Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ARGH- HVKF-HOKB-1

HK-36

The Iron Lord Protector (Neutral Good)
rod-from-god-satellite-weapon.jpg

Image: Taken from a blog called Astronotes by Colin Johnston, Science Communicator, a picture of the real-life design of such a weapon called Project Thor by Jerry Pournelle (link here)
Intent: To create a high-orbit kinetic bombardment weapon to be used as a tunk-buster and anti-artillery orbital bombardment weaponry.
Development Thread: If necessary, the weapon was developed based on the issue Mandalorians had combating Sith artillery during Invasion of Dromund Kaas, and while researching my Mass Driver and watching video analyzing use of such weapons in Call of Duty: Ghosts (Never played it, actually)
Manufacturer: Abregado-Rae Guild of Hammers
Model: High Velocity Kinetic Firearm- High Orbital Kinetic Bombardment-1
Affiliation: Barony of Abregado-Rae, Partially Omega Protectorate (See Production)
Modularity: Can be mounted as pods to different vessels, however, it is recommended for it to be used in heavy dropships and gunships. Comes in single-tube variant as well as a six-tube revolving barrel variant.
Production: Minor (Enough to supply the Iron Company and Militia of Abregado-Rae, any additional production would require a development thread with backing from another manufacturing company, i.e. Omega Corps buying off the design to manufacture the weapon for Protectorate forces)
Material: Durasteel, Tungsten, Echani Graphite

Description: During the debriefing of the Invasion of Dromund Kaas, one thing became apparent to HK, the use of artillery groups by the Sith forces and the difficulty Mandalorians had when facing them. The problem was that the artillery groups utilized anti-aircraft emplacements, making bombing runs against them risky, as ships could be lost in such runs. What worked was a strategy used by Mandalorians, sending an infantry team to deal with it, although that was risky as well, and the strategy HK would prefer to use, bombard the artillery positions from altitude higher than that the anti-aircraft guns could reach, i.e. orbital bombardment.

Problem with that was, the presence of the Sith fleet and the size of the ships that were capable of such bombardments, and their lack of speed, made such strategy inefficient as their ship movement would be noticed and the artillery could be adjusted, or the ships intercepted by enemy counter-maneuver.

What HK needed for Gados to develop was a gun small enough to be used on smaller ships like gunships or dropships, which could get in position quickly and before enemy could notice, and with enough kick to take care of an artillery or emplacement position from high orbit.

It was rather a lot to ask, but fortunately, the Gados had an idea for just the thing. Kinetic Orbital Bombardment System utilizing their advanced rail-gun technology they were able to rip off of the Verpine. Thanks, Verpine!

The idea is pretty simple on paper, a magnetic launching tube would be mounted on a pod attached to a gunship or dropship, something larger with enough engine power to carry a system like that and withstand its recoil while being smaller than a corvette. The tube would be loaded with an arrow-like rod projectile, made from durasteel to react to the magnetic systems, with outer shell of Echani Graphite on the shaft to withstand friction and temperature of atmosphere entry, and a core made of tungsten for additional weight, for that extra kick. The tube launches the rod at a high initial velocity expected from a rail gun system that size, ensuring that even when bombarding planetoids with little to no gravitational pull there would be a threshold of minimal kinetic energy released upon impact with the planet's surface, anything else gained through additional acceleration due to gravitational pull is just extra kick.

As such, this weapon is ideal for quick tactical strikes, the projectiles are considerably small, only 2 meters in length, but fired at incredibly high speeds, making shooting them down or intercepting in other ways incredibly difficult, at least without use of a planetary shield. Upon impact the rods unleash their kinetic energy, striking a considerably small area but creating a deep crater of effect, while this is not to destroy a whole city or army in one shot, it is enough to decimate a fortified position or underground position, like underground laboratories, bunker systems, or artillery positions.

While these systems can be used against ships in a bombing run, they are not meant to. They are a dumbfire projectile, meaning they cannot seek their own target, they'll just go straight, and they are loaded in rather small ammunition counts, minimum 2 projectiles, maximum 12 in two barrels of 6. While a one projectile could decimate a ship system in a precise strike, i.e. impacting reactor or shield systems with it, it would work only against a bare hull, shield systems of a ship would most likely deflect the projectile although could take a large hit from the kinetic energy released upon them, overloading the shielding systems with multiple strikes. Therefore, it would be best used against Capital Ships who are not moving and have their shields weakened or deactivated, but then one could just bombard the ship like that with capital weapons to finish the job.

