blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 17:44:14 GMT
That's light enough. I never really tried these micro nukes. I went either 1Mt and above or just use kinetic/laser weapons.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 17:40:10 GMT
Micro counter laser laser drones are exploitation of current bug/incorrect setting though. But then that also depends on how micro is this. Is 1.3 kc, 75 kg micro? Maybe no, but that's small enough~ and I still not very sure if it is a bug, but I am sure that small laser can kill much large laser IRL~ That's not micro. That's nano. My smallest drone is 13.5kc and 603kg with 1MW weapon. And I consider it to be a micro. My laser interceptor is 218kc and 11.4t with 30MW laser. What is the output and intensity at 1Mm of that drone anyway? Mine is 1.27MW with 451kW/m2 at 1Mm and I still feel it is too weak.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 17:17:56 GMT
95ton nukes are where its at. 2 can take out most of a missile wave. But I still want the design of the micro flak railgun. And the flak ofcourse. 256t isn't bad either, but a 95t with a 600g flak charge is a mean little package. Why flak if it already has nuke? Nukes are far better than flaks in countering missiles.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 17:13:21 GMT
Micro counter laser laser drones are exploitation of current bug/incorrect setting though.
But then that also depends on how micro is this.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 15:32:14 GMT
Actually i created this thread because i remember this thread...In that thread that's a terrifying flak gun that eat missiles with walls of flak.. Just wonder if anyone can make something similar to this monster... That monster weight 10 times mine. The flak ammo weigh 4kg.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 15:19:19 GMT
It can be 2.42 if you can accept 4.00°/s turning speed. I do. I had just found out that I forgot to optimize the turret size. Turret can be a credit and mass eater if you don't care about them... BTW may i know how much it is? Although i don't think that it will overrun my micro missileS in term of cost~ Already revised the design. It is now 3.26t and cost 80.4kc, ammo not included (but selenium flak are dirt cheap at 4.87 mc/shot). But it now shoot at 15.5km/s, reload time of 0.256s and turns at 7.31°/s. I am going to try this again. Optimized AI targetting would improve a *lot* of things. You have no idea how I feel when my dedicated high accuracy and RoF CIWS guns just shoot 1 target at a time... I'm like I HAVE 100 GUNS ON A SINGLE SHIP ALL OF THEM RIDICULOUSLY OP HIGH ROF and they're like NOPE I'm going to take my time and miss a single target because I can't compensate for like just 0.1 degree On the contrary, I prefer lower ROF but higher velocity and accuracy. Shooting a lots of bullets quickly is consuming ammo stock quickly. Better to shoot fewer effective shots.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 15:06:37 GMT
It can be 2.42 if you can accept 4.00°/s turning speed.
I do. I had just found out that I forgot to optimize the turret size.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:58:44 GMT
Not too bad. And the performance on intercepting missiles is impressive for a 2MW railgun!! Give it 10MW and it still doesn't matter. The problem was not rate of fire. Its the delay from firing to hit and the target selection. It keep shooting the same missile until the missile is down, despite missile is destroyed in the first shot. And all three guns shoot the same target. It needs more shot velocity. That means longer, bigger heavier railgun, not more power. And this one already weigh 4.20t.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:45:25 GMT
Not bad~ But how cheap/expensive the drones are?~ 1.73 Mc 104t wet, 63.5t dry. That being said, two-third of its weapons were deactivated for testing purpose though.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:43:47 GMT
Nice, but I would still consider 2/20 hits to be a mission-fail for the defending ship. Those missiles *could* have managed a mobility-kill or could have destroyed a crew module on a manned ship. For the mass and cost of those flak launchers a single (or five if you don't like cheese) Interceptor Missile would likely have better results. I still love the idea though and would like to see it work. Battlestar Galactica-style flak shields...a man can dream. (I did have a design way back that used around a dozen micro-missile launchers with *very* short range payloads. Called it Explosive Reactive Armor. It was heavy, expensive, and not very effective) The problem wasn't that it cannot effectively shoot down missiles. It does shot them down very effectively with a few shots for each missile. The problem was the targeting algorithm. All three defense guns aims at the same target and shoot until the missile is destroyed before switching target. The time lost from waiting the bullet to reach missiles is a lot.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:22:12 GMT
Another test: Attachment DeletedDefending against 20 striker nuclear missiles starting from 100km at 1.15 km/s velocity using 3 turrets of 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel are 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium. Attachment DeletedShot down 18, got hit by 2. The drone is still fully functional and proceeds to intercept and destroy enemy missile schooner.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 14:06:43 GMT
This is not a challenge, just survey of admirals preferences. You can always ask budgets from your mother, the prime minister of RFP.
The PM has a lot of children though, LOL.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 13:49:54 GMT
It does decently against standard missiles. At really too close for comfort range though. I use 1g 14.8km/s microflak railguns as secondary defense weapon after laser (Because counter lasers keep burning my lasers.).
Had just pit my drone with 3 microflak railguns against a missile schooner with other weapon except microflak disabled. It shot down waves of 20 missiles starting from 20km and 200m/s easily. And the drone annihilate the missile schooner in direct confrontation, even with most of its weapon deactivated.
