Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests

Hybrid missile/Graser Torp

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Kizarvexis   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:40 am

Kizarvexis
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:18 pm

Relax wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Well there's relaying at all; and then relaying with sufficient bandwidth.

Recon drones can't even act as a single-channel Hermes buoy

Hermes buoy, RD, and Keyholes are all transceivers with 'x' amount of FTL bandwidth. HOW you choose to divy up said bandwidth and use it is up to you. They all do the exact same thing.

Hauling around another dedicated FTL transceiver platform violates the KISS principle. Violates the simple fact that every single ship from DD to BC and SD wants this system and all have built in FTL transceivers themselves. Making a common system out of pre-existing available multi redundant platforms is just plain ol' common sense.

Now at some point, too much redundancy becomes ridiculous wasting tonnage in propulsion drive mass and why a more densely packed FTL bandwidth platform should exist. Hermes buoy vrs RD. Keyhole vrs Hermes Buoy.


In the books, the RD can not be used a FC. They can not be used as a Hermes bouy. Those were the things that Jonathan S was talking about.
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Theemile   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:34 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3486
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Kizarvexis wrote:
In the books, the RD can not be used a FC. They can not be used as a Hermes bouy. Those were the things that Jonathan S was talking about.


It's been shown in the text that RD and Hermes lashups CAN be used as a ghetto FTL fire control (Mike at the battle of Solon after her BC(p) had been gutted). It's been argued on the forum by several members that such technology should be matured, especially for lighter units. I, for one, was arguing for stripped down keyholes to be carried by a CLAC or support ship and passed out to lighter ship just before a battle or patrol. Essentially, the dock would be a LAC bay or a dock in a module in an FSV, the light warships would only have to have the required connectors and controllers. It was mentioned that the original Keyhole was ~20 Ktons before all the defensive goodies and redundancy of extra systems was added – a mass about the size of a LAC – so it should be able to build one capable of being carried in a LAC bay.

Seeing that a deployed Keyhole 1 is in the 60 ton range for each module, the volume and mass of 2 of them would allow many standard RDs to be carried in their place. The argument has been that it should be possible to build RDs with ACM fire control built in – essentially allowing an FTL forward control node to be emplaced outside the sidewall as a repeater and others down steam to herd the missile storms. Given their size, a DD or CL could carry enough for its own fire control with some spare capability to assist other units, while a BC or CA could carry clouds of them, and easily replace any combat losses.

When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Kizarvexis   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:46 am

Kizarvexis
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:18 pm

Theemile wrote:
Kizarvexis wrote:
In the books, the RD can not be used a FC. They can not be used as a Hermes bouy. Those were the things that Jonathan S was talking about.


It's been shown in the text that RD and Hermes lashups CAN be used as a ghetto FTL fire control (Mike at the battle of Solon after her BC(p) had been gutted). It's been argued on the forum by several members that such technology should be matured, especially for lighter units. I, for one, was arguing for stripped down keyholes to be carried by a CLAC or support ship and passed out to lighter ship just before a battle or patrol. Essentially, the dock would be a LAC bay or a dock in a module in an FSV, the light warships would only have to have the required connectors and controllers. It was mentioned that the original Keyhole was ~20 Ktons before all the defensive goodies and redundancy of extra systems was added – a mass about the size of a LAC – so it should be able to build one capable of being carried in a LAC bay.

Seeing that a deployed Keyhole 1 is in the 60 ton range for each module, the volume and mass of 2 of them would allow many standard RDs to be carried in their place. The argument has been that it should be possible to build RDs with ACM fire control built in – essentially allowing an FTL forward control node to be emplaced outside the sidewall as a repeater and others down steam to herd the missile storms. Given their size, a DD or CL could carry enough for its own fire control with some spare capability to assist other units, while a BC or CA could carry clouds of them, and easily replace any combat losses.

When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.


RDs have been used to get info, but the data is passed to the missiles by the dedicated FC. I know that RL, you could make RDs more effective, but in the books for many years, the RDs could not direct missiles. RDs also don't have the bandwidth of Hermes bouys in the books either.
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Relax   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:51 am

Relax
Admiral

Posts: 2749
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:18 pm

Theemile wrote:When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

It should be noted that you start with SD's with thousands of missiles and channels required and then work down. Of course it should also be pointed out that RD's have also been working UP in bandwidth.

