Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by cthia   » Fri May 13, 2022 6:55 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Loren_Pectel wrote:Remember Filareta's mass launch? That was presented as a standard last resort type of thing, it predates modern missile development. Thus even the original missiles have the ability to approximately follow a vector and attack whatever they find out there.

It's just that before Apollo they did a pretty poor job of it. Even with guidance missiles weren't good at staying on course over a long run.

Early missiles may have had no problem finding targets, even without links. But not without initial programming.

But do consider that even those missiles were given initial instructions on how to find the enemy, they were aimed, they were pointed in the right direction.

Missiles cannot follow a vector if they have not been given a vector to follow.

Tube launched. If they are tube launched, perhaps the instructions are input while in the launch tube, and they exit the ship on the right vector. If they have to be helped to settle down on the right vector, then they need the links. If all instructions are input after launch, then they definitely need the links. If it is cut before the initial instructions are input then the salvo should be rendered useless.

If fired from pods, the initial vector is obviously either input after they light off or just before. In the case of pods, if the initial instructions are input after they light off, then that may be the "weak link."

At any rate, a salvo should not fare well without the links guiding them in. That isn't the same as being blind fired, but it is only one step below a completely ballistic launch, where a completely ballistic launch would have no time left on its drives to maneuver. Blind firing is having no idea at all where the enemy is when you fire. It is a shot in the dark. But! Any salvo may as well be blind fired if it receives no initial targeting.

Otherwise, I agree, and that is part and parcel to the point I am trying to make. Missiles may have had no problem finding the targets before Apollo. But their effectiveness was a game of chance when they attacked. But they still needed initial instructions!

It is essential for a missile to be launched on the right flight profile, and it is just as essential to maintain that flight profile, so that it can arrive on the right flight profile to enable it to effectively attack.

If a salvo is like a place kicker on the gridiron, it would be impossible for that place kicker to split the goal posts from the most extreme angle directly on the goal line. The referee would never ask the kicker to "score" from that angle.

Likewise, a salvo cannot score hits if it attacks the targets from the wrong bearing. Most shots would just impact the wedge against an Admiral who properly maneuvers his fleet.

Making matters worse, if the enemy knows that he has "retarded" your launch, then he will maneuver accordingly. There should be absolutely no up the kilt shots, with most missiles hitting the wedge.

I will estimate that the first third of a missile's acceleration should be the most important part of its flight profile at extended ranges. Akin to the fact that the aim of a sniper's bullet can vary by a huge amount at the slightest jerk of the gun barrel. A small arc of movement causes a huge miss downrange. It is the same for missiles, the slightest angle off the flight profile in the beginning of the flight will translate into the biggest miss. Too much inaccuracy during the initial third of the acceleration and the missile's sensors may not even enter its sensor envelope. Everyone seems to be taking the initial guidance instructions for granted.

Loren_Pectel wrote:The Apollo system is capable of attacking what it's pointed at on it's own. The control links allow much better reaction to what the target does while the missile is in flight.

However, in this case the targets were utterly outclassed. Furthermore, it was only one salvo, there were no previous missiles to learn anything from and so one big reason for the link is gone. Going up against the SLN is like testing your self-drive car in an abandoned military base rather than in real traffic.


Agreed. Apollo is capable of attacking what it's pointed at. But! It must receive the initial bearing. Even Apollo has to be pointed. And as I said, I guestimate that the first third or so of the flight time is the most critical for it to be guided. And if those initial instructions are generally received after their drives light off, the effectiveness of that salvo will be very retarded if the links are cut. Possibly even without the enemy performing evasive maneuvers.

Even Apollo is dependent on being given initial instructions.


tlb wrote:Do you accept that a drone can be fired and run a complex course without special instructions from the ship?

The logistics should be a lot different for a drone. A drone has a lot of leeway to pick a vector. It isn't usually going to attack at the end if its flight.


tlb wrote:Then please explain what happened to the Solarian Fleet at Beowulf in UH; where only about ten percent of their Battle-cruisers survived an Apollo attack, which had received initial instructions and then acted autonomously. Obviously they did not need "an additional signal immediately after launch"; so it seems that they can be deadly without that link.

As you said, which had received initial instructions . Besides, the regular link was still available to the missile for the most important leg of its journey, the first third? Even before FTL, the link was available in real time for most of the important part of the leg.

Jonathan_S wrote:Nope - Beowolf lost Mycroft before the Apollo birds even launched. -snip-

But the regular links are still there, and the missiles had already received targeting data. If that data is input after launch, via the regular telemetry links, then they are critical. And they can be cut before the critical instructions can be input.

A platform needs to get in close to jam at launch and may be destroyed, but only after it has fried the components of all missiles. That would provide an LD more time for evasive maneuvers.

And do consider, the MA would be doing the jamming of a launch that is already firing in the dark. A salvo needs to get very close to a stealthy LD. If the aim is off way upwind, it will definitely catch no joy downwind.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by tlb   » Fri May 13, 2022 7:24 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

cthia wrote:Agreed. Apollo is capable of attacking what it's pointed at. But! It must receive the initial bearing. Even Apollo has to be pointed. And as I said, I guestimate that the first third or so of the flight time is the most critical for it to be guided. And if those initial instructions are generally received after their drives light off, the effectiveness of that salvo will be very retarded if the links are cut. Possibly even without the enemy performing evasive maneuvers.

Even Apollo is dependent on being given initial instructions.

tlb wrote:Do you accept that a drone can be fired and run a complex course without special instructions from the ship?

The logistics should be a lot different for a drone. A drone has a lot of leeway to pick a vector. It isn't usually going to attack at the end if its flight.


tlb wrote:Then please explain what happened to the Solarian Fleet at Beowulf in UH; where only about ten percent of their Battle-cruisers survived an Apollo attack, which had received initial instructions and then acted autonomously. Obviously they did not need "an additional signal immediately after launch"; so it seems that they can be deadly without that link.

As you said, which had received initial instructions . Besides, the regular link was still available to the missile for the most important leg of its journey, the first third? Even before FTL, the link was available in real time for most of the important part of the leg.

Jonathan_S wrote:Nope - Beowolf lost Mycroft before the Apollo birds even launched. -snip-

But the regular links are still there, and the missiles had already received targeting data. If that data is input after launch, via the regular telemetry links, then they are critical. And they can be cut before the critical instructions can be input.

We agree that the missiles at Beowulf were given initial instructions; we disagree whether additional instructions were sent during the first third of their flight. Nevertheless this is a considerable change from your earlier position that the missiles would be useless (even Apollo), if the control signals were lost at anytime during their flight.

The point about the drone is NOT the lack of an attack phase, but whether any missile can autonomously go from point A to point B without receiving second by second control instructions. Given that the ability exists; then it makes sense to replicate as much of that ability as possible into the war missiles, because that would cut back enormously on the communication requirements.

The initial mass launch of Filareta's pods did not receive initial instructions, yet they did cause damage to Honor's fleet.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Theemile   » Fri May 13, 2022 8:17 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5066
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

tlb wrote:
The initial mass launch of Filareta's pods did not receive initial instructions, yet they did cause damage to Honor's fleet.


Cthia is correct that you have to initially "Point" a missile in the correct direction for it to work - if you fire it 180 degrees in the wrong direction, it's never going to find it's target. Space is big - and you have to give missiles some initial direction.

Filareta's CoS's "button" must have had a code that took a basic data dump from tactical and sent that to the missiles, or perhaps SLN doctrine had pods continuously assigned a random target by tactical so such an alpha launch could happen easily in an emergency. Who can say what info exactly they got, or if one missile pod got the bearing, and the rest were in a "follow the leader mode", but the missiles had to be pointed on a bearing, and given a rough distance to target, at the least.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by tlb   » Fri May 13, 2022 8:38 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:The initial mass launch of Filareta's pods did not receive initial instructions, yet they did cause damage to Honor's fleet.

Theemile wrote:Cthia is correct that you have to initially "Point" a missile in the correct direction for it to work - if you fire it 180 degrees in the wrong direction, it's never going to find it's target. Space is big - and you have to give missiles some initial direction.

Filareta's CoS's "button" must have had a code that took a basic data dump from tactical and sent that to the missiles, or perhaps SLN doctrine had pods continuously assigned a random target by tactical so such an alpha launch could happen easily in an emergency. Who can say what info exactly they got, or if one missile pod got the bearing, and the rest were in a "follow the leader mode", but the missiles had to be pointed on a bearing, and given a rough distance to target, at the least.

We certainly expect that the pods were pointed at the enemy, but we do NOT KNOW anything more than that. It is not clear that a distance to enemy is needed in that case.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by cthia   » Fri May 13, 2022 9:25 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Theemile wrote:
tlb wrote:
The initial mass launch of Filareta's pods did not receive initial instructions, yet they did cause damage to Honor's fleet.


Cthia is correct that you have to initially "Point" a missile in the correct direction for it to work - if you fire it 180 degrees in the wrong direction, it's never going to find it's target. Space is big - and you have to give missiles some initial direction.

