|
Post by kuriosly on Sept 18, 2017 8:53:56 GMT
Imperially, the US navy only gets 2.4km/s
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on May 20, 2017 23:35:54 GMT
I'm game fyi
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Apr 1, 2017 7:19:42 GMT
The starting engagement on one of the first drone missions is 243Mm. Which would be almost a 2 second control loop lag. (Retaking ceres) obviously the carriers are not close enough
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Apr 1, 2017 7:04:25 GMT
How many initial drone engagements are within 300Mm?
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 31, 2017 18:10:19 GMT
Plus, automation in this century is good enough that having a few seconds of latency is fine because we are not micromanaging. We are saying something like "course correction in one hour" and the onboard AI handles the real time component. In the future, it's only going to be easier. Plus, with the drone crew requirements. (Hint, every drone does not have an operator) there is no assumption of these drones actually being remote fighters or 100% by wire. It's more like a lt. marshaling his robotic minions
I'll give the the light speed limit one partially. There should be a delay to account for it for new commands sent to drones. Drones can do what they do without guidance, but if they are 3 light seconds out, the operator won't know what happened until at least 3 seconds after the fact, and then another 3 seconds for the time it takes for the new instructions to arrive (PS: this matters on the scale we work at. For example, Titan orbits saturn from about 3.9 light seconds away. If I was doing a drone intercept from titan to another moon of saturn I'd likely be seconds behind in information)
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 19, 2017 6:51:50 GMT
Go on, jam a laser transceiver. (If you can do that, you can probably blow up the command ship as well. Just. Saying.) Blowing up the command ship is a good way to jam the laser transmitter. I think there's a bit of a difference between a communication laser and a tactical jamming communication laser and a tactical communicate-with-the-ship-behind-the-ship laser
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 19, 2017 6:44:51 GMT
kuriosly Nice job Drones in COADE are designed for one or two attacks/ operations, (not six months plus like our warships), basically disposable craft and can't even be retrieved.This is why to me, this discrepancy in crew between crewed ships and drones makes sense. So this group of guys, could they keep that fleet of Unmanned Drone Carriers operating for 6 months? Nope. But they could for one fight/ battle. If the enemy faints and escapes out to light lagging distance from the control ship, well, not good for the control ship. They don't even have the manpower to repair anything that breaks, or even to retrieve the Drones. To really see these factors come into play in COADE we need more permanence of bases/facilities and world which I hear KSP and some others have incorporated. Eventually I think it will happen, but KSP took something like 6 years to get where it is now. COADE has only been out for 6 or 7 months. From the Crew-MaxTM report... "A pack of drones launched from the same launcher (even at different times) all count crew wise as if they are just one of the individual drones in the swarm. The Gun Monkeys (Gunners), Tweeners (Missile guys), or Glow-Sticks (Nuke Techs) that would have been on your Drone if is was a regular ship, are instead counted as Nose Pickers (Drone techs), and put on your main ship."
Edit: PS. Trying to figure out your crew based on only the numbers. Am I right?
Brass 7 CO, XO, Bread Burner, Pecker Checker, Yoyo, 2 Chops
Ops 8 3 Commos, 3 Ping Jockeys, 2 Turd Chasers
Snipes 11 Cheng, Nuke, 6 Glow-Sticks, 3 Pit Bilges
Weps 13 Wheel, SWO, Tweener, Spacedale, 9 Nose Pickers.
Sorry, was in Canada:
i.imgur.com/eCUORIh.png
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 22:12:49 GMT
Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic. Directional communications are literally as simple as occluding the enemy fleet to your receiver. Instead of thinking about how to jam the drones' comms, how about investing the time and effort into means of destroying them? You could do things like shoot out nukes and detonate them in off positions to blind optical receivers, for example, but at that point you might as well explode the nukes close enough to knock things out too. Impairing enemy communications is always going to be a factor, but it's not significant in the tactical stages of battle. So your saying the transceivers on the ship giving orders is pointed at me then? Who says I'm trying to jam the drone/missile?
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 21:59:21 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links. Not all attacks are based in software Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough. I understand how jamming/distraction/decoys work. So do the people designing drone guidance systems. The amount of jamming that can be done is massively limited by having the drones rely on tight beam maser/laser communications, giving them reasonable amounts of autonomy, and linking the data from as many tracking sensors as possible to prevent any single missile/drone being fooled by flashing a laser at its FLIR. Being in space removes a lot of the complications faced by guidance systems on earth, too. Honestly, it's hard for me to tell you how to defeat a hypothetical space based weapons platform using magic for communications. There are theories, but any theory you and I have will either not matter, or be defended against, as they were easy enough cases that we came up with them. The other half would be the ones that were beyond the current tech to solve. And I really don't understand the techbase these drones run on. I don't know how autonomous they are, how reliant on links they are, how they sense/communicate. So basically, with my understanding of CoaDE is that communications are magic, and sensors are magic.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 21:00:23 GMT
We do today though. Aircraft carry flares to confuse heat seekers and chaff to confuse radar based systems. EW methods attempt to swamp out control links.
Not all attacks are based in software
Taking control isn't need when denial/confusion is enough.
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 18, 2017 20:11:34 GMT
Would there be a flash of light then as the visual component of the EM spectrum?
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 17, 2017 23:56:33 GMT
If these platforms can be hacked or corrupted than the same automation which grants ease of access and deployment could be it's own worst enemy. With all due respect, mr moderator, I don't think hacking works like you think it does. And whatever means of hacking the drones you might come up with, the engineers back home designing the drones would have already predicted before the first one rolled off the assembly line. Jamming? Quite plausible, yes. Hacking/hijacking? No. As an internet security professional, I don't think you understand how hacking works. Engineers suck at predicting all edge cases. And edge cases are how hacks happen
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 15, 2017 6:36:20 GMT
You know, just destroy the dock and the fleet will die. Thanks. Sure. But that's true for any fleet. No One said the fleet needed to be orbiting the same planet (at least via game mechanics). However, in the rather silly skynet example, you have one man basically handling repairs/piloting/everything on 2 Fleet carriers, plus their support of 40 hellfire drones and 50 stinger drones. It's amazing how much one man can do as soon as he's not "manning a ship"
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 15, 2017 6:11:39 GMT
I present to you Skynet Solutions : Almost stock solutions to core crew problems! our new and improved skynet fleet carrier: 99% identical to stock, just without the pesky meat-bodies! And the skynet home base! Because you gotta put a monkey with a wrench somewhere! And OH WOW! It only takes 11 people to maintain 20 fleet carriers! Amazing! Our fleet in action (manned by 11 people remotely) And the skynet(tm) Fleet Carriers can even manage to manage 400 Hellfire Drones and 200 Stinger Drones! All with 11 people! Who needs humans in war anyways! imgur gallery of above
|
|
|
Post by kuriosly on Mar 14, 2017 8:26:16 GMT
Shit guys you are writing faster than I can respond and I really need to work . Thing is that you are all affected by what I would call "large force" way of thinking and I'm much more inclined to like small nations that defy the forces of the day and do everything possible to protect themselves . Both points of view have their issues. You think investing large amounts of money in military makes your stomping of everybody else somehow more moral and right. I on the other hand like simple cheap solutions that give even small nations ways to defend themselves. We may never agree. A small nation that uses a Qship is a dead nation. A big nation that uses a Qship is a nation at war with the rest of the system. The Islamic state still exists. Terror/gorilla tactics are a thing.
|
|