|
Jack2142 posted:vote in thread 1B. Hybrids 2B. Size 4 There's quite a lot of in-depth debate in discord. Specialisation nets us somewhere in the ballpark of 5% to 20% better tonnage efficiency. The persuasive selling point for me is that a hybrid fleet degrades the enemies ability to selectively target our fleet capabilities. We've done this ourselves to our enemies, to great effect. We're holding the range open? Pummel their missile ships. We want a beam fight? Make sure they have no beam assets alive. By hybridising the fleet we ensure that we fight on our terms, not the enemies. Bringing more ships or more efficient tonnage sounds great until the enemy gets to easily and more efficiently pick & choose which parts they want to selectively remove. Full disclosure I also have an irrational love for torpedoes. Firing long range missiles at long range then torpedoes at shorter ranges is the warm & fuzzy bonus of hybridised ships. We almost always want bigger tubes. Changing missile tube standards is painful so we're practically stuck with the tubes for ages, while missiles will continue to get better. Bigger tubes gives us a lot more options for missile design not just now but over the life of the standard
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
I thinl torp bombers are flavourful and cool so I want more of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
1A) 2b) I am very much of the view that losing 5-20% tonnage efficiency to hybridize our ships is too high a price to pay vs. just simply devoting our ships to one aspect of combat to excel at. Missile tonnage has no buissness wanting to advance any closer to the enemy than it takes to fire missiles at them, and intentionally bringing them into a beam fight means having to devote a great deal of tonnage to the idea of surviving and contributing for a long period there, tonnage which i believe would be much more usefully spent on magazines to hold more missiles to fire and more launchers to fire them with, and perhaps engines to make sure that any enemy beam ships don't catch up with them. Torpedos are all well and good, but i think it should be the job of a dedicated torpedo bomber off a carrier to deliver them, not a missile cruiser charging into a place where a majority of its weaponry will be deadweight. If we are worried about the possibility of an enemy choosing to concentrate fire on one part or another of our fleet, then the solution is additional point defence vessels, not to water down the combat power of our individual ships in the name of them not being picked off. We have done quite well for ourselves with generalist beam and missile-only designs for everything short of outright capital ships during this past IC war, and i see no reason to change that now. On a related note, this is what my idea of a dedicated beam combat ship looks like, as a replacement for the general role of the Cassini in the current fleet: code:code:code:code:code:Nick Esasky fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
If we were talking about fighting another war in the Sol system I'd agree that the efficiency losses of hybrid ships aren't worth it, but out among the stars you're working with a totally different paradigm. Relying on a proper full fleet with all the specialized roles and sufficient PD to prevent targeted degradation and needing a major fleet base nearby to support all the ship tonnage and munitions is a big ask for random colonial squadrons scattered across half the galaxy. I'd rather have a generalist approach that's not as efficient but also can still fight a war if the local PD cruiser or beam brawler had to go in for overhaul, or they ran their magazines dry last month and the nearest munitions factory is 6 jumps away.
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:If we were talking about fighting another war in the Sol system I'd agree that the efficiency losses of hybrid ships aren't worth it, but out among the stars you're working with a totally different paradigm. Relying on a proper full fleet with all the specialized roles and sufficient PD to prevent targeted degradation and needing a major fleet base nearby to support all the ship tonnage and munitions is a big ask for random colonial squadrons scattered across half the galaxy. I'd rather have a generalist approach that's not as efficient but also can still fight a war if the local PD cruiser or beam brawler had to go in for overhaul, or they ran their magazines dry last month and the nearest munitions factory is 6 jumps away. A pure missile ship is utterly helpless when it's dry, and a hybrid ship isn't. We are likely to want to project force well beyond our current lines of supply, so assuming unbroken ammunition supplies isn't safe. Plus it's not like we need 100% hybrids, they can coexist well enough - go crazy with missile box ships, but leave a bit of tonnage for beams on the larger ships. 1B, 2B
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
1A 2A
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
