Posted by: Michael Sandy
« on: November 01, 2006, 11:36:03 PM »Ouch. That makes an Aegis targetting system (x4 tracking speed, x4 range), rather likely to be damaged in battle. And it doesn't take much to damage it.
Makes a bit of a conundrum:
Do you double up on the Aegis system, spread the Aegis systems through the fleet, make the Aegis cruisers very fast, heavily shielded, or just rely on lots of firepower? The Aegis system can be protected a bit by having a large mass of non-shield, non-armor systems. Like lasers. More firepower means less chance of the Aegis system being hit. And more firepower means less chance of losing the Aegis system to a missile hit.
I expect that Aegis cruisers would be effective both versus missiles and versus fighters. I expect that fighter missiles with 10 second flight times would be developed in order to have the maximum possible bang for the fighters. But at that range, Aegis systems would rip the fighters apart. Missiles designed to engage outside Aegis range, or even designed to give the Aegis systems the least time to engage would be significantly less capable.
Makes a bit of a conundrum:
Do you double up on the Aegis system, spread the Aegis systems through the fleet, make the Aegis cruisers very fast, heavily shielded, or just rely on lots of firepower? The Aegis system can be protected a bit by having a large mass of non-shield, non-armor systems. Like lasers. More firepower means less chance of the Aegis system being hit. And more firepower means less chance of losing the Aegis system to a missile hit.
I expect that Aegis cruisers would be effective both versus missiles and versus fighters. I expect that fighter missiles with 10 second flight times would be developed in order to have the maximum possible bang for the fighters. But at that range, Aegis systems would rip the fighters apart. Missiles designed to engage outside Aegis range, or even designed to give the Aegis systems the least time to engage would be significantly less capable.