Far from that Will add some position lights (If I find out, how to do so in SU >.<) and change background completely (this one was made for Moscow-class destroyer). Probably will use larger shadow maps, to avoid the rendering artifacts.
A new WIP. At first I wanted to sketch a "space superiority fighter", but soon enough the idea of light modular "corvette" vessel came into mind. So, the ship grows to full 63 meters in minimal configuration.
Actually, what is depicted is "basic config". 2 "necessary" modules. Forward - command and living space module, and rear - propulsion and power sourse module. They can be undocked, and between them could be mounted mission specific modules, like additional propellant supply, spin habitat, cargo container, or even FTL Missile rack.
There was a game with the same concept as lego, but as far as I know, it never got a separate name.
A little update on the ship - re-designed bridge completely. It reminded me a front of electric train too much, so I`ve made it a bit more like a naval bridge. Also, added the docking ring between modules and tons of verniers. Note, they are just bolted there - no mechanical cover of any sort. Now working on a crane design (the one that is currently clipping into the habitat`s frontal wall) It should be used for a light shuttle or f forced boarding module docking. That`s a patrool ship, after all.
Excellent idea and desing! Oh, and deployable heat radiators like on the Moscow-class - i like it!
About the role... As the HRE use as few crew as they can, it's not far from a fighter (2-3 person?). If we try to mirrored in the old sailing then perhaps Cutter , ne? But as i see in russian the Cutter (катер) is only one small step from fast attack crafts (Боевой катер).
Well, that`s true for some extent. But, for current ship it is very dificuls to distinguish the correct class.
Skeletal crew is about 5-6 men. However, those ships are frequently used as "border patrool vessels". In that loadout, the ship carry a "forced boarding" module. Sort of assault shuttle, designed to dock to a crippled ship and deliver the boarding party. For such role, ship is equipped with spin-habitat module (for long duration missions) and additional proprllant and coolant tankage module, effectively raising the ship`s length, displacement and crew complement (boarding party).
If the ship is equipped with a FTL-missile rack, it became somewhat like a "missile boat" or "torpedo cutter" from WW2.
So, the ship could be configured for a roles from cutter, to a full fledged corvette.
As for radiators - there are 2 "closed cycle" radiators, like on Moscow-class and 2 droplet radiator arrays (frames on top and bottom of the ship) They could be used in combat, but will loose some coolant each cycle.
Uhhh... so much to say, and so tired to write off...
5-6 Skeletal crew? It's a bit high IMHO, at least if we start from the Moscow class (normall crew 21 person), the Battle Frigate (normal crew 16 person). As the Wikipedia says: "shipboard: the barest minimum number of personnel to keep the ship operating after it has been damaged and awaiting tow to port." In space this means the minimal crew to operate the ship, at least as i try to imagine, that's in such small ship can't be more than 3 person.
The liquid droplet radiator a great idea, but you really wanna use such method in combat? When you make a maneuver, the droplet are wasted (the spilled hot liquid wont reach the collector), but as bigger problem, it's can act as mist around the ship, like you use the retro-rockets to "slow down", the droplet then spilled front of your ship, in the path of the laser beam. Cause even problem when attach to the laser optics/mirror. The droplet radiator a big idea when you use a stationary object, like a Space Station, but in a heavly maneuvering space ship... it's can cause much-much problem. I think it's even better, when you simply dump the heat-taking liquid out from the ship engine to back. Of course it's only my personal note.
5-6 Skeletal crew? It's a bit high IMHO, at least if we start from the Moscow class (normall crew 21 person), the Battle Frigate (normal crew 16 person). As the Wikipedia says: "shipboard: the barest minimum number of personnel to keep the ship operating after it has been damaged and awaiting tow to port." In space this means the minimal crew to operate the ship, at least as i try to imagine, that's in such small ship can't be more than 3 person.
1 Pilot
1 Navigator
1 Weapon operator
1 Tech specialist
2 shifts = 8 men total.
If you cut 1 navi and 1 engeneer - you will receive 6 men total. 3 men will do for a cutter, but hardly enough for a corvette class.
The liquid droplet radiator a great idea, but you really wanna use such method in combat? When you make a maneuver, the droplet are wasted (the spilled hot liquid wont reach the collector), but as bigger problem, it's can act as mist around the ship, like you use the retro-rockets to "slow down", the droplet then spilled front of your ship, in the path of the laser beam. Cause even problem when attach to the laser optics/mirror. The droplet radiator a big idea when you use a stationary object, like a Space Station, but in a heavly maneuvering space ship... it's can cause much-much problem. I think it's even better, when you simply dump the heat-taking liquid out from the ship engine to back. Of course it's only my personal note.
That`s why i decided in favor of multi-window frame, and not one solid frame. It allows (theoreticaly) to tolerate minor maneuvers, due to a strong magnetic fields and relatively small distance from dispenser to catcher. Also, that helps to shorten the "flight" of the droplet. If maneuver anticipated - the dispense stops ant the catchers scoop what they can on the flight. This ensures that at least SOME part fo coolant will return to the ship, unlike total coolant dump.
From a pure aesthetic point of view, i'm not convinced by the crew cabin, but as i'm the only one who says that so far, its probably due to my bad taste
Other than that the ship is awesome, and i discovered the liquid dropplet radiator concept. Do you have already worked on a bit of background for this? Which nation will use this?
EDIT: In fact the thing that bugs me is the way the crew cabin is connected to the large piece holding the two CIWS, and the flat part between it and the main weapon below.
1 Pilot
1 Navigator
1 Weapon operator
1 Tech specialist
2 shifts = 8 men total.
