OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?

cthia wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I'd expect that a EMP-like weapon to have a range similar to a boom-mode nuclear missile. That's far, far shorter than any stealth has a right to be, for all we know of the Honorverse tech. Not even the SLN would be fooled by it.

Except for the MA's smart material. You can't see it with the naked eye if it is oriented correctly towards you. In the heat of battle, it can be missed. Who is going to be looking out of a port anyway during battle.

Looking out a porthole was a facetious remark. My point was that if it could be seen with naked eye, it shouldn't be too difficult for the sensors the ship normally employs. A radar that can pick something up at over a light second is a million times more powerful at 300 km. And considering the returns drop at a power of 4 ratio, the return signal of something at 300 km is a trillion times more powerful than at a light-second.

And such a thing won't have suddenly materialised there. It must have manoeuvred, which means it must be lucky all the time to avoid detection. The defenders only have to be lucky once to see it.

Indeed, but that will only destroy a single target, when the aim is to destroy an entire launch.

Not exactly. A graser can have multiple emitters. Once the bomb explodes, the energy can be channelled into multiple beams. They probably need to be within a small arc of each other though.

On the other hand, just how many ships are within the range of this short-range weapon? If it can at most affect two with optimal positioning, then you still need to send a lot of those out to cripple the attack that is yet to launch (and ALL of the platforms need to be lucky in stealth). We don't know what range such a thing needs, but if it is like a boom-mode nuke, it's useless. It needs to get closer to a target than a graser.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

Control channels. I do agree they should be launched if they're going to be lost, but it's going to be blind fire.

Lets presume you have birds in pods and power to launch and then run them to "wherever" in their burn time. Every one of those missile has a sensor that will pick up commands from the launching ships's control channels (and can be accessed with the proper codes from other ships).
Even if you have to crash/flush the pods to keep them from being lost, and didn't have time to update their guidance, you can still feed it to the birds...at least to however many you have control channels- one batch at a time and reorient them in flight. Your tactical section -at that point- already has the data on what it thinks is coming, the speed, the vectors and everything else it can suck in from either light speed data or FTL via Recon Drones- if you have any deployed.

Sure, it's not as good as loading it into the birds as you are reorienting the pods for the proper launch vector (as a component of most efficient intercept solution). The worst scenario, birds from differnt pods don't arrive at the intercept/engagement range together but in clumps. Whomever is coming has got to deal with those and both expend CM and countermeasures to do it. Yeah, a small cloud of pods spread out like a minefield would be better used when you can sync-up the targeting and then time the launch of each pod such that the missiles are going to arrive in either one directed volley or two close on volleys such that that 2d volley gets screened by the detonations etc of the 1st. These things have the targeting info in their computers by the time they get even close to engagement and "should" just keep correcting to intercept their last target at the place it "should be".

Use it or loose it.

cthia wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:Control channels. I do agree they should be launched if they're going to be lost, but it's going to be blind fire.

Control channels can't be established after the incoming salvo? Just roll back down and establish the links. In the pre-Apollo era it may not have been possible, or a given, but with Apollo why would it be impossible?

There's no reason to believe they can't be established afterwards. We know that the Havenites and later the Solarians solved the problem of too-few control channels by multiplexing the control channels in time. Each missile would be controlled part of the time, not all of the time like doctrine used to dictate and how the RMN did. So the link can be dropped and reestablished, at least intentionally.

No, the problem of control channels that Loren was talking about is if that you may not have enough channels for the missiles you already have deployed for an alpha launch if the enemy surprises you. But a blind fire is better than losing them, because it at least has a non-zero chance of arriving at the enemy's site and doing something. If it dies in the pod, the chance of that is zero.

This is not going to happen on a fleet-to-fleet engagement because each fleet can see the other and can calculate how long it takes for missiles to arrive. This can only happen if one can't see the other side in the first place, but you were preparing pods for something other than that enemy.

That was the case in Hypatia: Adm. Hajdu was deploying pods to defend against an RMN arrival at the hyperlimit, because the hyper footprint would have been unmistakable. He didn't expect an attack from the other direction, from the inner system. It could also have been the case in the Battle of Manticore: Chin was outside of or too close inside the hyperlimit, so an arrival outside of it (Honor) could throw missiles at her inside of her firing time. That's why battles aren't fought close to or outside the hyperlimit: too many surprises because you can't see the other side of the wall.

cthia wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:Control channels. I do agree they should be launched if they're going to be lost, but it's going to be blind fire.

Control channels can't be established after the incoming salvo? Just roll back down and establish the links. In the pre-Apollo era it may not have been possible, or a given, but with Apollo why would it be impossible?

When has use-or-lose been an issue with Apollo missiles?

cthia wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:Control channels. I do agree they should be launched if they're going to be lost, but it's going to be blind fire.

Control channels can't be established after the incoming salvo? Just roll back down and establish the links. In the pre-Apollo era it may not have been possible, or a given, but with Apollo why would it be impossible?

Loren Pectel wrote:When has use-or-lose been an issue with Apollo missiles?

It shouldn't be an issue. That is my point. Except - if I understand ThinksMarkedly correctly - in a surprise attack by the enemy at a time all of your control channels are already in use by your Alpha Launch.

Deployed pods of any Navy's going to be subject to being written off if they aren't fired when the avalanche comes in.

But at first glance I question the SLN's ability to multiplex in light of our recent discussion about the dumbness of missiles to properly track early on in their development. Consider the world renown Blue Angels aerial show. In a perfectly synchronized show, if one plane's maneuvers are off just a little then they all die. At first glance, it seems like multiplexing (which is temporarily cutting control channels, and, at extended ranges) of missiles is like the pilot constantly taking his hand off the yoke. That might work for the SLN since their missiles are widely spaced. But factoring in their lack of FTL puts me right back to questioning the ability.

Inherently, it should be more problematical for the GA since Apollo missiles are packed much tighter. But, then, the control missile should keep them perfectly synchronized along with FTL control.

At any rate, multiplexing should be easier for the GA since only the MK-23 CM of each brood has to receive a signal.

But it could be that it is imperative for the link to be established before a certain range is achieved. It is like two runners on a relay team. It is difficult to establish communication (pass the baton) when the runner is outrunning the process. The initial link must be established, error checking, bit parity, etc. After initial handshaking, all is fine. But the initial handshake is the most important, and may be impossible at extended ranges. Just like the baton, the process might keep dropping bits.

In summary, I wouldn't think multiplexing would be possible without FTL. Except at sublight ranges.

I can't see it working for the SLN whose missile technology hadn't changed a whole helluva lot since they became the Solarian (League).

And of course, multiplexing while facing the Tripple Ripple should be a losing proposition.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Of course you very well may be right. However, wedges must remain at a certain distance apart or burning out the gravitonics will be the least of their worries. But a stealthy platform may be able to get in much closer than a wedge. Maybe. And the "attack" (as TM said it is an attack) will be directed.

At any rate, the MA has done some work with FTL themselves, and they may have observed something that could throw a monkey wrench into the mix. Perhaps certain highly directed frequencies from close range could fry the receivers. ::grasping::

I'll note that a ship's normal FTL sensors - its Warshaski detectors - are designed to operate quite well while literally flying through grav disturbances strong enough to immediately tear apart any ship not stabilized by a sail. (And those grav disturbances create powerful FTL signals because that's how Warshaski detectors detect grav waves as you approach them). Not only do the Warshaskis remain undamaged, they're able to see through that FTL noise out to see other ships' sails out to a useful distance (IIRC several lightminutes).

If a grav wave at 0 meters isn't enough FTL noise to damage receiver, or jam them sufficiently to prevent ships from communicating via FTL, I seriously doubt any manmade jammer could do so. It's possible that the transceivers for Keyhole II & ACM aren't quite as robust; as they don't need to operate in a grav wave; but I still suspect they're going to be undamaged by any ripple one can artificially induce in the hyper wall.

But we'll see where RFC chooses to take the tech.

However, I would not expect the receivers to be active in that case. It would be like going outside and talking on the phone in the middle of the worst lightning storm.

Reminds me of my mother during my younger and foolish days during a lighting storm, "Turn that darn TV off! And unplug it!" *

I think kzt's extension cords might be unplugged when traveling through grav waves. LOL

* My mother would insist on unplugging the TV during these lightning storms, but I was young and dumb and I wouldn't always unplug it. I didn't see the point. Well, on one such event I actually listened to her and I unplugged the TV. Shortly thereafter lightning hit a transformer that was close to our home. I almost shat my pants at that huge explosion.

But that wasn't the end of it. Our TV also EXPLODED! The current had jumped the gap between the outlet and the plug that lie on the floor. My father had always told us to move the plug as far away from the outlet as possible after we unplug it. Some kids have to be struck by lightning before they listen.


At any rate, I think textev indicates that normal sensors are operable inside grav waves, so my notion might be a wash. Except, perhaps, that FTL antennas are larger and more sensitive.

In n-space it could also be that since receivers are located (inside the wedge?), they are protected from the intense gravity. Gravity is directional. Perhaps wedges radiate gravitational fields outwards. But perhaps the field has a limited "cone" of danger as does the field inside the lanes at the junction.

But that still leaves the platforms which operate outside the wedge to minimize interference from the wedge. At what distance from the ship do the platforms go active? Is this distance important?

Lighting and near misses....yeah....fried half a dozen DVD VER desktop boxes in a hospitality location we owned, along with 3 TVs (in 3 cases the surge protectors protected the TVs but in 3 they protected nothing (and, of occurs were fried themselves) AND it fried the circuit boards for the only cottage that had an oil furnace. The actual strike was preps 50 yds away from any of the affected buildings but electricity finds its own way

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I'll note that a ship's normal FTL sensors - its Warshaski detectors - are designed to operate quite well while literally flying through grav disturbances strong enough to immediately tear apart any ship not stabilized by a sail. (And those grav disturbances create powerful FTL signals because that's how Warshaski detectors detect grav waves as you approach them). Not only do the Warshaskis remain undamaged, they're able to see through that FTL noise out to see other ships' sails out to a useful distance (IIRC several lightminutes).

If a grav wave at 0 meters isn't enough FTL noise to damage receiver, or jam them sufficiently to prevent ships from communicating via FTL, I seriously doubt any manmade jammer could do so. It's possible that the transceivers for Keyhole II & ACM aren't quite as robust; as they don't need to operate in a grav wave; but I still suspect they're going to be undamaged by any ripple one can artificially induce in the hyper wall.

But we'll see where RFC chooses to take the tech.

However, I would not expect the receivers to be active in that case. It would be like going outside and talking on the phone in the middle of the worst lightning storm.

Reminds me of my mother during my younger and foolish days during a lighting storm, "Turn that darn TV off! And unplug it!" *

The warshawski detectors are absolutely active while in a grav wave.

For example see pre-war ambush the Peeps pulled off against the Mantie convoy; the one where Helen's mother died along with the rest of the escort to let the freighters and freighter-transports escape. The sensors used for almost that entire event were the passive FTL Warshawski detectors -- observing the grav emissions of each ship's sails through the turbulence of the grav wave. (And Hotspur initially saw the Peep CAs' sails burning through their electronic warfare at "barely three hundred million klicks back" (about 16.6 light-minutes). [That's way beyond the 1-2 million km we're told their active sensors, primarily radar, are effective]

Now the sensors on a Keyhole II might be less robust that the ship's Warshaski FTL detectors. But I'd still be shocked if anybody is able to generate a large enough grav signal to "fry the receivers".

They already happily continue working amid the most powerful human produced grav signals we know of -- wedges produce signals that can be seen many times further than FTL comms. And mass missile launches create a wide spread interference signal that can be seen even further than that. And yet, except when they actually cut off line of sight, a ship's FTL sensors and a Keyhole II's FTL fire control links, seem just fine operating amid the combined grav signal of tens or hundreds of thousands of missiles lighting off; or of that same number of missiles come in while tens of thousands of CMs light light. Without some utterly out of left field breakthrough handed down by authorial fiat no drone sized system is going to be producing an FTL signal more powerful that all the wedges of hundreds of thousands of missiles lighting up nearby.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I'll note that a ship's normal FTL sensors - its Warshaski detectors - are designed to operate quite well while literally flying through grav disturbances strong enough to immediately tear apart any ship not stabilized by a sail. (And those grav disturbances create powerful FTL signals because that's how Warshaski detectors detect grav waves as you approach them). Not only do the Warshaskis remain undamaged, they're able to see through that FTL noise out to see other ships' sails out to a useful distance (IIRC several lightminutes).

If a grav wave at 0 meters isn't enough FTL noise to damage receiver, or jam them sufficiently to prevent ships from communicating via FTL, I seriously doubt any manmade jammer could do so. It's possible that the transceivers for Keyhole II & ACM aren't quite as robust; as they don't need to operate in a grav wave; but I still suspect they're going to be undamaged by any ripple one can artificially induce in the hyper wall.

But we'll see where RFC chooses to take the tech.

However, I would not expect the receivers to be active in that case. It would be like going outside and talking on the phone in the middle of the worst lightning storm.

Reminds me of my mother during my younger and foolish days during a lighting storm, "Turn that darn TV off! And unplug it!" *

Jonathan_S wrote:The warshawski detectors are absolutely active while in a grav wave.

For example see pre-war ambush the Peeps pulled off against the Mantie convoy; the one where Helen's mother died along with the rest of the escort to let the freighters and freighter-transports escape. The sensors used for almost that entire event were the passive FTL Warshawski detectors -- observing the grav emissions of each ship's sails through the turbulence of the grav wave. (And Hotspur initially saw the Peep CAs' sails burning through their electronic warfare at "barely three hundred million klicks back" (about 16.6 light-minutes). [That's way beyond the 1-2 million km we're told their active sensors, primarily radar, are effective]

Now the sensors on a Keyhole II might be less robust that the ship's Warshaski FTL detectors. But I'd still be shocked if anybody is able to generate a large enough grav signal to "fry the receivers".

They already happily continue working amid the most powerful human produced grav signals we know of -- wedges produce signals that can be seen many times further than FTL comms. And mass missile launches create a wide spread interference signal that can be seen even further than that. And yet, except when they actually cut off line of sight, a ship's FTL sensors and a Keyhole II's FTL fire control links, seem just fine operating amid the combined grav signal of tens or hundreds of thousands of missiles lighting off; or of that same number of missiles come in while tens of thousands of CMs light light. Without some utterly out of left field breakthrough handed down by authorial fiat no drone sized system is going to be producing an FTL signal more powerful that all the wedges of hundreds of thousands of missiles lighting up nearby.

Your post certainly makes sense to me. And if someone is holding a gun to my head to get it right, I will certainly copy off your paper.

But again, just to get it on record so I can say I told you so when the next book comes out ... ... while in a grav wave, all of the receivers may be protected by their own band of intense gravity, being inside the wedge. Much like the planet's intense atmosphere and magnetic field disperses the Sun's dangerous solar flares.

I am theorizing that the receivers may not be affected by grav waves * ... or the wedge itself, being inside the wedge, because the brunt of the gravity may be radiated outward and away, as I am proposing it is at the junction, whereby there appear to be a totally different set of equations operating 'behind the junction'.


But platforms operate outside the wedge. It is true that they seem to operate in a sea of wedges producing their own fields of gravity, but the critical distance (and time) from these wedges might not ever be reached. However, a stealthy platform that employs some technology to focus and direct gravity may be able to get close enough to GA platforms to make the GA soil its pants. And destroying platforms with intense directed gravity might be harder to detect and localize than firing missiles or grasers.

A stealthy MA platform developed to fry receivers might not need to produce a stronger field of gravity to fry the GA's bacon, rather than get close enough to the receivers that they are essentially in the frying pan.

All of this brings up another point I have been meaning to broach. People inside the wedge don't seem to be affected by the intense band of gravity created by the wedge either.

Overall, I may be grasping at straws, but 'Straw Men' seem to be employed quite extensively in the genre to spruce up sci-fi.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Not exactly. A graser can have multiple emitters. Once the bomb explodes, the energy can be channelled into multiple beams. They probably need to be within a small arc of each other though.
<snip>

That's a bomb pumped x-ray laser head - they "usually" have 3-10 emitter rods. (vipers only have one).

A Graser is a single emitter weapon that they mount on a missile and power from the reactor. The ship born versions have a gravity lens built into the sidewall - don't know how the missile/Torps handle the lensing on a graser.