[email removed] (Scott S. Kellogg) writes:
> Thruster plates are dead.
> Fusion Rockets are in.
> Well Ladies and Gents, you all outta know what that means. The
> only kind of sensor you'll need to detect these ships is the Mark-I
> eyeball. [etc.]
True enough, although to detect one at any range, you will need an
increasingly large telescope. Those range bands are *big*! For a sense
of scale, imagine trying to detect that Saturn V first stage with the
naked eye from the surface of the moon.
> I think Bertil & Wildstar are getting Far more complicated and
> expensive than they have to with their missile seeker heads.
> Passive is THE way to go.
I think that we're now assuming some unspecified form of autonomous
terminal homing; passive IR, Neutrino, or Densitometer are all possible.
Missiles will want long-range targetting information (particularly SIMs)
from the launching ship, so that the missile can be guided to the
correct target if there are several near the same bearing.
> Ok, what counter measures can you pull against a missile with a
> totally passive seeker head?
Well, you can shoot at it. It probably has a fusion rocket for power,
too, and should be pretty darn obvious. Lasers are the obvious choice,
but a Cannister missile should do a number on an enemy missile, too.
Delay detonation of the bursting charge until about 1.5s before impact;
this gives a 200m radius sphere with considerably more pellets per unit
volume. 1.5s doesn't give a 12G missile enough time to get out of the
way.
A small fission or fusion warhead should provide an adequate decoy,
depending on the exact technology of the seeker head. The bomb could be
radiation-enhanced in the appropriate frequencies to better simulate the
ship's fusion exhaust. This may not be a practical suggestion, however!
;)
Bertil Jonell [email removed] writes:
> So there might be a niche for the HE as a cheap multipurpose missile (while
> the SFF is a better but more expensive multipurpose).
Great. And I see that KEAP now becomes a cheap missile (if a little
difficult to hit with) that is more effective in ship-to-ship action
than a HE missile, and considerably cheaper than a HEAP or SFF missile.
> Using a DU penetrator with a slenderness of 1:100 (normal today is 1:20)
> around 400kg, but that slenderness might be physically impossible (too slender
> and it will break instead of penetrating). With a slenderness of 1:20...
> twelve tons. Yes, this might make a good excuse.
I think a 1:100 penetrator would be too slender; Uranium isn't a
particularly strong metal ... and it makes a decent reason for not
having a KEAPDU missile.
> BTW: I think the Cannister and SFF missiles should be modified since their
> max damage is dependent on the penetration and it is limited in the same ways
> as that of the KEAP missile.
Sounds reasonable.
> I think restricting MFD's to military ships is a better option. I'm reminded
> of the old starship combat discussion where I wanted there to be a major
> difference between military and civilian ships, and the MFD could be a way
> of doing this.
Good Idea! MFDs at the current TL restricted to military vessels.
Authorized para-military outfits (like starmercs with good reputations)
could buy MFDs at a couple of TLs below the current military. And a few
(*very few*) would appear on the black market (probably the same TLs or
slightly lower as the starmercs can get).
An unauthorized ship with a MFD installed, or with restricted weapons
onboard, could be subject to immediate impound, or even seziure, by the
authorities. I like this.
> Argh! I misinterpreted the 'Friendly Velocity' formula on page 324.
Haven't read that part yet. What do you think of the space combat
movement changes?
[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
in the New Era