Missile Counter Missile

Jonathan_S wrote:

J6P wrote:
Not true.

Separate before 1st drive shuts down. Time delayed wedge activation. "Problem" solved.

No reason first stage could not have sensors grafted on. Currently 1st stage Cataphracts are blind. More mass and $$$ of course. Is it worth it? Honor thinks so. Says as much in ART. Wanting to deploy her CM's farther out giving a deeper defensive depth.

If the 1st stage wedge is up it's strongly accelerating the whole missile at 48,000 or so Gs (or more if it's not stepped down to half accel to increase endurance). Now some of that is 'invisilbe' to the missile components because the missile's nodes provide a compensating effect, but I don't know how much (and that effect should end very abruptly if you move much away from the nodes)

Yes you could delay the second stage activation, but you've still got to launch it clear (without impacting the wedge). Seems tricky and impractical.

Excuse me, guys, but the second stage of the Cataphract can't bring its wedge up until its perimeter would clear that of the first stage. So since it needs the wedge to accelerate faster than the first stage can, it can't bring up its wedge until the first stage's is down, either burned out or shut down, and missile wedges cannot be turned back on after they're turned off.

This may, perhaps, create a tiny problem with your two-fer plans.

J6P wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote: But even there you can't independently target the first stage at something post-separation. The stages wouldn't be able to successfully separate until the 1st stage wedge shuts down

Not true.

Separate before 1st drive shuts down. Time delayed wedge activation. "Problem" solved.

Not sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that a staged missile could/should separate its booster stage *before* said booster shuts down? While the sustainer holds off on *its* impeller ring activation?

Not going to work, unless the booster is "pulling" the sustainer. Once the sustainer separates, it becomes a separate part, not attached to the booster, and therefore, not succeptible to the accel of the booster, which still happens to be behind the sustainer, accelerating at 48k G's (or whatever number you happen to plug in).

Meanwhile, the sustainer is accelerating at 0 G's. How do you propose to move it away from the booster before the booster impacts with it? Remember, it will need to have a higher acceleration than the booster in order to get away from it.

Missile wedges only have three accel settings: None, Full, and Half, so to do a staged missile, you would need to either wait to stage until the booster is burned out (defeating the original intent of this thread, which is actually fine by me, as it's ridiculous), or light off the sustainer at the Full accel rate while the booster has only been at the Half rate. Problem there is you get immediate wedge interference from the two stages.

Third option is to have the booster at the *front* of the missile (as I mentioned above). When the sustainer separates, it delays wedge activation for a second or so, allowing the booster to accel away from the sustainer before it activates its own wedge. While this *might* be workable, I feel confident in saying it ain't gonna happen.

Frankly, the entire proposal is pretty stupid. Sure, you *can* use a regular attack missile as a "countermissile", but what sane person would ever do that? It would be like the U.S. using a Minuteman III to take out a Chinese (or Russian) ICBM.

Let's not even think about the issue of having to add a second fusion reactor (assuming we're talking about Mk16 or Mk23 type missiles), fuel for said reactor, and space for the guidance system, effectively increasing the length of the missile by about 60% (and that's only if you add a single booster - multiple boosters will more than double the length). This means the ship will probably have reduced magazines, since all that extra length has to fit somewhere. Someone tell me what Navy in its right mind would accept fewer missiles in its loadout, just to use *some* of the (even more) limited supply it has for something other than its primary purpose of attacking an enemy ship.

It's not like each drive of a DDM or MDM use separate reactors - both rings on DDMs and all three rings on MDMs (or four rings for the system defense variant) are all powered from a single reactor.

Aha... I noticed that RFC posted while I was writing this. He actually said what I said, but a bit more succintly.

Hi MaxxQ,

Succinct is right.

Any briefer and he wouldn't be RFC.

But any post is always great.

L


Of course RFC has swatted me a couple of times for forgetting something twice, albeit some years apart, although I don't remember what after all these years.

MaxxQ wrote:

J6P wrote:**quote="Jonathan_S"** But even there you can't independently target the first stage at something post-separation. The stages wouldn't be able to successfully separate until the 1st stage wedge shuts down **/quote**

Not true.

Separate before 1st drive shuts down. Time delayed wedge activation. "Problem" solved.

Not sure I'm understanding this. Are you saying that a staged missile could/should separate its booster stage *before* said booster shuts down? While the sustainer holds off on *its* impeller ring activation?

Not going to work, unless the booster is "pulling" the sustainer. Once the sustainer separates, it becomes a separate part, not attached to the booster, and therefore, not succeptible to the accel of the booster, which still happens to be behind the sustainer, accelerating at 48k G's (or whatever number you happen to plug in).

