RMS-1

[Lestat]

Drag/yaw/balance is still surely a consideration. Especially balance. Unless it's going to be firing verniers constantly while in flight to counteract the weight once it lets a few go. And you still have to deal with a lot of mass at the tips--even the aileron-less VF-1 still uses verniers at the very tips to roll, it wouldn't like excess mass far from its roll axis. F-111's don't have a problem, since their "outboard" pylons are still very close to the centerline. (And they're a very large plane--2,000lbs would affect them far less than most fighters)

This sort of heavy armament would seem to logically deployed only in a 0-G environment. Weight would interfere little in 0-G, only affecting the speed in which the fighter can accellerate. It will likely make little affect on the way it operates in space. As long as the weight is evenly distributed, it probably won't make an ounce of difference, certainly not to the point of impracticality.

[ewilen]

Even in Zero G, putting weight farther out from the center of mass will affect a craft's ability to turn. If a Valkyrie could apply its main thrust in any direction without turning, this wouldn't be an issue. But a Valk has only limited ability to vector its main thrust through the main engines and FAST pack, and when vectoring, the thrust isn't necessarily being directed against the center of mass. This means that for anything other than small adjustments, the Valk will maneuver by turning (using vernier thrusters and/or vectored main engines/FAST packs), then applying its main thrust.

Conclusion: weight distribution matters.

[David Hingtgen]

A-7's had specially designed wings for bomb-carrying---very strong, very stiff. The A-7 is basically a highly modified F-8. Lost the F-8's variable incidence capabilities, and lost its abilities as a fighter. A-7's are WEIRD. (Ugly for a reason) Their outboard pylons are actually rated higher than the inboards. Because it's the outboard sections of the wings that were the most strengthened compared to the F-8. So the outboards actually surpassed the inboards, in load-capacity. And yes, you'll see drop tanks outboard on an A-7---but only the smaller ones, with the larger ones outboard. A-7's have a much higher load capacity than any plane its size, but they still put the heavier stuff inboard. (For drag/balance reasons, not weight--since the inboards are actually weaker than the outboards---so drag/balance must over-rule pylon capacity in some situations)

Still--show me a *fighter* with heavy stuff outboard. B-52's can carry heavy tanks outboard, because its a friggin huge heavy strategic bomber. (And because they kind of only ever have to fly straight). (And they still carry heavy bombs and cruise missiles inboard, for they carry such large amounts that they outweigh the tanks)

Yes there's lots of planes that can carry relatively heavy stuff outboard. But they still generally keep the heaviest stuff inboard. A big drop tank has more mass/drag/yaw than a medium one, thus A-7's carry the big ones inboard. (Though with drop tanks, you rarely have to worry about asymmetry--you drop them in pairs, not singly--but when full, there's still a lot of mass there) F-111's are just freaks, with their "some of them swing" variable pylons, and the removal of their true outboard ones, with the limited clearance on the inboards with their custom Sidewinders, that they have some pretty weird loading characteristics.

Heh heh, found this while I was checking things:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ST-91-09662.jpg

124th TFS, my home squadron. I grew up watching those.

Edited January 8, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[JB0]

Drag/yaw/balance is still surely a consideration.  Especially balance.  Unless it's going to be firing verniers constantly while in flight to counteract the weight once it lets a few go.  And you still have to deal with a lot of mass at the tips--even the aileron-less VF-1 still uses verniers at the very tips to roll, it wouldn't like excess mass far from its roll axis.  F-111's don't have a problem, since their "outboard" pylons are still very close to the centerline. (And they're a very large plane--2,000lbs would affect them far less than most fighters)

This sort of heavy armament would seem to logically deployed only in a 0-G environment. Weight would interfere little in 0-G, only affecting the speed in which the fighter can accellerate. It will likely make little affect on the way it operates in space. As long as the weight is evenly distributed, it probably won't make an ounce of difference, certainly not to the point of impracticality.

Weight isn't the problem. Mass is. And mass is constant, regardless of gravity.

The only things you aren't dealing with in space are drag and gravity pulling stuff down.

You're still going to have lots of inertia interfering with everything.

[Opus]

Doesn't it make sense to put your long range weapons on the outermost points? Like in DYRL the entire flight of Valks fired off all of thier RMSs in one huge volley at a mass target and then closed in for individual combat. If the RMSs had been inboard that would have left the UMM-7s outboard affecting manuvering when it's most needed. Keep in mind I'm a ground pounder and don't really know much about these things.

