PDA

View Full Version : Learning from Nature -- How to make 304 nuke missles more effective.



turbo1889
July 12th, 2007, 10:06 PM
Well I was looking through some of my stuff from college and cleaning and straightening today and happened to flip through one of my old Physics books and came across an interesting section in the fundamental fluid flow section.

Did you know that when a bird of pray ( Eagle, hawk, etc. ) makes a power dive down upon its prey it it does not fly straight at the intended target? Rather, it takes a corkscrew/spiral path towards the target. Why? Because of the way a birds eyes are mounted it has poor vision when looking directly ahead and better vision when looking to the side. So it has three choices, fly straight towards the target and have poor vision while doing so (not to smart), fly straight towards the target and turn its head to the side while doing so (massive increase in fluid drag), or take the siral path while keeping its prey in the forward corner of an eye and only have a 3% reduction in efficency compared to taking a straight path with straight head.

So, okay, the missles don't have any problems with seeing straight forward. But, when flying in a straight line towards their target they are pretty darn easy to intercept. So with only a 3% reduction in efficiency (time to target in the case of a missile) you can fly a corkscrew/spiral pattern instead making it much harder to shoot down the missle. Next have the radius and rotational speed of the spiral pattern determined by a randomly generated wave form and you have something pretty darn hard to shoot down.

Hell, with only a 3% reduction in efficiency it should at least be worth a try.

Come to think of it, for at least the first time we saw them in action from the Antartic Outpost against Anubis fleet the drones seemed to fly a randomized corkscrew/spiral pattern in a solid stream up towards the fleet.

Vala_M
July 13th, 2007, 05:52 AM
Good point, but missiles aren't that effective anyway.

Vala,

Einherjar
July 13th, 2007, 06:03 AM
Well I was looking through some of my stuff from college and cleaning and straightening today and happened to flip through one of my old Physics books and came across an interesting section in the fundamental fluid flow section.

Did you know that when a bird of pray ( Eagle, hawk, etc. ) makes a power dive down upon its prey it it does not fly straight at the intended target? Rather, it takes a corkscrew/spiral path towards the target. Why? Because of the way a birds eyes are mounted it has poor vision when looking directly ahead and better vision when looking to the side. So it has three choices, fly straight towards the target and have poor vision while doing so (not to smart), fly straight towards the target and turn its head to the side while doing so (massive increase in fluid drag), or take the siral path while keeping its prey in the forward corner of an eye and only have a 3% reduction in efficency compared to taking a straight path with straight head.

So, okay, the missles don't have any problems with seeing straight forward. But, when flying in a straight line towards their target they are pretty darn easy to intercept. So with only a 3% reduction in efficiency (time to target in the case of a missile) you can fly a corkscrew/spiral pattern instead making it much harder to shoot down the missle. Next have the radius and rotational speed of the spiral pattern determined by a randomly generated wave form and you have something pretty darn hard to shoot down.

Hell, with only a 3% reduction in efficiency it should at least be worth a try.

Come to think of it, for at least the first time we saw them in action from the Antartic Outpost against Anubis fleet the drones seemed to fly a randomized corkscrew/spiral pattern in a solid stream up towards the fleet.

Ok using real world physics, the reason missiles travel in a straight trajectory is that it is more fuel effective. In a corkscrew the missile will burn off a higher fuel load (not good when they have to get somewhere). Thats why in SGA they travel straight.

marty2006
July 13th, 2007, 06:07 AM
Well bullets spiral.

ARMS
July 13th, 2007, 07:20 AM
Well bullets spiral.
really? :lol:

jds1982
July 13th, 2007, 07:22 AM
Well bullets spiral.

No they spin.

Jimbo-DR
July 13th, 2007, 08:21 AM
LOL yea bullets spin to KEEP them flying in a straight line, they don't spiral on their way to the target.

