Well, the ship is sort of multipurpose, since it is well suited for both system-defence role and deep strikes into enemy systems, to disrupt the logistic routes. FTL missiles are quite common among the shhips of the same size annd this frigate is not a "specialised missile carrier". Main weapons are the pair of 1TW lasers, after all.
I'll find an interesting thing, when i check the Imperial Russian Navy ship list, the large, 50 guns frigates are called "battlefrigate". Sounds great IMHO.
Cruise acceleration of most ships (military ones included) rarely exceeds 0,1 G, for propellant conservation purpose. High acceleration is used only during combat or other emergency situations. During such times, crew had to be on battle posts, and those are located in main hull, and not in habitat.
I'll find an interesting thing, when i check the Imperial Russian Navy ship list, the large, 50 guns frigates are called "battlefrigate". Sounds great IMHO.
Hm... This seems to be a "translation" from "Линейный фрегат" ("Frigate-of-line" literaly). "Ship-of-Line" is commonly translated as "Battleship", this seems to be the origin. Well, that`s not exactly right for this ship (since it is not suited for "stand and deliver" type combat well) but sounds interesting.
Very cool looking! Is that a spin section near the end? Interesting idea to mount it parallel rather then perpendicular to the axis of acceleration- I like it!
Yes, that`s the habitat ring. Living quarters for the crew, recreation room and some medical facilities are located there. Since, despite the size, crew complement is relatively small, living conditions are much more luxurious, then on most other military ships of the same category. To avoid the "gyro effect", inside the hull on the same axis as habitat ring, mounted "counter rotor" - small, heavy, fast-spinning body. This is needed to avoid the most common problem, for all starships in VIA -universe. I mean, that the ship, before performing any active maneuvers, have to retract spin modules, or stop and lock habitat ring. This battlefrigate can enter combat immediately. Thou, if there is anyone left in the ring, he could receive serious injures - the gravity will jump from 2.5 to minus 0,5 G, several times per minute.
As for parallel mount - such position minimize the frontal/backward and top/bottom crossections. Helps a lot for a combat vessel, I guess.
Excuse me, but there is really necessary to despun the rotating section before begin any kind of maneuver? I find this a little tricky, because if the ship has counter-rotor or something similar method (wich is essential), then the rotating section spin dont make any kind of problem to the maneuvering.
Ofcourse there is a problem the crew insinde the section, but if they are sitting and wear seatbelts, there is no harm done. If i remember correctly, the "fastest" (well, we are speaking acceleration, not speed) capital ship is the unarmoured Yan-class, and even they can achieve "only" 2,1 g acceleration. So we speak about 1 g "down" acceleration (from the rotating section spin), and maximum around 2 g "back" acceleration from the engines. It's less than 3 g experienced at all.
Yes, this means the rotating section are have to be desing to endure this 3 g (or the normal maximal acceleration plus 1 g), but the necessary hardening to the structure are cannot be much heavier than a retractable arm.
The problem with keeping spin sections moving while maneuvering is it throws the engines that are parallel to the spin 90 degrees off in the direction of spin, if I'm not mistaken. For a traditional spin ship, that would mean the port nose thrusters would make the ship nose down, not rotate to starboard. In this case, I think firing the main engines with a top forward spin will cause the ship to move down. The constant shift in experienced gravities would also eventually be sickening for the crew in the ring if it goes on for an extended period.
Correct me, if i'm wrong, but what you describe are true, IF the ship has no counter-rotor. But without counter-rotor, or such thing (reaction engines, counter-spin section... what else can be use to negate the effect?), the ship itself begin to react slowly the forces generated the rotating section, with or without the engines are working. That's why i mention it's essential the counter-rotor.
A counter spinning flywheel is a workable idea, and balancing the spins of the two wheels can be used as a maneuvering method. The ship wouldn't need any vertical thrusters. The problem is, the counter flywheel either needs to be as heavy as the crew wheel, or spin much faster. Either way it adds weight. Other than that, I don't think there is any way to counter the weird shift in thrust except by accepting it, or stopping spin before acceleration.
However, I can't think of any way around the fluctuating crew gravity.
In Via-verse, i wont encounter counter-spinning section, so, apart the fuel-consuming reaction engines, the only answer is a conter-spinning rotor. The rotor need to be as small and light are they can, so need to be spin very fast (perhaps thats the reason why need to be so much time to despun the rotating section of the Via-verse ships).
My exact point is there is need to be despun the section, or no, before the ship begin to accelerate.
About the sickness of the crew in the rotating habitat under acceleration, well, i think it's only matter when the section is positioned parallel, like this frigate or the Sabro-class, because as Stonecold wrote, the crew are experience a constantly changing gravitation. Inside a "conventional" rotating section there is no such thing, the changing are only belongs to the engine thrust (ship acceleration).
In rough, as far as I remember, "Gyro effect" means, that you can move the ship freely in any direction (at least perpendicular to the spin section - thats the main reason that most spin-sections are mounted that way), but you can`t change th orientation of the ship - the gyro will prevent that. So, you can accelerate or decelerate, but you can`t turn other way, then around the spin section. System with counter-rotor are free from this disadvantage. BTW, compensation thrusters won`t do the trick, as far as I can understand. You need the adequate mass spinning in the oposite direction, anyway.
Ofcourse there is a problem the crew insinde the section, but if they are sitting and wear seatbelts, there is no harm done. If i remember correctly, the "fastest" (well, we are speaking acceleration, not speed) capital ship is the unarmoured Yan-class, and even they can achieve "only" 2,1 g acceleration. So we speak about 1 g "down" acceleration (from the rotating section spin), and maximum around 2 g "back" acceleration from the engines. It's less than 3 g experienced at all.
Yes, this means the rotating section are have to be desing to endure this 3 g (or the normal maximal acceleration plus 1 g), but the necessary hardening to the structure are cannot be much heavier than a retractable arm.
At least as i see...
Enduring 3 G isn`t much of a problem for both human organism and construction material. Problem for humans is the shift in gravitation, that they experience 6 times per minute. Here`s the spin gravity calculator. The radius of the habitat ring is 25 meters.
The problem is, the counter flywheel either needs to be as heavy as the crew wheel, or spin much faster. Either way it adds weight.
The counter-rotor is both, more solid and rotates much faster. It`s not a wasted weight - it contain coolant tankage, and spin-G helps in circulation. Lithiun is quite heavy, you know
In Via-verse, i wont encounter counter-spinning section,
Currently, most ships are under heavy re-design, so, no one actually know, if there are any counter-rotating habitats. For example, RE battleship, that currently in the early design stage, will have dual counter rotating habitat rings for sure. Also, there is one trick to avoid ship rotation (but not the gyro effect). You put the thrusters not on ship but on habitat. And fire thrusters to spin or stop the habitat. This way, the ship have just to correct the ocasional rotation, caused by friction between the ship and the spin section. Such design used in Moscow - class destroyer.
My exact point is there is need to be despun the section, or no, before the ship begin to accelerate.
Perpendicular mounted spin section:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (but crew should be secured)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - Yes
Parallel mounted spin section:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No (But the crew should be secured)
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (But crew should be out of spin section)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - Yes
Any mounted spin section with counter rotor:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Nice work, Stonecold. The orientation of the ring is certainly unique, but then, the physics of VIA have always been a little fuzzy (deliberately so!), so it's hard to criticize any particular design decision.
Physics of VIA seems to be very close to real life, save for heat dissipation, and FTL travel. So, yes, I admit, that such position of habitat, have it`s disadvantages, but it have certain advantages too.
Here`s some renders of lighter (and earlier) frigate for RE. This one is "real frigate", about 100 meters long and have no artificial gravity of any kind onboard (save for thrust -generated, of course).
Those are the hatches for universal weapon bays. Most carry interceptor missiles for anti-missile protection. A few (commonly just two) carry decoys, similar to those on Wahoo-class frigate.
