Apollo, inspired by the KIROV and SS-N-19 antiship missile?

BobG wrote:So what about the next step: enabling the RDs to communicate directly with the Apollo missiles? ... The RDs could even provide direct grav-pulse communications to the Apollo nodes. I'm not suggesting that they would provide commands, although they could relay from the launching ships.

-- Bob G

RDs don't have enough communications channels to act as effective fire-control links.

The latter suggestion of providing boosted FTL communications to the ACMs would need a Hermes Bouy, such as the one Honot used in the Battle of Maticore. The reason for such a small salvo was that was the most a Hermes Buoy could handle.

Compare the size of the Keyhole II system -- required for FTL use of Apollo -- with the size of RDs. The Keyhole II is so big, in part, because it has the FTL fire-control links for all-up salvos of Apollo; cramming all that into the size of an RD would be extremely difficult.

Oh! This explains the point that has bothered kzt so often--why counter-missiles require guidance. Kzt has pointed out several times that it is not that hard to monitor the vector of your target and adjust to keep interception, if you have higher acceleration than the target. But the counter-missile is aiming for where it thinks the missile will be, and most of the time it can't actually see the missile at all, until just before impact! The ship-based guidance means that the counter-missile doesn't have to keep dipping back toward the missile to check it's vector every second or two.

SWM wrote:Oh! This explains the point that has bothered kzt so often--why counter-missiles require guidance. Kzt has pointed out several times that it is not that hard to monitor the vector of your target and adjust to keep interception, if you have higher acceleration than the target. But the counter-missile is aiming for where it thinks the missile will be, and most of the time it can't actually see the missile at all, until just before impact! The ship-based guidance means that the counter-missile doesn't have to keep dipping back toward the missile to check it's vector every second or two.

That's true, though given that the SKM is approaching from effectively infinity more or less directly towards the defending ship the angular separation wouldn't appear to be that huge. I'm not sure how to model this to verify that.

Effectively distributing fire across the incoming salvo when the salvo is thousands of missiles would seem somewhat complex, but seeing the missile salvo itself should be pretty darn easy and as you get closer separating out individual missiles should not be that hard. However avoiding having 90% of your CM's focused on 20% of the SKMs would seem pretty darn useful.

Lord Skimper wrote:So, if one builds a FTL jammer, over an area, or redirection of FTL. Apollo becomes useless against such and stealth of wedge detection, individual wedges goes way up.

Assuming that were remotely possible for anyone in the Honorverse at this time, and that you are saying that Apollo becomes ineffective (which I'm not at all sure is what you are trying to say; see 2nd paragraph), you'd still be wrong. Did you or did you not read what I said above? I said that even launched to well beyond Apollo range (which, BTW, would have the same effect on the FTL link as a jammer, no?), the Apollo system would still have a better chance to hit than an old-style SDM at 2 light-minutes (i.e., 66% of drive burnout) range.

It would become less effective than it currently is, which is one hell of a long way from "useless." I'm also at something of a loss to figure out exactly what "against such and stealth of wedge detection, individual wedges goes way up" means. I have no idea what you were trying to say.

This explains how Honor was able to launch that ultra long range demonstration strike at the remaining Havenite fleet at the Battle of Manticore from beyond effective FTL transmission range.

It also explains how Honor was able launch that massive Alpha strike at Adm Chin after Adm Yanakov and Adm had used Apollo with more restraint by firing only quadruple patterns of Apollo pods. While SD(P)s have hundreds of light speed Fire Control links, even Keyhole II is limited to about 24 fire control links. Honor with her superior tactical knowledge and intuition understood that Apollo would be devastating even without having enough FC links for allmof her Apollo pods!

This of course this also explains why you can't build a downsized Keyhole II platform with fewer FC channels for use with BC(P)s. The number of FC links on SD sized KH2 is already limited so downsizing would result in salvos too small to penetrate defenses. Of course given the capability of Apollo pods operating without FTL FC at Spindle, a BC(P) could employ Apollo with considerable effect even without a Keyhole 2 platform. Of course Nikes, Saggy Cs and Rollands can also use Apollo pods with devastating effect, but BC(P)s can employ them without having to tractor them to their hulls.

Now the next question, given the inability of recn drones to control missiles at Saltash, will the RMN develop a forward controller drone? Think of it as an upsized recon drone with an normal, 10,000 gee recon drone drive and endurance but with an Apollo Control Missile's battle
management computer, FTL comm, and light speed data links to control the missile salvo. You could then get near Apollo performance from Mk-16s.

runsforcelery wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:So, if one builds a FTL jammer, over an area, or redirection of FTL. Apollo becomes useless against such and stealth of wedge detection, individual wedges goes way up.

