2008-10-19, 10:47 | Link #1121 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
And how are you going to bend anything?
I mean, sure, if your ship is made out of black hole... or some kind of magical material that breaks the presently known laws of physics, you may yet get stealth. But at this point, we might as well posit the existence of super sayajin who'd outclass any kind of man made weapon. Or invest in Star Trek cloaking technology. Or some kind of FTL device (able to do what sci-fi writers often call "micro-jumps"). With those, you could conceivably get close to the enemy by surprise. But the problem with those things is that, presently, we don't even know the physical principles they'd be based on. So speculating about them is rather fruitless. |
2008-10-19, 10:52 | Link #1122 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Quote:
In short, the reasons for those other classes of naval vessels is due to vulnerabilities that battleships have, that space juggernauts don't have. Quote:
Quote:
Anh_Minh, there's a pretty easy way to find out if Tri-ring is wrong or not (in this case, I'm pretty sure he is). Just ask on wikipedia's science reference desk. They're a lot smarter than he is, and will be able to determine whether a hypervelocity tungsten slug fired at 9km/sec will be profoundly affected by Earth's pathetically weak electromagnetic field. |
|||
2008-10-19, 12:26 | Link #1123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Guess you've never heard of optical camouflage either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQal851U Never assume that the otherside will paint a bulleye on themselves. Never assume you got the perfect FCS because the otherside will constantly develop methods to circumvent it. What are current the currect detection systems? RADAR, Infrared, LIDAR ... ECM or even absorbent materials can ruin targeting systems. ECM attempts to reduce the information content of the signals the defense receives with its sensors. The objective of ECM, then, is to force defense systems to make mistakes or errors. Warfare detection and anti-detection technology isn't static it is a constant game of being ahead. |
2008-10-19, 13:16 | Link #1124 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
*shrugs* Full Metal Panic had a rather interesting solution in ECS (Electronic Camoflage System - yes, that is what it's called, don't ask me why), which used a holographic "laser screen" to mask the user mecha from radar, IR and optical sensors (electronic and Mk 1 Eyeball), essentially using the hologram to play with light and create a see-through image. It wasn't perfect though; the hologram tended to get disrupted by even the slightest impacts, making it useless in light rain and sandstorms, and ECS use could be detected by ECCS (Electronic Counter Camoflage System) due to certain characteristics of the system (I forget what, since it's a while since I've read FMP, but ECS puts out emissions of some sort which can be picked up by ECCS, which means that while using ECS means you're mostly undetectable to everyone else, the people with ECCS will be able to spot you and take you out).
Mind you, FMP admittedly ran on handwavium and applied phlebotium Also, it should be noted that in the context of Macross heat masking systems do exist, but are not perfect; the active stealth systems on the YF-19 and YF-21 worked to eliminate radar returns and reduce thermal signatures at range. (Close up, staring at the exhausts was a different matter entirely.)
__________________
|
2008-10-19, 13:37 | Link #1125 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2008-10-19, 13:53 | Link #1126 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
They will always find ways to stack the odds against detection systems. Vice-versa detection systems must cope with countermeasures. To be complacent is asking for a downfall. Never discount EW. That is why the AVF program in Macross Plus was made along with the vernier heavy unmanned AI Ghost X-9. To stay ahead of their opponents. |
|
2008-10-19, 14:19 | Link #1127 | ||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2008-10-19, 15:04 | Link #1128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Lol yea, optical camo is about as useful as windows on a submarine. There's nothing useful to see in space combat anyway. If for some stupid reason you had windows on your spaceship, and you looked in the direction of the enemy ship, all you would see is empty black space and stars. The ranges in space combat are exorbitant, especially when the ships are armed with weapons that hit at the speed of light. 1 light second = 299 792.458 kilometers. At 300k kilos, you won't see anything except with a telescope, and even then it's nothing particularly interesting.
|
2008-10-19, 15:12 | Link #1129 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
Whoever said EW has to be subtle? Depending on the primary mission objective of course. There are many ways to frustrate detection systems. Like Transponders, a stored replica of the radar signal after it is triggered by the radar. The transmitted signal is made to resemble the radar signal as closely as possible. Also range deception. If a repeater were to simply retransmit the received pulse as soon as it was received, it would reinforce the return echo and would help rather than frustrate the radar.But if the received pulse (as opposed to the echo that returns to the radar) could be briefly sorted and then transmitted a short time interval later, the radar would first receive the weak natural echo-return followed by an identical but stronger pulse. If a repeater transmitted a series of time-displaced pulses, identical to the radar pulse, it could produce a series of spurious targets, each at different ranges. |
|
2008-10-19, 15:23 | Link #1130 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
And by the way, that kind of approach to "stealth" doesn't favor fighters, but big ships, with their longer ranged weapons, armor, and redundant sensors. |
|
2008-10-19, 15:41 | Link #1131 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
It is called Metamaterials. Look them up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial
They were announced this year as at least being able to bend light around an object. The scientist working on it believe it can and will be used as a "cloaking device" of sorts. This is not handwavem, this is a new technology. If such a material can be used to bend specific spectrums, it can make you effectively invisible. If the telescope has nothing to see, or not enough to see, you have defeated passive sensors.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2008-10-19 at 18:44. |
2008-10-19, 15:53 | Link #1132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
And big ships can't act as support to fighters?
