al pill is shattered into a tighly constrained mass or the velocity is low enough that it shatters wildly what it impacts.
My basic targets are the stock silo ships without an engine. What you usually see on em is that impacts are clustered around the big radiator section taking out the methane tanks directly behind em.
During this test the impacts were in the usual location but the spalling was from about 30 degrees rearward to about 70ish degrees forward. It took out basically everything inside except the forward most crew section and the nuke reactor.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 20, 2016 14:47:11 GMT
Missiles are small. Combine that with pointed missile cones and you are not focussing that much energy on any one spot.
Do you think a 5 cm thick Si-gel nose cone would do much to hamper missile performance ?
I'm willing to put in a 10 cm Si-gel rad shield pill upfront if it'd save my missile.
Or I think I will alternate some 500ųm gold layers on the nose with 3 mm thick Si-gel.
Theres different ways to increase missile survivability.
How about I send in 10 extra bog cheap decoy KKV missiles that have better accell and dV than the main wave ? But with increased protection and a nice 1cm thick carbonsteel nose ?
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 20, 2016 7:36:58 GMT
You only need 2 types of shell for space combat.
Solid penetrators, whether AP, APDS or APDSFS doesnt really matter.
And
A versatile multimode SAPHE round...google bofors 3P ammo. Fuse can be set in the barrel.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 19, 2016 16:37:05 GMT
How thick is your EFP ?
I wonder how close we can get by using Newtons approximation. Depth = l * d[pen] / d[target]
It gives the approximate penetration depth in penetrator lengths * penetrator density / target density.
Provided impact speed is sufficiently higher than the speed of sound in the target material.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 19, 2016 9:01:33 GMT
Graphite as a nuke EFP ? Try copper, tungsten, DU or Osmium.
Osmium works best for heavier nukes given its absurdly high melting and boiling points. You still need an EFP a couple of centimeters thick. DeciTon range nukes and you might get away with other metals.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 20:11:40 GMT
Might as well, yeah . Missiles are hitting well enough though, didn't notice any far detonations, most of the time the problem was smashing in hull and not detonating. Edit: Which frankly happened only once or twice. IMHO these mini nukes are begging for an EFP pill.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 19:58:36 GMT
The recent changes to nukes mean that I'm going to have to overhaul my entire nuclear product line. However, that gives me a convenient excuse to finish adding EFP caps to all my warheads. So far the results are not too devastating. To be sure, the nukes themselves are bigger and heavier while offering significantly lower yields, not surprising when a series that consisted of nearly pure-fusion nukes gets converted to nearly pure-fission with only minor fusion boosts. However, the switch to U-233 for better hydrogen containment has significantly lowered the cost (in fact the cost is driven almost entirely by the conventional explosives that set it off now), and in EFP designs (which my entire arsenal is being converted to) the higher warhead mass can be offset by the lower yield allowing a much thinner, lighter EFP cap. Early tests seem to indicate that the EFP remains as lethal as ever, even when only driven by a 133kt warhead. It'll still run most targets it's pointed at clean through, it just doesn't also melt everything around the target anymore. Also on the drawing board, bi-propellant conventional micro-missiles. 99ton micronuke + EFP in a <10kg missile 😉
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 18:38:03 GMT
I wonder how optimised the game is for multicore. I cant grab a session footprint ATM....on holiday without a PC.
|
|
|
Post by dwwolf on Oct 17, 2016 7:07:09 GMT
Damn thats micro..... That nuke is almost asking for an Osmium rad shield pill on top of it.
|
|