If you cut 1 navi and 1 engeneer - you will receive 6 men total. 3 men will do for a cutter, but hardly enough for a corvette class.
Again, i just thinking loud, but...
I think in space, the term "pilot" a bit overrated. In most case, the ship are only follow it's course, calculated by computers, set by the navigator. In battle or precise maneuvering, the things almost the same, just the roles switched - no need for navigator, only need a pilot. For this, i belive on smaller ships the pilot and the navigator role can be merged. In Via-Verse there is some attempt for such, like on FTL capable fighters. If a fighter-pilot can do with the fighter (limited?) on board computers, then a larger ship why have to need two person for the same work?
For the role of weapon tech, on my imagination, they only needed when action taken - so it's can be done the "off-shift" person. Even with the FTL drives, it's still least minutes rolled, until an attack force reach effective range, so with a Battle Alarm, all the crew are summoned on the bridge fast.
On the tech/engineer, you won't do much in a small, short range ship, if something bigger thing broken, then yell to help, and wait for a towing ship (interesting question, there"fleet tenders" exits in Via-Verse?), you only need to make energency repairs on life support and such systems.
In all, it's more like a small boat, if i'm see right, smallest military ship (the fighters are not ships), and count the HRE heavly automated technology, and stiick for small crew. It's like an Su-32FN (the Su-34 proposed sea patrol version with MAD sensors and such). Of course with spinning section and boarding crew, the numbers go up, i'm only speak about the skeletal crew.
That`s why i decided in favor of multi-window frame, and not one solid frame. It allows (theoreticaly) to tolerate minor maneuvers, due to a strong magnetic fields and relatively small distance from dispenser to catcher. Also, that helps to shorten the "flight" of the droplet. If maneuver anticipated - the dispense stops ant the catchers scoop what they can on the flight. This ensures that at least SOME part fo coolant will return to the ship, unlike total coolant dump.
I'm still feel a bit unsafe, for an effective LDR, you have to use liquid metal, and in best, a very hot (1000K+) liquid metal. When those are spilled around a ship, wich don't have outer shell, but have sensitive equipment (laser optics, targeting optics, etc.)... Well, that's freaky.
From a pure aesthetic point of view, i'm not convinced by the crew cabin, but as i'm the only one who says that so far, its probably due to my bad taste
EDIT: In fact the thing that bugs me is the way the crew cabin is connected to the large piece holding the two CIWS, and the flat part between it and the main weapon below.
Whell, the component you are talking about, is actually the bridge and service corridor. The "large piece holding the two CIWS" is actualy the habitat section. Some space between the bridge and laser is required, because there should fit the shuttle or boarding module. Aerodynamics are completely unnecessary, because this ship was never intended to enter atmosphere of any sort (unlike most modern HRE ships, that are capable of aerobraking at the very least).
Other than that the ship is awesome, and i discovered the liquid dropplet radiator concept. Do you have already worked on a bit of background for this? Which nation will use this?
Background is very sketchy right now. The ship is built by HRE, but large numbers of thees ships are exported to many countries. The main idea is the cheap, robust and cost-effective ship for patrol duty as well as fending off any piracy or mercenaries. With this thoughts in mind, ship is designed to hold it`s ground against any converted civilian ship or "previous generation" light warships, that could end in hands of mercenaries or pirates. The ship was never intended to fight on equal against modern frigates or corvettes. It packs quite a punch, but due to an unarmored and insufficiently maneuverable (for modern standarts) design, it is an easy target for most "top of the line" ships.
I think in space, the term "pilot" a bit overrated. In most case, the ship are only follow it's course, calculated by computers, set by the navigator. In battle or precise maneuvering, the things almost the same, just the roles switched - no need for navigator, only need a pilot. For this, i belive on smaller ships the pilot and the navigator role can be merged. In Via-Verse there is some attempt for such, like on FTL capable fighters. If a fighter-pilot can do with the fighter (limited?) on board computers, then a larger ship why have to need two person for the same work?
Well, in our case the terms are a bit misleading. "Pilot" of the spaceship IS the navigator in "normal space". What he do, is plotting the course for the ship in changing situation. "manual controls" are present, but rarely, if ever used. "Navigator" - is the person, that is plotting the course for FTL jumps. While not at this work, he is most likely will do the work of comm-oficer, so, he would be employed all the time. From 2 pilots, 1`st pilot is the capitan, who actually commands the ship, and in combat, the direct controll of the ship is in hands of second pilot, while the first is occupied by tactics.
For the role of weapon tech, on my imagination, they only needed when action taken - so it's can be done the "off-shift" person. Even with the FTL drives, it's still least minutes rolled, until an attack force reach effective range, so with a Battle Alarm, all the crew are summoned on the bridge fast.
Still, we need at the very least two weapon operators - 1 defensive (interception systems operator) and one offensive (missiles/laser). In off-duty time, they would most likely perform the job of additional engeneers, maintaining the ship.
On the tech/engineer, you won't do much in a small, short range ship, if something bigger thing broken, then yell to help, and wait for a towing ship (interesting question, there"fleet tenders" exits in Via-Verse?), you only need to make energency repairs on life support and such systems.
On the tech/engineer, you won't do much in a small, short range ship, if something bigger thing broken, then yell to help, and wait for a towing ship (interesting question, there"fleet tenders" exits in Via-Verse?), you only need to make energency repairs on life support and such systems.
That`s why there`s only one "official" engeneer on board.Also, if there`s a boarding party and their equipment onboard - there`s a lot of things to fix
Basicly, any larger ship can "FTL-tow" the smaller one, if it fits into FTL-drive bubble. Specialised towers, should be there, I think. For in-system maneuvers - "tug boats" like one pictured by Bbzwbbzw are used.