My view in response to that is that the currently extant threat is UT, and i cannot imagine any near-future conflict with them that would not have the heavy majority of the fighting taking place in Sol. The fleet should be built with a war in Sol as the primary consideration, and logistical concerns regarding supporting forces in Ragni or other extrasolar arenas should not be allowed to decrease the effectiveness of the fleet in the main area of conflict. If we must have a hybrid, it should be exclusively for colonial duties at best, and not basing the entire fleet on them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Nick Esasky posted:My view in response to that is that the currently extant threat is UT, and i cannot imagine any near-future conflict with them that would not have the heavy majority of the fighting taking place in Sol. The fleet should be built with a war in Sol as the primary consideration, and logistical concerns regarding supporting forces in Ragni or other extrasolar arenas should not be allowed to decrease the effectiveness of the fleet in the main area of conflict. If we must have a hybrid, it should be exclusively for colonial duties at best, and not basing the entire fleet on them. I don't think anyone is suggesting basing the entire fleet on hybrid designs. Bremen's original proposal was basically instead of building 6 missile cruisers, 6 beam cruisers, instead we might build 3 beam, 3 missile and 6 hybrid. Or 4 beam, 4 missile, 4 hybrid. Or 5/5/2 Further more, the cruisers our primary approach for colonial service as the battle-cruisers are to big for our current jump drives and will be left in Sol. Voting for hybrids The size 3vs4 thing is way more opaque, and I don't have any real idea. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
proposing to make half or more of the fleet hybrids IS basing the fleet entirely on them, as the fleets' behaviour will have to be dictated by their limitations. That is far too drastic a doctrinal change for a reason that should have little relevance for this generation of ships. Why is it that we didn't make hybrid cruisers before if it was such a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
If long range logistics for missile dedicated ships are a concern, build colliers. They'll also be useful suppling missile bases on fledgeling colonies, or purely military outposts without production of their own, which'll help free up our mobile forces. Hybrids will do worse at range, and consequently worse close in, unless the loss in effectiveness is compensated by sheer numbers or by significant tech or design superiority over the enemy the hybrid ship/fleet encounters. We'll lose more, and do less damage with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Counterpoint to hybrids: instead of making a hybrid cruiser, why not make a beam destroyer and missile destroyer for the same resources? Colonial vessels will likely be small and thinly spread, but we can still specialise the tonnage we do have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Voting 1B for hybrids. I'm not really all that convinced by the arguments that specialized designs are more effective. Sure, in a sterile fleet-on-fleet clean vacuum engagement, probably, but as we've seen in the fight against the IC, specialized missile ships turn into liabilities that can't contribute once they're empty. We saw that both for us and for the enemy. The Titan fight ended up hinging on a single fighter while a bunch of missile ships were just uselessly hanging out. Surviving the missile fight already requires the specialized missile ships to be fairly well-armored unless we intend them to be single-use, and hybrid missile ships contribute in the beam fight just by being there and having enough teeth to force the enemy to shoot at them too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Two new ideas for Fighters and Bombers first is a Torpedo Bomber code:code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
1a, 2b I signed up to be a missile boat captain, with crazy multi stage loadouts. These votes get me closer to that goal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Except we're not designing the whole fleet right now. There're no BB's and BC's and CV's and in-Sol CA's being proposed here. Of course the Home Fleet shouldn't be hybrids, but we're not designing the Home Fleet. We're designing explicitly the jump-capable colonial forces right now, I'm sure if there's ever a war in Sol, we'll have a proper OOB with specialized ships like we did for the IC war. Colliers aren't a solution to logistical issues, just a patch. As we saw during the IC war, even with colliers a fleet is only good for 2-3 engagements, that's not enough when your deployment time is 18 months and your rear areas aren't secure enough to guarantee the FSV's can just pop home and refill every other battle. So obviously I'm a 1B. As to question 2, changing missile standards is a massive pain in the rear end so I'd get it as big as we can now so we don't have to bother changing for another few generations 2B Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
if space colonial conflicts are anything like Earf colonial conflicts you will want very autonomous units that are jacks of all trades and masters of none which tends to lend itself to 1B 2B. just having an asset on station is going to matter a lot, and a specialist asset is a lot less useful. is there an aviso class type? there should be KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
(1A is the vote for specialized assets, are you sure that's what you meant to vote for based on the rest of your post?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Nick Esasky posted:If we are worried about the possibility of an enemy choosing to concentrate fire on one part or another of our fleet, then the solution is additional point defence vessels, Will we have to devote more than 5% - 20% of our overall ship tonnage to these additional PD vessels?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:(1A is the vote for specialized assets, are you sure that's what you meant to vote for based on the rest of your post?) im illiterate thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
