Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests

Missile Counter Missile

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by MaxxQ   » Thu May 22, 2014 10:00 pm

MaxxQ
BuNine

Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:08 pm
Location: Greer, South Carolina USA

J6P wrote:
MaxxQ wrote:If you're thinking about creating a CM carrier/cannister out of something the size of a Mk16 DDM, forget it. You can't get more than one CM inside a DDM - they're just too small in diameter. Minimum size for carrying multiple CMs is Mk23.


Have CM cannisters been ret-con'd as not existing anymore?


Not as far as I know, but then I tend to either miss or forget things occasionally.

J6P wrote:Ships firing CM cannisters were not using SD Capital missile tubes. MK-16 tubes are larger than any other tube out there other than SD tubes. ERGO, any ship that could fire a CM cannister before the advent of the MK-16 could certainly graft a CM cannister onto an equivalent MK-16 "booster" in place of its laser head.


Yes, but I think those cannisters were using older, smaller, less capable (by current Honorverse standards) CMs, where you *could* fit three or four per cannister.

J6P wrote:Erm... CM's at 30Mkm are going to have a mighty big time lag for targeting... Not an optimum solution here.


Yeah... that's the problem with extending CM range.
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by lyonheart   » Thu May 22, 2014 11:25 pm

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi MaxxQ,

The CM canisters featured in Terekhov's PTSD nightmare carried 3 CM's but these were the small 1 million km range type available to old RMN light cruisers in the first Haven war.

The Battle of Monica demonstrated the limits of the improved 1.5 million km range CM, while the Mk-31 has the much improved range and acceleration of 75 seconds and a range of 3,588,750 km for something around 20+ tons versus the 12.5 tons of the oldest.

L


MaxxQ wrote:
J6P wrote:**quote="MaxxQ"**
If you're thinking about creating a CM carrier/cannister out of something the size of a Mk16 DDM, forget it. You can't get more than one CM inside a DDM - they're just too small in diameter. Minimum size for carrying multiple CMs is Mk23.**/quote**

Have CM cannisters been ret-con'd as not existing anymore?


Not as far as I know, but then I tend to either miss or forget things occasionally.

J6P wrote:Ships firing CM cannisters were not using SD Capital missile tubes. MK-16 tubes are larger than any other tube out there other than SD tubes. ERGO, any ship that could fire a CM cannister before the advent of the MK-16 could certainly graft a CM cannister onto an equivalent MK-16 "booster" in place of its laser head.


Yes, but I think those cannisters were using older, smaller, less capable (by current Honorverse standards) CMs, where you *could* fit three or four per cannister.

J6P wrote:Erm... CM's at 30Mkm are going to have a mighty big time lag for targeting... Not an optimum solution here.


Yeah... that's the problem with extending CM range.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu May 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8269
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

lyonheart wrote:Hi MaxxQ,

The CM canisters featured in Terekhov's PTSD nightmare carried 3 CM's but these were the small 1 million km range type available to old RMN light cruisers in the first Haven war.

The Battle of Monica demonstrated the limits of the improved 1.5 million km range CM, while the Mk-31 has the much improved range and acceleration of 75 seconds and a range of 3,588,750 km for something around 20+ tons versus the 12.5 tons of the oldest.
And whatever Mark of CM Honor had at Sidemore was good for about 2,000,000 km (at an unstated acceleration).

Presumably it was both lower accel and less endurance than the Mark 31s that rolled out a few months later.


(And I believe the last we saw out of Haven, even with all of Foreaker's improvements, were 1,500,000 km CMs)
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by J6P   » Fri May 23, 2014 2:44 am

J6P
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:46 am
Location: USA, WA, Issaquah

If one is using a "booster", one does not need the new extra large CM's with their much longer legs. After all that is what the much more efficient booster is for. All one really wants is the acceleration profile of the newer birds + booster.
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri May 23, 2014 7:19 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

robertamgottlieb wrote:A very simple modification would be to let missiles receive tracking data from RDs.


The problem with that Idea is that RDs have one, or maybe two communications channels; Each missile requires its own fire control channel (or each group of eight slaves to an ACM.) So you can only control up to Eight missiles through a RD without rotating command links. Rotating command links would negate any advantage to using the RD's sensors.

In the Battle of Spindle, RDs' FTL links were used to feed tactical updates fed to the ACMs via light-speed fire control channels.