It's like an Su-32FN (the Su-34 proposed sea patrol version with MAD sensors and such)
Su-32 is a front-line bomber/carrier-killer plane. It`s not supposed to "patrol", but to strike, when patrol found something. Patrol is performed by Beriev`s flying boats and Tupolev`s bomber deriviates. Su-34 is somewhat degraded export version. Well, it is partially modernised, but overral specs are somewhat lower, then those of domestic version.
I'm still feel a bit unsafe, for an effective LDR, you have to use liquid metal, and in best, a very hot (1000K+) liquid metal. When those are spilled around a ship, wich don't have outer shell, but have sensitive equipment (laser optics, targeting optics, etc.)... Well, that's freaky.
Yes, liquid metal is used, with low temperature of melting. Somewhat unsafe, but not totally impossible and not restricted by radiator`s fragility.
The main idea is the cheap, robust and cost-effective ship for patrol duty as well as fending off any piracy or mercenaries. With this thoughts in mind, ship is designed to hold it`s ground against any converted civilian ship or "previous generation" light warships, that could end in hands of mercenaries or pirates.
I think a bit bizarre to let the major nations even light warships on civilian (mercenary/pirate) hands
Well, in our case the terms are a bit misleading. "Pilot" of the spaceship IS the navigator in "normal space". What he do, is plotting the course for the ship in changing situation. "manual controls" are present, but rarely, if ever used. "Navigator" - is the person, that is plotting the course for FTL jumps. While not at this work, he is most likely will do the work of comm-oficer, so, he would be employed all the time. From 2 pilots, 1`st pilot is the capitan, who actually commands the ship, and in combat, the direct controll of the ship is in hands of second pilot, while the first is occupied by tactics.
Still, we need at the very least two weapon operators - 1 defensive (interception systems operator) and one offensive (missiles/laser). In off-duty time, they would most likely perform the job of additional engeneers, maintaining the ship.
That`s why there`s only one "official" engeneer on board.Also, if there`s a boarding party and their equipment onboard - there`s a lot of things to fix
Now you can see my problem. If a small "cutter" like this ship need least 4 person on the bridge per shift (well, it's now 5, if i get correct, pilot + navigator + offensive weapon officer + defensive weapon officer + tech officer), thats least 8 person with two shift (wich cause problem for long range patrol, because of the exhaust), or more likely 12 person with three shift. But how can then a much larger and advanced Battle Frigatte needed "only" 16 person, and a Destroyer 21? This means the crew requirement are about the same (in fact, it's increment only a small portion), regardles of the ship category (size).
Su-32 is a front-line bomber/carrier-killer plane. It`s not supposed to "patrol", but to strike, when patrol found something. Patrol is performed by Beriev`s flying boats and Tupolev`s bomber deriviates. Su-34 is somewhat degraded export version. Well, it is partially modernised, but overral specs are somewhat lower, then those of domestic version.
Well, Sukhoi (and MiG) have great tendency to make unparalel numbering, as the early 1990's joke say, Sukhoi made this year more new type numbering, than physicaly plane.
As far as i know: T-10V: Sukhoi own internal marking to an Su-24 follow-on "fast bomber", based the T-10 (Su-27) fuselage, but larger nose, and two person, side-by-side cockpit. Su-27IB: The official marking of the prototype. Su-32FN: In 1995, the T-10V-5 (T-10V type, 5th proto-plane), prototype/pre-production plane are dressed up as Su-32FN (Fighter Navy) on the Paris Air Show. The plane intented role as ground-based maritime strike plane with radar, electron-optical, MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector, a sensor wich seek the Earth magnetic field disturbances caused by large metal objects, namely submarines) and sonarbouys (this joint systems referred as "Sea Dragon", thats the main difference between the Su-32FN and the Su-32MF/Su-34). This plane has strike roles with anti-ship missiles and ASW roles with torpedoes and depth charges. So it's a cross-breed between the Be-12 maritime patrol aircraft and the Su-24 or the Tu-22M3 maritime strike bombers. Su-32MF: In 1999 the T-10V-5 redressed and renamed as Su-32MF (~Multi-Function), stripped the Sea Dragon system, and proposed as multi-role fighter-bomber (about the same as the F-15E/F-15K). Su-34: Domestic marking of the type, essentially it's the same as the Su-32MF, but first grade equipments (the Su-32MF has somewhat lower level export avioniks, radar, IFF, etc.).
There is three other not builded version, Su-27R recon (Su-24R follow-on), Su-27PP or Su-27IBP jammer/SEAD (Yak-28PP, Su-24MP follow-on) and the Su-27IR(?) long range interceptor.
I think a bit bizarre to let the major nations even light warships on civilian (mercenary/pirate) hands
Currently, you can absolutelly officialy buy T-55 for private use. Of course, weapons and some military equipment will be removed. Same goes for outdated BTR`s BRMD`s and even BMP`s. Hell, I have military UAZ myself - awesome jeep, much better then civilian version. So, given the scale of human sphere of influense and presense of mercenaries/pirates (stated by Bbzwbbzw), and the "wild west" frontier systems, outdated military transport and probably, corvette class ships in hands of PMC`s are not out of question.
If a small "cutter" like this ship need least 4 person on the bridge per shift (well, it's now 5, if i get correct, pilot + navigator + offensive weapon officer + defensive weapon officer + tech officer), thats least 8 person with two shift (wich cause problem for long range patrol, because of the exhaust), or more likely 12 person with three shift. But how can then a much larger and advanced Battle Frigatte needed "only" 16 person, and a Destroyer 21? This means the crew requirement are about the same (in fact, it's increment only a small portion), regardles of the ship category (size).
