Attacking Darius:

Relax wrote:Should be 2 types of mines; offensive(stealthy mines), defensive very obvious mines for your own WHJ

As for minesweeper... Uh, EVERY SINGLE warship is a minesweeper with their wedges + PDLC's with active RADAR/LIDAR.

NIT... a Big Graser mine could outrange PDLC's. So, take them out with LAC Grasers... finding them = the usual.

Obviously with mines, it is a question of Quantity overwhelming.

If you know roughly where the minefield is I'd think nukes in "boom" mode would be more effective that PDLCs or energy mounts. They're going to be spread enough that they're unlikely to be prox killing their neighbors - but at least with nukes you don't need to be dead on and landing a big nuke between a few mines might take out more than one.

Wedge + PDLCs seems like a bad idea because minefields are wide enough that you're likely to eventually end up surrounded by mines. Sure the ones below your interposed wedge can't do anything to you - but your ship is a hell of a lot more obvious to the mines than they are to your ship. So betting your sensors and PDLCs against their stealth, as you drift down into the field and likely end up with mines on multiple sides of you, is likely to be a losing game.

OTOH you could use something like recon drones to sweep the suspected area with wedges. Anti-ship mines aren't likely to "waste" themselves trying to blow up an RD - so you could be able to run over a bunch of them. And if it does get blown up it's not the worlds biggest loss. (You could probably rig up an autopilot or remote control to run uncrewed shuttled or pinnaces through the suspected field; but RD are already set up for remote control and you probably carry more RDs than small craft. )

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:The books depict missiles oftentimes as interpenetrating the enemy's launches. If a 3-second-firing graser can spin fast enough while in the midst of that launch, it should be able to get most of them. Apollo launches stay tightly packed.

Loren Pechtel wrote:I strongly disagree. Let's assume they are MDMs fired near max range. When they interpenetrate they are going to be moving around .35c each, thus about .62c relative to each other (assuming the launchers aren't moving too fast.) In those three seconds of graser fire the missiles move more than 500,000km relative to each other. Not to mention that missiles have wedges, most hits will do nothing at all.

Also of note, only the group of missiles in one pod stay grouped together (8 weapon carrying missiles, plus the Apollo controller missile). However there may be thousand of pods launched and the missiles from different pods stay as far apart as the pre-Apollo launched missiles did.

I am none too sure about that, if my papers are in order (sorry, just finished watching an old German movie). I remember text depicting Apollo launches as being grouped tightly together. The Peeps commented on it, and I don't think that particular comment was about the individual broods. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Thus, "none too sure."

At any rate, I would imagine g-torp launches are capable of salvos of thousands.

.

cthia wrote:Thanks for regurgitating that text. But yes, in that manner I can see them having a practical tactical use; throwing them down haphazardly like nails in front of oncoming vehicles. That is how I suggested the LDs could deploy them upstream. But I doubt that they are stabilized minefields. Of course, being used in such an immediately manner, they wouldn't have to be stabilized. It still makes you wonder how they are ejected if they can be deployed so effectively while the ship is moving at such speeds. What is the size of a mine as opposed to a missile? And, are mines shaped like our mines today.

Here's what it says about mines

Short Victorious War wrote:the mines were simply old-fashioned bomb-pumped lasers. They were cheap but good for only a single shot each, and their accuracy was less than outstanding, which made them most effective when employed en masse against ships moving at low velocities. That meant they were usually emplaced for area coverage of relatively immobile targets like wormhole junctions, planets, or orbital bases . . . where, as Banton had just pointed out, the Peeps would expect to see them. But putting them where the Peeps expected wasn't what Honor had in mind.

Naval mines today have a whole bunch of different shapes, but I doubt the mine described above would have the iconic spherical naval mine covered in contact fuse horns.

Those lasing rod assemblies are still several meters long and need to be aimed very precisely. The easiest thing to do would simply to use the same type of self positioning rod that their capital ship missiles use (though as mentioned before, quite possibly carry more of them). It seems to me that it'd be very space inefficient to make a spherical shell large enough to enclose all those long lasing rods; as most of that volume would seem wasted. (Plus sphere's don't pack as efficiently into storage as efficiently as cylinders or cubes do)

So I suspect it looks more like an somewhat enlarged warhead bus of a capital anti-ship missile; with some extra low observable station keeping thrusters (and their fuel) plus sensors pointing in all directions -- but still closer to a cylinder as that's how the lasing rods will most efficiently pack in for storage.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:Thanks for regurgitating that text. But yes, in that manner I can see them having a practical tactical use; throwing them down haphazardly like nails in front of oncoming vehicles. That is how I suggested the LDs could deploy them upstream. But I doubt that they are stabilized minefields. Of course, being used in such an immediately manner, they wouldn't have to be stabilized. It still makes you wonder how they are ejected if they can be deployed so effectively while the ship is moving at such speeds. What is the size of a mine as opposed to a missile? And, are mines shaped like our mines today.

Here's what it says about mines

Short Victorious War wrote:the mines were simply old-fashioned bomb-pumped lasers. They were cheap but good for only a single shot each, and their accuracy was less than outstanding, which made them most effective when employed en masse against ships moving at low velocities. That meant they were usually emplaced for area coverage of relatively immobile targets like wormhole junctions, planets, or orbital bases . . . where, as Banton had just pointed out, the Peeps would expect to see them. But putting them where the Peeps expected wasn't what Honor had in mind.

Naval mines today have a whole bunch of different shapes, but I doubt the mine described above would have the iconic spherical naval mine covered in contact fuse horns.

Those lasing rod assemblies are still several meters long and need to be aimed very precisely. The easiest thing to do would simply to use the same type of self positioning rod that their capital ship missiles use (though as mentioned before, quite possibly carry more of them). It seems to me that it'd be very space inefficient to make a spherical shell large enough to enclose all those long lasing rods; as most of that volume would seem wasted. (Plus sphere's don't pack as efficiently into storage as efficiently as cylinders or cubes do)

So I suspect it looks more like an somewhat enlarged warhead bus of a capital anti-ship missile; with some extra low observable station keeping thrusters (and their fuel) plus sensors pointing in all directions -- but still closer to a cylinder as that's how the lasing rods will most efficiently pack in for storage.

Ah! And to think I changed my original post because I thought the notion that they were shaped like mini missiles was absurd. Because, if they have the same relative shape of missiles then they may have the ability to be "launched" from tubes. In the manner that some guns can fire smaller rounds.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:As for long endurance grasers are a point defense weapon, they'd have some use. After all ships even use their main broadside energy mounts to try to hit missiles; we're even told that the Peeps were a bit better at doing so than the Manties. However PDLCs are designed to rapidly switch targets in a way that larger mounts aren't; firing for 3 solid seconds isn't much use if most of that time is wasted shooting empty space as you try to slew the beam onto the next missile.

Nice post Jonathan. Pardon the snip.

The books depict missiles oftentimes as interpenetrating the enemy's launches. If a 3-second-firing graser can spin fast enough while in the midst of that launch, it should be able to get most of them. Apollo launches stay tightly packed.

There is another question I wonder about the extended firing grasers. And that is whether the MA can develop a version that is intermittent, and if so, would it have an application.


Beware the double post.

It was my understanding that the launches interpenetrated because each had spread out so far.

That by the midpoint in their flight between the fleets an MDM salvo might have spread out a quarter million km, or more, off to any side of the most direct path between the fleets. (That might sound ridiculously wide but that's less than 1/2 a degree course variation from launch). When you've got attack waves spread across 196 billion square km of frontage it'd be damned hard for the salvos (following a roughly reciprocal base course) to avoid partially interpenetrating.


While 3 seconds might be longer than any other energy mount can operate continuously I think that, at least at lower output levels, any broadside mount can operate continuously for much much longer than their normal brief pulse.

If a continuous beam sweep was an particularly effective anti-missile defense we'd have heard about ships doing it already - and we'd hear about those broadside mounts accounting for noticeable fractions/numbers of the attacking missiles. (After all you don't need anywhere near as much power to kill a missile as to punch through an SD's sidewall and meters thick armor - so they can afford to trade reduced power output for increased endurance in an anti-missile role). We know they use their broadside mounts for anti-missile defense, but we also know that they're only marginally effective compared to PDLCs -- indeed they seem to have too little impact to bother mentioning their kills in the description of missile defense.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:As for long endurance grasers are a point defense weapon, they'd have some use. After all ships even use their main broadside energy mounts to try to hit missiles; we're even told that the Peeps were a bit better at doing so than the Manties. However PDLCs are designed to rapidly switch targets in a way that larger mounts aren't; firing for 3 solid seconds isn't much use if most of that time is wasted shooting empty space as you try to slew the beam onto the next missile.

Nice post Jonathan. Pardon the snip.

The books depict missiles oftentimes as interpenetrating the enemy's launches. If a 3-second-firing graser can spin fast enough while in the midst of that launch, it should be able to get most of them. Apollo launches stay tightly packed.

There is another question I wonder about the extended firing grasers. And that is whether the MA can develop a version that is intermittent, and if so, would it have an application.


Beware the double post.

Jonathan_S wrote:It was my understanding that the launches interpenetrated because each had spread out so far.

That by the midpoint in their flight between the fleets an MDM salvo might have spread out a quarter million km, or more, off to any side of the most direct path between the fleets. (That might sound ridiculously wide but that's less than 1/2 a degree course variation from launch). When you've got attack waves spread across 196 billion square km of frontage it'd be damned hard for the salvos (following a roughly reciprocal base course) to avoid partially interpenetrating.


While 3 seconds might be longer than any other energy mount can operate continuously I think that, at least at lower output levels, any broadside mount can operate continuously for much much longer than their normal brief pulse.

If a continuous beam sweep was an particularly effective anti-missile defense we'd have heard about ships doing it already - and we'd hear about those broadside mounts accounting for noticeable fractions/numbers of the attacking missiles. (After all you don't need anywhere near as much power to kill a missile as to punch through an SD's sidewall and meters thick armor - so they can afford to trade reduced power output for increased endurance in an anti-missile role). We know they use their broadside mounts for anti-missile defense, but we also know that they're only marginally effective compared to PDLCs -- indeed they seem to have too little impact to bother mentioning their kills in the description of missile defense.

What am I missing? Even if the launches are spread out a quarter million kilometers, effective energy range against no sidewalls is one million kilometers. And if thousands of grasers are launched to interpenetrate that spread, and they are spinning wildly as they go, then the missiles should disappear like insects flying into a bug zapper. Zzzt! Especially if the MA stagger the missiles in their launches just right.

As far as the wedge, if missiles were crabs, wouldn't the geometry of the attacking g-torps expose the soft part of the crab first?

tlb wrote:Also of note, only the group of missiles in one pod stay grouped together (8 weapon carrying missiles, plus the Apollo controller missile). However there may be thousand of pods launched and the missiles from different pods stay as far apart as the pre-Apollo launched missiles did.

cthia wrote:I am none too sure about that, if my papers are in order (sorry, just finished watching an old German movie). I remember text depicting Apollo launches as being grouped tightly together. The Peeps commented on it, and I don't think that particular comment was about the individual broods. Of course, I could be wrong about that. Thus, "none too sure."

Disappointingly I cannot find the text where Apollo was first used against Haven (I ought to have it somewhere, since it is prior to Mission of Honor); however my recollection is that Republic of Haven commander (no longer Peep) noticed the clumping due to the groups of eight (since the Mark-23 E is hidden behind).

Notice there is no need to avoid dispersion, since the only light speed communication is between the Apollo command missile and its eight subordinates; all other communication between the Keyhole unit and the network of Mark-23 E's is FTL.

Found it in chapter 57 of At All Costs:

The range was almost fifty-four million kilometers, and Bogey Two was running away from TF 82 at a relative velocity of more than four thousand KPS. Missile flight time was over eight minutes, and as Giscard had demonstrated at Solon, even Manticoran accuracy at that range was going to be poor.
Except . . .
* * *
"Sir, there's something . . . odd about the Manties' launch," Thackeray said.
"What do you mean, 'odd'?" Giscard asked sharply.
"Their attack birds are coming in . . . well, 'clumped' is the only word I can think of for it, Sir. They aren't spreading out in a proper dispersion pattern."
"What?"
Giscard punched a command into his own repeater plot and frowned. Thackeray was right. His own outgoing missiles were spreading out, distancing themselves from one another to reduce wedge interference with their telemetry links to the ships which had launched them. Everyone's missiles did that.
But the Manties' missiles weren't.
"Query CIC," he told Thackeray. "I want an analysis of this pattern. There's got to be some reason for it."
"CIC's already on it, Sir. So far, they don't have any explanation."
Giscard grunted in acknowledgment. Actually, he realized, the attack missiles were spreading out, just not the way they should have. They were coming in in discrete clusters, spread across an attack front which would bring them all in simultaneously in the end, but making the trip in relatively tight groups of about eight or ten missiles each.
No, he thought as a preliminary analysis from the Combat Information Center came up as a sidebar to his plot. They're coming in in clusters of exactly eight missiles each. Which is stupid, since they have twelve missiles in each pod!