1B 2B
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
1B 2B Though I might change depending on an answer to my previous question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
I'd have thought most military conflict with UT would take place in the colonies; if it heats up to the point of large scale combat in Sol, both sides have thousands of giant interplanetary nuclear missiles for MAD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Yeah that's the fundamental paradox of the matter, everything important is in Sol right now, but anybody actually threatening major assets in Sol triggers MAD. Personally, I think we'll be seeing deniable "pirate" raids against each others' far-flung colonies and the like. Low intensity brushfire poo poo until something happens that kicks it into high gear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
1A 2A - I like the idea of hybrid BC & BBs, but I think CGs and DDGs are too small to be able to just grab a couple beams and slap them on. I also think more S3 missiles will be more important than stronger S4 missiles. We're going to be outnumbered, and being outnumbered even by lovely PD is bad news, since PD is largely about numbers.Tythas posted:Two new ideas for Fighters and Bombers Fire Control of 8.8m km range, Sensor range of 2.6m km, missile range of 0.6m km? Seems like those should be better balanced? I get that we want to future proof, but that feels like a bit much. Also, how do we plan on getting within 0.6m km of an enemy to fire them? Isn't that within PD range, and doesn't any PD (even lovely PD) basically murder fighters? Like it doesn't matter for adding torpedos to big ships because (1) the enemy is probably out of PD by then, (2) bigger ships can probably take the hits, and (3) you'd be taking those hits on either your missile ship w/ torpedos or on your beam ship. Tythas posted:And a Fighter Your search sensor is Resolution 80 on this fighter. Are you planning on bringing an AWACS or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Except we're not designing the whole fleet right now. There're no BB's and BC's and CV's and in-Sol CA's being proposed here. Of course the Home Fleet shouldn't be hybrids, but we're not designing the Home Fleet. We're designing explicitly the jump-capable colonial forces right now, I'm sure if there's ever a war in Sol, we'll have a proper OOB with specialized ships like we did for the IC war. As we've seen in the IC war, 2 engagements leaves very little fleet left in a combat capable state. They'd be even less so were they to sacrifice overall efficiency on a ship-by-ship basis. The reason the beam equipped vessels could carry the day was because of the attrition done by the missile vessels. Hybrid vessels will empty their magazines faster than dedicated missile ships, and sending them into further engagements with empty stocks seems a bigger waste of ships than planning for and bringing a proper logistic train for a fleet destined for long deployment. If we can't secure escort for supply, are we also not securing escort for our cripples? Are the fleets meant to stand and die on the frontier?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
It looks like the spinal mounts are the most weight-effective means of adding beams to a ship, so the usual arguments in favor of specialization are weakened, and there's a lot of really good reasons for hybrids outside the main system. I do think that we'll need to optimize for striking power inside our missiles as far from supply as we'll be. S4 gives more flexibility, but can we use miniaturization to bring more functions to the S3 missiles over time? I'm concerned about giving up mass of salvo in return for some benefits that seem more secondary. 1B 2A
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Both warheads and missile engines get smaller (or more effective for the same weight) over time, so yes miniaturization will benefit the S3 missiles either through increasing yield and speed or through slower gains in those but the addition of extra features like sensors. Honestly I don't think I ever use S4 missiles except maybe as part of a multi-stage missile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:Also, how do we plan on getting within 0.6m km of an enemy to fire them? Isn't that within PD range, and doesn't any PD (even lovely PD) basically murder fighters? 600,000km is not all that close, really, and isn't within PD range. Beam fire controls are the current cap on beam range. Those max out at around 300k, and also their accuracy degrades with range, so it's like a 40% shot at that distance. Of course, you still have something of a point - the purpose of a torpedo is to hit before (non CIWS) PD even gets a chance to fire. PD activates every 5-second tick, and you want a safety margin, so a 25000km/s torp's effective combat range is ~100k km. That means the bomber can be hit by laser PD, but the range of gauss is still down at like 10-20k km. Beams are a point-blank knife-fight option in Aurora. As to the resolution, res80 is optomized for 4000 ton (or larger) ships, which seems perfectly reasonable for a torpedo bomber. A, they're going to launch from about four inches away anyway, so they should be able to pick up anything bigger than another fighter, and B, if they're doing standoff for some reason, anything below 4 kilotons doesn't really rate a torpedo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Nick Esasky posted:proposing to make half or more of the fleet hybrids IS basing the fleet entirely on them, as the fleets' behaviour will have to be dictated by their limitations. That is far too drastic a doctrinal change for a reason that should have little relevance for this generation of ships. Why is it that we didn't make hybrid cruisers before if it was such a good idea? The logic of "If it were a good idea, we'd already be doing it, so it must be poo poo" is the most hilariously realistic Bureaucrat thinking I've seen to date.