PermalinkSubmitted by NeerajA on May 2, 2018 - 22:20
I like the modular approach and the idea of manufacture-on-demand. A couple of points our research has raised so far:
Directing torpedoes requires a data link. For this to be non-traceable back to source and non-hackable, a tight, focussed transmission type is required. This can be lost if the torp or vessel make significant changes in position relative to each other. (essentially the equivalent of cutting the guide-wire on a sub-launched torpedo).
Over any appreciable distance I doubt unguided torpedoes would be much use at all except against a completely stationary target?
EMDAR is very computer-intensive. Anything that would be strapped to a torpedo would therefore be pretty simplistic (likely to focus on a relatively narrow EM range). So guidance from the ship's more powerful systems for as long as possible would be best. Active sensors give much better performance from a small form-factor but can be tracked by their emissions so going active would probably need to be reserved to the last possible minute.
PermalinkSubmitted by mattm on May 9, 2018 - 11:39
What are your thoughts on what the system that configures, assembles and launches these torpedoes will look like? Is it likely to be automated (faster) or require manual crew processes (slower but more flexible and less susceptible to damage)?
Is the manufacture-on-demand system closely integrated with this, or a separate system?
PermalinkSubmitted by Slydev on June 1, 2018 - 23:21
I feel like it should all be automated with manual fallbacks. So the AFP can create and also load torpedo bays. Having manual loading though could lead to another job, but I am not sure if it would be exciting or nessisairy. For that reason alone I feel that making it automated is just 'easier' for now. We can always come up with more manual tasks later if we want.
PermalinkSubmitted by Alfisti on May 10, 2018 - 21:53
When I first read the "sticky" payload title, I was actually expecting something similar to HESH (High Explosive Squash Head). :P
Did you have any thoughts as to how many fabricators might be available? The ship is currently slated to have 6no. torpedo tubes: 4no. forward facing and 2no. aft, each with its own dedicated magazine. At a guess you would want at least two fabricators, for redundancy's sake and also to simply internal layout (there's a bit of a gap betwen forward and aft magazines). Three would be preferable, (one aft, one for the port forward tubes, one for the starboard), purely for the purposes of simplifying internal layout, though it also depends on how large the units would need to be and how much of a chunk it would take from the ready magazine.
The warloads definitely seem like go-ers though, per your comment, I'm unsure as to how comfortable I am with the fabricator constructing things that go "boom" in a large way. Speaking of which: we will also need to look at how the AFP fits into the ready magazine, as there was some intention to incorporate blow-off panels to let any accidental detonations vent to space rather than into the people-tank... and we'll need to sit down with the propulsion crowd to see just how much miniaturisaion can be eeked out of the drive technology. It will need to be able to get reasonable acceleration for extended periods for a truly guided/boosted weapon.
And speaking of the potential for a guided weapon, yes, always take care when firing. Maintaining stealth might make it difficult to fit an IFF transponder, so once fired, Mr. torpedo is not your friend.
Oh, and yes: the system will send you an email about your own post.
PermalinkSubmitted by Slydev on June 1, 2018 - 23:43
I am sorry I took so long to respond to this!
I didn't know about HESH rounds, that is cool! I have expanded on this in my newer post but basically for now the sticky was just an interesting concept that could lead to some interesting uses!
I had origionally invisioned one big fabricator in the centre of the ship (with the torpedo bays leading out from there). The fabrication plant would have 3 parts:
- Storage (raw materials and created things)
- Fabrication (the printer/creator arms/etc)
- Distribution (getting items back to storage and into torpedo bays)
I was thinking it would be in the centre of the ship and also near explosive materials, really if something has breached to it, its game over anyways so having more than one might not be nessisairy. That aside there is a lot of ways we can approach this, for now its just a "area of the ship that makes things automatically", how it does that and the method and restrictions will have to come with understanding more of how everything else feels (and has to be able to be tweaked clearly).
In saying that we can make them smaller and put them closer to the torpedo tubes. The reason I went with one is that there is less things to repair as well as it would be used to make other things too (plot wise anyways). I am also not fully across the internal layout though so this could mess with things, happy for whatever works. I am more interested in the system that it works on than the logistics of layout and how it looks, so happy for you to go for whatever you think is best there :)
The issue with fabrication of 'things that go boom' is that those things will most likely be in storeage (either created already or in raw materias which are still quite boom-prone) so we still have the same issue either way. Obviously the fabrication process would take into account the dangers of some parts which most likely will be the last to go into finished warheads (which are not armed till they are in the tube but still can explode as that is the nature of things).
What would the ready magazine look like?
How many would we have ready to go?
These questions are really important for balancing of weapons, so we have to decide on a rate of fire and actual 'power' of torpedos (which I assume will go through a lot of tweaking).
As for guided weapons I expanded a lot on this in my last post, there are some seirous advantages (and disadvanatages) to guided and smart payloads over dumb ones that make them an important addition. Especially as our sideways aiming is non-existant ATM.
I do think we should consider side on launchers mainly because if we were up against another ship with the same layout (4 front, 2 rear) the ship facing the other ships side would win instantly (and be in a bit of a blind spot). Though the side rails wont be able to be as long (and thus as powerful). We don't know how fast things we run into may be and we don't want weaknesses like that to happen. This will also come down to how fast we can move/turn compared to how fast a torpedo can.