[David Hingtgen]

I've never seen range as a consideration for missile loading location. If you think about it that way, your standard F-14 and current F-15ANG loadouts are the opposite of that. Long-range inboard, medium in the middle, and short-range outboard. Because long-range missiles are bigger, and thus should be inboard where possible.

Generally, most aircraft don't really perform a true mixed mission. It's either air-to-air or air-to-ground. You don't send off a bunch of F-18's to take out a target, then expect them to go air-to-air. Most attack planes carry SOME air-to-air armament at all times for self-defense. But none are sent out expecting to actually fully perform two roles. Even the F-15E isn't expected to do that, despite that fact that once its bombs are dropped, it's effectively an F-15D with FAST packs and AMRAAMs and even better radar and ECM than the D, and would beat anything else in the sky.

And you often see Strike Valks configured pure RMS-1's, not mixed with others. It happens, but like F-15E's, they're mainly expected to fulfill an attack role, not dogfight. Come back and get reloaded if you want to engage enemy fighters, don't go head-to-head with whatever you've got remaining after your primary mission's done.

Edited January 9, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[justvinnie]

Doesn't it make sense to put your long range weapons on the outermost points? Like in DYRL the entire flight of Valks fired off all of thier RMSs in one huge volley at a mass target and then closed in for individual combat. If the RMSs had been inboard that would have left the UMM-7s outboard affecting manuvering when it's most needed. Keep in mind I'm a ground pounder and don't really know much about these things.

This makes sense actually. David, you can't apply conventional strategies to unconventional situations. Valkyries are expected to both take out capital ships and engage enemy fighters in dogfights. If the RMS-1 is fired off in mass volleys very early on to disable masses of enemy fighters or capital ships, it does make sense to load them that way.

vinnie

[David Hingtgen]

That was kind of one of my points, though it isn't flat-out stated. (Guess I should have)-- valks certainly do have unconventional missions by our standards! You know, fighting interplanetary alien battleships and all, and wooing hot alien women (oh wait, that's just Max's mission...)

[Uxi]

It's like a UMM-7 could mass more than even 2 RMS-1's anyway. So DYRL style it's not an issue. The issue would be with 6 RMS-1's... its more logical that the double-loaded missiles SHOULD logically be inboard. And yes, outer missiles would launch before the inner ones.

[Gabriel]

I used to think these missiles were awesome, that is, until I made the mistake of researching how nuclear weapons would really work in space.

Too much reality can be a bad thing. They still look cool though.

[ewilen]

Do tell.

[David Hingtgen]

I was curious too, so I looked some stuff up. Seems they're not that effective. No air=no fire. Also, no air=way weaker shock-wave (since there's nothing to compress/move/carry the wave). There's a lot of X-ray radiation, and that'll even disintegrate some things (due to heat induced by being irradiated), but there won't be much of a boom/shockwave, nor will there be a big fireball to burn everything for miles around. Basically, it'll work for things directly contacted, but there'll be no blast-effects beyond the immediate point of detonation.

(Recall that a nuke is most effective when detonated well above the ground--Earth's atmosphere is key to getting the most out of a nuke--lots of the stuff we associate with them are actually secondary effects from the atmosphere, not the actual nuclear explosion)

[1st Border Red Devil]

Recall that a nuke is most effective when detonated well above the ground--Earth's atmosphere is key to getting the most out of a nuke--lots of the stuff we associate with them are actually secondary effects from the atmosphere, not the actual nuclear explosion

Well.....not if you want to blast a hard target (like a missile silo or underground base). Those are what ground bursts take out. Air burst is great for soft targets like cities and massed formations of troops.

[JELEINEN]

Would there still be an EMP in space?

[ewilen]

Basically, it'll work for things directly contacted, but there'll be no blast-effects beyond the immediate point of detonation.

Pretty much what I thought. Much the same would apply to regular explosives, wouldn't it? Or for that matter, I'm guessing that even in an atmosphere, most of what (proximity or time fuse) flak does isn't from the shock of the explosion itself, but from the shrapnel made by the shell casing being shredded and shot out in all directions.

One idea I just came across in a Usenet search was to have the nuke send out a cloud of high-velocity tungsten BB's (preferably focused in the direction of the bad guys). Or an alternative would be to use it to make an X-ray laser. (The X-ray laser idea was proposed and tested as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, but it didn't get very far. I believe it's also the technology used in nuclear missiles in the Traveller RPG.)

[Gabriel]

Some space nuke info here.

Radiation would cause all the damage and carry for extremely long distances. Thick shielding or armor plating like on Zentraedi ships would probably soak it all up fairly harmlessly.