Of course we have not added Apollo or other light speed control missiles which now increase by factor of 8 throw weight, or another way of saying bandwidth required drops by a factor of 8 if you go with dumb transmission and not compressed. This should free up an IMMENSE amount of FTL bandwidth to talk to Hermes buoy's/RD's for CM defense. In fact we ~saw this in UH.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Kizarvexis   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:09 am

Kizarvexis
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:18 pm

Relax wrote:
Theemile wrote:When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

It should be noted that you start with SD's with thousands of missiles and channels required and then work down. Of course it should also be pointed out that RD's have also been working UP in bandwidth.

Of course we have not added Apollo or other light speed control missiles which now increase by factor of 8 throw weight, or another way of saying bandwidth required drops by a factor of 8 if you go with dumb transmission and not compressed. This should free up an IMMENSE amount of FTL bandwidth to talk to Hermes buoy's/RD's for CM defense. In fact we ~saw this in UH.


There are no CMs with FTL receivers. Lots of fan speculation that CM will get that ability at some point, but nothing now.

Hermes buoys can do video because of the bandwidth they have. RDs currently can NOT do video because lack of bandwidth.
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Theemile   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:10 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3486
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Kizarvexis wrote:
Theemile wrote:
It's been shown in the text that RD and Hermes lashups CAN be used as a ghetto FTL fire control (Mike at the battle of Solon after her BC(p) had been gutted). It's been argued on the forum by several members that such technology should be matured, especially for lighter units. I, for one, was arguing for stripped down keyholes to be carried by a CLAC or support ship and passed out to lighter ship just before a battle or patrol. Essentially, the dock would be a LAC bay or a dock in a module in an FSV, the light warships would only have to have the required connectors and controllers. It was mentioned that the original Keyhole was ~20 Ktons before all the defensive goodies and redundancy of extra systems was added – a mass about the size of a LAC – so it should be able to build one capable of being carried in a LAC bay.

Seeing that a deployed Keyhole 1 is in the 60 ton range for each module, the volume and mass of 2 of them would allow many standard RDs to be carried in their place. The argument has been that it should be possible to build RDs with ACM fire control built in – essentially allowing an FTL forward control node to be emplaced outside the sidewall as a repeater and others down steam to herd the missile storms. Given their size, a DD or CL could carry enough for its own fire control with some spare capability to assist other units, while a BC or CA could carry clouds of them, and easily replace any combat losses.

When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.


RDs have been used to get info, but the data is passed to the missiles by the dedicated FC. I know that RL, you could make RDs more effective, but in the books for many years, the RDs could not direct missiles. RDs also don't have the bandwidth of Hermes bouys in the books either.


We're not talking about using a current RD design - but modfiying an RD chassis with stuff from the Hermes and Apollo parts kits to become a forward fire control unit or firecontrol repeater. We're not taklking about a single unit controlling hundreds of missiles, but 8 or so channels. If you need to control more, you send out more control nodes. They form a mesh network and if one is lost, the others take up the slack until a replacement can be vectored to replace it.

Primitave use of the existing hardware hurridly lashed together has worked in the books - poorly. But a custom kit bashed solution should be possible in the RMN to form a poor man's distributed firecontrol repeater solution for a moderate sized salvo.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Theemile   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:12 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3486
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Kizarvexis wrote:
Relax wrote:It should be noted that you start with SD's with thousands of missiles and channels required and then work down. Of course it should also be pointed out that RD's have also been working UP in bandwidth.

Of course we have not added Apollo or other light speed control missiles which now increase by factor of 8 throw weight, or another way of saying bandwidth required drops by a factor of 8 if you go with dumb transmission and not compressed. This should free up an IMMENSE amount of FTL bandwidth to talk to Hermes buoy's/RD's for CM defense. In fact we ~saw this in UH.


There are no CMs with FTL receivers. Lots of fan speculation that CM will get that ability at some point, but nothing now.

Hermes buoys can do video because of the bandwidth they have. RDs currently can NOT do video because lack of bandwidth.


You are right, but the concept discussed here would have FTL on a "CM fire control drone", which would send firecontrol updates the CMs in the outer defense zone.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by Kizarvexis   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:29 am

Kizarvexis
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:18 pm

Theemile wrote:
Kizarvexis wrote:RDs have been used to get info, but the data is passed to the missiles by the dedicated FC. I know that RL, you could make RDs more effective, but in the books for many years, the RDs could not direct missiles. RDs also don't have the bandwidth of Hermes bouys in the books either.


We're not talking about using a current RD design - but modfiying an RD chassis with stuff from the Hermes and Apollo parts kits to become a forward fire control unit or firecontrol repeater. We're not taklking about a single unit controlling hundreds of missiles, but 8 or so channels. If you need to control more, you send out more control nodes. They form a mesh network and if one is lost, the others take up the slack until a replacement can be vectored to replace it.