Filareta's CoS's "button" must have had a code that took a basic data dump from tactical and sent that to the missiles, or perhaps SLN doctrine had pods continuously assigned a random target by tactical so such an alpha launch could happen easily in an emergency. Who can say what info exactly they got, or if one missile pod got the bearing, and the rest were in a "follow the leader mode", but the missiles had to be pointed on a bearing, and given a rough distance to target, at the least.

Thank you.

In fact, if a missile does NOT receive those initial instructions, then there should be some sort of built-in dead man switch preventing them from being fired. You don't want an Alpha launch to head straight for your own ships, and/or screen. This is another reason that missiles shouldn't be armed before they clear the wedge, and now I add, they should also not be armed before they clear your own formation.


An absentee edit. In my previous post please parse "upwind" and "downwind" as "uprange" and "downrange."

I am part American Indian, and using the terms upwind and downwind can never be removed from my DNA.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri May 13, 2022 9:52 am

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4145
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

cthia wrote:Tube launched. If they are tube launched, perhaps the instructions are input while in the launch tube, and they exit the ship on the right vector. If they have to be helped to settle down on the right vector, then they need the links. If all instructions are input after launch, then they definitely need the links. If it is cut before the initial instructions are input then the salvo should be rendered useless.

If fired from pods, the initial vector is obviously either input after they light off or just before. In the case of pods, if the initial instructions are input after they light off, then that may be the "weak link."


Conclusion: there's always an initial data dump to the missile.

If a missile is inside the tube, it's receiving some sort of information. It needs to be told what to do when it leaves the ship so it can clear the ship's wedge and not collide with the rest of the broadside. So there's definitely some information to the tube-launched missiles.

As for the pod-launched ones... they received an order to launch. Therefore, there was a link active. If the enemy can jam the ship-pod link, then the jamming is active before the launch, so the ship simply shoots a laser at the platform and the jamming stops.

I will estimate that the first third of a missile's acceleration should be the most important part of its flight profile at extended ranges. Akin to the fact that the aim of a sniper's bullet can vary by a huge amount at the slightest jerk of the gun barrel. A small arc of movement causes a huge miss downrange. It is the same for missiles, the slightest angle off the flight profile in the beginning of the flight will translate into the biggest miss. Too much inaccuracy during the initial third of the acceleration and the missile's sensors may not even enter its sensor envelope. Everyone seems to be taking the initial guidance instructions for granted.


As Theemile said, if you fire 180° off course, it's never going to find the enemy. For some reason, before the Mk14, missiles could barely be launched off-bore at all. That's inconsistent with what we know a wedge can do and even more so considering those missiles could already evade pretty well the counter-missiles and laser defences.

So I agree they need to be told where to go at launch time. I think I can conclusively show above that any missile launch that isn't a blind firing has some guidance at launch time and the next few critical seconds.

But as for "first third," please remember that the last quarter of the missile's flight time corresponds to half of the distance covered. So, assuming you sent them in the correct general direction, if the links are lost, they can be restored once the source of jamming is destroyed and proper final tasking can be done. So this jamming platform needs to be far enough downrange from the launching ships that they don't have time to act on the information... which means by your definition that the most critical portions of the missile's flight were under control link.

That said, that is an effective defence. It's basically a different type of decoy: a drone ship that lures away the missiles from its intended targets and also disrupts their control links, so they can't be told otherwise.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 13, 2022 10:40 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8301
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Nope - Beowolf lost Mycroft before the Apollo birds even launched. -snip-

But the regular links are still there, and the missiles had already received targeting data. If that data is input after launch, via the regular telemetry links, then they are critical. And they can be cut before the critical instructions can be input.

But at Beowulf we saw when the targeting data was input -- it was before the missiles were instructed to launch. Presumably because the designers put a couple moments of thought into it and took the reasonable and logical step to avoid the issue you're raising -- nobody wants a missile potentially flying around without the first idea of where to go or who to attack if it didn't have a link right after launch; so why even let one be launched without knowing where it's supposed to go?

It would be crazy to tell a missile to "start flying whereever you happen to be pointing and I'll try and tell you shortly where you're going and who you're attacking".

And that's not what they did. At Beowulf they finished "upload[ing] the targeting queue directly to the pods" and "reprogramming the Apollo pods" before the missiles left the pods. (And in that case, for whatever reason, likely due to the wide dispersal of the pods, it took them "at least another thirteen or fourteen minutes") So by the time they got kicked out and their wedges came online they had a course to fly and knew the target(s) they were going after.

And I hold that the same would apply to tube launched missiles, or pods rolled from SD(P)s. Course and target data is transmitted before the launch order -- so a missile never starts flying without knowing where it's supposed to go. (Mind you, that course could be to an arbitrary point in space -- which is more or less what a warning shot across the bow does; or when IIRC Michelle used a Apollo pod launch as a faster arriving RD substitute -- but the missile still knows where to go before its launch)

What the control link does is allow the mother ship, with it's better computers, information from all the missiles' sensors, and it's more sensitive (if further away) onboard sensors, and potentially feeds from recon drones to update, refine, or even outright change those initial instructions.


so yes, if the course and target was uploaded immediately after launch it would be devastating to have that link jammed. However since we see that course and target is uploaded before launch that speculation seems moot.
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Theemile   » Fri May 13, 2022 10:53 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5066
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/320/1/

Predictability of a ship's position

The predictability of the ship's position within the wedge is somewhat greater than some people seem to be assuming, but unless you can target the throat or the kilt, "snap shots" (even with SDMs) have always been hard to come by. (Go back and look at what happens while Fearless II closes with Thunder of God in HotQ. Or, for that matter, at my comments about SDM BCs closing with an SDM SD while covering behind their wedges.) This is one reason that missile combat was regarded as indecisive prior to the Havenite Wars. The Manties' (and Peeps', although to a lesser degree) improvements in laser heads and the ability to share information between missiles were two of the main reasons missile combat started moving back to the fore.

One of the reasons for the telemetry control links has always been to keep missiles informed of things their own sensors simply cannot see. The tactical sections of warships are responsible for modeling the entire combat environment (including prediction of the target's position within its wedge) and feeding that to the missiles which have not yet attacked. Mutual wedge interference cuts big holes in the ability of individual missiles to talk to each other, but all the missiles report back what they "see" to the ship which launched them. That data is usually out of date for light-speed telemetry by the time the ship receives it, but it uses it to build a predictive model for the target's position, which is then passed on to the missiles still in the firing queue. The missile's onboard sensors have to be able to "see" the target ship (or at least its wedge) well enough to adjust its position within the "dated" information provided to it, but the data itself is absolutely critical if it's going to have a hope in hell of scoring a hit anywhere except down-the-throat or up-the-kilt. Even with the best models, however, fire control can only predict a basic "zone" in which the target is going to lie, so part of the trick has been to saturate that zone with laser heads. If your missiles get an opportunity to establish positive lock, great! In those cases, you are virtually guaranteed a hit unless the missile is picked off before it can fire or the sidewall (if any) bends the beam into a miss. Far more often, though, each missile is firing at a target it never actually sees because its telemtry links told it "Look for the target somewhere around… here. Oh, and your buddies are going to be firing at other points in the same zone. Good luck, guys!"

One of the huge advantages of Apollo is that for the first time, the telemetry data can be real-timed both ways, allowing for much more effective "steering" of the missiles. This is also one of the reasons the combination of Ghost Rider platforms and the Mark 16 are so effective; the delay on corrective data from the missiles that "miss" because of faulty target prediction can reach the firing ship in half the time. What we are going to see the Manties' SD(P)s doing here shortly is hanging Ghost Rider platforms close to their targets whenever possible and using them to provide a continuous stream of updated data better even than Apollo can provide without such assistance. On the other hand, you've already seen an example of the way in which Apollo can be used in this same role from Mike Henke's sim in Storm from the Shadows.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by tlb   » Fri May 13, 2022 11:51 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

cthia wrote:In my previous post please parse "upwind" and "downwind" as "uprange" and "downrange."

I am part American Indian, and using the terms upwind and downwind can never be removed from my DNA.

The ideal place for a hunter is downwind of his prey, because then they cannot scent him; so "downwind" is the opposite of "downrange".
Top
Re: OK KZT: What's wrong with AAC?
Post by Brigade XO   » Sat May 14, 2022 4:22 pm

Brigade XO
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: KY

When Manticore first started being able to fire missiles off-bore, it had to be able to fire/launch the missiles in whatever direction the tubes were pointed and then navigate around the ship's wedge. While that extra set of formation could have been put in with the initial targeting data, you have to wonder if not retaining the control link with the ship though the significant changes of vector would have affected targeting. If you still have the link when your volley finally settles down a radically new vector than it's launch one, you are going to get much better targeting.

The longer you can maintain the link (and to time lag given distance the information has to flow from the ship to the missiles) the better you are going to do. That is part of what makes Apollo so impressive. You have a local control missile with FTL getting updated either and/or updated from the launching ship, from tactical drones and from the compiled take from the sensors of the several missiles in the flight with the control missile. With Apollo, you can be confident that cutting the control links with the command ship (to do things like defend itself or go after more targets) won't screw up the missiles going after the 1st target. Becomes Fire and Forget as far as the launching ship is concerned
Top

Return to Honorverse