And despite the fuel expenditures, I like this idea. Our nukes can be very effective against Hives as we've already seen, it would only take 1 or 2 in the right place to destroy one. That would be a huge advantage compared to only having railguns.

jds1982
July 13th, 2007, 10:48 AM
LOL yea bullets spin to KEEP them flying in a straight line, they don't spiral on their way to the target.

And despite the fuel expenditures, I like this idea. Our nukes can be very effective against Hives as we've already seen, it would only take 1 or 2 in the right place to destroy one. That would be a huge advantage compared to only having railguns.

Well cartoon bullets might spiral.

If they put inertial dampeners on the missiles, which we saw they could do in Ethon, the fuel expenditure wouldn't be that bad.

ManiacMike
July 13th, 2007, 11:06 AM
LOL yea bullets spin to KEEP them flying in a straight line, they don't spiral on their way to the target.

And despite the fuel expenditures, I like this idea. Our nukes can be very effective against Hives as we've already seen, it would only take 1 or 2 in the right place to destroy one. That would be a huge advantage compared to only having railguns.

nukes only beamed inside can be very effective.

nukes hitting from missiles at most would severely cripple the ship(season 3 episode 1 SGA). Now, more than one hitting it will cause more damage and completely destroy it.

If missiles spiral to their target, time is taken away from the amount needed to hit the target. By then the darts would be deployed and the missiles taken out.

marty2006
July 13th, 2007, 11:47 AM
No they spin.

Yea i just used spiral because he did, pointing out bullets do the same sort of thing.

jds1982
July 13th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Yea i just used spiral because he did, pointing out bullets do the same sort of thing.

But what bullets do, and what the op is proposing are two completely different things. The bullet still travels in a more or less straight path while the bullet itself turns, whereas the op proposes a corkscrew flight path.

turbo1889
July 13th, 2007, 01:06 PM
Okay, I guess I should have specified this in my original post:

http://forums.handloads.com/uploads/turbo1889/2007-07-13_140312_Missle_Spiral_Path_Example.JPG

The red lines are the missle path and the grey line is the center of the spiral. Yes, I know they look like sine waves, but that's a side view. I'm not talking about trying to do the upper one -- you are right that would waste too much fuel and take a long time to get to the hive thus defeating the whole purpose. I'm talking about the tighter lower spiral path. Low amplitude and long wavelength. Just enough to make the missle hard to shoot down because you can't hardly lock on to it.

jds1982
July 13th, 2007, 01:29 PM
I don't know that path is still fairly straight, all the Hive would really have to do is shoot a whole lot in the general direction of the missile, or send darts like they do now. The missiles just need to be a lot faster.

spacecowboy000
July 13th, 2007, 02:00 PM
The missiles of the 304's could be improved by the following:

1. Improving the missile's engine

Too many times have we seen our missiles destroyed before they reach their targets, either by point defenses or enemy fighters. Our missiles are currently to slow in their role as anti-ship weapons.

2. More advanced on board computer

A more advanced computer would help the missiles avoid the previously mentioned countermeasures.

3. The use of a shaped charge

In a normal explosion energy radiates in all directions in axises. This means that when our missiles do reach the target much of the explosive force is actually radiates away from the target. The use a shaped charge would help focus more of the blast toward the intended target.

Wraith_Boy
July 13th, 2007, 02:27 PM
Adding it would make the missle a little bit harder to take out. However it would take longer to hit the target meaning the enemy has more time to take it out.

The main problem is that they only need to shoot in the general direction of it & with enough blasts, it's pretty much guaranteed to take it out.

Missiles are useless when fired at shielded targets, so it's only good for use on Hives as a primary weapon. The main problem is the distance that the 304's get to the Hive in order to fire. They aren't gonna risk going in right next to it for various reasons. So always keep a safe distance when engaing Wraith ships. Darts & weapons fire has always intercepted all but 1 missile that's ever been fired at Hives. In order to achieve that, they had to empty their entire arsenal of nukes.

