What about CM pods?

MaxxQ wrote:This sort of discussion (CM pods) came up before, ...

I try to make a clear distinction between the idea of "CM Pods" and the idea of using existing pods loaded with canisters of CMs. RFC has, quite rightly, dismissed the idea of dedicated CM pods such as Hanuman suggested above.

MaxxQ wrote:... I checked. You can only fit three Mk-31s in something the diameter of a Mk-23. Of course, Mk-31s are fairly short, so you could possibly even fit two canisters per pod tube, and manipulate the grav drivers to launch them seperately. One of those pods in my last batch of renders is a 10x Mk-23 pod, so you could get up to 20 canisters per pod, for a total of 60 Mk-31 CMs.

IIRC LACs have five to eight CM launchers which, according to some sources fire MK 31/Viper Anti-LAC and according to others fire a LAC-sized CM. I'm not sure which is the case; if there is a LAC sized CM it would logically allow higher per canister counts -- provided a custom canister design or production wouldn't be necessary.

MaxxQ wrote:If you're willing to sacrifice half the pod loadout, you could fit 10 canisters of three Vipers, since those are built on the same drive and cap rings as the Mk-31.

That seems like a waste of Vipers. A LAC towing one or more pods isn't going to be doing any dog-fighting with enemy LACs and if forced into a dog-fight, the first thing to do would be cut the Pod(s) loose.

MaxxQ wrote:However, I'm not betting on anything of the sort being used in any of the upcoming books. Possibly normal canisters using the older CMs as we have seen before, but using the newer Mk-31s or Vipers...?

The whole idea is based on a stockpile of CM Canisters already being in inventory. That would logically be older CM models since one of the Pearls says that canisters hold three to five CMs depending on ship class -- presumably five would be in a Capital Missile sized canister for BCs and up.

Since SD(P)s probably can't use canisters without giving up magazine space, there should be an ample supply of old Capital Ship canisters wasting away in some warehouse. Combined with an older pod like the MK10 pod used by Wayfarer, ...

If the kludge works well, there might be some profit in building purpose built conformal pods to increase LAC CM capacity, but even this kludge doesn't seem to be needed -- there are enough LACs about that the limited CM magazine space doesn't seem to be a problem very often.

Weird Harold wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:This sort of discussion (CM pods) came up before, ...

I try to make a clear distinction between the idea of "CM Pods" and the idea of using existing pods loaded with canisters of CMs. RFC has, quite rightly, dismissed the idea of dedicated CM pods such as Hanuman suggested above.

MaxxQ wrote:... I checked. You can only fit three Mk-31s in something the diameter of a Mk-23. Of course, Mk-31s are fairly short, so you could possibly even fit two canisters per pod tube, and manipulate the grav drivers to launch them seperately. One of those pods in my last batch of renders is a 10x Mk-23 pod, so you could get up to 20 canisters per pod, for a total of 60 Mk-31 CMs.

IIRC LACs have five to eight CM launchers which, according to some sources fire MK 31/Viper Anti-LAC and according to others fire a LAC-sized CM. I'm not sure which is the case; if there is a LAC sized CM it would logically allow higher per canister counts -- provided a custom canister design or production wouldn't be necessary.

MaxxQ wrote:If you're willing to sacrifice half the pod loadout, you could fit 10 canisters of three Vipers, since those are built on the same drive and cap rings as the Mk-31.

That seems like a waste of Vipers. A LAC towing one or more pods isn't going to be doing any dog-fighting with enemy LACs and if forced into a dog-fight, the first thing to do would be cut the Pod(s) loose.

MaxxQ wrote:However, I'm not betting on anything of the sort being used in any of the upcoming books. Possibly normal canisters using the older CMs as we have seen before, but using the newer Mk-31s or Vipers...?

The whole idea is based on a stockpile of CM Canisters already being in inventory. That would logically be older CM models since one of the Pearls says that canisters hold three to five CMs depending on ship class -- presumably five would be in a Capital Missile sized canister for BCs and up.

Since SD(P)s probably can't use canisters without giving up magazine space, there should be an ample supply of old Capital Ship canisters wasting away in some warehouse. Combined with an older pod like the MK10 pod used by Wayfarer, ...

If the kludge works well, there might be some profit in building purpose built conformal pods to increase LAC CM capacity, but even this kludge doesn't seem to be needed -- there are enough LACs about that the limited CM magazine space doesn't seem to be a problem very often.

I'm kind of liking this idea now. But I'm wondering about mixing the LACs onboard Mk31 CM with the shorter ranged slower 'legacy' CMs.

