Technology Stats Help

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1282828973' post='2431719']
Just use missiles. It's cheaper in the long run.
[/quote]
I prefer torpedoes. Today's torpedoes are usually one shot, one kill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg

Edited August 26, 2010 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[The FSM]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1282826541' post='2431702']
Bay class heavy battleships:

Waterline length: 384 meters

Total length: 394.5 meters

Beam: 54.9 meters

Draft: 13 meters

Draft (fully loaded): 15.47 meters

Displacements (without ammo): 84,535.1 tons

Max displacements: 100,785.795 tons
--------
Power systems: Two nuclear reactors (produce a total max of 240 MW, 328 421.052 shp), two steam turbines. If all four rail guns are firing, then the entire electrical system is shut down to provide enough power for the four rail guns. All electronic devices except for the engines have small lithium-ion polymer batteries attached that will last up to 8 hours.


But when you are fighting against other ships, they can shoot you far outside of your 16 inch gun's range.
[/quote]


Gun's are largely obsolete in naval warfare apart from shore bombardment purposes. Even the use of railguns at extended range are fairly limited in effectiveness if the opposing fleet knows you have them and is executing evasive maneuvers. As for the point about artillery shells being harder to defend against than missiles, Active Defense Systems on many modern MBT's are designed to defend against tank and artillery shells.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' timestamp='1282850643' post='2431948']
Gun's are largely obsolete in naval warfare apart from shore bombardment purposes. Even the use of railguns at extended range are fairly limited in effectiveness if the opposing fleet knows you have them and is executing evasive maneuvers.
[/quote]
True, but a single railgun shell could tear through even the heavily armored Bay class battleships themselves. I planned on using the railguns to pick off enemy aircraft carriers and battleships if they get close enough, knowing that there is no defense against railgun shells other than outrageous amount of armoring or a lucky counter-railgun shell.

Railguns are fairly accurate if the enemy ships are close enough and that you have a way to constantly track their movements. Many medium anti-ship missiles have limited range, potentially within a railgun's range.

Edited August 27, 2010 by HHAYD

[Zoot Zoot]

Personally, as we dont live in the age of sail, or the age of the big gun battleships, battleships themselves are obselete unless heavily modified or specially constructed for modern fast attacking warfare.

Railguns are pretty much only good for bombardment of static targets, and you dont need to be in the LOS for most modern weapon systems.
You can launch a tomohawk ASM from 1200 miles away if you have a satellite giving you targetting data.

Almost every modern naval weapon system is an over the horizon system, you can pick it up on radar before its with two days of your line of sight and kill it.

Just my two cents, might be wrong, probably am, slight chance im not.

[The FSM]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1282874909' post='2432298']
Personally, as we dont live in the age of sail, or the age of the big gun battleships, battleships themselves are obselete unless heavily modified or specially constructed for modern fast attacking warfare.

Railguns are pretty much only good for bombardment of static targets, and you dont need to be in the LOS for most modern weapon systems.
You can launch a tomohawk ASM from 1200 miles away if you have a satellite giving you targetting data.

Almost every modern naval weapon system is an over the horizon system, you can pick it up on radar before its with two days of your line of sight and kill it.

Just my two cents, might be wrong, probably am, slight chance im not.
[/quote]


I agree with you zoot.

[Kankou]

[quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1282830571' post='2431725']
I prefer torpedoes. Today's torpedoes are usually one shot, one kill.
[/quote]

When the ship isn't trying to escape or fire back.

[Zoot Zoot]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1282998629' post='2433794']
When the ship isn't trying to escape or fire back.
[/quote]


No they are still usually one shot one kill.
Especially now that almost all torpedos are homing torpedos such as the MK48 ADCAP.

[Kankou]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1282788748' post='2431429']
But artillery shells are cheaper (an average cost for standard anti-ship missiles are in the few hundred thousands), and they can not be intercepted. Especially when you are going up against someone who has more tech, larger air force, and had his/her ships stocked with anti-missile defenses.
[/quote]

Believe it or not, naval shells can be intercepted by AAMs, especially the old battleship ones.



[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1282998725' post='2433795']
No they are still usually one shot one kill.
Especially now that almost all torpedos are homing torpedos such as the MK48 ADCAP.
[/quote]

Not going to even go into how for all the homing technology, they usually don't work really well against modern navies with jammers, etc. You need to guide it with optical cables to have that much accuracy.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Kankou

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1282998794' post='2433796']
Not going to even go into how for all the homing technology, they usually don't work really well against modern navies with jammers, etc. You need to guide it with optical cables to have that much accuracy.
[/quote]
Submarines are usually meant to not be discovered for a reason...they have anti-detection systems as well as detection systems, so really jammers are moot. Unless you know the submarine is there (which, if the submarine crew is well trained, you won't) then you have no need to keep the jammers on, wasting power for an enemy that as far as you know isn't there.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1282999679' post='2433804']
Submarines are usually meant to not be discovered for a reason...they have anti-detection systems as well as detection systems, so really jammers are moot. Unless you know the submarine is there (which, if the submarine crew is well trained, you won't) then you have no need to keep the jammers on, wasting power for an enemy that as far as you know isn't there.
[/quote]


Jammers in this context are acoustic decoys which are used to fool torpedoes. Acoustic homing torpedoes are easily fooled, so this "one-shot one-kill" nonsense is just too far from the truth. Now, if the torpedo actually gets near a ship and explodes, it will almost always kill, but getting to the target itself is too difficult a process to merit "one-shot".

