?

tlb wrote:First: when the missile is heading toward the target, the wedge is NOT interposed. Second: do you have ANY textual evidence that there is NO return from the wedge?

And the fleet has a tactical datasharing net -- so if any of the ships can get radar/lidar returns from the missile down the throat of it's wedge (or through the sides where the wedge doesn't cover) then they'll all have the target lock details shared.

And they'll all be hammering away with active sensors even if they're currently blocked by missile wedge as it might maneuver before the latest sensor pulse reaches it and generate a solid return.


That said, given how wedges are described as scattering photons I suspect they'd produce a very weak to non-existent radar/lidar return -- at least at range. Though I can't think of text-ev specifically about that.

penny wrote:And do explain to me how LACs are going to have time to fly back to CLACs and rearm and get back out front to do any good? How much time and how many salvos do you think there are? Sounds like the CLACs will be trying to recreate the same logistics nightmare and mistake the Japanese carriers made by being caught trying to change out ordnance in the middle of an engagement. If the CLACs implement the SL forward deploy system, that would be a marked improvement. But the LACs would still be out of place and useless.

In an Alpha strike only scenario the LACs won't have time to fly back. But a LAC can't fire its CMs quickly enough to run out against just a couple of salvos -- so rearming their CMs only matters in a prolonged slugging match. And in a prolonged slugging match you do have time to cycle a few LACs at a time back to the fleet. (Though you probably won't be able to push them out as far in order to reduce that transit time)


One issue with a CM-only ship is that the number of CMs you can control is a function of surface area to mount control links and sightlines around the "gunsmoke" of their wedges. (Though you can avoid the latter if you're big enough to carry a Keyhole -- but then you're at least the size of a BC -- quite big to waste on a ship with no offensive power).

So for a given cost or tonnage more small platforms give you more surface area and more sightlines than one big platform. Plus while a hit on one of 10 small platforms will likely wipe it out the other 9 remain fully effective; while a hit on a big CM-only platform might not kill it but probably knocks out more than 1/10th of its effectiveness (while making it an easier target for follow-up hits)

penny wrote:And do explain to me how LACs are going to have time to fly back to CLACs and rearm and get back out front to do any good? How much time and how many salvos do you think there are? Sounds like the CLACs will be trying to recreate the same logistics nightmare and mistake the Japanese carriers made by being caught trying to change out ordnance in the middle of an engagement. If the CLACs implement the SL forward deploy system, that would be a marked improvement. But the LACs would still be out of place and useless.

Jonathan_S wrote:In an Alpha strike only scenario the LACs won't have time to fly back. But a LAC can't fire its CMs quickly enough to run out against just a couple of salvos -- so rearming their CMs only matters in a prolonged slugging match. And in a prolonged slugging match you do have time to cycle a few LACs at a time back to the fleet. (Though you probably won't be able to push them out as far in order to reduce that transit time)

Note that a LAC's contribution to missile defense is NOT limited to the number of counter-missiles it can carry; as long as it has power, then it has a graser that can also make a significant contribution.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:In an Alpha strike only scenario the LACs won't have time to fly back. But a LAC can't fire its CMs quickly enough to run out against just a couple of salvos -- so rearming their CMs only matters in a prolonged slugging match. And in a prolonged slugging match you do have time to cycle a few LACs at a time back to the fleet. (Though you probably won't be able to push them out as far in order to reduce that transit time)

Note that a LAC's contribution to missile defense is NOT limited to the number of counter-missiles it can carry; as long as it has power, then it has a graser that can also make a significant contribution.

Probably more importantly they have PDLCs; which are going to be generally more effective than the Graser on a Shrike.

(And if it's a Katana they have a trio of SD PDLCs as their main energy armorment. So more emitters making for a faster cycle time than the lighter PDLCs mounted on a Shrike or Ferret. Those big PDLCs are going to do a number on missiles passing within 100,000 km of the LAC)

penny wrote:I wish the link wasn't broken.



Nimitz walked into a bar.

<I'll take several stalks of celery please.>

“This is a bar. We don't sell celery.”

<Well give me several celery martinis and hold the martinis.>

Translation? Give me a purpose-built warship and hold the missiles.

the link works - it's to the wayback machine archive.