It's a bit confusing why use two different weapon system for the same task in such a small ship. Namely the main anti-missile weapon is the lasers for most Via-verse ship, if i get correctly. Okay, in a large ship, there is enough room and displacement for such method (like use both missile and guns/lasers for anti-missile role), and there is good cause for why (for example if the lasers are cannot get enough energy, because the ship need that elswhere, or the incoming missiles are directly build for whitstand the anti-missile bursts), but in a small ship, you have to choose carefully what kind of weapons install, because of the limited space and weight. Because those are universal bays, this means OFC there is a choice what kind of ordenance are carried.
The typical config of RE ships is a bit different from ones, used by US. Unlike US ships, most RE ships carry much more powerfull lasers as their main weaponry. That`s the reason why no short-range anti-ship missiles are carried. 1TW laser with a lens 3 meter in diameter is deadly at medium to short range. On the contrary, for anti-missile defence, rapid-firing railgun turrets are used. They require less energy to achieve the same result as laser, but have more chances to miss. Also, there allways could happen more then one or two incoming missiles. What about 10 missiles simultaneously attacking from diffirent directions? That`s where interceptor missiles are used. Think of this just like a modern naval anti-missile complex, where rapidfiring canon is linked with missiles. The same idea used here, just missiles are stored separately from the turret.
Yes, frigate is considered "small", but still, it have quite a payload, thanx to the absent spin-section. Interceptor missiles are quite common choise, since they increase the survivability of the ship dramaticaly. However, any mission-specific ammunition or equipment, that fit into the bay, could be used if needed.
Sorry, if i'm seems to be too disputatious... but...
So, if i try to follow you:
US, CEGD, UOE (maybe the Reformed Sovietunion too?) are use the lasers mainly for anti-missile and anti-fighter role. For anti-fighter and anti-capital, they use missiles. Yet wont see KKC (Kinetic Kill Cannons) on their ships.
RE are use more powerfull lasers, but mostly for anti-fighter role (this not mean, they cannot use in anti-missile or anti-capital role). They use missiles for anti-missile and anti-capital role, and KKC for anti-missile.
Okay, so get over why the RE choose this method.
The rail guns need less energy, but need ammunition too, and their projectiles are much slower than light. The lasers have some advantages, like they have much faster response time, so the same time they can shoot down more missile (ofcourse this depending the lasers Rate of Fire). You need to "spray" lot of bullets in the incoming missile path (in wet navy Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) are around 60-200 projectile/burst). The amount of the incoming missile handling capability per CIWS is depending of the CIWS effective range, the incoming missile speed and the projectile speed. In wet navy, the cannon CIWS mostly have limited, 2-3km effective range, their bullets speed are around 600m/s. Thats why they not too effective, when the incoming missiles are supersonic (300m/s+), in such case, the system only have around 5-10 second to react, and if the first burst wont destroy the missile the missile are very close (within 1000 meter) when the second burst are fired. Thats why the missile-based CIWS are gain popularity in the later times, like the NATO Rolling Airframe Missile or the Soviet/Russian Kashtan (well, the Kashtan is a combined gun/missile system), because their effective range are larger, around 10km. In space, the unguided projectile guns effective range are can be much larger, but still lagging behind the lasers (well, at least IMHO) and the guided missiles effective range. But then why they use KKC's for anti-missile role? They have advanced laser weapons, because their ships main weapons is powerfull lasers. Then why they wont use lasers for close-defence? The ship energy systems are cannot be problem, they can power two 1TW laser, so several smaller laser wont be a big problem, even if one of the main laser are had to be seize fire until the incoming missiles are destroyed. Perhaps they original going to be some sort of backup plan, for example because the ship energy system are wont be enoung solid and stable to keep up the fast fire close-defence lasers quickly changing energy demand? Or perhaps their is new missiles are coming out, with more laser-resistant skin?
Another question is why use two different system for anti-fighter and anti-missile role? The fighters and missiles are around the same level of protection, namely they wont really have any armour, their frame and overlay are only enough for keep in one piece the thing. The only difference is the missiles can endure more serious maneuvers, thanks because there is wont be a pilot, who have some limit on the acceleration-endurance. So if a weapon effective against a missile, then have to be effective against the fighters. Some sort, there is a trick, the main difference the CIWS (missile) and the main anti-air weapon systems is their range. So the anti-missile system are only can be effective the close range targets, unlike the larger range (thus larger and heavyer) anti-air system.
RE are use more powerfull lasers, but mostly for anti-fighter role (this not mean, they cannot use in anti-missile or anti-capital role). They use missiles for anti-missile and anti-capital role, and KKC for anti-missile.
RE use lasers for anti-capital ship role in mid -close range, and FTL missiles, like all other countries in long-range. That`s one of the reasons that RE ships are generaly more maneuverable and have better dynamical characteristica then comparable ships of the other nations - to get "close and personal" fast, then use lasers, that can burn a meter-wide hole in your ship in 0,1 second. However, most batles are fought an mid range, where lasers are not that devastating. Most US, (and most likely ships of other nations too) pack a lot of short-range anti-ship missiles, that prevent laser-equipped ships from entering "one shot-one kill" range, since the point-defence systems won`t be able to entercept adequate amount of incoming threats in given time.
So, to summarise:
RE:
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - High power lasers. (Could be used against fighters or missiles too, but it`s just an overkill)
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Interceptor missiles and railgun cannons.
US (Probably UOE too):
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - Multipurpose short range missiles.
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Medium powr lasers, multipurpose missiles (not so good against smaller warheads as interceptor missiles).
It`s somewhat like that.
The rail guns need less energy, but need ammunition too, and their projectiles are much slower than light. The lasers have some advantages, like they have much faster response time, so the same time they can shoot down more missile (ofcourse this depending the lasers Rate of Fire). You need to "spray" lot of bullets in the incoming missile path (in wet navy Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) are around 60-200 projectile/burst). The amount of the incoming missile handling capability per CIWS is depending of the CIWS effective range, the incoming missile speed and the projectile speed. In wet navy, the cannon CIWS mostly have limited, 2-3km effective range, their bullets speed are around 600m/s. Thats why they not too effective, when the incoming missiles are supersonic (300m/s+), in such case, the system only have around 5-10 second to react, and if the first burst wont destroy the missile the missile are very close (within 1000 meter) when the second burst are fired. Thats why the missile-based CIWS are gain popularity in the later times, like the NATO Rolling Airframe Missile or the Soviet/Russian Kashtan (well, the Kashtan is a combined gun/missile system), because their effective range are larger, around 10km. In space, the unguided projectile guns effective range are can be much larger, but still lagging behind the lasers (well, at least IMHO) and the guided missiles effective range. But then why they use KKC's for anti-missile role? They have advanced laser weapons, because their ships main weapons is powerfull lasers. Then why they wont use lasers for close-defence? The ship energy systems are cannot be problem, they can power two 1TW laser, so several smaller laser wont be a big problem, even if one of the main laser are had to be seize fire until the incoming missiles are destroyed. Perhaps they original going to be some sort of backup plan, for example because the ship energy system are wont be enoung solid and stable to keep up the fast fire close-defence lasers quickly changing energy demand? Or perhaps their is new missiles are coming out, with more laser-resistant skin?
It`s not that easy. You forgot another one disadvantage of laser VS missile. You see, in space, inertia is absolute. Even is you hit the missile with laser impuls, killing every beat of electronic equipment onboard, the husk of missile will continue to travel at the same speed on the same trajectory to your ship. And for larger ships, to dodge such kinetik-kill projectiles is close to impossible. So, for laser anti-missile defence, you`ll have to completely vaporise incoming projectile. That`s not an impossible task, but require adequate equipment. Por example Wahoo-class heavy frigate can carry only 4 20 MW lasers in 2 turrets for anti-missile defence. This means, it can intercept only 2 targets at any given time at best. Then, the responce time of targeting system comes into play. IF the ship will have the time to re-target its anti-missile system at new target - it will, hopefully, intercept another 2 missiles.
Kinetic-kill anti missile system have a isadvantage of time-lag. The speed of 109mm projectile is just 15000 m/s, but, on impact, it change the heading of incoming projectile, making it unnecessary to cmpletely destroy it.