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1283000198' post='2433808']
Jammers in this context are acoustic decoys which are used to fool torpedoes. Acoustic homing torpedoes are easily fooled, so this "one-shot one-kill" nonsense is just too far from the truth. Now, if the torpedo actually gets near a ship and explodes, it will almost always kill, but getting to the target itself is too difficult a process to merit "one-shot".
[/quote]
And plus, there is an ongoing development of anti-torpedo torpedoes. That would require larger numbers of torpedoes or more advanced (and usually more expensive) torpedoes to sink the ship.

[Zoot Zoot]

As stated, do some research into the MK48 ADCAP torpedo.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1283005170' post='2433839']
As stated, do some research into the MK48 ADCAP torpedo.
[/quote]

And as stated, not even your beloved MK48 ADCAP is accurate enough for a one-shot unless it is guided by wires from the sub. Why do I get the feeling you don't know much about submarine warfare?

[Zoot Zoot]

Where do I get the feeling your being patronising and missing my point?

Those wires extend for miles and miles and miles.
Given that torpedos are faster than near enough every modern warship worth its salt, it trying to escape is not an issue.
If the sub has the drop on it, the ship has no reason to launch counter measures etc etc.

Now tbh, a hunter killer sub is usually close enough for the weapon its shooting to not miss, and its usually close enough for the warship to not have tim eto deploy countermeasures that will work.

If the torpedo is still on its wires then counter measures wont work.
If the Torpedo isnt on its wires, but has all the targetting data it needs from the submarine and all its electronics which are always picking up data independantly, theres a hairline chance a counter measure will work against the weapon.

So please, dont be a dick Kankou, if your gonna say stuff, back it up with evidence instead of being patronising.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1283041698' post='2434328']If the torpedo is still on its wires then counter measures wont work.
If the Torpedo isnt on its wires, but has all the targetting data it needs from the submarine and all its electronics which are always picking up data independantly, theres a hairline chance a counter measure will work against the weapon.[/quote]

Seems like you're the one missing the point.

Yes, the guiding wires to extend the whole range of the torpedo, but what you missed is that those wires are very weak in the context of the underwater environment. Unless you're in the perfect condition, it is near impossible for the connection to hold all the war to target, especially if the target is throwing depth charges at you. Just because something is faster doesn't mean the target does nothing, since it's actually easier to target the torpedo than the sub.

At the same time, it takes time for the torpedo to reach its full speed, and even when the torp is going at say 20 knots, it's loud enough to be heard by any fool with a military-class listening device. This means that if the submarine was close enough to get a clear shot in the first place, the torp would never be able to move faster than the ship, while in the case of the MK48, you have to FORCE it out of the tube for it to start running, which in itself makes enough noice to be heard at the distance you're talking about.


I could go on and on, but I'll finish up with the summary of the reply to the quote above: If the torpedo is on wires, the countermeasures might not work, but the sub is at great risk of exposing its location, meaning even if it does sink the ship, it'll be a sitting duck. If the torpedo is not on wires, the current technology does not give enough counter-countermeasurements for the torp to not be fooled by decoys and jammers, while at the same time if it starts moving faster than the ship it would give its location away.

All in all, "one-shot one-kill" is only a pipe dream most of the time. You'll need "several-shot one-kill" for it to work.


[quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1283041698' post='2434328']So please, dont be a dick Kankou, if your gonna say stuff, back it up with evidence instead of being patronising.
[/quote]

It's impossible for me to be a dick for several reasons.

[HHAYD]

EDIT: Nevermind

Edited September 4, 2010 by HHAYD

[HHAYD]

What type of wing should I use if I wanted a supersonic (Mach 5.7) aircraft that is also highly maneuverable (above 10 G) at high speed? Swept backward/forward, Delta, Trapezoidal, a combo of the wings, or another type of wing that I didn't list?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286034587' post='2472223']
What type of wing should I use if I wanted a supersonic (Mach 5.7) aircraft that is also highly maneuverable (above 10 G) at high speed? Swept backward/forward, Delta, Trapezoidal, a combo of the wings, or another type of wing that I didn't list?
[/quote]

If you want an aircraft that is highly maneuverable at speeds above 5.7 Mach and to have an aviator being coherent and functional in combat at 10G you would need technologies that currently only aliens possess and you would need to get those very same aliens to fly them for you. It is not possible.

It could be Mach 5.7, theoretically, with some of the more advanced engines that are conceptual now, but those will disintegrate if you attempt to do even a 10 degree of maneuvers. The problem would be to find materials capable of withstanding that amount of force as well as airframes capable of suffering that much of momentum. As far as G is concerned, I doubt human beings can be alive at 10G let alone be functional enough to be a combat aviator.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1286034934' post='2472232']
If you want an aircraft that is highly maneuverable at speeds above 5.7 Mach and to have an aviator being coherent and functional in combat at 10G you would need technologies that currently only aliens possess and you would need to get those very same aliens to fly them for you. It is not possible.

It could be Mach 5.7, theoretically, with some of the more advanced engines that are conceptual now, but those will disintegrate if you attempt to do even a 10 degree of maneuvers. The problem would be to find materials capable of withstanding that amount of force as well as airframes capable of suffering that much of momentum. As far as G is concerned, I doubt human beings can be alive at 10G let alone be functional enough to be a combat aviator.
[/quote]
I don't plan on using humans to pilot the aircraft, because it will be automated. Give the computer basic info such as how to pilot the aircraft, threat perception, what to do during combat, not shooting at allies, etc, and then program it to do whatever it wishes as long as it accomplishes one simple command: Kill every last detected enemy aircraft with minimum amount of casualties.

Then cram it full with state-of-the-art hardware (including prototypes that have been proven to work and be able to be mass produced), insane amount of encryption, counter-hacking, and etc within the year 2020 limits. A human can only handle 5G, but a computer that is ruggized, enclosed in a protective shell, and well anchored, a lot higher G. Enemy aircraft piloted by humans with superior tech would take heavy losses if they try to use certain tactics against the automated aircraft, but would still dominate if they can find and exploit the automated aircraft's weakness(es).

To make it fair, I decided to have the automated aircraft to be 25% size of the F-22 (lightly armed due to less ammunition storage) or cut down the amount of aircraft I am allowed to have from 60 squadrons to 20 squadrons simply because a state-of-the-art processor/RAM/hard drive/circuit board/wireless transmitters/etc would cost enormous amount of money.

Anyways, what types of wings should I use that would give the aircraft max maneuverability?

Edited October 2, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

If you are using an unmanned aircraft, the restrictions on G would not matter, but the restrictions on maneuverability at high speeds would still remain.

Anyhow, a reverse swept wing would be pretty good. Again you may not be able to make it very maneuverable at higher Mach speeds.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1286043610' post='2472349']
If you are using an unmanned aircraft, the restrictions on G would not matter, but the restrictions on maneuverability at high speeds would still remain.

Anyhow, a reverse swept wing would be pretty good. Again you may not be able to make it very maneuverable at higher Mach speeds.
[/quote]
Would adding thrust vectoring to the jet engines would be feasible?

[Sargun II]

You will not be able to have an automated plane by 2020. Make it piloted by someone sitting down with a joystick, etc.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1286064014' post='2472594']
You will not be able to have an automated plane by 2020. Make it piloted by someone sitting down with a joystick, etc.
[/quote]
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/mod-unveils-autonomous-unmanned-military-aircraft/1003572.article

[quote]Referred to as an ’unmanned combat air vehicle’ (UCAV), Taranis has the ability to take off and fly a pre-programmed mission to as far away as another continent, as well as to identify targets and request permission to attack them, [b]all without human intervention.[/b][/quote]
Remove the need to request permission and order it to stay in a certain area.

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1091013122210.html
[quote]MANTIS is a fully autonomous next generation unmanned aircraft system. It can execute its mission with a much reduced need for human intervention by [b]understanding and reacting to its environment[/b]. Such autonomy increases operational effectiveness allowing more focus on the mission without the usual concerns over vehicle control. It also reduces manpower requirements and the risk of accidents due to human error and the communications/data link requirements between the vehicle and the ground.[/quote]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306
[quote]With all the hardware and enthusiastic attendees, it's easy to overlook a missing guest--the U.S. Air Force. Of all the advanced aircraft on the flight line, none is being developed for Air Force programs [b]or is controlled by the service's airmen[/b].[/quote]

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4193/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Phantom_Ray

Automated aircraft is possible, but its just that many people are hesitant to give computers unrestricted ability to carry out the missions. A rogue automated aircraft is the last thing a military wants.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1286065861' post='2472623']
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/mod-unveils-autonomous-unmanned-military-aircraft/1003572.article


Remove the need to request permission and order it to stay in a certain area.

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_1091013122210.html


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/military/4347306


http://www.gizmag.com/go/4193/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Phantom_Ray

Automated aircraft is possible, but its just that many people are hesitant to give computers unrestricted ability to carry out the missions. A rogue automated aircraft is the last thing a military wants.
[/quote]

Automated fighters able to best or compete with a human pilot are highly unlikely before 2020 though.

Edited October 3, 2010 by iKrolm

[HHAYD]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1286069163' post='2472646']
Automated fighters able to best or compete with a human pilot are highly unlikely before 2020 though.
[/quote]
Is it because of limitation in computing power?