StarDestroyer.Net BBS

No, the "best" possible way is to have several SSNs in the region, with some doing acoustic detection with advanced low-frequency sonars like vignette-em or the like, while the other boats lying in wait for the kill. Once the boat is pinged, the trackers relay data to the hunters, which shoot the crap out of the presumable boat location region.

Super-silent cruise speeds end at 8-10 knots tops even for the best of boats - go higher, and you have cavitation and all the not-nice stuff kick in. The larger the boat, the worse it's hydro-symmetry and balance, and ultimately the noisier it will be with speed. Shep's boat has more shafts and larger shaft hatches than other boats? Cavitation elements. Everything on the hull is a cavitation noise factor when you go higher.

Read some stuff here, sub hunters:
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm

P.S. Seriously, the US doesn't have Anti-Torpedo systems like RBU-6000/12000 on carriers and other order ships? Well too fucking bad then. Since all torpedoes were incoming from one direction, and the ships could've utilized towed HAS (but didn't - apparently, the MESS didn't think abotu that....), if they pinged one, they could've covered the place with a salvo of 10-12 AT charges and so on.

I admit I'm not knowledgeable of US antitorpedo technologies. ... And if they have such salvo mechanisms.

Stas Bush wrote:P.S. Seriously, the US doesn't have Anti-Torpedo systems like RBU-6000/12000 on carriers and other order ships?

Nope. Best we have is basically what I wrote; using Mark 46 lightweight torpedoes fired from triple launchers off ships in anti-torpedo mode.

We used to have hedgehog style weapons, but got rid of them I think in the late 50s.

Yeah. I know. Sometimes the US does stupid things.

EDIT: One thing I forgot that the Serenity ships could have done was to have their SH-60s drop depth charges in the path of the torpedoes; but I doubt that they could sink fast enough to the torpedoes' depth to be effective...

I doubt that they could sink fast enough to the torpedoes' depth to be effective...

Yeah, might be so. Even the best Close Range ATORP systems, the RBU-12000 or RBU-6000, has a sink rate of 12 m/s or so - meaning a minute of advance launch for a definite kill at 700-800 m depth. If you don't have that, you're royally fucked. That would mean to hit it anywhere but around the last very few km round the carrier is probably at all imporbable (as the cruise depth is ~600-800m).

Considering the torpedo moves at 20 m/s, it means that torpedoes have to be detected at 1km advance for an RBU-12000/6000 system.

Lower sink rates - higher required detection range.

EDIT: Oh, disregard. Somehow, I read "anti-torpedo" as "anti-submarine".

PeZook wrote:I though you guys at least had some sort of heavyweight rocket-thrown torpedo on your boats.

We USED to have one. Then got rid of it without developing a successor.

No, the US ASUW weapons are more or less good. Te ASROC and SUBROC are some of the best systems in existence.

But it's close-in defense aganst torps, frogmen and minisubs is... nonexistent.

Decades of sonar superiority and laughs at "roaring cows" as our subs were nicked by USN... produced a ridiculous situation when the US abandoned C-I atorp systems. The USSR's decades of inferiority in submarine stealth resulted in development of ATORP systems with Pks of 0,9 - 0,75 against a torpedo per salvo.

Stas Bush wrote: Decades of sonar superiority and laughs at "roaring cows" as our subs were nicked by USN... produced a ridiculous situation when the US abandoned C-I atorp systems. The USSR's decades of inferiority in submarine stealth resulted in development of ATORP systems with Pks of 0,9 - 0,75 against a torpedo per salvo.

And now you closed the gap, and the USN is left naked and vulnerable

PeZook wrote:And now you closed the gap, and the USN is left naked and vulnerable

Don't forget that such RBUs can be used against suicide attackers too!

Achmed, what are those things in the ai....

*suicide boat is sunk by RBU barriage*

Stas Bush wrote:No, the "best" possible way is to have several SSNs in the region, with some doing acoustic detection with advanced low-frequency sonars like vignette-em or the like, while the other boats lying in wait for the kill. Once the boat is pinged, the trackers relay data to the hunters, which shoot the crap out of the presumable boat location region.

Super-silent cruise speeds end at 8-10 knots tops even for the best of boats - go higher, and you have cavitation and all the not-nice stuff kick in. The larger the boat, the worse it's hydro-symmetry and balance, and ultimately the noisier it will be with speed. Shep's boat has more shafts and larger shaft hatches than other boats? Cavitation elements. Everything on the hull is a cavitation noise factor when you go higher.

Read some stuff here, sub hunters:
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/snf03221.htm

P.S. Seriously, the US doesn't have Anti-Torpedo systems like RBU-6000/12000 on carriers and other order ships? Well too fucking bad then. Since all torpedoes were incoming from one direction, and the ships could've utilized towed HAS (but didn't - apparently, the MESS didn't think abotu that....), if they pinged one, they could've covered the place with a salvo of 10-12 AT charges and so on.

I admit I'm not knowledgeable of US antitorpedo technologies. ... And if they have such salvo mechanisms.

What is this Towed HAS?

*scribbles a note to add RBU-6000/12000 on every ship*

To be honest, I am about to just throw in the towel on this. I didn't sign on to a war game; I thought it was clear that this was characters, diplomacy, politics and brinksmanship-- with a few brushfire wars at best.