cthia wrote:What am I missing? Even if the launches are spread out a quarter million kilometers, effective energy range against no sidewalls is one million kilometers. And if thousands of grasers are launched to interpenetrate that spread, and they are spinning wildly as they go, then the missiles should disappear like insects flying into a bug zapper. Zzzt! Especially if the MA stagger the missiles in their launches just right.

As far as the wedge, if missiles were crabs, wouldn't the geometry of the attacking g-torps expose the soft part of the crab first?

Only if the g-torps are at the focal point of all the missiles. If they're much off axis for some missiles then the lips of those missiles' wedges will be in the way.


But the main thing you seem to be missing again is how vastly large space is. Let's assume that as they close to attack position the missiles are no more than 45 degrees above, below, or laterally to either side of the target. So they're all concentrated into a 90 x 90 degree box. At the million km an energy mount can reach that's a mere 1,999,999,999,991,250,000 square meters of frontage area. So if a hundred thousand missiles are in that salvo the area is still 99.9999999999925% empty space. (Well actually 0.0000000004% or more is probably wedges; but hitting those doesn't help)

And the g-torp's CL-class grazer is going to have a beam of less than 1 meter; but let's call it 1 square meter to make the math easier. And let's also give it an insanely high slew rate, say 36000 degrees/sec - so the g-torp can slew it in a full 360 degree circle 100 times a second. Given that, in its 3 seconds of operation it'd be able to sweep a pretty substantial area: 1,697,056,275 square meters of that frontage area.

Too bad that's only 0.0000000849% of the area the missiles might be in. You'd "only" need about 1.2 trillion g-torps to sweep that frontage area within their 3 minutes endurance. (And of course since they burn you you'd need another 1.2 trillion for the next salvo)

cthia wrote:Also, regarding the bit about their thrusters not being detectable. I would imagine that a minefield of millions of mines shooting off a puff of smoke should be visible as a whole.

Well, yeah, the combined output of millions of mines and their own bodies should make the field as a whole detectable, at least at a much greater distance than a small field. But I figure it's like a foggy day or looking through smoke: you can see something is there, but you can't see the individual particles/mines.

Which is why I don't think a minefield can be operated offensively, aside from very particular conditions, like those at Hancock during SVW. That is, conditions like a distraction to make the enemy not pay close enough attention, a limited timespan so you can accurately predict where the enemy will be and the drift won't be too great, and a limited energy output from the field itself.

Other than that, minefields can only be employed at fixed locations. And in that case, you may not care that the existence of the field is known. For example, the RMN not only won't care that minefields around the Junction's forbidden volumes are known, they will actively advertise them, for both safety of navigation as well as a deterrence. A deterrence is only useful if it is known (whether it's a bluff or not is besides the point, until someone calls it).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Other than that, minefields can only be employed at fixed locations. And in that case, you may not care that the existence of the field is known. For example, the RMN not only won't care that minefields around the Junction's forbidden volumes are known, they will actively advertise them, for both safety of navigation as well as a deterrence. A deterrence is only useful if it is known (whether it's a bluff or not is besides the point, until someone calls it).

Traditionally, minefields are best used as area denial weapons. Just the knowledge that the opposition uses mines and a single obvious mine (or one placed at a chokepoint that is almost assured to be triggered if sufficient people pass a point) or even a sign warning of them stops divisions in place and keeps ships out of shallows.

Just knowing the RMN had large minefields at the junction would make opposition planners nervous and add to the size of the minimum force necessary to secure the junction, and be included in the planning that the junction would be unusable to normal traffic for weeks or months after the fields are turned live. They had to know that even if a early assault force removed the active forces at the Junction, follow on forces could be neutralized or heavily damaged just from the remaining minefields.