|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 6, 2017 14:24:09 GMT
Simply put, the emitter diagram fron argonbalt would not work in the CoADE turrets. If his diagram were articulated at the rear of the focusing chamber, then maybe, but there would still be additional mirrors.
Kind of frightening seeing a mod engaging in clearly flawed arguments and antagonizing folks with language and personal comments.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 6, 2017 11:49:55 GMT
Refrigeration via coilgun!
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 17:38:23 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer. This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity. Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort. I'm with you in spirit, I like the way you are thinking and what you have to say, just the last part loses me. You need all hands on deck, but you need guys who can field strip every part on the ships too, at least for ships that are designed to go on for 6 months plus. On earth, if you have to, in an emergency, a sub or carrier in trouble can get men and supplies to them within a day or even less by air. In COADE, depending on the situation, a damaged ship could be stuck out there with no help for quite a while. So I don't see trying to get rid too many of the techs. To me they may be more essential than some of the command staff. I guess my real question is... 1. We get rid of missile techs, gunners, fly by wire pilots, and train techs to do all those jobs when needed. 2. On short duration mission ships, you get less crew, maybe cut out almost everyone except a skeleton crew.What more do you want to cut? I'm on par with that. I was countering a prior point about planning to have personnel for emergencies, at which time everyone pitches in. It seemed like someone was advocating for a dedicated, fully staffed damage control crew... Which seemed very wasteful to me. Figuring out the relationship between number of skilled folks and mission duration will be tricky, but that would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Boarding
Mar 5, 2017 15:24:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 15:24:39 GMT
A marine is more flexible, can open doors without special equipment and can adapt to any situation that arrises. Depends on the goal... Forcible entry to try and snag a person from a derelict: marine makes sense. Combat penetration for pure destruction: drone, or rather a "limpet" In a tactical engagement, you'd likely want to cease firing or risk destroying your own limpets. Not sure how viable that would be. On the strategic level, heck yeah go for it.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 15:09:57 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer.
This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity.
Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 2:30:42 GMT
Unfortunately kinetic weapons don't have the option to get radiators... It's not a bug.
This is by design in the current release, so this thread may be better suited as a Suggestion
|
|
|
Boarding
Mar 5, 2017 1:47:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 1:47:37 GMT
Hmm... In the case of seizing high value personnel, boarding would be required in a rapid fashion, and ROVs might be feasible for that.
Sanitizing electronics doesn't require physical destruction, you simply zeroize it. That is an extremely common feature on military electronics, allowing an item to be wiped and rendered useless in seconds. No need to burn papers like the old days.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 1:30:14 GMT
Ehhh... The resulting close quarters combat might be rather chaotic, and might exceed the capability of near future automation to execute in an intelligent, methodical manner in the relatively unknown environment of an enemy vessel.
On the contrary, who says that boarding is feasible at all? Assuming that the enemy doesn't conveniently let you use their airlock, you'd have to be capable of penetrating a heavily armored and possibly pressurized space, and then subdue folks.
I'd suggest this: why bother with trying to board when you can destroy the weapons and reactor, then simply wait. Presumably, any intel you might seize would be sanitized long before you ever forced your way aboard, under any circumstance. The best you could hope for would be salvaging fragments of technology or raw materials.
|
|
|
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/
|
|
|
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 bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 22:23:11 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.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 21:07:03 GMT
Yes, they work with us every day. Great, do me a favor. I mean this sincerely. Ask them if the average person with no training and a manual could fix some problem they often encounter in the course of their jobs perhaps ever, let alone in a timely manner, and tell me what they say. Then ask them if they think a person who is a licenced carpenter, electrician and HVAC is common and if such a person is realistic. Have them explain their answer to you. Then come back and tell me what they say. I don't even have to ask to know that they would say it's impossible with just a system manual and zero training, and that a triple certified person likely is out of touch with one or more of their fields. However, that reveals the civil mindset that you're applying. In the military aircraft maintenance community, a step by step guide (TO) is followed rigorously for every activity. That includes troubleshooting, repair, diagnostics, etc. The folks who perform that work have a few months training and then hop on the job. It happens every day, a few buildings over from where I sit. They can do that because every B1 is the same. Here in my squadron, we're civil engineers and every building is different
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:53:11 GMT
Correct, multi skill expert is unreasonable. BUT, the ability to repair multiple systems isn't, by following the book. USAF jet engine mechanics only get a few months of training. The manual they use isn't for reference (when they get stuck), it lists how to do a task step by individual step. They must be strictly followed without deviation. If you apply that to a few similar space systems, one person could follow similar technical orders for routine maintenance. FWIW I am in a highly skilled trade that the Army split into 5 different jobs. We, however, don't use TOs. Do you know any service people, like HVAC people, or carpenters, or electricians, anyone like that? Yes, they work with us every day.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:48:44 GMT
That's how airplanes and engines are repaired, how bombs are built and loaded. By the book. Step by step. Memorization is prohibited. Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines except the Chief. And that's why there is only one per ship. Correct, multi skill expert is unreasonable. BUT, the ability to repair multiple systems isn't, by following the book. USAF jet engine mechanics only get a few months of training. The manual they use isn't for reference (when they get stuck), it lists how to do a task step by individual step. They must be strictly followed without deviation. If you apply that to a few similar space systems, one person could follow similar technical orders for routine maintenance. FWIW I am in a highly skilled trade that the Army split into 5 different jobs. We, however, don't use TOs.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:43:01 GMT
I meant that the education system is messed up that we all have to constantly memorize things even though down the line we'll just follow instructions. Please don't hurt me. [/font][/quote] That's how I read it, not as an insult
|
|