Now, once again, we're playing to Shep's fourth-grade rules of engagement, where no matter what happens, he just happens to have a magic ubertech superweapon to counter it on a shoestring budget. I'm weary of devoting the time and energy to something frustrating that I don't want and can never really make a gain at; my real life has enough obligatory demands on my time I don't need to bog down my play time with more of the same.

So...this is World War 3 now, isn't it?

I don't think the MESS will back down now that they've lost three carriers. So, what now? War of attrition?

This is interesting ; It seems it wasn't really in Shepistani interest to have escalated this so much. A balls-out no-holds-barred war of attrition favors the MESS, after all.

MKSheppard wrote:And I gave Shroom and anyone else in FUN or whatever a way to insert themselves into this war; via Milo Shroombender, the war PROFITEER!

The FUN is now an Economic Alliance.

SiegeTank wrote:Let me just take a minute to say that I think armed merchant ships sailing into warzones to replenish depleted stocks SM-2s and ESSMs on the waves is utter brilliance.

Still, I think San Dorado's amoral merchants will sit this one out -- we're a bit too small and vulnerable to risk antagonizing those duking it out. Short-term profits have to take a back seat to long-term consequences (and profits) right now.

Please, oh please don't ruin our neutrality, by getting some merchant ships sunk.

phongn wrote:Just become a wholly-own subsidiary, you know you want to ...

Stop that, the FTO needs his neocapitalism.

PeZook wrote:So...this is World War 3 now, isn't it?

I don't think the MESS will back down now that they've lost three carriers. So, what now? War of attrition?

This is interesting ; It seems it wasn't really in Shepistani interest to have escalated this so much. A balls-out no-holds-barred war of attrition favors the MESS, after all.

Unless he had gotten a coalition of allies up and running I don't think he ever standed a chance against any sort of conflict with the whole of the MESS.

Well, he may try and inflict enough casualties to make people clamor for peace. The loss of these carriers will have a different effect, however: those are the pride of MESS navies, and people will get pissed, rather than resigned.

A long bloody ground war with no end in sight works much better to destroy civilian morale.

He has Japanistan, and quite frankly, after the last game, I wouldn't put it past both of them from doing "Bah, humbug, let's screw the game".

This game will be even shorter than the last one at this rate.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:He has Japanistan, and quite frankly, after the last game, I wouldn't put it past both of them from doing "Bah, humbug, let's screw the game".

This game will be even shorter than the last one at this rate.

What do you think is already happening?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:He has Japanistan, and quite frankly, after the last game, I wouldn't put it past both of them from doing "Bah, humbug, let's screw the game".

This game will be even shorter than the last one at this rate.

It all depends on Skimmer, I guess.

If this game breaks apart, I'll be quite irritated. No Moon landing, AGAIN

Frankly if the MESS backs down now, they are cowards and the same problem will repeat itself in the near future, because let's face it this is Shep we're talking about.

PeZook wrote:If this game breaks apart, I'll be quite irritated. No Moon landing, AGAIN

No Moom landing makes third world nations sad.

Espcially third world nations with plans that involve space.


Also, will Byzantine, the CSR or the USSR sell MiG-31s to Eutopia?

PeZook wrote:It all depends on Skimmer, I guess.

If this game breaks apart, I'll be quite irritated. No Moon landing, AGAIN

It's already because of Skimmer that both me and Stas and burning cash to build lots of bombers and get our nuclear program going.

To put it frankly, both of us might have to cut back our commitment to FASTA if we are to keep up this production rate.

Karmic Knight wrote:

PeZook wrote:If this game breaks apart, I'll be quite irritated. No Moon landing, AGAIN

No Moom landing makes third world nations sad.

Espcially third world nations with plans that involve space.


Also, will Byzantine, the CSR or the USSR sell MiG-31s to Eutopia?

That depends on whether we have the production space to make you any.

Lemme do a check.

It's not really WW3 yet, and even if Shep is inflicting disproportionate losses the correlation of forces is badly against him.

phongn wrote:It's not really WW3 yet, and even if Shep is inflicting disproportionate losses the correlation of forces is badly against him.

Shep is screwed the moment this turns into a ground war. It hasn't, yet.

DarthShady wrote:Frankly if the MESS backs down now, they are cowards and the same problem will repeat itself in the near future, because let's face it this is Shep we're talking about.

Really, I think any leader would continue to push the boundaries if the MESS backed down.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote: It's already because of Skimmer that both me and Stas and burning cash to build lots of bombers and get our nuclear program going.

To put it frankly, both of us might have to cut back our commitment to FASTA if we are to keep up this production rate.

How much are you contributing?

I might gut my military to get us to the moon!

Karmic Knight wrote:

DarthShady wrote:Frankly if the MESS backs down now, they are cowards and the same problem will repeat itself in the near future, because let's face it this is Shep we're talking about.

Really, I think any leader would continue to push the boundaries if the MESS backed down.

Well...Duh.

Karmic Knight wrote:How much are you contributing?

I might gut my military to get us to the moon!

Tens of bloody billions.

All of which won't matter if Skimmer or Shep send a bomber swarm towards me.

If there's a reason why I'm doing this, is because the money also helps to subsidise the cost of developing MRBMs for the purpose of spamming the air with them.