Another question is why use two different system for anti-fighter and anti-missile role?
Why different? point defence system is one complex, usable both against fighters and missiles.
The fighters and missiles are around the same level of protection, namely they wont really have any armour, their frame and overlay are only enough for keep in one piece the thing. The only difference is the missiles can endure more serious maneuvers, thanks because there is wont be a pilot, who have some limit on the acceleration-endurance.
In the range of CIWS, Any armor, including the armor of the frigate itself wouldn`t save you from hit. Too huge speeds and power, even in point defence systems. If you are hit - the craft is finished. Of course, there is a chance that something non-essential would be destroyed, and you will manage to get back in one piece, but that is realy 1 in a dozen or so. Additionaly, in space, there won`t be any "blackouts". Since the gravity is ALLWAYS directed in the direction of thrust. And maximum acceleration, stated for a fighter is 12G. So, they are even closer to missiles, then you think
Some sort, there is a trick, the main difference the CIWS (missile) and the main anti-air weapon systems is their range. So the anti-missile system are only can be effective the close range targets, unlike the larger range (thus larger and heavyer) anti-air system.
That`s correct. At far riches, where railgun`s accuracy falls due to the time lag, missiles are used. If anything passed their interception range, or the ship is out of missiles (highly unlikely, since there are quite a lot of them) - railguns fix the problem. Also, railguns are used against distanced, but unmaneuverable targets, such as kinetic kill sabots or metheors (whatever that loose boulder should be called). I know, that space is damned empty, but there allways is a chance to meet some sort of debris, with quite solid relative speed.
RE use lasers for anti-capital ship role in mid -close range, and FTL missiles, like all other countries in long-range. That`s one of the reasons that RE ships are generaly more maneuverable and have better dynamical characteristica then comparable ships of the other nations - to get "close and personal" fast, then use lasers, that can burn a meter-wide hole in your ship in 0,1 second.
But what is sacrificed for this? Okay, in this frigate (hey, she had name? :cool:), there is no artifical gravitation, but there is is no AG in the Yan-class (CEGD) and the Jetlanco-class (UOE) too, and the Yan-class are mentioned as the fastest capital ship. The RE ships are perhaps thin-armored ships too?
So, to summarise:
RE:
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - High power lasers. (Could be used against fighters or missiles too, but it`s just an overkill)
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Interceptor missiles and railgun cannons.
US (Probably UOE too):
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - Multipurpose short range missiles.
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Medium powr lasers, multipurpose missiles (not so good against smaller warheads as interceptor missiles).
So the RE using smaller missiles for anti-missile / anti-fighter role if i follow, but more powerfull lasers. The bigger lasers and (pressumably) powerfull engines are power hogs i suppose, so the RE are concentrate effective power reactors too.
It`s not that easy. You forgot another one disadvantage of laser VS missile. You see, in space, inertia is absolute. Even is you hit the missile with laser impuls, killing every beat of electronic equipment onboard, the husk of missile will continue to travel at the same speed on the same trajectory to your ship. And for larger ships, to dodge such kinetik-kill projectiles is close to impossible.
Well, to judge this, we need to know what kind of deltaV-s and engagement ranges are we talking about.
When i visioned for myself such a battle, i calculated least tens or even hunderds of thousand kilometer range betweens the ships. With a laser cannon, you can effectively kill a close-in missile around 1000 kilometer, this means even if the missile are in perfect flight to the target ship, there is plenty of time needed to reached (lets say 20km/s deltaV, thats 50 second). The ship itself are maneuver too, i think, at least part time to make harder to hit, even with lasers 100.000 km mean 0,6 second lag (0.3 sec until the light from the TARGET reach the ATTACKER, so the attacker see where is the target 0,3 sec earlier, then another 0,3 sec, until the laser beam reach the target). 0,6 secundum mean a 1g (9,8m/s2) evasive maneuver can be place 6m away the target ship from the projected location is my calculations right. Six meters don't seems to be much, but most Via-verse ship narrowes side are "only" 25-60 meters. Thats means with some luck (targeting or focus error), the laser beam are missed the ship...
The second reason is the ships have unwanted moves too, their weapons fire (talk about KKC's, missile launch or even laser fire, but we can even count the effects of the hits on the ship) create some reaction to the ship, slightly change the ship course, yes, those are minor changes, but an another reason to belive, the target ship are not a stable, stationary thing, wich easly can be hit with an unguided missile.
Even in the wet navy, the course and speed change are common way to avoid long-range unguided projectiles.
So personaly i'm not so confident the close-range laser destroyed incoming missiles are mean real danger to the ship anymore.
Yet, my predicted scenario has some major dark spot. I dont know the Via-verse weapon systems effective range, the incoming missiles exact speed - this is a great question too, because i calculate a relative small deltaV-s (tens of km/s), and most notably only non-FTL missiles. I dont what we call here "short", "medium" and "long" range. So it's only a loose shot.
So, for laser anti-missile defence, you`ll have to completely vaporise incoming projectile. That`s not an impossible task, but require adequate equipment. Por example Wahoo-class heavy frigate can carry only 4 20 MW lasers in 2 turrets for anti-missile defence. This means, it can intercept only 2 targets at any given time at best. Then, the responce time of targeting system comes into play. IF the ship will have the time to re-target its anti-missile system at new target - it will, hopefully, intercept another 2 missiles.
It's more easier to understand this point, if we know what kind of range the anti-missile defence, how much time they need to lock-on a target, to shoot, recharge and re-lockon for the next target, and actually how fast the incoming missiles.
In my scenario with 1000km effective range and 20km/s deltaV means if the anti-missile system have 5 second recharge/re-lock time the system can destroy 8 missiles within 40 second, and the closest missile are destroyed in 200km from the ship.
Kinetic-kill anti missile system have a isadvantage of time-lag. The speed of 109mm projectile is just 15000 m/s, but, on impact, it change the heading of incoming projectile, making it unnecessary to cmpletely destroy it.
Honestly, if a 10kg (wild guess from the 109mm diameter) projectile hit a missile with 15km/s deltaV, then the missile are become small pieces of metal splinter.
And maximum acceleration, stated for a fighter is 12G. So, they are even closer to missiles, then you think
Well, a modern missiles are can do 30-40g maneuver, some even 60-70g (like the A-Darter), and this are in aerodinamyc enviroment.
PS.: If someone, who's mother language are english read this topic, then he must be scratch the walls in pain. Sorry for my bad english. :rolleyes:
But what is sacrificed for this? Okay, in this frigate (hey, she had name? :cool:), there is no artifical gravitation, but there is is no AG in the Yan-class (CEGD) and the Jetlanco-class (UOE) too, and the Yan-class are mentioned as the fastest capital ship. The RE ships are perhaps thin-armored ships too?
Yan lack the Delta-V, since it have very limited propellant tankage. All ships up to heavy cruisers and battleships could be considered thin-armored, since their armor is less then a meter thick and do not guarantee a total protection against kinetic kill sabot or a capital ship mounted combat laser.
There are several sacrifices - first is the number of the crew. All RE ships are heavily automated and equipped with AI systems. With really small, almost "bomber" crew, the sealed space is really compact, saving the mass of secondary armor, life support, bulkheads, etc. Second is the size. RE ships are larger then most comparable ships. Surprisingly, in space "larger" - means "faster", since larger ship packs more powerfull thrusters, and, what is much more important - more propellant. For example, Wahoo class heavy frigate carry amount of propellant roughly equall 1/3 of its own mass, and that is quite a good number for US ships. On the contrary, RE battlefrigate carry 1/1 propellant mass and this frigate carry about 3/2 of its own mass as propellant (have to count exact numbers yet). If you have more propellant, you can afford engines with better impulse, or at least longer top acceleration. In space, this means "faster".
So the RE using smaller missiles for anti-missile / anti-fighter role if i follow, but more powerfull lasers. The bigger lasers and (pressumably) powerfull engines are power hogs i suppose, so the RE are concentrate effective power reactors too.
