|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 8:32:40 GMT
ironclad6 Can you give some more infos about your ships? Way of creating artificial gravity (or not), information on the armament etc. Thank you for asking. That's very kind for you to show an interest. There's no artificial gravity. You switch between free fall and directional gravity depending on whether the ship is thrusting or not. I have designed specialized acceleration couches for the Composer class ships since I worked that in a full power turn, certain parts of that ship are experiencing about 22 times gravity. I had to re-position the crew modules closer to the center of rotation and develop a process for making sure violent maneuvers don't take place until everyone has had time to book it to their designated acceleration couch. Essentially these couches are custom fitted carbon fiber bathtubs with hyperelastomeric padding and a five point harness. The details of which I can get into but don't really matter. The carbon fiber tub is suspended, along with a three panel work station, on a gyrostabilised double ring that allows the couch to rotate at a manageable speed such that no matter what the ship does around it, the bottom of the couch always points "down" in relation to the ship's direction of acceleration. Inputs are by fingertip and voice but your console is phantom-powered or brushless contact, depending on the specific power demands of a given console. Interfaces with the ship's system are handled via telemetry. There are no wires running, so your work station is free to move as it needs to. Ships have to be rigged for thrust. A place for everything and everything in it's place. This is taken to the extreme in the Composer class where the crew sometimes have to live in their G suits and acceleration couches for several days at a time. Everyone needs Armament is free electron lasers and drones acting as missile busses for kinetic kill vehicles. I'd be using Xray lasers but for some reason the game gives me 105% efficiency when I do that so I'm using 66% efficiency, 46 nm EUV lasers instead. In canon, when I write this up I'll be retconning that to 9nm Xray lasers operating in femtosecond pulses. I designed these three ships to give myself the range of Royal Navy capabilities. The weight optimized, the cost optimized and the firepower optimized. All three ships use the same drive and reaction mass design. This reduces the fleet logistics burden and simplifies training. It allows incremental improvements to be rapidly rolled out across the fleet as they become available. Composer and Standout use a three nozzle setup. The Crater class tenders use a 14 nozzle setup. Propulsion is by dBI Stellarators reacting protons with B11 by aneutronic fusion. Technically this isn't a true stellarator. More efficient fusion propulsion is inappropriate for warship use because of it's inadequate thrust. Armour details are classified but works on the well understood spaced laminar armour principle first pioneered by engineers at RSAF Chobham. Many thanks for your questions. I'm happy to answer anything else you might want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 9:03:25 GMT
ironclad6 Can you give some more infos about your ships? Way of creating artificial gravity (or not), information on the armament etc. Thank you for asking. That's very kind for you to show an interest. There's no artificial gravity. You switch between free fall and directional gravity depending on whether the ship is thrusting or not. I have designed specialized acceleration couches for the Composer class ships since I worked that in a full power turn, certain parts of that ship are experiencing about 22 times gravity. I had to re-position the crew modules closer to the center of rotation and develop a process for making sure violent maneuvers don't take place until everyone has had time to book it to their designated acceleration couch. Essentially these couches are custom fitted carbon fiber bathtubs with hyperelastomeric padding and a five point harness. The details of which I can get into but don't really matter. The carbon fiber tub is suspended, along with a three panel work station, on a gyrostabilised double ring that allows the couch to rotate at a manageable speed such that no matter what the ship does around it, the bottom of the couch always points "down" in relation to the ship's direction of acceleration. Inputs are by fingertip and voice but your console is phantom-powered or brushless contact, depending on the specific power demands of a given console. Interfaces with the ship's system are handled via telemetry. There are no wires running, so your work station is free to move as it needs to. Ships have to be rigged for thrust. A place for everything and everything in it's place. This is taken to the extreme in the Composer class where the crew sometimes have to live in their G suits and acceleration couches for several days at a time. Everyone needs Armament is free electron lasers and drones acting as missile busses for kinetic kill