View Thread
Page 1 of 2: 12
|
 Anti-DEW DFG Proposal
|
|
| MarieHawke |
Posted on 17-09-2005 07:12
|
 Posts: 501 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Defense Field Generators have been mounted on about every Hiigaran ship of the Fourth and Fifth Generation. Unfortunately, they are only effective against physical weapons ? against beams, they are ineffective and do not do anything. The prospect of having an ion beam enter into a hyperspace window, moving through Sajuuk-knows-how-many dimensions, and exiting right behind the enemy Al-Khalid BV is a very tempting prospect ? unfortunately, we do not possess such technology. ...yet. But we do have an effective measure ? electromagnetic fields generators. These would be able to interfere with the ion beam's channeling magnetic field ? that's what ion beams are ? and effectively scattering the ions into multiple directions, harmlessly and almost effortlessly. The downside? Radio frequency emitters, such as shortwave and RADAR setups, would no longer work. That is a double-edged sword ? it minimizes the RADAR cross-section of the ship as well, and scrambles enemy datalinks. We can get around that by using light-based communications ? Morse corde, direct-link fiber-optic cables ? and by using LIDAR technology for sensor readouts. Comments? -Daniel Hawking |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 17-09-2005 10:35
|
 Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
You can use DEW and the RADAR technology of even 1G vessels around exploding capital ships without a noticeable loss of efficiency. This suggests that they're already of a nature that can preserve a coherent particle stream in a chaotic EM environment. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 17-09-2005 15:29
|
 Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
This has been discussed to death, and IIRC the conclusion was that it would take immensely strong generators to have any noticable effect, probably expending more energy than it took to fire the incoming energetic ion stream in the first place. We couldn't make EMF generators believable, so we came up with something else. |
|
|
|
| MarieHawke |
Posted on 17-09-2005 20:20
|
|
Posts: 501 Joined: September 02 2005 |
It doesn't need to be that much of a disruption - the magnetic containment field for the ion beam needs to be barely affected. The easiest way to do this, of course, is to generate a field at the same polarity as the ion beam's containment field. And what would the "something else" be? |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 17-09-2005 23:34
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
As I understand it an ion cannon is basically a very powerful particle accelerator that takes a steam of ions up to relativistic velocities and then magnetically focuses them onto the hull of an enemy vessel. This would place the magnetic containment field in or directly in front of (as per the ion platforms) the firing mechanism of the weapon rather than extending it across intervening space between the target and the firing vessel. |
|
|
|
| MarieHawke |
Posted on 18-09-2005 00:08
|
|
Posts: 501 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Then that way, it's even easier to disrupt the ions in flight - if they're essentially unguided, then it's even easier afterwards to deflect said weaponry. |
|
|
|
| BigFish |
Posted on 18-09-2005 00:46
|
|
Posts: 106 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Quote it's even easier to disrupt the ions in flight It stands to reason that if magnetic field (or some other field) is being used to focus an ionstream then the same field can be used to disrupt the flow. However, the mechanincs for this may be akin to trying to stop a rifle bullet with another rifle bullet (see the plasma weapon thread on the old PDS thread for that argument in full) and end up generally impractical (the energy needed to power a field capable of bending an ionstream off course or absorbing it, the computing power to calculate how to intercept a beam of particles traveling at near light speed, the possibility of bending the beam into a friendly ship, the sheer number of beams in PDS, etc). In my view (which is open to re-education if i get any of these facts wrong) is that your best defence is still decent hull plating. An armoured hull with emebedded heat and energy dispersion conduits, a mirrored lining (on the inside so not to make ships look like mirror balls) to reflect heat, sacrificial ablative plates, ballisitic active defence and a volitising outer layer (basically, cheap and nasty paint filled with ceramic powder - when energy weapons hit it the paint vaporises and absorbs the energy sheilding the hull behind it while the ceramic powder defracts and reflects some of the beams energy away). Most of this defence is passive and requires very little intervention to work effectivly and some of it will happen the instant the beam hits so no slow human reaction times to interfere with it. my 2C - full time fluffers feel free to disagree if you want  I should cut down on the bracket use as well |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 18-09-2005 06:02
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
I've surmised in fiction that EM shields would only be feasible in defending planetary cities and key infrastructure based on the power necessary to counter energy weaponry of warship scale as mentioned above. As such the "shield" won't magically stop any energy weapon but rather dissipate its effect somewhat. Basically halves damage done to surface targets and spreads out its effect so hardened structures can survive them. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 18-09-2005 08:59
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote DanielHawking wrote: Then that way, it's even easier to disrupt the ions in flight - if they're essentially unguided, then it's even easier afterwards to deflect said weaponry. I rather suspect the technology level for both the Higarans and the Vaygr has evolved to include capacitors. You see an EM shield has to be constantly on, otherwise you've not got a chance of disrupting a beam travelling at relativistic velocities, by the time you'd seen it it would already have hit you. What this means is that a DEW which can release its power in a burst, (either near instantaneously or in a protracted manner,) will almost always have sufficient power to overcome the disruptive effect of the EM field in the distance it has to cover from the emitter to the target. (It won't have time to be defocused) However, to judge the resistance of these beams to EM fields we may look at a typical battle space scenario: We have exploding capital ships and nuclear weapons being detonated like candy scattered by a careless god, DEWs flicking between all scales of ships, drive plumes pouring into space -- and yet the DEWs of the time are not disrupted by what would surely be a very chaotic EM environment. When you can fire through that sort of thing what is, even by comparison to the power taken to fire the weapon, a very weak EM field, is going to be of negligible importance. Edited by Nemmerle on 18-09-2005 09:00 |
|
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 18-09-2005 20:26
|
 Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
And then of course there's the obvious countermeasure of using neutral particle weapons. EM field isn't goin to be able to repel those.
If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| Thorin |
Posted on 18-09-2005 22:45
|
 Posts: 414 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Neutral particle weapons can't hold a charge, and thus cannot hold heat very well. As well, a strong EM field would only fare well as a defensive platform. A field strong enough on such a small level will cause fire from the platform to malfunction on the account of the field. The principle of the field is not that it deflects particles, but rather traps them in loops, scattering and greatly reducing the amount that gets through. That's how the ionosphere Earth has works. Negligable effect on kinetic weapons, though. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 19-09-2005 00:53
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
That would be the reason why Daniel and I point out that this is intended as complementary particle beam defense to existing active ballistic defense systems. |
|
|
|
| CIWS |
Posted on 19-09-2005 02:30
|
|
Posts: 54 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Just wondering, what scale ship can mount them? Varying grades for various scale vessels? (i.e. a field generator mounted on a frigate will do fine against pulsars but point something like a PoH's main ion turret at it and *ZAP*).
If the fireball can't be seen from orbit you obviously aren't trying hard enough.
There is no 'overkill' only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload'. -Schlock Mercenary |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 19-09-2005 03:26
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
Thought these were only for planetary defense? Not sure. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 19-09-2005 04:38
|
|
Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
The refined system concept posted by Nemmerle would be good enough for limited scale point defense. Much more practical than my planetary "shield generator" concept. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 19-09-2005 11:34
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
I interpreted his post such that a meaningfully protective EM field is just not going to happen since the DEW are demonstratably capable of maintaining particle beam cohesiveness in a chaotic electromagnetic environment. |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 19-09-2005 12:01
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
Quote Glacialis wrote: I interpreted his post such that a meaningfully protective EM field is just not going to happen since the DEW are demonstratably capable of maintaining particle beam cohesiveness in a chaotic electromagnetic environment. That's the way I interpreted it too. |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 19-09-2005 13:56
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
You know, now that I think about it...what about a limited duration protective EMF? Minute or so? If there are powerful enough capacitors, it can work. Tactical hyperspace jumps cost RUs. Is it possible that activating an ability such as a localized protective EMF could cost RUs? |
|
|
|
| Nemmerle |
Posted on 19-09-2005 14:23
|
|
Posts: 113 Joined: September 16 2005 |
I don't think the the particle weapons are really susceptible to EM interference at all. If they were then the energy released by multiple exploding warship reactors, (which is probably greater than the amount you could fit in a capacitor anyway,) would surely be enough to mess them up a little bit. However assuming they are the problem as I see it is really two fold: Energy density and reaction time. Now for the energy density there's the problem that if you have those kinds of capacitors you're going to be using them with your weapons array as well. And as the weapons array releases its energy in a burst that is much shorter than a minute it's going to have much greater force than the EM field. The smaller amount of time you have the EM field release its energy over the more powerful it's going to be, but in order to achieve anything like the energy density required you're going to need it to be released over a fraction of a second. Which leads us to the second part of the problem, namely reaction time, and in specific to the question 'which fraction?' You cant just flick it on and off to stop incoming beams because they're travelling so fast by the time you've seen it coming its already hit you. It doesn't seem possible to achieve the level of energy density required to disrupt the beam sufficiently and at the same time to be able to keep it up for long enough to provide a defence capable of interrupting the beam in the first place. Edited by Nemmerle on 19-09-2005 14:26 |
|
|
|
| Glacialis |
Posted on 19-09-2005 20:26
|
|
Posts: 368 Joined: September 02 2005 |
So we're back to planetary defense field only. Got it. |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2: 12
| Jump to Forum |