I don't have hard numbers handy for improved CMs throughout the entire ware war, but I had a couple data point handy.
For example the Mk31s (and Vipers) got a 25% boost in runtime (60 seconds to 75 seconds) over the older CMs. I think even the Mark 30s Honor had as Sidemore were 60 second CMs - I know they were "just over two million kilometer" birds; compared to the 3.8 million km the Mk31 can do. And the original CMs Fearless had at Basilisk were good for only 70% the accel and 80% the run time of a Mk31. Presumably they got somewhat better throughout the war; with higher accel if not longer runtime (until the Mk31 with as stated before did definitely get an improved runtime).


So it seems you'd still have to be launching your on-board Mk31s to create an outer kill zone; but then you might be hard pressed to get all your shorter ranged, slower, legacy CMs away before you start losing pods to proximity kills. (Just because you can't launch them as soon due to their much more limited engagement profile)

OTOH even if you lost part of each pod it still increases your LACs anti-missile endurance some. And it's not like those old CMs, Canisters, and Pods have a much better use at the moment. (Well, maybe the CMs. There are still plenty of older units that can't handle the larger Mk31s)

Jonathan_S wrote:I'm kind of liking this idea now. But I'm wondering about mixing the LACs onboard Mk31 CM with the shorter ranged slower 'legacy' CMs.

How and when to use older CMs from the pod vs newer CMs from internal magazines would have to be up to the COLAC and practice in the simulators to see what works best.

Two starting points:

1: Pods are a "use it or lose it" asset. Given a choice, the pods should always be used first.

2: LACs in the missile defense role are forward deployed; that means they get closing shots as the missiles approach and opening shots as the missiles pass beyond their position. (plus PDLC fire during the passover.) Saving the faster, longer ranged missiles for opening shots would seem a reasonable choice.

Weird Harold wrote:That seems like a waste of Vipers. A LAC towing one or more pods isn't going to be doing any dog-fighting with enemy LACs and if forced into a dog-fight, the first thing to do would be cut the Pod(s) loose.

No, a viper is self-guiding. So if someone did something like hit you with a salvo of 50,000 missiles, which totally overwhelms your fleet defense LAC CM capability, a thousand LACs dumping two waves of 60,000 vipers 15 seconds apart to try to attrit the hell out of the missile salvo might well make a lot of sense, since that allows the LACS to focus their CMs on the leakers.

"Old style" 60s CM's via forward deployed LAC's will still have 4Mkm engagement window. 2Mkm forward, and 2Mkm rearward. Sure this assumes the LAC's are forward deployed against the threat axis at least 2Mkm. Can do the exact same thing with the 75s runtime Mk31 CM giving a tidy 7.5Mkm engagement window.

Would have to fire said CM's rearward before the MDM wave traveling at 0.6-0.8c go past your LAC.

CM Control links are tied up with the forward MDM engagement, but as is shown in the simulator, LAC's can turn 180 degreees in about a second end for end as is depicted in ART. Then use your freed up control links for the rearward running CM's. Of course this problem is void if one uses vipers for the forward extended engagement and the shorter legged pod guys for the close in and rearward facing engagement profile.

If this sounds confusing, remember, CM engagement is a 2d homing problem child. Space as depicted in HV is not truly 3d as one cannot change momentum into orthogonal vectors.

Of course this will never see the light of day as DW has already said NO to CM pods. It is definitely doable and would effectively increase initial LAC fired CM's by 50%100%. Long term solution? No. Short term? Yup. It is an edge. Just like in the 1st Haven war where ships towed a handful of pods for the opening salvos.

It seems somewhat inelegant to me to use a canister inside a pod. You are basically taking 'small' objects (small relative to Mk23s) and packaging them inside another object and then packaging them AGAIN inside another object. Assuming limited volume inside the warships and limited production capability this seems somewhat wasteful.

To my mind if you are going to 'use' so much space to enlarge the engagement envelope it may be better to try and invest in some sort of dual drive CM technology. How big does a missile have to be in order to fit 'baffles' and an extra impeller ring?

What does it do to the cost of the missile? Double?

kzt wrote:No, a viper is self-guiding. So if someone did something like hit you with a salvo of 50,000 missiles, which totally overwhelms your fleet defense LAC CM capability, a thousand LACs dumping two waves of 60,000 vipers 15 seconds apart to try to attrit the hell out of the missile salvo might well make a lot of sense, since that allows the LACS to focus their CMs on the leakers.

IIRC, it has been asserted that a Viper can't be used in fire-and-forget mode against missiles because Missiles are too fast for the guidance AI. An AI that could fire-and-forget against missiles would seem to be a logical upgrade to CMs, but the Viper's cost already makes using them as a general CM replacement uneconomical.