Any craft operating in space has its electronics hardened to prevent cosmic radiation from messing it up, so I'd think that EMP-type effects would be fairly reduced too.

[ewilen]

That's good stuff. One thing that I've found, though, which hasn't been mentioned, is that the "soft X-Rays" from the detonation can heat the outer skin of a target, causing it to explode away and produce an internal shock wave. This effect is mentioned here and here. Even in the context of an article which is quite skeptical about the utility of small-yield nukes in space, the first source states,

A 1-kiloton interceptor has a surprisingly long range against a soft warhead—somewhat more than 1.5 kilometers, or about a mile. The same weapon would be effective at only 250 meters against a “fully hardened” reentry vehicle.

A 250-meter radius "kill zone" is nothing to sneeze at! It would certainly be useful against Regults (as in the opening battle of DYRL). For use against capital ships, whose armor might protect them against such effects, I'd imagine the missile would be programmed to explode at or near physical contact. This would be reasonable given the relative size and lack of maneuverability of a large ship. (Best of all would be an "armor piercing" nuclear warhead that would burrow into or penetrate the target before exploding, but the closest thing in Macross is when they used the entire ship to plow into Bodolza's fortress in the TV show.)

Edited January 14, 2004 by ewilen

[Aurel Tristen]

Would there still be an EMP in space?

Yes, and the VF-1 is shielded to protect against that.

[David Hingtgen]

Armor-piercing nuclear warhead? Iowa-class battleships had it. The good 'ol Mk 23.

[ewilen]

I didn't know about the Mark 23! Thanks for bringing that up. But I don't think it was armor-piercing. (Found one reference here.) I wonder what it was designed for. (I have a guess: land war in Asia.)

[JB0]

Some space nuke info here.

Radiation would cause all the damage and carry for extremely long distances. Thick shielding or armor plating like on Zentraedi ships would probably soak it all up fairly harmlessly.

Depends on the detonation point.

If the nuke detonates close to the skin, which is the logical behavior for a space-borne explosive device, conventional or not, that armor WILL be severely damaged. It's just too close to the center of the flash, which is going to have an energy level on the order of a star's surface. I don't think the Zentradi vessels are built for stellar landings.

Don't forget, there's a lot of EM radiation, most of it VERY high energy. You're familiar with laser weaponry, so think of this as a less focused but far more intense laser. Sure we lose a fair bit of energy because it's on the wrong side of the blast(best-case scenario is half the energy is delivered), but that's still a lot.

If it lands in a "chink", such as a gun port, we've got some very big messes to clean up, as the blast will blow through the weaker part of the armor, probably damaging some internal systems.

Of course, the most effective would be a "Daedalus missile". Make a 2-stage warhead, so that the missile pierces the armor with conventional armor-piercing techniques, throws the nuke through the hole, THEN initiates the fusion process.

A little Valkyrie-carried Daedalus Attack that gets around all the shortcomings of nukes in space.

We're inside the armor, and therefore inside the radiation shielding, which is intended to protect from outside sources of radiation. EMP is fun, and we have ALL of the EMP inside the system. And not near weakpoints where theyre's likely to be circuit breakers to dampen things. This alone will wreak havoc with a vessel.

But we ALSO have the ship's atmopshere to carry the shockwave and heat wave. AND a spaceship hull and corridors to contain it, taking the blast straight down the ship to the vital areas.

...

Unless the zentradi are smart and have regular breaks in the corridors where they hook out at right angles to prevent this kind of thing.

Which they don't seem to, based on the Daedalus attack animation. Those missiles seem to get some good travel. That indicates long, straight corridors right down the length of the vessel. Which are just what we want.

Essentially, we have an atmospheric nuke with the vessel acting as a lens to focus the effects.

[justvinnie]

I wonder if you can make a microwave gun? You know, shoot lots of microwaves at metal objections.

Heh, so I googled it. That's pretty funny...

At the bottom

There a few more, but that was just cool, taking your microwave and turning it into a weapon of destruction. Actually I wonder why it was been used more often? Microwave laser would make deadly weapons in a high tech battlefield.

vinnie

[1st Border Red Devil]

Actually I wonder why it was been used more often? Microwave laser would make deadly weapons in a high tech battlefield.

Well...microwaves have other military applications...mostly in signals technology IIRC.

About detonating a nuke inside a ship....I would imagine that it is the increase in p.s.i. more than the heat that does it in....bursting it from the inside like someone overfilling a baloon.

