Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests

Apollo Redundancy

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by cthia   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:43 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

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

tlb wrote:
cthia wrote:But, prior coordinates of the enemy must be input into the ACM. At what point is this knowledge input. If it is input inside the ship prior to launch, that would throw off the launch by quite a bit since a significant amount of time passes before launch; it is akin to the fact that the slightest jerk of the rifle of a sniper throws off his aim by quite a bit the longer the range. So, the ACM could receive the final launch instructions shortly into the launch X number of kms from the ship or even immediately after it passes close to the ship to re-establish contact. Which would be a window of vulnerability against a stealthy foe who has posted up a surprise near your ship / fleet.

I see no reason to distinguish between instructions received just before launch to those just after, since I do not believe the time required for the data transmission is significant. In the case of Beowulf, I would expect that it was input while the missiles were in the pods and that caused the pods to rotate to the proper direction (no ships involved).

Obviously with a ship able to fire off-bore (if I remembered that term correctly), it might be better to get the data after exiting the tube, but before the first stage ignites. If an invisible enemy ship is close enough to attack, then will not blow up the ship before launching the missiles?

I agree the better option seems to be receiving the initial instructions after ejection. The fresher the instructions the better. But that exposes a window that the ACMs could be eliminated. Also, consider that the missiles have to orient themselves after they leave the ship via a chemical based subsystem (rockets) or thrusters(?) via textev. All of that is time the enemy has moved. Of course, the ACM would have the ability to calculate current position and orientation, elapsed time, the current acceleration, range and vector of the enemy. But without those calculations the missiles would be hopelessly lost without sublight communication. But killing the ACMs would eliminate the force multiplier, and a launch at a stealthy but uncertain object would be handicapped without the collage of snapshots normally handled by the ACM.

I think we also might consider that without the ACM the orientation of the brood might not happen. The missiles normally group themselves much closer together than non GA launches. Does the ACM control that maneuver? Well, it seems the orientation of each missile is important as well. If all missiles are looking at the same segment of space, the collective imagery is useless.

A collage of snapshots is a moot point anyway if the ACMs are lost.

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: Apollo Redundancy
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:11 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4105
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

tlb wrote:Some of that must be in all new pods, because I do not believe that those fired during the Solarian attack on Beowulf were system defense pods (I believe that is specifically mentioned in UH); after the production lines were blown up in the Oyster Bay attack, the concentration was on regular Apollo. Perhaps the only modification needed was an attached fuel tank for the pod's nuclear reactor.


Not necessarily. We know they weren't system defence missiles, so they weren't 4-stage missiles and I don't think it was the Mk23F version of the ACM either. But they may still be system defence pods, which have higher loiter endurance. Or it's the gantry system.

On the other hand, if those were Mk23F, it could explain why their accuracy was so good.

Though... how different are the Foxtrots from the Echos? What makes them good for system defence but not for offence?
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:24 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4105
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

cthia wrote:I agree the better option seems to be receiving the initial instructions after ejection. The fresher the instructions the better. But that exposes a window that the ACMs could be eliminated.


Do you really want to argue about eliminating ACMs in the second or two between launch and the impeller activation, when they are about 100 km from their launch platform? Why in the galaxy would anyone who can shoot at something as tiny as a missile from that range shoot at the missile? They should shoot at the mothership!

Also, consider that the missiles have to orient themselves after they leave the ship via a chemical based subsystem (rockets) or thrusters(?) via textev. All of that is time the enemy has moved. Of course, the ACM would have the ability to calculate current position and orientation, elapsed time, the current acceleration, range and vector of the enemy. But without those calculations the missiles would be hopelessly lost without sublight communication. But killing the ACMs would eliminate the force multiplier, and a launch at a stealthy but uncertain object would be handicapped without the collage of snapshots normally handled by the ACM.


The conclusion is true: the loss of ACMs would compromise the accuracy of a Mk23 launch at long range, especially against an uncertain target.

But I have yet to see any tactic that would successfully take out the ACMs more than once in the middle phase of the flight (when it's both sufficiently far from the launch ship and the target one). Close to either ends, attacking the ACMs is pointless and a waste of resources.

FTL jamming would eliminate the FTL comms, but wouldn't eliminate the ACMs' brains. And I'd argue jamming is a short-term solution only, because jammers are, by definition, an intense source that can be localised. If those are away from the protection of other ships and forts, they're sitting ducks.

I think we also might consider that without the ACM the orientation of the brood might not happen.


As opposed to the 10 preceding years when MDMs did exactly that? Or the 400 years when SDMs did? Why would the Mk23D have suddenly got dumber?

A collage of snapshots is a moot point anyway if the ACMs are lost.


Right, if the missiles are too far away for any brains to make use of those images and still send back useful tactical instructions.
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by cthia   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:44 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

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

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
cthia wrote:I agree the better option seems to be receiving the initial instructions after ejection. The fresher the instructions the better. But that exposes a window that the ACMs could be eliminated.


