Speculation: Can LAC CMs be made smaller?

Another problem I see with using a smaller missile is that it then needs to be a precision weapon. It must hit the oncoming missile squarely. That would be for something the size of an anti-tank missile. After all, it's wedge is only a couple of yards wide.

It is possible that improvements in node design may reduce the size of current counter-missiles, but how much smaller could that be? As small as they are, we are only talking about a couple of percentage points. I can see them trying to increase the size of a CM wedge to cover more volume, but on the same body. Any increase in size would up the probability of an interception.

Instead of smaller, how about extending the range and speed in the same size?
The whole idea of CMs is to intercept and destroy an incoming missile before it reaches it's attack range. Hitting/destroying said missile earlier and/or further out would be a major benefit.

Better performance and longer range in the same sized package could outweigh the potential benefits of smaller missiles.

IF you can get the SAME level of interception at the same ranges with a smaller version of the existing CM, that should theoretically let you put more weapons in the same magazine space but that would also depend on what changes you may have to make to the launchers and the handling equipment in the magazines and loaders. Just making the CMs smaller doesn’t help much if you loose range and accuracy.

If nothing else, it adds depth to your field of defense. LACs are already the forward anti-missile defense for fleets or any ship they are attached to and deployed from. Being able to get those CMs onto targets both faster and further away (from the LAC and the things the LAC is defending) is the idea. The more missiles the LAC(s) can kill both further away from the targets earlier in the attack approach from any given incoming launch, the fewer there are for the RMN ships own CM to target. All other things being equal, that would be expected to improve the % of anti-missile hits for each ship's defenses. where local/regional work craft are built.

Brigade XO wrote:Instead of smaller, how about extending the range and speed in the same size?
The whole idea of CMs is to intercept and destroy an incoming missile before it reaches it's attack range. Hitting/destroying said missile earlier and/or further out would be a major benefit.

Better performance and longer range in the same sized package could outweigh the potential benefits of smaller missiles.

IF you can get the SAME level of interception at the same ranges with a smaller version of the existing CM, that should theoretically let you put more weapons in the same magazine space but that would also depend on what changes you may have to make to the launchers and the handling equipment in the magazines and loaders. Just making the CMs smaller doesn’t help much if you loose range and accuracy.

Well Manticore already increased their CM range once recently; but now they're bumping into fire control lag limits.

Without some breakthrough in FTL CM control, or significantly improved autonomous (or salvo 'flocking') capabilities we seem to gave platued in shipboard CM range.
(Which is what got me thinking about what might improve forward deployed LAC missile screening)

Jonathan_S wrote:I had a thought while pondering some of the threads about new ships or technologies, and I'm wondering how accurate CMs are when the do connect.

Is it always a wide miss or a near direct hit, or are most of the wedge to wedge contact 'glancing' where only the outer 50% of the CMs wedge would ever have made contact with the incoming missile's wedge?

Could Manticore apply their vaunted miniaturization skills to make a smaller CM (with presumably somewhat less range and a narrower wedge)? Kind of the opposite of the extended range CMs they made for their starships.

One of the big problems with using LACs as anti-missile defense is how quickly they run out of counter missiles. If you could substantially shrink their CMs, they could carry more of them. There would obviously have to be a benefit analysis: if the smaller CM is only 75% as effective per shot but you can carry twice as many that's probably a good tradeoff. If they're 50% as effective and you can only carry 50% more that's a horrible trade-off.

To be clear, I'm only proposing them for LACs for the fleet anti-missile role. Starships just went to a lot of trouble to get more range out of (apparently) slightly bigger CMs. I see no reason to reverse that for them.

So given that speculation
1) does anyone think it's possible?
2) does anyone think it's a good idea?

I get what you are saying. Since LACs now have the role of thickening and pushing out the CM intercept envelope, having the LAC carry more CM's could help.

So you are a commander who puts some LACs out on the threat axis for an attack. Let's say for simplicity's sake, that gives you 5,000 CMs from the LACs for thickening the defenses for your task force. If you have them out 3.6 million km and the CM's have a 3.6 million km range, then you have doubled the intercept range for that 5,000 CM's for intercept. Let's say 80% get hits, then that would be 4,000 effective CM's.

Jonathan is proposing, that if the tech could make a smaller CM, with shorter range, that is also 75% as effective. Lets say the missile is 75% of the range as well. So that would be 2.7 million km which would be a disaster for a ship. BUT, Jonathan said this was for LACs in the Fleet Defense role. So if you want the 7.2 million km range in the example above, you put your LACs at 4.5 million km and have the same range. Now, if the 75% effective missile is half the size, then you can carry twice as much. So you would have 10,000 CMs that get 60% hits (75% of the 80% hit rate above), so you have 6,000 effective CMs instead of 4,000. That is a big difference for the task force.

To answer question 2 first, yes, I think this would be effective in the Fleet Defense role as we saw in the Chantilly system. Rear Admiral Bellefeuille, used a launch on Captain Oversteegen's division of battle cruisers to deplete roughly half of the Katana's Viper counter missiles before the attack on Vice Admiral Alice Truman's task force. Two questions to offset that tho. Since the Viper has the same drive as the Mk-31 CM, but includes a x-ray laser rod for attacks as well, are the Fleet Defense LACs also expected to take care of the occasional LAC strike or light unit like a DD or CL as well? If so, then the flexibility of having dual use Vipers instead of twice the amount of CMs may mean you want the Vipers. But of course what the shooters want and what the military can afford are two different things at times. The Vipers cost twice as much as a Mk-31 CM, so dedicating some LACs as only Fleet Defense, while less flexible tactically, may make sense financially as the military has to pay for its goodies too.