vehicles. I'd be using Xray lasers but for some reason the game gives me 105% efficiency when I do that so I'm using 66% efficiency, 46 nm EUV lasers instead. In canon, when I write this up I'll be retconning that to 9nm Xray lasers operating in femtosecond pulses. I designed these three ships to give myself the range of Royal Navy capabilities. The weight optimized, the cost optimized and the firepower optimized. All three ships use the same drive and reaction mass design. This reduces the fleet logistics burden and simplifies training. It allows incremental improvements to be rapidly rolled out across the fleet as they become available. Composer and Standout use a three nozzle setup. The Crater class tenders use a 14 nozzle setup. Propulsion is by dBI Stellarators reacting protons with B11 by aneutronic fusion. Technically this isn't a true stellarator. More efficient fusion propulsion is inappropriate for warship use because of it's inadequate thrust. Armour details are classified but works on the well understood spaced laminar armour principle first pioneered by engineers at RSAF Chobham. Many thanks for your questions. I'm happy to answer anything else you might want to know. Cool, as for acceleration. Have you thought about to submerge them in a liquid with similar densities to a human like water? This can reduce G stresses on the body, if cybernetics are widespread in your lore you could consider artifical hearts and limbs to deal with high G forces. Just freeze your limbs and reattach them after you are done with your military service. Some infos about your KKVs, please? Multi-stage drones with submunition can achieve very high kinetic energies making them simple but lethal weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 9:18:19 GMT
Hi there.
Within the lore, permanent cybernetic enhancements are considered a major taboo in the commonwealth. It's one of the things that sets them apart from the Adamites. That's not to say that they don't make use for very advanced man-multipliers, but rather you have to be able to unplug them when you go home at night. I had thought about immersion baths but they're too hard to handle in a setting where G directionality changes all the time. You're going to get some splash, no matter what. As for the KKV, I've not put a huge amount of effort into it. At the moment, Whisker IV uses 2.5 stage system. A capital ship launches a swarm of drones. Those drones launch boosters (30 per drone), which in turn blast launch a pattern of ~2kg kkvs (4 per booster) with a final minimum terminal velocity of 77.77 km/sec. This results in a final kinetic energy equivalent to 172.8 tons of TNT for each drone, assuming each KKV scores a hit. More frequently the pattern simply cuts the target ship in half, or occasionally in thirds. I have discovered though, that I need to launch ungodly numbers of drones to have a reasonable chance of scoring a hit. I figure at ten thousand kilometers I can knock down one drone per second, per emitter. To overwhelm a Standout class ship therefore you need roughly 4200 drones capable of ~50km/sec.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 9:37:07 GMT
Hi there. Within the lore, permanent cybernetic enhancements are considered a major taboo in the commonwealth. It's one of the things that sets them apart from the Adamites. That's not to say that they don't make use for very advanced man-multipliers, but rather you have to be able to unplug them when you go home at night. I had thought about immersion baths but they're too hard to handle in a setting where G directionality changes all the time. You're going to get some splash, no matter what. As for the KKV, I've not put a huge amount of effort into it. At the moment, Whisker IV uses 2.5 stage system. A capital ship launches a swarm of drones. Those drones launch boosters (30 per drone), which in turn blast launch a pattern of ~2kg kkvs (4 per booster) with a final minimum terminal velocity of 77.77 km/sec. This results in a final kinetic energy equivalent to 172.8 tons of TNT for each drone, assuming each KKV scores a hit. More frequently the pattern simply cuts the target ship in half, or occasionally in thirds. I have discovered though, that I need to launch ungodly numbers of drones to have a reasonable chance of scoring a hit. I figure at ten thousand kilometers I can knock down one drone per second, per emitter. To overwhelm a Standout class ship therefore you need roughly 4200 drones capable of ~50km/sec. Quite a Dv budget, what kind of propulsion do they have? You don't you launch the boosters slightly outside the firing range of the enemy ship. 30x the targets, and aiming at something relatively small as a booster at 10Mm is very hard. Maybe 2 kils per second. 15 drones can break through that. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 10:03:56 GMT
Short version: I can't hit a damned thing except by launching point blank. I have to set my drones to home. Launch my boosters at 2000km, order my surviving drones to scatter and then let nature take it's course. The up side is that if any drones at all cross that 2000 km line, you're as good as dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 10:10:28 GMT
