Looking for opinions on a point of mechanics

[mike wightman]

The bigger question is how they can convey enough energy to penetrate that distance.

Grav focussing was the TNE answer, in reality a laser would need a huge mirror/emitter and even then ranges much beyond a thousand km will suffer too much from diffraction to be useful - easier to use the grav focussing handwavium technobabble.

The even bigger question is where does all the waste heat they generate go?

 

[AndyW]

Using your light second model, the base plan is that the turret can fill the reaction area of the ships projected course + ~2-3 secs. to account for sensor lag and laser flight.

Therein lies the efficacy of evasive maneuvers. It also occurs to me that another benefit of sandcasters, in addition to diffusing lasers, is to confuse sensor locks.

 

[flykiller]

It also occurs to me that another benefit of sandcasters, in addition to diffusing lasers, is to confuse sensor locks.

that's probably the only way sand could work at all.

 

[whartung]

Therein lies the efficacy of evasive maneuvers. It also occurs to me that another benefit of sandcasters, in addition to diffusing lasers, is to confuse sensor locks.

it's all a matter of how good the tracking is, that is the tracking of the target in terms of its vector changes and how accurate it's reading them.

Have you ever seen video of the M-1 tank and its stabilized gun?

If you watch one, you notice how the tank moves under the gun. The tank rolls with the terrain, the suspension eats the bumps, but the gun, effectively, does not move. The system is actively reacting to and compensating for the vehicle movement.

Similarly, the Phalanx gun tracks the target, compensates for target speed and range, and tries to intersect it's "lead beam" of buwwets with the target. The CIWS does not do well in the post attack phase when missile tends to pop up and try to strike the target from above. The gross motion is just too great.

But up to that point, even with an evading target, the net motion to the gun isn't that much, and the gun can keep up.

Evasion is basically moving faster than the launcher can compensate. It's very difficult for a rifleman to move the gun back and forth at an evading target. "Serpentine, Shelly! Serpentine!"

But we're meaty things with limited response times plus laggy systems. Watch a baseball game. That's all these guys do, trying to connect with a moving target, and see how hard it is for them.

Machines, however, have much faster response times, much better ballistic computers, and, potentially even less lag in the system. Many have heard stories of jet fighters flying nap of the earth via computer control, and how rough the ride is -- much rougher than they can do themselves as pilots.

It's very hard to move something the size of a ship in with sub-second resolution. Airplanes are easier because of how little effort it take (tweak an aileron, let the atmosphere and innate velocity do the rest), whereas a ship needs to redirect thrust.

So, evasion will have limited effect with the small time windows presented contrasted to the resolution and in built reaction of the firing computers. They know how to "lead" the target, and if the tracking is good, they're always leading the target, even a shifting one.