Firing straight is always the quickest route. So putting any sort of swerve on the missile slows it down & gives the enemy more chance to get to it, either by fighters or weapons. So unless they got right up close to a Hive & caught them totally unexpected, it probably wouldn't work. Which if they could do that, then they wouldn't need to not worry about it not going straight.

The best thing to do is work on the burn engine. Get it to go faster. This way they can drop out of HS & in a few secs it's hit. Taking away valuable reaction time to prevent them from firing their weapons or launching Darts. They seem to be working along this road because the ones Odyssey launched in 'Family Ties' were lighting quick, much quicker than any I've ever seen before. Maybe in S4 when the ships get upgraded, they may upgrade the missiles to a faster version.

Col. Matarrese
July 13th, 2007, 03:08 PM
actually, the very nature of the spiral you're talking about makes it not work. If it's a controlled spiral, the projectile will move in a predictable path, meaning that using math (something a targeting computer is probably good at), you can figure out where the projectile would be at a specific time, and fire weapons at that exact spot. More effective would be the hyperdrive on each missile idea. Cost wise, it would suck, but in terms of battle efficiency, it's the best course of action, I think...unless possibly a cloak of some sort

Jimbo-DR
July 13th, 2007, 05:04 PM
I like the shape charge idea a lot, along with all the other ones. Frankly I think with our new knowledge we should be able to desgin a propulsion system capable of flipping in and around enemies and reaching the target unimpeded. But also, shaping the charge and possibly setting it to detonate on impact would cause the energy from our Nukes to hurt the Hive if they even got anywhere near it. Then again you can't set Nukes to detonate on impact as far as I know.

Didn't we used to have like Cannon rounds on our ships that were like rapid fire mini nuclear warheads with like "dial a yield" up to 50KT or something? Why don't we use those!

jds1982
July 13th, 2007, 08:07 PM
Didn't we used to have like Cannon rounds on our ships that were like rapid fire mini nuclear warheads with like "dial a yield" up to 50KT or something? Why don't we use those!

Do you mean on the show or in real life?

Jimbo-DR
July 13th, 2007, 08:12 PM
Do you mean on the show or in real life?


I'm pretty sure I read about them in real life.

Gen. Nuke
July 13th, 2007, 08:42 PM
The Missiles against the hive should be design in this way:

1. Inertial dampener to make it able to accelerate and turn quickly and an inertial axis controll that will make it much more manuverable. And a more powerful warhead-say a megaton...install it with new computers to make it more smarter...

2. Or the can make a missile that can microjump into the hyperspace upon reaching the hive...Yes it is an very expensive missile. But it is worth in killing one hiveship.

3. Also using technology earth gather they can now build a miniamraam...only half as the amraam in length but it has greater speed and range it utilized the technology that i have written in number 1. With this our fighters can carry more air-to-air missiles, eight times that they previoulsly can carry.

mlarke
July 14th, 2007, 12:10 AM
this may be a silly question, but how do you shape a nuclear blast? It seems like the point of a nuclear explosion is to unleash as much power as violently and as quickly as possible. How exactly do you direct that power coming from a missile flying through space, or even an atmosphere? I'm no physicist, but common sense kind of dictates that an explosion that massive is just going to go wherever it wants.

And before any of you go there, i know they utilize small scale shaped charges for door breaching and various other purposes, but like i said, that's small scale.

I can already see the response to this..."You could mount a mini shield generator with a weak spot on the front so that as the energy comes out it blasts out like a giant jet engine." that's right kids i already thought of it, try being original for once. Just kidding. I kind of got off topic, there and now I have totally lost my train of thought, oh well, I guess I will have another beer.

ManiacMike
July 14th, 2007, 01:09 AM
using inertial dampeners or hyper drives on missiles are sooooo out there and costly that it would be stupid to do it.

