Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: fflaguna on July 31, 2011, 06:03:00 PM
-
Here's my very first attempt at building a weapons platform ship ever in Aurora. It's designed to hit ships out to 100mil km, holding exactly 100 size 4 missiles. These are self-contained attack/defense platforms, with no other supporting vessels. I am approaching 20mil population on Mars for the first time, so I'm a bit of a newbie, but they're starting to complain about the lack of any military presence.
How's this design look? Any thoughts? Thanks!
Umikaze class Missile Frigate 10,000 tons 668 Crew 1461.6 BP TCS 200 TH 480 EM 0
2400 km/s Armour 10-41 Shields 0-0 Sensors 30/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 10 PPV 16
Annual Failure Rate: 80% IFR: 1.1% Maint Capacity 1914 MSP Max Repair 240 MSP Est Time: 3.99 Years
Magazine 416
Ion Engine E8 (8) Power 60 Fuel Use 80% Signature 60 Armour 0 Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 300,000 Litres Range 67.5 billion km (325 days at full power)
Size 4 Missile Launcher (4) Missile Size 4 Rate of Fire 40
Missile Fire Control FC91-R40 (1) Range 91.1m km Resolution 40
Size 4 Anti-ship Missile (99) Speed: 18,700 km/s End: 87.5m Range: 98.2m km WH: 4 Size: 4 TH: 62 / 37 / 18
Active Search Sensor MR91-R40 (1) GPS 9600 Range 91.1m km Resolution 40
Thermal Sensor TH5-30 (1) Sensitivity 30 Detect Sig Strength 1000: 30m km
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Your missile range is greater than that of your active sensors. All too often it seems that enemies have ECM, so that cuts the sensor range down, which means you can't fire until your in closer. At least your fire control and active sensors are the same amount.
Armor looks decent. Speed seems low (speed is life). You say you have 100 missiles but you have 4 launchers, so your last launching will be 2 missiles.
Your missile to-hits are rather abysmal. You should consider reducing the range (by around half) and boosting the agility of the missile by the same amount.
-
Also, you can probably safely drop the engineering spaces down to 1-1. 5 years, unless you're planning to use them for very extended deployments away from your systems.
For an early design, I'd say armor could be halved, and you probably want two to three times as many missile launchers. Against most enemies with AMM capacity, unless you throw ten or so of these at them, your small volley count will result in having to win a war of attrition and hoping that they run out of anti-missile missiles before you run out of ship-killers.
I agree the speed could be higher.
You say you want to use this without supporting vessels? I'd say that you want to have a point-defense variant or escort to defend against enemy missiles, otherwise you'll lose a number of these to focused volleys.
-
hi Mate
Your Anti-ship are too slow.Agility same,too low.
many enemy's ships had speed up to 8000 to 12000 km/s..think that.
Agree on Active compare to "missile-range" capacity
Increase Ships speed to 5000>>8000 km/s
Your ships are too big compare "missile capacity" loadout.And fire capacity are fair low.
u have Ion engine tech..am think ur researcher are on work to be better Engine..and same as missile's engine tech.
Missile size and Warhead are too big difference. So research into tech field are a good idea..Size 4 >>> WH 8 (or up)
Apologize my english..hope u understamd what am mean:)
Good work out there,Commander
-
I agree with Gyrafalcon, in that you need to design and build a ship that throws anti-missile missiles. Or install CIWS on your missile ship. Otherwise you'll be cut to shreds when the enemy's missiles are inbound.
While you may want to use this ship primarily in a planetary defense role (in order to keep the rifraff from getting restless), you may find you end up wanting to use it in a fleet. Early on ships are expensive enough and take enough time and resources to build that they may get multiple assignments.
Don't forget training. Create a training task group and stick new ships in it, and send them to train. This way you get crews that respond instantly to your commands, whereas untrained crews take precious seconds (sometimes minutes) to respond to movement or firing orders.