Nuclear thrusters ARE power generators too, don`t forget that Even taking into account that this is a ski-fi setting, just about 1/3 of all produced energy could be used for thrust generation. Everything else is a waste heat. Some of this heat could be used to produce additional power for the ship. And yes, RE ships have to pack reactors with better output, or at least more of them.
Well, to judge this, we need to know what kind of deltaV-s and engagement ranges are we talking about...
Well, I guess, battles would be fought at significantly closer ranges. If the ship can reach 1G of acceleration, and engaged ships are at 0,5 light seconds from each other (for ease of calculation) it means, that when your laser beam arrives to the target, the target will move 9,8 meters away in unpredictable direction. For a ship, roughly 15 meters wide this will mean a miss. Another problem, that even lasers used by RE at this range will only leave a few santimeters deep burn on the surface of the armor. That`s why at such ranges FTL missiles and/or fighters are used.
Ship-to ship combat of frigate/cruiser class ships, will most likely take place at ranges less then 0,25 light seconds from each other. Thats the range where you can hope to hit the target with laser, and make some damage, if the target isn`t the battleship. About the same range seems to be good for universal missiles. They are self-guided, can maneuver to avoid point defences and have wery small crossection (compared to the ship) wich shortens the effective range of point defense even more.
Actually, the ranges aren`t set at all All I can calculate - is an effectiveness of interception systems, based on projectile speed, target size and time lag. For a missile, 20G acceleration seems to be ok. Most missiles, when they reach the "sure-kill" range, deploy kinetic-kill sabot (acceleration of missile+ additional acceleration from warhead explosion, propells the rod toward the target) to damage the ship. High explosive or nuclear warheads aren`t very effective in space.
It's more easier to understand this point, if we know what kind of range the anti-missile defence, how much time they need to lock-on a target, to shoot, recharge and re-lockon for the next target, and actually how fast the incoming missiles.
For a laser, I used the 1 cycle, means, that it could fire 1 ms long impulse every 2 ms`s. So, recharge is almost instant. Problem is the lock-on and heat buildup.
For missile, I have used 20 g acceleration toward the target and in parallel - 1 G in a random direction, every second. The diameter of the missile is about 0,5m.
PS.: If someone, who's mother language are english read this topic, then he must be scratch the walls in pain. Sorry for my bad english. :rolleyes:
As you can guess, I`m also not a native english speaker, so, it`s all right for me
Yan lack the Delta-V, since it have very limited propellant tankage. All ships up to heavy cruisers and battleships could be considered thin-armored, since their armor is less then a meter thick and do not guarantee a total protection against kinetic kill sabot or a capital ship mounted combat laser.
Well, interesting information tough.
Personally i'm fond with the heavy armoured desings (like the Warhammer 40k ships, even if they are far from hard sci-fi), but more than understandable the background for such verse.
There are several sacrifices - first is the number of the crew. All RE ships are heavily automated and equipped with AI systems. With really small, almost "bomber" crew, the sealed space is really compact, saving the mass of secondary armor, life support, bulkheads, etc.
So we talk about like the soviet/russian vs. US SSN submarines. The russian style (especially the Alfa, Mike, Sierra classes) are heavly automated, in contrast the US submarines are more rely to the vast manpower. Interest enough the advanced european conventional submarines (Gotland, Type 212, etc.) and the frenchs (Barracuda) are follow the more automated way, the english are follow the manpower-related way. In numbers the US Virginia-class have 134 person crew, the english Astute have 98 crew, the russian Akula 73, the Sierra class 61, the french (yet to be build) Barracuda class 60, the smaller conventional german Type 212/214 have 27, and the sweedish Gotland 24.
In some term, the man-heavy viewpoint have some advantage, especially in damage control, but in a space warfare, it's a bit tricky, when there is many one-shoot-one-kill weapons exits...
Second is the size. RE ships are larger then most comparable ships. Surprisingly, in space "larger" - means "faster", since larger ship packs more powerfull thrusters, and, what is much more important - more propellant. For example, Wahoo class heavy frigate carry amount of propellant roughly equall 1/3 of its own mass, and that is quite a good number for US ships.
Huhh, that's quite low mass/propellant ratio!
On the contrary, RE battlefrigate carry 1/1 propellant mass and this frigate carry about 3/2 of its own mass as propellant (have to count exact numbers yet). If you have more propellant, you can afford engines with better impulse, or at least longer top acceleration. In space, this means "faster".
So actually this frigate are closer to the "fast attack boat" than the conventional frigate role, if we are try to translate in wet navy?
Nuclear thrusters ARE power generators too, don`t forget that
Hehh, take it easy, i'm still only have the "old" Via-verse information, and for example the Yan-class as i remembered have two power source, but the desing itself have three engine nacelle. Something similar are i remember for the Rio Grande class (sorry, from this computer i wont have the complet Via-verse picture-database, and a bit tired for begin to search it ). From this i made the conclusion the Via-verse are mostly follow the separate engine and power generator desing.
Well, I guess, battles would be fought at significantly closer ranges. If the ship can reach 1G of acceleration, and engaged ships are at 0,5 light seconds from each other (for ease of calculation) it means, that when your laser beam arrives to the target, the target will move 9,8 meters away in unpredictable direction. For a ship, roughly 15 meters wide this will mean a miss. Another problem, that even lasers used by RE at this range will only leave a few santimeters deep burn on the surface of the armor. That`s why at such ranges FTL missiles and/or fighters are used.
Another new information, i predict the FTL missiles are "ultra-long" range weapons, ranges at parsecs (1 parsec around 7 light minute).
So in Via-verse the long-range means 0,5-1 light second range?
Ship-to ship combat of frigate/cruiser class ships, will most likely take place at ranges less then 0,25 light seconds from each other. Thats the range where you can hope to hit the target with laser, and make some damage, if the target isn`t the battleship. About the same range seems to be good for universal missiles. They are self-guided, can maneuver to avoid point defences and have wery small crossection (compared to the ship) wich shortens the effective range of point defense even more.
Then that's we call "medium range"? Well, it's make sense tough, 0,25 light second are still 75'000km, and for non-FTL missiles this is still need quite some time to reach the target...
Actually, the ranges aren`t set at all All I can calculate - is an effectiveness of interception systems, based on projectile speed, target size and time lag. For a missile, 20G acceleration seems to be ok. Most missiles, when they reach the "sure-kill" range, deploy kinetic-kill sabot (acceleration of missile+ additional acceleration from warhead explosion, propells the rod toward the target) to damage the ship. High explosive or nuclear warheads aren`t very effective in space.
Yupp, think in same direction, but i wont eliminate the use of HEAT (High-explosive, Anti-Tank, well, most commonly used this phrase, but in reallity it's a shaped charge, use the Munroe-effect (Neumann-effect in some source) to cut throug thick armour) warhead in guided projectiles.
For a laser, I used the 1 cycle, means, that it could fire 1 ms long impulse every 2 ms`s. So, recharge is almost instant. Problem is the lock-on and heat buildup.
For missile, I have used 20 g acceleration toward the target and in parallel - 1 G in a random direction, every second. The diameter of the missile is about 0,5m.
The laser cycle seems to be quite fast. O.o
And for the missiles, i forgot to mention earlier the zig-zag maneuvers, but then you came out, so in Via-verse the missiles are not "straight" flyers, good to mention.
About for the missiles diameter i perhaps the only one, who think the conventional cylindric, long "rod" type desing are not the perfect one in space warfare? I try to point this in J. Wilde well desinged R-45 Anti-ship missile topic, but i'm affraid my words are far from persuasive.
Well, if i unable to make 3D meshes (i try to begin with blender, to show what kind of missile frame i try to suggest, but after several hours i still unable to make a good three sided prism, i realized the 3D desing work are not my strong point ), i harrash peoples with annoying way of desing approach and personal viewpoints. :Đ
So we talk about like the soviet/russian vs. US SSN submarines.
Yes, that`s a good comparisson. Bbzwbbzw is even naming his ships after the subs
In some term, the man-heavy viewpoint have some advantage, especially in damage control, but in a space warfare, it's a bit tricky, when there is many one-shoot-one-kill weapons exits...
