Upcoming designs: regarding the Apollo ACM...

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:
Let's stop this here--you need to completely rewrite your proposal because you are mistaken. The text says that the ACMs do communicate with each other. Each ACM collects observation data from the attack missiles it controls, and shares that data with the controlling ship and with all the other ACMs nearby. Every ACM gets all the data from all the missiles, which vastly enhances the targeting solution of each ACM.

The wiki does NOT indicate that ACMs talk to each other. It only says that they communicate back to the ship. I think you are reading more into that passage that isn't included "between the lines." At least per "my" reading comprehension. Now if the Pearls--or any other source including textev--say differently, I apologize. I am proceeding on the wiki-post that I included. Which DOES NOT state that ACMs converse with each other.

SWM wrote:
I finally found the quote where David tells us that the ACMs can communicate with each other directly. In viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6064&p=155341&hilit=Apollo#p155341:

runsforcelery wrote:But what this also means is that the control missile can be loaded with a hierarchy of targeting options and launched to ranges at which FTL communication with the launching ship has not only reacquired a transmission delay but also to ranges at which FTL communication is flatly impossible. At that point, the control missile has full responsibility for targeting and coordinating the attacks of all of its missiles. Further, if multiple Apollo pods are launched at the same distant target, with a ballistic phase programmed into the attack, the control missiles of different pods are capable of cross communicating with one another, compiling all the sensor data available from all the attack missiles of all the pods in the salvo using directional communications lasers which will be effectively undetectable by their targets because their targets won't have anything in the transmission path.

wastedfly wrote:

SWM wrote:Let's stop this here--you need to

Your proposal is misguided. What you are suggesting is to have clumps of 73 missiles rather than clumps of 9 missiles. All those missiles would stay clumped together, all the way to the target. So all 64 attack missiles would attack a single ship from a single vector, instead of from 8 vectors. The defensive options would be greatly simplified. Rather than needing to defend against 8 different vectors, it only needs to defend against 1 vector.

Epic logic fail.

Defensive options are simplified, because they are curtailed!

Attacking from one vector is optimal.
Limits defender ability to defend itself
--> Fewer Broadside control links in use
~ Therefore fewer CM's attacking your missiles.
--> Fewer PDLC defending the ship.
= concentrated damage able to penetrate further and cause truly crippling damage instead of only surface damage.

SWM wrote:I have to disagree. Concentrating the missiles into one clump divides the number of PDLCs and counter-missiles which can target them by a factor of 2; you are only cutting out one broadside. On the other hand, all of those counter-missiles, PDLCs, and defensive scanners can concentrate their attention on a single area.

Instead of having, say, 5 sensors on this clump and 5 sensors on that clump and 5 on each of the other clumps, you will have eight times as many sensors on a single clump. Those sensors will be able to get better targeting information.

The counter-missiles will all be heading to the same clump. If a attack missile gets taken out, or if the sensors determine that a specific target is an ECM missile, the remaining counter-missiles will have a greater choice in selecting a different target.

PDLCs will all be concentrating on a single clump. If all eight missiles from one pod are taken out by counter-missiles or identified as ECM missiles, the PDLCs will be able to shift by only a few degrees to find a new target, rather than slewing around twenty degrees or more to find the next pod clump.

Overall you are less likely to end up with counter-missiles and PDLCs aimed in the wrong direction if you have the attack missiles in one clump instead of eight clumps. In combination with the greater sensitivity with more sensors focused on the missiles, I think this gives an advantage to the defender.

(7) [SMALL SPOILER] The evolution of Mark 16 tactics, using Ghost Rider platforms and FTL communications buoys to reduce the control links' effective lightspeed lag have provided a sort of "poor man's" Apollo for Mark 16-equipped combatants (which will be seen more clearly in A Rising Thunder's sequel, which is currently being called "Shadow of Freedom," although that's still subject to change). Work is currently underway to provide genuine Apollo capability for the Mark 16, and (in fact) that should be happening fairly shortly. The problem is going to be that not even the Nike is equipped with Keyhole-Two, so until a fix is found for that, the capability will be useful only when in company with a sufficient number of Keyhole-Two-equipped combatants to provide enough Apollo control links to make it worthwhile.

cthia wrote:And for a clump of 64 missiles, each, on the same eight vectors? An attrite attack?

cthia wrote:Hell to the yes! Or would that be Hell^yes!?

This is the sort of post I was hoping for when I first solicited info regarding ACM range with its brood of missiles. Frankly, it strengthens my proposal!

Thank you!

wastedfly wrote:PS. PDLC's are not Shotguns. Holy cow. Moving 0.0000001 degree is as hard as "moving 20 degrees. These are not swivel mount. The lens is electrically driven.

cthia wrote:Also, I still think it would be prudent to have it as a canned programmed response.

Weird Harold wrote:Where are you going to get/launch ACM missiles that aren't associated with a brood of Mk23s? The only current method of launching a Mk23E ACM is with the central launcher of an Apollo pod. The individual Mk23E ACM missile is at least twice as large as a Mk23 attack missile so every singleton you store in the unlikely event you need a sudden increase in missile control decreases the number of missiles you might have to control. And you would have no launchers capable of launching single MK23E ACMs if you did have enough missiles to need to daisy chain ACMs to control.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:Hell to the yes! Or would that be Hell^yes!?

This is the sort of post I was hoping for when I first solicited info regarding ACM range with its brood of missiles. Frankly, it strengthens my proposal!

Thank you!

Well, that's why I suggested you would have to modify your proposal, in light of this obscure feature of Apollo ACMs.

Now, to go back the other direction, I'm still not convinced that your multi-pod cluster control is necessary. You are correct that for a long time, the text talked about the limitations of fire control. But now with Keyhole II and Apollo, fire control is no longer the concern. A fleet can now control such massive missile waves that no fleet can withstand it.

The problem now, which David has expressed several times, is how to defend against such massive waves. Current Manticoran development is looking at how to make ships more survivable.

SWM wrote:

cthia wrote:And for a clump of 64 missiles, each, on the same eight vectors? An attrite attack?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Could you clarify, please?