Loroi Ship Design

[Mjolnir]

Okay, two things in my defence:
1. I'm pretty sure it was space for smuggling weapons in that episode.
2. You know I didn't say "RIP OUT THE LIFE SUPPORT THIS IS A GOOD IDEA". I was joking about how the wide open spaces on the Loroi ship are kind of silly (if very pretty and understandable from an art standpoint).

Going by the Insider, the Tempest is 750 m long, mounting class III screens, a wave loom device, 4 heavy blasters, 8 pulse cannons, 12 laser autocannons, an anti-missile launcher, 8 interceptors, and a warhead launcher, with drives capable of pushing its 1200 kt mass at 30 g. Those wide open spaces we've seen may be small in relation to the necessary spaces around and between the various pieces of equipment responsible for propulsion, gravity, and weapons, they certainly don't mean the ship is mostly crew spaces. And as I've pointed out, there's several very good reasons to desire large air volumes in a closed system.

Anyways, I've always wondered about the potential efficacy of a carrier in space. I mean, running a carrier isn't the same as running other ships. It would be hugely complicate running the ship normally (and that's already pretty damn complicated), and I can't even imagine the world of hurt you'd be in if the ship actually ended up taking fire.

This largely goes for today's sea-going aircraft carriers, as well.

Let's see: the space needed to store, service, and launch the fighters/bombers would take up a huge portion of the ship, which would severely limit it's ability to do anything else (so they'd better be able to deliver). It would take up more supplies than another ship of similar size. You'd have to either be able to quickly and safely compress and decompress the ships in and out of the launch and recovery areas (or have the whole fighter area be in vacuum all the time which is a whole other level of insane).

Just because things are done a certain way on aircraft carriers doesn't mean that spacecraft carriers must do things the same way. Parasite craft certainly could be docked externally or in an unpressurized hangar when not undergoing major work, this form of operation has already been well proven with the various spacecraft and space stations we've been using in reality...nothing insane about it. A shirt-sleeves hangar/drydock might be needed on occasion, but needn't be a permanent space, it could be an expandable compartment that is folded down when not in use. Or not...volume isn't a valuable commodity in space, there's as much of it available as you can use. It's silly to suggest that a carrier will be incapable of doing anything else because of the room taken up by the parasite craft they carry.

Their size would make them ideal for mounting larger, more powerful sensor equipment and longer-range torpedos than can be carried by smaller craft. They'd be good for resupply and other fleet servicing operations, carrying technical and medical facilities that smaller ships lack as well. They'd have a very high carrying capacity, and could take on the equivalent of air drops of heavy equipment and supplies instead of carrying fighters. And when freed of the burden of parasite vessels, they may be some of the fastest ships in the fleet, aside from the fighters they carry.

[LegioCI]

An MAM Shaped charge... Hmmm. My mad scientist senses are tingling with the possibilities.

What if behind the MAM warhead you put some sort of explosively pumped magnetic field generator that focuses the blast forward into a cone or beam rather than a sphere? Even if it lasted for only the barest fraction of a second, the amount of energy you could redirect with that could make it a substantially more effective weapon. It would be like the Yamato Cannon's big brother.

[Majincarne]

Thats getting rather close to being a bomb pumped laser. Its my though on the matter that a swarm of fired missiles that go bomb pumped at a 80% hit likely range would be far better bang for buck than whats being used in the comic atm. They could get in rather close and would have the advantage as its much harder to hit an evasive missile than it is for a laser at eh same ranger to hit a ship. And if its an X-ray - Gamma hell go exotic and AM it for protons if you have the tech, and thats gonna hurt a ship. Depending on teh shield tech it may be mitigated some though. Shield tech is probably not gonna do much if you can bomb pump with an AM charge though.

[discord]

majin: only downside is accuracy, missile is smaller more difficult target, true, but the missile has less accurate sensors and is a less stable firing platform, if hit rates are in favor of the missiles, sure it works just fine....but they might not be....i'll agree though, it's probably the best use of missiles....

although thinking on it, buckshot missiles might be nasty....

[manticore7]

reading the insider I notice that the lighter Umiak Ships have veriations in their length, for example the Type-ks Missile Cruiser is between 300- 400 meters and the Light Destroyer is 120-180 meters long. I know the insider says that each vessel is unique but I wonder if this is done intentionally or by circumstance.

