Starship weapons questions
- Thread starter JAFARR
- Start date
Paul,
Actually, it's already in your Traveller universe. You're forgetting about attenuation...
Look at what extreme range is for the fusion gun in Striker; 134 kilometers. That's just over a hundredth of a single Mayday hex and a fusion gun can fire across 5 Mayday hexes.
If the fusion gun's penetration drops from 20,000 cm to 500 cm after just 100 kilometers, what sort of drop off would you expect after 10,000 kilometers?
Regards,
Bill
does it drop off as much in vacuum?
Hi
Hi,
Hope this isn't getting too far off track, but technically, I do not belive the quote above is fully true. Specifically, here is a link to the entry for the Chinese C602 anti-ship missile from The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems which suggests that it has an "armor-piercing blast" warhead which the author suggests is likely a "hybrid shaped-charge/blast device". In addition a quick search of the internet suggests that other anti-ship missiles, like the MM40 Block 3 Exocet and the C-602 may also have either "shaped charge" or "semi-armor piercing" warheads.
Additionally, in Norman friedman's book US Aircraft Carriers in discussions on an attempted small aircraft carrier design from the 1970's called the CVV he notes that;
"The CVV was the first U.S. carrier designto incorporate a new type of magazine protection intended to specifically defeat the cruise missile with its shaped-charge warhead."
As for firing a Traveller type missile while inside a bay, I guess one issue to consider might involve what type propellent the missile uses and whether it might add to the damage caused by the missile warhead detonation.
Anyway just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
Hi,
Hope this isn't getting too far off track, but technically, I do not belive the quote above is fully true. Specifically, here is a link to the entry for the Chinese C602 anti-ship missile from The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems which suggests that it has an "armor-piercing blast" warhead which the author suggests is likely a "hybrid shaped-charge/blast device". In addition a quick search of the internet suggests that other anti-ship missiles, like the MM40 Block 3 Exocet and the C-602 may also have either "shaped charge" or "semi-armor piercing" warheads.
Additionally, in Norman friedman's book US Aircraft Carriers in discussions on an attempted small aircraft carrier design from the 1970's called the CVV he notes that;
"The CVV was the first U.S. carrier designto incorporate a new type of magazine protection intended to specifically defeat the cruise missile with its shaped-charge warhead."
As for firing a Traveller type missile while inside a bay, I guess one issue to consider might involve what type propellent the missile uses and whether it might add to the damage caused by the missile warhead detonation.
Anyway just some thoughts.
Regards
PF
Coliver988,
Why shouldn't it? Lasers attenuate in a vacuum.
Look at the scale involved too. The fusion gun's penetration at 134km drops to a fortieth of what it was at 34km. Now an atmosphere does have a greater effect on attenuation than vacuum, but Striker's extreme range is ~0.00335 of HG2's extreme range.
Regards,
Bill
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I stand corrected, then. It may be true that some modern antiship missiles have some armor piercing capability. But given that modern warships are relatively unarmored (compared to WWII ships), the armor piercing capability should be fairly modest.
And these are FAR larger weapons than the typical Traveller missile. The Harpoon, a relative modest sized weapon has a ~250kg warhead. A typical Traveller missile has about a 3 kg warhead. A 3kg shaped charge warhead would do very little damage to a ship unless it struck a highly vulnerable point. So at the end of the day, my point remains.
I've also decided that the main source of damage from a Traveller missile is kinetic energy from the shrapnel (see my post above where I calculated that a missile travelling for 3 turns at 6G would have 324 times the impact of a 120mm TL8 tank round).
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I'd imagine that at HG engagement ranges, a Fusion/Plasma Gun would at most be at extreme range for penetration. Of course, their incredible lethality at point blank range would make it suicidal to let a ship armed with such weapons into your docking bay.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Well, not necessarily. If the ship's hull is steel, then yes, 200m. If it's TL14-15 Bonded Superdense armor, then it's more like 14.28m.
But that *is* at point blank range (in starship combat terms).
I believe, that as a technicality, shaped-charge weapons are not actually classified as "armor piercing". Certainly they defeat the armor and achieve penetration, but they don't pierce the armor and cause damage by the transfer of kinetic energy, like an AP round.
It's an OCD distinction, but since we're going "technical"....
And, as I recall someone mentioning, modern warships are not armored in the meaningful sense of the word. If I don't miss my recollection, the HMS Suffolk was sunk by an Exocet missile in the Falkland Islands conflict; the missile passed through the hull and exploded inside the ship because it didn't fuse upon initial impact because the "armor" was not of sufficient strength to do so.
Last edited:
My unqualified punt would be that it drops off due to the time it takes to cover the distance.
Let's see, blackbody radiative cooling, and spread, tho' "plasma skin effect" may actually hold it to a relatively coherent blob....
It's a fair bet that it's considerably larger at target than at source... and relative velocity has to be bloody high, or a hit is nigh impossible. So think of it as a semi-coherent "low velocity particle beam" with massive splash. It will hit, transfer much of the momentum, some of the heat, some of the ionization, make a big splash, probably fry the paint.... and spall several dozen square meters of surface off due to rapid heating causing thermal expansion. If that's a thin skin it hits, odds are it's no longer functional, spalling off around the rivets or welds, which are effectively conductive heat sinks.
