|
Post by RiftandRend on May 28, 2017 23:11:09 GMT
And so can interceptor-interceptor missiles. This line of reasoning won't go anywhere. yep, my interceptor-interceptor-interceptor missiles will eat you're interceptor-interceptors for breakfast allowing my interceptors to intercept you're real missile The issue is, as missiles become progressively smaller and smaller in order to economically intercept their targets, they become incredibly easy prey for wide angle lasers.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 28, 2017 23:12:05 GMT
yep, my interceptor-interceptor-interceptor missiles will eat you're interceptor-interceptors for breakfast allowing my interceptors to intercept you're real missile The issue is, as missiles become progressively smaller and smaller in order to economically intercept their targets, they become incredibly easy prey for wide angle lasers. a problem which I can solve with more missiles
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 28, 2017 23:20:11 GMT
The issue is, as missiles become progressively smaller and smaller in order to economically intercept their targets, they become incredibly easy prey for wide angle lasers. a problem which I can solve with more missiles What I'm saying is that the tiny interceptor 3 Missiles are will have to be so poorly armored to be cost effective that a super wide angle laser (think kilometer wide) could kill millions/s at megameter ranges.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 28, 2017 23:33:52 GMT
a problem which I can solve with more missiles What I'm saying is that the tiny interceptor 3 Missiles are will have to be so poorly armored to be cost effective that a super wide angle laser (think kilometer wide) could kill millions/s at megameter ranges. with a nose cone they could survive if they were pointed at the laser, otherwise, thin scilicagel layers can extend survival time dramatically
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 29, 2017 1:49:43 GMT
What I'm saying is that the tiny interceptor 3 Missiles are will have to be so poorly armored to be cost effective that a super wide angle laser (think kilometer wide) could kill millions/s at megameter ranges. with a nose cone they could survive if they were pointed at the laser, otherwise, thin scilicagel layers can extend survival time dramatically What you have suggested here is armor. This will add to the cost and mass of the interceptor and make it less cost effective. In order for an interceptor missile to be a viable defensive measure it must be significantly cheaper than its target. Because the thickness of armor required to resist a laser for a given time does not change with missile size the target missiles will require a similar mass of armor. If Terawatt lasers are in play both the target and interceptor missiles will require vast amounts of armor to reach their targets and will have a largely similar cost. This cost parity makes interceptor missiles not cost effective when laserstars are in play, which they will be.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 29, 2017 2:16:24 GMT
with a nose cone they could survive if they were pointed at the laser, otherwise, thin scilicagel layers can extend survival time dramatically What you have suggested here is armor. This will add to the cost and mass of the interceptor and make it less cost effective. In order for an interceptor missile to be a viable defensive measure it must be significantly cheaper than its target. Because the thickness of armor required to resist a laser for a given time does not change with missile size the target missiles will require a similar mass of armor. If Terawatt lasers are in play both the target and interceptor missiles will require vast amounts of armor to reach their targets and will have a largely similar cost. This cost parity makes interceptor missiles not cost effective when laserstars are in play, which they will be. The big thing is you assume I use interceptors 1:1, a big nuke can cleave up whole missile salvos, if my interceptor is 10x the cost, then I am winning the exchange if I kill 11 missiles with it
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 29, 2017 2:35:11 GMT
What you have suggested here is armor. This will add to the cost and mass of the interceptor and make it less cost effective. In order for an interceptor missile to be a viable defensive measure it must be significantly cheaper than its target. Because the thickness of armor required to resist a laser for a given time does not change with missile size the target missiles will require a similar mass of armor. If Terawatt lasers are in play both the target and interceptor missiles will require vast amounts of armor to reach their targets and will have a largely similar cost. This cost parity makes interceptor missiles not cost effective when laserstars are in play, which they will be. The big thing is you assume I use interceptors 1:1, a big nuke can cleave up whole missile salvos, if my interceptor is 10x the cost, then I am winning the exchange if I kill 11 missiles with it Why would the missiles be close enough to be caught in the blast?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 29, 2017 4:25:01 GMT
The big thing is you assume I use interceptors 1:1, a big nuke can cleave up whole missile salvos, if my interceptor is 10x the cost, then I am winning the exchange if I kill 11 missiles with it Why would the missiles be close enough to be caught in the blast? deployment of high yield nuclear bombs
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 29, 2017 5:28:40 GMT
Why would the missiles be close enough to be caught in the blast? deployment of high yield nuclear bombs You would not be able to get cost effective interceptors using such a method. If you array your missiles in a wide formation (1 km minimum spacing) even multi megaton nukes would be unable to kill more than 2-3. Considering that any practical anti-ship missile uses some type of fragmentation warhead you would be unable to make cost effective trades.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 29, 2017 13:58:43 GMT
deployment of high yield nuclear bombs You would not be able to get cost effective interceptors using such a method. If you array your missiles in a wide formation (1 km minimum spacing) even multi megaton nukes would be unable to kill more than 2-3. Considering that any practical anti-ship missile uses some type of fragmentation warhead you would be unable to make cost effective trades. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work
|
|
|
Post by Dhan on May 29, 2017 17:24:49 GMT
You would not be able to get cost effective interceptors using such a method. If you array your missiles in a wide formation (1 km minimum spacing) even multi megaton nukes would be unable to kill more than 2-3. Considering that any practical anti-ship missile uses some type of fragmentation warhead you would be unable to make cost effective trades. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work I hate to get in another off topic doctrine argument, but that interceptor is definitely not going to be cost-effective. Especially since less than 1 m/s of delta v is all that is needed to scatter a volley of missiles so that only one of the missiles is within range of your nukes.
|
|
|
Post by RiftandRend on May 29, 2017 22:13:42 GMT
You would not be able to get cost effective interceptors using such a method. If you array your missiles in a wide formation (1 km minimum spacing) even multi megaton nukes would be unable to kill more than 2-3. Considering that any practical anti-ship missile uses some type of fragmentation warhead you would be unable to make cost effective trades. my interceptor costs 610kc, not much for me, I haven't gotton flak anti-missile to work The missiles you are targeting can cost as little as 25 kc. Implosion nukes are not cost effective weapons when used omnidirectionally.
|
|
aiyel
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by aiyel on May 30, 2017 20:59:17 GMT
Interceptor missiles can also be intercepted. And so can interceptor-interceptor missiles. This line of reasoning won't go anywhere. A 5TT nuke is going to be absurdly large anyway, so it's not like defending it with its own decoy launchers, point defense lasers and autocannons isn't reasonable. (for a given value of reasonable) Is not so much a missile as it is a very large drone that just happens to be a continent-killer nuke
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 31, 2017 3:03:47 GMT
And so can interceptor-interceptor missiles. This line of reasoning won't go anywhere. A 5TT nuke is going to be absurdly large anyway, so it's not like defending it with its own decoy launchers, point defense lasers and autocannons isn't reasonable. (for a given value of reasonable) Is not so much a missile as it is a very large drone that just happens to be a continent-killer nuke FIVE TERATONS!!!, thats not a continent-killer thats a planet-breaker (if you get it into the crust)
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 4, 2017 19:46:24 GMT
To get a costeffective interceptor, can you just take an existing missile design and remove the warhead to 1up it on cheapness, delta-v and acceleration?
|
|