-
I agree with Gyrafalcon, in that you need to design and build a ship that throws anti-missile missiles. Or install CIWS on your missile ship. Otherwise you'll be cut to shreds when the enemy's missiles are inbound.
While you may want to use this ship primarily in a planetary defense role (in order to keep the rifraff from getting restless), you may find you end up wanting to use it in a fleet. Early on ships are expensive enough and take enough time and resources to build that they may get multiple assignments.
Don't forget training. Create a training task group and stick new ships in it, and send them to train. This way you get crews that respond instantly to your commands, whereas untrained crews take precious seconds (sometimes minutes) to respond to movement or firing orders.
+1
Training are awesome in battle..countereact are difference between live and dead.
-
This is a fleet formula that I've posted a few variations of in the past and has done well for me for a fleet that is dominated by offensive missile use. For the most part I use it as a benchmark when someone posts designs for analysis.
Fleet Scout: House the groups’ long range passive and active sensor suites. Thermals should be able to detect your own strongest emissions at 100m km, same goes for you EM suite. Actives should detect a 5000k ship at 100m km as well.
The Fleet Scout also mounts the main active sensor suite for missile defense. This suite should be set for res 1 detection at 5-6m km.
Missile Cruiser: This is your long range slugger and missiles are the punch that it is built around.
It's best to stick with one type of missile in the early game. This missile should have a range of at least 50m km and a warhead of at least 4 (penetration to second layer of armor). Mix engines/fuel/agility for a combination of range/speed/hit probability(vs. 3000kps) that you'll accept.
Magazine capacity should be at least 20 salvos, 40 is better.
Don't worry about reduced size launchers for this class unless you go for box launchers, the reduced mass for greater numbers usually isn't worth the increased reload time. At least 10 launchers for the broadside is a good start, more is of course better since you’ve have to overwhelm the targets missiles defenses.
Missile fire control at a minimum should see 5000k at max range of missile. 1 fire control per 5 to 10 launchers. Active search sensor to match fire control (CYA in case the Fleet Scout is taken out)
Escort: This is your primary missile intercept platform. Main intercept tool is the counter missile or anti-missile missile. AMM/CM should be size 1 for best reload rates on launchers. .1mbp in fuel, warhead 1, the rest is best mix of engine/agility for best speed/hit probability(vs 3000kps). Hopefully your engine tech gives this missile a range of at least 1.5m km.
Magazine capacity per launcher should start at 75.
Missile fire control at res 1 for max range of AMM/CM. 1 fire control per 5 launchers. 1 active search sensor that matches the fire control.
Considerations for all combat ships:
Point defense turrets. Laser or Gauss Cannon. Escorts should have quad's all others at least twin's. Do not use reduced size because they have proportionally reduced effectiveness. If mass becomes an issue use single turrets in place of twins (escorts reduce to triple or twin as needed).
Beam fire control for PD turrets should be 4X on tracking speed (turrets at matching speeds) and a single active search sensor that will see res 1 at your own offensive missile range for 10 seconds (or the best speed you've seen an enemy use). Set point defense to 10k/final defense and keep the formation tight for mutual support. Yes this fire control is fairly large, but it will pay for itself in fleet defense.
Armor. 5 layers is a good start.
Shields. 2 per 1000 tons.
Fuel/Engineering/Engine. 1 per 1000 tons.
At least 1 damage control.
CIWS. Mostly a waste of space if you use regular turrets for mutual defensive support.
Military Jump Ship: This is not a combat ship, it’s the truck that you can’t get home without if the situation turns bad. It needs to always be the biggest military ship that is intended to jump without a jumpgate. The “considerations for all combat ships” above should be applied here as well. Do not put offensive weapons on it or you might be tempted to put it in harm’s way. If there is mass leftover after armor, PD turret suite, jump engine, normal space engines, etc that should be used for maintenance supplies and fuel and tag the design as tanker/supply ship.
This is a fair starting formula, but should be adjusted for technology available personal flavor and tactics.