Meanwhile, the sustainer is accelerating at 0 G's. How do you propose to move it away from the booster before the booster impacts with it? Remember, it will need to have a higher acceleration than the booster in order to get away from it.

Missile wedges only have three accel settings: None, Full, and Half, so to do a staged missile, you would need to either wait to stage until the booster is burned out (defeating the original intent of this thread, which is actually fine by me, as it's ridiculous), or light off the sustainer at the Full accel rate while the booster has only been at the Half rate. Problem there is you get immediate wedge interference from the two stages.

Third option is to have the booster at the *front* of the missile (as I mentioned above). When the sustainer separates, it delays wedge activation for a second or so, allowing the booster to accel away from the sustainer before it activates its own wedge. While this *might* be workable, I feel confident in saying it ain't gonna happen.

Frankly, the entire proposal is pretty stupid. Sure, you *can* use a regular attack missile as a "countermissile", but what sane person would ever do that? It would be like the U.S. using a Minuteman III to take out a Chinese (or Russian) ICBM.

Let's not even think about the issue of having to add a second fusion reactor (assuming we're talking about Mk16 or Mk23 type missiles), fuel for said reactor, and space for the guidance system, effectively increasing the length of the missile by about 60% (and that's only if you add a single booster - multiple boosters will more than double the length). This means the ship will probably have reduced magazines, since all that extra length has to fit somewhere. Someone tell me what Navy in its right mind would accept fewer missiles in its loadout, just to use *some* of the (even more) limited supply it has for something other than its primary purpose of attacking an enemy ship.

It's not like each drive of a DDM or MDM use separate reactors - both rings on DDMs and all three rings on MDMs (or four rings for the system defense variant) are all powered from a single reactor.

Aha... I noticed that RFC posted while I was writing this. He actually said what I said, but a bit more succintly.

MaxxQ wrote:Missile wedges only have three accel settings: None, Full, and Half, so to do a staged missile, you would need to either wait to stage until the booster is burned out (defeating the original intent of this thread, which is actually fine by me, as it's ridiculous), or light off the sustainer at the Full accel rate while the booster has only been at the Half rate. Problem there is you get immediate wedge interference from the two stages.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I have a nitpick about this. Most people design missiles with only 3 hardwired accel settings. But we were told that Manticore does include additional flexibility, so if there's some unusual reason to use an intermediate acceleration their captains can. (I don't think we've ever seen them actually do that; but we're told their missiles support it)

But the ability to design a missile with more than 3 accel settings in no way alters your real point.

MaxxQ wrote:Aha... I noticed that RFC posted while I was writing this. He actually said what I said, but a bit more succintly.

Yep. I'm just wishing my 2nd post about this had more clearly shown that I still didn't think it would work. I think I got swept up in the "your plans", when I was only trying to point out why even J6P's refined idea had major problems. Ah well.

Jonathan_S wrote:Yep. I'm just wishing my 2nd post about this had more clearly shown that I still didn't think it would work. I think I got swept up in the "your plans", when I was only trying to point out why even J6P's refined idea had major problems. Ah well.

I still think my converted Mk23 has some potential.

Purposefully eschewing the obvious or serious NIH syndrome giving 0.0001s of mental capacity. (0.0001s is long enough to activate the POST NOW automatic lower brain function response trigger without any cognitive higher functions added)

1) Given more than 0.0001s of brain cognitive function, it is a simple process of elimination determining the front tip missile does NOT have to be launched FORWARD at a higher acceleration than the main. Dump it out the rear. No differential acceleration except going from whatever compensator field gravitational field of the main stage to 0g is. It is not operating in atmosheric turbulence! Sheesh. Said forward missile already has reaction thrusters to boost it the couple meters it needs to clear. Pause time till wedge activation is all of a measly sub 1 second as the 1st missile is still accelerating at a minimum of 45,000g, 90,000g++ is far more likely. If 10km wedge, it clears in sub 1s territory. 1s moves main stage 225km forward.

2) Cataphract TYPE, not the exact missile, is already 2 missiles. Will obviously not work with RMN style MDM's with their integrated impeller rings. Ergo pt [3]

3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

4 Would drop grafted missile at the 5.5-6Mkm range for both stages to attack a single salvo. Theoretically, could drop farther out, only if there are multiple salvos incoming, where the 1st stage missile goes after the 1st salvo near the 8Mkm max range, dropping off its 2nd stage before impact allowing the second stage to go after the next salvo at around the 10Mkm range.