Now, let's talk about the drawbacks of this weapon, the one already mention is the low ammunition count, with the launching pods coming in either variants that hold just one arrow-rod or six, this means that when using this weapon, the strike will better count, for the launching tubes need to be reloaded in a hangar of a capital ship by a team of technicians.

Another drawback is the weight of the weapon, caused partially by the weight of the rods themselves, or to be precise, the dense tungsten cores within them. That is why these weapons cannot be mounted on smaller vehicles like fighters of bombers, a vessel like that may not be able to lift up such a weapon and use it properly. While single-tube variant would be manageable by smaller dropships and gunships, such as the 14.7 meters long Peregrine Gunship, the larger six-tubed revolving variants of the weapon need to be mounted on the more powerful heavy dropships and heavy gunships, such as the 38.9 meters long Inimica Heavy Gunship, as those ships would have strong enough engines to lift the systems up.

Third drawback is the recoil of the weapon and lack of sound dampeners in the systems. Due to the recoil it is recommended that a ship would go into hover-mode and stabilized before using this weapon, otherwise while moving, the rail guns could cause enough push-back to knock the ship off-course or even for the pilot to loose control over it. Now the lack of sound dampeners, it was a method used by Gados to cut back on the costs and weight of the weapon systems, however, this means that these weapon systems cannot be used in atmosphere.
If sound waves are able to form, they cannot be used. The projectiles go into hyper-velocity inside the tubes, propelled by the rail guns in speed faster than sound. While this has no effect on the guns in high-orbits, altitude high enough that it is outside of atmosphere and without presence of air, inside atmosphere the tubes would be damaged, if not exploded, by the rods breaking sound barrier and propelling the air. Usually sound dampeners would prevent that, but again, there is no sound dampeners in these systems, for they are meant to be used from space, and in space no one can hear you scream.

Last drawback is aiming with the things. First of all, the dropship needs to be in the right position in the orbit of the planet to have a straight line of shot at the target on the ground. The tubes can be swiveled about on their pods to get a better shot angle, creating a cone of range instead of just being fired at things that are directly below them. Then the specific location needs to be chosen, this can be done in three ways, via triangulation from the dropship in high-orbit, if it has proper sensors and modules to that, an overwatch from another dropship or capital ship which has proper sensors or modules, or by the strike being called from the ground, via calling in coordinates or using a laser indicator to spot for the dropships in high-orbit and transmit the coordinates for strike to them. Otherwise you can just fire and have no idea what actually the rods would hit, wasting a shot and revealing position for enemy crafts.

The projectiles can also take from few seconds up to few minutes of travelling to their target. This depends on the height from which they are fired as well as the strength of the planet's gravitational field, stronger fields will cause greater acceleration upon the projectiles, allowing them to reach their target sooner. This is obviously hindering when targeting moving objects, such as tank columns, but it should not make much of a difference against stationary targets, like fortifications, anti-ship emplacements, or artillery positions, as long as the gunners take a correction based on the speed of the planet's rotation.

Classification: High Orbit Shattergun
Size: Ship-mounted
Status: Military
Length: 3 meters long launcher, 2 meter long arrow-rods
Weight: 8 tons, 2 loaded launchers
Ammunition Type: Solid metal durasteel rods with depleted tungsten cores
Ammunition Capacity: 1 rod per launching tube
Effective Range: High Orbit, depends on the strength of gravitational pull of the planet, greater pull means greater altitude from which the rod can be dropped.
 
Alright, I watched the linked video before reading this (just to see what's it about)... It's a good sub though (that I wants :p), like a non super, super weapon... But any way
for they are meant to be used from space, and in space no one can hear you scream.
this is highly correct. :D
[member="HK-36"]

Approved, awaiting secondary approval.
 

Ashin Varanin

Professional Enabler
[member="HK-36"] - Pursuant to a report about this weapon and its use, this submission has been brought out for edits. [member="Asemir Lor'kora"] will be the judge.
 
[member="HK-36"]

Okay, I've got some things that need clearing up. They do not appear in any order:

1) Depleted tungsten. Please clarify. Tungsten is not radioactive. Do you mean depleted uranium?

2) I think your yield vs dimensions is a bit off. If we use the RL project as an example, we show that the yield for a 9 ton projectile travelling at Mach 10 is around 5.25*10^10 joules, which is equivalent to just over a 12.5 tons of TNT. Since you're using a projectile that's about a third the mass of the RL equivalent, we come up with a yield of only 1.749*10^10 joules, which is about 4.18 tons of TNT. While that's still a lot of energy in a weapon, it's not that blow everything up weapon that people may think. So this wouldn't level a city or do anything like that.

