Ships of the Russian Fleet as of Sept. 2024 (18)

[Kurt (OP)]

Ships of the Russian Fleet
September 2024

The Soviet Fleet uses a design strategy somewhat similar to that of the Reich, in that it doesn’t use shields at all, instead depending on heavy armor to provide protection.  This decision was made because of the USSR’s limited R&D capability, and has allowed the People’s Navy to focus scarce resources on developing only one branch of technology, instead of three or four.  In addition, the People’s Navy decided to focus on rail guns as their main weaponry, with gauss cannons as their primary anti-missile weaponry.  This decision was made because the USSR had been developing rail guns/gauss cannons prior to the discovery of trans-newtonian technology, and thus had an experienced R&D team and basic research to build on.  Because their rail guns cannot match the range of the other nation’s missile weaponry, the People’s Navy has insisted on high maximum speeds for its designs, to allow its ships to close through enemy’s missile envelopes to rail gun range.  

From the beginning the USSR has been aware that its ships were generally less capable than those of the Reich and the Alliance.  In an attempt to squeeze as much performance as they could out of their designs, the People’s Navy cut everywhere they could to maximize speed, defense and offense in their designs.  This has resulted in ships with a heavy punch and good defenses, but little staying power or range.  

The People’s Navy is currently in the midst of a major R&D effort to upgrade its gauss and rail gun weaponry.  The Kirov Mk 3 (below) is a test design for the upgraded rail gun weapons, however, it is likely that the design will be modified further before going into production.  The People’s Navy is also considering designing a larger unit to accommodate the newly developed 15 cm rail guns, which is generally considered too large to be installed on the 6,000 ton Kirov hull.  

Warships

Code: [Select]

Kirov class Cruiser    6000 tons     479 Crew     740.2 BP      TCS 120  TH 400  EM 0
3333 km/s     Armour 8-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 18
Annual Failure Rate: 288%    IFR: 4%    Maintenance Capacity 77 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (10)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 18.7 billion km   (65 days at full power)

Twin Gauss Cannon R2-17 Turret (2x4)    Range 20,000km     TS: 9600 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12cm Railgun V3/C2 (2x4)    Range 60,000km     TS: 3333 km/s     Power 6-2     RM 3    ROF 15        2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
DP Fire Control S02 48-2400 (3)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 2400 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Pebble Bed Reactor  (2)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20
Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

The Kirov class cruiser is the USSR’s primary warship design.  Units of this class participated in the Battle of Titan, where all existing class members were destroyed by the Imperial Japanese Navy due to flaws in the ship’s power systems.  

While the loss of the fleet was disastrous, the Battle of Titan taught the People’s Navy some important lessons.  The first lesson, and the most important in many Admirals’ eyes, was that the fleet was able to close through the IJN’s missile envelope without significant losses.


Code: [Select]

Kirov Mk 2 class Cruiser    6000 tons     495 Crew     732.2 BP      TCS 120  TH 400  EM 0
3333 km/s     Armour 8-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 19
Annual Failure Rate: 288%    IFR: 4%    Maintenance Capacity 76 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (10)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 18.7 billion km   (65 days at full power)

Gauss Cannon R2-17 (9x2)    Range 20,000km     TS: 3333 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12cm Railgun V3/C2 (2x4)    Range 60,000km     TS: 3333 km/s     Power 6-2     RM 3    ROF 15        2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
PD Fire Control Mk 2 (2)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 3600 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
DP Fire Control S02 48-2400 (1)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 2400 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Pebble Bed Reactor  (2)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20
Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

In the aftermath of the Battle of Titan and the loss of the fleet, the People’s Navy redesigned its primary warship class with the lessons of the battle in mind.  This design included improved fire control and a removal of the ship’s turrets in favor of hull-mounted gauss cannons.  

There are twenty-one units of this class in service with the People’s Navy as of September 2024.  