Primitave use of the existing hardware hurridly lashed together has worked in the books - poorly. But a custom kit bashed solution should be possible in the RMN to form a poor man's distributed firecontrol repeater solution for a moderate sized salvo.



Theemile wrote:
Kizarvexis wrote:There are no CMs with FTL receivers. Lots of fan speculation that CM will get that ability at some point, but nothing now.

Hermes buoys can do video because of the bandwidth they have. RDs currently can NOT do video because lack of bandwidth.


You are right, but the concept discussed here would have FTL on a "CM fire control drone", which would send firecontrol updates the CMs in the outer defense zone.



For a handwavium reason, I would say power. FC has been dedicated to ships or things like Keyhole as RDs can't generate enough spare power for FC links. They could have the links, but not enough power to be of use downrange. Keyholes are large enough that they can gen the spare power for FC links. That's my handwavium for that.

I like the idea of a CLAC carrying Keyholes for light combatants. Would only work for fleet actions where the CLAC is there to pick up the Keyhole when needed, but if the space necessary for the power transmission and links are not too much for cruisers and DDs, likely I think, then it would be worth it IMO.
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by WLBjork   » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:20 pm

WLBjork
Commander

Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:45 am

Relax wrote:As for armor; Increase Sidewall generator strength. THIS is your main armor, not actual physical armor. Frankly from my engineering perspective, and historical perspective, the only things that truly need armor are the power plants, CIC, and Sick Bay. Crew quarters? No. in fact, crew quarters should be used as "armor" as the crew will all be at battle stations. Oh wait, that is how all wet navy ships/battleships were designed.


There was a design with reduced armour and enhanced sidewall protection, on the grounds that the sidewalls could be upgraded more easily than armour could.

Battle experience revealed that the sidewall generators were more vulnerable to battle damage than predicted, which meant that subsequent incoming hits were less degraded and thus punched through the armour more efficiently.

Not only that, but should there be a need to shut down power (due to battle damage), the sidewalls will be inactive. Armour offers some protection from incoming fire whilst attempting to abandon ship.

Finally, it's quite clear that RFC does use distance and non-essential systems to protect the essentials. Go back and recheck the issues with repairing Nike in SVW. Not only that, but ISTR the article (IFF?) on armour addresses this issue as well.
Top
Re: Hybrid missile/Graser Torp
Post by cthia   » Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:20 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11274
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Theemile wrote:
cthia wrote:
Thanks Theemile. I really didn't get the memo on that. And I'm gob smacked. A totally pod laying design in that manner would seriously limit the utility of a warship, wouldn't it?

There has got to be tactical downsides to having no tube launchers.


Yeah, you can't fire a warning shot or undersized salvo, and when the pods are gone, your long range fire is kaput.

Grayson specifically uses the tubes to thicken ECM in each launch and tailor it to the launch. Pods, obviously, have a set # of shipkillers, dazzlers, and dragons Teeth in them. Yes, you could have pods with different load-outs (more or less shipkillers, more dragons teeth, more Dazzlers, etc), but that specific pod will always have that specific loadout. Using the shipborn tubes allows targeted ECM tailoring of each salvo - this launch can be dazzler heavy or dazzler light, depending on what will work best in a specific tactical situation. Obviously tube launched missiles will not be under ACM control, so you still want SOME ECM in the pods, but this allows more flexibility for evolving tactical situations.

While those are the upsides, there are also downsides - the tubes and their armored hatches are weaknesses in the armor scheme, they take up surface area that could be used by more sensors, control systems, and defensive countermeasure systems. Internally the tubes and magazines take up volume which could be used by more CM launchers and magazines, or larger pod magazines. An Invictus will carry a few more pods and have a handful more CM launchers than a Harrington II, on a similar mass and similar dimensions, while a Harrington II can throw an extra 60 or so missiles a salvo.

Also, the obvious downsides (now) are the tubes cannot fire Apollo control missiles, nor can the tube launched missiles be under ACM control, making their fire inferior to the pod based weapons. Also, you are limited to the type of missiles you can fire from the tubes, in this case, the Mk 23 or compatable missiles. Next year's mk-XXIIV, with all the chrome and fins and the new "Feather-Flite" transmission, just won't fit.

This gives me an opportunity to ask about something. In the early development of pods, they were tractored to the ship in ungainly masses, and were susceptible to proximity kills. Are the pods from podlayers susceptible to proximity kills? Certainly seems so, in the heat of battle. There's got to be some measure of time between deployment and launch. Of course, there's this recurrent theme about me not getting memos. :cry:

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top

Return to Honorverse