Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Duckk » Fri May 30, 2014 6:24 am | |
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
J6P, Relax, knock it off with the rudeness, or you'll earn yourselves a vacation from the board.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Tenshinai » Fri May 30, 2014 6:14 pm | |
Tenshinai
Posts: 2893
|
This has nothing to do with perfection, but with physical limits that noone knows how to overcome(yet). The microfusion reactor for missiles has a minimum useful size. The laser heads have a minimum useful size. They´re already shaved down as far as anyone could figure out how to do it. I´m sure they will shrink. Eventually. In the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture, in due course. Sometime they certainly will, but right now, there does not seem to be anyone capable of doing that marvellous little feat. Because the mk-16 IS the already shrunken MDM. |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Relax » Fri May 30, 2014 7:41 pm | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
BuShips are capable of doing that marvelous little feat. It is an ongoing R&D line. Reality says so. One does not stop at the first iteration and 1st partial upgrade. The books say so as well. They already upgraded the missile throughput while keeping its dimensions and tonnage effectively the same. Micro fusion bottle technology is an ongoing R&D line as well. It is still in its infancy as a technology. It is based entirely on improved grav pinch. A slight improvement in grav pinch will either improve its efficiency allowing greater power throughput, incorporating higher acceleration, better ECM warheads, and longer drive run time if they can incorporate the improved impeller node technology from the EDM SDM MK-17( or was it 14?), or they are going to shrink the bottle and fuel carried requirements. Increased Grav pinch effects creating more forward radiation toward the laser head guarantees a higher destructive throughput. At this point, one can go any two directions. A smaller laser head and therefore a shorter less massive missile, or a higher throughput and more destructive missile. Or more numerous laser rods. So, 6-7 distinct avenues of improvement, nuclear device power/grav pinch, laser head length, laser head diameter, fusion bottle efficiency, fusion bottle diameter, impeller drive time, and impeller acceleration. 5 of which have all been steadily improving. 2 of which are brand new fairly major steps.(Less than 3-4 years old) All of which will lead to either a much nastier missile in the exact same tonnage, or a smaller less massive missile. Bureaucratic inertia, will probably go for nastier in same package until someone can come up with a white paper study of a much cheaper DDM missile and ship combination for routine patrol duties. A true DDM DD missile class. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Relax » Fri May 30, 2014 7:48 pm | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Oh, so calling someone arrogant, for slamming a poster who extrapolated using a major theme throughout the books(missile improvement) is being rude? Standing up for someone is never rude. Last I checked, SVW was the rude fellow. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Duckk » Fri May 30, 2014 8:04 pm | |
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
SWM didn't proclaim any assumptions as truth, merely to keep an open mind that no one knows. SWM didn't berate people, not call them names with his (her?) post. Yours did. As shown by your own statement, you are the one slamming on people. Hence my warning. -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by pokermind » Fri May 30, 2014 8:07 pm | |
pokermind
Posts: 4002
|
Hmm, did you mean SWM? What's with the new Industrial Strength Duckk? Did he change coffee brands from Caffeine free Weak Sister to Ultra Caffeine Content Tanzanian Wambo Bango? Or has the loss of Bu-Nine's Designated Adult released a Monster? The forum wants to know. Poker CPO Poker Mind and, Mangy Fur the Smart Alick Spacecat.
"Better to be hung for a hexapuma than a housecat," Com. Pang Yau-pau, ART. |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Duckk » Fri May 30, 2014 8:13 pm | |
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5718&p=143841 -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Relax » Fri May 30, 2014 10:46 pm | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Ah, so have to be snide, with plenty of innuendo. A spade is a spade no matter the flowery fluff surrounding it. It is no less rude. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by HungryKing » Fri May 30, 2014 11:23 pm | |
HungryKing
Posts: 369
|
As I recall, there was something about how the Mk-16's bottle was pushing hard against the limits of what is physically possible. Now this may or may not mean the theoretical limits, but it does mean that, barring a sudden massive breakthrough, the mk-16's plant is about as small as the RMN can design.
As for the missile's performance numbers, the improvements, save for the stronger focus array, already existed. The Mark 16 started out with the same attack package as the Mark 13, maybe somewhat improved, but pretty much the same one as Fearless used at Yeltsin, aside from the Ghost Rider systems (which probably included seekers). Is it at all surprising that when somebody actually designed an attack package for the Mark 16, what with the technological improvements, new design parameters (the long laserheads were apparently something the Manticoran Alliance had been considering for years) including some that were just ready to leave the lab, larger available volume, that there would not be major improvements over a design whose guts were around 27 years old?
|
Top |
Re: light ships number and type | |
---|---|
by Jonathan_S » Fri May 30, 2014 11:31 pm | |
Jonathan_S
Posts: 8803
|
First, was it confirmed somewhere that the microfusion was using the grav pinch technology, and not the laser confinement used by shuttles and pinnaces? (Because as far as I can recall starships used grav pinch plant but they weren't able to scale down to even pinnace size (and clearly scale poorly to LACs) - I'd be surprised if there was a breakthrough that let super small (yet efficient) version of that tech exist. Second, when I played with the drive run-time numbers for the Mk 16 [edit- ignore; I misremembered what I'd check and got this all wrong - Mk-16 stages definitely do not have the extended run time of a Mk-14's single stage] None of this precludes BuWeaps for further improvements. But I personally tend to doubt a major reduction in size is on the immediate horizon. (But that's more guessing from dramatic reasoning than particular insight into their tech R&D) Last edited by Jonathan_S on Sat May 31, 2014 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Top |