Code: [Select]

Kirov Mk 3 class Cruiser    6000 tons     495 Crew     793.2 BP      TCS 120  TH 400  EM 0
3333 km/s     Armour 8-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 17
Annual Failure Rate: 288%    IFR: 4%    Maintenance Capacity 83 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (10)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 37.5 billion km   (130 days at full power)

Gauss Cannon R2-17 (7x2)    Range 20,000km     TS: 3333 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12cm Mk 2 Railgun  (2x4)    Range 80,000km     TS: 3333 km/s     Power 6-4     RM 4    ROF 10        2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0
PD Fire Control Mk 2 (2)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 3600 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
DP Fire Control S02 48-2400 (1)    Max Range: 96,000 km   TS: 2400 km/s     90 79 69 58 48 38 27 17 6 0
Pebble Bed Reactor  (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Pebble Bed Reactor  (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20
Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km

This is a test-bed design that will likely not see service.  The design teams were interested in determining if the new 15 cm rail guns could be refitted into the Kirov class, but after much effort were forced to admit that the class could not accommodate the larger and more energy intensive designs without increasing the mass and decreasing the speed.  Instead, the design team went with the Mark 2 12 cm rail guns, but because of the increased energy drawn due to the decreased cycle time, they were forced to remove several of the gauss cannons to accommodate the larger reactor needed.  

No units of this class are currently planned, and once the upgraded gauss cannons are available it is likely this design will be modified further.  


Code: [Select]

Moskva class Destroyer Escort    3500 tons     256 Crew     470 BP      TCS 70  TH 240  EM 0
3428 km/s     Armour 7-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 8/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 8
Annual Failure Rate: 98%    IFR: 1.4%    Maintenance Capacity 84 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (6)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 32.1 billion km   (108 days at full power)

Gauss Cannon R2-17 (8x2)    Range 20,000km     TS: 3428 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PD Fire Control Mk 2 (2)    Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 3600 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0

Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20
Sm Thermal Sensor TH1-8/100 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km

The Moskva class was designed solely to bolster the missile defense capabilities of the Kirov class.  It is not a popular design, as it has no offensive weapons of its own.  Soviet deployment strategy keeps a swarm of Moskvas around any Kirov class cruisers expected to face missile fire.  

There are fourteen units of this class in service with the People’s Navy as of September 2024.  


Code: [Select]

Sverdlov class Escort    3500 tons     311 Crew     508.4 BP      TCS 70  TH 200  EM 0
2857 km/s     Armour 4-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 9
Annual Failure Rate: 98%    IFR: 1.4%    Maintenance Capacity 91 MSP
Magazine 162    

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (5)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 32.1 billion km   (130 days at full power)

Swarm Launcher  (4)    Missile Size 3    Rate of Fire 90
Swarm Missile Fire Control  (1)     Range 19.2m km    Resolution 20

AM Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 64     Range 640k km    Resolution 1
Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20

As originally conceived, the Russian fleet was intended to close through an enemy’s missile fire and engage at close range.  This allowed the People’s Navy to concentrate its scarce R&D resources on fewer areas of research.  The Presidium, however, was impressed with the long-range strike against the Indian fleet at the Comet, and required the People’s Navy to develop a similar strike capability.  The Sverdlov class is a result of this requirement.  

The Sverdlov is intended to act in a Fleet Support role, or as an independent strike unit.  Nine units of this class have been deployed by September, 2024.

Strategic Defense

Code: [Select]

Central Missile Base class Missile Base    28000 tons     2400 Crew     2453.2 BP      TCS 560  TH 0  EM 0
Armour 15-82     Sensors 1/160     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 192
Troop Capacity 5 Divisions    Magazine 1192    

PDC Missile Launcher 08-120 (24)    Missile Size 8    Rate of Fire 120
PDC Missile Fire Control FC80-R20/100 (3)     Range 48.0m km    Resolution 20
ICBM (144)  Speed: 600 km/s   End: 187.5 minutes    Range: 6.7m km   Warhead: 15    MR: 10    Size: 8

PDC Active Search Sensor S160-R20/100 (1)     GPS 3200     Range 32.0m km    Resolution 20

This design is classed as a Planetary Defence Centre and can be pre-fabricated in 56 sections

For political reasons, the USSR has decided to concentrate its strategic defense capability into a smaller number of centralized bases.  