-
Magazine capacity should be at least 20 salvos, 40 is better.
Don't worry about reduced size launchers for this class unless you go for box launchers, the reduced mass for greater numbers usually isn't worth the increased reload time. At least 10 launchers for the broadside is a good start, more is of course better since you’ve have to overwhelm the targets missiles defenses.
This is quite good, except for the above bit.
I find reduced size launchers to be extremely broken. Currently, I'm packing 33% reduction launchers and when I have good enough reload rate tech, I'll swap to 25% launchers.
Generally, I time my reload rate to around a quarter the missile flight time at max range, give or take quite alot since you can't finetune it. But I make sure to always have the launchers reload faster than the missiles fly at half range.
This allows a puny 6kton frigate to throw a 24 missile broadside. Of size 5 missiles. My 100kton fleet has a total missile salvo of over 1000, with a third of my ships dedicated to missile defence.
I'm seriously considering downsizing my missiles to size 3 or so as this will let me pack 25% launchers...
Against a fleet that is smaller than half my fleet's tonnage, my fleet can vapourize it in a single salvo if they have expected armour levels (~5 or 6 say). Repeated engagements against the wormhole aliens have let me estimate the salvo size I need to blow them away and they haven't so much as scratched the paint despite me packing no shields and having slower ships than them.
Against a similar sized fleet, my fleet can smash all the important targets (like fleet scouts and jumpships) right through the thickest anti-missile defence. A full salvo, which I haven't got to use, from reduced sized launchers is basically unstoppable.
Of course, my fleet only has about 3 salvoes or so in ammunition but hey, it can blow itself into scrap in 3 salvoes, so that's fine right?
Of course, this doctrine relies on me scoring the strategic advantage so if I don't have that... >.< Guess I'll be handing out alot of posthumous medals.
-
This is quite good, except for the above bit.
I find reduced size launchers to be extremely broken. Currently, I'm packing 33% reduction launchers and when I have good enough reload rate tech, I'll swap to 25% launchers.
Generally, I time my reload rate to around a quarter the missile flight time at max range, give or take quite alot since you can't finetune it. But I make sure to always have the launchers reload faster than the missiles fly at half range.
This allows a puny 6kton frigate to throw a 24 missile broadside. Of size 5 missiles. My 100kton fleet has a total missile salvo of over 1000, with a third of my ships dedicated to missile defence.
I'm seriously considering downsizing my missiles to size 3 or so as this will let me pack 25% launchers...
Against a fleet that is smaller than half my fleet's tonnage, my fleet can vapourize it in a single salvo if they have expected armour levels (~5 or 6 say). Repeated engagements against the wormhole aliens have let me estimate the salvo size I need to blow them away and they haven't so much as scratched the paint despite me packing no shields and having slower ships than them.
Against a similar sized fleet, my fleet can smash all the important targets (like fleet scouts and jumpships) right through the thickest anti-missile defence. A full salvo, which I haven't got to use, from reduced sized launchers is basically unstoppable.
Of course, my fleet only has about 3 salvoes or so in ammunition but hey, it can blow itself into scrap in 3 salvoes, so that's fine right?
Of course, this doctrine relies on me scoring the strategic advantage so if I don't have that... >.< Guess I'll be handing out alot of posthumous medals.
That doctrine works well... as long as you only play against the current AI. Against a player directed NPR not so much. Since I don't play the game with just computer NPR's I don't advise builds that assume only AI stratagy and tactics.
-
Before the refit to 33% size launchers, I was considering the differences between my ASM frigates and AMM frigates.
In a thought experiment (100% launchers) regarding 1 ASM frigate shooting at 1 AMM frigate, the result was that the ASM frigate would get ~5 missiles through before it ran out of ammunition (10 salvoes). The AMM frigate would have less than 10% of its missile stock left.
