|
Post by admiralhood on Dec 5, 2018 10:19:12 GMT -6
Hi guys,
I just came up with some new ideas which could be included into the research category:
1. Magnetic pistol, which could allow a fraction to equip its fleet magnetic-fused mines and torpedoes. Magnetic mines should increase the efficiency of the mine filed and magnetic-fused torpedoes could cause greater damage to a enemy ship however with higher dud rate.
2. MAD, magnetic anomaly detector. A technology once acquire could increase the ASW efficiency of the MPA(maritime patrol aircraft) considerably.
3. Proximity fuze, which could increase the AA efficiency of 5 inch guns.
4. In the "radar" category, it could be great if the rangefinder and the FCR could be differed into 2 different stages. The first one is only able to tell the distance of a ship, a submarine or an aircraft. The second one could be used as a director for aiming guns(the effect is basically increasing the accuracy of guns).
5. Combat Information Center, which could be something included in the "Fleet Tactics" category.
I am just trying to giving out some new ideas which I believe could make the game more fun to play. If my fellow admirals and sailors have other ideas about researches, I would be more than happy to discuss with you in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 5, 2018 10:55:32 GMT -6
Those are good ideas, and ones we have covered or added from Alpha1. Feel free to brainstorm, but I think Fredrik has the tech advancements nicely in line!
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 8, 2018 1:05:03 GMT -6
3. Proximity fuze, which could increase the AA efficiency of 5 inch guns.
That is a big one, because the VT fuze greatly increased the effectiveness of the 5" gun.
However, development of that fuze shouldn't end at the 5" calibre. Toward the end of the war the USN had determined the 40mm was no longer powerful enough to reliably down incoming kamikazes, so it starting looking at an improved 3" gun, which was the smallest size shell for which a VT fuze could be developed. By war's end the 3" was favoured over the 40mm, as with a VT fuze and advanced director a single 3" gun was deemed superior to twin 40mm Bofors. (Post-war twin 3" gun mounts replaced the quad 40mm Bofors installations.)
Another area for research is ASW, going from simple depth charge racks to the depth charge throwers (Y-gun then K-gun) to the Hedgehog and Mousetrap, not to mention the advances in depth charge design and the post-war Alfa.
|
|
ilyusin28
New Member
I'm Japanese,so I can't write English well.
Posts: 35
|
Post by ilyusin28 on Dec 8, 2018 1:31:37 GMT -6
Is there a technique of electronic interference? For example, disturbing waves and chaff are so. Is there a fictitious technology to bring battleships active also after the 1950s?(I use Google translate)
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Dec 8, 2018 9:53:44 GMT -6
Is there a technique of electronic interference? For example, disturbing waves and chaff are so. Is there a fictitious technology to bring battleships active also after the 1950s?(I use Google translate) “Jamming” is pretty close to what you’re wanting I believe. As for reactivating battleships, there were a lot of projects and proposals meant to keep them relative. Sub-caliber ammunition was a big one. That squeezed a lot of extra range out of the guns (and with fins gave the possibility of laser guided rounds) while still delivering an 11” shell to the target.
|
|
|
Post by mmmfriedrice on Dec 8, 2018 15:17:36 GMT -6
I assume guided missiles and jet aircraft aren't going to make it in the game.
Otherwise there's always the hideously expensive BBG proposals to slap some rocket-powered telephone poles in place of the Y turret of a Iowa-class ship.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 8, 2018 15:29:28 GMT -6
I assume guided missiles and jet aircraft aren't going to make it in the game. Otherwise there's always the hideously expensive BBG proposals to slap some rocket-powered telephone poles in place of the Y turret of a Iowa-class ship.
Guided missiles, particularly in the anti-aircraft realm, really didn't come into service until the mid- to late-1950s, so it would depend on how much they want to include post-war developments into the research stream as options for players.
Jet aircraft, on the other hand, did make it into WWII, albeit in small numbers, and did rapidly displace piston-engine aircraft after the war (with the associated carrier operating issues posed by the heavier and faster jets). But other than faster speeds, aerial warfare didn't really change. The air war over Korea from 1950-53 was fought the same way as in WWII: aircraft maneuvering to use machine guns or cannons to shoot the enemy down. Air-to-air missiles didn't enter the picture until more than a decade later (and even then, their performance in downing enemy aircraft wasn't great).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 8, 2018 16:02:08 GMT -6
I assume guided missiles and jet aircraft aren't going to make it in the game. Otherwise there's always the hideously expensive BBG proposals to slap some rocket-powered telephone poles in place of the Y turret of a Iowa-class ship.
