Greetings!
Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.
Quick Links
3DImperial Prussian Battleship: IMS Scharnhorst
Alnair181
Posts: 255Member
After quite a long break...
... and an insane workload in RL I finally got the time to start a new project. The ship is a Prussian ship of the line from my personal scifi project. Modelling is finished to 75% . For a better size comparison I have rendered one picture including the frigate I have already finished a few month ago.
... and an insane workload in RL I finally got the time to start a new project. The ship is a Prussian ship of the line from my personal scifi project. Modelling is finished to 75% . For a better size comparison I have rendered one picture including the frigate I have already finished a few month ago.
Post edited by Alnair on
Tagged:
Additional credits
- Icons from Font-Awesome
- Additional icons by Mickael Bonfill
- Banner background from Toptal Subtle Patterns
© Scifi-Meshes.com 2001-2024
Posts
Thing is friggin loaded for bear . . .
Brian
1) No artificial gravity onboard?
2) somewhat strange accent on missile payload. Missiles are slow and easy to shot down in ship-to-ship combat...
I'll echo the comment/question about no artificial gravity- looks like the ship isn't meant for long patrols, which I guess can make sense if it is a battleship.
-Will
That's my impression everytime when I look at your work!
1) In my universe I try to keep with realistic technology as closely as possible possible. There are no FTL drives or FTL communication equipment. Background for the scenario is a binary star system with enough celestical bodies for a vivid plot. The major war ships have internal centrifuges with a diameter big enough for a moderate but comfortable centrifugal acceleration. In addition the ships travel for quite long periods of time under moderate thrust. So the centrifuges will only be used during periods when the ships don't accelerate.
2) I'm not a missile expert but i don't think that missiles have to be sluggish in a space combat situation. The missiles in my universe fulfill the tactical role of other scenarios' space fighters but without their limitations. Without the need to respect the limitations of a human pilot regarding acceleration or the need to bring a pilot back to the mothership the missiles could be far more maneuverable than the classic space fighter. It would certainly depend on their engine and ECM systems whether they would be sitting ducks in space or not.
My 3D software of choice is Autodesk Softimage.
2) A more likely scenario for weapon deployment in the farther future is one-off drones that carry onboard weapons systems, such as nukes or kinetic weapons. Beam weapons too, if you're willing to fit them into your universe. Microwave lasers are especially popular in sci-fi, and are even viable weapons today. So you strap a weapon like a maser to a missile, then add countermeasures and electronic warfare systems, you suddenly have a very expensive, but very effective automatic drone that is a basic fire-and-forget weapon.
Problem is, how far you can deploy the drone? It have VERY limited propellant on board, so it can`t accelerate as food as the capital ship. Due to the lack of propellant it have to limit it`s maneuvers. It`s laser isn`t nearly as powerfull (or actually - precise) as the one on the capital ship, so it have much shorter firing range. What we receive here? One-shot weapon, that can be outruned or just shot down by capital ship, long before it enters the firing range. So, It`s actually nearly useless. The same problem, that prohibits the usage of "space fighters".
Actually, in terms of Delta-V, only the mass ratio matters, not the total mass of the propellant. See here:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/engines.php
So if the drone has mass ratio of 3 and the ship has a mass ratio of 3, and they have the same engine technology (same exhaust velocity) then it will have the *same* ability to maneuver as the larger ship (even though the ship is many times larger). Also, since the drone is automated it can afford to 'coast' without thrusting for long periods of time, effectively giving it extremely long range. It also has less payload to move around vs. a ship (no crew, no life support, no quarters, etc), so it's mass ratio is likely to be as good or better then the target. The drone doesn't have to be armed with a laser- it could get itself onto a collision course and break up into sub-munitions. Then killing a ship is just a matter of math- outlined here:
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2009/09/further-battles-of-spherical-war-cows.html
Is a good rule of thumb on how many seekers= dead ship.
-Will
The aft firing rack isn't movable. The rails are hardpoints for fixing additional external pailoads e.g. two more racks.
So, actually the problem is - how to get enough shrapnel to sink the ship.
As for payload, a micro antimatter reactor is a good power plant and warhead. It could power the missile for years, and it would only need to get with a mater of a few hundred Kilometers to vaporise the enemy ship.
Launch missile, missile closes to within range (or moves on a tangential course), warhead activates and generates beams towards target.
Even if you kill the ship, the missiles are still in play. The range differential (as the missiles have a tactical range of their own DeltaV* plus whatever the effective range of the laser is) may allow lighter ships to stand off heavier opponents (who might not be able to close to within their own effective tactical range).
*-we'll assume (arbitrarily) that one the missile stops being able to maneuver (exhausts its DeltaV), it's out of play. Not true, but useful as a base metric.
Problem is the propellant, not the energy supply. Also, nucear/annihilation explosions are nearly harmless in space, unless they are performed severel METERS away from the ship.
The question is: would it be necessary to get a direct kinetic hit on the target? What if some of the drones are equipped with bomb pumped X-ray laser warheads? Wouldn't a scenario be possible when a capital ship (battleship or frigate) deploys a salvo of drones with different warheads on varying attack vectors and simultaneously engages its target with the onboard weapons (lasers and railguns).
And in addition: the laser systems are extremly vulnerable targets. Lenses and mirrors could be damaged by using drones with large sand or silica filled warheads that set their payload free in the trajectory of their target. With enough delta-V even a grain of sand massing only a few hundred milligrams should be able to scratch the lens systems.
Your ships look advanced enough to when we can actually build something like that in space, an M/AM reactor could probably power it. And if can can do that a warp drive may very well be forthcoming. My opinion, and BTW Michio Kaku and many other breakthrough physicists, agree, that warp drive is not a matter of if, it's a matter of when
Sorceres, I was considering a FTL drive for month. I'm still not totally convinced that FTL will be possible some day in the future but for my plot a FTL drive would certainly enrich the background story of my project. I think I will give that idea a try...
The one suggestion design wise I would make is that if you decide to incorporate some sort of Alcubierre or Heim drive, you may want to re-designate the function of the frigate's ring as the filed generator and do away with the "sails" in lieu of a ring for the battleship as well...
Speaking strictly aesthetically, I think I prefer the ring anyway..The straight edged sails break the design line too much..To my eye they look like they shouldn't be on the ship. They almost look like the ship is docked between two structures.
You could give the sails an arc to them connected by a much narrower segment above and below instead of making a full ring. That would at least bring the components back in line with the design style.
Bomb-pumped lasers will give you a bit larger cone to spare. This will make system a bit more effective. However, the drones still have to enter the firing range of the capitalship and quite deep. Railguns, would be less effective, I guess, however, I can be wrong. Sand won`t do - it disperse too fast to be effective in any reasonable volume.