This is because the AMM frigate can launch AMMs fast enough to always have 3v1 AMMs heading towards missile targets. Not only are size 1 launchers smaller than size 5 launchers (5 times smaller), they also have 5x shorter reload rate (at reload rate 12, you can pack 75% reduction size 1 AMM launchers). So each AMM frigate can carry about the same number of tubes as an ASM frigate with normal size launchers (the AMM firecon takes up the extra space), and fire 5x faster.
Against a similar sized fleet with 50% dedicated to AMM defence, you won't get missiles through it at all. But, that's alot of ships in the escort role, I have only 1/3 of my fleet playing escort.
With full sized launchers, 25% of the fleet as escort is plenty enough for 2v1 until you run out of ammo. With 33% of the fleet as escort, you can afford 3v1 and you probably won't run out of ammo if you bring coillers.
What 33% size launchers do is increase the proportion of escort ships needed on an opposing equal sized fleet in order to block the missiles.
-
early game the most important thing is not speed or armour or long range missiles - it is having an Anti Missile ship with LOTS of size 1 missiles. They don't have to be big, fast or have lots of launchers - they do need a big MFC (4-6mk Res 1 to spot incoming missiles far enough out) and a similar Active Sensor on a support ship - or onboard if your design is big enough
My standard 6kT design carried 372 Size 1 Missiles - 3 MFCs and 6 launchers and I built over a dozen.
No precursor force or Starm swarm will get through to you
Once they have run out of Anti ship missiles close to their anti missile missile range and they will exhaust them firing at your ships too - then you can basically fire on their ships at will undefended.
-
early game the most important thing is not speed or armour or long range missiles - it is having an Anti Missile ship with LOTS of size 1 missiles. They don't have to be big, fast or have lots of launchers - they do need a big MFC (4-6mk Res 1 to spot incoming missiles far enough out) and a similar Active Sensor on a support ship - or onboard if your design is big enough
My standard 6kT design carried 372 Size 1 Missiles - 3 MFCs and 6 launchers and I built over a dozen.
No precursor force or Starm swarm will get through to you
Once they have run out of Anti ship missiles close to their anti missile missile range and they will exhaust them firing at your ships too - then you can basically fire on their ships at will undefended.
When u reach a fair tech,who can improve ur Missile Size 2 with awesome Speed-range-WH-Agility u become very deadly.
Obviously..this need a powerful effort in direct research field.
(understand what am mean^?:))..my damn english.zzzz..)
-
Before the refit to 33% size launchers, I was considering the differences between my ASM frigates and AMM frigates.
In a thought experiment (100% launchers) regarding 1 ASM frigate shooting at 1 AMM frigate, the result was that the ASM frigate would get ~5 missiles through before it ran out of ammunition (10 salvoes). The AMM frigate would have less than 10% of its missile stock left.
This is because the AMM frigate can launch AMMs fast enough to always have 3v1 AMMs heading towards missile targets. Not only are size 1 launchers smaller than size 5 launchers (5 times smaller), they also have 5x shorter reload rate (at reload rate 12, you can pack 75% reduction size 1 AMM launchers). So each AMM frigate can carry about the same number of tubes as an ASM frigate with normal size launchers (the AMM firecon takes up the extra space), and fire 5x faster.
Against a similar sized fleet with 50% dedicated to AMM defence, you won't get missiles through it at all. But, that's alot of ships in the escort role, I have only 1/3 of my fleet playing escort.
With full sized launchers, 25% of the fleet as escort is plenty enough for 2v1 until you run out of ammo. With 33% of the fleet as escort, you can afford 3v1 and you probably won't run out of ammo if you bring coillers.
What 33% size launchers do is increase the proportion of escort ships needed on an opposing equal sized fleet in order to block the missiles.
As I said... that works well against the computer controlled NPR's. but won't fair so well against a player controlled NPR with a fleet designed for a missile heavy environment, especially one designed with missile fighters and FAC's in the mix. It's a whole different game with both sides are actively controlled.