Guided missiles, particularly in the anti-aircraft realm, really didn't come into service until the mid- to late-1950s, so it would depend on how much they want to include post-war developments into the research stream as options for players.
Jet aircraft, on the other hand, did make it into WWII, albeit in small numbers, and did rapidly displace piston-engine aircraft after the war (with the associated carrier operating issues posed by the heavier and faster jets). But other than faster speeds, aerial warfare didn't really change. The air war over Korea from 1950-53 was fought the same way as in WWII: aircraft maneuvering to use machine guns or cannons to shoot the enemy down. Air-to-air missiles didn't enter the picture until more than a decade later (and even then, their performance in downing enemy aircraft wasn't great).
Project Nike was begun as an Army project in 1945 and it became operational in 1954. The Nike Hercules missiles were deployed an AADCP's like San Francisco and Los Angeles Army Air Defense Command Posts to replace the Ajax. The last Nike Ajax was deactivated in 1963. San Francisco AADCP was located on the north side, of the Golden Gate Bridge to the left over the hill. I used to call both AADCP on our shifts to get site status on the missiles. ed-thelen.org/missiles.html
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Dec 8, 2018 16:42:21 GMT -6
Western Germany was looking into radar proximity fuzing for 40mm in the 1980's but the fuze ate too much payload at that calibre. Though that might well have changed by now, especially if one could use laser fuzing. However, the smallest AA/DP calibre I know of with proximity fuzing is 57mm.
There are 40mm and 35mm fuzes with timed fuzes today however (e.g. 35mm Millenium AHEAD), this is enabled by having radar controlled guns and time setting at the muzzle as the round leaves the barrel. This process is so automatic and incorporates so much accurate and timely data (e.g. measured muzzle velocity) that proximity fuzing likely would not add effectiveness withinh the 40mm and smaller range envelope anyways. With the larger calibres you get longer flight time and could even have guidance (76mm STRALES), so proximity fuzing is more effective than even "modern" time fuzing.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Dec 8, 2018 18:52:55 GMT -6
I assume guided missiles and jet aircraft aren't going to make it in the game. Otherwise there's always the hideously expensive BBG proposals to slap some rocket-powered telephone poles in place of the Y turret of a Iowa-class ship. Guided missiles have been pretty well confirmed since the announcement of RTW2. They were mentioned in the bottom line of the first dev journal. There’s also a tab in the ship design screen for flight installations and missiles.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 9, 2018 1:39:28 GMT -6
Guided missiles, particularly in the anti-aircraft realm, really didn't come into service until the mid- to late-1950s, so it would depend on how much they want to include post-war developments into the research stream as options for players.
Jet aircraft, on the other hand, did make it into WWII, albeit in small numbers, and did rapidly displace piston-engine aircraft after the war (with the associated carrier operating issues posed by the heavier and faster jets). But other than faster speeds, aerial warfare didn't really change. The air war over Korea from 1950-53 was fought the same way as in WWII: aircraft maneuvering to use machine guns or cannons to shoot the enemy down. Air-to-air missiles didn't enter the picture until more than a decade later (and even then, their performance in downing enemy aircraft wasn't great).
Project Nike was begun as an Army project in 1945 and it became operational in 1954. The Nike Hercules missiles were deployed an AADCP's like San Francisco and Los Angeles Army Air Defense Command Posts to replace the Ajax. The last Nike Ajax was deactivated in 1963. San Francisco AADCP was located on the north side, of the Golden Gate Bridge to the left over the hill. I used to call both AADCP on our shifts to get site status on the missiles. ed-thelen.org/missiles.htmlI was thinking of ship-board missiles, but fair enough. However, the question does remain: how well would these early missile systems have functioned in actual combat? If the USN torpedo experience of early WWII is any indication, things that work perfectly fine in peacetime testing frequently don't work nearly as well in wartime operations.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Dec 9, 2018 2:55:19 GMT -6
Project Nike was begun as an Army project in 1945 and it became operational in 1954. The Nike Hercules missiles were deployed an AADCP's like San Francisco and Los Angeles Army Air Defense Command Posts to replace the Ajax. The last Nike Ajax was deactivated in 1963. San Francisco AADCP was located on the north side, of the Golden Gate Bridge to the left over the hill. I used to call both AADCP on our shifts to get site status on the missiles. ed-thelen.org/missiles.htmlI was thinking of ship-board missiles, but fair enough. However, the question does remain: how well would these early missile systems have functioned in actual combat? If the USN torpedo experience of early WWII is any indication, things that work perfectly fine in peacetime testing frequently don't work nearly as well in wartime operations. Another good example would be the horrible horrible performance of the AAMs in the Vietnam War.
|
|
ilyusin28
New Member
I'm Japanese,so I can't write English well.