[LegioCI]

Actually, if you just directed the explosion in a cone rather than a cohesive beam wouldn't need spot-on accuracy; merely being pointed in the general direction of the target at an appropriate distance would give you a hit. The more focused the "beam", the more of the explosions energy you'd be able to deliver on the target and the further out you'd be able to detonate and still do damage to the target. I could imagine a smart missile where it's payload can be programmed to detonate as anything from a straight explosion to varying cones to a concise MAM-annihilation beam. For example a straight explosion can be used to kill large numbers of small or lightly armored ships(Or even as a way to destroy/disable incoming missiles), while a beam could be used to crack open slower, heavily armored targets from a larger distance.

I would think the most efficient use of such weapons becoming something of an artform, with more experianced crews being able to target appropriate strikes to maximize a ships given payload.

[Mjolnir]

Bomb pumped lasers have pros and cons. They'd be more complex devices, most likely including some kind of grazing incidence mirror to focus the beam and equipment to aim the device before detonation, and likely a lot more expensive...in comparison, shaping an explosion is largely a matter of distribution of mass and explosive material. The resulting beam may well be more directional than you can achieve with the explosion, but lasers are very inefficient...only a small amount of the energy of the explosion is going to go into the beam, and efficiency is likely to be even worse than a non-directional explosion, a tradeoff for range and concentration of the energy onto a smaller part of the target. They'd be able to fire from a greater distance, but would be more delicate, meaning point defense would be able to disable them at a greater distance. And it's entirely possible that some unknown issues would prevent them from being useful in actual weapons.

Also, using antimatter or similar for a pumping mechanism would only be a matter of convenience and control. The limiting factors for laser power are likely to be the material and dimensions of the lasing medium, I suspect a plain old fission device will suffice to get everything you can out of any reasonably sized laser.

[LegioCI]

Well it wouldn't be an MAM-explosion pumped laser so much as a smaller MAM-explosion firing an explosively pumped flux compression generator and using the gigantic pulse generated by it to magnetically direct the main MAM explosion in a useful vector. If you've ever played Starcraft, the Battlecruiser's Yamato cannon uses an intense magnetic field to contain and direct a small nuclear explosion. I'm doing something very similar, but instead of a fission explosion it's a Matter-Antimatter annihilation that's being directed.

[Mjolnir]

Well it wouldn't be an MAM-explosion pumped laser so much as a smaller MAM-explosion firing an explosively pumped flux compression generator and using the gigantic pulse generated by it to magnetically direct the main MAM explosion in a useful vector. If you've ever played Starcraft, the Battlecruiser's Yamato cannon uses an intense magnetic field to contain and direct a small nuclear explosion. I'm doing something very similar, but instead of a fission explosion it's a Matter-Antimatter annihilation that's being directed.

Most of the products of matter-antimatter reactions are not influenced by magnetic fields...gamma and neutral pions will just go in a straight line, and the charged pions that can be directed by a magnetic field will quickly decay to electrons, positrons, neutrinos, and antineutrinos, two neutrinos/antineutrinos per electron/positron...and of course, the neutrinos aren't going to inflict much damage. Those electrons/positrons that eventually reach the target only have a small fraction of the energy released.

You're better off using the reaction to convert the rest of the device to plasma, and directing that at the target. This could conceivably be done magnetically, but can largely be accomplished just by careful design of the casing and tampers, and arrangement of the explosive material. Or even if the gamma/x-ray/thermal radiation itself is to be used, shaping the charge can increase the efficiency of emission in the direction of the target.

This is for matter-antimatter. The exotic shipfuel stuff used by the Loroi and Umiak might yield its energy in a form more conducive to being directed at the enemy.

[NOMAD]

So in other words, a MAM warhead is a sphere of death that would destroy anything within ( or in very close proximately) of the detonation. that reminds me of missile command.

Now, from what I understand, converting the MAM into a direct-able plasma might be more destructive (and effective) against enemy ships. But wouldn't that result in a partial loss of total energy in the conversion from energy back into matter, due to a possible not perfect inefficient conversion (say 90-80% efficiency). And that might lead to a reduce weapon destructiveness. Yet, even with a MAM-like fuel that is simpler to make and combine, I would image that the amount of energy loss may be slightly significant, in terms of the maximum yield, given the larger particles at work.