-
I would have to third that opinion on longer range sensors and AMMs, these have a force multiplier effect becuase of the additional number of times you can fire. The increased overall size of an active search sensor and matching MFCs to double your range is generally going to be less then doubling the number of tubes and MFCs that you have on board.
-
With size 1 AMM your much better off going for hit ratio at the expense of range. If your using fewer AMM's per intercept it is less of a strain on your logistics.
Yes, I'm an opinionated SOB. :o
-
As I said... that works well against the computer controlled NPR's. but won't fair so well against a player controlled NPR with a fleet designed for a missile heavy environment, especially one designed with missile fighters and FAC's in the mix. It's a whole different game with both sides are actively controlled.
I don't know about fighters or FACs. They don't look that useful frankly. I do build 1kton corvettes because I built a 8 slipway naval yard that I might as well put to use building a reserve force and civilian garrison.
Fighters and FACs lug around an engine that is not being used while taking up room in your carrier, so despite box launchers, you have only slightly more tubes per weight than reduced size launchers, for high fuel cost, logistics difficulties (fighters need one more type of factory, FACs need small shipyards with alot of slipways) and reload times comparable to 33% launchers.
If the fleet scout packs a size 50 res 1 sensor (which mine does), no missile platform will get into firing range without being seen and shot at.
Note to self: check if I can reduce resolution of next gen firecontrol to maintain the same size of firecon, res16 isn't good enough for anti-fighter work.
Fighters have a problem countering ECM and if I add cloaking devices to the fleet, suddenly fighters are very hard to use (fighter mounted actives aren't going to be high res or long ranged); and I don't lose all that many launchers.
FACs are slightly better but if you're going to use box launchers, I think I will use missile pods packing ultra-long ranged drones.
A fleet designed for a missile-heavy environment could mean a fleet that is 33% tonnage of overcharged engines, relying on lasers for offense and PD as well as coming knocking with 50% or higher AMM escort frigates. AMMs are cheaper than ASMs after all.
If I had to build a fleet to counter my current one, cloaking devices and/or long range sniper drones would be the way I'd use. Either that or a fast laser-armed fleet with thousands of AMM launchers.
Unorthodox tactics could include a cloaked FAC that is nothing but armour and a meson to soak up AMMs. Size reduction launchers aren't that good at dealing with beam-armed FACs and spending AMMs against armour balls will be... expensive.
-
Fighters are not easy to use effectively, but they have one huge advantage volume of salvos. Granted with the active sensor changes after v4.9 they aren't as devastating as they once were.
The best place to use fighters is in support of missile ships to deliver alpha strikes that swamp missile defenses.
Cloaks: Lets just stay that they are even harder to use effectively than fighters.
-
Fighters are not easy to use effectively, but they have one huge advantage volume of salvos. Granted with the active sensor changes after v4.9 they aren't as devastating as they once were.
The best place to use fighters is in support of missile ships to deliver alpha strikes that swamp missile defenses.
Cloaks: Lets just stay that they are even harder to use effectively than fighters.
+1
Carrier Groups are even deadly in this task..
-
RE: use of fighters
Delivering an alpha strike that swamps missile defences is exactly the idea of 33% size launchers. Sure, your DPS goes down, but small swarms aren't getting through a missile defence envelope anyway.
Might as well have your missile ships mount reduced launchers and not have to eat the long reload times for fighters.
Cloaks: Lets just stay that they are even harder to use effectively than fighters.
Cloaks seem pretty simple to me.
They make your ship appear to have a smaller cross section than they normally do.
While doing cloak research for my spy ship, I was thinking about how cloaks affect combat, especially against my fleet. 93% cloak is really a game changer.
The end result is that I can actually pack a cloak device onto a 6kton ship, and have it appear like a 420ton fighter. Stack some ECM on it as well as design some unusually long ranged missiles, and you'll never even get shot at. If the cloak fleet has missiles around 120mkm range, even if it sacrifices some accuracy, it can pound away basically unanswered as the active sensors and fire control required becomes ruinously large.
