Upcoming designs: regarding the Apollo ACM...

wastedfly wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Flawed premise #1: Each keyhole II equipped ship can control 200 Apollo pods. That's about 80 times as much capability as you posit.

We have no idea how many pods a Keyhole can control. We have a lower limit set by BOMA1, but otherwise we have no upper limit.

I doubt that a KH II can control much more than was used in an "at all costs" situation. You're correct that we don't have textev for an explicit upper limit, but logic suggests that the lower limit set in BOMA1 is not higher because there wasn't any "higher" to set.

No, because there was clearly going to be a plan b if 5th responded by hypering out and showing up somewhere else. Like covering the exit vector of 2nd fleet. So it would be pretty dumb to plan on expending all your missiles at a target that can dodge them.

JeffEngel wrote:

StealthSeeker wrote:But I do like the idea of having an "Recon Missile" (RM) that could be launched by itself with out any other missiles going with it. It could be fired in between missile salvos to first get a close up recon view of the enemy's ships and then to assess the damage done before committing the next salvo of missiles to particular targets.

A recon drone down range should be able to provide this more or less continuously, insofar as it can remain undetected and maintain a similar vector to the target.

Granted, when you don't have buckets of RD's and you can't count on those assumptions, the much small, far more expendable RM would be nice.

I could also then fire just the RM as a high speed recon drone with out the expense of sending 8 missiles with it. If I came into a system and really needed to rapidly know what was out there I could launch several RM's in to a volume of space and get that information. The RM could quickly burn through 2 of it's 3 engine stages and then coast, dark and undetectable, and very fast!. It wold be a neat trick, but then again, ghost rider drones are fairly fast themselves, how often would you need to recon a volume of space at the speed of an RM missile? I suppose it's possible that I would want to recon and area with out spending time to recover the ghost rider drones... The RM's would just destroy themselves at the end of their run.

Single drive missiles would do for a lot of RM usage, apart from tracking targets you're engaging in MDM duels. That may be very handy for older ships still doing recon/picket duty with single drive missile tubes and boat bays that won't hold many RD's.

I don't think it's something with so much use that it would drive RD's out of business, but as a niche occupant of a small portion of a ship's missile magazines (or boat bay, for that matter), it's likely as useful as old nuclear warhead missiles.

I absolutely agree that in a normal battle engagement a recon drone would be much preferred. And I also agree that it would be a niche tool and there are not many places where it could be used. For instance I don't see how it could be used in a normal in system engagement as usually before battle could be started the ships have a "negotiation" about surrender and so forth. For these communications to take place drones would already have to be on station.

The Recon Missile (RM) would have to be at least a 2 stage missile, most likely 3, for several reasons. The missile would have to hold a FTL communication ability and I don't think anything less than a Mk23-e can do that. Maybe FTL comms could me made to fit into a single stage missile but I haven't read anything that would support this. The light speed communications and excessive computing equipment could be replace with sensors.

I have already given the idea that it could be used for a rapid scan of an area with out having to spend the time retrieving recon drones. But there may be other reasons as well but those reasons would have to fall in some category of long range attacks which would again almost necessitate the use of 2 or 3 stage missiles. A situation that may necessitate their use would be if my ship or ships arrived in a system where a battle was already in progress. I would want to get my missiles on target as fast as I could with out waiting for drones to get into place or interfering with the drones that the engaged ships are already using. It may come in handy in a deep space battle where ships arrive from a vector where I haven't positioned any recon or communication drones and immediate identification of those ships is needed.

If I wanted to fire on ships where no drones are in place and it was a long distance shot, I would need the missiles to keep pace with the Mk23 it was preforming recon for. Once the RM had identified and supported the targeting of ships to the full missile salvo the missiles would use their third stage for an attack run and pass up the RM in flight. So potentially the RM might be in position to give a real time feed of the attack it gave information for.

If I did come across a battle that was in progress I might send off a RM burning all 3 stages of its drive just to get it near the battle area as fast as possible. I would then quickly follow that launch with another RM using only 2 stages, which would then be joined with a salvo of Apollo's that also used only 2 stages so they could use their third stage in attack. Of course recon drones would also be launched so they could be used once they arrived on station.

So I think there are possibilities for it's use, even more if it can indeed be fit into a single or even a 2 stage missile.