A second problem with the idea is that RDs are an order of magnitude slower than missiles. At Spindle, they had tree days or so to blanket Adm Crandal's TF with RDs, so using RDs to cut the command & Control loop in half was feasible. In more dynamic, offensive operations, there isn't time to get RDs in place.


In fact, using the ACM and its slave missiles' sensors as fast RDs before assigning targets has been done in simulations. That works for ships with only light-speed fire-control as well as for KHII equipped ships with FTL fire-control -- not as quickly, but still faster than waiting on an RD to arrive.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by J6P   » Fri May 23, 2014 6:18 pm

J6P
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:46 am
Location: USA, WA, Issaquah

Weird Harold wrote:
robertamgottlieb wrote:A very simple modification would be to let missiles receive tracking data from RDs.


The problem with that Idea is that RDs have one, or maybe two communications channels; Each missile requires its own fire control channel (or each group of eight slaves to an ACM.) So you can only control up to Eight missiles through a RD without rotating command links. Rotating command links would negate any advantage to using the RD's sensors.


They have FTL and light speed links.

Use both. FTL from ship, Light speed to missiles. Can be used on both MDM and CM missiles.

It is slam dunk lead pipe simple. Change in software required only. Number of RD's carried for light ships could be a problem needing rectification. In fact, could force a complete overhaul of current ship design leaving older ships with only a partial addition in missile combat superiority.

RD's are not small. Last we knew, RD's mass north of 250 tons a piece. Yes, Rollands supposedly carry quite a few of them. How many? Can't be too many. 250-500 ton objects compile into a large percentage of a ships total mass in a hurry. Still need them for their primary mission; reconnaissance.
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri May 23, 2014 6:31 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

J6P wrote:They have FTL and light speed links.

Use both. FTL from ship, Light speed to missiles. Can be used on both MDM and CM missiles.


They still don't have enough channels for more than one or two missiles each.

Then there is also the problem of speed differential that no amount of fire-control channels will negate. There is a reason Apollo uses a dedicated control missile instead of a dedicated RD.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by J6P   » Fri May 23, 2014 6:40 pm

J6P
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:46 am
Location: USA, WA, Issaquah

Weird Harold wrote:
J6P wrote:They have FTL and light speed links.

Use both. FTL from ship, Light speed to missiles. Can be used on both MDM and CM missiles.


They still don't have enough channels for more than one or two missiles each.

Then there is also the problem of speed differential that no amount of fire-control channels will negate. There is a reason Apollo uses a dedicated control missile instead of a dedicated RD.


In reverse order:

Did I say anything about Pod warfare? No. Now, if Manticore invents a power cord again, small ships will have Apollo missiles.

One or two missiles each, be it Apollo, or normal, are still better than 0. Ergo my comment about small class ships running out of RD's. :idea:
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri May 23, 2014 6:53 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

J6P wrote:One or two missiles each, be it Apollo, or normal, are still better than 0. Ergo my comment about small class ships running out of RD's. :idea:


You still haven't addressed the speed issue. You have to get RDs in position to use them as fire-control relays. They're useful when you have them already in place and are already used to halve the command lag. But RDs don't have the channels or pre-processor capabilities needed for a "poor man's Apollo." (If they did have the capability, it would be used.)
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Missile Counter Missile
Post by J6P   » Fri May 23, 2014 7:20 pm

J6P
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:46 am
Location: USA, WA, Issaquah

Weird Harold wrote:
J6P wrote:One or two missiles each, be it Apollo, or normal, are still better than 0. Ergo my comment about small class ships running out of RD's. :idea:


You still haven't addressed the speed issue. You have to get RDs in position to use them as fire-control relays. They're useful when you have them already in place and are already used to halve the command lag. But RDs don't have the channels or pre-processor capabilities needed for a "poor man's Apollo." (If they did have the capability, it would be used.)


RD's have at least a half hour for placement. Far more prevalent scenario is hours. Hours squared compared to minutes squared... Even with the limitation of having to have RD's "stationary." Yea. No problem getting your RD's into place.

Will carve out a little time later to actually run the calc.

I will run 98,000g 9 minute 3 stage MDM verses 10,000g RD and solve for stationary position a couple million short of 9 minute mark. Solve backwards for time required for RD to be stationary. Right now I need to get some actual work done.

Enjoy doing the simple calc.
Top

Return to Honorverse