NOTE: I have yet to actually do this as it will end up requiring another round of refits, which, frankly, I'm getting tired of.
-
RE: use of fighters
Delivering an alpha strike that swamps missile defences is exactly the idea of 33% size launchers. Sure, your DPS goes down, but small swarms aren't getting through a missile defence envelope anyway.
Your making absolute statements. As I have pointed out repeatedly, a human controlled NPR (or player race) can make a hash of that statement. As an example, it's not unusual for a 10k carrier to have a strike group of around 20 250t (hs5) fighters each with a salvo of 4-5 missiles that can engage from 20mkm. Very few have an effective missile defense that reaches that far. And that throw weight (both missile and salvo volume) far exceeds the capability of a similair weight warship with 33% launchers. Add in the speed advantage of the fighter, the carrier has the potential of engaging a non-carrier force without effective reply.
Yes, you can specificly design a force that will reduce and mostly negate the fighters engagement advantage...until the opponent makes changes to offset your new doctrine. That is why playing human/player controlled NPR's vs only AI controlled NPR's is such a challenge.
Might as well have your missile ships mount reduced launchers and not have to eat the long reload times for fighters.
Fighters with box launchers actually reload faster that equal tech 33% launchers(x15 vs x20) and the 25% launchers are even worse (x100). There are two handicaps that box launchers do have in this department, the reload rate tech does not apply and the time it takes the from them to return to the hanger to rearm.
Cloaks seem pretty simple to me.
They make your ship appear to have a smaller cross section than they normally do.
While doing cloak research for my spy ship, I was thinking about how cloaks affect combat, especially against my fleet. 93% cloak is really a game changer.
Cloaks are just as mass intensive as jump engines until you advance the efficiency enough, not cheap of quick. An that 93% cloak is a 5th level tech and requires a minimum of 132,000rp to field...not an effective early tech.
The end result is that I can actually pack a cloak device onto a 6kton ship, and have it appear like a 420ton fighter. Stack some ECM on it as well as design some unusually long ranged missiles, and you'll never even get shot at. If the cloak fleet has missiles around 120mkm range, even if it sacrifices some accuracy, it can pound away basically unanswered as the active sensors and fire control required becomes ruinously large.
Missiles with EM or Thermal sensors don't require an active lock no "ruinously large" MFC required. Average to good missile defenses can easily handle the reduced salvos that a cloaked ship will throw. etc etc etc.
For every tactic there is a counter, the trick is to be the one with the newest ecfective one first.
NOTE: I have yet to actually do this as it will end up requiring another round of refits, which, frankly, I'm getting tired of.
My point all along is a simple one, if you only play against the AI combat become fairly standardized. Throw in human controlled NPR's and those standardized stratagies and tactics become a liability.
-
Oh no, of course. I am not saying that tactics will not change if I was playing against a human-controlled NPR.
I would expect tactics to evolve as we think of counters to each other's current fleet. (and anticipating such counters and countering THEM)
Sure, cloak isn't an early game strat. You can't really spare 1.5 years on cloak research that is mostly useless until you hit TL5 cloaks or its a prolonged ceasefire.
I'm just not entirely sure that fighters can be any more useful than reduced size launchers.
The 5x reload time advantage over 33% reduction is taken up by flight time to and fro from the carrier. Unless you're launching missiles from a missile pod in the carrier which is a strategy I am considering (but probably won't implement because it's just too crazy XD)
Then again, if I was going to use fighters, I wouldn't pack 20mkm missiles. Ships can lock up fighters somewhere around 40mkm or so with their MFC (if future- and ECM- proofed) and two ASM missiles would easily blow a fighter away. You end up losing alot of your missiles in their tubes.
15ktons of carrier + fighters vs 15ktons of ship (5kton escort, 10kton reduced size launchers) would lose alot of their fighter complement before launch.