Heck in the confusion a ship can launch fighters with strike packages. Thing is never rely on a machine to do the thinking for you. (FCS) The enemy will rely on strategy and battle tactics to achieve the primary and secondary objectives. |
2008-10-19, 19:34 | Link #1133 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
There are two reason for flux in the earth's magnetic field one concerns the dynamo theory and heat vortex within the earth's magnetic core which is way to out of topics here anyways but read here if you're interested.
The other is a feedback loop from solar winds. Since solar wind are not constant and are in constant flux the feed back will be also. Quote:
Try examining an electric generator. It's a coil of conductive material that spins around a magnet to create electricity. Once electrcity running within the coil it creates a magnetic field that is what a feed back loop is. As long as there is conductive material with velocity in a magnetic field it generates a charge. Quote:
As for launch, well if you launch the drones with a super conductor mass driver it produces little heat so it is likely that you will not get detected and I have from the start said the drones will be unmanned therefore there will be no life support. Now that I have cleared these question let me take you through a space battle scenario between two fleets, one fleet that has drones while the other does not. First of all we need to level the playing field by setting the range of infrared sensors and shooting range of primary weapons to be the same. There are four large ships within each fleet, the one with drones have a carrier, a battle crusier and two escorts(Team A). The other have two battle crusiers and two escorts(Team B). With limitation in space a carrier can only carry twenty drones and a hundred decoys. The drones have communications, navigational and, tactical computers with a railgun that fires one Kg slugs with 100 rounds as ammunition. Decoys are primarly a balloon with a reciever, navigational computer and thrusters. It also carries radar/heat chaff(Radioactive dust) that are released when destroyed. The rail gun within the drones is not enough to destroy a battle crusier but it will cripple it enough and badly damage an escort. The primary weapon of a battle cruiser is a hundred Kg railgun enough to destroy a battle crusier with one~two shot. Due to the spectrum, infrared sensor in long range can not identify individual ships within a fleet and will only see one big red blob unless one fires it's primary weapon which will light up as a spike to the sensors. The drones detection through infrared is limited further due to it's size. Both fleet detects each other at the same time. TeamB tries to narrow the distance so they can identify individual targets before they fire their primary weapon. TeamA on the other hand trys to evade the other fleet since they want to keep their only battle cruiser from being destroyed. TeamA launchs their drones and decoys in two~ three waves. TeamB visualizes the first wave and fires destroying mostly decoys. Now a curtain of chaff blinds each other's sensors. The drones and decoys moves in and the drones start shooting at TeamA. TeamA fights back releasing more chaff. One drone nestles away from the battle field and paints each indiviual ships and relys the coordinates back to TeamA. TeamA battle cruiser can now identify each target and shoot it's primary weapon without fear of being detected because of chaff interfereing TeamB sensors. TeamA destroys one battle cruiser and cripples the other. Last edited by Tri-ring; 2008-10-19 at 19:45. |
||
2008-10-19, 21:00 | Link #1135 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
More like stealth in space is impossible due to heat detection systems, unless someone figures out a way to jam those. In the real world it's impossible, but the active stealth system in Macross kills RCS and reduces heat sigs (albeit at a distance for the latter, which means that at dogfight range you're still going to have a sufficient heat sig for heatseekers to lock onto you).
Another option is something that the US Navy has considered and employed in the past, using antisensor weapons to kill the sensors of the enemy ship (HARM has been tested against ship-based threats), but the obvious conclusion there is that if you're going to carry a missile, you might as well carry a shipkiller and blow up the whole ship instead of just the sensors.
__________________
|
2008-10-19, 22:00 | Link #1136 |
Macross Lifer!
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
So wouldn't something like a flare work as anti thermal counter measure? For battle ships have something that could out put a large heat sig and basically "smear" the whole area with a thermal bloom.
Not a 100% counter measure, but if they're relying on heat seekers they'll be firing blinding into a huge blob signature rather than a distinct one. |
2008-10-19, 23:03 | Link #1137 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
What a minute. Stealth in space is impossible due to heat detection systems.
Heat detection systems I am aware of use the infrared spectrum to deturming how hot something is. A metamaterial designed to negate the infrared spectrum is used so that you don't effectively generate that spectrum towards your enemy. (I believe part of the term they use is "Negative refractive index") It does not erase your heat, it simply makes it so that spectrum is effectively cancelled from your location. Other spectrum may pass through, so you may actually be visable to light or x-rays or something else, but on infrared, you are a hole in space, or at least effectively heavily reduced from your normal "hot" self. They been doing experiment on this with the microwave spectrum already as well as the visible spectrum.
__________________
|
2008-10-20, 02:37 | Link #1138 | |||||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I'm against is tin cans with a couple of guys in it going against mastodontes. But whatever, let's go with your scenario. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, due to the movement they've made since the drones were released, the chaff may not be relevant either. And is it possible to mask exhaust with mere radioactive dust? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
2008-10-20, 05:49 | Link #1139 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for spinning a copper rod in the atmosphere, since I can't move it at mach 10~20 I wouldn't know the answer. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The distance between the sun and earth is approx. eight light minutes. roundtrip from earth to the moon is about one light second. Unless you have FtL traveling capabilities conventional weapons are useless in those distances. Quote:
Quote:
Even with sensors, if the missles loses contact and not able to reinitiate contact then they are useless. A chaff curtain can give a fleet time to move it's position while they are hidden behind it. |
|||||||
2008-10-20, 06:55 | Link #1140 | |||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Note, there's no real range limit on weapons. If you shoot them, they'll just keep going till they hit something. It's just near impossible to aim. That's why I don't see railguns as a primary weapon. You'll want one that's smart enough to make course corrections. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
|
|