Nope, you are a bit inacurate here. During combat or other emergency situations, BOTH shifts are at battle stations. However in patrol you have 3 men in the bridge -
Pilot (doing whatever he wants, while keeping one eye on monitor in case of emergency)
Navi (if the course is allready plotted - just listening to radio or whatever messaging system used)
Weapon operator (also doing effectively nothing, but checking the functionality of systems from time to time)
That`s a bare minimum, that HAVE to be in the bridge, to give the rest of the crew, some time to get there in case of emergency.
Well, Sukhoi (and MiG) have great tendency to make unparalel numbering, as the early 1990's joke say, Sukhoi made this year more new type numbering, than physicaly plane.
Blame modernisation potential for this Somtimes the modernisation is so deep, that the result is completely different plane, that shares a few details with original. Also, most designations you mentioned are for factory-use only. "Market" designations are Su-32 for domestic versions and Su-34 for export versions. Letters after the number marks the modification, for ground forces or for naval aviation. Roughly the plane is a direct replacement of Su-24, nothing more, nothing less. It was never intended to replace actual patrool planes, even thou it can substitute for them to some extent.
I have some doubt about the "radiator fragility" myth, but that's my problem tough.
Well, radiators can`t be to thick, because they won`t be, well, radiators that way. And since you have no air to condition the radiator, you have to make it into thin flat film, so, that it would radiate the heat to space, and not back to the ship. That restricts the radiator`s size and fragility. Droplet radiators radiates 360 degrees spherical around every droplet. Of course som radiation falls back to the frame and other droplets flying nearby, but over all efficiency is much higher then that of standard radiators. Additionaly, in normal radiator, the heat is transfered from euipment to liquid, then from liquid to radiator tubes, then from tubes to radiation film. In case of droplet radiator, all steps arter first are omited altogether.
Currently, you can absolutelly officialy buy T-55 for private use. Of course, weapons and some military equipment will be removed.
Without weapons, without fire control system, without radios, without nightsights... so it"s almost nothing more than a thick hided crawler.
And try to step one level up, and try to obtain a fighter plane privately, well, that's even harder...
But OFC the situation between the "now" and int he Via-verse are cannot be straightly mirrored.
That`s a bare minimum, that HAVE to be in the bridge, to give the rest of the crew, some time to get there in case of emergency.
Well, i see, i'm calculate a bit opposite direction (in wet navy most "essential" post have least two, or three shift).
"Market" designations are Su-32 for domestic versions and Su-34 for export versions
Are you sure about that? All my linked sources say the opposite.
It was never intended to replace actual patrool planes, even thou it can substitute for them to some extent
As my knowledge, the Su-32FN are going to export market, that's why showed in the Paris Air Show. With the Sea Dragon system, and even 6 hours of loiter time, it's a potential patrol / ASW plane. But perhaps the Sukhoi a little too optimistic for about this, as the lack of interest show. For anti-ship maritime fighter, even China won't show any kind of attention for the plane, and buy more conventional Su-30MK2's instead.
Well, radiators can`t be to thick, because they won`t be, well, radiators that way. And since you have no air to condition the radiator, you have to make it into thin flat film, so, that it would radiate the heat to space, and not back to the ship.
Well, there is my point. If we build the radiator thick walled, then what? The radiator loose from efficiency, but become more durable. If you think over, even you place two separate radiator system on the ship, one of them need reserve coolant too, why wont use one tougher radiator? A thick walled radiator perhaps won't be elegant, won't be very efficient, but when do the job, and endure much more than the "ordinary" radiator, then why everyone stick the "light" radiators?
Dumb question: For the droplet radiators that could spray everywhere when you maneuver, why not cage them with electromagnetic fields? Just shoot the droplets down the cage (it is exposed to space), and use the electromagnetic fields to keep them confined. Sure you'd have loss but you could maneuver too.
And try to step one level up, and try to obtain a fighter plane privately, well, that's even harder...
However, that`s possible. I`ve seen some US buisinesmen, who was selling a pair of Su-27`s from his collection.
Well, i see, i'm calculate a bit opposite direction (in wet navy most "essential" post have least two, or three shift).
I undestand this, and that is required condition, since crew won`t last long with 12-hour shifts. However, in case of the starship, almost exclusively controlled by CPU, the largest enemy of the crew will be the boredom.
Are you sure about that? All my linked sources say the opposite.
I can be wrong, that`s just from memory, and I was trained as a navigator for Il-76, and not for a front-line bomber (and quite some time before Su-32 was announced officialy). So, I`m in no way more knowlegeble then you in this matter. The only advantage I have - I can read the available documentation in original language.
Well, there is my point. If we build the radiator thick walled, then what? The radiator loose from efficiency, but become more durable. If you think over, even you place two separate radiator system on the ship, one of them need reserve coolant too, why wont use one tougher radiator? A thick walled radiator perhaps won't be elegant, won't be very efficient, but when do the job, and endure much more than the "ordinary" radiator, then why everyone stick the "light" radiators?
Yep, "radiator armor". I was thinking about that, and most likely will use this concept in more "modern" warships. As I see it, to build radiator durable as armor, yet capable as radiator, is a technological nightmare, so, the technology will be reserved to the most high-tech ships.
However, that`s possible. I`ve seen some US buisinesmen, who was selling a pair of Su-27`s from his collection.
Yepp, my original message take the point to some country let this happen, most of them not. But even those Su-27's are striped down all fire control, and military grade avioics and equipment. Without those, the planes are useless in combat. In here some people are resurrect a MiG-15bis, you don't wanna know how hard to obtain all necesarry item (of course, apart the weapons), even if a 60 year old aiming device...