Edit: Add flak spec: the flak is 1g 14.8km/s firing at 0.233s reload time. The flak shrapnel: 22x40.9 mg pieces of selenium
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 13:33:40 GMT
1) Laserstars and arsenal ships/missile barges. Approximately split 50/50. 2) Methane for capships and drones. Hydrogen-fluoride for missiles. 3) Missiles (flak and small nukes) and lasers. 4) Multiple small ships. Delta-v over raw acceleration. Frontal engagement. Drones, if used are small (sub 100 kg). 5) No logistical demands. All standard issue ships have over 10 km/s of delta-v, with most having over 12 km/s of delta-v. Therefore, there is little to no need for tankers. 1. mostly missile ships with a few laserstars, and one to two carriers 2. Decane for caps and H-F for missiles and drones, RP-1 when i need to go fast 3. primary weapons are missiles secondary are lasers 4. larger ships with pointed noses for frontal engaments 5. tankers for long range ops, and more missiles, 4mm railgun shots, and other special purpose rounds Lasers and missiles. I hate both. Lasers are annoying. AI counter lasers are inhumanly fast. They don't switch ships though. And radiators. Laser needs radiators. I hate having those. Especially when my fleet is centered around being as small as possible. And I hate intercepting missile salvo. It take a lot of time waiting missiles to get inside interceptor effective laser range. I often go have a meal or shower when intercepting missiles. Sure, nuke defense missiles are quicker, but it seems expensive. I'd rather intercept them with drones. 1. Non-combat carrier with payload of sub-capital drones, fighter drones and missiles, only armed with defensive anti drone and missile laser. And light armored combat vessel below 1 kt mass for boosting the signal for drones and for parade purpose. 2. Mostly methane or hydrogen deutride for ships and drone, oxygen-hydrogen fuel for micro missiles. 3. Drones armed with all cannon types and missile swamp. 4. Doctrine is all revolved around drone. As stated above, fighter drones armed with all cannon types and missiles will be leading the front, supported by sub-capital drone with more payload of drones, missile and longer range railguns or coilgun as well as a defensive cloud of counter laser placed on defensive drones to destroy enemies's super laser platform. if that failed, super laser resistant missiles will be launched to defeat super laser platform first before launching more drones. In short, the entire doctrine is about launching as many drones and missile as possible at the enemies to minimize human life loss and reduce mass and cost as manned vessel tends to be more fuel dependent, having higher building cost and bigger in term of size. 5. Most carrier drone has MPD for long range travel, but if required, methane tanker drone will be deployed to refuel the sub-capital drone before combat. We both uses swarm of drones. Mine is centered around sub-capital drones with laser drones support though. And my drones don't launch drone (or missile). Need to save all those spaces. Any drone or missile that are to be use in the engagement must be launched and ready prior to the actual engagement. So is serious engagement, the engaging fleet starts with big cloud of missiles and drones floating on standby. I empathize on saving space to the point of limiting dV to make the drones smaller and rely on tanker drone instead. I am even considering reducing combat unit dV from 3~4km/s to 2~3km/s. Right now they still have a third dV remaining after battle so it should be enough. Managing tanker drones would be annoying though. Since then it would most likely need to have tanker refuel combatants after the engagement. Fleet Composition - Subcapital: - Metalstorm Frigate MkII -- 1+
- Counterlaser ship -- 2
- Railgun sniper ship -- 1
Propellents Consumed: Ammunition Requirements: - 25mm Osmium slugs
- Standard 1g MMG pellets
Doctrine: Based on the idea of naval tactics on earth, the fleet is designed to hit hard, hit fast and disable the opposing ships before they get a chance to fire. The fleet is designed for medium to short range operation, but is capable of long range operations in special conditions. All ships have high Delta-V of at least 7+ Km/s with high acceleration (5G+). The counterlaser ships disable opposing ships' lasers and unarmored components from a distance, followed by the railgun sniper disabling long ranged weapons. Once long range weapons have been disabled, the Metalstorm frigates burn toward the target and fires it's array of guns broadside, with a 99% killrate if in range. Missiles are intercepted with the counterlasers unless they are disabled, in which the fleet expends fuel to outmanoeuvre the missiles instead. If the Metalstorm frigates are the the only surviving ships, the captains may choose to expend all fuel for a suicide run against the opposing ships.
In the event of a high-value target, a long range strategic missile may be launched from a missile silo armed with a 10.3MT Cassaba Howitzer to destroy the target.
Logistical Demands: The initial costs of the ships are low due to availability of materials required. However, maintenance may be of high expense due to the manpower required to inspect the array of 100 guns on the Metalstorm frigate and ammunition is required in very high amounts to compensate for the extreme rate of fire of the ships. The strategic missile silo has to be escorted with ships as it does not have any defensive weapons barring a point defence gun
That seems like a lot of propellant consumption. A lot. How did you manage ballooned size problem? dV and Thrust don't get along.
|
|
blkcandy
Junior Member
Burn complete. Crawling back to bed.
Posts: 78
|
Post by blkcandy on Apr 13, 2017 11:54:19 GMT
My answer to the survey:
1. My fleet is composed of super carrier (non-combat) and drones, with few multirole frigates for frontal drone command, accompanied by fuel tankers for long mission. The drones are capital class kinetic combat drone as main battle drone, laser interceptor drones as primary defense against drones/missiles, and 500t fuel tanker drones for logistic runs.
2. All units in my fleet uses decane as propellant. Nuke missiles uses LOX-Decane fuel.
3. My fleet weapon of choice are microflak railguns. Defense guns consumes 2x80mm 1g Selenium-nitrocellulose microflak needles. Main cannons uses 4x110mm 20g Osmium-Octogen microflak needles. Missiles are 1Mt unarmored defense missiles and 1Mt armored attack missiles. All lasers use Xenon gas and hydrogen coolants.
4. My design preferred multiple small spacecrafts and drones over large spacecrafts. The spacecrafts have minimal dV (3~4km/s) and thrusts (300mg-1g). They are to use frontal engagement using small size and angled armor for protection. The fleet employ tanker drones to compensate for limited dV. Kinetic drones are designed for ~100km engagement range. Frigates are to use lasers and missiles, control drones from distance, and avoid kinetic combat range.
5. Super tankers for long distance missions. And lots of U-233 dioxides. Lots.
|
|