There is one more point - on the spaceship, there are more then enough parts, that simply could not be repaired without specific equipment (read - "dry docks"). So, there are two ways - either invest in field repairs, or in sheer survivability of the ship, that will return to the port, no matter how bad the damage is.
Huhh, that's quite low mass/propellant ratio!
Don`t forget the "magic" FTL-drive. Large distances are covered by FTL-jumps, without usage of propellant. And out of the combat situations - the thrust is quite low to conserve the propellant.
So actually this frigate are closer to the "fast attack boat" than the conventional frigate role, if we are try to translate in wet navy?
Too heavy for an attack boat. Sort of heavily armed, but yet fast corvette, maybe.
Another new information, i predict the FTL missiles are "ultra-long" range weapons, ranges at parsecs (1 parsec around 7 light second).
So in Via-verse the long-range means 0,5-1 light second range?
Well, I`m NOT the author of this universe, so I could be wrong, but "long range" is basicly everything beyond the effective range of fire of direct fire weapons. So, my guess, its 0,5 light seconds and above. Nothing is "officialy" stated, yet, as far as I know.
Yupp, think in same direction, but i wont eliminate the use of HEAT (High-explosive, Anti-Tank, well, most commonly used this phrase, but in reallity it's a shaped charge, use the Munroe-effect (Neumann-effect in some source) to cut throug thick armour) warhead in guided projectiles.
If it could be used in vacuum - why not. The problem is - it is much more vulnurable to damage from laser emission, then dumb, simple metal rod.
The laser cycle seems to be quite fast. O.o
Aha... But the heat buildup is even faster So, you would want to fire lasers as few times as possible.
About for the missiles diameter i perhaps the only one, who think the conventional cylindric, long "rod" type desing are not the perfect one in space warfare?
Cylinder is easy to store and produce, it have minimal (after the sphere) outer surface and is usefull, if missile is intended to be able to perform atmospheric re-entry. For example, interceptor missiles, being strictly space-to-space, are not cylindric - they are, just a thruster/propellant tanks with a guidance system attached.
Well, if i unable to make 3D meshes (i try to begin with blender, to show what kind of missile frame i try to suggest, but after several hours i still unable to make a good three sided prism, i realized the 3D desing work are not my strong point ), i harrash peoples with annoying way of desing approach and personal viewpoints. :Đ
Try Google`s Sketchup. It`s the easiest 3D-design application I`ve ever seen. And completely free.
There is one more point - on the spaceship, there are more then enough parts, that simply could not be repaired without specific equipment (read - "dry docks"). So, there are two ways - either invest in field repairs, or in sheer survivability of the ship, that will return to the port, no matter how bad the damage is.
Well, the sheer survability can be increase to make redundant systems, two or more engines / power generators separated, two or more CiC separated, etc. But thats only help if the damage are not make critical structural damage - and if you going down this road, you easly faced the fact you actually build two (or more) ship together, so you even can build two smaller, yet similar effective ship from the cost of one...
Don`t forget the "magic" FTL-drive. Large distances are covered by FTL-jumps, without usage of propellant. And out of the combat situations - the thrust is quite low to conserve the propellant.
Well, i have trouble with this too, if i try to cover the Via-verse world, i imagine the FTL jumps are mostly have some sort of "Jump points", like Lagrange points. If no, there is not really need to use convoys or such things, because the ships easly travel from a safe base to an another in FTL speed. But in this case the conventional engines are still need to be provide very good deltaV-s, for example to handle the needed deltaV for the necessary maneuvers in gas giant gravity well.
Too heavy for an attack boat. Sort of heavily armed, but yet fast corvette, maybe.
My mistake, i have the russian/soviet Tarantul-class or the german Gepard-class in my mind, those are more like "missile corvettes", than attack boats.
Well, I`m NOT the author of this universe, so I could be wrong, but "long range" is basicly everything beyond the effective range of fire of direct fire weapons. So, my guess, its 0,5 light seconds and above. Nothing is "officialy" stated, yet, as far as I know.
In other worlds: try with bbzwbbzw, okay, i'm get it.
If it could be used in vacuum - why not. The problem is - it is much more vulnurable to damage from laser emission, then dumb, simple metal rod.
The monroe-effect are working in vacuum, so thats wont be a problem, the vulnerability are an another question, but the shaped charge have some advantage too, like wont effected the relative speed (for example when the target ship are begin to accelerate paralel with the missile path), and have quite a punch for it's weight.
Aha... But the heat buildup is even faster So, you would want to fire lasers as few times as possible.
There is some sort of worked method how to solve this problem? Like cooling liquid flushing?
Cylinder is easy to store and produce, it have minimal (after the sphere) outer surface and is usefull, if missile is intended to be able to perform atmospheric re-entry. For example, interceptor missiles, being strictly space-to-space, are not cylindric - they are, just a thruster/propellant tanks with a guidance system attached.
I was talking bout stricly space-to-space missiles, the dual-use missiles are in the other bucket.
Try Google`s Sketchup. It`s the easiest 3D-design application I`ve ever seen. And completely free.
Yepp, i tryed first the Google Sketchup, but then changed to Blender, because it's seem to be more advanced program.
The main problem is simply i try such thing last time around in '94, with Imagine 3D, on an Amiga 500.
Well, the sheer survability can be increase to make redundant systems, two or more engines / power generators separated, two or more CiC separated, etc. But thats only help if the damage are not make critical structural damage - and if you going down this road, you easly faced the fact you actually build two (or more) ship together, so you even can build two smaller, yet similar effective ship from the cost of one...
You are absolutely correct. Battlefrigate house 4 reactors in different sides of the ship, 2 main thrusters, secondary bridge (actualy thats an engineering section, but could serve as bridge) and, most likely all other vital systems have backups. So, the survivability reached not only by backups, but through component distribution too. Any way, balance is the essence. If the balance is wrong, you will get the ship not durable enough, or a prise tag, enough to build 2 or 3 ships of the same class. BTW, RE have problems with population numbers - so, they could decide in favor of more advanced, but less numerous ships.
Well, i have trouble with this too, if i try to cover the Via-verse world, i imagine the FTL jumps are mostly have some sort of "Jump points", like Lagrange points. If no, there is not really need to use convoys or such things, because the ships easly travel from a safe base to an another in FTL speed. But in this case the conventional engines are still need to be provide very good deltaV-s, for example to handle the needed deltaV for the necessary maneuvers in gas giant gravity well.
Only specialised ships are capable of maneuvers near the gas giants. Other are limited by "shore" of it`s gravity well. FTL drive don`t have "jump points", but rather "safe jump distance". The larger ship is, the further from gravity sourses it should fold-in. If the ship choose to materialise to close to the gravity well - the error in coordinates, may materialise the ship inside the planet, or even inside the nearest star.
There is some sort of worked method how to solve this problem? Like cooling liquid flushing?
Flushing the coolant, will leave you without coolant It`s tankage is limited too. And without coolant, you cant make a FTL jump
Yepp, i tryed first the Google Sketchup, but then changed to Blender, because it's seem to be more advanced program
SU is quite edvanced for rapid design. Both me and bbzw2 are working in SU.
You are absolutely correct. Battlefrigate house 4 reactors in different sides of the ship, 2 main thrusters, secondary bridge (actualy thats an engineering section, but could serve as bridge) and, most likely all other vital systems have backups. So, the survivability reached not only by backups, but through component distribution too. Any way, balance is the essence. If the balance is wrong, you will get the ship not durable enough, or a prise tag, enough to build 2 or 3 ships of the same class. BTW, RE have problems with population numbers - so, they could decide in favor of more advanced, but less numerous ships.
I have the feelings those extra informations are worth to to spread. Perhaps not only i'm the one, who are enthusias for such level of deep technical informations, like the cut-away picture of the Yan-class.
Only specialised ships are capable of maneuvers near the gas giants. Other are limited by "shore" of it`s gravity well. FTL drive don`t have "jump points", but rather "safe jump distance". The larger ship is, the further from gravity sourses it should fold-in. If the ship choose to materialise to close to the gravity well - the error in coordinates, may materialise the ship inside the planet, or even inside the nearest star.
