UCS Shadow

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:27 am

Top and side views of the ATT and a view of the old high yield torp.

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:23 pm

The round nosed ones are an older design. They are relatively slow, not very agile, not very smart, but they are reliable and they are very high yield.

The other is an advanced tactical torpedo. The spike on the nose is a Mark 1 AMP cannon. One of the roles for fighters is to shoot down incoming torps; the ATT is capable of fighting back. It's also much faster, much more agile, and a lot smarter. But it loses some yield because it gives up warhead space for the other systems, and it's quite newfangled and not the most reliable thing around.

Much like modern RL torpedoes, eh? There's a reason the UK submariners still chose on occasion to use WWII unguided torps during the Falklands War - modern torps are smarter but less reliable, while the old-school ones were "good enough" to hit the available targets and packed more punch.

I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:31 pm

Mikey wrote:I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.

You're right - I could. Another advantage of the older torps was that they had a much bigger warhead.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:43 pm

Mikey wrote:Much like modern RL torpedoes, eh? There's a reason the UK submariners still chose on occasion to use WWII unguided torps during the Falklands War - modern torps are smarter but less reliable, while the old-school ones were "good enough" to hit the available targets and packed more punch.

I'm sure Seafort will be able to give me the Mark numbers of the two types, and the actual shipping against which each was used. Please don't.

Exactly so. That's just what I had in mind when I designed the torpedoes actually.

And in the Falklands the new torps were Tigerfish, but they used good old fashioned Mark 8s instead if I remember right; designed in 1925, would you believe, nearly 60 years before. The buggers worked, though.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:18 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:And in the Falklands the new torps were Tigerfish, but they used good old fashioned Mark 8s instead if I remember right; designed in 1925, would you believe, nearly 60 years before. The buggers worked, though.

Ironically, the target was only a decade or so younger.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:29 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:Graham, is that the one that you gave me the keys to?
Yup. Told you it wasn't something to mess about with!

Does this mean I'm grounded or... does no one care?

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:06 pm

As long as you only destroy one continent at a time, it's all good.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:55 pm

NICE! ROMULAS, HERE I COME! No one's going to miss that right? Anyone? No?

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:49 pm

Actually one of these ships couldn't destroy a planet, though it could redecorate the surface very effectively and make it non-liveable.

The battleships and battlecruisers can have planetbusting super-cannon attached, though.

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:51 pm

I SO WANT THAT FOR CHRISTMAS!
Plllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:55 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:Actually one of these ships couldn't destroy a planet, though it could redecorate the surface very effectively and make it non-liveable.

The battleships and battlecruisers can have planetbusting super-cannon attached, though.

Speaking of planet-busting, what's the yield of that supergun attatchment for the battleship that you mentioned in the size-comparison thread?

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:14 pm

Whatever it takes to blow up an Earth-sized planet.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:18 pm

2.4E32 J would be the absolute lower limit, although if you want it to blow up spectacularly you'll need something closer to 3.4E38 J.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:26 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:2.4E32 J would be the absolute lower limit, although if you want it to blow up spectacularly you'll need something closer to 3.4E38 J.

How'd you figure that out?

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 5:29 pm

It's the gravitational binding energy of an Earth sized planet, calculated by using the formula for KE and plugging in the mass of the planet and its escape velocity. I pulled the numbers from here.