Well, maybe not with the new asgard tech. But the smallest known hyper drive is in a teltac and those are about the size of truck motor.

the best thing right now (in the SG universe) that we are capable of making is using the Chimera tech. in a missile to show there are hundreds of missiles flying so they don't know which one to shoot down. That tech, if no one knows is the projection tech. we made with help from the asgard.

Xeon_1
July 14th, 2007, 02:18 AM
Something that is also needed is way to let the missle detect shields and detonate the warhead just before hitting the shield
Now the nukes just fall apart when hitting a shield

jds1982
July 14th, 2007, 05:23 AM
this may be a silly question, but how do you shape a nuclear blast? It seems like the point of a nuclear explosion is to unleash as much power as violently and as quickly as possible. How exactly do you direct that power coming from a missile flying through space, or even an atmosphere? I'm no physicist, but common sense kind of dictates that an explosion that massive is just going to go wherever it wants.

And before any of you go there, i know they utilize small scale shaped charges for door breaching and various other purposes, but like i said, that's small scale.

I can already see the response to this..."You could mount a mini shield generator with a weak spot on the front so that as the energy comes out it blasts out like a giant jet engine." that's right kids i already thought of it, try being original for once. Just kidding. I kind of got off topic, there and now I have totally lost my train of thought, oh well, I guess I will have another beer.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_lens) may be of some help, or it may not be what you're looking for. I believe it is possible to shape a nuclear blast, but you have to shape the core to get the blast form you want.

Womble
July 14th, 2007, 08:54 AM
I still think that the best way to make missiles more effective is to outfit them with phase-shifting modules and a timer or a remote control (which will also serve as the fuse for the warhead). This way, they could penetrate the shields and the outer walls of the enemy ship's hull and blow up inside, causing crippling damage. They will also be impossible to shoot down until they un-shift.

As far as low-tech methods against interception during terminal chase- how about trading blast power for hit probability? Say, instead of the currently used missiles the 304 would be outfitted with two 32-tube multiple launch pods firing smaller and less powerful missiles, but firing them in salvos of 64 AT ONCE. Such a swarm would have been a lot more difficult to intercept, and many missiles would have made it to the target. The pods can be extended for the launch, fired and then retracted back for automatic reloading.

striker7770
July 14th, 2007, 01:26 PM
not to mention that to make a nuke sprial in space, you would need rockets on almost every part of the nuke to accually make it turn and spin. the fuel expenduture would be enormus

Mister Oragahn
July 14th, 2007, 01:28 PM
Most of those ideas are ok in theory, but in reality, they just are fans' wet dreams which have little appliability, even in a fictional universe.
No offense, but it surely should cost a lot to come with missiles with inertia dampeners, shields or hyperdrives for example.

Thus far, the most simple system to use is decoys. Horizon platform, multiple times. Probably modify a section of a 304, or literally devlop a smaller hyperspace capable missile launching platform, really meant to spam a target.
A smaller, dedicated ship, not those jacks of all trades that the 304s are, which ultimately fail at being efficient in any particular domain, but one very specific ship, a missile platform, coming with a variety of missiles and yields, plus a couple of point defense railguns for good measure.

The warheads would not necessarily come with the near teraton yields, because naqahdria is scarse and the "native" sources are under Ori control right now - I don't know about artificial production (the original process was artificial, but on Langara it's kinda senf sustained, so you get my drift).

Shaped charges? The biggest shaped charge used by the Tau'ri were Pegasus Project's 26 MT nukes.
I don't know if it's possible to do that with gigaton nukes.

Oh yes, gigaton stuff will be your essential prerequisite. We're talking goa'uld buster Mark whatever, several gigatons packed in naqahdah enhanced warheads, and probably largely refined since season 1. We saw the 1.2 GT mines used in Siege pt 2. Man sized.
Hiveships have been seen surviving levels of firepower in that range, and I do'nt think the Mk 3 seen in NML were mere megaton firecrackers.