(Additionally, I'm using the low-end of the velocity spectrum for my calculations, assuming a velocity of 3415 m/s. Some sources would say that the KE device would have velocities up to 11000 m/s. If so, simply multiply the yields by 10. And even in that circumstance, it's only about a tenth of a kiloton, which isn't a whole lot.)

You'll have to adjust the damage according to the above because the dimensions of your projectiles is a third of the real life examples. Using your dimensions, your yield is at most 40 tons of TNT. Not a whole lot compared to the upper limit of 120 tons.

And that's assuming that the listed mass of 6 tons is devoted entirely to two projectiles. More realistically, each projectile would mass only 1.5 tons (with 1.5 tons of equipment per projectile). And that reduces the payload even more to only about 2 (or 20) tons.

4) Once you've figured out how to re-do the mass/dimensions/damage of the weapon, please clarify and specify the size of the ship that can mount this weapon. What is defined as a gunship? Etc.

5) You mention high orbit as the distance from where these things will fire. Please be aware that at those ranges (~35000 km to target), you'll run into significant problems. Targeting is the primary one. Even an error of 0.001 degrees would offset the impact area by a large number of meters. (I don't feel like doing the math here, but it's a trigonometry question.) Additionally, it'd take a significant time for the projectile to travel that distance. Again, a math question. Please note those issues in your description.

That's all I have time to write right now, before work. Please tag me in your reply. Thanks! :)
 

HK-36

The Iron Lord Protector (Neutral Good)
[member="Asemir Lor'kora"]
Edits seen in green text

1) I wasn't sure whether tungsten was radioactive or not so I put in "Depleted Tungsten" just to be safe that I wasn't submitting a dirty weapon by mistake, I'll change it to normal tungsten.

2) I never meant for it to level a city, as I stated in the submission,


HK-36 said:
Upon impact the rods unleash their kinetic energy, striking a considerably small area but creating a deep crater of effect, while this is not to destroy a whole city or army in one shot, it is enough to decimate a fortified position or underground position, like underground laboratories, bunker systems, or artillery positions.
This is a weapon of concentrated damage, it's supposed to level a single artillery position, a single bunker, or a single building at a time, such as the Hyper-Velocity Cannon emplacements on Druckenwell, only one of those could have been destroyed by the gunship armed with those weapons at a time.

While the projectile mass is greatly decreased, as that was intentional, the initial velocity has been spiked up in turn due to the advanced railgun systems used to fire the projectiles, as such I think it would still project enough kinetic energy to take down a single building/fortified position, but if you still think I should increase the mass of the projectiles after these points being made, then I shall do so.

4) It was made in mind with Protectorate gunships, so a heavy gunship would be the Inimica class, I will list them along with their dimensions in the sub and properly link them.

5) High-Orbit is the optimal firing distance, somewhere from where the gunship could fire the weapon without having to worry about the ground anti-ship emplacements, but they can be fired from a shorter distance, I believe they were on Druckenwell, just past the Shipyard Ring. That all said, I did mention what pain it is to make sure these weapons are aimed correctly,


HK-36 said:
Then the specific location needs to be chosen, this can be done in three ways, via triangulation from the dropship in high-orbit, if it has proper sensors and modules to that, an overwatch from another dropship or capital ship which has proper sensors or modules, or by the strike being called from the ground, via calling in coordinates or using a laser indicator to spot for the dropships in high-orbit and transmit the coordinates for strike to them. Otherwise you can just fire and have no idea what actually the rods would hit, wasting a shot and revealing position for enemy crafts.

On Druckenwell I had Siobhan as well as multiple ships in the orbit calling in coordinates and spotting for these weapons, as the Confederacy did little to counter-act that it left them open.

And as to the distance, I will edit it in into the sub but it should not make much difference, the rods would still travel too fast for anything short of planetary shields to intercept them, and they are meant to be used against stationary or slower targets, like fortifications, anti-ship cannons, or artillery positions.


This is a weapon for localized tactical strikes, as the Confederacy showed on Druckenwell, standard ship-mounted turbolaser has a greater potential in large-scale planetary bombardment, such as leveling whole cities, than HOKB-1.
 
I'm posting from my phone, so this post won't be super long. When I get home I'll post in detail.

1. Regarding the Echani graphite, I'd actually suggest removing that. Atmospheric reentry heat is based almost entirely on the cross section if the reentering object, which is negligible for the tungsten rods. Not to mention that tungsten has a stupid high melting temp. More importantly, the properties of Echani graphite would ask for a Dev Thread. I just think it's unnecessary for this weapon.