5) Main 1st stage with its lower acceleration compared to CM's would have poor interception rates.

Do you guys realize how LARGE and expensive the ICBM interception missiles are they are now putting on destroyers? Is this additional capability worth it?

After all Cataphract style CM missile would fill same role. Extended interception. Is it really worth the added expense and tonnage to intercept MDM's at 7-8Mkm instead of a maximum of 3.5Mkm or so? Just like the wet navy Destroyer today, the Honorverse ships in question would have a partial load out of these larger more expensive missiles. By no means would this be the new standard exclusive counter missile load out. These missiles would be the minority percentage of CM load totals.

J6P wrote:1) Given more than 0.0001s of brain cognitive function, it is a simple process of elimination determining the front tip missile does NOT have to be launched FORWARD at a higher acceleration than the main. Dump it out the rear. No differential acceleration except going from whatever compensator field gravitational field of the main stage to 0g is. It is not operating in atmosheric turbulence! Sheesh. Said forward missile already has reaction thrusters to boost it the couple meters it needs to clear. Pause time till wedge activation is all of a measly sub 1 second as the 1st missile is still accelerating at a minimum of 45,000g, 90,000g++ is far more likely. If 10km wedge, it clears in sub 1s territory. 1s moves main stage 225km forward.

No. Just no.

Unless your reaction thrusters are accelerating the sustainer at a higher G-rate than the booster, I don't care how short the distance to be moved out of the way is, the booster is *still* going to be pushing against the sustainer at 45k G's once the two parts separate. Has nothing to do with atmospheric effects. I don't even know why you think I was thinking about that. I never said atmospheric drag would keep the stages together - in a pushing booster configuration (where the booster is *not* shut down or has its accel lowered temporarily, which doesn't happen with Honorverse missiles), the sustainer would *absolutely have* to have a higher accel in order to pull away from the booster in a straight line. Acceleration works exactly the same in a vacuum as it does in an atmosphere.

The freaking sustainer will be be moving at whatever speed it was at when the separation occurred, while the booster will be moving faster with every second (it's called acceleration - you know, that "per second per second" thing), half-second, 0.1 seconds, pico-seconds that passes between separation. Even if your apparently really powerful RCS thrusters move the sustainer sideways, it won't be fast enough to get it out of the way of the booster, which is still accelerating at 45k G's (or whatever). IOW, it's *still* going to be pushing against the sustainer, even if the sustainer is being moved sideways (or up or down - as if it matters ), resulting in off-center pushing which would set the sustainer to tumbling.

This is why I said pulling the sustainer would probably work better than pushing it - no need for RCS at that point at all. The booster would continue accelerating away from the sustainer until the sustainer clears the wedge (which is probably in the time you said - *that* part you got right anyway).

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

Something else I thought of later on after writing my previous post: these Frankensteinian abominations wouldn't work with existing podlayer designs because the pods would be so much larger to accomodate the extra length. Things are tight enough trying to get normal-sized pods out of the hammerhead of a podlayer - imagine how much larger the hole will be to accommodate longer pods.

MaxxQ wrote:

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

Well I guess with capacitors you've got the theoretical ability to spread them out; put half of them in the booster stage and half in the 2nd stage. Can't do that with one microfusion plant

Of course spreading them out almost certainly drives up the size of the stages. (Or already did so on a cataphract; I assume the CM drive powered stage and the normal missile drive stage have independent power sources)

MaxxQ wrote:The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

Something else I thought of later on after writing my previous post: these Frankensteinian abominations wouldn't work with existing podlayer designs because the pods would be so much larger to accomodate the extra length. Things are tight enough trying to get normal-sized pods out of the hammerhead of a podlayer - imagine how much larger the hole will be to accommodate longer pods.

I guess, playing devil's advocate that if you were willing to give up a lot of pod storage you could arrange pods with the missiles pointed lengthwise. In that arrangement the missile length is irrelevant to how many can pass through the hammerhead.

(Well my understanding is the real choke point is the aft impeller rooms, not the hammerhead itself. Those have to be directly inboard of the aft impeller ring; which is already the narrowest hull diameter)

MaxxQ wrote:
No. Just no.

Unless your reaction thrusters are accelerating the sustainer at a higher G-rate than the booster

Ok, MAJOR problem...

What the Hell is a sustainer? I have never seen this word used in conjunction with a missile before. What is it "sustaining"?

As far as I can tell, both booster and top stage are in the exact same compensator gravitational field. Therefore the final needs a minute gravitational acceleration in the radial direction to separate.

MaxxQ wrote:

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

? Because for 2 missiles you need... 2 power sources