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Ceebees posted:As to the resolution, res80 is optomized for 4000 ton (or larger) ships, which seems perfectly reasonable for a torpedo bomber. A, they're going to launch from about four inches away anyway, so they should be able to pick up anything bigger than another fighter, and B, if they're doing standoff for some reason, anything below 4 kilotons doesn't really rate a torpedo. That's about a "fighter," not a torpedo bomber. If it's meant to engage enemy fighters then yes, it needs significantly lower resolutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Fray posted:That's about a "fighter," not a torpedo bomber. If it's meant to engage enemy fighters then yes, it needs significantly lower resolutions. I do not think it is intended to splat other fighters with a WH14 torpedo. Although that would be pretty funny...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Ceebees posted:I do not think it is intended to splat other fighters with a WH14 torpedo. Look at the post again. This is regarding the fighter with S1 launchers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Ceebees posted:600,000km is not all that close, really, and isn't within PD range. Beam fire controls are the current cap on beam range. Those max out at around 300k, and also their accuracy degrades with range, so it's like a 40% shot at that distance. Of course, you still have something of a point - the purpose of a torpedo is to hit before (non CIWS) PD even gets a chance to fire. PD activates every 5-second tick, and you want a safety margin, so a 25000km/s torp's effective combat range is ~100k km. That means the bomber can be hit by laser PD, but the range of gauss is still down at like 10-20k km. Sorry, probably should've specified that I was mostly referring to AMM PD. But if the plan is to get that close, do we really need 8.8m km range on the MFC on the Tyrant? I mean there's future-proofing, and then there's "11x the range of the missile" future-proofing. Or is that purely a "even if they have ECM-5 or something, we'll still be able to get a lock at missile range" thing? And for that matter, if we're staying out of beam range, why are we doing electronic hardening on the MFC. That feels like a few extra BP we could save. Ceebees posted:As to the resolution, res80 is optomized for 4000 ton (or larger) ships, which seems perfectly reasonable for a torpedo bomber. A, they're going to launch from about four inches away anyway, so they should be able to pick up anything bigger than another fighter, and B, if they're doing standoff for some reason, anything below 4 kilotons doesn't really rate a torpedo. That was in reference to the Nemesis fighter, which is why I wrote it below a quote block containing the Nemesis fighter :-)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
I support hybrids. Especially thise which mount GSLoD systems. Someone design an F35 hybrid fighter for maximum cost plz.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Resupply in the colonies is also complicated by the whole "crew exposed to eldrich horrors when warping" thing, so in that regard hybrids are a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Nobody's designed a Microwave fighter yet, have they? Here's one from me:code:
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
One the whole I think 1B and 2A. The deeper magazines is more useful with the S3 than re-targeting ability I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Why can't there be an option 1C that has us pursuing a hybrid design for one or two classes, but continue also with specialization for the rest?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Leif. posted:Why can't there be an option 1C that has us pursuing a hybrid design for one or two classes, but continue also with specialization for the rest? That's what option 1A is. The question is "should we build hybrid ships at all", because there are a lot of people who say No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:That's what option 1A is. The question is "should we build hybrid ships at all", because there are a lot of people who say No. I don't see how you get that? The question was "Should we continue with specialized, or should we develop hybrids?" quote:1. Should we continue developing Specialized ASM Cruisers such as the Argyre, or should we develop a Hybrid Design that dedicates tonnage to include secondary beam weaponry? I guess I can see an argument that 1B really just means "one" hybrid design, but the way discussion has gone, it seems to be implying that 1A is "base entire fleet around specialized" and 1B is "base entire fleet around hybrids". I'm advocating for a 1C which is "Continue developing specialized ships, but add in one or two hybrid's for multirole/frigate work."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 19:15
|
|