ThinksMarkedly wrote:penny wrote:True. True. But the principle of compensation should be the same regardless of the nuts and bolts utilized to achieve it. If not, then therein lies the entry point that exists to exploit the difference. Tum te tum per the MAlign.
We don't know that they are the same. We don't know what magic for compensation works for missiles. All we know is that it's different from the standalone compensators for ships.
But also, we don't know what the compensated volume of the missile is in the first place. Maybe the minimum practical volume of compensation is already much larger than the missile itself, so making it smaller or less massive wouldn't lead to a reduction in the compensated volume, which in turn wouldn't lead to an increase in acceleration. The missile volume isn't limited by the wedge's compensated volume: it's instead limited by the size of the tubes it's fired from and the pods it's stored in. And since it's stored and fired in full size, the size of the missile after dropping a stage is completely irrelevant.Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN MDMs seem to have the same acceleration as their SDMs; so the larger size doesn't seem to have slowed them any.penny wrote:Which might be the result of a larger volume available to house the built-in compensator.
It's practically exactly the same, so it's highly unlikely that two different compensators on two different missile bodies achieved that entirely by coincidence.
However, it could be intentional because having time-on-target solutions with other missiles is a useful thing to have.But all of that could be a function of the static nature of a compensator whose compensation effect cannot change. If the volume of the compensated area magically changes on the fly then it seems as if the compensation effect would increase, allowing for a higher drive setting. IOW, the static nature of the existing setup might be a function of the static compensation effect.
It doesn't look like that's how impellers work. The impeller is locked to a specific acceleration setting, regardless of what is being compensated. Though it's not impossible that changing one makes the other change due to how the equations work.I see your point and it is well taken. Actually I realized from the onset that the extreme difference in the volume occupied by our chemically powered rockets wouldn't equally transfer to the equation. Our rocket fuel is just so volume intensive. But losing even a small volume of the missile should equate to a potentially significant increase in performance.
Or, conversely, an even smaller change in performance. Suppose that a change in volume results results in the square of that changing in acceleration. That means a 1% change in volume results in a 0.01% change in performance. That's actually rounding error.
Can anyone post the statements made by David about a missile's compensator?
penny wrote:Anyway, the suggestion is simply a theory of concept. Something that may be worth investigating by open-minded navies. And do consider that a much larger percentage of a missile's body might be discarded if some navy were to specifically design its missiles for this tactic. We already know the Cataphracts may be a prime candidate.
I think it was Thinksmarkedly who first pointed out that a smaller missile body could roll much faster. Certainly if a warship can roll 45 degrees in 12 seconds a missile should be able to roll 180 degrees in one second, even before shedding ⅔ of its missile body. Yeah, I'm banking on two-thirds of a missile body being shed.
A smaller missile body might also improve down the throat shots.