Considering the small amount of naqahdah used to produce a Goa'uld buster, with a power of 1 GT, it wouldn't be particularily hard to make an even mroe powerful warhead. The difference being that due to the weapon grade naqahdah, it will become very heavy.

So that's why spamming a hiveship with plenty of 1-4 GT warheads, decoys and all that, will be far better.

But this is overlooking the fact that the hiveships, as they are now, have to rely on a wall of darts to intercept missiles.

Not only does it mean that they have to produce darts and find pilots for that, and as such, this tactic won't always work, but it would also be far smarter to actually come with a system to shoot down darts en masse.

The ship I mentionned earlier should really have a mean to shoot down walls of darts with utter ease.

Railgun arcs will do the job very fine, but the ability to launch conventionnal low grade interception missiles, light and powerful enough to take down darts (doesn't require much to blow them to bits, even AMRAAMs are overkill), would be far better than coming with expensive systems.

Some of these missiles would need to come with fragmentation heads, and explode in the middle of darts swarms. We've seen what happened in Allies/NML when Sheppard's missiles blasted out two darts, and the resulting shrapnel finished destroying the rest of the dart wing ought to intercept him.

At this point, it's a no brained. Railguns and those cheap missiles would make sure to open a clean path towards their target, and form a cone of non interception. Maybe a few darts could pass through, but that would be insufficient.

Besides, detonating a multi gigaton warhead in the middile of the swarm will destroy it within a very lage multi kilometer sized radius.
This alone should also clean a path for the next warheads. Of course, launching them all at once would be stupid from that point.

Caldwell had to do so because his ship wasn't meant to engage hiveships. Its weapons were not geared towards this type of engagement. In fact, 304s are only good for one thing: shooting down small targets at close and medium range, and bombarding the surface of worlds with their nukes.

Besides, computers are all fine. I see people talking about more powerful and advanced computers.
This, however, doesn't take into account disturbance fields and other forms of jamming.
It would suck if a day, our nukes executed U-turns and slammed against a 304's shields, because of some unfortunate wraith virus or whatever plot device.
Certain forms of jamming could mess up a missile's sensors, have it relock a wrong target, adopt a pointless course, or even be made to preemptively detonate.

You don't have such problems with inert projectiles, be they slugs (railguns/coilguns) or highly energetic particles (beam weapons), or even simple "dead" missiles.

spacecowboy000
July 14th, 2007, 06:50 PM
1. Earth at the present time has neither the resources or the facilities to build multiple classes of warships. While I agree that in the future a guided missile cruiser would be an important asset to an Earth fleet, not at this time.

2. If it is possible to shape the blast of a nuclear weapon (which it is) , then yield doesn't really matter. All that would be required is to scale the mechanism along with the size of the warhead.

3. The Horizon missile, if could be scaled down (to fit into a 304's vertical launch tubes) it would be an effective anti-ship missile. (Props to Mister Oragahn (http://forum.gateworld.net/member.php?u=11941))

4. The Hive Ship in NML had only a small number of Darts (when compared to its full compilment) in the air when the Daedalus fired all of her nukes and still managed shoot down most of the Daedalus's missiles.

5. Detonating a nuke in the middle of a Dart swarm during the middle of a battle is tricky at best. They would have to be far enough away so the blast wouldn't damage your ship and (unless using a Horizon style missile) could be shot down before it reaches the swarm.

6. The more advanced computers in modern missiles also come with ECCM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECCM). We all saw the Orion's drones dancing and weaving through the Darts between them and their target. Replicating that ability in our own missiles should be of top priority.

Ouroboros
July 15th, 2007, 02:12 AM
Well in a perfect world I'd want to just shoot my nukes out of a mass driver if my engine tech was this ****ty but since I'm stuck with missiles there's a couple of things to be done to at least make them a bit more useful.