2. I'm not sure how I feel about the stuff stating this could destroy a vulnerable capital ship with a well placed strike. While that may be technically true, I think it can be abused. I'd rather see this system stay to its original intent of delivering orbital support that has limited penetrating power. As such, I'd recommend replacing that and giving a damage comparison to other weapons like torpedoes or something. (Take into account that the destructive energy is only about a tenth of a kiloton).

3. One issue is the modularity (implied or perceived) of the system. It feels like the system can be easily attached to existing ships. I'm not comfortable with this. I'd be more comfortable if a dedicated ship (or variant if an existing ship) was used. Can you clarify that this is not an adhoc modification? What are your thoughts?
 

HK-36

The Iron Lord Protector (Neutral Good)
[member="Asemir Lor'kora"]

1. I could replace the layer of Graphite with another layer of Tungsten, it should increase mass of the projectiles as well to increase the Kinetic Energy output.

2. Well it was stated that these could be deflected by ship's shields, and if a ship has its shields taken down but a gunship is able to close in on it to fire this weapon accurately, then it's pretty much dead in the water anyway, but I could compare it to proton torpedoes or maybe proton bombs as they are both dumbfire weapons of localized damage like HOKB, but I need your input in on it since I don't really know much about SW ships and their weaponry.

3. The modularity of the systems was key in this case, as I had in mind plans for branching his out into a dedicated ship later on, but it made more sense to me for HK to test it during a battle, such as the Druckenwell, first by modifying the Protectorate gunships to fit it, just to make sure that making a dedicated gunship for these weapons wouldn't be a waste of money. That said, I can compromise with the weapons that are added to gunships taking power away from their bigger weapons like composite lasers or missile lauchers, so they would have to choose between HOKB and their already built-in heavier weapons.

So let me know how you feel about those and I'll make edits.
 
1. Another layer of tungsten would be fine. You'd have to adjust the weapon system's weight appropriately.

2. Yes comparing it to a proton torpedo would be fine but I'll have to double check on that. I can't recall the exact destructive capabilities iof a proton torpedo so I'll check when I get home.

3. If this system is being mounted in existing ships, I would expect a trade off in terms of wother existing weaponry, armor, speed, etc. this is especially true given that this appears to be more of a prototype than production system. Plus, I think the power requirements of rail weapons is under appreciated. Unless a ship is designed to specifically mount rail weapons, the power draw is going to severely limit other systems.

Additionally, you'll need to come up with an equivalency ratio to existing weapon systems.
 

HK-36

The Iron Lord Protector (Neutral Good)
[member="Asemir Lor'kora"]
1. What would be a good weight increase? I'm thinking between .5 ton to 1 ton per launcher.

3. Well if we'll say that the HOKB, when mounted onto existing vehicles, takes away from the power of anything heavier than a laser cannon then for Inimica it would be a decrease from 9 guns to 4 guns, they'll be sacrificing 1 Composite Beam Turret, 2 9-tube Rocket Launcher Turrets, 2 4-tube Rocket Launcher Turrets, and 2 Concussive Missile Launchers to power up 2 rotating barrels of HOKB with six shots each, adding the speed decrease to that it should be enough of a trade-off. For Peregrine it would be trade from 1 Composite Beam Cannon and 2 Dual Concussion Missile Launchers for 2 one-shot HOKB tubes.

As for equivalency Heavy Mass Driver for Single Tubes, equivalency x2, Repeating Heavy Mass Driver for Revolver Tubes, equivalency x4?
 
1. I think a 1 ton increase per launcher is good.

2. I'll have to refer the equivalency calculation to a Ship Judge because that's not my specialty. [member="Ashin Varanin"], can you recommend someone to take a look at the equivalencies please?
 

Ashin Varanin

Professional Enabler
@HK-36 @Asemir Lor'kora


Asemir Lor'kora said:
2. I'll have to refer the equivalency calculation to a Ship Judge because that's not my specialty. Ashin Varanin, can you recommend someone to take a look at the equivalencies please?
[member="Popo"], as our ship-judge-in-tech-judge-clothing, would you mind weighing in on this?
 

HK-36

The Iron Lord Protector (Neutral Good)
[member="Raziel"]

Combination of the aerodynamic shape, the weight of the projectiles, as well as their speed to increase the precision while the gunners make corrects to trajectory during the aiming period of the weapon based on such factor's as weather and planet's rotation to remain accurate when targeting larger stationary objects such as ground Hyper-Velocity Cannons, the weapons also have minor area of effect when bombarding the surface.

Also, next time, unless the Judge/Judges who are currently working on the submission give a permission, I think it would be more appropriate to just pm me and ask.
 
[member="HK-36"]

Okay, here are my notes on what needs to be double checked/addressed.

