Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

New Manty ship ideas.

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Spacekiwi   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:11 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

Good point. after all, if the transmitters for decreasing the loop between ship and missile to allow for better evasion of counter measures, it probably isnt needed on a CM. But you still get a near halving or response time as updates reach the CM quicker, and so increase the CM effectiveness without increasing size too much. plus, the CM gets the ability of the ship to disstinguish false signals better due to the signal only taking around 0.1 of a sec max to reach the CM, so decoys and dazzlers wont work nearly as well...

Jonathan_S wrote:
SWM wrote:The concept of FTL controlled counter-missiles has been suggested before. Some have suggested combining it with multi-drives. It might work, and might be the direction RFC plans to move. But it is not nearly as easy as you suggest. Adapting FTL comm to counter-missiles will be difficult.
I was about to put forth a (known to be) horrifically inefficient way to do that [Apollo AMC with a CM grafted on it's nose Cataphract style. Too big to fit in any existing pod or tube, too expensive to actually use. :oops: :D] But while writing up a tongue-in-cheek post about that I had an idea. (Which probably isn't fully fleshed out; so I expect to get some good feedback on everything I managed to overlook)



One efficiency you might be able to pull off today, to get an FTL link CM, is to make the CMs FTL receive-only.

I suspect the majority of the mass and power needed for an ACMs is for their FTL transmitter. But even at 3+ million KMs shipboard sensors can see the CM and it's target well enough that you don't necessarily need to get realtime data back from the CM.

And you might well be able to squeeze a decent receiver into something not horribly larger than a current CM (since the receiver shouldn't be much more than a rear facing grav detector with some software post-processing). If so I suspect you could get acceptable results simply broadcasting updates 'blind' to the CM in such a way that you didn't need to wait for ACKs or sensor feed back from it.


Obviously that assumption would need to be tested. But even if it's wrong an half FTL setup should still cut the latency enough to boost intercept probabilities to the edge of the current powered envelope and beyond. (Assuming of course that the fleet's keyhole's generate the additional grav pulses to talk to them, and that you don't get into a "white-out" situation from too many transmitters too close to each other)
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Rakhmamort   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:16 am

Rakhmamort
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:23 am

Hey hey hey! Go easy guys! Not going to propose to put in expensive FTL components into CMs. That is really going to improve their effectivity but I'm quite sure no matter how GRAND the alliance is, they would be beggared if you do that.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Theemile   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:47 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5247
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Grav receivers are those big spikey arrays that stick out from the hull - not very heavy, but volumetrically large. Possibly too large to fit on the missile -

What about a "towed" array - something that poped out the back of the CM and expanded after the CM was under way? The tether would need to take the accel shear, but it might be doable.

Spacekiwi wrote:Good point. after all, if the transmitters for decreasing the loop between ship and missile to allow for better evasion of counter measures, it probably isnt needed on a CM. But you still get a near halving or response time as updates reach the CM quicker, and so increase the CM effectiveness without increasing size too much. plus, the CM gets the ability of the ship to disstinguish false signals better due to the signal only taking around 0.1 of a sec max to reach the CM, so decoys and dazzlers wont work nearly as well...

[quote="Jonathan_S]I was about to put forth a (known to be) horrifically inefficient way to do that [Apollo AMC with a CM grafted on it's nose Cataphract style. Too big to fit in any existing pod or tube, too expensive to actually use. :oops: :D] But while writing up a tongue-in-cheek post about that I had an idea. (Which probably isn't fully fleshed out; so I expect to get some good feedback on everything I managed to overlook)



One efficiency you might be able to pull off today, to get an FTL link CM, is to make the CMs FTL receive-only.

I suspect the majority of the mass and power needed for an ACMs is for their FTL transmitter. But even at 3+ million KMs shipboard sensors can see the CM and it's target well enough that you don't necessarily need to get realtime data back from the CM.

And you might well be able to squeeze a decent receiver into something not horribly larger than a current CM (since the receiver shouldn't be much more than a rear facing grav detector with some software post-processing). If so I suspect you could get acceptable results simply broadcasting updates 'blind' to the CM in such a way that you didn't need to wait for ACKs or sensor feed back from it.