Code: [Select]

Colony Ship class Colony Ship    3450 tons     133 Crew     615 BP      TCS 69  TH 80  EM 0
1159 km/s     Armour 1-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 95%    IFR: 1.3%    Maintenance Capacity 111 MSP
Colonists 50000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 5    

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (2)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 32.6 billion km   (325 days at full power)

This design is classed as a freighter for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Freighter class Freighter    3450 tons     108 Crew     165 BP      TCS 69  TH 80  EM 0
1159 km/s     Armour 1-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 95%    IFR: 1.3%    Maintenance Capacity 30 MSP
Cargo 25000    Cargo Handling Multiplier 5    

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (2)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 32.6 billion km   (325 days at full power)

This design is classed as a freighter for maintenance purposes


Code: [Select]

Grav Survey Ship class Gravsurvey Ship    3000 tons     274 Crew     667.2 BP      TCS 60  TH 160  EM 0
2666 km/s     Armour 3-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/4/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 24%    IFR: 0.3%    Maintenance Capacity 417 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (4)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 112.5 billion km   (488 days at full power)

Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
Gravitational Survey Sensors (4)   4 Survey Points

This unit was designed and built after the Indian Republic turned information on warp technology to the USSR.  


Code: [Select]

Kara class Jump Ship    3600 tons     327 Crew     567.8 BP      TCS 72  TH 160  EM 0
2222 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 1-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 8/0/0/2     Damage Control Rating 2     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 51%    IFR: 0.7%    Maintenance Capacity 1197 MSP

J3600(3-50) Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 3600 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Nuclear Pulse Engine  (4)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 200,000 Litres    Range 125.0 billion km   (651 days at full power)

Sm Thermal Sensor TH1-8/100 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  8m km
Geological Survey Sensors (2)   2 Survey Points

This design is classed as a non-combatant for maintenance purposes

The Kara was the best jump ship the USSR could build in a reasonable amount of time.  The officers of the People’s Navy have been unhappy with the design from the first, as it is a poor survey ship at best.  Due to expense and shipyard constraints, there is no plan to replace it in the near future.  


Code: [Select]

Kiev class Troop Transport    3500 tons     236 Crew     339.4 BP      TCS 70  TH 240  EM 0
3428 km/s     Armour 4-20     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 98%    IFR: 1.4%    Maintenance Capacity 61 MSP
Troop Capacity 1 Divisions    

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (6)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 100,000 Litres    Range 64.3 billion km   (217 days at full power)

Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km


Code: [Select]

Skory class Jump Tender    6000 tons     470 Crew     983.2 BP      TCS 120  TH 200  EM 0
1666 km/s    JR 3-50     Armour 5-29     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/10/0/0     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 96%    IFR: 1.3%    Maintenance Capacity 2307 MSP

J6000(3-50) Jump Drive     Max Ship Size 6000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3
Nuclear Pulse Engine  (5)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 250,000 Litres    Range 93.7 billion km   (651 days at full power)

Active Search Sensor S80-R20/100 (1)     GPS 1600     Range 16.0m km    Resolution 20
AM Active Search Sensor  (1)     GPS 64     Range 640k km    Resolution 1
Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
Electromagnetic Sensor EM10 (1)     Sensitivity 10     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  10m km

The Kara class was not large enough to convey Kirov class cruisers through a warp point, so this class was rushed into production to give the People’s Navy interstellar capability.  


Code: [Select]

Udaloy class Geosurvey Ship    3000 tons     274 Crew     667.2 BP      TCS 60  TH 160  EM 0
2666 km/s     Armour 3-18     Shields 0-0     Sensors 32/0/0/4     Damage Control Rating 3     PPV 0
Annual Failure Rate: 24%    IFR: 0.3%    Maintenance Capacity 417 MSP

Nuclear Pulse Engine  (4)    Power 40    Efficiency 0.80    Signature 40    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 150,000 Litres    Range 112.5 billion km   (488 days at full power)

Lg Thermal Sensor TH4-32/100 (1)     Sensitivity 32     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  32m km
Geological Survey Sensors (4)   4 Survey Points

[attachment=0:2otbmjs8]USSR Msl.gif[/attachment:2otbmjs8]

[Charlie Beeler]

I think the Russian's are going to find that their railguns will be more effective missile defense that the 17% gauss cannons.  