I would add that placing a MAM converter would greatly increase the costs of each missile/torpedo in comparison to a simple MAM container. Sorta like a the amount of normal torps that could be made in comparison to a torat blister.

[Arioch]

I expect that some missiles will be kinetic-kill, some will be directed-effect explosion (a laser or plasma cone), and some will be omni-directional blast. Many will probably have multiple settings or best-choice smart options.

As was mentioned, a "dummy" missile needs to have the same acceleration potential as a real missile, which usually will mean that it costs just as much as a real missile. At this tech level, the drive IS the warhead.

[junk]

As fighters and carriers are concerned most people forget one thing. Once you are in space, you will have very very good targeting and evasion systems which will somewhat negate the need for mobile carrier systems of weapons which are fighters and bombers.

In part because as a fighter is concerned you require
a) pilot
b) enough fuel to go to and back
c) munitions
d) rough preemptive targeting data

In that regard the needs for a smart kinetic warhead system are

a) enough propellant to gain speed
b) Relatively precise targeting data. Though with smart AI systems just as much as a human fighter.

Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.

[NOMAD]

As fighters and carriers are concerned most people forget one thing. Once you are in space, you will have very very good targeting and evasion systems which will somewhat negate the need for mobile carrier systems of weapons which are fighters and bombers.

In part because as a fighter is concerned you require
a) pilot
b) enough fuel to go to and back
c) munitions
d) rough preemptive targeting data

well I agree with your points above but I wouldn't count out fighters with Carriers for the fallowing reasons

1) Greater survivability: fighters can be considered returnable weapons platforms, when they are able to return to the carrier: while Ke missile are a one shot weapon that, despite being MUCH cheaper to produce, can either hit their targets or get intercepted

2) greater range: fighters and bombers can loiter in the area and patrol that area, given their greater fuel\endurance and can have more flexible targeting of the enemy (say the ability to plan an ambush on a target of opportunity). A KE missile ( even a smart AI type) would be limited vs a biological pilot.

3) Adaptable/ multi-purpose: the fact I find the best, is that their weapons loads can be adjusted to the targets needed. As well, fighter could be re purposed mid-flight ( while KE missile could have is program in, I would think only interception or LR missile could accomplished this ). While you could produce ALOT different KE missile types for different roles ( interceptor,AMM,capital ship killers,) you would need to carry all those missiles and fire the correct type. in comparison, pilot vehicle could be retargeted or pushed into different roles ( IE the loroi using their attack fighters as a mobile defence for their fleets)

4) less likely to be detected: small fighter power core vs BIG cruiser power core. what would be detected at the extreme or even mid range ?

Now I know fighter have disadvantages vs KE missile:

1) lack of firepower: a fighter or heavy bomber could only have so much firepower vs a MAM type KE

2) more expensive: pilot training, producing the smaller hulls, fuel, parts etc

3) pilot error: pilot could make wrong decision in a battle that could cost him/her life or a battle

In that regard the needs for a smart kinetic warhead system are

a) enough propellant to gain speed
b) Relatively precise targeting data. Though with smart AI systems just as much as a human fighter.

Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.

true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.

[Mjolnir]

Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.

It seems likely the most fighter/bomber-like role will be essentially a forward missile platform/mobile sensor/electronic warfare node. The fighter does require more propellant, but also recovers the propulsion systems used for much of the boost to the target and allows them to be used with another set of missiles. High performance propulsion systems are likely to be expensive, and in Outsider, fuel mass seems to be a relatively small portion of overall mass...there's something to be gained by using a fighter that comes back for more fuel and a load of missiles that are smaller than ones needed to make a direct attack.

true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.

Machines can be more unpredictable. Biological pilots are likely to react in ways influenced by training or perceptual/instinctive quirks, or fall into predictable habits. Just our bodily form will unavoidably cause biases in the maneuvers we'll prefer. A machine pilot could be designed to take advantage of all possible maneuvers, and to avoid repeating itself when possible.

[TrashMan]

1) Greater survivability: fighters can be considered returnable weapons platforms, when they are able to return to the carrier: while Ke missile are a one shot weapon that, despite being MUCH cheaper to produce, can either hit their targets or get intercepted

2) greater range: fighters and bombers can loiter in the area and patrol that area, given their greater fuel\endurance and can have more flexible targeting of the enemy (say the ability to plan an ambush on a target of opportunity). A KE missile ( even a smart AI type) would be limited vs a biological pilot.