Now if the fighters launch proper ship-to-ship ASMs, with 60+mkm, then yes, the salvo goes unanswered. I wonder how you fit a MFC that big into a 250ton fighter though. Could be possible with a ~400ton fighter, I've designed one that went something like that and had 3 or 4 layers of armour.
A cloaked 2kton corvette at TL6 or 7 though... now THAT's scary. Impossible to resolve, able to mount decent sensors and ECCM, reduced size tubes. Used in a strike fighter role, I wouldn't know how to counter them at all.
As for Thermal Sensor missiles vs cloak, the sensor is either really big, in which case you have an ineffective or huge missile; or it fails to lock anyway. Ships will have moved from their original position from the time you launched and predicting where they will go is pretty darned difficult. Especially if they have survived one such salvo and are actively moving randomly.
You need a sensor range big enough to cover their movement range during your time of launch. That's a really big sensor. I don't know, but dedicated ~1 MSP to sensor in a size 6 missile or so sounds pretty crazy to me.
-
With fighters, as with all long range combatants, you have to keep ahead of the game with sensor efficiency. With a good active efficiency you can pack a fairly small MFC into a fighter that can resolve the warships you intend to engage. Odds are better than even that you'll loose some fighters before thier missile reach terminal attack range (unless sensor equiped) you won't loose them all. Unless the opfor has a segnificant sensor advantage.
-
With fighters, as with all long range combatants, you have to keep ahead of the game with sensor efficiency. With a good active efficiency you can pack a fairly small MFC into a fighter that can resolve the warships you intend to engage. Odds are better than even that you'll loose some fighters before thier missile reach terminal attack range (unless sensor equiped) you won't loose them all. Unless the opfor has a segnificant sensor advantage.
Sensor equipped fighter missiles... hmmm. That sounds interesting.
I just had an idea. A large drone with a sensor and a few terminal attack missile submunitions. Will the drone lock onto a target it passes by on its way to a waypoint and fire it's munitions? That would work pretty well. You can fit large sensors on size 20 drones without compromising range too much.
IE. can a drone fire short ranged missiles with their own sensors at targets within their sensor range?
EDIT: or better still, can a drone (whose firing platform has blown up) with sensors fire submunitions at targets when the submunitions don't have sensors?
Also, "opfor"? I presume you mean "opposition", but I've never met that term.
-
Once you have a relatively mature sensor tech, adding small active or thermal sensors to missiles is a good idea. All missiles. That allows them to have a chance to attack the intended target if the launching MFC is lost for whatever reason.
There are several threads around that decuss missile buses in detail so I won't rehash them here. I'll only say that in my games they have not been cost effective solutions.
opfor = opposing force
-
Once you have a relatively mature sensor tech, adding small active or thermal sensors to missiles is a good idea. All missiles. That allows them to have a chance to attack the intended target if the launching MFC is lost for whatever reason.
There are several threads around that decuss missile buses in detail so I won't rehash them here. I'll only say that in my games they have not been cost effective solutions.
opfor = opposing force
Age of tread upon that:))..
MIssile doctrine are a deadly matter..
-
One question i've had is, what constitutes small sensors? Are we talking .1 MSP or 1 MSP here?
-
One question i've had is, what constitutes small sensors? Are we talking .1 MSP or 1 MSP here?
That is really dependent on your sensor tech level and what range at you want the missiles to find thier own targets. Some what that range to be 50k km others want it to be 500k km.
-
One question i've had is, what constitutes small sensors? Are we talking .1 MSP or 1 MSP here?
For me a small sensor is one where I can have the missile spot a reasonable target at least 10 seconds flight time away. This is enough for terminal guidance but not much more, and is really just there in case the firing ship loses it's fire control in the last couple of minutes of flight, or if the original target had way to much overkill so that the extra missiles can target something else and not be wasted.
Large sensors would allow for tracking a reasonble target for 10+ minutes.
Brian