Far simpler solution:

Reusable RD drone that exchanges increased acceleration for loss of stealth. RD's already full stealth at 5000g/10k g'. Forget full stealth, go for 20,000g

75Mkm
3 stage MDM ~6.5min
RD 10k g' ~20min Current
RD 20k g' ~14.4min

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.

A month or two ago I showed the math that even if a ship is rolling wedge at the rate of the Havenite CL in HAE, all missiles can attack the same broadside by dividing by a mere 90 degrees till convergence. This completely eliminates one side of control links and their respective CM's along with their PDLC's.

Of course this only truly helps once a ship is damaged and one sides control links have been "whittled" down to only what that broadside can spit out. So, in reality, same plane essentially eliminates the PDLC's and CM's effectively remain the same defensively.

Weird Harold wrote:

wastedfly wrote:We have no idea how many pods a Keyhole can control. We have a lower limit set by BOMA1, but otherwise we have no upper limit.

I doubt that a KH II can control much more than was used in an "at all costs" situation. You're correct that we don't have textev for an explicit upper limit, but logic suggests that the lower limit set in BOMA1 is not higher because there wasn't any "higher" to set.

Well, the keyhole platform survivability pearl talks about how only one keyhole II per squadron is "active" at a time - with squadron fire control jumping around frequently and randomly between the keyhole IIs.

That implies that each keyhole II can control up to 6 SD(P)s worth of normal fire. (Though, while it's not stated, I'd guess that there might be limits on how many keyhole IIs could operate simultaneously from a single squadron without interfering; otherwise you could deliver 12x the normal salvo simply by having every keyhole II go "loud")

We must stop the bleed.

Everyone, slow your roll. We are all on the same team here, which is the GA, isn't it? We are all working together to assist Sonja Hemphill and Shannon Foraker. Let's not be too guilty of the "that won't work" syndrome. Tell me how it can work. Too much of that is going on in the League.

The memo from the classified chip I received from Bolthole reads as follows. (I'll assume you all have proper clearance and are not Mesan sleeper agents.)

CLASSIFIED:
Imperative:
Please submit suggestions on how to increase the number of control links. Be advised that "we" here at Bolthole, are familiar with any inherent problems with any designs, and that kinks and problems - conceived in foresight or perceived in hindsight--has to be worked out. There are inherent problems in any system design and those problems may manifest themselves at any point in the phase from conception to production. Our job is to work out any technical aspects of any "sound" submission, and to even determine whether a submission is "sound" or not. Your job is to submit a proposal. Honor Harrington taught the RMN the importance of input from our officers "in the field." We are at war. Currently a two-prong war, and we need input from all of our intellectual resources to increase efficiency of what can come out of Bolthole. Submit anything that may increase our control links or make better use of our available control links. WE will determine what ultimately will or won't work.

Our combined military intelligence, Sword Intelligence + ONI + NavInt, has indicated that the Mesan ALignment is working on a few "tum-te-tum-tums." What the hell a tum-te-tum-tum is we cannot tell you. But I am sure you can agree that it doesn't sound good.

When we faced the SLN, we had no idea how many missiles it would take to mission kill a ship, and many engagements resulted in overkill. Here at Bolthole, we've easily arrived at the conclusion that it is much more, let's say pleasant, to err on the side of caution and kill a ship dead-dead, before underestimating it and are staring down our own SLN-bewildered noses at an underestimated enemy's own launch response. We will be facing an entirely new paradigm in ship-propulsive technology and, Ladies and Gentleman, we do not wish to underestimate any of their other technologies that existed under wraps or was being developed. In other words gentlemen, we have no idea how many missiles it may ultimately require to mission kill a particular MALign design. For the sake of the GA and all of the lives that that represents, we here at Bolthole do take our responsibilities seriously and we will, by God, guarantee that those lives continue to enjoy breathing!

Remember, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The Command Team of Sonja Hemphill and Shannon Foraker. R&D-BOLTHOLE.

—S&S

Lights on.

KZT wrote:
KH2 has demonstrated the ability to control 200 pods per ship in a single mass salvo.

StealthSeeker wrote:
So if this would work, and as someone else pointed out, there are 200 control links on a (SD)P, then one ship could control twelve thousand eight hundred missiles. Hmmm... a bit of an overkill isn't it? And you would still have the missile control link bandwidth problem to deal with, and the computing power. But wow, 12.8K missiles controlled by a single ship. You might be able to empty a whole (SD)P in a couple of salvos. Overkill.