I've found that ship mounted GC's have to have highspeed turrets and matching high speed fire controls.  They also need to be fullsized (6hs) versions.  Mounted this way is very costly in the mass budget.  If deployed with an RM of 4(this matches the volume of fire from 4 railguns) a ship protected by a single quad turret can usually intercept most single ship salvo's.  (box launchers can still overwelm this PD suite if accurate).  

Initially a dedicated escort with this kind of turret and fire control plus a active sensor suite that can see the inbound missiles could give the Russians the ability to close to railgun ranges.  This would come as a big suprise to the other powers.

[Kurt (OP)]

I think the Russian's are going to find that their railguns will be more effective missile defense that the 17% gauss cannons.  

I've found that ship mounted GC's have to have highspeed turrets and matching high speed fire controls.  They also need to be fullsized (6hs) versions.  Mounted this way is very costly in the mass budget.  If deployed with an RM of 4(this matches the volume of fire from 4 railguns) a ship protected by a single quad turret can usually intercept most single ship salvo's.  (box launchers can still overwelm this PD suite if accurate).  

Initially a dedicated escort with this kind of turret and fire control plus a active sensor suite that can see the inbound missiles could give the Russians the ability to close to railgun ranges.  This would come as a big suprise to the other powers.

I've been curious to see how the gauss cannons on the russian ships will work out.  The thing about the russians is that they have decided to go with a quantity over quality approach, so most of their equipment is "just good enough".  The GC's on their ships are a good example, they and their associated fire controls are cheap to R&D and build, and they can mount a lot of them.  Of course, their designer's idea of what is "just good enough" and that of the crews of the ships involved is probably a lot different.  

The Russians are currently developing a more advanced gauss cannon, and I'm probably going to do a comparison between the strategy you lay out above and the strategy the Russians currently have, of mounting the smallest GC possible in hull mounts with the minimum fire control, to see which is more effective.  I suspect yours is, but the Russians may stick with what they've got unless it is totally incapable of stopping missiles.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

There are 3 primary things that I see working against the Russian's PD approach.  

The first being the use of the small GC's that is only 17% the base accuracy of the full size version.  Using lots of them to increase the probability of a hit helps, 16 shots every 5 seconds.

The second is having them mounted without turrets.  As your already aware, this limits the max tracking speed to the speed of the ship.  When the missiles are on average 4 times faster than the ship accuracy is severly degraded.

The third is the fire control tracking speed also being limited a quarter the speed of incoming missiles additionally degrading accuracy.  


I'm not trying to bag on the Russians.  I've just got a personal preference for how to deploy GC's for point defense on ships.  Part of it is driven by the notion that PD should be effective.  And my idea of effective is that if a missile is fired on there should be an expectation of actually hitting it.  

So my baseline installation starts with what speed I can reasonably expect incoming missiles to be using.  At the start of my games this is usually somewhere around 8-10kps.  That speed dictates turrets sinces the mounting ship isn't going to be anywhere near that fast.  Depending on how much starting research I spent on turret speed this can get heavy fast.  The base GC needs to be a full 6hs unit to avoid accuracy issues from that angle.  Investment in GC rate of fire is, IMO, also important since this determines how many shots per gun.  3 is a good start, 4 is better.  Velocity (ie range) is less critical, to me, since the intented role is point blank in tight formations for mutual protection. The next piece is a fire control that operate at the same tracking speeds as the turret.  The last is an active sensor that can see missiles at least 10 seconds out.

Yes, it is very mass expensive.  Especially if the turret is a quad mount.  But it pays huge dividends when it knocks down those incoming missiles.  

Of course this system can be countered, to a degree, by deploying missiles that are armored,faster, and/or have counter-measures to degrade the chance of hitting them.

[Kurt (OP)]

There are 3 primary things that I see working against the Russian's PD approach.  

The first being the use of the small GC's that is only 17% the base accuracy of the full size version.  Using lots of them to increase the probability of a hit helps, 16 shots every 5 seconds.

The second is having them mounted without turrets.  As your already aware, this limits the max tracking speed to the speed of the ship.  When the missiles are on average 4 times faster than the ship accuracy is severly degraded.