BobfromSydney wrote:It seems somewhat inelegant to me to use a canister inside a pod. You are basically taking 'small' objects (small relative to Mk23s) and packaging them inside another object and then packaging them AGAIN inside another object. Assuming limited volume inside the warships and limited production capability this seems somewhat wasteful.

Kludges usually are a bit wasteful.

The Canisters already exist, the pods already exist, and neither needs to be the latest and greatest so the concept doesn't use up any scarce resources.

BobfromSydney wrote:To my mind if you are going to 'use' so much space to enlarge the engagement envelope it may be better to try and invest in some sort of dual drive CM technology.

The whole idea is to NOT develop something new. A standard pod loaded with canisters is NOT a "CM Pod" it is a kludge solution that can be implemented today without using up scarce R&D or manufacturing resources.

Math says(light speed limitations) CM's ARE fire and forget, other than very crude navigational control. I know, MWW has some dip "babying" the buggers into their MDM targets at millions of kilometers. What a load of...

Now, if forward deployed LAC's told the CM's to go a designated distance out and flip, essentially running "circles", (limiting their accumulated velocity vector) this could be doable. Vastly decreasing control link light speed lag limitations. Just assume it will take several CM's targeting each MDM to attain a kill. Let the task force behind you 2Mkm deal with the leakers in your sector.

CM interception at 3+Mkm sounds really nice and all, but is not needed or wanted unless the range is such that you can actually launch, vector in, another CM in case the first misses. What range allows this to be done when MDM/CM closing speed can approach 1c??? Already 3.75Mkm does not allow this per the books, so why bother sending your CM's out that far to start with? Just have then launch and run "loops" at 500,000km and the next salvo of CM's launch and run "loops" with their 75s drive time at 400,000km. Would still give 0.1s to update the CM's on their targets. At least this way you could actually have a prayer or controlling your CM's.

Ah simple math. Until the engagement range is long enough allowing follow on salvo's to be launched against missed birds, the extra range is a disadvantage.

Weird Harold wrote:

kzt wrote:No, a viper is self-guiding. So if someone did something like hit you with a salvo of 50,000 missiles, which totally overwhelms your fleet defense LAC CM capability, a thousand LACs dumping two waves of 60,000 vipers 15 seconds apart to try to attrit the hell out of the missile salvo might well make a lot of sense, since that allows the LACS to focus their CMs on the leakers.

IIRC, it has been asserted that a Viper can't be used in fire-and-forget mode against missiles because Missiles are too fast for the guidance AI. An AI that could fire-and-forget against missiles would seem to be a logical upgrade to CMs, but the Viper's cost already makes using them as a general CM replacement uneconomical.

Edit: And I seem both of my points were already made similarly by other posters.

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I'm kind of liking this idea now. But I'm wondering about mixing the LACs onboard Mk31 CM with the shorter ranged slower 'legacy' CMs.

How and when to use older CMs from the pod vs newer CMs from internal magazines would have to be up to the COLAC and practice in the simulators to see what works best.

Two starting points:

1: Pods are a "use it or lose it" asset. Given a choice, the pods should always be used first.

2: LACs in the missile defense role are forward deployed; that means they get closing shots as the missiles approach and opening shots as the missiles pass beyond their position. (plus PDLC fire during the passover.) Saving the faster, longer ranged missiles for opening shots would seem a reasonable choice.

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. You've almost got to fire them at closing targets. (Technically you could try putting them in front of MDMs that were about to overfly you in the hopes the MDM would overrun the wedge of the CM; but the CMs sensors all point the wrong way and the target would cut you control links to the CM -- it might be technically possible but I doubt it's practical)

kzt wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:That seems like a waste of Vipers. A LAC towing one or more pods isn't going to be doing any dog-fighting with enemy LACs and if forced into a dog-fight, the first thing to do would be cut the Pod(s) loose.

No, a viper is self-guiding. So if someone did something like hit you with a salvo of 50,000 missiles, which totally overwhelms your fleet defense LAC CM capability, a thousand LACs dumping two waves of 60,000 vipers 15 seconds apart to try to attrit the hell out of the missile salvo might well make a lot of sense, since that allows the LACS to focus their CMs on the leakers.

Eh, the text only mentions the self-guiding capability in relation to LACs. I can easily believe that the same missile that's fire and forget against a much larger, closer, and less maneuverable/lower accel target still needs normal CM hand-holding against an incoming MDM.

I'd guess this is a sensor issue, rather than an AI one, CMs only have room for a fairly small grav sensor so it's likely to be pretty myopic. LACs at ~3.5 million km are a lot easier to see than MDMs at ~14 million km (that closing speed is a bitch - you need to launch that early to meet them at ~3.5 million km out.)