Weird Harold wrote:
Flawed premise #1: Each keyhole II equipped ship can control 200 Apollo pods. That's about 80 times as much capability as you posit.

Please realize that my proposal is not intended to supplant the current system that has proven to be highly effective. That is not our imperative. I am simply submitting an option that can be preprogrammed as an addition to our already existing "canned" firing solutions that may or may never be used.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY MISSILES IT WILL ULTIMATELY TAKE TO MISSION KILL A MALIGN TUM-TE-TUM-SHIP.

And any control links saved will be available to the Keyhole platform in other simultaneous enemy ship engagements. Control links saved - equates to lives saved.

Gentelemen. This is serious here. We are tasked with an important imperative. Let's not quibble over unnecessary nit.

If you reread my post, you'll see that it says For sake of argument. It is a phrase often used to simplify the following discussion. We all understand that phrase, don't we? What I am proposing can be applied to an availability of 10 control links(what I used to simplify initial discussion) up to the current limit of 200 or any future number beyond.

Two hundred control links represents our maximum launch potential. Whoever said that our maximum control link potential has to be utilized in any single launch? Certainly, sending twelve thousand missiles at a single ship is a bit of an overkill. We certainly damn well better hope it is! Because if the MALign does to us what we have done to the SLN -- and severely change missile-threat warfare that drastically -- and we are not ready to adapt - as the SLN were not - then the fat lady under their management has already cashed her cheque.

****** *

The current maximum ability would require 200 control links. We would like to either increase the number of control links or submit a proposal that would control as many pods with less links.

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.

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.

I personally see that as a plus. Attacking with so many missiles on a single vector also limits the particular reply of CMs and point defense that can be brought to bear on a particular vector, overwhelming defensive options. Consider a comparatively attrite attack of "clumps of 64 missiles" attacking on eight different vectors!

Gentlemen, we are facing an unprecedented enemy in the MALign. We must think outside the box and the footlocker. Oftentimes in war you only get one chance to continue breathing. We may not rest on our laurels. Haven't we shown the SLN the dangers of that?

Remember the discussion about Apollo after it was first introduced into service regarding its many possible tactical uses, of whose surface had only begun to be scratched? The Apollo system is exemplary gentlemen. It is the finest of any Navy. Presently, its potential seems to be limited only by our imagination. Let's limit our limited imagination and let us scratch all of its itches!

cthia wrote:
For sake of argument, let's say that our Keyhole II equipped ship only has control links to manage 10 pods of launched missiles. (10x9 = 90 missiles).

Weird Harold wrote:
Flawed premise #1: Each keyhole II equipped ship can control 200 Apollo pods. That's about 80 times as much capability as you posit.

I will assume that you are now aware that many misread my post as more than a simple example For sake of argument.

cthia wrote:
But after the ACM receives FTL updated info from a Keyhole II ship, it is relegated to a dumb conversation across the board.

Weird Harold wrote:
Flawed premise #2: The ACM maintains a constant, two-way, communications with the controlling ship and with its brood of eight missiles.

Other than the ship the ACM is carrying on a conversation down-wind to dumb recipients ONLY! (Lacking someone supplying textev regarding ACM to ACM crosstalk.)

cthia wrote:
At no point does an ACM get to communicate with another ACM. It never gets a chance to communicate with a peer.

Weird Harold wrote:
Possible flawed premise: IIRC, the ACMs also "crosstalk" with each other to share data and avoid conflicts.

That may indeed be the case, but lacking textev, I'd rather not assume. Also, if that is the case, then that may very well negate this exchange.

cthia wrote:
Is there a maximum range of communication between an ACM and the other eight missiles?

drothgery wrote:
Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

Then it will also be silly to presume that ACMs are close enough to communicate. A clump only refers to one particular ACM and its brood of 8 missiles.

cthia wrote:
This is where I perceive of an easily aquired measure of improvement. All launches could be staggered, whereas a single ACM, let's call it a PACM(propagation ACM) is launched very close to a our regular maximum control link salvo of 8 pods(than the normal 10). Yet this single ACM is the only ACM that communicates with the ship, ...

Weird Harold wrote:
In theory, your suggestion could work, but is it really necessary? Does it add tactical flexibility or lock an entire PACM's brood into a single target?

The MALign may answer the necessary part with its fleet of "Tums." I'd just like to be ready with an additional preprogrammed fireplan in the form of a canned response. Let's call it fireplan PACM.

Hell yes it adds tactical flexibility. Especially if an enemy's ships require an unprecedented number of missiles to achieve a mission kill, plus it does it efficiently, freeing up many control links to be employed elsewhere.

cthia wrote:
No additional tech is needed ...

Weird Harold wrote:
No additional tech is needed, but your proposal burns-up eight ACMs with FTL capability where a simpler (cheaper) pre-processing node would suffice.

From Basilisk Station, we know what Honor Harrington would say to the consideration of cost as opposed to carrying out your mission objective. "Bill me."

Besides, replacing lives and ships are much more expensive. And I am proposing a possible "quick" solution. Time may be of the essence.

In theory your suggestion could work.

Now that's the right attitude.

cthia wrote:We must stop the bleed.

In theory your suggestion could work.

Now that's the right attitude.

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

Ok, let me verify some basics, keyhole of any variant uses control link drones tractored to a ship outside of that ship's wedge. I am also under the impression that only one of these FTL control link drones is positioned outside the wedge on either side of the ship. So if it is true that a ship normally has a max of 200 control links then each of these control link drones has 100 links. I also believe it is stated in the books that these control link drones are so large that only ships of specific sizes can carry them.

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. Eight of them would link to the ACM's in the pod launches and one of them would up link to a control link in one of the drones tractored to the ship launching the missiles. It is my understanding that even the miniaturized FTL transmitters are fairly large and only one fits inside of a already very large Mk23-e. So you are first going to have to come up with a drastically smaller FTL transmitter or an incredibly large missile to carry all 9 of the current sized ones.

Then there is the bandwidth problem for the link from this new PACM to the control link drone at the ship. The link at both ends of this connection will have to be modified to carry 8 times the information it currently does. And as the control link drone had 100 of these links, the communication link from the drone to the ship will have to have 800 times the current bandwidth. I suppose that this is achievable but it doesn't sound like something easily done.

Then there is the age old problem of handing off control of missiles once they are launched. I have read lots of examples where unlaunched pods were handed off to other ships but I'm not sure that I have ever read of where already launched missiles are handed off from one control link to another. I suppose this may be the easiest problem to solve. Maybe the PACM would control the launch of the 8 pods who's 8 ACM's it would talk to. Then when the PACM is launched it links to one of the ship's drones.

However, I think it would be a lot easier if the launching ship could be modified to deploy more than a pair of the control link drones. I could double the missiles I could control by simply deploying another pair of them. Or... as I like to not put all my eggs in one basket... how about the large ship carries several of the control link drones and then passes the extra off to other ships that aren't big enough to carry their own. That way I could use the computing power in these other ships to control the missiles that they would launch. This would not only increase the fire power of a task force but also distribute the fire control vulnerability so if I loose one control ship I don't loose so much of my total control links.

StealthSeeker wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Single drive missiles would do for a lot of RM usage, apart from tracking targets you're engaging in MDM duels. That may be very handy for older ships still doing recon/picket duty with single drive missile tubes and boat bays that won't hold many RD's.

I don't think it's something with so much use that it would drive RD's out of business, but as a niche occupant of a small portion of a ship's missile magazines (or boat bay, for that matter), it's likely as useful as old nuclear warhead missiles.

I absolutely agree that in a normal battle engagement a recon drone would be much preferred. And I also agree that it would be a niche tool and there are not many places where it could be used. For instance I don't see how it could be used in a normal in system engagement as usually before battle could be started the ships have a "negotiation" about surrender and so forth. For these communications to take place drones would already have to be on station.

The Recon Missile (RM) would have to be at least a 2 stage missile, most likely 3, for several reasons. The missile would have to hold a FTL communication ability and I don't think anything less than a Mk23-e can do that. Maybe FTL comms could me made to fit into a single stage missile but I haven't read anything that would support this. The light speed communications and excessive computing equipment could be replace with sensors.

Well - it would have to be the size of a 2 or 3 stage missile if it is to have FTL comm capability - probably. But yeah, that comes down pretty nearly to quibbling: 1c recon data from something that whips past whatever and keeps going is going to be even more a niche thing, so FTL comm capability is almost necessary. (Once upon a time, recon drones did not have it and yet they were used.) The multiple drive stages themselves are of course useful for getting a look at things way down yonder, but one other aspect of them is recreating at least partially the maneuver flexibility of a recon drone. For instance, a 2 stage RM could accelerate, coast, and decelerate to come to zero velocity relative to a target.

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.