The third is the fire control tracking speed also being limited a quarter the speed of incoming missiles additionally degrading accuracy.  


I'm not trying to bag on the Russians.  I've just got a personal preference for how to deploy GC's for point defense on ships.  Part of it is driven by the notion that PD should be effective.  And my idea of effective is that if a missile is fired on there should be an expectation of actually hitting it.  

So my baseline installation starts with what speed I can reasonably expect incoming missiles to be using.  At the start of my games this is usually somewhere around 8-10kps.  That speed dictates turrets sinces the mounting ship isn't going to be anywhere near that fast.  Depending on how much starting research I spent on turret speed this can get heavy fast.  The base GC needs to be a full 6hs unit to avoid accuracy issues from that angle.  Investment in GC rate of fire is, IMO, also important since this determines how many shots per gun.  3 is a good start, 4 is better.  Velocity (ie range) is less critical, to me, since the intented role is point blank in tight formations for mutual protection. The next piece is a fire control that operate at the same tracking speeds as the turret.  The last is an active sensor that can see missiles at least 10 seconds out.

Yes, it is very mass expensive.  Especially if the turret is a quad mount.  But it pays huge dividends when it knocks down those incoming missiles.  

Of course this system can be countered, to a degree, by deploying missiles that are armored,faster, and/or have counter-measures to degrade the chance of hitting them.

I agree that your GC turrets are going to be far more accurate than my cheapo hull mounted, minimum size, GC's, but while I haven't done the numbers, I wonder which approach is more efficient.  After, under the approach my Russians took, they had a much easier time R&D'ing the smaller hull-mounted GC's than they would have the larger turret, and this is very important given their limited R&D capability.  In addition, they can mount a lot of GC's in their hull mounts, compared the large turrets, and they save a lot of space/resources with the smaller fire control they can mount due to the fact that they only need to match the ship's speed, not the turret's rotation speed.  If I ever have time, it would be interesting to do a mathematical analysis to determine which approach is more effective overall.  

In the end, what I was trying to do is to re-create the old Soviet approach of quantity over quality, and I think this design approach is indicative of that.  The Alliance or the Reich would definitely take the approach you suggest, and wouldn't even consider the Russian approach, because they believe in fielding higher quality ships and have the resources, industrial might, and research capacity to do so.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

From that stand point the Russians already had a better choice than GC... 10cm railguns Velocity 1/capacitor 3.  Yes it is 3 hull spaces and requires 3 power from reactors.  4 shots at 100% vs 8 shots at 17% (3hs for the RG at least 1hs for the reactor to feed it).  Of course those percentages are only against the fire control baseline and don't include modifiers for superior missile speed and agility, much less ECM etc etc etc.

I really took a hard look at Gauss Cannon vs Rail Gun a couple of months back when we were talking about the Russians pulling the GC turrets in favor of quantities of hull mounted GC's.  I looked at them with an eye towards what had the best chance between the 2 of stopping a basic missile cold.  Until the GC is mounted in a turret, which a RG is restricted from, the RG wins hands down.  The mass for the full size GC's is something like 4 time that of the RG and supporting reactor mass for the same volume of effective fire.  

Based on that I've religated sub-caliber GC's to highspeed interceptors and ship board GC's to full size installations in turrets with supporting high speed fire control.

[Kurt (OP)]

From that stand point the Russians already had a better choice than GC... 10cm railguns Velocity 1/capacitor 3.  Yes it is 3 hull spaces and requires 3 power from reactors.  4 shots at 100% vs 8 shots at 17% (3hs for the RG at least 1hs for the reactor to feed it).  Of course those percentages are only against the fire control baseline and don't include modifiers for superior missile speed and agility, much less ECM etc etc etc.

I really took a hard look at Gauss Cannon vs Rail Gun a couple of months back when we were talking about the Russians pulling the GC turrets in favor of quantities of hull mounted GC's.  I looked at them with an eye towards what had the best chance between the 2 of stopping a basic missile cold.  Until the GC is mounted in a turret, which a RG is restricted from, the RG wins hands down.  The mass for the full size GC's is something like 4 time that of the RG and supporting reactor mass for the same volume of effective fire.  