Here are some quotes from the Pearls Of Weber found under FAQs at the top of the page.
Counter-missile fire control issues

So the short answer is that I don't think any Navy in the Honorverse is currently likely to be particularly interested in dedicated antimissile platforms. The generalist designs already in service are capable of putting out all the defensive fire current generation control systems can handle, anyway, without significantly reducing offensive firepower (especially in the pod designs) and without making them dependent on the presence of the specialists. Unless/until there is a major change in the fire control limitations available to a fleet commander, this is unlikely to change.

LACs towing counter-missile pods

Short answer: forget it. If the LACs are supposed to provide the fire control for these hordes of counter-missiles, you'll quickly run afoul of the fact that their fire control suites simply aren't sufficiently capable. If the idea is that they're simply hauling huge pods around and that the missiles will actually be controlled by other ships, you run into all of the attendant fire control problems which light-speed transmission rates impose. Even if the bandwidth of FTL communication becomes sufficient (can I have a tum-te-tum-te- tum, here?), it's unlikely that this approach would be preferred over the development of a ship-launched, long-ranged "capital counter-missile." The LAC itself would become a logical target, and probably the most common outcome would be a massive "dogfight" between the opposing LAC forces somewhere between the opposing walls of battle. Mind you, that may very well be what happens anyway, but unless you can achieve LAC superiority overwhelming enough that the "pod-tender" LACs are effectively secure against attack by their opposite numbers, they're going to be a little too busy for this. And even if there are no enemy LACs shooting at them, I think it can be taken for granted that the other side's wallers -- or screening elements -- will be shooting at the LACs and also attempting to achieve proximity kills against the counter-missile pods. And, of course, all of this overlooks the effect that [towing] the pods would have on the maneuverability of the LACs.

That's not to say that a "missile-defense LAC" is out of the question. In fact, I've been tinkering with a couple of designs to do just that, although the ones I'm looking at right now are basically Havenite, as a component of Shannon Foraker's "layered defense." There are some definite attractions to being able to push a stealthy, remote anti-missile capability out towards your opponent, especially if he doesn't know you've done it until after he's opened fire. There are, however, survivability issues which I'm still looking at, and I'm not certain how practical the entire concept is going to prove in the end. These vessels, however, would be the counter-missile platforms themselves, not pod-towers.

Counter-missile pods and two-stage counter-missiles

It is, however, unlikely in the extreme that the Manticorans will ever build a dedicated anti-missile ship. There's no need to do so, given the capability already built into their existing vessels and the fact that they have deliberately spread the capability over all of the Navy's hulls. In practice, they have sought the survivability of their anti-missile capability by dispersing it, instead of concentrating it, and nothing in the current technology pipeline is likely to change that. They will undoubtedly continue to look for even more effective ways to integrate cooperation and shared capability, but this is an approach they are extremely unlikely to undertake.

There are some other quotes of interest, but these are good sample.

penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

Instead of having one set of SD(P) carrying CM pods and another carrying shipkillers, just distribute them over the two groups. The pods are ejected in rails (four, IIC) from the pod bay, so if you dedicate two for CMs and two for shipkillers in the bay or one and three, each SD can perform both roles.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

Instead of having one set of SD(P) carrying CM pods and another carrying shipkillers, just distribute them over the two groups. The pods are ejected in rails (four, IIC) from the pod bay, so if you dedicate two for CMs and two for shipkillers in the bay or one and three, each SD can perform both roles.

I believe four rails is BC(P)s; while full up SD(P)s have 6

Jonathan_S wrote:Fleets adopt formations like the wall of battle to increase the ability of each others’ PDLCs to provide mutual protection.

Agreed. But my original point is that there is no way to arrange the ships so that every ship in the fleet has a shot at the missiles targeting a specific ship. Only the ships that are in the CM envelope of the particular ship(s) being targeted can assist. That point is obvious when the Peeps singled out just two ships. When one of the ships was badly damaged, McKeon ordered only her consorts (ships in the immediate vicinity) in closer. When a ship is wounded, there is no better time to arrange a massed blanket of protection, so why not order all the ships of the fleet to come to their protection? Geometry. Geometry and tactical logistics.

What I don't understand, is why McKeon didn't order her consorts in closer before the missiles arrived, since they already knew that only Polyphemus and her consort were targeted. Is it because their consorts aren't stupid? They want to assist with their PDLCs, but they don't want to get too close that it might entice the missiles to go after them?

Is that why the Captain has to constantly bark orders "get those ships in closer" because other ships are thinking, "We don't want to get too close! Or someone might end up having to get close to us!" Like a ship commanded by a Pavel Young.