Oh, my bad, my starting point is something like the Independence-War PC game showed. So it's more like an advanced space-navigation tactics, where you cannot really predict where the enemy ships are jumped... Thus method easly make a real nightmare in space warfare. ^^
I have the feelings those extra informations are worth to to spread. Perhaps not only i'm the one, who are enthusias for such level of deep technical informations, like the cut-away picture of the Yan-class.
The second page for Moscow-class was planned, but never made. All my ships have more or less mapped interiors. So, the basic layout wouldn`t be that hard. The problem is, the availability of spare time, and my inability to work out something in Photoshop.
Oh, my bad, my starting point is something like the Independence-War PC game showed. So it's more like an advanced space-navigation tactics, where you cannot really predict where the enemy ships are jumped... Thus method easly make a real nightmare in space warfare. ^^
Its even worse, actually. You can`t exactly predict where your ship will fold-in. So, the safe distance between folding-in ships, is normaly the douple radius of planned error. And if you came closer to the gravity well - this error radius will go up. Rough estimates, that frigates and cruisers (and the ships of the same scale) are capable of jumps inside the star systems, using several calculated and mapped points, where the planet`s gravity wells cause minimum errors. Larger ships have to fold-in on the "self" of the star system, and then continue flight in normal space. Fighters and shuttles can jump directly into high orbits, but lacks coolant reserves for prolonged jumps between the star systems.
Hope you two keep this banter up as I find it very informative and quite amazing. I love the amount of thought that has gone into this whole project :thumb:
Posts
I'll find an interesting thing, when i check the Imperial Russian Navy ship list, the large, 50 guns frigates are called "battlefrigate". Sounds great IMHO.
Explanation accepted, thanks for you and Tombo.
Hm... This seems to be a "translation" from "Линейный фрегат" ("Frigate-of-line" literaly). "Ship-of-Line" is commonly translated as "Battleship", this seems to be the origin. Well, that`s not exactly right for this ship (since it is not suited for "stand and deliver" type combat well) but sounds interesting.
-Will
As for parallel mount - such position minimize the frontal/backward and top/bottom crossections. Helps a lot for a combat vessel, I guess.
Ofcourse there is a problem the crew insinde the section, but if they are sitting and wear seatbelts, there is no harm done. If i remember correctly, the "fastest" (well, we are speaking acceleration, not speed) capital ship is the unarmoured Yan-class, and even they can achieve "only" 2,1 g acceleration. So we speak about 1 g "down" acceleration (from the rotating section spin), and maximum around 2 g "back" acceleration from the engines. It's less than 3 g experienced at all.
Yes, this means the rotating section are have to be desing to endure this 3 g (or the normal maximal acceleration plus 1 g), but the necessary hardening to the structure are cannot be much heavier than a retractable arm.
At least as i see...
However, I can't think of any way around the fluctuating crew gravity.
My exact point is there is need to be despun the section, or no, before the ship begin to accelerate.
About the sickness of the crew in the rotating habitat under acceleration, well, i think it's only matter when the section is positioned parallel, like this frigate or the Sabro-class, because as Stonecold wrote, the crew are experience a constantly changing gravitation. Inside a "conventional" rotating section there is no such thing, the changing are only belongs to the engine thrust (ship acceleration).
Enduring 3 G isn`t much of a problem for both human organism and construction material. Problem for humans is the shift in gravitation, that they experience 6 times per minute. Here`s the spin gravity calculator. The radius of the habitat ring is 25 meters.
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm
The counter-rotor is both, more solid and rotates much faster. It`s not a wasted weight - it contain coolant tankage, and spin-G helps in circulation. Lithiun is quite heavy, you know
Currently, most ships are under heavy re-design, so, no one actually know, if there are any counter-rotating habitats. For example, RE battleship, that currently in the early design stage, will have dual counter rotating habitat rings for sure. Also, there is one trick to avoid ship rotation (but not the gyro effect). You put the thrusters not on ship but on habitat. And fire thrusters to spin or stop the habitat. This way, the ship have just to correct the ocasional rotation, caused by friction between the ship and the spin section. Such design used in Moscow - class destroyer.
Perpendicular mounted spin section:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (but crew should be secured)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - Yes
Parallel mounted spin section:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No (But the crew should be secured)
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (But crew should be out of spin section)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - Yes
Any mounted spin section with counter rotor:
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 0,5 G - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Linear "forward" acceleration, exceeding 1 G - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Change of heading (maneuvering) - No (recomendations for the crew, depend on type of mount)
Hope, I`ve answered the question.
Flawlessly.
Here`s some renders of lighter (and earlier) frigate for RE. This one is "real frigate", about 100 meters long and have no artificial gravity of any kind onboard (save for thrust -generated, of course).
What is the purpose those hexagonal doors (?) in the side of the ship?
Yes, frigate is considered "small", but still, it have quite a payload, thanx to the absent spin-section. Interceptor missiles are quite common choise, since they increase the survivability of the ship dramaticaly. However, any mission-specific ammunition or equipment, that fit into the bay, could be used if needed.
So, if i try to follow you:
US, CEGD, UOE (maybe the Reformed Sovietunion too?) are use the lasers mainly for anti-missile and anti-fighter role. For anti-fighter and anti-capital, they use missiles. Yet wont see KKC (Kinetic Kill Cannons) on their ships.
RE are use more powerfull lasers, but mostly for anti-fighter role (this not mean, they cannot use in anti-missile or anti-capital role). They use missiles for anti-missile and anti-capital role, and KKC for anti-missile.
Okay, so get over why the RE choose this method.
The rail guns need less energy, but need ammunition too, and their projectiles are much slower than light. The lasers have some advantages, like they have much faster response time, so the same time they can shoot down more missile (ofcourse this depending the lasers Rate of Fire). You need to "spray" lot of bullets in the incoming missile path (in wet navy Close-in Weapon Systems (CIWS) are around 60-200 projectile/burst). The amount of the incoming missile handling capability per CIWS is depending of the CIWS effective range, the incoming missile speed and the projectile speed. In wet navy, the cannon CIWS mostly have limited, 2-3km effective range, their bullets speed are around 600m/s. Thats why they not too effective, when the incoming missiles are supersonic (300m/s+), in such case, the system only have around 5-10 second to react, and if the first burst wont destroy the missile the missile are very close (within 1000 meter) when the second burst are fired. Thats why the missile-based CIWS are gain popularity in the later times, like the NATO Rolling Airframe Missile or the Soviet/Russian Kashtan (well, the Kashtan is a combined gun/missile system), because their effective range are larger, around 10km. In space, the unguided projectile guns effective range are can be much larger, but still lagging behind the lasers (well, at least IMHO) and the guided missiles effective range. But then why they use KKC's for anti-missile role? They have advanced laser weapons, because their ships main weapons is powerfull lasers. Then why they wont use lasers for close-defence? The ship energy systems are cannot be problem, they can power two 1TW laser, so several smaller laser wont be a big problem, even if one of the main laser are had to be seize fire until the incoming missiles are destroyed. Perhaps they original going to be some sort of backup plan, for example because the ship energy system are wont be enoung solid and stable to keep up the fast fire close-defence lasers quickly changing energy demand? Or perhaps their is new missiles are coming out, with more laser-resistant skin?
Another question is why use two different system for anti-fighter and anti-missile role? The fighters and missiles are around the same level of protection, namely they wont really have any armour, their frame and overlay are only enough for keep in one piece the thing. The only difference is the missiles can endure more serious maneuvers, thanks because there is wont be a pilot, who have some limit on the acceleration-endurance. So if a weapon effective against a missile, then have to be effective against the fighters. Some sort, there is a trick, the main difference the CIWS (missile) and the main anti-air weapon systems is their range. So the anti-missile system are only can be effective the close range targets, unlike the larger range (thus larger and heavyer) anti-air system.