Based on that I've religated sub-caliber GC's to highspeed interceptors and ship board GC's to full size installations in turrets with supporting high speed fire control.

Okay, I thought that I should inject some numbers into this discussion.  As I was working up the numbers, I began resolving a battle involving the Soviet fleet, which gave me some concrete results to introduce as well.  The following figures are based on the actual weapons installed on Soviet ships, and the results of a missile attack on the Soviet fleet.

Soviet Gauss Cannon
Size 1
Cost 4
Shots 2
Tracking speed 2400

Soviet Rail Gun
Size 5
Cost  14
Shots 4 every 15 seconds (1.33 per 5 seconds)
Tracking speed 2400

Generator
Size 2
Cost 18

So the rail gun is effectively 350 tons, costs 32, and gives 4 100% shots every fifteen seconds.  

You can mount 7 GC’s in the same tonnage, at a cost of 28, with 14 shots every 5 seconds, or 42 shots every fifteen seconds.  

In a battle I am currently resolving right now, the Soviet fleet was attacked by a missile wave composed of seventy PDC missiles.  The Sov’s managed to stop thirty of the incoming missiles by using thirty six rail guns and two hundred and fifty six gauss cannons.  That is 144 rail gun shots and 512 gauss cannon shots.  It cost the Sov’s the following to achieve those shots:

Rail Guns
Tonnage: 12,600
Cost: 1152

Gauss Cannons
Tonnage: 12800
Cost: 1024

Note: I didn’t plan it that way, but the Sov’s spent almost exactly the same on each system.

The Rail guns shot down twenty four missiles, while the gauss cannons shot down six.  Just six.  

The rail guns had a hit percentage of 16.6%, while the gauss cannons had a hit percentage of 1.1%.  

Note: Based on the to-hit percentages, the rail guns scored slightly less than the average, which should have been 17%, and the gauss cannons were about the same, with a to-hit percentage of 1.2%.

So the Sov’s spent the following on each system to kill one missile:

Rail Guns  
Tonnage: 525
Cost: 48

Gauss Cannons
Tonnage: 2,133
Cost: 170

If the Sov’s had installed all rail guns instead of a mix of rail guns and gauss cannons, they would have stopped forty eight missiles, leaving twenty two to attack the fleet, a much better result.  

I am convinced of what you are saying at this point.  Gauss cannons would have to be smaller and cheaper by a factor of four, or more accurate by the same factor, for them to be cost effective in comparison to rail guns.  

The Sov's will be changing their design strategy in the near future.  They will be going either to an all rail gun strategy, or they will be mounting gauss cannons in turrets.  I'm leaning towards the all rail gun strategy myself.  

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

I'll confess that my analysis didn't go beyond tonnage, rate of fire, and probably accuracy comparisons.  Your results are interesting.  

Until they develop a fire control that complements the turret tracking speeds I think the Russians will be happier with 10cm/v1/c3 railguns.  For the few races that I've equiped with them, the 10cm RC's actually perform a little better that equal tonnage turret mounted 10cm lasers.

Looking forward to the battle writeup.

[Kurt (OP)]

I'll confess that my analysis didn't go beyond tonnage, rate of fire, and probably accuracy comparisons.  Your results are interesting.  

Until they develop a fire control that complements the turret tracking speeds I think the Russians will be happier with 10cm/v1/c3 railguns.  For the few races that I've equiped with them, the 10cm RC's actually perform a little better that equal tonnage turret mounted 10cm lasers.

Looking forward to the battle writeup.

I must admit that my thinking on missile/anti-missile combat has been greatly affected by the last couple of battles.  This most recent battle involved planetary bases attacking an incoming fleet at ranges over 20,000,000 km's.  The ability to target waypoints allows the attacker to combine salvoes into whatever numbers he wants.  This ability has huge implications for defenders, as the attacker's salvo size is limited only by his magazine space, time, and the number of fire controls he has to control his missiles.  

In the current battle the PDC's could launch a total of forty missiles per salvo, but because the incoming ships were so far away, they had the time to combine those forty missile salvoes however they wanted.  Eighty, one hundred and twenty, or even larger "missile wave" sizes were possible.  As a result of the preliminaries of this battle, I have decided that pure "last second" defense methods are untenable.  Depending on only lasers or GC's, or whatever, means that the attacker will always have the ability to overwhelm your defenses by concentrating his missile salvoes.  Therefore, I have decided that anti-missile missiles and the ability to engage incoming missiles at an extended range will be a necessary component of any well designed fleet.  

However, having said that, I am equally convinced that no fleet should depend only on anti-missiles.  After all, what happens once the anti-missile missiles run out?

Kurt

[Charlie Beeler]

I've come to a similiar conclusion, but based an a different cause.  Full salvos from box launchers also have the potential of overwelming point defenses.  

One thing that I've found as a primary key to a layered missile defense is a sensor array that can see incoming missiles as far out as possible.  

I haven't gone very far down this path as yet though.

[Steve Walmsley]

I've come to a similiar conclusion, but based an a different cause.  Full salvos from box launchers also have the potential of overwelming point defenses.  

One thing that I've found as a primary key to a layered missile defense is a sensor array that can see incoming missiles as far out as possible.  

I haven't gone very far down this path as yet though.

That is definitely the best option. I have built some huge active sensors for anti-missile work. As an example, I found this sensor in the Preservation II campaign. Its actually resolution 4 sensor with a range of 30m km (designed to detect fighters). If it was resolution zero instead, it would still have a detection range against missiles of seven point five million kilometers. In modern terms it's like developing an Aegis system.

Code: [Select]

Foxhunter 30/4
Active Sensor Strength: 756
Sensor Size: 36    Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode:   Resolution: 4    Maximum Range: 30,240,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 756    Crew: 180
Materials Required: 189x Duranium  567x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 7560 RPA multi-layered defence is essential against large missile waves using anti-missiles for long range, possibly lasers for mid-range and turreted gauss cannon (or another fast-firing energy weapon) for point blank. Also it's a good idea to get your escorts out from the main body in the direction of the threat so they can get more shots at the missiles, or attract fire away from the higher value units. You can handle this easily using the formation options so the escorts will automatically move themselves in between the threat and the main body when either of those changes position. More than one layer of escorts is also worth it. Of course, this assumes a larger empire that has the resources to develop different types of escort.

With regard to GC vs railguns. GC will be the best in turrets but I think railguns should be a lot better if both are hull-mounted (as shown by Kurt's analysis).

Steve

[Kurt (OP)]

I've come to a similiar conclusion, but based an a different cause.  Full salvos from box launchers also have the potential of overwelming point defenses.  

One thing that I've found as a primary key to a layered missile defense is a sensor array that can see incoming missiles as far out as possible.  

I haven't gone very far down this path as yet though.

That is definitely the best option. I have built some huge active sensors for anti-missile work. As an example, I found this sensor in the Preservation II campaign. Its actually resolution 4 sensor with a range of 30m km (designed to detect fighters). If it was resolution zero instead, it would still have a detection range against missiles of seven point five million kilometers. In modern terms it's like developing an Aegis system.

Code: [Select]

Foxhunter 30/4
Active Sensor Strength: 756
Sensor Size: 36    Sensor HTK: 1
Primary Mode:   Resolution: 4    Maximum Range: 30,240,000 km
Chance of destruction by electronic damage: 100%
Cost: 756    Crew: 180
Materials Required: 189x Duranium  567x Uridium
Development Cost for Project: 7560 RPA multi-layered defence is essential against large missile waves using anti-missiles for long range, possibly lasers for mid-range and turreted gauss cannon (or another fast-firing energy weapon) for point blank. Also it's a good idea to get your escorts out from the main body in the direction of the threat so they can get more shots at the missiles, or attract fire away from the higher value units. You can handle this easily using the formation options so the escorts will automatically move themselves in between the threat and the main body when either of those changes position. More than one layer of escorts is also worth it. Of course, this assumes a larger empire that has the resources to develop different types of escort.

With regard to GC vs railguns. GC will be the best in turrets but I think railguns should be a lot better if both are hull-mounted (as shown by Kurt's analysis).

Steve

My governments in the Six Powers Campaign are only now realizing that they really, really need those powerful anti-missile sensors to make their defenses work.  

As for formations, the Russians were relying on point blank gauss cannon fire to do the job, and as their fire controls and cannons had very little range, they couldn't use formations.  The Alliance was already moving towards escorts with longer-ranged anti-missile weaponry so that they could be used in formation to protect larger ships, and once they recover from their loss the Russians will be moving in that direction now.  

Basically, the Russians have decided to convert their existing Moskva class escorts to anti-missile missile ships, as they can do that now, with no new technology aside from developing the launchers, missiles, and sensor systems, all of which will be cheap (aside from the sensor).  Once they finish developing the next gen turret and gauss cannons, they will deploy a new escort with longer ranged and quicker firing gauss cannons, coupled with anti-missile missiles.  This will take some time, though.  

Kurt

[Steve Walmsley]

My governments in the Six Powers Campaign are only now realizing that they really, really need those powerful anti-missile sensors to make their defenses work.  

As for formations, the Russians were relying on point blank gauss cannon fire to do the job, and as their fire controls and cannons had very little range, they couldn't use formations.  The Alliance was already moving towards escorts with longer-ranged anti-missile weaponry so that they could be used in formation to protect larger ships, and once they recover from their loss the Russians will be moving in that direction now.  

Basically, the Russians have decided to convert their existing Moskva class escorts to anti-missile missile ships, as they can do that now, with no new technology aside from developing the launchers, missiles, and sensor systems, all of which will be cheap (aside from the sensor).  Once they finish developing the next gen turret and gauss cannons, they will deploy a new escort with longer ranged and quicker firing gauss cannons, coupled with anti-missile missiles.  This will take some time, though.  

One of the things I have been very gratified to see is that with many campaigns, naval designs evolve over time in a real-world way in reaction to events. There is no "best strategy" in terms of ship design. There also needs to be significant planning as what types of ships will be being built in future years and what research and development will be necessary now to facilitate those designs. Again it creates a real world feel to naval procurement as you need to be thinking a few years in advance.

Steve

[Kurt (OP)]

My governments in the Six Powers Campaign are only now realizing that they really, really need those powerful anti-missile sensors to make their defenses work.  

As for formations, the Russians were relying on point blank gauss cannon fire to do the job, and as their fire controls and cannons had very little range, they couldn't use formations.  The Alliance was already moving towards escorts with longer-ranged anti-missile weaponry so that they could be used in formation to protect larger ships, and once they recover from their loss the Russians will be moving in that direction now.  

Basically, the Russians have decided to convert their existing Moskva class escorts to anti-missile missile ships, as they can do that now, with no new technology aside from developing the launchers, missiles, and sensor systems, all of which will be cheap (aside from the sensor).  Once they finish developing the next gen turret and gauss cannons, they will deploy a new escort with longer ranged and quicker firing gauss cannons, coupled with anti-missile missiles.  This will take some time, though.  

One of the things I have been very gratified to see is that with many campaigns, naval designs evolve over time in a real-world way in reaction to events. There is no "best strategy" in terms of ship design. There also needs to be significant planning as what types of ships will be being built in future years and what research and development will be necessary now to facilitate those designs. Again it creates a real world feel to naval procurement as you need to be thinking a few years in advance.

Steve

You are right about the planning aspect, and it is one of the most difficult things to do while you are running multiple races.  I typically find myself laying out research programs years in advance, but then forgetting where I was going with it.  For instance, I decided to improve the Alliance's laser point defense weaponry, and so I began a research program to improve the lasers, tracking systems, and turrets, all so that a new point defense turret could be deployed on a new CLE.  This involved the three basic research areas mentioned above, but then branched out to include larger lasers for use as main battery weapons, better recharge times for the larger lasers, and so on.  

The above research ultimately resulted in an orbital base design for the Alliance, which has grown concerned about the bases deployed by the African Union.  This new Alliance base will have a massive armored quad 20cm laser turret with an 8,000 kps tracking speed, coupled with a max range tracking system with an 8,000 kps speed.  The Reich is going to flip when the Alliance launches it.  Call it an unintended outcome   .

Kurt