Future Point Defense Options

SWM wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:We know that the Mk23's weren't fitted with FTL receivers; we don't actually know that they couldn't be.

Yes, we do know they couldn't be. Mk23 attack missiles are not big enough for FTL comm. That's why the Apollo Command Missile had to be twice the diameter of the attack missiles.

not to be nitpicky but we only know that for two way communication they needed something the size of the Apollo control missile so we have no idea how big a receiver is.

Flip-outs are one possible way of getting better sensor capability into countermissiles. But for all we know, perhaps they already use them -- and even if they improve things, CM sensors are still going to be myopic compared to ships' sensors.

But it's not just sensors. CMs kill with their wedge, so to get them farther out you need either higher speeds or longer lasting drives. And you need to get them not just a bit farther out, but a LOT farther out, enough that they can start killing MDMs far enough away that there's time for a second (or third....) CM launch before the MDMs enter PDLC range, That's a lot of sensor range, and a lot of drive. That probably means substantial increases in drive endurance, and sensor power. How much will all these changes increase the missile size?

It's a systems engineering problem. You have a whole bunch of things to increase, and a whole bunch of constraints to minimize (such as, firing your missiles out of existing launch tubes and magazines, unless you wish to replace whole generations of ships), and just increasing only one part of the system won't help the overall effect very much.

tonyz wrote:Flip-outs are one possible way of getting better sensor capability into countermissiles. But for all we know, perhaps they already use them -- and even if they improve things, CM sensors are still going to be myopic compared to ships' sensors.

But it's not just sensors. CMs kill with their wedge, so to get them farther out you need either higher speeds or longer lasting drives. And you need to get them not just a bit farther out, but a LOT farther out, enough that they can start killing MDMs far enough away that there's time for a second (or third....) CM launch before the MDMs enter PDLC range, That's a lot of sensor range, and a lot of drive. That probably means substantial increases in drive endurance, and sensor power. How much will all these changes increase the missile size?

It's a systems engineering problem. You have a whole bunch of things to increase, and a whole bunch of constraints to minimize (such as, firing your missiles out of existing launch tubes and magazines, unless you wish to replace whole generations of ships), and just increasing only one part of the system won't help the overall effect very much.

I am not actually talking about being able to launch more than one launch or extending the range what i am talking about is making the CM more independent of shipboard fire control to allow the use of all of the CM tubes currently mounted on ships which they cannot use because they lack the fire control to be able to handle all of the launchers they are equipped with. Now the range increase that I am talking about is effective range AKA the missile still has the same drive but is more effective against targets closer to its maximum range. also if the CM has increased computer power it would also need less fire control direction from the launch ship so instead of continuous guidance it would only need occasional mid course updates so the same amount of fire control can handle more missiles.

captinjoehenry wrote:I am not actually talking about being able to launch more than one launch or extending the range what i am talking about is making the CM more independent of shipboard fire control to allow the use of all of the CM tubes currently mounted on ships which they cannot use because they lack the fire control to be able to handle all of the launchers they are equipped with. Now the range increase that I am talking about is effective range AKA the missile still has the same drive but is more effective against targets closer to its maximum range. also if the CM has increased computer power it would also need less fire control direction from the launch ship so instead of continuous guidance it would only need occasional mid course updates so the same amount of fire control can handle more missiles.

It's worth doing, but unless it allows you to increase the range enough to get CM kills far enough out for an extra CM launch, it'll be a matter of minor increased efficiency, not a game-changer. Also consider that if you can launch more CMs faster, you'll just run out more quickly. (Then again, that may not matter as much -- when incoming missiles can kill you in one volley, even. Surviving that one is worth trying for.)

Also, how do you know that CMs don't already incorporate something of the sort you're suggesting?

captinjoehenry wrote:I am not actually talking about being able to launch more than one launch or extending the range what i am talking about is making the CM more independent of shipboard fire control to allow the use of all of the CM tubes currently mounted on ships which they cannot use because they lack the fire control to be able to handle all of the launchers they are equipped with.

Wrong!

No RMN ship has more launchers than it can control. The problem is cycle times have gotten so fast that the fourth launch is ready to go before the first launch is done with the control links.

Making CMs fire-and-forget would make more launches possible; the problem is making the fire-and-forget with sufficient accuracy to be able to do without ship-board computer support. The latter is where the problem is going to be.

