Upcoming designs: regarding the Apollo ACM...

kzt wrote:

StealthSeeker wrote:The trouble is that in theory almost everything works. Himphill was in love with the idea of how wonderful grav-lance's were.

I've been trying to get a job in theory for years, because everything works there.

Human Resources in theory can find something wrong in every resume.

StealthSeeker wrote:With that in mind, you want to take 8 of these FTL control link connections and put them inside of a "PACM" which means that this missile would have to have 9 FTL transmitters inside of it.

Nope.

Cthia is proposing using the legacy light-speed links to communicate with the dependent ACMs with the same hardware that would be used to communicate with brood missiles. That's why it would work, in theory, but is a solution in search of a problem.

Weird Harold wrote:

StealthSeeker wrote:With that in mind, you want to take 8 of these FTL control link connections and put them inside of a "PACM" which means that this missile would have to have 9 FTL transmitters inside of it.

Nope.

Cthia is proposing using the legacy light-speed links to communicate with the dependent ACMs with the same hardware that would be used to communicate with brood missiles. That's why it would work, in theory, but is a solution in search of a problem.

Exactly! Which is why I said, no additional tech will be needed.

..but is a solution in search of a problem.

But it really isn't Harold.

The problem is how to increase our available control links. This solution will increase our efficiency by a factor of eight. Granted, it would only be a niche firing solution as is, but it would be the "optimal" firing solution if the MALign's tum-te-tums include a fleet of an unprecedentedly tough design of ships each requiring an equally unprecedented number of missiles to mission kill.

It's a "wild card" of a firing solution, perhaps, but one that will make perfect sense if the "joker" comes a-calling.

cthia wrote:

..but is a solution in search of a problem.

But it really isn't Harold.

But there is no GA ship that carries enough missiles to need the multiplication of control your suggestion would provide. The only application where I could see even a faint possibility of being able to use that many control links is the short period between delivery of a freighter or ten of system defense missiles and the delivery of sufficient Mycroft platforms to control them.

cthia wrote:

..but is a solution in search of a problem.

But it really isn't Harold.

Weird Harold wrote:But there is no GA ship that carries enough missiles to need the multiplication of control your suggestion would provide. The only application where I could see even a faint possibility of being able to use that many control links is the short period between delivery of a freighter or ten of system defense missiles and the delivery of sufficient Mycroft platforms to control them.

But wasn't it determined that missiles can be handed off from ships that have been killed, whose missiles are still in flight? And from CLACs that have flushed their missiles quickly because of a need to withdraw...


Question. Can CLACs carry pods, limpetted?

Also, I still think it would be prudent to have it as a canned programmed response. If even only for a scenario where the Keyhole platform is damaged and retains only some fraction of its links. I can so see someone with the ingenuity of Rafe(guns) coming up with this solution on-the-fly to save Sally's bacon if the only remaining Keyhole platform is severely damaged with limited control links available.

But alas, if you are correct and it's a solution seeking a problem, we'll submit it to Bolthole anyways, until the problem submits itself.

Another consideration would be whether system defense missiles could be handed off to Keyhole platforms after an insane ballistic component.

cthia wrote:Question. Can CLACs carry pods, limpetted?

There's no apparent reason why not. Just where they may carry them may vary a bit from another capital ship, since their broadside surfaces are very different. It's possible that will reduce their usable area somewhat, but it's unlikely to eliminate it entirely, and reduced surface area on a capital ship may still be pretty impressive compared to anything smaller.

I'm not sure that they would be terribly good candidates for pod carriage though. CLAC's have no business being in a position to fire, and providing them anti-shipping weaponry as a sop to tradition or circumstances the enemy creates despite you can divert the weapons (in this case) from places you create the opportunities to use, and may reduce the CLAC's ability to defend itself directly and/or support more LAC's or support them better.

cthia wrote:Also, I still think it would be prudent to have it as a canned programmed response.

Where are you going to get/launch ACM missiles that aren't associated with a brood of Mk23s? The only current method of launching a Mk23E ACM is with the central launcher of an Apollo pod. The individual Mk23E ACM missile is at least twice as large as a Mk23 attack missile so every singleton you store in the unlikely event you need a sudden increase in missile control decreases the number of missiles you might have to control. And you would have no launchers capable of launching single MK23E ACMs if you did have enough missiles to need to daisy chain ACMs to control.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:
Let's stop this here--you need to completely rewrite your proposal because you are mistaken. The text says that the ACMs do communicate with each other. Each ACM collects observation data from the attack missiles it controls, and shares that data with the controlling ship and with all the other ACMs nearby. Every ACM gets all the data from all the missiles, which vastly enhances the targeting solution of each ACM.

The wiki does NOT indicate that ACMs talk to each other. It only says that they communicate back to the ship. I think you are reading more into that passage that isn't included "between the lines." At least per "my" reading comprehension. Now if the Pearls--or any other source including textev--say differently, I apologize. I am proceeding on the wiki-post that I included. Which DOES NOT state that ACMs converse with each other.

I finally found the quote where David tells us that the ACMs can communicate with each other directly. In viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6064&p=155341&hilit=Apollo#p155341:

runsforcelery wrote:But what this also means is that the control missile can be loaded with a hierarchy of targeting options and launched to ranges at which FTL communication with the launching ship has not only reacquired a transmission delay but also to ranges at which FTL communication is flatly impossible. At that point, the control missile has full responsibility for targeting and coordinating the attacks of all of its missiles. Further, if multiple Apollo pods are launched at the same distant target, with a ballistic phase programmed into the attack, the control missiles of different pods are capable of cross communicating with one another, compiling all the sensor data available from all the attack missiles of all the pods in the salvo using directional communications lasers which will be effectively undetectable by their targets because their targets won't have anything in the transmission path.

wastedfly wrote:

SWM wrote:Let's stop this here--you need to

Your proposal is misguided. What you are suggesting is to have clumps of 73 missiles rather than clumps of 9 missiles. All those missiles would stay clumped together, all the way to the target. So all 64 attack missiles would attack a single ship from a single vector, instead of from 8 vectors. The defensive options would be greatly simplified. Rather than needing to defend against 8 different vectors, it only needs to defend against 1 vector.

Epic logic fail.

Defensive options are simplified, because they are curtailed!

Attacking from one vector is optimal.
Limits defender ability to defend itself
--> Fewer Broadside control links in use
~ Therefore fewer CM's attacking your missiles.
--> Fewer PDLC defending the ship.
= concentrated damage able to penetrate further and cause truly crippling damage instead of only surface damage.

I have to disagree. Concentrating the missiles into one clump divides the number of PDLCs and counter-missiles which can target them by a factor of 2; you are only cutting out one broadside. On the other hand, all of those counter-missiles, PDLCs, and defensive scanners can concentrate their attention on a single area.

Instead of having, say, 5 sensors on this clump and 5 sensors on that clump and 5 on each of the other clumps, you will have eight times as many sensors on a single clump. Those sensors will be able to get better targeting information.

The counter-missiles will all be heading to the same clump. If a attack missile gets taken out, or if the sensors determine that a specific target is an ECM missile, the remaining counter-missiles will have a greater choice in selecting a different target.

PDLCs will all be concentrating on a single clump. If all eight missiles from one pod are taken out by counter-missiles or identified as ECM missiles, the PDLCs will be able to shift by only a few degrees to find a new target, rather than slewing around twenty degrees or more to find the next pod clump.

Overall you are less likely to end up with counter-missiles and PDLCs aimed in the wrong direction if you have the attack missiles in one clump instead of eight clumps. In combination with the greater sensitivity with more sensors focused on the missiles, I think this gives an advantage to the defender.