Posts: 35
|
Post by ilyusin28 on Dec 9, 2018 6:38:23 GMT -6
After reading the development diary, I thought whether there is research on the landing system. IJN has a lower self-incidence rate than the United States and the UK, which depended on people's guidance, with landing system on CV. Moreover, I was wondering if there is also a reduction in accident rate due to wire evolution. In Ryujyo (IJN's CVL) there is an accident that the broken wire cuts off the crew's leg. Also, at HMS · Victorious, the wire has run out, accidents happen that the scimitar falls into the sea and the pilot dies.(I used Google translated)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2018 10:59:38 GMT -6
I was thinking of ship-board missiles, but fair enough. However, the question does remain: how well would these early missile systems have functioned in actual combat? If the USN torpedo experience of early WWII is any indication, things that work perfectly fine in peacetime testing frequently don't work nearly as well in wartime operations. Another good example would be the horrible horrible performance of the AAMs in the Vietnam War. The problems with the AAM in Vietnam was related to problems with the LAU-7A missile launchers and the fact that the missile guidance system had not been coated against moisture and had been tested at Nellis AFB Las Vegas. It is very dry there and nothing like Danang and Vietnam jungle area. The problem with the LAU-7A was the lanyard that pulls after the missile is dropped. The AULT Report details the problems with both the AIM-9 and AIM-7. With the addition of the Sidewinder Extended Acquisition System in the cockpit, pilots only had to turn their head, and the missile seeker head locked on the target, then the pilots could fire the missile. By the end of the Vietnam War, all these issue were corrected. Before that, on the AIM-7, you had to fire the missile in groups to get one missile's motor's to ignite. It was called ripple firing. This was the only way to increase the kill probability. Some missiles ignite and launch directly off of the launcher, others have to be pushed by the plungers, then the lanyard would disconnect and the motor would fire. In most cases the lanyard was the problem. If you have any questions about how all this works, just put it up here or start a new thread. The Sparrow was a radar missile and the Sidewinder was a heat-seeker. The Sparrow's target had to be illuminated with a CW transmitter mounted on the side of the Airborne fire control radar. It had to be illuminated all the way, it was not a semi-homing missile like the later missiles. The early sidewinders had to be fired as the target moved away from missile since it needed the tail heat to lock on. This was later changed with improvement to the sensitivity of the heat seeker. www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/ault-report.html
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 9, 2018 16:33:55 GMT -6
Another good example would be the horrible horrible performance of the AAMs in the Vietnam War. The problems with the AAM in Vietnam was related to problems with the LAU-7A missile launchers and the fact that the missile guidance system had not been coated against moisture and had been tested at Nellis AFB Las Vegas. It is very dry there and nothing like Danang and Vietnam jungle area. The problem with the LAU-7A was the lanyard that pulls after the missile is dropped. The AULT Report details the problems with both the AIM-9 and AIM-7. With the addition of the Sidewinder Extended Acquisition System in the cockpit, pilots only had to turn their head, and the missile seeker head locked on the target, then the pilots could fire the missile. By the end of the Vietnam War, all these issue were corrected. Before that, on the AIM-7, you had to fire the missile in groups to get one missile's motor's to ignite. It was called ripple firing. This was the only way to increase the kill probability. That all illustrates the point that testing of weapons in non-combat conditions is not necessarily indicative of how a weapon system will work in combat conditions. It took actual combat to uncover those issues, and it took time to get them rectified. Which means those early-era missiles in RTW2 should not be expected to perform well, since the technology is new and untried in combat. Wartime experience is what ultimately what gets those weapons systems improved.
Regarding AAM usage over Vietnam, what was the difference in kill rate early in the war as compared to later in the war, after the Ault report?
ETA: Thanks for posting the link, by the way.
|
|