Jonathan_S wrote:Missile attack often focus on just a handful of ships at a time to try to saturate their point defense; so the ships surrounding them are free to provide mutual support as the missiles aren’t currently targeting them, only targeting their neighbor.

Yes, the ships surrounding them, ONLY.

Jonathan_S wrote:And Ione reason to stack into a wall is because PDLCs can’t penetrate wedges. You want to be sure you have point defense fire able to come from all angles so the missile can’t angle its wedge against all the ships surrounding the targets. If the the wedge planes are horizontal then ships in the wall above or below the target likely won’t have a shot, they’d only see the top or bottom of the wedge, but the ships ahead or behind the target in the wall will be aligned with the slit between the wedges and can fire on the missile body. If the missile spins 90 degrees so now the wedge planes are vertical (but the nose still pointed at the target) now it’s the ships above be and below the target that can aim through the slit.


And now that the RMN has adopted a tactic of fighting behind their wedge it’s only their. Keyholes and consorts that could have any line of sight on the missile body - and so have any chance of picking off the missile before it potentially crests the target’s wedge and tries for a snap shot as it overflies. (Because either they aren’t targeted and so don’t have to roll or they roll such that their sides still angle somewhat up or down so they have line of sight to part of the approach to the formation.

penny wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Fleets adopt formations like the wall of battle to increase the ability of each others’ PDLCs to provide mutual protection.

Agreed. But my original point is that there is no way to arrange the ships so that every ship in the fleet has a shot at the missiles targeting a specific ship. Only the ships that are in the CM envelope of the particular ship(s) being targeted can assist. That point is obvious when the Peeps singled out just two ships. When one of the ships was badly damaged, McKeon ordered only her consorts (ships in the immediate vicinity) in closer. When a ship is wounded, there is no better time to arrange a massed blanket of protection, so why not order all the ships of the fleet to come to their protection? Geometry. Geometry and tactical logistics.

That's technically true - but functionally irrelevant for the wall of battle. Honorverse fleet's just aren't large enough for one edge of a wall to be out of CM support of another. RMN CMs have an effective range about about 3 million km; so let's be conservative and say two ships in a formation need to be within a million km to protect each other using CMs. (And yes, I'll be pulling out the metaphorical slide rule; which I know you prefer not to do when enjoying your sci-fi)

If we assume a wall of battle is a flat disk, with ships every 1000 km, a formation that was a million km diameter could hold something like 3/4rs of a million SD(P)! So in an actual Honorverse wall of battle the only ships out of mutual CM range would potentially the forward deployed LACs. (Unless the fleet chose to split into multiple formations for tactical purposes; such as to try to mousetrap an enemy formation)

Now mutual defense range for PDLCs is far smaller, they start engaging at only 100,000 km and need to kill a modern laserhead by 50,000 km. So say two ships need to be within 60,000 km of each other to provide some PDLC supports; that'd still allow a wall of battle on the order of 4,000 SD(P)s. IIRC that's more than anybody has brought to any battle (for example Filareta "only" brought a bit over 400 on his doomed mission to Manticore, and the combined fleet that met them was only about a hundred ships). Now, because a missile's wedge protect it, many of the ships in the wall won't be able to engage any specific missile -- ships too far above or below it wouldn't have line of sight, but ships to its sides would; as would ships close enough to its heading to have down the throat shots on it. (We lack the missile wedge geometry numbers to calculate how wide a vulnerable frontal angle it has -- presumably it's less than the +/-32° of a warship)

That said, the further ships, while able to provide some level of mutual support and defensive fire (if not under heavy fire themselves) are going to be somewhat less effective than the ships nearest the target.

But ordering the consorts in closer doesn't seem like it would radically improve their ability to engage incoming fire (though a little bit as it means the missiles targeting the crippled ship have just that tiny bit less apparent lateral movement) -- but what it does do is allow them to attempt to interpose their wedges and sidewalls against fire on their damaged companion or simply hope to (though their ECM and jammers) draw some of that fire onto themselves and/or mask the damaged (and thus more vulnerable) ship from enemy sensors.

But there's a tradeoff for bunching up like that -- you run a somewhat greater risk of a wedge collision (which would destroy both ships) and you limit each ship's ability to maneuver or roll to try to throw off or protect against fire. So normally the benefit of leaving a little maneuvering room outweighs the benefit of slightly better mutual defensive fire. But once one ship is significantly damaged the calculus changes and covering her new vulnerability is now more important than maintaining maneuvering room.