Assuming that were remotely possible for anyone in the Honorverse at this time, and that you are saying that Apollo becomes ineffective (which I'm not at all sure is what you are trying to say; see 2nd paragraph), you'd still be wrong. Did you or did you not read what I said above? I said that even launched to well beyond Apollo range (which, BTW, would have the same effect on the FTL link as a jammer, no?), the Apollo system would still have a better chance to hit than an old-style SDM at 2 light-minutes (i.e., 66% of drive burnout) range.

It would become less effective than it currently is, which is one hell of a long way from "useless." I'm also at something of a loss to figure out exactly what "against such and stealth of wedge detection, individual wedges goes way up" means. I have no idea what you were trying to say.

Annachie wrote:Given that that missile description you gave makes it sound like that missiles, or at least the older style missiles, don't have the capacity to sight through their own wedges like an all up ship can, does that mean they have/had to trail out an antena to improve the communication back to the patent ship?

They'd have to limit their manoeuvres slightly to avoid wedge on antennae collisions in that case. Seems workable though...

namelessfly wrote:
Now the next question, given the inability of recn drones to control missiles at Saltash, will the RMN develop a forward controller drone? Think of it as an upsized recon drone with an normal, 10,000 gee recon drone drive and endurance but with an Apollo Control Missile's battle
management computer, FTL comm, and light speed data links to control the missile salvo. You could then get near Apollo performance from Mk-16s.

I'm not sure you need all of that. If you're looking for a forward controller for Mark-16s, then all you really need is the FTL com plus the telemetry and control channels. The Mark-16's range is long, but it's still short enough that, with FTL communications, the fire control on the ships ought to be adequate. Putting a tactical AI in the drone would increase the size and expense, and at the same time limit it to controlling a small number of missiles in the salvo. It doesn't seem to me that the forward control AI is worth it.

The other issue is: why bother? The problem at Saltash wasn't a matter of controlling what the missiles were supposed to do: take out those battlecruisers. It was that they couldn't be aborted in time to let the battlecruisers surrender. That's partially a doctrine issue --- commodore whats-his-name didn't allow enough time between salvos for the opposing commander to surrender. If he had, they could probably have aborted the last two, and possibly three, waves.

I previously wrote:

So what about the next step: enabling the RDs to communicate directly with the Apollo missiles? ... The RDs could even provide direct grav-pulse communications to the Apollo nodes. I'm not suggesting that they would provide commands, although they could relay from the launching ships.

-- Bob G

Weird Harold replied:

RDs don't have enough communications channels to act as effective fire-control links.

The latter suggestion of providing boosted FTL communications to the ACMs would need a Hermes Bouy, such as the one Honot used in the Battle of Maticore. The reason for such a small salvo was that was the most a Hermes Buoy could handle.

Compare the size of the Keyhole II system -- required for FTL use of Apollo -- with the size of RDs. The Keyhole II is so big, in part, because it has the FTL fire-control links for all-up salvos of Apollo; cramming all that into the size of an RD would be extremely difficult.

I wasn't suggesting that the RDs act as anything more that additional sensors. They could provide a refined feed to one or more Apollos. Note that the data could either be transmitted via laser to the Apollo missiles, and given beam divergence for comm lasers, it would probably be visible to multiple Apollos. The feed it transmits back to the command ship would also pass through some of the Apollo nodes, assuming any of them were in a straight line to the launcher.

The point is not to rotate links or the equivalent for FTL, but rather to transmit a single stream of data that the Apollos would relay among themselves.

-- Bob G

BobG wrote:I wasn't suggesting that the RDs act as anything more that additional sensors. They could provide a refined feed to one or more Apollos. Note that the data could either be transmitted via laser to the Apollo missiles, and given beam divergence for comm lasers, it would probably be visible to multiple Apollos. The feed it transmits back to the command ship would also pass through some of the Apollo nodes, assuming any of them were in a straight line to the launcher.

Wouldn't that require all of the Apollos to be using the same encryption or at least recognize the same encryption, which would theoretically leave them open to hacking?

The main objection to using RDs directly communicating with Apollo ACMs is the speed disparity. If you've got time to get RDs in position to be useful, you've got time to use the ship's computers to compile the data and program it into the ACMs before launch. If you really need real-time updates, it isn't likely an RD will have had time to get in position.

I thought I recalled a comment that the sensor take from an Apollo pod used as an "advanced scout" for a missile swarm was actually better than a single RD, but it wasn't where I expected it to be. I may have imagined that comment.

Regardless, the simulation Adm Gold Peak ran in Storm From The Shadows suggests that the sensors of eight missiles are as good as the sensors of one RD.

Now using a Hermes Buoy where the range is greater than the FTL comm of an ACM can handle makes sense -- if you happen to have one in the area. I'm not sure that developing a Hermes type drone or control missile would be worthwhile. I can't see missile combat routinely extending to ranges where it would be necessary. System defense systems would make use of stationary relays like the Hermes Buoy, but making a mobile hermes-clone for offensive work seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Come onRFC, one of the first rules of weapon design has to be countering whatever you design. Surely the Manties alteady have an FTL jammer that they can signal through waiting in the wings.