1. I think I still see some incidences of depleted tungsten. Per our discussion, please change them all to refer to plain tungsten.

2. Enchant graphite still needs to be removed. I think the main culprit is in the bullet pointed Materials line.

3. Let's add into the description a concrete comparison to existing SW tech in terms of damage yield. After reviewing Wookieepedia, I believe a comparison to proton bombs is appropriate against ground based targets, while against starships, proton torpedoes might be better. I believe this will keep the focus of the system on its orbital bombardment intention while still giving it some application against enemy ships. Your thoughts?

4. I would like to see the description to clarify that these are not able to be just "slapped" onto existing small craft. The needed infrastructure of Gauss weapons do not lend them to ad hoc installation. However, I recognize that you were hoping to use these as a test before determining whether or not to pursue the system for full production. As such, installing hem on the ships you mentioned is fine with me, but I'd like to see mention that the majority of their existing weapon systems had to be removed to install this prototype technology. If you choose to produce full production, you'll have to create a new starship sub for the dedicated ship. Your thoughts?

5. I'd like to see a weapon equivalency worked out. I see the beginnings, but I'll need input from [member="Popo"]. [member="Popo"], can you lend your expertise please?

I think that's it for now. Please let me know your thoughts and comments!
 

Popo

I'm Sexy and I Know It
[member="Asemir Lor'kora"] @HK-36 @Ashin Varanin
Awright. First, my bad for taking so long. Really distracted lately. My apologies. Anyways, moving on.

This... is a pretty nasty weapon. This is essentially an unguided, kinetic strike, bunker buster type weapon. Here's the deal. You're using this on stationary positions on the ground like artillery positions, bunkers, hardened defensive locations, Popo's refrigerator (We need to finish that dev thread, Selka), and other similar areas. It's also fired from a railgun and doubles, triples, or quadruples in speed by the time it hits the ground.

Honestly, for a ship-to-ship idea, this is a mass driver. A 1:1 ratio for a turbolaser. There's nothing special about it, honestly. You would get similar, if not better, performance by a mass driver on a ship firing down at the target. However, when you put it on things like dropships and gunships and that sort of thing, that 1:1 becomes a bit of an... issue.

Now, from my experience (I've made an Elite Starfighter which is a turbolaser with wings and a torpedo add-on as well for a bomber for bomb consolidation, both of which have moderate relevance here), there's some give and take. For a support small craft like a gunship or something, this wouldn't be a bolt on. Or, at the very least, it wouldn't be a very stable, safe, or effective bolt on. This would require a specialized platform to fire this from. Why? Coupla reasons.

First, you're mounting a high powered railgun on a ship that isn't meant to fire, carry, or use a high powered railgun designed to bombard a planetary surface. Second, the thing would add 8 tonnes to the ship using it. For reference, for each system you load, you're strapping on one of these to the ship, plus any ammo you're carrying for it:

interstate-truck.jpg
Or this:​
US_Marine_Corps_030224-M-XT622-034_USMC_M923_(6X6)_5-ton_cargo_truck_heads_a_convoy_departing_Camp_Matilda,_Kuwait_crop.jpg
Or this:​
Vickers_E.jpg
In short, this thing would slow down anything mounting it short of a corvette. I could see a gunboat (the length between a heavy Dropship and a Corvette) or larger using this. I can also see a space station using it. For gunships and the like, it'd slow you down to the point that the Support and Balanced Corvettes are passing you by and the Assault Corvette is seriously considering jettisoning cargo, ammo, and crew just to catch up.

The only way I could see this thing being mounted on a gunship or something similar is with most if not all the guns swapped out. This thing, in my mind, is a mass driver, albeit a fancy one, which means it's a turbolaser equivalent with a 1:1 ratio.
 
[member="Popo"]

I agree with Popo for the most part. In order to mount it on an existing gunship, you'd have to strip out a lot of the existing payload, as I alluded to in my earlier posts. However, those same ships would not be encumbered. They are designed to carry anywhere from 10 - 20 tons of cargo in addition to their existing weapon payload. So, the actual mass of the weapon shouldn't be an issue. But the existing (or nonexisting) power hookups, structural requirements, etc., that would require significant modifications to the existing ship.

Also, Popo, there's no maximum velocity in space. This would not slow down the ship. It'd only affect its acceleration. :p ;)
 

Popo

I'm Sexy and I Know It
[member="Asemir Lor'kora"]
I was referring to the speed chart lol It'd probably bump the ship in question (one that's not specially made for it) down a number towards the slower end of the chart is what I meant. Also, as for encumbrance, I meant for ships not specially designed for it lol
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom