What about CM pods?

kzt wrote:A missiles homing circuit is a very simple problem. One that was solved pretty darn well with discrete transistors in the original sidewinder missile in the late 1950s.

The original Sidewinder was very easy to spoof and out-turn. Even the latest when I retired, the AIM-9L was limited in the aspect and speed of the target.

Jonathan_S wrote:Yes, but even against the initial approaching fire, the Mk31 can launch 15 seconds sooner and intercept 1.3 - 2 million km further out! That's a heck of a lot of defensive depth to give up if you save them fire at missiles that overflew you.

Oh, just had a thought and did a quick check. Based on the numbers we have for the Mk31 it appears they 'burn' out at about 0.31c; that's too slow to catch an MDM in a stern chase.

Like I said earlier, the specific tactic for when to fire which type of missile would be a COLAC/LAC Commander decision.

A MDM may well be too fast for a CM to catch in a stern chase, but a faster, longer ranged missile has a better chance than older, slower CM. Either can be fired at such an aspect and with appropriate lead prediction to intercept an 'over.'

FWIW, a simple comparison of statistics will tell you that an F-4E armed with AIM-7D Sparrow missiles can't shoot down an SR-71 at normal altitude and speed. Yet I've seem the radar scope film that shows the F-4's Target Intercept Computer found a valid firing solution to do just that. I assume that Honorverse computers are slightly more advanced than the Analog TIC of the F-4E's radar system.

Jonathan_S wrote:Even if it's true that a 10km wide missile wedge is as easy to see as a 100 km wide LAC wedge the missile is still almost 5 times further away.

People don't normally see LACs from 60 million KM away, but they see missile wedges that far. So I tend to think they are not exactly subtle.

I went off looking for MWW statement where he essentially said, missile engagements are his personal plot box and get out of jail free card. Couldn't find it. Below I will show inconsistencies in the books where he has dedicated control links in one situation and shared in another. If one uses reality, the subject becomes rather insurmountable not to insert snide comments. I will try to disregard reality at the moment:

If one throws out recent book portrayal, and looks at the logical hurdles regarding number of CM salvos able to be thrown out at MDM's, it is trivial to observe what is sometimes portrayed in the books along with your statement is mostly false. But true at the same time.

Anyways: For those suckers who will actually read this: I am sorry.

Total number of CM's thrown out =
CM drive time/Salvo time. Period end dot.
Example:
60s drive time/12s salvo = 5 salvos.
Example:
Roland 20 CM tubes. 8s Salvo time 75s Burn time
Round 75s to 72s Too close to ship plus end run.
Total CM's fired = 72*20/8 = 160-180 depending if one rounds below the 72s number. (Even integers of salvo time)

This should be the total number of individual Missiles a Roland can fight at any given time on a 1 for 1 basis.
This should be the number of defensive control links a Roland has. Instead MWW in the Roland Info dump only gives 40 control links. Why 40? I do not know. Just as he only gives a Roland 36 offensive control links even though the launchers can fire 12 DDM's out every 18s. Why the hell bother with a cycle time of 18s if your bloody ship cannot actually FIRE the damned things except a measly 3 salvos? Of course he has Rolands firing off 150 at a swat using pods

Of course he violates his dedicated control link principle at will. In ART, a SAG-C is able to only control 128, but at Monica, Terekov was firing 35 every 36s(IIRC or was it 30s?), for a total of 5 or 6 salvos in flight at any given time, or a total number of control links used of 35*(5 or 6) = 175-205. Or initial salvo against Eroica station where each ship had to have been using at least 100+ control links on average 1000+ missiles/10 ships. Most ships were DD/CL(worse than Roland by far). Or BoMa, where it is stated each ship has on average "only" 400 and yet fires off 7 salvos for a total of 2800 control links on average. So, "dedicated" control links are clearly a bunch of baloney. They are not dedicated at all. They are shared. It would appear to be at minimum at least a 7:1 ratio. Yet the books keep depicted dedicated control links as a limiting factor when the plot demands such.

Gets us back to CM tubes and CM control links.

Total CM tubes times number of salvos before drive burn out should be the number of control links required in a BuShips design since MWW has dedicated control links instead of using data compression.(Who wants to read a treatise on data compression algorithms? At some point SciFi takes a back seat to PLOT PLOT PLOT and story flow) At minimum he has shared control links and is wishy washy for when he chooses to limit his ships to dedicated verses shared as a plot manipulation device.

Now: Back to your point about closing velocity.

Number of CM's able to fire has very little to do with closing velocity. In a single instance does closing velocity have substance regarding CM engagement.

Closing Velocity addendum in CM engagements is if a ships captain sends exactly 1 CM at a single missile and then wait, key term, wait, to see if the CM attains a kill. Only after the CM does NOT attain a kill will a second CM be launched. This is the only instance where closing velocity is a problem regarding CM:SDM/DDM/MDM engagements.

If any ships captain with the brains given to a HV space hamster, should fire at minimum 2 CM's at a single closing missile. If one is hard up for $$$(CM procurement) or CM storage, then and only then should one fire a single CM at a single point source. This assumes your CM salvo is greater than the threat sources incoming. This was certainly not true of the SLN engagements in Shadow of Freedom. Number of missiles was far greater than number of CM tubes of SLN ships present able to engage. Yet, MWW depicted the battles as such. Then again, SLN captains are all dumb, stupid, stooges in the HV, so, guess a HV space hamster is smarter.


Hanuman wrote:

Except that in the Honorverse, incoming missiles of the Havenite and Manticoran varieties travel at such great speeds that only one or two salvos of opposing CMs are possible before the attacking missiles have crossed the CMs detonation zone.

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Even if it's true that a 10km wide missile wedge is as easy to see as a 100 km wide LAC wedge the missile is still almost 5 times further away.

People don't normally see LACs from 60 million KM away, but they see missile wedges that far. So I tend to think they are not exactly subtle.

People, uh RD's, and ship sensors do not normally see LAC's from one or two light second away, let alone Millions. Even when they do see them, they are hazed, fudged, smeared making lock up solutions very hard at even one light second as depicted in EoH and AoV (stealth systems)

They all see missiles from 100+Mkm(BoMa). A missile wedge is several orders of magnitude greater compared to a stealthed LAC(derived from distance detection). A CM/Viper will see a Missile far easier by several orders of magnitude compared to a LAC.

J6P wrote:Total number of CM's thrown out =
CM drive time/Salvo time. Period end dot.
Example:
60s drive time/12s salvo = 5 salvos.
Example:
Roland 20 CM tubes. 8s Salvo time 75s Burn time
Round 75s to 72s Too close to ship plus end run.
Total CM's fired = 72*20/8 = 160-180 depending if one rounds below the 72s number. (Even integers of salvo time)

This should be the total number of individual Missiles a Roland can fight at any given time on a 1 for 1 basis.
This should be the number of defensive control links a Roland has. Instead MWW in the Roland Info dump only gives 40 control links. Why 40? I do not know. Just as he only gives a Roland 36 offensive control links even though the launchers can fire 12 DDM's out every 18s. Why the hell bother with a cycle time of 18s if your bloody ship cannot actually FIRE the damned things except a measly 3 salvos? Of course he has Rolands firing off 150 at a swat using pods

Of course he violates his dedicated control link principle at will. In ART, a SAG-C is able to only control 128, but at Monica, Terekov was firing 35 every 36s(IIRC or was it 30s?), for a total of 5 or 6 salvos in flight at any given time, or a total number of control links used of 35*(5 or 6) = 175-205. Or initial salvo against Eroica station where each ship had to have been using at least 100+ control links on average 1000+ missiles/10 ships. Most ships were DD/CL(worse than Roland by far). Or BoMa, where it is stated each ship has on average "only" 400 and yet fires off 7 salvos for a total of 2800 control links on average. So, "dedicated" control links are clearly a bunch of baloney. They are not dedicated at all. They are shared. It would appear to be at minimum at least a 7:1 ratio. Yet the books keep depicted dedicated control links as a limiting factor when the plot demands such.

Gets us back to CM tubes and CM control links.

Total CM tubes times number of salvos before drive burn out should be the number of control links required in a BuShips design since MWW has dedicated control links instead of using data compression.(Who wants to read a treatise on data compression algorithms? At some point SciFi takes a back seat to PLOT PLOT PLOT and story flow) At minimum he has shared control links and is wishy washy for when he chooses to limit his ships to dedicated verses shared as a plot manipulation device.

Question: Are you accounting for when control links (either offensive or defensive) are cut and the attack missiles or counter-missiles are in autonomous mode?

For example, if control links are cut when the missile's drives have 1/2 the remaining time left for acceleration, the control links are freed up for the next salvo to be fired. This would essentially double the number of control links available to control salvos.

Also keep in mind that non-Apollo attack missiles have to cut their control links due to light speed lag much sooner compared to the total flight time than counter-missiles.

Using the example of Terekhov's SAG-C at Monica, your numbers and cutting the control links at the halfway point of the missile's flight the equation works out to

35 * (5 or 6) / 2 = 87.5-105, which is less than the 128 specified in ART.

We divide both sides of the equation by 2, as we are interested in only the number of missiles under control from the ship (counting each missile under control as equal to one control link, assuming we are not rotating control links) and for half the missile's flight time the missiles are in autonomous mode.

Vince wrote:Question: Are you accounting for when control links (either offensive or defensive) are cut and the attack missiles or counter-missiles are in autonomous mode?

For example, if control links are cut when the missile's drives have 1/2 the remaining time left

0) I accounted for it in my analysis. I certainly did not make it a big deal. Easily missed. Thus why my Roland Example had between 160-180 defensive control links REQUIRED for continuous max CM salvo rate. Subtract a full salvo. 180 is tied to 72s used of 75s and a 160 would obviously be in the 60's drive time used. Have to account for close in ineffectiveness and final link droppage.

1) Can send data all the way until the missile hits target.
1a) Yup that data is old.

2) When do you(BuShips/captains etc) determine that the data collected by the CM or MDM is better than the data sent by the mother ship? From testing they would know, but we the armchair admirals have to guesstimate. In your example you picked 1/2 distance. Of course that was 1/2 distance at Monica in a closing sub 40Mkm engagement as I recall. While your 1/2 "works: for Monica II, it certainly does not work for the other battles. Like the previous one at Monica with the Pod engagement against Eroica station let alone BOMA 1 or Solon or...

3) In AAC/ART, MDM resolution was "deemed" even or better than shipboard sensor data at around ~12Mkm away from target for MDM's. CM's are worse.

4) At 3Mkm out MK-31 is 10s old data. 10s @ closing speed of 1c(MDM-CM) is 3Mkm out. 6Mkm shipboard data. This range was deemed fairly poor resolution in 1st Haven war. RD's are now used for better resolution for both MDM and CM. This would greatly increase Shipboard data resolution compared to CM resolution. Why CM's can't "listen" to light speed links available from the RD's while said RD also sends FTL to the mother ship is a head scratcher We still have CM's being babbied to the target in either case.

BACK TO ORIGINAL TOPIC:
CM pod, singular, hauled by a Task Force defensive LAC unit seems like a no brainer. Effectively this is the exact opposite of the tactic used in the 1st Haven war with towed offensive missile pods.

Optimum? No. Maybe?
Practical? Yes.