-Proximity fuses: Equip the missile with some sort of low rent radar or something that can pick up on a object nearby and blow the nuke when it does. This will do two things. It'll finally, after 10 years, let a nuclear missile go off before plastering itself all over a shield a short distance from a hull (obviously you set your proximity fuse to blow at a range greater than a typical shield perimiter). It will also let missiles blow up when Wraith darts get near enough to ram them, hopefully close enough to cause some superficial damage to a hiveship or at least kill a lot of darts and make a hole for follow up shots. There's the trade off that it'll also kill other missiles in a salvo so you obviously don't arm this feature if you're firing in salvos. A good tactic might be to fire in one or two missiles with proxy fuses first to clear out the darts, then follow up with a wave of a dozen or so without proxy fuses to hopfully hit the hive.

-Faster engine: This is really the core reason why the missiles suck, they're too slow, get a bigger engine. Even if it increases the cost of a single missile 20 times it's worth it since that's about the rate they're going at now to get a single one through Wraith point defence in an ambush scenario.


-Smaller warhead: If the engine can't be made powerful enough to make the missile fast enough to defeat Wraith point defence with some reliability the warhead and the rest of the missiles needs to be made smaller so the engine can move it more easily. Sure you'll lose yeild but it's better to hit with something weaker than have all your OMG GIGAMATONS shot down in flight before they get anywhere near the enemy ship.

-Decoys/Jammers: Each missile could release decoys as it comes in on target, emit jamming or both. I'm not sure how useful this would be against Wraith however .

-Take the Russian approach: Rather than fill the ship with dozens of tiny slow missiles fill it with about half as many huge ones with huge engines and huge warheads. They'll be more expensive but if you can put a knock off of a deathglider engine and MK9 in each of them they should be good enough to cripple or badly damage a hiveship in just one or two hits while wizzing right past the goalie darts before they can react.

Jimbo-DR
July 15th, 2007, 05:06 AM
I love all those ideas to, but the Wraith point defense is the only reason that we even need to think of them, right? Find a relatively simple way to get rid of some of that point defense and even the slow missles will more than do their job.

Buba uognarf
July 15th, 2007, 05:19 AM
The problem i see is that to damage a Hive ship we're going to need huge yields for our missiles 'gigatons' nothing else is going to cut it because I can't see more than a couple missiles making through their point defence. Bigger yield means bigger warhead which makes the missile slower hence easier to shoot down.

The missiles need to be deployed faster but once the darts are out and defending the hive our missiles aren't going to really get close. I think we need a way to clear the path for the missiles maybe detonate nukes in front of the dart screen before sending our 'Hive busters' at the Hive.

Mister Oragahn
July 15th, 2007, 09:34 AM
1. Earth at the present time has neither the resources or the facilities to build multiple classes of warships. While I agree that in the future a guided missile cruiser would be an important asset to an Earth fleet, not at this time.

The fact that they came with something like two or three 304 within 6-12 months, and seem to even have a new class of ships down in the pipe, would tend to proove the contrary.
This is particularily impressive, considering that the SGC+IOA and allies is not running on the planet's full ressources, but actually something probably even smaller than 1%.


2. If it is possible to shape the blast of a nuclear weapon (which it is) , then yield doesn't really matter. All that would be required is to scale the mechanism along with the size of the warhead.

Shaping the blast of conventional nuclear warheads can be done. We've seen that with the 26 MT nukes.
However, there's no idea if this can be done when you add naqahdah to the equation.


4. The Hive Ship in NML had only a small number of Darts (when compared to its full compilment) in the air when the Daedalus fired all of her nukes and still managed shoot down most of the Daedalus's missiles.

That is right. They rather send darts than shoot missiles down. That's a bit weird really, since if you have a lock on a missile and you manage to get a collision course, what stops the dart from shooting them down?


5. Detonating a nuke in the middle of a Dart swarm during the middle of a battle is tricky at best. They would have to be far enough away so the blast wouldn't damage your ship and (unless using a Horizon style missile) could be shot down before it reaches the swarm.

I believe, on the contrary, that it's a very good and cheap tactic. The 304 shields can easily withstand gigaton stuff at close range, and the warheads are clearly ought to explode many miles away, thus dramatically lessening the intensity of the radiations when they reach the 304. Even an intensity worth of 1 ton of TNT is far more than enough to take down darts, so this means a very good range. This could, in theory, take down most of the darts launched by a hiveship.

You just have to launch a couple of them, very few in fact, on very different trajectories, and detonate them well before the Wraith can assault them.

Then you have cleared a path for your arsenal.


6. The more advanced computers in modern missiles also come with ECCM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECCM). We all saw the Orion's drones dancing and weaving through the Darts between them and their target. Replicating that ability in our own missiles should be of top priority.

Possible, but the squids have an insane ability of manoeuver, pulling G out of nowhere. No tau'ri weapon will be able to do that without extremely expensive, advanced and miniaturized tech.

As for the ECCM, you just don't know how far this works against Wraith tech.

The Wraith may have tried to devlop a way to psychically assault whoever was sitting in the control chair of cities or else. This would either disrupt control on the drones, or better, let them define new directives. Hehe.

Of course, you'll just wonder when will the Wraith use point defense culling beams FFS.

spacecowboy000
July 15th, 2007, 11:02 AM
The fact that they came with something like two or three 304 within 6-12 months, and seem to even have a new class of ships down in the pipe, would tend to proove the contrary.
This is particularily impressive, considering that the SGC+IOA and allies is not running on the planet's full ressources, but actually something probably even smaller than 1%.


Yes, you are right that in the respect that the construction effort is not running on the planet's full resources. My point was that since the Stargate Program will more than likely remain secret for the foreseeable future, we will not have the entire resources of the planet. Plus, if you look at the number of ships currently deployed it seems like 2 304's per year. This is based on the amount of time between the unveiling of new ships. The Daedalus is complete and battle-ready before 819,820, - The Odyssey is first shown in 916 just off the line and untested - The Korolev is introduced in 920 and rushed into service probably with some systems incomplete (the same as the Prometheus in 611) - The Apollo is then seen in 320 of Atlantis battle-ready. The SGC seems to increased their production to two 304's a year. While a new 304 seems to be around the corner, Earth must first build up its forces before building multiple classes of warship.


Shaping the blast of conventional nuclear warheads can be done. We've seen that with the 26 MT nukes.
However, there's no idea if this can be done when you add naqahdah to the equation.


True, we have seen no on screen evidence. However, I believe that IF it wasn't possible before the Asgard technology now in the hands of Earth would make it possible.


I believe, on the contrary, that it's a very good and cheap tactic. The 304 shields can easily withstand gigaton stuff at close range, and the warheads are clearly ought to explode many miles away, thus dramatically lessening the intensity of the radiations when they reach the 304. Even an intensity worth of 1 ton of TNT is far more than enough to take down darts, so this means a very good range. This could, in theory, take down most of the darts launched by a hiveship.

You just have to launch a couple of them, very few in fact, on very different trajectories, and detonate them well before the Wraith can assault them.

Then you have cleared a path for your arsenal.


I wasn't deriding your strategy, it does have its merits. I can see the tactical reasoning behind your opinion. In my mind the perfect ship would have 4 main weapon systems:

1. A least one ultra-long range artillery weapon.
2. Dozens of Missile launchers designed for medium to long range combat
3. Dozens of energy weapon batteries for medium to short range combat
4. A layered point defense system with hundreds of rapid firing weapons with overlapping fields of fire.

Yes, I agree that this ship would be big however it's just my personal opinion.


Possible, but the squids have an insane ability of manoeuver, pulling G out of nowhere. No tau'ri weapon will be able to do that without extremely expensive, advanced and miniaturized tech.

Agreed. However, as i stated with the Asgard technology we now possess it should become easier to implement this technology in our own missiles. It will most definitely take time to understand the technology and how to integrate it with our own, but as I said it should be a priority.


As for the ECCM, you just don't know how far this works against Wraith tech.


True, but you never know unless you try


The Wraith may have tried to devlop a way to psychically assault whoever was sitting in the control chair of cities or else. This would either disrupt control on the drones, or better, let them define new directives. Hehe.

I agree with you on this point. I have always had a problem with a single person in one chair controlling hundreds if not thousands of drones.


Of course, you'll just wonder when will the Wraith use point defense culling beams FFS.

You know, if the Wraith had any sense they would.

You seem to have quite a grasp of logic and military strategy. I may differ but you have my respect.

Ouroboros
July 15th, 2007, 01:24 PM
I love all those ideas to, but the Wraith point defense is the only reason that we even need to think of them, right? Find a relatively simple way to get rid of some of that point defense and even the slow missles will more than do their job.

There's also the fact that the various evil aliens could just tap the gas pedal in their ships and leave our current missiles in the dust.

If they ever figure that one out we're screwed.

Look at the battle in "no mans land" for a perfect example. If that hive had just fired its engines for a few seconds it would have not only outrun the missiles, but maybe even destroyed them with its engine wake. Then it's just a quick turn to broadside and a "hey guys, have some blue crap" and Earth is doomed.

turbo1889
July 15th, 2007, 04:06 PM
actually, the very nature of the spiral you're talking about makes it not work. If it's a controlled spiral, the projectile will move in a predictable path, meaning that using math (something a targeting computer is probably good at), you can figure out where the projectile would be at a specific time, and fire weapons at that exact spot. . . .

Actually I addressed that in my op:


. . . . Next have the radius and rotational speed of the spiral pattern determined by a randomly generated wave form and you have something pretty darn hard to shoot down. . . .

What I'm saying is have a computer generate two random wave forms within specified upper and lower limits. One randum wave form representing the radius of the spiral around the center of the flight path with respect to time with an upper and lower limit. Merely for the sake of discussion lets set the min radius at 6m and the max radius at 18m. The second random wave form represents the rotational rate at which the missle flies the spiral. So again for the sake of discussion lets say the lower limit is -60rpm and the upper limit is 60 rpm; with the negative limit representing a reverse in rotational direction. Again, another picture to represent this:

http://forums.handloads.com/uploads/turbo1889/2007-07-15_165143_Missle_Random_Spiral_Path.JPG

So that's what one possible random path of millions would look like when the missle was coming at you, or you were chasing it a dart trying to shoot it down. A lot harder to shoot down then the black dot in the middle which just goes straight at the target.

As far as taking so much longer to get to the target, that is simply a matter of how you set your upper and lower limits, not an inherent flaw. If you set up the math equations to find the limit while approaching a zero spiral radius -- guess what your back to your straight line. That's a limit (mathmatical term) which means if you back off from the limit your going to get a slight spiral while still being very close to having the same length of flight path as a straight line. As I have previously stated it might take only 3% longer and burn 3% more fuel for a reasonably sized random spiral that is small enough to conserve fuel yet big enough to make it hard to hit. I'd guestimate that an average spiral radius size of about two dart wing-spans and randomly varying plus or minus a dart wing spans would be about right.

As far as having to put engines all over the missle to do this -- Nope all you need to do is just use the stearing system allready in the missles. It's called force vectoring and any missle which must be steered in a vaccum already has it.

The main advantage to this system is that you would not have to change the missle hardware at all except for mabey swapping out a computer chip or two if you couldn't do it just by rewriting the guidence software.




Yah, I agree, improove the hardware the missle has (shaped charge, cloak, hyperdrive, faster engines, etc.) and that would help a lot. This would, however, be a software upgrade -- plug and play.