Yes, that's plenty of damage, but it's also presuming a short splash. If it's more like 2-3 sec of impact, that's likely to spall thick armor, and render thin armor into explosive decompression as the thermal expansion, intenral pressure and melting proceed to open a several dozen square meter hole...
It's a fair bet that it's considerably larger at target than at source... and relative velocity has to be bloody high, or a hit is nigh impossible. So think of it as a semi-coherent "low velocity particle beam" with massive splash. It will hit, transfer much of the momentum, some of the heat, some of the ionization, make a big splash, probably fry the paint.... and spall several dozen square meters of surface off due to rapid heating causing thermal expansion. If that's a thin skin it hits, odds are it's no longer functional, spalling off around the rivets or welds, which are effectively conductive heat sinks.
Yes, that's plenty of damage, but it's also presuming a short splash. If it's more like 2-3 sec of impact, that's likely to spall thick armor, and render thin armor into explosive decompression as the thermal expansion, intenral pressure and melting proceed to open a several dozen square meter hole...
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I've been reading modern war stuff for ~30 years and I find that shaped charge weapons commonly referred to as "armor piercing" for the entirely reasonable reason that they are primarily used to defeat armor.
But you're right, it doesn't really pierce armor like kinetic energy rounds; it more or less burns through by creating a high speed jet of molten plasma (the liner material is very important to penetration -- steel, copper, tungsten, tantalum and now depleted uranium have been used). This jet burns through (the actual physics are far more complex) the armor and spalls (sprays) molten material through the interior of the tank. Highly effective against metal armor like steel or aluminum; far less effective against composite armor arrays, explosive reactive armor and/or spaced armors. Self Forged Penetrators are shaped charge rounds that have a different shaped liner that creates a cohesive "blob" that forms into a penetrator that will keep its cohesion far better than normal shaped charge rounds and therefore create a much larger hole, which dramatically increases damage (and allows for much larger standoff ranges); the tradeoff is significantly less total penetration. SFPs are more effective against armor designed to defeat shaped charges; they act similar to kinetic energy rounds.
Note that Striker calls them HEAP rounds -- high explosive armor piercing.
I generally refer to them as HEAT rounds -- high explosive anti-tank. But I still think that calling them "armor piercing" is reasonable.
Last edited:
Broke it in half to be precise.
OK, I concede the point. Now short of having a fighter blast away all turrets at point blank range, how can pirates temporally disable the turrets before putting the captured ship in the cargo bay? And I know that the Q ship has a popup fusion gun turret. Would this be detectable from close range by the pirates? I am assuming that the basic idea behind a popup is to hide it. Why else spend the extra money and hull space on it?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Tricky question, depends on a few more parameters being known and how far outside the box you want to allow things.
From a distance, perhaps by hacking the computer remotely and disabling the Target program. That's how I'd run it. If Virus could get in so could a hacker. The pirates would need some sophisticated gear to do it, and an ace hacker, but it would be doable imo. Presuming you require the comptuer and Target program to use the turrets.
From another ship close to the captured ship maybe a few spot welds on the turret itself so it can't be moved, though that still leaves you with it firing at where it's now fixed aiming at. Or possibly you could weld a cap on the end of each barrel and if they did try to fire it'd just blow the turret up. Instead of doing serious damage to your bay it does serious damage to their ship. Probably not what you as the pirate wants either.
In my opinion, no. As you say it's one of the points of going to the expense and trouble of making it a pop-up. A well designed pop-up turret will pass casual close (as in aboard the ship) inspection. It will easily pass remote scans. Again though, if they have a hacker and said hacker snoops a bit they may note the pop-up protocols. Though they shouldn't be too obvious either.
If the ship being captured has already conceded the battle, why not have a boarding party transfer over on a small craft to take control of the ship's bridge?
There's no point in resisting a small boarding party at that point, is there? And if they resist, blast em.
Pop-ups should undetectable to scans and surface visualizations.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I think that pirates would have to resort to ships' boats to send boarding parties and take possession of the captured ship.
Hi
Hi,
Sorry for getting off track again, but I believe that the ship in question was HMS Sheffield, not HMS Suffolk, and the accounts I've read don't mention the ship breaking in half, but rather that it succumbed to progressive flooding several days after being struck. Here are some links if anyone is interested.
Regards
PF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/falklands-conflict/the-loss-of-sheffield/
http://books.google.com/books?id=HV5s9lMliyEC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=hms+sheffield&source=bl&ots=OHd1tqgOBE&sig=Ph4GCbnrtYjlEEnXRlBffBMKCLc&hl=en&ei=SRLgSZTDJpvglQeyx_nfDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/boi_sheffield_covering_letter.pdf
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1982/jul/23/hms-sheffield
Hi,
Sorry for getting off track again, but I believe that the ship in question was HMS Sheffield, not HMS Suffolk, and the accounts I've read don't mention the ship breaking in half, but rather that it succumbed to progressive flooding several days after being struck. Here are some links if anyone is interested.
Regards
PF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/falklands-conflict/the-loss-of-sheffield/
http://books.google.com/books?id=HV5s9lMliyEC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=hms+sheffield&source=bl&ots=OHd1tqgOBE&sig=Ph4GCbnrtYjlEEnXRlBffBMKCLc&hl=en&ei=SRLgSZTDJpvglQeyx_nfDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
http://www.rna-10-area.net/files/boi_sheffield_covering_letter.pdf
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1982/jul/23/hms-sheffield