Also, my computer can't cope with running that many objects at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 10:24:28 GMT
Short version: I can't hit a damned thing except by launching point blank. I have to set my drones to home. Launch my boosters at 2000km, order my surviving drones to scatter and then let nature take it's course. The up side is that if any drones at all cross that 2000 km line, you're as good as dead. CoaDe has it's problems with missiles/drone intelligence, but 4200 drones are an enourmous amount for any kind of ship. Even my micromissiles have way better number performances against laser stars with 50x multi-Gigawatt Ce:LFF lasers. How did you even get the 4200 drones numbers? My games dies whenever I try to reach 500 missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 10:33:26 GMT
I never have. I just extrapolate from available data. At ten thousand kilometers my 1GW lasers can kill 1 drones per second, per emitter. You basically work out how many emitters I have, how much distance you have to cover, how fast I can cover that distance and do the maths. If your drones can cover my 10Mkm effective range at roughly 50km/sec then I have 200 seconds to slag you. If I can kill 21 drones per second then you need 200x21+1 drones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 10:40:34 GMT
I never have. I just extrapolate from available data. At ten thousand kilometers my 1GW lasers can kill 1 drones per second, per emitter. You basically work out how many emitters I have, how much distance you have to cover, how fast I can cover that distance and do the maths. If your drones can cover my 10Mkm effective range at roughly 50km/sec then I have 200 seconds to slag you. If I can kill 21 drones per second then you need 200x21+1 drones. But shouldn't the killing rate increase as the distance decreases? How much does a single drone even weight and cost anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 10:51:34 GMT
Not substantially. Killing the drone is trivial. Spinning my multi-tonne armoured laser turret around to engage the next target is the time consuming parts. With a low powered laser you'd be on the money but Goyathley's medium weight battery will vaporize any cost effective drone as quickly as she can lase it. That doesn't even consider Morokweng's 20.3GW long range lasers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 12:35:06 GMT
Not substantially. Killing the drone is trivial. Spinning my multi-tonne armoured laser turret around to engage the next target is the time consuming parts. With a low powered laser you'd be on the money but Goyathley's medium weight battery will vaporize any cost effective drone as quickly as she can lase it. That doesn't even consider Morokweng's 20.3GW long range lasers. Let me rephrase my question, shouldn't the killing rate increase because it gets easier to target the individual drones as distance decreases? Also these questions 1. Propulsion of the drone? 2. Mass of the drone 3. Why don't you release stage 2 (boosters) before entering the engagement? As you said, spinning your turrets takes time, so won't make it sense to increase number of targets by 30 times, reducing the required number of drones to 180? |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 12:58:07 GMT
Not substantially. Killing the drone is trivial. Spinning my multi-tonne armoured laser turret around to engage the next target is the time consuming parts. With a low powered laser you'd be on the money but Goyathley's medium weight battery will vaporize any cost effective drone as quickly as she can lase it. That doesn't even consider Morokweng's 20.3GW long range lasers. Let me rephrase my question, shouldn't the killing rate increase because it gets easier to target the individual drones as distance decreases? Also these questions 1. Propulsion of the drone? 2. Mass of the drone 3. Why don't you release stage 2 (boosters) before entering the engagement? As you said, spinning your turrets takes time, so won't make it sense to increase number of targets by 30 times, reducing the required number of drones to 180? 1) Funnily enough no, tracking the target gets harder as angular velocity increases and I have to spin my turret faster to keep up. Think of when you're driving along in your car. Objects in the distance appear to be moving quite slowly. They appear to speed up as they get closer. This is because the rate at which they change angles to you increases as they approach the median line. Now imagine trying to turn your head to face a particular object that is coming towards you slightly off center very very fast. You can imagine how difficult this is I am sure. For example, it's actually quite hard to hit a relatively fast moving object at close range with the main gun on a Challenger II vs hitting the same target at 4000 yds. Essentially the time consuming part is not computing the firing solution. It's actually physically moving the turret. 