Annachie wrote:Given that that missile description you gave makes it sound like that missiles, or at least the older style missiles, don't have the capacity to sight through their own wedges like an all up ship can, does that mean they have/had to trail out an antena to improve the communication back to the patent ship?
If I'm understanding what you're saying, that's correct. In fact, it's correct even for the latest models of missiles. For that matter, it's mostly correct for warships, as well. A warship can "see" through the bands of its impeller wedge, that only very, very poorly, and it requires extraordinarily capable sensor hardware and computational ability. That's the reason Rafe Cardones' ability to target Thunder of God's incoming missiles through Fearless' belly bands was so inferior to what he could have obtained had he dared to expose the cruiser's broadside (i.e., sidewalls) directly to incoming fire.
Missiles have never been able to "see" through their wedges. Partly that's because it would be insanely expensive to even try to build the minimum sensor/computer package sufficient to accomplish that into something the size of a missile which is going to be expended when it's fired, whether or not it strikes its target. It might — might — be physically possible to build that sort of capability into something the size of a Mark 23, but it would come at the expense of so many other capabilities (there's only so much space you can shoehorn things into) that it would disastrously compromise the missile's effectiveness as a weapon. It makes far, far more sense to build those capabilities (or something which gives you the same effect as those capabilities) into a drone platform which is even bigger than the missile, restricted to much lower accelerations, but also has much greater endurance and drive flexibility.
Missiles don't "trail an antenna." Instead, they periodically "clear the wedge" by reorienting so that the open stern aspect of their wedge is presented to the controlling ship. The ship's computers know when each missile will carry out that maneuver, and it has a data packet waiting when the wedge is cleared, just as it is waiting to receive from that missile at that moment. This is one reason why missile salvos have to be "choreographed" as carefully as they are. It's also one of the vulnerabilities that missile defense looks for. If you can find a pattern for the order in which the missiles in a salvo "clear their wedges," you can adjust (to some extent, at least) your defensive fire. Also, if you keep an eye on the incoming missiles, map their vectors carefully, and know the bearing to the ship(s) firing/controlling the missiles, your computers can keep track of the last time at which they could have been updated. This forms one component in missile defense's threat ranking for incoming fire. If you know that Missile A has been updated within 20 seconds of the time in which it will enter its standoff attack range but that Missile B's "youngest" update can't be any fresher than 60 seconds of the time in which it will enter attack range, then Missile A is clearly the greater threat and stopping it should be assigned a higher priority.
All of this is going on continually, on both sides, which is one reason that the FTL capability of Apollo is so decisive.
I suppose I should also point out that as an impeller wedge's acceleration rate increases its geometry alters. I'm pretty sure I've already said this, but one of the things that happens as acceleration rate goes up is that the throat of the wedge narrows and that the kilt grows proportionately "deeper." Now, missile acceleration rates are purely insane compared to those of any man's platform, and what this means is that missile wedges are flatter compared to ships' wedges. In addition, the missile is proportionately further to the rear of the wedge.
This has two implications. Implication #1 is that it squeezes down the "windshield frame" through which the missile sensors — which can only see what is in front of the missile, not through the roof or floor — can collect information. Implication #2 is that as the kilt deepens (which is another way to say "opens"), the missile's communications array has a wider" aperture through which it can transmit and receive. This, by the way, is also part of the reason that counter missiles require (and are [i]designed to require) better shipboard control than shipkillers do. Their view of what's in front of them is even more restricted than a shipkiller's view, and their ability to receive shipboard control is much greater because (a) they have a larger keyhole through which they can communicate and (b) they are usually fired on a much "straighter" vector. That is, they are being directed against an incoming threat rather than following a programmed-in evasion pattern to get through someone's defenses, which means that their after aspects are going to spend a lot more time pointed directly at the ships controlling them. Counter missiles are usually "steered" right up to the moment at which their onboard sensors lock on to their designated target. That's because their narrow field of view makes it so much harder for them to see the entire spectrum of incoming missile threats compared to what the control ship's onboard systems, looking through an entire galaxy of arrays — remote platforms, shipboard sensors, input from the shipkillers' sensors, input from all of the counter missiles currently deployed, etc. — that it would be stupid to rely on their own rudimentary capabilities. Note here that "rudimentary" is being used in the sense of "limited by unavoidable technical constraints" rather than in the sense of "boy, this is crude technology." Navies don't waste a lot of money building in capabilities the CMs couldn't use anyway, so even their theoretical capabilities are significantly lower than for a shipkiller, but the primary reason for not wasting the money is that bit about "couldn't use anyway." The fact that the Viper has more "shipkiller DNA" built into it — that it is, in effect, a hybrid weapon — explains why Vipers are so much more expensive than standard CMs.
I think some people underestimate the sophistication and "density" of the data management of a squadron or a fleet engagement. Consider an SD(P) battle squadron with Keyhole-Two. There may be literally thousands of MDMs, coupled with scores or hundreds of stealthed recon platforms, backed up by the sensor take of every LAC and starship in the engagement. Much of that data — at any given moment — will be unavailable to any given SD(P) in the battle squadron, but it will probably be available to some SD(P) in that battle squadron or (in a fleet engagement) in another battle squadron. This is significant because, the Keyhole platforms, being outside the starship wedges, will be able to maintain continual cross-platform communications, which means that in theory any SD(P) in any battle squadron will have very close to full real-time access to the vast majority of the sensor information coming back from all of those attack, reconnaissance, and — remember the CMs — defensive platforms. The more missiles there are in flight, the greater the depth and "richness" of the data stream available to the firing ships. All of this flows together to build the "battlefield awareness" which guides the fleet/squadron tactical officers in managing offensive and defensive fire, and the speed with which it can be received and with which tactical decisions based upon that awareness can be transmitted to attack and defensive platforms has huge implications for the squadron or fleet's effectiveness in action.
And that, my children, is yet another reason that Apollo is such a devastating offensive advantage.