Do you really want to argue about eliminating ACMs in the second or two between launch and the impeller activation, when they are about 100 km from their launch platform? Why in the galaxy would anyone who can shoot at something as tiny as a missile from that range shoot at the missile? They should shoot at the mothership!

For the same reason that pinnaces and cutters are popguns against real warships. A stealthy enough platform designed to take out ACMs may be effective only against ACMs, not against real warships. I am not against an unprecedented tactic of maneuvering and sneaking a counter missile system within range of the enemy. Unprecedented stealth allows unprecedented tactics. The MA has always been about turning the nail on its head.

Plus, tactics that work only once are fine if designed for a particular reason, like allowing an LD to tactically maneuver into a critical position; akin to laying down suppressive fire by eliminating an expected launch. An LD might only need one 'get out of jail free' card.

Plus, after eliminating or handicapping the launch it could attack the ship before it is blasted out of space.

Taking the CM battle to the enemy could be decisive if an entire Alpha launch could be eliminated before it is even launched.

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: Apollo Redundancy
Post by tlb   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:19 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:Some of that must be in all new pods, because I do not believe that those fired during the Solarian attack on Beowulf were system defense pods (I believe that is specifically mentioned in UH); after the production lines were blown up in the Oyster Bay attack, the concentration was on regular Apollo. Perhaps the only modification needed was an attached fuel tank for the pod's nuclear reactor.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Not necessarily. We know they weren't system defence missiles, so they weren't 4-stage missiles and I don't think it was the Mk23F version of the ACM either. But they may still be system defence pods, which have higher loiter endurance. Or it's the gantry system.

On the other hand, if those were Mk23F, it could explain why their accuracy was so good.

Though... how different are the Foxtrots from the Echos? What makes them good for system defence but not for offence?

Mainly they are bigger, including the fourth stage. Here is the text from chapter 12 of Storm from the Shadows:
The cursor moved to the very largest missile.
"This is the system-defense variant, the Mark 23-D, for the moment, although it's probably going to end up redesignated the Mark 25. It's basically an elongated Mark 23 to accommodate both a fourth impeller drive and longer lasing rods with more powerful grav focusing to push the directed yield still higher. Aside from the grav units and laser rods, this is all off-the-shelf hardware, so production shouldn't be a problem, although at the moment the ship-launched system has priority.
"With the Apollo missile itself—we've officially designated the ship-launched version the Mark 23-E, partly in an attempt to convince anyone who hears about it that it's only an attack bird upgrade—" the cursor moved to the third missile "—the situation's a bit more complicated. As I say, it's an entirely new design, and we're looking at some bottlenecks in getting it into volume production. The system-defense variant—the Mark 23-F—is another all-new design. Aside from the drives and the fusion bottle, we had to start with a blank piece of paper in each case, and we hit some snags getting the new transceiver squared away. We're on top of those, now, but we're still only beginning to ramp up production. The 23-F is lagging behind the 23-E, mostly because we've tweaked the transceiver's sensitivity even higher in light of the longer anticipated engagement ranges, which increased volume requirements more dramatically than we'd expected, but even the Echo model is coming off the lines more slowly than we'd like. When you factor in the need for the original Keyhole control platforms to be refitted to the Keyhole-Two standard, this isn't something we're going to be able to put into fleet-wide deployment overnight. On the other hand—"

So it is possible that the system defense pods only have to worry about the missiles being longer and not fatter, but we do not know if that is true of the Mark-23F (Mark-25F ?). However you are proposing that the standard Apollo pods that likely come preloaded from the factory lines be unloaded and their missiles then loaded into the system defense variant, that seems to require excessive effort.
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:47 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8269
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

tlb wrote:Mainly they are bigger, including the fourth stage. Here is the text from chapter 12 of Storm from the Shadows:
The cursor moved to the very largest missile.
"This is the system-defense variant, the Mark 23-D, for the moment, although it's probably going to end up redesignated the Mark 25. It's basically an elongated Mark 23 to accommodate both a fourth impeller drive and longer lasing rods with more powerful grav focusing to push the directed yield still higher. Aside from the grav units and laser rods, this is all off-the-shelf hardware, so production shouldn't be a problem, although at the moment the ship-launched system has priority.
"With the Apollo missile itself—we've officially designated the ship-launched version the Mark 23-E, partly in an attempt to convince anyone who hears about it that it's only an attack bird upgrade—" the cursor moved to the third missile "—the situation's a bit more complicated. As I say, it's an entirely new design, and we're looking at some bottlenecks in getting it into volume production. The system-defense variant—the Mark 23-F—is another all-new design. Aside from the drives and the fusion bottle, we had to start with a blank piece of paper in each case, and we hit some snags getting the new transceiver squared away. We're on top of those, now, but we're still only beginning to ramp up production. The 23-F is lagging behind the 23-E, mostly because we've tweaked the transceiver's sensitivity even higher in light of the longer anticipated engagement ranges, which increased volume requirements more dramatically than we'd expected, but even the Echo model is coming off the lines more slowly than we'd like. When you factor in the need for the original Keyhole control platforms to be refitted to the Keyhole-Two standard, this isn't something we're going to be able to put into fleet-wide deployment overnight. On the other hand—"