Weird Harold wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am not actually talking about being able to launch more than one launch or extending the range what i am talking about is making the CM more independent of shipboard fire control to allow the use of all of the CM tubes currently mounted on ships which they cannot use because they lack the fire control to be able to handle all of the launchers they are equipped with.

Wrong!

No RMN ship has more launchers than it can control. The problem is cycle times have gotten so fast that the fourth launch is ready to go before the first launch is done with the control links.

Making CMs fire-and-forget would make more launches possible; the problem is making the fire-and-forget with sufficient accuracy to be able to do without ship-board computer support. The latter is where the problem is going to be.

At Solon, the RMN ships could launch 11 salvos of cms to deal with a Havenite salvo, but could only control 8 of the cm salvos.

The entire CM/MDM C&C loop and "control links" is one gigantic Charlie Foxtrot of epic Handwavium proportions.

NO argument can be made from reality as it demolishes everything written. The books wave around in some nebulous fashion as in the books it is portrayed as having your cake and eating it too.

In short, missiles are Davids little Plot problem solvers whenever he feels like it.

Weird Harold wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am not actually talking about being able to launch more than one launch or extending the range what i am talking about is making the CM more independent of shipboard fire control to allow the use of all of the CM tubes currently mounted on ships which they cannot use because they lack the fire control to be able to handle all of the launchers they are equipped with.

Wrong!

No RMN ship has more launchers than it can control. The problem is cycle times have gotten so fast that the fourth launch is ready to go before the first launch is done with the control links.

Making CMs fire-and-forget would make more launches possible; the problem is making the fire-and-forget with sufficient accuracy to be able to do without ship-board computer support. The latter is where the problem is going to be.

If we go back and look at the battle of Solan that gives us the best numbers for Keyhole equipped SD(P) defensive fire. (Which I see Theemile already referenced while I was crunching my numbers)

8 second cycle time on the CM tubes.
The SD(P) could control 8 total salvos; despite having time to launch 11.
The CM flight time is 75 seconds (or less)
Because the original intercept point is at 3.5 million km from the ships the CMs launch 90 seconds before MDM detonation (the extra 15 seconds is how long the MDMs would take to cross that same 3.5 million km distance that the CMs took 75 second to cover)

Based on this I ran a spreadsheet and the logical reconstruction is that the SD(P)s with keyhole can control 6 full CM launches simultaneously. That leaves just enough time after the first salvo hits to get a final pair off.

You probably pump out the first 6 in 48 seconds; then have to wait 27 seconds for the 7th launch.
(It looks like if you punched the first 2 salvos off 8 seconds apart they'd actually impact only about 3 seconds apart due to how quickly the MDMs are closing the range)


If they could have controlled 7 or 8 salvos simultaneously there would still be time for a final pair after the first one hit; so they'd have been able to launch a total of 9 or 10 full salvos. Since they couldn't...

Theemile wrote:At Solon, the RMN ships could launch 11 salvos of cms to deal with a Havenite salvo, but could only control 8 of the cm salvos.

I bow to superior textev chops.

The point remains that RMN SD(P)s (and all other RMN ships) can control every launcher they posses for multiple salvos but can't control as many missiles as they can put into space at one time, thanks to improved cycle times.

[quote="captinjoehenry"]Ok so far all of these ideas have been shot down:
Dedicated missile defense ships
CM pods
CM attached to MDM
drones with PDLC
Larger Lacs dedicated to anti missile ops
CM pods for LACs
dedicated anti missile LACs (Katanas are already almost that)

here are the ideas that so far have not been shot down:
Longer range CM
FTL CM control
More independent CM

ok first for the longer range CM the issue that applies in this case seems to be that these are to inaccurate to be worthwhile and that seems to be the main argument against these

now the FTL CM control is a great idea I think as it would allow longer range intercepts to be possible as the launch ship would be much more capable of guiding the CMs onto their targets as the command loop would be so much shorter and the CM would only need to mount a FTL receiver and not a transmitter which might make it small enough to be practical


---------------

FTL CM / FTL CM Control is applicable for an extended / long range CM

similar to the 1960's USN Tartar SAM and later 1990's SM1/2 ER

Not a bad idea, in fact follows a logical development progression.

To fit in the FTL receiver may raise the ER CM (for lack of a better name) to the size for a Shrike B / Ferret launcher. The Ferrets have more magazine capacity.

Propose --
ER CM Ferrets on outer defense ring
Katana's on second layer
Shrike B's on 3rd layer using Graser for second shots thru after aspect

Close Defense
Katanas in outer layer
DD/CL and ships CM / PDLC

-- Stewart