RE use lasers for anti-capital ship role in mid -close range, and FTL missiles, like all other countries in long-range. That`s one of the reasons that RE ships are generaly more maneuverable and have better dynamical characteristica then comparable ships of the other nations - to get "close and personal" fast, then use lasers, that can burn a meter-wide hole in your ship in 0,1 second. However, most batles are fought an mid range, where lasers are not that devastating. Most US, (and most likely ships of other nations too) pack a lot of short-range anti-ship missiles, that prevent laser-equipped ships from entering "one shot-one kill" range, since the point-defence systems won`t be able to entercept adequate amount of incoming threats in given time.
So, to summarise:
RE:
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - High power lasers. (Could be used against fighters or missiles too, but it`s just an overkill)
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Interceptor missiles and railgun cannons.
US (Probably UOE too):
Long-Range anti-ship - FTL missiles
Medium-to short anti-ship - Multipurpose short range missiles.
Anti-missile/Anti-fighter - Medium powr lasers, multipurpose missiles (not so good against smaller warheads as interceptor missiles).
It`s somewhat like that.
It`s not that easy. You forgot another one disadvantage of laser VS missile. You see, in space, inertia is absolute. Even is you hit the missile with laser impuls, killing every beat of electronic equipment onboard, the husk of missile will continue to travel at the same speed on the same trajectory to your ship. And for larger ships, to dodge such kinetik-kill projectiles is close to impossible. So, for laser anti-missile defence, you`ll have to completely vaporise incoming projectile. That`s not an impossible task, but require adequate equipment. Por example Wahoo-class heavy frigate can carry only 4 20 MW lasers in 2 turrets for anti-missile defence. This means, it can intercept only 2 targets at any given time at best. Then, the responce time of targeting system comes into play. IF the ship will have the time to re-target its anti-missile system at new target - it will, hopefully, intercept another 2 missiles.
Kinetic-kill anti missile system have a isadvantage of time-lag. The speed of 109mm projectile is just 15000 m/s, but, on impact, it change the heading of incoming projectile, making it unnecessary to cmpletely destroy it.
Why different? point defence system is one complex, usable both against fighters and missiles.
In the range of CIWS, Any armor, including the armor of the frigate itself wouldn`t save you from hit. Too huge speeds and power, even in point defence systems. If you are hit - the craft is finished. Of course, there is a chance that something non-essential would be destroyed, and you will manage to get back in one piece, but that is realy 1 in a dozen or so. Additionaly, in space, there won`t be any "blackouts". Since the gravity is ALLWAYS directed in the direction of thrust. And maximum acceleration, stated for a fighter is 12G. So, they are even closer to missiles, then you think
That`s correct. At far riches, where railgun`s accuracy falls due to the time lag, missiles are used. If anything passed their interception range, or the ship is out of missiles (highly unlikely, since there are quite a lot of them) - railguns fix the problem. Also, railguns are used against distanced, but unmaneuverable targets, such as kinetic kill sabots or metheors (whatever that loose boulder should be called). I know, that space is damned empty, but there allways is a chance to meet some sort of debris, with quite solid relative speed.
But what is sacrificed for this? Okay, in this frigate (hey, she had name? :cool:), there is no artifical gravitation, but there is is no AG in the Yan-class (CEGD) and the Jetlanco-class (UOE) too, and the Yan-class are mentioned as the fastest capital ship. The RE ships are perhaps thin-armored ships too?
So the RE using smaller missiles for anti-missile / anti-fighter role if i follow, but more powerfull lasers. The bigger lasers and (pressumably) powerfull engines are power hogs i suppose, so the RE are concentrate effective power reactors too.
Well, to judge this, we need to know what kind of deltaV-s and engagement ranges are we talking about.
When i visioned for myself such a battle, i calculated least tens or even hunderds of thousand kilometer range betweens the ships. With a laser cannon, you can effectively kill a close-in missile around 1000 kilometer, this means even if the missile are in perfect flight to the target ship, there is plenty of time needed to reached (lets say 20km/s deltaV, thats 50 second). The ship itself are maneuver too, i think, at least part time to make harder to hit, even with lasers 100.000 km mean 0,6 second lag (0.3 sec until the light from the TARGET reach the ATTACKER, so the attacker see where is the target 0,3 sec earlier, then another 0,3 sec, until the laser beam reach the target). 0,6 secundum mean a 1g (9,8m/s2) evasive maneuver can be place 6m away the target ship from the projected location is my calculations right. Six meters don't seems to be much, but most Via-verse ship narrowes side are "only" 25-60 meters. Thats means with some luck (targeting or focus error), the laser beam are missed the ship...
The second reason is the ships have unwanted moves too, their weapons fire (talk about KKC's, missile launch or even laser fire, but we can even count the effects of the hits on the ship) create some reaction to the ship, slightly change the ship course, yes, those are minor changes, but an another reason to belive, the target ship are not a stable, stationary thing, wich easly can be hit with an unguided missile.
Even in the wet navy, the course and speed change are common way to avoid long-range unguided projectiles.
So personaly i'm not so confident the close-range laser destroyed incoming missiles are mean real danger to the ship anymore.
Yet, my predicted scenario has some major dark spot. I dont know the Via-verse weapon systems effective range, the incoming missiles exact speed - this is a great question too, because i calculate a relative small deltaV-s (tens of km/s), and most notably only non-FTL missiles. I dont what we call here "short", "medium" and "long" range. So it's only a loose shot.
It's more easier to understand this point, if we know what kind of range the anti-missile defence, how much time they need to lock-on a target, to shoot, recharge and re-lockon for the next target, and actually how fast the incoming missiles.
In my scenario with 1000km effective range and 20km/s deltaV means if the anti-missile system have 5 second recharge/re-lock time the system can destroy 8 missiles within 40 second, and the closest missile are destroyed in 200km from the ship.
Honestly, if a 10kg (wild guess from the 109mm diameter) projectile hit a missile with 15km/s deltaV, then the missile are become small pieces of metal splinter.
Well, a modern missiles are can do 30-40g maneuver, some even 60-70g (like the A-Darter), and this are in aerodinamyc enviroment.
PS.: If someone, who's mother language are english read this topic, then he must be scratch the walls in pain. Sorry for my bad english. :rolleyes:
Yan lack the Delta-V, since it have very limited propellant tankage. All ships up to heavy cruisers and battleships could be considered thin-armored, since their armor is less then a meter thick and do not guarantee a total protection against kinetic kill sabot or a capital ship mounted combat laser.
There are several sacrifices - first is the number of the crew. All RE ships are heavily automated and equipped with AI systems. With really small, almost "bomber" crew, the sealed space is really compact, saving the mass of secondary armor, life support, bulkheads, etc. Second is the size. RE ships are larger then most comparable ships. Surprisingly, in space "larger" - means "faster", since larger ship packs more powerfull thrusters, and, what is much more important - more propellant. For example, Wahoo class heavy frigate carry amount of propellant roughly equall 1/3 of its own mass, and that is quite a good number for US ships. On the contrary, RE battlefrigate carry 1/1 propellant mass and this frigate carry about 3/2 of its own mass as propellant (have to count exact numbers yet). If you have more propellant, you can afford engines with better impulse, or at least longer top acceleration. In space, this means "faster".
Nuclear thrusters ARE power generators too, don`t forget that
Well, I guess, battles would be fought at significantly closer ranges. If the ship can reach 1G of acceleration, and engaged ships are at 0,5 light seconds from each other (for ease of calculation) it means, that when your laser beam arrives to the target, the target will move 9,8 meters away in unpredictable direction. For a ship, roughly 15 meters wide this will mean a miss. Another problem, that even lasers used by RE at this range will only leave a few santimeters deep burn on the surface of the armor. That`s why at such ranges FTL missiles and/or fighters are used.
Ship-to ship combat of frigate/cruiser class ships, will most likely take place at ranges less then 0,25 light seconds from each other. Thats the range where you can hope to hit the target with laser, and make some damage, if the target isn`t the battleship. About the same range seems to be good for universal missiles. They are self-guided, can maneuver to avoid point defences and have wery small crossection (compared to the ship) wich shortens the effective range of point defense even more.
