Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: welchbloke
« on: March 06, 2009, 01:02:39 PM »

Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
*SNIP*
1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile.  I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.

Just to clarify, I was using the missile guidance package (e.g. including things like steering system) "as an example".  In other words, it seems like the components shouldn't be infinitely miniturizable - at some point a fixed cost will show up that will begin to kill efficiency.  If nothing else, this will be the skin/framework which provides for the structural integrity of the missile.  Essentially "guidance package" was technobabble for all of this fixed overhead, in the same way that the bridge of a starship accounts for all sorts of administrative overhead tonnage.  

Where this fixed cost shows up is pretty much up to Steve - he can choose it to be so small as to be negligible, or he can make it significant.  Note that even a 0.5 HS overhead (which I consider to be fairly high) had a fairly low (~16%) impact on the smallest (worst-case) missile cited in the example.

John
Ah, it becomes clear :)
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: March 05, 2009, 07:45:34 PM »

Quote from: "welchbloke"
Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "welchbloke"
That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs.  Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections.  Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass.  Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?

1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile.  I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.

Just to clarify, I was using the missile guidance package (e.g. including things like steering system) "as an example".  In other words, it seems like the components shouldn't be infinitely miniturizable - at some point a fixed cost will show up that will begin to kill efficiency.  If nothing else, this will be the skin/framework which provides for the structural integrity of the missile.  Essentially "guidance package" was technobabble for all of this fixed overhead, in the same way that the bridge of a starship accounts for all sorts of administrative overhead tonnage.  

Where this fixed cost shows up is pretty much up to Steve - he can choose it to be so small as to be negligible, or he can make it significant.  Note that even a 0.5 HS overhead (which I consider to be fairly high) had a fairly low (~16%) impact on the smallest (worst-case) missile cited in the example.

John
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: March 05, 2009, 11:17:37 AM »

Quote from: "SteveAlt"
You will also be able to detect fire controls locking on (when EW is added) so self-guiding missiles would avoid giving away the position of the firing ship.

Shouldn't that be dependent on whether the missile is using active or passive systems?
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: March 05, 2009, 03:01:28 AM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
Quote from: "welchbloke"
That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs.  Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections.  Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass.  Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?

1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Even now a missile guidance system would be no more than about 100kg even for the largest missile.  I would say that the standard package could be considered a negligible part of the missile mass.
Posted by: SteveAlt
« on: March 03, 2009, 07:56:24 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I think it boils down to what the individual considers an acceptable salvo size along with acceptable damage per missile. For ships it is salvo size and magazine space.

As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.

I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.

If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.
Missiles are guided by homing in on the target painted by the parent ship's fire control systems. This requires very little space on the missile. However, you can put guidance packages on missiles so they don't need shipboard control. In this case, you wil get the economies of scale to which John was referring. Missiles with guidance packages aren't that common at the moment because they usually aren't necessary. That will likely change when I get around to adding full electronic warfare, probably in v4.1 or v4.2. I am planning to add jammers that can be used against specific fire control systems, either vs a ship or a missile, which means missiles may need their own guidance to avoid being all taken out at once by such jamming. You will also be able to detect fire controls locking on (when EW is added) so self-guiding missiles would avoid giving away the position of the firing ship.

Steve
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 02, 2009, 07:29:44 PM »

Quote from: "welchbloke"
That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs.  Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections.  Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass.  Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?

1/20th of a hull space or 2.5 tons.
Posted by: welchbloke
« on: March 02, 2009, 06:25:26 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
I think it boils down to what the individual considers an acceptable salvo size along with acceptable damage per missile. For ships it is salvo size and magazine space.

As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.

I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.

If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.

That's correct, I think of Aurora missiles as equivalent to command guided SAMs or semi-active AAMs.  Both of these missiles require a guidance system of sorts to receive data and calculate any course corrections.  Personally, given the advances in miniaturisation that have occured in real life, I think the guidance package would constitute a negligible portion of the missile mass.  Could someone remind me how much an MSP is supposed to be in tonnes?
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 02, 2009, 03:48:23 PM »

I think it boils down to what the individual considers an acceptable salvo size along with acceptable damage per missile. For ships it is salvo size and magazine space.

As technology progresses in game, more options open up for the missiles. The same size missile can maintain the warhead space usage, but have a bigger bang. Or decrease the warhead size to include some armor and/or maneuverability.

I do like John's suggestion about a guidance package being a set size. The largest problem I see with this is that the firing ship is providing the guidance, not the missile.

If the missiles had guidance packages, I could mount X number of launchers, 1 FC Suite and then launch a salvo at target A, a salvo at target B, and one at target C. Currently if you shift targets, all in-flight salvos switch too.
Posted by: Kurt
« on: March 02, 2009, 12:59:37 PM »

I meant to respond to this interesting question earlier, but real life has had a way of distracting me lately  :D .

In the 6 Powers Campaign, the offensive missile sizes range from 3 for the Japanese Long Lance missile line, to larger for the Reich and the Alliance.  I can't remember the exact size for the Reich and the Alliance right now, but they are larger, and the Alliance has introduced an even larger missile lately, because they needed something bigger to fit in ECM.  

Having said that, I am undecided as to the "Best" size.  The Japanese have a good salvo size and ROF because of the relatively small missiles, but each missile only does 3 points of damage, so even though they launch a lot of missiles, and usually get at least a moderate number of hits, they don't do much damage.  

Some things to consider here are ROF, and the balance between capability to sustain a continuing engagement vs being able to overwhelm an opponent right off the bat.  The Reich Scharnhorst missile frigates use box launchers and can launch 20 missiles at once, which isn't bad for a 3,500 ton ship (approximately).  In a same-size match, three of these could launch sixty missiles in one salvo at an Alliance Battlecruiser or Dreadnought, completely overwhelming its defenses and scoring multiple hits, probably enough to destroy it, or at least seriously damaging it.  However, once they have launched their missiles they are nothing but targets, and are useless until they are reloaded.  

Kurt
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 01, 2009, 07:39:17 PM »

Indeed it did. I blame too much sleep inducing homemade chili for the lack of comprehension :)
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: March 01, 2009, 07:23:31 PM »

Quote from: "Erik Luken"
All of the parameters of a missile are dependant on size allocated. You can tweak the numbers to give identical performance numbers for different sized missiles. In the examples, the larger missiles need more space dedicated to engine and fuel to maintain the same speed/endurance.

Or maybe I'm just missing your point? :-)

My point is that cutting all the parameters in half shouldn't result in a missile with exactly the same performance characteristics, and half the warhead size.  Think about what happens in freighter design - what's happening in missile design is the equivalent to being allowed to put only engines, fuel, and cargo holds into a ship, without requiring a bridge.  If I could (and did) do that, then halving the number of each component on the ship would result in a ship with the same speed and range, but half the cargo space.  If I bridges are required on ships, however, then I've got a "fixed cost" (in HS) that I can't shrink by making the ship smaller.  Now, when I halve the components on the ship, I'm not allowed to halve the bridge.  This means that the halved ship is bigger than half the size of the original, which in turn means that it's slower, relatively more expensive, and shorter ranged.  I picked a guidance head as the most plausible sort of fixed cost I could come up with, but that was really just meant to be an example.

This is why Steve had to reduce bridge requirements below a certain size - otherwise the full-blown starship bridge would be like an anchor in attempts to design agile small ships.

Did that make sense?

John
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 01, 2009, 07:07:17 PM »

Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Hawkeye"
As I stated somewhere else, I am currently of the opinion of smaller is better as far as missiles go.

Some examples to make clear what I am talking about:


Missile Size: 3 MSP  (0.15 HS)     Warhead: 3    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.63
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    0.75x Tritanium   0.63x Gallicite   Fuel x1500

Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 6    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.26
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    1.5x Tritanium   1.51x Gallicite   Fuel x3000


Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.52
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    3x Tritanium   3.27x Gallicite   Fuel x6000


Now, those three missile designs are all made using the same tech levels. They have exactely the same specs except for warhead strength.
For a doubling in size, I get a doubling in payload.

**SNIP**

The fact that missiles are scale-invariant (the warhead strength is proportional to the size, while the other stats are all fixed) says to me that something is broken in the missile design - there should be some overhead (e.g. the guidance package) which is constant size and would subtract off (in absolute terms) from the warhead size.  For example, if a 0.5 MSP guidance package/control system were required on all missiles (that aren't just going to be buckshot), then your warhead strengths would be 2.5, 5.5, and 11.5, respectively, which makes your largest missile ~15% more efficient than your smallest (over and above the penetration effect you already mentioned).  I still think there's a strong argument to be made for using a lot of small missiles to swamp point defense, it just seems that there should be some sort of fixed mass that can't be minaturized.  Plus, it adds the potential for YATL (Yet Another Tech Line) :)
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: March 01, 2009, 06:29:38 PM »

Quote from: "Hawkeye"
As I stated somewhere else, I am currently of the opinion of smaller is better as far as missiles go.

Some examples to make clear what I am talking about:


Missile Size: 3 MSP  (0.15 HS)     Warhead: 3    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.63
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    0.75x Tritanium   0.63x Gallicite   Fuel x1500

Missile Size: 6 MSP  (0.3 HS)     Warhead: 6    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 3.26
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    1.5x Tritanium   1.51x Gallicite   Fuel x3000


Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 12    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 17600 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 45.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.52
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 176%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 35.2%   10k km/s 17.6%
Materials Required:    3x Tritanium   3.27x Gallicite   Fuel x6000


Now, those three missile designs are all made using the same tech levels. They have exactely the same specs except for warhead strength.
For a doubling in size, I get a doubling in payload.

**SNIP**

The fact that missiles are scale-invariant (the warhead strength is proportional to the size, while the other stats are all fixed) says to me that something is broken in the missile design - there should be some overhead (e.g. the guidance package) which is constant size and would subtract off (in absolute terms) from the warhead size.  For example, if a 0.5 MSP guidance package/control system were required on all missiles (that aren't just going to be buckshot), then your warhead strengths would be 2.5, 5.5, and 11.5, respectively, which makes your largest missile ~15% more efficient than your smallest (over and above the penetration effect you already mentioned).  I still think there's a strong argument to be made for using a lot of small missiles to swamp point defense, it just seems that there should be some sort of fixed mass that can't be minaturized.  Plus, it adds the potential for YATL (Yet Another Tech Line) :-)

OTOH, there was talk awhile back about "brilliant pebbles", so maybe I'm underestimating the potential of minaturization.

John
Posted by: Cassaralla
« on: March 01, 2009, 03:34:06 PM »

I usually follow the small is better philosophy as well.

Counter Missiles are Size 1

Anti-Ship Missiles are Size 4 to 6

Bombardment Missiles are Size 8 to 12

PDC Missiles are Size 12 to 24

I favour speed on everything but my bombardment missiles, those usually have the biggest, dirtiest warhead I can manage for dropping on enemies heads after the Anti Ship missiles and the fleet have taken out the defences and I'm not prepared for an orbital invasion.

I'm on a trip right now so copies of my missile designs will go up once I've returned home.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: March 01, 2009, 02:57:23 PM »

Quote from: "welchbloke"
These are obviously a far higher tech than my ships but I can see the design philosophy behind them.  I have a question though, looking at your designs, thanks to the Pegasus, the overall fleet speed is 4109 km/s.  The Knox and the Saratoga obviously have much higher speeds; did you consider designing a higher speed CAE?

I thought about it, but I was constrained by size limitations on the available shipyards. I'd either have the ability to build Pegasus class ships at the same time as the Saratogas and Knoxes, or trade off and wait for retooling.