So it is possible that the system defense pods only have to worry about the missiles being longer and not fatter, but we do not know if that is true of the Mark-23F (Mark-25F ?). However you are proposing that the standard Apollo pods that likely come preloaded from the factory lines be unloaded and their missiles then loaded into the system defense variant, that seems to require excessive effort.
Well the [edit]Fs[/edit] are bigger with the 4th drive so they can accelerate up to 0.8c and then still have a 4th drive to maneuver laterally for terminal attacks.
[edit]And while I'd expect separate attack and Apollo Control Missiles, they talk about how the[/edit] Fs also add the longer ranged FTL transceivers - so the Mycroft relays wouldn’t need to be as close in order to still talk to them.
Last edited by Jonathan_S on Sun Sep 04, 2022 12:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:53 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8269
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:I agree the better option seems to be receiving the initial instructions after ejection. The fresher the instructions the better. But that exposes a window that the ACMs could be eliminated.
At that point, after ejection and before targeting info is downloaded and the launch, they’d still be the pods.

An attack on them there wouldn’t just kill the ACM. It’d pretty much have to kill the whole pod. And that’s be beneficial for the defenders. But it’s be beneficial because you killed the whole pod; not because you somehow orphaned the other 8 missiles from their ACM
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by tlb   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:47 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

Jonathan_S wrote:Well the Es are bigger with the 4th drive so they can accelerate up to 0.8c and then still have a 4th drive to maneuver laterally for terminal attacks.
The Fs add the longer ranged FTL transceivers - so the Mycroft relays wouldn’t need to be as close in order to still talk to them.

You read that wrong. All the regular Mark-23 missiles (including the Mark-23E) have three drives. All of the system defense variants have four drives for longer range (the missiles at Beowulf had to add a ballistic interval).
Top
Re: Apollo Redundancy
Post by cthia   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 8:16 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

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

Jonathan_S wrote:
cthia wrote:I agree the better option seems to be receiving the initial instructions after ejection. The fresher the instructions the better. But that exposes a window that the ACMs could be eliminated.
At that point, after ejection and before targeting info is downloaded and the launch, they’d still be the pods.

An attack on them there wouldn’t just kill the ACM. It’d pretty much have to kill the whole pod. And that’s be beneficial for the defenders. But it’s be beneficial because you killed the whole pod; not because you somehow orphaned the other 8 missiles from their ACM

Agreed. Note my "destroying an entire Alpha launch." But as a contingency -- if for some reason the platform didn't get to point luck in time, perhaps the trailing ACMs can be taken out. Probably along with a fair number of missiles as well.

Question:

I assume the missiles are fired directly from the pods? If so, how are the pods kept stationary while firing? Or are they ejected first? If they are not ejected then there will be wedge fratricide. If they are ejected before firing, that is also a moment of vulnerability.

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: Apollo Redundancy
Post by tlb   » Sat Sep 03, 2022 9:21 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

cthia wrote:I assume the missiles are fired directly from the pods? If so, how are the pods kept stationary while firing? Or are they ejected first? If they are not ejected then there will be wedge fratricide.

I have said this before, but it might be a good time to repeat it.

The missiles have to be ejected, same as when launched from a ship's tube; otherwise there is wedge fratricide, as you say. So there must be some unexplained (or unexplainable) physics going on to keep the pod from recoiling; because if the missile load were a good part of the total weight of the pod, then the pod would be going faster in reverse after the last missile was launched than the first missile was going forward.

Perhaps the missile has an initial thruster phase, instead of using the mass driver of a tube launch? But we know that cannot be; according to chapter 17 of The Short Victorious War pods use mass drivers:
But the point at hand was that the same improvements could be applied to parasite pods, and, despite Hemphill's objections, they had been. Of course, the new pods—with ten tubes each, not six—were intended for ships of the wall, which had plenty of redundant fire control to manage them, not battlecruisers. But it sounded like Turner was finding the answer to that, and their missiles were actually heavier than the standard ship-to-ship birds. With the new lightweight mass-drivers BuShips had perfected, their performance could equal or even exceed that of normal, ship-launched missiles, and their warheads were more destructive to boot. The pods were clumsy, of course, and towing them did unfortunate things to a warship's inertial compensator field, which held down maximum accelerations by twenty-five percent or so. They were also vulnerable to proximity soft kills, since they carried neither sidewalls nor radiation shielding of their own, but if they got their shots off before they were killed, that hardly mattered.
So are mass-drivers reactionless?
Top

Return to Honorverse