I undestand this, and that is required condition, since crew won`t last long with 12-hour shifts. However, in case of the starship, almost exclusively controlled by CPU, the largest enemy of the crew will be the boredom.
Well, that's the biggest enemy in all such job.
If there be coeducal crew, and liberal commander, then at least they can enjoy eachother.
I can be wrong, that`s just from memory, and I was trained as a navigator for Il-76, and not for a front-line bomber (and quite some time before Su-32 was announced officialy). So, I`m in no way more knowlegeble then you in this matter. The only advantage I have - I can read the available documentation in original language.
I was writen an article from the full Sukhoi T-10 family in hungarian, so i spent several dozen hours to find such informations. About the cyril characters, i learn russian in elementary school between 1986-1990, but after all, the russians use arabic numbers too, so, the difference between the Cy-32 and Cy-34 are clear even for a lower level life form such as myself.
Yepp, my original message take the point to some country let this happen, most of them not. But even those Su-27's are striped down all fire control, and military grade avioics and equipment. Without those, the planes are useless in combat. In here some people are resurrect a MiG-15bis, you don't wanna know how hard to obtain all necesarry item (of course, apart the weapons), even if a 60 year old aiming device...
Sure thing. However, at this point "rule of cool" kicks in, and in universe where "frontier worlds" exist, it could be possible to refit the stripped-down ship back to some extend, using oficial "civilian self defence", smuggled black market or scratch-built weapons and systems.
I was writen an article from the full Sukhoi T-10 family in hungarian, so i spent several dozen hours to find such informations. About the cyril characters, i learn russian in elementary school between 1986-1990, but after all, the russians use arabic numbers too, so, the difference between the Cy-32 and Cy-34 are clear even for a lower level life form such as myself.
That`s not exactly the point I`ve ment, but still, one more russian-speaker here. VIA-universe seems to draw such people together >.< As for "untermensch" - that was the fascist ideology, not Russian.
About the information, I`ve just remembered the whole story as sort of additional info, when I`ve searched for completely different matter. So, sure thing, i can be wrong.
Sure thing. However, at this point "rule of cool" kicks in, and in universe where "frontier worlds" exist, it could be possible to refit the stripped-down ship back to some extend, using oficial "civilian self defence", smuggled black market or scratch-built weapons and systems.
Well, i'm always fond the "Scrapyard" type space ships, like the Minmatar frigates in EvE Online.
It's wont take courage to fight in a state-of-the-art, brand new warship - but take extraordinary courge to fight a pice of junk, stick together with duct tape.
That`s not exactly the point I`ve ment, but still, one more russian-speaker here. VIA-universe seems to draw such people together >.<
It's a shame, but i'm learn russian for 4 years, and german for 7 years, even so i hardly can speak a complex sencente either of this languages. In contrast, i never take an english lesson, but still bested in english as my forgein language capability.
As for "untermensch" - that was the fascist ideology, not Russian.
Never think i'm use such phrase as nationality offense, i never intended, and feeling sorry, if my comment can misunderstanding that way. At those words just a plain joke about my humble ability of knowledge.
Well, i'm always fond the "Scrapyard" type space ships, like the Minmatar frigates in EvE Online.
It's wont take courage to fight in a state-of-the-art, brand new warship - but take extraordinary courge to fight a pice of junk, stick together with duct tape.
Monolyth - class was my favorite (Not sure about the name - verticaly shaped enormous battleship). However, I was the commander of 3rd level mining barge. Pirates in low-sec were damned surprised to find out, that barge was armed with the state-of-the art military drones, and mining lasers packs quite a punch
It's a shame, but i'm learn russian for 4 years, and german for 7 years, even so i hardly can speak a complex sencente either of this languages. In contrast, i never take an english lesson, but still bested in english as my forgein language capability.
English is relatively easy, technological language. Actually that quality makes it well suited for "international language" role. Not the best possible, I think, but quite effective.
Never think i'm use such phrase as nationality offense, i never intended, and feeling sorry, if my comment can misunderstanding that way. At those words just a plain joke about my humble ability of knowledge.
No offense taken, don`t worry. I can understand that it was a joke. I`ve just remembered that such ideology in several countries cost 16+ millions of lifes for my country alone. Such things should not be forgotten so easily, as some do. Because the history tend to repeat itself.
Well, don`t bother much, just sort of thinking aloud.
Some minor update. Re-designed the manipulator arm, added airlocks (those are "passenger" sise, not cargo ones as on big ships) and sme more antennas .Guess, I have to finish shuttle first to do any further progress, since there will be issues with bracing arms.
Uhh... Nicely developed, and as i see, you use now much larger standard radiators?
But you use many small thruster, and with a bit wierdo placement. For example you cannot Yaw, if i see correctly.
On other hand, if the ship are build by modular methods, then the "command" module cannot act as an alone unit? Like separate from the "engine" (and other add-on section), and use as a 'shuttle', and dock on larger ships?
Uhh... Nicely developed, and as i see, you use now much larger standard radiators?
Radiators are the same size as on Moscow class (thou much shorter) its the ship, that is smaller
But you use many small thruster, and with a bit wierdo placement. For example you cannot Yaw, if i see correctly.
No, you can. Fire both upper and lower thrusters on front-left side and both upper and lower thrusters on rear-right side, and your ship will turn around yaw axis. Every other maneuver is performed using the same method. The number of thrusters is high, because each part of the ship can perform undocking and simple adjustments of their position separately. In example, the basic config, that is depicted, can split into two parts, and dock with the third module. All done by remote controll, without any use of the tug-boat. Still not sure about this idea, but I think it worth a try.