I feel that a lot of these questions will be answered we start on hunter killer and get a better idea of the feel for things. See how they play out and what is good/bad. I really am happy to change anything at all but I want to head towards a good direction and I don't have enough in my head to get there yet I think so for now I am keeping it as dynamic as possible with the idea that we will roll back what is too powerful (instead of having to add on things because it isn't 'fun' enough)
Thanks for your replies, let me know what you think :)
Comments
I like the modular approach
I like the modular approach and the idea of manufacture-on-demand. A couple of points our research has raised so far:
Directing torpedoes requires a data link. For this to be non-traceable back to source and non-hackable, a tight, focussed transmission type is required. This can be lost if the torp or vessel make significant changes in position relative to each other. (essentially the equivalent of cutting the guide-wire on a sub-launched torpedo).
Over any appreciable distance I doubt unguided torpedoes would be much use at all except against a completely stationary target?
EMDAR is very computer-intensive. Anything that would be strapped to a torpedo would therefore be pretty simplistic (likely to focus on a relatively narrow EM range). So guidance from the ship's more powerful systems for as long as possible would be best. Active sensors give much better performance from a small form-factor but can be tracked by their emissions so going active would probably need to be reserved to the last possible minute.
Prep and Launch System
What are your thoughts on what the system that configures, assembles and launches these torpedoes will look like? Is it likely to be automated (faster) or require manual crew processes (slower but more flexible and less susceptible to damage)?
Is the manufacture-on-demand system closely integrated with this, or a separate system?
I feel like it should all be
I feel like it should all be automated with manual fallbacks. So the AFP can create and also load torpedo bays. Having manual loading though could lead to another job, but I am not sure if it would be exciting or nessisairy. For that reason alone I feel that making it automated is just 'easier' for now. We can always come up with more manual tasks later if we want.
When I first read the "sticky
When I first read the "sticky" payload title, I was actually expecting something similar to HESH (High Explosive Squash Head). :P
Did you have any thoughts as to how many fabricators might be available? The ship is currently slated to have 6no. torpedo tubes: 4no. forward facing and 2no. aft, each with its own dedicated magazine. At a guess you would want at least two fabricators, for redundancy's sake and also to simply internal layout (there's a bit of a gap betwen forward and aft magazines). Three would be preferable, (one aft, one for the port forward tubes, one for the starboard), purely for the purposes of simplifying internal layout, though it also depends on how large the units would need to be and how much of a chunk it would take from the ready magazine.
The warloads definitely seem like go-ers though, per your comment, I'm unsure as to how comfortable I am with the fabricator constructing things that go "boom" in a large way. Speaking of which: we will also need to look at how the AFP fits into the ready magazine, as there was some intention to incorporate blow-off panels to let any accidental detonations vent to space rather than into the people-tank... and we'll need to sit down with the propulsion crowd to see just how much miniaturisaion can be eeked out of the drive technology. It will need to be able to get reasonable acceleration for extended periods for a truly guided/boosted weapon.
And speaking of the potential for a guided weapon, yes, always take care when firing. Maintaining stealth might make it difficult to fit an IFF transponder, so once fired, Mr. torpedo is not your friend.
Oh, and yes: the system will send you an email about your own post.
I am sorry I took so long to
I am sorry I took so long to respond to this!
I didn't know about HESH rounds, that is cool! I have expanded on this in my newer post but basically for now the sticky was just an interesting concept that could lead to some interesting uses!
I had origionally invisioned one big fabricator in the centre of the ship (with the torpedo bays leading out from there). The fabrication plant would have 3 parts:
- Storage (raw materials and created things)
- Fabrication (the printer/creator arms/etc)
- Distribution (getting items back to storage and into torpedo bays)
I was thinking it would be in the centre of the ship and also near explosive materials, really if something has breached to it, its game over anyways so having more than one might not be nessisairy. That aside there is a lot of ways we can approach this, for now its just a "area of the ship that makes things automatically", how it does that and the method and restrictions will have to come with understanding more of how everything else feels (and has to be able to be tweaked clearly).
In saying that we can make them smaller and put them closer to the torpedo tubes. The reason I went with one is that there is less things to repair as well as it would be used to make other things too (plot wise anyways). I am also not fully across the internal layout though so this could mess with things, happy for whatever works. I am more interested in the system that it works on than the logistics of layout and how it looks, so happy for you to go for whatever you think is best there :)
The issue with fabrication of 'things that go boom' is that those things will most likely be in storeage (either created already or in raw materias which are still quite boom-prone) so we still have the same issue either way. Obviously the fabrication process would take into account the dangers of some parts which most likely will be the last to go into finished warheads (which are not armed till they are in the tube but still can explode as that is the nature of things).
What would the ready magazine look like?
How many would we have ready to go?
These questions are really important for balancing of weapons, so we have to decide on a rate of fire and actual 'power' of torpedos (which I assume will go through a lot of tweaking).
As for guided weapons I expanded a lot on this in my last post, there are some seirous advantages (and disadvanatages) to guided and smart payloads over dumb ones that make them an important addition. Especially as our sideways aiming is non-existant ATM.
I do think we should consider side on launchers mainly because if we were up against another ship with the same layout (4 front, 2 rear) the ship facing the other ships side would win instantly (and be in a bit of a blind spot). Though the side rails wont be able to be as long (and thus as powerful). We don't know how fast things we run into may be and we don't want weaknesses like that to happen. This will also come down to how fast we can move/turn compared to how fast a torpedo can.
I feel that a lot of these questions will be answered we start on hunter killer and get a better idea of the feel for things. See how they play out and what is good/bad. I really am happy to change anything at all but I want to head towards a good direction and I don't have enough in my head to get there yet I think so for now I am keeping it as dynamic as possible with the idea that we will roll back what is too powerful (instead of having to add on things because it isn't 'fun' enough)
Thanks for your replies, let me know what you think :)