I think question 1 is only answerable by RFC, because he knows where the tech is going. I think your idea makes sense and is possible, but only RFC knows for sure. The RMN sacrificed and 18% ammo penalty for the MDM to get three times the range when Captain Harrington to Admiral White to task over that right before she was captured by the Peeps. Sacrificing some range and capability to get more weapons to get an overall increase in effectiveness in intercepts is the kind of trade off that militaries have to make all the time. The two different questions to the Viper vs the smaller CM above illustrate that. If Fleet Defense for the expensive capital ships is deemed more important than the additional capability for attacks, then the smaller missile is the way to go. If you would like the dual capability, but do not have the funding to apply it across your fleet, then going for what you can afford is what you do.

I think Jonathan has posed an interesting question, that seems to me to be possible, but the tech, tactical, and financial questions are things that only RFC will know.

Kizarvexis wrote:Rear Admiral Bellefeuille, used a launch on Captain Oversteegen's division of battle cruisers to deplete roughly half of the Katana's Viper counter missiles before the attack on Vice Admiral Alice Truman's task force. Two questions to offset that tho. Since the Viper has the same drive as the Mk-31 CM, but includes a x-ray laser rod for attacks as well, are the Fleet Defense LACs also expected to take care of the occasional LAC strike or light unit like a DD or CL as well? If so, then the flexibility of having dual use Vipers instead of twice the amount of CMs may mean you want the Vipers. But of course what the shooters want and what the military can afford are two different things at times. The Vipers cost twice as much as a Mk-31 CM, so dedicating some LACs as only Fleet Defense, while less flexible tactically, may make sense financially as the military has to pay for its goodies too.

Hmm, I wouldn't be too worried about LAC strikes against the SD(P)s themselves; they can carry Vipers, and they've got deep enough CM magazines that it's not a major impact to carry a certain percentage of Vipers.

But what about a LAC strike aimed at removing that LAC anti-missile screen out at ~4 million km? How much warning can you count on to see the enemies LAC sweep? If you trust your recon to detect it with some reasonable warning then you could keep your entire LAC anti-missile screen equipped with non-Vipers and plan on surging some of your hyper capable screen forward to bring Vipers into play against them. Of course if this is mid missile duel that also exposes those light units to MDM fire (aimed or lost missiles just 'finding' them). Hmm.

As it is now, with the relatively small size delta between CMs and Vipers I think it still makes sense to keep Katanas loaded up with the more expensive, but more flexable, missile if there's any risk of an encounter with enemy LACs. If my hypothetical smaller CM was possible then it's a much harder choice (since LAC v LAC should be unlikely when your LACs are in the anti-missile screening role)

Jonathan_S wrote:Hmm, I wouldn't be too worried about LAC strikes against the SD(P)s themselves; they can carry Vipers, and they've got deep enough CM magazines that it's not a major impact to carry a certain percentage of Vipers.

But what about a LAC strike aimed at removing that LAC anti-missile screen out at ~4 million km? How much warning can you count on to see the enemies LAC sweep? If you trust your recon to detect it with some reasonable warning then you could keep your entire LAC anti-missile screen equipped with non-Vipers and plan on surging some of your hyper capable screen forward to bring Vipers into play against them. Of course if this is mid missile duel that also exposes those light units to MDM fire (aimed or lost missiles just 'finding' them). Hmm.

As it is now, with the relatively small size delta between CMs and Vipers I think it still makes sense to keep Katanas loaded up with the more expensive, but more flexable, missile if there's any risk of an encounter with enemy LACs. If my hypothetical smaller CM was possible then it's a much harder choice (since LAC v LAC should be unlikely when your LACs are in the anti-missile screening role)

I agree that if the size difference and/or cost can not be made significantly less than the Viper (with the effectiveness staying high enough), then the Viper is the way to go. But if not....

With missile salvos going from dozens to hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands and more, there is only so much room in a waller for defenses. The higher and more accurate salvo densities might necessitate going to a defense only LAC if just to provide enough CMs to make a difference in large salvos. You might have to assign 50% or more of the LACs in a carrier to the defense only role for a CV attached to a task force, just to provide enough interception for the larger salvos. You would then stock the rest with Vipers for some flexibility in LAC missions for the task force. Definitely some interesting speculation I think.

Unless you can put something like an Apollo drone out between your force and an attacking one and then manage to deploy something like canesters of Vipers with them, you are not going to get a lot of more depth of anti-missile defence.

You still have a limited number of control links. IF you can seed something like Vipers well out from your own ships and relatively closer to the attacking force (and so their missile fire) you might be able to engage the incoming missiles much further out and start the attrition of the attacking birds. Every one you destroy out beyond your "conventional CM range is one that you don't have to engage closer to the ship with either CM or point defense.

That is probably only going to give you one early/distant wave of counter missiles since you are going to want to use as much of that distant intercept capasity as you can control against the 1st attack wave and then anything left (with whatever the Apollos can still control and your tactical system has time for vs what is closer to the ships you are defending) against a 2nd wave. The idea is to kill off as many attacking missiles as possible both to defend your ships and get your own attack missiles against their targets to start damaging and destroying the enemy ships - which will further cut down on what is getting thrown at you.

Brigade XO wrote:Unless you can put something like an Apollo drone out between your force and an attacking one and then manage to deploy something like canesters of Vipers with them, you are not going to get a lot of more depth of anti-missile defence.

You would not need some kind of CM controlling drone as that is what the LACs are for.

Vipers are supposed to have some sort of enhanced terminal guidance, which should also make them more effective in the cm role.

kzt wrote:Vipers are supposed to have some sort of enhanced terminal guidance, which should also make them more effective in the cm role.

I've always wondered if that fire and forget ability worked against missiles or if it was only good enough to track something as big as a LAC (at even the relatively short ranges a Viper can reach)