On other hand, if the ship are build by modular methods, then the "command" module cannot act as an alone unit? Like separate from the "engine" (and other add-on section), and use as a 'shuttle', and dock on larger ships?
I`ve thought about this, but shuttle is something more, or less expendable, unlike the ship. And if anything happens to shuttle, the ship will be left "headless".
Posts
A little update on the ship - re-designed bridge completely. It reminded me a front of electric train too much, so I`ve made it a bit more like a naval bridge. Also, added the docking ring between modules and tons of verniers. Note, they are just bolted there - no mechanical cover of any sort. Now working on a crane design (the one that is currently clipping into the habitat`s frontal wall) It should be used for a light shuttle or f forced boarding module docking. That`s a patrool ship, after all.
No renders, just sketches for now.
About the role... As the HRE use as few crew as they can, it's not far from a fighter (2-3 person?). If we try to mirrored in the old sailing then perhaps Cutter , ne? But as i see in russian the Cutter (катер) is only one small step from fast attack crafts (Боевой катер).
Skeletal crew is about 5-6 men. However, those ships are frequently used as "border patrool vessels". In that loadout, the ship carry a "forced boarding" module. Sort of assault shuttle, designed to dock to a crippled ship and deliver the boarding party. For such role, ship is equipped with spin-habitat module (for long duration missions) and additional proprllant and coolant tankage module, effectively raising the ship`s length, displacement and crew complement (boarding party).
If the ship is equipped with a FTL-missile rack, it became somewhat like a "missile boat" or "torpedo cutter" from WW2.
So, the ship could be configured for a roles from cutter, to a full fledged corvette.
As for radiators - there are 2 "closed cycle" radiators, like on Moscow-class and 2 droplet radiator arrays (frames on top and bottom of the ship) They could be used in combat, but will loose some coolant each cycle.
5-6 Skeletal crew? It's a bit high IMHO, at least if we start from the Moscow class (normall crew 21 person), the Battle Frigate (normal crew 16 person). As the Wikipedia says: "shipboard: the barest minimum number of personnel to keep the ship operating after it has been damaged and awaiting tow to port." In space this means the minimal crew to operate the ship, at least as i try to imagine, that's in such small ship can't be more than 3 person.
The liquid droplet radiator a great idea, but you really wanna use such method in combat? When you make a maneuver, the droplet are wasted (the spilled hot liquid wont reach the collector), but as bigger problem, it's can act as mist around the ship, like you use the retro-rockets to "slow down", the droplet then spilled front of your ship, in the path of the laser beam. Cause even problem when attach to the laser optics/mirror. The droplet radiator a big idea when you use a stationary object, like a Space Station, but in a heavly maneuvering space ship... it's can cause much-much problem. I think it's even better, when you simply dump the heat-taking liquid out from the ship engine to back. Of course it's only my personal note.
1 Pilot
1 Navigator
1 Weapon operator
1 Tech specialist
2 shifts = 8 men total.
If you cut 1 navi and 1 engeneer - you will receive 6 men total. 3 men will do for a cutter, but hardly enough for a corvette class.
That`s why i decided in favor of multi-window frame, and not one solid frame. It allows (theoreticaly) to tolerate minor maneuvers, due to a strong magnetic fields and relatively small distance from dispenser to catcher. Also, that helps to shorten the "flight" of the droplet. If maneuver anticipated - the dispense stops ant the catchers scoop what they can on the flight. This ensures that at least SOME part fo coolant will return to the ship, unlike total coolant dump.
Other than that the ship is awesome, and i discovered the liquid dropplet radiator concept. Do you have already worked on a bit of background for this? Which nation will use this?
EDIT: In fact the thing that bugs me is the way the crew cabin is connected to the large piece holding the two CIWS, and the flat part between it and the main weapon below.
Again, i just thinking loud, but...
I think in space, the term "pilot" a bit overrated. In most case, the ship are only follow it's course, calculated by computers, set by the navigator. In battle or precise maneuvering, the things almost the same, just the roles switched - no need for navigator, only need a pilot. For this, i belive on smaller ships the pilot and the navigator role can be merged. In Via-Verse there is some attempt for such, like on FTL capable fighters. If a fighter-pilot can do with the fighter (limited?) on board computers, then a larger ship why have to need two person for the same work?
For the role of weapon tech, on my imagination, they only needed when action taken - so it's can be done the "off-shift" person. Even with the FTL drives, it's still least minutes rolled, until an attack force reach effective range, so with a Battle Alarm, all the crew are summoned on the bridge fast.
On the tech/engineer, you won't do much in a small, short range ship, if something bigger thing broken, then yell to help, and wait for a towing ship (interesting question, there"fleet tenders" exits in Via-Verse?), you only need to make energency repairs on life support and such systems.
In all, it's more like a small boat, if i'm see right, smallest military ship (the fighters are not ships), and count the HRE heavly automated technology, and stiick for small crew. It's like an Su-32FN (the Su-34 proposed sea patrol version with MAD sensors and such). Of course with spinning section and boarding crew, the numbers go up, i'm only speak about the skeletal crew.
I'm still feel a bit unsafe, for an effective LDR, you have to use liquid metal, and in best, a very hot (1000K+) liquid metal. When those are spilled around a ship, wich don't have outer shell, but have sensitive equipment (laser optics, targeting optics, etc.)... Well, that's freaky.
Whell, the component you are talking about, is actually the bridge and service corridor. The "large piece holding the two CIWS" is actualy the habitat section. Some space between the bridge and laser is required, because there should fit the shuttle or boarding module. Aerodynamics are completely unnecessary, because this ship was never intended to enter atmosphere of any sort (unlike most modern HRE ships, that are capable of aerobraking at the very least).
Background is very sketchy right now. The ship is built by HRE, but large numbers of thees ships are exported to many countries. The main idea is the cheap, robust and cost-effective ship for patrol duty as well as fending off any piracy or mercenaries. With this thoughts in mind, ship is designed to hold it`s ground against any converted civilian ship or "previous generation" light warships, that could end in hands of mercenaries or pirates. The ship was never intended to fight on equal against modern frigates or corvettes. It packs quite a punch, but due to an unarmored and insufficiently maneuverable (for modern standarts) design, it is an easy target for most "top of the line" ships.
Well, in our case the terms are a bit misleading. "Pilot" of the spaceship IS the navigator in "normal space". What he do, is plotting the course for the ship in changing situation. "manual controls" are present, but rarely, if ever used. "Navigator" - is the person, that is plotting the course for FTL jumps. While not at this work, he is most likely will do the work of comm-oficer, so, he would be employed all the time. From 2 pilots, 1`st pilot is the capitan, who actually commands the ship, and in combat, the direct controll of the ship is in hands of second pilot, while the first is occupied by tactics.
Still, we need at the very least two weapon operators - 1 defensive (interception systems operator) and one offensive (missiles/laser). In off-duty time, they would most likely perform the job of additional engeneers, maintaining the ship.
That`s why there`s only one "official" engeneer on board.Also, if there`s a boarding party and their equipment onboard - there`s a lot of things to fix
Basicly, any larger ship can "FTL-tow" the smaller one, if it fits into FTL-drive bubble. Specialised towers, should be there, I think. For in-system maneuvers - "tug boats" like one pictured by Bbzwbbzw are used.
Su-32 is a front-line bomber/carrier-killer plane. It`s not supposed to "patrol", but to strike, when patrol found something. Patrol is performed by Beriev`s flying boats and Tupolev`s bomber deriviates. Su-34 is somewhat degraded export version. Well, it is partially modernised, but overral specs are somewhat lower, then those of domestic version.
Yes, liquid metal is used, with low temperature of melting. Somewhat unsafe, but not totally impossible and not restricted by radiator`s fragility.
I think a bit bizarre to let the major nations even light warships on civilian (mercenary/pirate) hands
Now you can see my problem. If a small "cutter" like this ship need least 4 person on the bridge per shift (well, it's now 5, if i get correct, pilot + navigator + offensive weapon officer + defensive weapon officer + tech officer), thats least 8 person with two shift (wich cause problem for long range patrol, because of the exhaust), or more likely 12 person with three shift. But how can then a much larger and advanced Battle Frigatte needed "only" 16 person, and a Destroyer 21? This means the crew requirement are about the same (in fact, it's increment only a small portion), regardles of the ship category (size).
Well, Sukhoi (and MiG) have great tendency to make unparalel numbering, as the early 1990's joke say, Sukhoi made this year more new type numbering, than physicaly plane.
As far as i know:
T-10V: Sukhoi own internal marking to an Su-24 follow-on "fast bomber", based the T-10 (Su-27) fuselage, but larger nose, and two person, side-by-side cockpit.
Su-27IB: The official marking of the prototype.
Su-32FN: In 1995, the T-10V-5 (T-10V type, 5th proto-plane), prototype/pre-production plane are dressed up as Su-32FN (Fighter Navy) on the Paris Air Show. The plane intented role as ground-based maritime strike plane with radar, electron-optical, MAD (Magnetic Anomaly Detector, a sensor wich seek the Earth magnetic field disturbances caused by large metal objects, namely submarines) and sonarbouys (this joint systems referred as "Sea Dragon", thats the main difference between the Su-32FN and the Su-32MF/Su-34). This plane has strike roles with anti-ship missiles and ASW roles with torpedoes and depth charges. So it's a cross-breed between the Be-12 maritime patrol aircraft and the Su-24 or the Tu-22M3 maritime strike bombers.
Su-32MF: In 1999 the T-10V-5 redressed and renamed as Su-32MF (~Multi-Function), stripped the Sea Dragon system, and proposed as multi-role fighter-bomber (about the same as the F-15E/F-15K).
Su-34: Domestic marking of the type, essentially it's the same as the Su-32MF, but first grade equipments (the Su-32MF has somewhat lower level export avioniks, radar, IFF, etc.).
There is three other not builded version, Su-27R recon (Su-24R follow-on), Su-27PP or Su-27IBP jammer/SEAD (Yak-28PP, Su-24MP follow-on) and the Su-27IR(?) long range interceptor.
That's how i know. Sources: Air Vector, APA, Warfare.ru and Milavia.net
I'm never saying it's impossible.
I have some doubt about the "radiator fragility" myth, but that's my problem tough.
Currently, you can absolutelly officialy buy T-55 for private use. Of course, weapons and some military equipment will be removed. Same goes for outdated BTR`s BRMD`s and even BMP`s. Hell, I have military UAZ myself - awesome jeep, much better then civilian version. So, given the scale of human sphere of influense and presense of mercenaries/pirates (stated by Bbzwbbzw), and the "wild west" frontier systems, outdated military transport and probably, corvette class ships in hands of PMC`s are not out of question.
Nope, you are a bit inacurate here. During combat or other emergency situations, BOTH shifts are at battle stations. However in patrol you have 3 men in the bridge -
Pilot (doing whatever he wants, while keeping one eye on monitor in case of emergency)
Navi (if the course is allready plotted - just listening to radio or whatever messaging system used)
Weapon operator (also doing effectively nothing, but checking the functionality of systems from time to time)
That`s a bare minimum, that HAVE to be in the bridge, to give the rest of the crew, some time to get there in case of emergency.