[David Hingtgen]

::gets big expensive Iowa book::

Ok, it's not armor-piercing. But it's still big, metal, and pointy, and would get through any modern ship's hull.

It's based on the standard Mk13 High Capacity 1,900lb round. Your basic Mk13 shell will penetrate nearly 30 feet of steel-reinforced concrete. (the original "bunker buster") Not technically "armor piercing" but not much will stand up to it.

(Though it says it is designed to be used as an air-burst nuke, so penetration probably isn't what it's designed for).

[Uxi]

Of course, the most effective would be a "Daedalus missile". Make a 2-stage warhead, so that the missile pierces the armor with conventional armor-piercing techniques, throws the nuke through the hole, THEN initiates the fusion process.

A little Valkyrie-carried Daedalus Attack that gets around all the shortcomings of nukes in space.

Sounds good. And is there anything that says that's NOT how the RMS-1 is designed to operate in space?

[David Hingtgen]

Yeah. The nose cone is utterly blunt.

[ewilen]

Also, if that's how it works, it would be overkill to use a reaction warhead against Regults and such. But a "proximity fuse" with 250 m kill radius against small targets would be great for a long range engagement since it reduces the effectiveness of enemy evasive maneuvering.

IMO once you get into the technicalities and science, it all requires a good deal of suspension of disbelief, though--I'm afraid the "hard SF" approach would be the boring but extremely lethal "nuclear shotgun". Imagine a BIG cloud of tungsten BB's headed in your direction with an enormous relative velocity.

[Aurel Tristen]

Of course, the most effective would be a "Daedalus missile".  Make a 2-stage warhead, so that the missile pierces the armor with conventional armor-piercing techniques, throws the nuke through the hole, THEN initiates the fusion process.

A little Valkyrie-carried Daedalus Attack that gets around all the shortcomings of nukes in space.

Sounds good. And is there anything that says that's NOT how the RMS-1 is designed to operate in space?

The RMS-1 is designed to be an all-environ Valkyrie-use reactive weapon missile system, which means that it can be in both the atmosphere and in outerspace.

[JB0]

Yeah. The nose cone is utterly blunt.

That doesn't mean it can't have an armor-piercing warhead at the tip.

Say, a shaped-charge explosive(though the size needed to pierce battleship armor may prove... inconvenient).

[Gabriel]

Yeah, getting too much into the technical side can start to ruin the fun. There are ways it could still be an effective weapon, but just like visible laser beams and sound effects in space, you have to make some allowances for entertainment over reality.

It wouldn't be Macross without hundreds of missiles flying around and filling up the screen with explosions.

[Uxi]

The RMS-1 is designed to be an all-environ Valkyrie-use reactive weapon missile system, which means that it can be in both the atmosphere and in outerspace.

Uh yeah, I know that. I was just specifically referring to its space operation. It's atmospheric operation would be relatively 'normal" nuke type stuff, I imagine.

[Gabriel]

The RMS-1 is designed to be an all-environ Valkyrie-use reactive weapon missile system, which means that it can be in both the atmosphere and in outerspace.

Uh yeah, I know that. I was just specifically referring to its space operation. It's atmospheric operation would be relatively 'normal" nuke type stuff, I imagine.

The RMS isn't really designed to be anything fancy, as the internal diagram on Nanashi's page shows. Its basically just guidance, warhead, fuel, and motor. I would say that the larger ship-to-ship missiles are more likely to possess shaped or two-stage warheads. The RMS is mainly a multi-purpose missile, which is to say its good for just about any situation but not great at any specific one.

[Axelay]

Wow...! I'm trying to keep up here. This has got to be one of the most informative threads I've ever read on ANY message board. I'm also pleased to see that even after 6 pages, it hasn't spiraled into anything nasty or childish. David, how in the world do you know so much about this stuff? I'm thoroughly impressed.

[JB0]

I'm also pleased to see that even after 6 pages, it hasn't spiraled into anything nasty or childish.

It hasn't?

Dang, we've been slacking.

Ummm...

*proper noun* SUCKS!11111

[Uxi]

I'm also pleased to see that even after 6 pages, it hasn't spiraled into anything nasty or childish. David, how in the world do you know so much about this stuff? I'm thoroughly impressed.

David sucks. He's making it all up! jk. He is one of the most knowledgable jet/plane people I've ever met on a message board. Think he's said he has a lot of (expensive) books... I was thinking he was some grizzled air-force pilot veteran but apparently he's a young guy who's just really into jets.

Edited January 17, 2004 by Uxi