2) My Whisker III drone masses 10.2 tons and has 30 km/sec of delta V using metallic hydrogen as propellant. The MkIV lightweight KSOW masses 9.45kg with a further delta V budget of 32Km/sec. Each Whisker III carried 30 KSOW. 3) If I could get the KSOW to track from a greater distance I would, believe you me. In reality this would actually be trivial. It would be a matter of using an appropriate multi spectral seeker with the right nutation and some clever software. CDE doesn't have enough granularity to let me control this. You are right. This is essentially my game plan for my novel. Standoff weapons become quite the horrifying threat if you can huck enough of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 13:41:29 GMT
Let me rephrase my question, shouldn't the killing rate increase because it gets easier to target the individual drones as distance decreases? Also these questions 1. Propulsion of the drone? 2. Mass of the drone 3. Why don't you release stage 2 (boosters) before entering the engagement? As you said, spinning your turrets takes time, so won't make it sense to increase number of targets by 30 times, reducing the required number of drones to 180? 1) Funnily enough no, tracking the target gets harder as angular velocity increases and I have to spin my turret faster to keep up. Think of when you're driving along in your car. Objects in the distance appear to be moving quite slowly. They appear to speed up as they get closer. This is because the rate at which they change angles to you increases as they approach the median line. Now imagine trying to turn your head to face a particular object that is coming towards you slightly off center very very fast. You can imagine how difficult this is I am sure. For example, it's actually quite hard to hit a relatively fast moving object at close range with the main gun on a Challenger II vs hitting the same target at 4000 yds. Essentially the time consuming part is not computing the firing solution. It's actually physically moving the turret. 2) My Whisker III drone masses 10.2 tons and has 30 km/sec of delta V using metallic hydrogen as propellant. The MkIV lightweight KSOW masses 9.45kg with a further delta V budget of 32Km/sec. Each Whisker III carried 30 KSOW. 3) If I could get the KSOW to track from a greater distance I would, believe you me. In reality this would actually be trivial. It would be a matter of using an appropriate multi spectral seeker with the right nutation and some clever software. CDE doesn't have enough granularity to let me control this. You are right. This is essentially my game plan for my novel. Standoff weapons become quite the horrifying threat if you can huck enough of them. 1. Trackings gets exponentially harder as distance closes, but if something 100nm apart on "your" screen or 1 micrometer wouldn't really matter, in my opinion. The further away the target is the more mechanical and other errors become more apparent. At 10Mm your turret only has to be a few micrometers off and you miss. At 1Mm the size of the target has increased, so has it's angular velocity. I think there is a golden middle. Before size matters more and after angular velocity matters more. CoaDe presents you near perfect turret accuracy which might be nearly impossible or require Hubble telescope levels of fine-tuning. 3. Good point, maybe replacing stage 2.5 might give you needed room and mass to add superior sensors and CPU, and give them a "short" range antenna to send data to the other nearby KSOWs. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 28, 2017 13:58:08 GMT
1) Funnily enough no, tracking the target gets harder as angular velocity increases and I have to spin my turret faster to keep up. Think of when you're driving along in your car. Objects in the distance appear to be moving quite slowly. They appear to speed up as they get closer. This is because the rate at which they change angles to you increases as they approach the median line. Now imagine trying to turn your head to face a particular object that is coming towards you slightly off center very very fast. You can imagine how difficult this is I am sure. For example, it's actually quite hard to hit a relatively fast moving object at close range with the main gun on a Challenger II vs hitting the same target at 4000 yds. Essentially the time consuming part is not computing the firing solution. It's actually physically moving the turret. 2) My Whisker III drone masses 10.2 tons and has 30 km/sec of delta V using metallic hydrogen as propellant. The MkIV lightweight KSOW masses 9.45kg with a further delta V budget of 32Km/sec. Each Whisker III carried 30 KSOW. 3) If I could get the KSOW to track from a greater distance I would, believe you me. In reality this would actually be trivial. It would be a matter of using an appropriate multi spectral seeker with the right nutation and some clever software. CDE doesn't have enough granularity to let me control this. You are right. This is essentially my game plan for my novel. Standoff weapons become quite the horrifying threat if you can huck enough of them. 1. Trackings gets exponentially harder as distance closes, but if something 100nm apart on "your" screen or 1 micrometer wouldn't really matter, in my opinion. The further away the target is the more mechanical and other errors become more apparent. At 10Mm your turret only has to be a few micrometers off and you miss. At 1Mm the size of the target has increased, so has it's angular velocity. I think there is a golden middle. Before size matters more and after angular velocity matters more. CoaDe presents you near perfect turret accuracy which might be nearly impossible or require Hubble telescope levels of fine-tuning. 3. Good point, maybe replacing stage 2.5 might give you needed room and mass to add superior sensors and CPU, and give them a "short" range antenna to send data to the other nearby KSOWs. 1) Yes, you are right. I forget the maths on it right now. I haven't slept all night due to my syrinx but there is an equation for working out the easiest tracking range and you're quite right. It's actually in the middle distance. 2) I was planning on using a derivative of the dual active/two way data-link/frequency hopping arrangements on the PAAMS/CAMM/ASTER complex the Royal Navy is using. Instead of pointing a missile at your target and turning on it's seeker, you use your own (Bigger, more powerful) onboard sensors to track the target. Then, rather than designating the target a la semi-active radar homing, you soft launch your missiles and tell them to go to a piece of sky and then turn on their own sensors. Instead of using a dedicated fire control channel to guide each missile then, you can cycle through missiles with almost continuous updates on what their targets are doing and what you what them to do. Once you get to the mathematically predictable point where the missile's own smaller (but closer) sensors actually outperform your onboard sensors you simply have them turn on their own multi-spectral sensors which completes the intercept. Meanwhile, if the target manages to spoof of decoy any of the missiles you can use your own sensors and datalinks to re-cue them. In the case of an overshoot you can similarly re-cue your missiles as long as they still have Dv |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 28, 2017 14:19:45 GMT
1. Trackings gets exponentially harder as distance closes, but if something 100nm apart on "your" screen or 1 micrometer wouldn't really matter, in my opinion. The further away the target is the more mechanical and other errors become more apparent. At 10Mm your turret only has to be a few micrometers off and you miss. At 1Mm the size of the target has increased, so has it's angular velocity. I think there is a golden middle. Before size matters more and after angular velocity matters more. CoaDe presents you near perfect turret accuracy which might be nearly impossible or require Hubble telescope levels of fine-tuning. 3. Good point, maybe replacing stage 2.5 might give you needed room and mass to add superior sensors and CPU, and give them a "short" range antenna to send data to the other nearby KSOWs. 1) Yes, you are right. I forget the maths on it right now. I haven't slept all night due to my syrinx but there is an equation for working out the easiest tracking range and you're quite right. It's actually in the middle distance. 2) I was planning on using a derivative of the dual active/two way data-link/frequency hopping arrangements on the PAAMS/CAMM/ASTER complex the Royal Navy is using. Instead of pointing a missile at your target and turning on it's seeker, you use your own (Bigger, more powerful) onboard sensors to track the target. Then, rather than designating the target a la semi-active radar homing, you soft launch your missiles and tell them to go to a piece of sky and then turn on their own sensors. Instead of using a dedicated fire control channel to guide each missile then, you can cycle through missiles with almost continuous updates on what their targets are doing and what you what them to do. Once you get to the mathematically predictable point where the missile's own smaller (but closer) sensors actually outperform your onboard sensors you simply have them turn on their own multi-spectral sensors which completes the intercept. Meanwhile, if the target manages to spoof of decoy any of the missiles you can use your own sensors and datalinks to re-cue them. In the case of an overshoot you can similarly re-cue your missiles as long as they still have Dv 2. I was to name this system, but then I thought about the fact that this would either limit the missile total range or add need to have big transceiverd or special transceivers for Lidar. Maybe use the drone itself as the platform for the bigger sensors, the enemy might think that the drones is now just space debris. But that is just an if. Replacing one of six KSOWs with multi spectrum might be the better alternative. Maybe even give the fake-ksow an bigger transceiver for a better datalink to the main ship |
|