Blame modernisation potential for this
Well, radiators can`t be to thick, because they won`t be, well, radiators that way. And since you have no air to condition the radiator, you have to make it into thin flat film, so, that it would radiate the heat to space, and not back to the ship. That restricts the radiator`s size and fragility. Droplet radiators radiates 360 degrees spherical around every droplet. Of course som radiation falls back to the frame and other droplets flying nearby, but over all efficiency is much higher then that of standard radiators. Additionaly, in normal radiator, the heat is transfered from euipment to liquid, then from liquid to radiator tubes, then from tubes to radiation film. In case of droplet radiator, all steps arter first are omited altogether.
Without weapons, without fire control system, without radios, without nightsights... so it"s almost nothing more than a thick hided crawler.
And try to step one level up, and try to obtain a fighter plane privately, well, that's even harder...
But OFC the situation between the "now" and int he Via-verse are cannot be straightly mirrored.
Well, i see, i'm calculate a bit opposite direction (in wet navy most "essential" post have least two, or three shift).
Are you sure about that? All my linked sources say the opposite.
As my knowledge, the Su-32FN are going to export market, that's why showed in the Paris Air Show. With the Sea Dragon system, and even 6 hours of loiter time, it's a potential patrol / ASW plane. But perhaps the Sukhoi a little too optimistic for about this, as the lack of interest show. For anti-ship maritime fighter, even China won't show any kind of attention for the plane, and buy more conventional Su-30MK2's instead.
Well, there is my point. If we build the radiator thick walled, then what? The radiator loose from efficiency, but become more durable. If you think over, even you place two separate radiator system on the ship, one of them need reserve coolant too, why wont use one tougher radiator? A thick walled radiator perhaps won't be elegant, won't be very efficient, but when do the job, and endure much more than the "ordinary" radiator, then why everyone stick the "light" radiators?
If you check the Atomic Rocket page "Defenses" section, there is a note from Isaac Kuo, wich similar to my arguement.
However, that`s possible. I`ve seen some US buisinesmen, who was selling a pair of Su-27`s from his collection.
I undestand this, and that is required condition, since crew won`t last long with 12-hour shifts. However, in case of the starship, almost exclusively controlled by CPU, the largest enemy of the crew will be the boredom.
I can be wrong, that`s just from memory, and I was trained as a navigator for Il-76, and not for a front-line bomber
Yep, "radiator armor". I was thinking about that, and most likely will use this concept in more "modern" warships. As I see it, to build radiator durable as armor, yet capable as radiator, is a technological nightmare, so, the technology will be reserved to the most high-tech ships.
Yepp, my original message take the point to some country let this happen, most of them not. But even those Su-27's are striped down all fire control, and military grade avioics and equipment. Without those, the planes are useless in combat. In here some people are resurrect a MiG-15bis, you don't wanna know how hard to obtain all necesarry item (of course, apart the weapons), even if a 60 year old aiming device...
Well, that's the biggest enemy in all such job.
If there be coeducal crew, and liberal commander, then at least they can enjoy eachother.
I was writen an article from the full Sukhoi T-10 family in hungarian, so i spent several dozen hours to find such informations. About the cyril characters, i learn russian in elementary school between 1986-1990, but after all, the russians use arabic numbers too, so, the difference between the Cy-32 and Cy-34 are clear even for a lower level life form such as myself.
That`s not exactly the point I`ve ment, but still, one more russian-speaker here. VIA-universe seems to draw such people together >.< As for "untermensch" - that was the fascist ideology, not Russian.
About the information, I`ve just remembered the whole story as sort of additional info, when I`ve searched for completely different matter. So, sure thing, i can be wrong.
Well, i'm always fond the "Scrapyard" type space ships, like the Minmatar frigates in EvE Online.
It's wont take courage to fight in a state-of-the-art, brand new warship - but take extraordinary courge to fight a pice of junk, stick together with duct tape.
It's a shame, but i'm learn russian for 4 years, and german for 7 years, even so i hardly can speak a complex sencente either of this languages. In contrast, i never take an english lesson, but still bested in english as my forgein language capability.
Never think i'm use such phrase as nationality offense, i never intended, and feeling sorry, if my comment can misunderstanding that way. At those words just a plain joke about my humble ability of knowledge.
Monolyth - class was my favorite
English is relatively easy, technological language. Actually that quality makes it well suited for "international language" role. Not the best possible, I think, but quite effective.
No offense taken, don`t worry. I can understand that it was a joke.
Well, don`t bother much, just sort of thinking aloud.
VIA-verse contributors, your work shows a disturbing lack of golden plated hulls...
R-USSR`s ships had yellow hulls, at least in former incarnation
But you use many small thruster, and with a bit wierdo placement. For example you cannot Yaw, if i see correctly.
On other hand, if the ship are build by modular methods, then the "command" module cannot act as an alone unit? Like separate from the "engine" (and other add-on section), and use as a 'shuttle', and dock on larger ships?
Radiators are the same size as on Moscow class (thou much shorter) its the ship, that is smaller
No, you can. Fire both upper and lower thrusters on front-left side and both upper and lower thrusters on rear-right side, and your ship will turn around yaw axis. Every other maneuver is performed using the same method. The number of thrusters is high, because each part of the ship can perform undocking and simple adjustments of their position separately. In example, the basic config, that is depicted, can split into two parts, and dock with the third module. All done by remote controll, without any use of the tug-boat. Still not sure about this idea, but I think it worth a try.
I`ve thought about this, but shuttle is something more, or less expendable, unlike the ship. And if anything happens to shuttle, the ship will be left "headless".