Don't know about those. fighter would be realyl fragile, and with laser point-defenses I would consider them survivable at all. Not to mentio nthat a fighter would end up costing mroe than a missile.

Fighter are also more limited by range than missiles - they have more mass and need more fuel. and air reserves for pilots.

[junk]

I have to agree with the sheer fragility of the fighter. If we're going to be making them about the size of ours, they won't be much smaller or larger than probable missiles that exist in the universe. So PDS will shred them.

The second issue is, in terms of space you send a mobile staging point to an area where it sends out mobile missile deployers which then have to return. It's much more economical to just send a mobile missile deployer and safely send missiles from maybe twice the range it could send fighters. Plus you can have the missiles pull of a bigger deltav

Overall fighters work fairly well in starwars for instance, because they are jump capable and their warheads are strong enough that even when in very small sizes, they can pose a problem to capital ships en mass. Also SW PDS systems are virtually nonexistant. If a warhead is flying at a ship, the ship will take the hit.

Likewise they work in warhammer, but the point to consider there is, that they are fighters and bombers in a very "rough sense" as they are all about the size of a 747 and even bigger for bombers.

Essentially the reason why we still have fighters these days as opposed to essentially having a bunch of v2s with good targeting is because we

a) have bombers and fighters which need no propellant for their payload to hit the target (not really effective in space)
b) terrain can cause issues for tracking, indentifying and hitting targets
c) CAS
d) ways to deny bombers, CAS and strategic hunting for ground targets.

There's obviously more reasons why we use aircraft as opposed to just flying bombs these days, but most of these reasons will make sense on a planet not in space.

The more I think about it, you could potentially have something like carrier's and fighters in space if you did something like.

a) A very barebone carrying system. More or less just exists in order to ferry smaller ships no other reason
b) A medium sized gunship using some sort of very compact reactor - mass destruction| nuclear | other as opposed to fusion, combustible fuel ones.Then these would hang around at ranges at which PDS stops being effective and would be small enough and nimble enough to have a decent survive rate against standard s2s weapons.

But I strongly doubt small 1 man fighters would be a possibility.

[Zakharra]

true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.

Machines can be more unpredictable. Biological pilots are likely to react in ways influenced by training or perceptual/instinctive quirks, or fall into predictable habits. Just our bodily form will unavoidably cause biases in the maneuvers we'll prefer. A machine pilot could be designed to take advantage of all possible maneuvers, and to avoid repeating itself when possible.

Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?

[junk]

You don't need much intuition once you have godly control.

I'd like to point an example that fairly shows the limitations of human|machine skill.

Both have the exact same tools at their disposal and once it comes down to pure crunch so to speak, machines will very often soundly defeat a human.
Obviously there's some benefits for intuition, but I'd gather that after a while someone will develop a fairly large database of doable actions the machine can access and thus often be on equal footing with intuition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0

[Mjolnir]

Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?

Intuition is just guesswork and gambling based on incomplete information, which machines are entirely capable of doing, and may well be more likely to do successfully due to not having biologically inborn tendencies to misjudge matters of statistics and physics and being able to judge more of the potential outcomes, particularly since this isn't an environment that the human brain is particularly well suited to. And training makes pilots more predictable...what exactly is it supposed to accomplish to make them capable of things a machine can't do? What, specifically, prevents machines from doing anything a human pilot can do?

And yes, I'd want my machine pilots to be unpredictable. There's little value in launching something that won't reach the target. This doesn't mean totally random, it means exactly what it says...not predictable. It does not mean that they'll suddenly turn around and shoot at the craft that launched them.

[discord]

actually on the 'predictable' question, i do not mind my weapon systems being predictable, as long as the targets can't stop'em...and this is much more true in space compared to fighting inside atmosphere mainly because it is easier to achieve.

make the drones/missiles pretty damn stupid, they do not really need to be smart, it's just a matter of calculating firing angles of PD systems and incoming PD missiles and create a list of what maneuvers will create the biggest difference in angle to all of them, and then a probability random from the best being somewhat more likely...perhaps, and the least efficient having lower chance, do several preemptive iterations of this with probability of how the incoming fire will change and you get 'smart' behavior out of a intrinsically stupid system.

this would be rather 'predictable' but difficult to do anything about....the same would not apply very well in atmosphere though, more variables involved.