Actually, the ranges aren`t set at all
For a laser, I used the 1 cycle, means, that it could fire 1 ms long impulse every 2 ms`s. So, recharge is almost instant. Problem is the lock-on and heat buildup.
For missile, I have used 20 g acceleration toward the target and in parallel - 1 G in a random direction, every second. The diameter of the missile is about 0,5m.
As you can guess, I`m also not a native english speaker, so, it`s all right for me
Well, interesting information tough.
Personally i'm fond with the heavy armoured desings (like the Warhammer 40k ships, even if they are far from hard sci-fi), but more than understandable the background for such verse.
So we talk about like the soviet/russian vs. US SSN submarines. The russian style (especially the Alfa, Mike, Sierra classes) are heavly automated, in contrast the US submarines are more rely to the vast manpower. Interest enough the advanced european conventional submarines (Gotland, Type 212, etc.) and the frenchs (Barracuda) are follow the more automated way, the english are follow the manpower-related way. In numbers the US Virginia-class have 134 person crew, the english Astute have 98 crew, the russian Akula 73, the Sierra class 61, the french (yet to be build) Barracuda class 60, the smaller conventional german Type 212/214 have 27, and the sweedish Gotland 24.
In some term, the man-heavy viewpoint have some advantage, especially in damage control, but in a space warfare, it's a bit tricky, when there is many one-shoot-one-kill weapons exits...
Huhh, that's quite low mass/propellant ratio!
So actually this frigate are closer to the "fast attack boat" than the conventional frigate role, if we are try to translate in wet navy?
Hehh, take it easy, i'm still only have the "old" Via-verse information, and for example the Yan-class as i remembered have two power source, but the desing itself have three engine nacelle. Something similar are i remember for the Rio Grande class (sorry, from this computer i wont have the complet Via-verse picture-database, and a bit tired for begin to search it
Another new information, i predict the FTL missiles are "ultra-long" range weapons, ranges at parsecs (1 parsec around 7 light minute).
So in Via-verse the long-range means 0,5-1 light second range?
Then that's we call "medium range"? Well, it's make sense tough, 0,25 light second are still 75'000km, and for non-FTL missiles this is still need quite some time to reach the target...
Yupp, think in same direction, but i wont eliminate the use of HEAT (High-explosive, Anti-Tank, well, most commonly used this phrase, but in reallity it's a shaped charge, use the Munroe-effect (Neumann-effect in some source) to cut throug thick armour) warhead in guided projectiles.
The laser cycle seems to be quite fast. O.o
And for the missiles, i forgot to mention earlier the zig-zag maneuvers, but then you came out, so in Via-verse the missiles are not "straight" flyers, good to mention.
About for the missiles diameter i perhaps the only one, who think the conventional cylindric, long "rod" type desing are not the perfect one in space warfare? I try to point this in J. Wilde well desinged R-45 Anti-ship missile topic, but i'm affraid my words are far from persuasive.
Well, if i unable to make 3D meshes (i try to begin with blender, to show what kind of missile frame i try to suggest, but after several hours i still unable to make a good three sided prism, i realized the 3D desing work are not my strong point
Yes, that`s a good comparisson. Bbzwbbzw is even naming his ships after the subs
There is one more point - on the spaceship, there are more then enough parts, that simply could not be repaired without specific equipment (read - "dry docks"). So, there are two ways - either invest in field repairs, or in sheer survivability of the ship, that will return to the port, no matter how bad the damage is.
Don`t forget the "magic" FTL-drive. Large distances are covered by FTL-jumps, without usage of propellant. And out of the combat situations - the thrust is quite low to conserve the propellant.
Too heavy for an attack boat. Sort of heavily armed, but yet fast corvette, maybe.
Well, I`m NOT the author of this universe, so I could be wrong, but "long range" is basicly everything beyond the effective range of fire of direct fire weapons. So, my guess, its 0,5 light seconds and above. Nothing is "officialy" stated, yet, as far as I know.
If it could be used in vacuum - why not. The problem is - it is much more vulnurable to damage from laser emission, then dumb, simple metal rod.
Aha... But the heat buildup is even faster
Cylinder is easy to store and produce, it have minimal (after the sphere) outer surface and is usefull, if missile is intended to be able to perform atmospheric re-entry. For example, interceptor missiles, being strictly space-to-space, are not cylindric - they are, just a thruster/propellant tanks with a guidance system attached. Try Google`s Sketchup. It`s the easiest 3D-design application I`ve ever seen. And completely free.
Well, the sheer survability can be increase to make redundant systems, two or more engines / power generators separated, two or more CiC separated, etc. But thats only help if the damage are not make critical structural damage - and if you going down this road, you easly faced the fact you actually build two (or more) ship together, so you even can build two smaller, yet similar effective ship from the cost of one...
Well, i have trouble with this too, if i try to cover the Via-verse world, i imagine the FTL jumps are mostly have some sort of "Jump points", like Lagrange points. If no, there is not really need to use convoys or such things, because the ships easly travel from a safe base to an another in FTL speed. But in this case the conventional engines are still need to be provide very good deltaV-s, for example to handle the needed deltaV for the necessary maneuvers in gas giant gravity well.
My mistake, i have the russian/soviet Tarantul-class or the german Gepard-class in my mind, those are more like "missile corvettes", than attack boats.
In other worlds: try with bbzwbbzw, okay, i'm get it.
The monroe-effect are working in vacuum, so thats wont be a problem, the vulnerability are an another question, but the shaped charge have some advantage too, like wont effected the relative speed (for example when the target ship are begin to accelerate paralel with the missile path), and have quite a punch for it's weight.
There is some sort of worked method how to solve this problem? Like cooling liquid flushing?
I was talking bout stricly space-to-space missiles, the dual-use missiles are in the other bucket.
Yepp, i tryed first the Google Sketchup, but then changed to Blender, because it's seem to be more advanced program.
The main problem is simply i try such thing last time around in '94, with Imagine 3D, on an Amiga 500.
You are absolutely correct. Battlefrigate house 4 reactors in different sides of the ship, 2 main thrusters, secondary bridge (actualy thats an engineering section, but could serve as bridge) and, most likely all other vital systems have backups. So, the survivability reached not only by backups, but through component distribution too. Any way, balance is the essence. If the balance is wrong, you will get the ship not durable enough, or a prise tag, enough to build 2 or 3 ships of the same class. BTW, RE have problems with population numbers - so, they could decide in favor of more advanced, but less numerous ships.
Only specialised ships are capable of maneuvers near the gas giants. Other are limited by "shore" of it`s gravity well. FTL drive don`t have "jump points", but rather "safe jump distance". The larger ship is, the further from gravity sourses it should fold-in. If the ship choose to materialise to close to the gravity well - the error in coordinates, may materialise the ship inside the planet, or even inside the nearest star.
Flushing the coolant, will leave you without coolant
SU is quite edvanced for rapid design. Both me and bbzw2 are working in SU.
I have the feelings those extra informations are worth to to spread. Perhaps not only i'm the one, who are enthusias for such level of deep technical informations, like the cut-away picture of the Yan-class.
Oh, my bad, my starting point is something like the Independence-War PC game showed. So it's more like an advanced space-navigation tactics, where you cannot really predict where the enemy ships are jumped... Thus method easly make a real nightmare in space warfare. ^^
Its even worse, actually. You can`t exactly predict where your ship will fold-in. So, the safe distance between folding-in ships, is normaly the douple radius of planned error. And if you came closer to the gravity well - this error radius will go up. Rough estimates, that frigates and cruisers (and the ships of the same scale) are capable of jumps inside the star systems, using several calculated and mapped points, where the planet`s gravity wells cause minimum errors. Larger ships have to fold-in on the "self" of the star system, and then continue flight in normal space. Fighters and shuttles can jump directly into high orbits, but lacks coolant reserves for prolonged jumps between the star systems.
Hope you two keep this banter up as I find it very informative and quite amazing. I love the amount of thought that has gone into this whole project :thumb: