Loroi Ship Design

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Arioch »

I expect that some missiles will be kinetic-kill, some will be directed-effect explosion (a laser or plasma cone), and some will be omni-directional blast. Many will probably have multiple settings or best-choice smart options.

As was mentioned, a "dummy" missile needs to have the same acceleration potential as a real missile, which usually will mean that it costs just as much as a real missile. At this tech level, the drive IS the warhead.

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by junk »

As fighters and carriers are concerned most people forget one thing. Once you are in space, you will have very very good targeting and evasion systems which will somewhat negate the need for mobile carrier systems of weapons which are fighters and bombers.

In part because as a fighter is concerned you require
a) pilot
b) enough fuel to go to and back
c) munitions
d) rough preemptive targeting data

In that regard the needs for a smart kinetic warhead system are

a) enough propellant to gain speed
b) Relatively precise targeting data. Though with smart AI systems just as much as a human fighter.

Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by NOMAD »

junk wrote:As fighters and carriers are concerned most people forget one thing. Once you are in space, you will have very very good targeting and evasion systems which will somewhat negate the need for mobile carrier systems of weapons which are fighters and bombers.

In part because as a fighter is concerned you require
a) pilot
b) enough fuel to go to and back
c) munitions
d) rough preemptive targeting data
well I agree with your points above but I wouldn't count out fighters with Carriers for the fallowing reasons

1) Greater survivability: fighters can be considered returnable weapons platforms, when they are able to return to the carrier: while Ke missile are a one shot weapon that, despite being MUCH cheaper to produce, can either hit their targets or get intercepted

2) greater range: fighters and bombers can loiter in the area and patrol that area, given their greater fuel\endurance and can have more flexible targeting of the enemy (say the ability to plan an ambush on a target of opportunity). A KE missile ( even a smart AI type) would be limited vs a biological pilot.

3) Adaptable/ multi-purpose: the fact I find the best, is that their weapons loads can be adjusted to the targets needed. As well, fighter could be re purposed mid-flight ( while KE missile could have is program in, I would think only interception or LR missile could accomplished this ). While you could produce ALOT different KE missile types for different roles ( interceptor,AMM,capital ship killers,) you would need to carry all those missiles and fire the correct type. in comparison, pilot vehicle could be retargeted or pushed into different roles ( IE the loroi using their attack fighters as a mobile defence for their fleets)

4) less likely to be detected: small fighter power core vs BIG cruiser power core. what would be detected at the extreme or even mid range ?

Now I know fighter have disadvantages vs KE missile:

1) lack of firepower: a fighter or heavy bomber could only have so much firepower vs a MAM type KE

2) more expensive: pilot training, producing the smaller hulls, fuel, parts etc

3) pilot error: pilot could make wrong decision in a battle that could cost him/her life or a battle
junk wrote: In that regard the needs for a smart kinetic warhead system are

a) enough propellant to gain speed
b) Relatively precise targeting data. Though with smart AI systems just as much as a human fighter.

Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.
true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Mjolnir »

junk wrote:Essentially the majority of benefits fighters have on the ground as opposed to just swarming the enemy with missiles don't apply in space.
It seems likely the most fighter/bomber-like role will be essentially a forward missile platform/mobile sensor/electronic warfare node. The fighter does require more propellant, but also recovers the propulsion systems used for much of the boost to the target and allows them to be used with another set of missiles. High performance propulsion systems are likely to be expensive, and in Outsider, fuel mass seems to be a relatively small portion of overall mass...there's something to be gained by using a fighter that comes back for more fuel and a load of missiles that are smaller than ones needed to make a direct attack.

NOMAD wrote:true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.
Machines can be more unpredictable. Biological pilots are likely to react in ways influenced by training or perceptual/instinctive quirks, or fall into predictable habits. Just our bodily form will unavoidably cause biases in the maneuvers we'll prefer. A machine pilot could be designed to take advantage of all possible maneuvers, and to avoid repeating itself when possible.

TrashMan
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by TrashMan »

NOMAD wrote: 1) Greater survivability: fighters can be considered returnable weapons platforms, when they are able to return to the carrier: while Ke missile are a one shot weapon that, despite being MUCH cheaper to produce, can either hit their targets or get intercepted

2) greater range: fighters and bombers can loiter in the area and patrol that area, given their greater fuel\endurance and can have more flexible targeting of the enemy (say the ability to plan an ambush on a target of opportunity). A KE missile ( even a smart AI type) would be limited vs a biological pilot.
Don't know about those. fighter would be realyl fragile, and with laser point-defenses I would consider them survivable at all. Not to mentio nthat a fighter would end up costing mroe than a missile.

Fighter are also more limited by range than missiles - they have more mass and need more fuel. and air reserves for pilots.

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by junk »

I have to agree with the sheer fragility of the fighter. If we're going to be making them about the size of ours, they won't be much smaller or larger than probable missiles that exist in the universe. So PDS will shred them.

The second issue is, in terms of space you send a mobile staging point to an area where it sends out mobile missile deployers which then have to return. It's much more economical to just send a mobile missile deployer and safely send missiles from maybe twice the range it could send fighters. Plus you can have the missiles pull of a bigger deltav

Overall fighters work fairly well in starwars for instance, because they are jump capable and their warheads are strong enough that even when in very small sizes, they can pose a problem to capital ships en mass. Also SW PDS systems are virtually nonexistant. If a warhead is flying at a ship, the ship will take the hit.

Likewise they work in warhammer, but the point to consider there is, that they are fighters and bombers in a very "rough sense" as they are all about the size of a 747 and even bigger for bombers.

Essentially the reason why we still have fighters these days as opposed to essentially having a bunch of v2s with good targeting is because we

a) have bombers and fighters which need no propellant for their payload to hit the target (not really effective in space)
b) terrain can cause issues for tracking, indentifying and hitting targets
c) CAS
d) ways to deny bombers, CAS and strategic hunting for ground targets.

There's obviously more reasons why we use aircraft as opposed to just flying bombs these days, but most of these reasons will make sense on a planet not in space.

The more I think about it, you could potentially have something like carrier's and fighters in space if you did something like.

a) A very barebone carrying system. More or less just exists in order to ferry smaller ships no other reason
b) A medium sized gunship using some sort of very compact reactor - mass destruction| nuclear | other as opposed to fusion, combustible fuel ones.Then these would hang around at ranges at which PDS stops being effective and would be small enough and nimble enough to have a decent survive rate against standard s2s weapons.

But I strongly doubt small 1 man fighters would be a possibility.

Zakharra
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Zakharra »

Mjolnir wrote:
NOMAD wrote:true, but biological pilot can be unpredictable.
Machines can be more unpredictable. Biological pilots are likely to react in ways influenced by training or perceptual/instinctive quirks, or fall into predictable habits. Just our bodily form will unavoidably cause biases in the maneuvers we'll prefer. A machine pilot could be designed to take advantage of all possible maneuvers, and to avoid repeating itself when possible.

Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by junk »

You don't need much intuition once you have godly control.

I'd like to point an example that fairly shows the limitations of human|machine skill.

Both have the exact same tools at their disposal and once it comes down to pure crunch so to speak, machines will very often soundly defeat a human.
Obviously there's some benefits for intuition, but I'd gather that after a while someone will develop a fairly large database of doable actions the machine can access and thus often be on equal footing with intuition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Mjolnir »

Zakharra wrote: Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?
Intuition is just guesswork and gambling based on incomplete information, which machines are entirely capable of doing, and may well be more likely to do successfully due to not having biologically inborn tendencies to misjudge matters of statistics and physics and being able to judge more of the potential outcomes, particularly since this isn't an environment that the human brain is particularly well suited to. And training makes pilots more predictable...what exactly is it supposed to accomplish to make them capable of things a machine can't do? What, specifically, prevents machines from doing anything a human pilot can do?

And yes, I'd want my machine pilots to be unpredictable. There's little value in launching something that won't reach the target. This doesn't mean totally random, it means exactly what it says...not predictable. It does not mean that they'll suddenly turn around and shoot at the craft that launched them.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by discord »

actually on the 'predictable' question, i do not mind my weapon systems being predictable, as long as the targets can't stop'em...and this is much more true in space compared to fighting inside atmosphere mainly because it is easier to achieve.

make the drones/missiles pretty damn stupid, they do not really need to be smart, it's just a matter of calculating firing angles of PD systems and incoming PD missiles and create a list of what maneuvers will create the biggest difference in angle to all of them, and then a probability random from the best being somewhat more likely...perhaps, and the least efficient having lower chance, do several preemptive iterations of this with probability of how the incoming fire will change and you get 'smart' behavior out of a intrinsically stupid system.

this would be rather 'predictable' but difficult to do anything about....the same would not apply very well in atmosphere though, more variables involved.

Zakharra
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:46 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Zakharra »

Mjolnir wrote:
Zakharra wrote: Not exactly. A machine can pull higher gee maneuvers than a biological pilot can, but a pilot can use intuition and training to do things no machine could. It is probably very hard to program in random actions into a machine of the complexity of a warmachine and seriously, would you want something as destructive as a machine piloted fighter under the control of an unpredictable computer? Especially if said computer suffers from battle damage?
Intuition is just guesswork and gambling based on incomplete information, which machines are entirely capable of doing, and may well be more likely to do successfully due to not having biologically inborn tendencies to misjudge matters of statistics and physics and being able to judge more of the potential outcomes, particularly since this isn't an environment that the human brain is particularly well suited to. And training makes pilots more predictable...what exactly is it supposed to accomplish to make them capable of things a machine can't do? What, specifically, prevents machines from doing anything a human pilot can do?

And yes, I'd want my machine pilots to be unpredictable. There's little value in launching something that won't reach the target. This doesn't mean totally random, it means exactly what it says...not predictable. It does not mean that they'll suddenly turn around and shoot at the craft that launched them.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that you don't want biological pilots because their training(programming) makes them predictable, yet you want computers, which are programmed, to run the fighters/weapons because they can be unpredictable? That does not make any sense at all. Training can make people predictable, to a degree, but intuition and guesswork can do things no machine can. A highly skilled and trained pilot will fly rings around any computer controlled machine of the same type.

The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Mjolnir »

Zakharra wrote: Let me get this straight, you're saying that you don't want biological pilots because their training(programming) makes them predictable, yet you want computers, which are programmed, to run the fighters/weapons because they can be unpredictable?
Exactly.

Zakharra wrote:That does not make any sense at all. Training can make people predictable, to a degree, but intuition and guesswork can do things no machine can. A highly skilled and trained pilot will fly rings around any computer controlled machine of the same type.
Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.

Zakharra wrote: The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.
Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by NOMAD »

Mjolnir wrote: Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.
Zakharra wrote: The only thing computers have over biological pilots is computing speed/reflexes and a higher gee tolerance. Humans, and presumably aliens do not think in a linear fashion like completely logical computers do. Our thought process is fairly random and unpredictable for the most part.
Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.
So, in your opinion, your don;t think humans would ( or are needed) to pilot small fighters craft and that the CPU are best used is missiles, instead of full fighters.

Now, I see the logic in all your points you've been making and (despite not liking the conclusion) could a human/AI hybrid system work; where there is a biological pilot with AI support for the more difficult maneuvers/ combat missions?
I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Mjolnir »

NOMAD wrote:So, in your opinion, your don;t think humans would ( or are needed) to pilot small fighters craft and that the CPU are best used is missiles, instead of full fighters.
No. Whether fighters are viable depends mainly on the details of the propulsion and weaponry available and on the location of the conflict. It's almost independent of the pilot. (Almost...lack of a life support system and a pilot that needs to regularly return to a ship with more substantial living quarters means robotic fighters could be viable in a setting where manned fighters aren't.)

Even if there isn't a pilot to bring back, there's the engines, airframe, sensors, etc. Using a multipurpose fighter/bomber/ECM/ELINT craft as a reusable first stage for missiles lets you reduce the size of those missiles and manufacture and carry more of them, as well as having a flexible small craft supplementing sensors and electronic countermeasures, and capable of performing various other tasks, such as delivering small payloads to other ships. Fighters use more fuel, but in some settings (like Outsider), fuel is a relatively small portion of the volume and mass of a vessel, and the cost and size of the engines and other systems might make a reusable craft desirable.

NOMAD wrote:Now, I see the logic in all your points you've been making and (despite not liking the conclusion) could a human/AI hybrid system work; where there is a biological pilot with AI support for the more difficult maneuvers/ combat missions?
That's almost a necessity for things like performing random evasive maneuvers (which will at best become mentally exhausting for the pilot to do manually, and a distraction from more important matters), quickly and safely docking, and simple things like performing minimum time intercepts. Flying any spacecraft is likely to be a matter of telling an autopilot what you want to do. Beyond that, you could also have multiple drones following the lead of a craft with a human pilot.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

A big problems that I see space fighters having that planet based fighters don't have is that there is no horizon line to hide behind and no high altitude zone to avoid return fire. If fighters could pull maneuvers that any other warship couldn't, they might get some utility that way, but in space everyone can go any direction and there's usually nothing to hide behind.

Maybe you could tie a bunch of fighters up to tethers and have them spin around randomly altering the tether length to avoid fire without using any propulsion that would aid the enemy in targeting. You could call them tie fighters. :P

NOMAD
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:34 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by NOMAD »

@ Mjolnir: thanks for the answers, never though of the simple realties of space flight.
icekatze wrote:hi hi

Maybe you could tie a bunch of fighters up to tethers and have them spin around randomly altering the tether length to avoid fire without using any propulsion that would aid the enemy in targeting. You could call them tie fighters. :P
Just tell he that don't have pilot like this

I am a wander, going from place to place without a home I am a NOMAD

TrashMan
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by TrashMan »

Mjolnir wrote: Exactly wrong. Humans are not good at being unpredictable. Intuition and guesswork can't do anything a computer can't do, and quite probably won't be difficult to beat in an environment like space where all the cognitive shortcuts we've evolved down here on the ground work against us. It doesn't even work very well down here...Las Vegas is a testament to the effectiveness of human intuition.
So you think a computer would do better in vegas? :?:

Zakharra wrote: Human-generated "random" numbers are usually odd, and those that end in 5 are chosen less often than they should be.

Humans are terrible at producing randomness. You can't even pick a random digit without preferring some over others, wrongly avoiding repeats and clustering that appear in truly random digits, etc. For true randomness or even just random-seeming results, you need elaborate procedures to filter out the human component...or a machine to generate randomness for you. Machines are also entirely capable of seeking solutions in "nonlinear", stochastic fashion, and more, can evaluate the entire solution space of possible maneuvers rather than only a handful of intuitively-obvious ones weighted by biological limitations that only apply on the ground...humans won't even be able to treat left and right the same as up and down, tend to direct their attention in one particular direction at a time, and will almost certainly develop habits that a machine can identify and exploit, while itself avoiding.
But that's just it - every human will have different habbits...which the machine won't know.
I might have a preffernce fro banking left, while bob prefers banking right...what difference does that make to a Drone AI? None. It won't know our habbits.

Not to say that I don't agreee with you that human piltos have no place in space fighter-combat.

User avatar
junk
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:52 am

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by junk »

TrashMan wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:

So you think a computer would do better in vegas? :?:

Yes, which is why no one will allow you to bring one in with you.

Overkill Engine
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:51 pm

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Overkill Engine »

junk wrote:
TrashMan wrote:
Mjolnir wrote:

So you think a computer would do better in vegas? :?:

Yes, which is why no one will allow you to bring one in with you.
I haven't exactly kept up on casino policies given that I don't like playing stacked games that can lose me a lot of money in a hurry.....

But this begs me to ask, what about the new generations of "smart phones" that are damn near as much computer as phone? Are these allowed in a Vegas casino?

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Loroi Ship Design

Post by Karst45 »

Overkill Engine wrote:But this begs me to ask, what about the new generations of "smart phones" that are damn near as much computer as phone? Are these allowed in a Vegas casino?
I was about to ask the same question.

Post Reply