Obviously that assumption would need to be tested. But even if it's wrong an half FTL setup should still cut the latency enough to boost intercept probabilities to the edge of the current powered envelope and beyond. (Assuming of course that the fleet's keyhole's generate the additional grav pulses to talk to them, and that you don't get into a "white-out" situation from too many transmitters too close to each other)[/quote][/quote][/quote]
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:28 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8803
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:Grav receivers are those big spikey arrays that stick out from the hull - not very heavy, but volumetrically large. Possibly too large to fit on the missile -

What about a "towed" array - something that poped out the back of the CM and expanded after the CM was under way? The tether would need to take the accel shear, but it might be doable.
I thought missiels could see wedges? Wouldn't that imply they already have grav detectors / receivers?

I'm sure they're widely less sensitive that the ones mounts on recon drones, much less on full up starships (and lets not even compare to the multi-km sized system arrays like Manticore sports).


But I do think they already have them. But whether they've room for rear facing ones and whether those rear facing ones would be sensitive enough to process FTL fire-control signals seem to be open questions.

(For that matter putting a grav sensor too near the drive nodes might cause major issues. Could you have one mounted forward that could deploy out to look after down the missile?)
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by SWM   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:48 pm

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Jonathan_S wrote:
Theemile wrote:Grav receivers are those big spikey arrays that stick out from the hull - not very heavy, but volumetrically large. Possibly too large to fit on the missile -

What about a "towed" array - something that poped out the back of the CM and expanded after the CM was under way? The tether would need to take the accel shear, but it might be doable.
I thought missiels could see wedges? Wouldn't that imply they already have grav detectors / receivers?

I'm sure they're widely less sensitive that the ones mounts on recon drones, much less on full up starships (and lets not even compare to the multi-km sized system arrays like Manticore sports).


But I do think they already have them. But whether they've room for rear facing ones and whether those rear facing ones would be sensitive enough to process FTL fire-control signals seem to be open questions.

(For that matter putting a grav sensor too near the drive nodes might cause major issues. Could you have one mounted forward that could deploy out to look after down the missile?)

I don't recall any text evidence that missiles have grav detectors. We know they have some kind of sensors, but I don't think we have been told exactly what kind or how sensitive they are.

It would be logical for them to have grav detectors. But it seems logical that a big reason the Apollo missile is so big, even though it has no warhead, is because of the FTL comm.
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:41 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8803
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

SWM wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:I thought missiels could see wedges? Wouldn't that imply they already have grav detectors / receivers?

I'm sure they're widely less sensitive that the ones mounts on recon drones, much less on full up starships (and lets not even compare to the multi-km sized system arrays like Manticore sports).

I don't recall any text evidence that missiles have grav detectors. We know they have some kind of sensors, but I don't think we have been told exactly what kind or how sensitive they are.

It would be logical for them to have grav detectors. But it seems logical that a big reason the Apollo missile is so big, even though it has no warhead, is because of the FTL comm.
You could be right.

And I was just guessing the transmit side of the FTL comm was the bulky power hungry part, but I certainly could be wrong about that.

And of course there's a slight difference in designed operating range between an MDM and a CM. A receiver that can reliably read commands sent from 70 million km probably needs to be bigger and more capable than one that's only looking for ones from 3 - 5 million km off. So even if a ACMs receiver is too big for a CM, that doesn't necessarily mean shorter ranged receiver couldn't be squeezed into one.


There are obviously a lot of unknowns and potential issues with this idea. (Which I admitted when I first posted it)
Top
Re: Honorverse series, the future..?
Post by kzt   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:38 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

SWM wrote:I don't recall any text evidence that missiles have grav detectors. We know they have some kind of sensors, but I don't think we have been told exactly what kind or how sensitive they are.

It would be logical for them to have grav detectors. But it seems logical that a big reason the Apollo missile is so big, even though it has no warhead, is because of the FTL comm.

They are shown in the various drawings.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by BrightSoul   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:35 pm

BrightSoul
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1368
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:51 am

Just popped into this thread for the first time in a very long tie and caught the FTL controlled CM idea. I doubt very much you could afford to add it even if you could get it down to a size that would fit in the CM.

The idea of a Cataphract style missile would be far too expensive and too large to perform the mission required. On the other hand, a Cataphract style ACM with a multi CM payload might be a concept. Sort of an extension of the SLN canister CM failure but utilizing lightspeed connections to the ACM that launched them in the initial boost phase might extend the envelope.

The real questions are cost and effective control at those ranges. The ACM would have to have at least 2 stages. One to deliver the CMs to strike distance and then a second to keep up with them to maintain control. I suspect that LACs are a far cheaper, durable and versatile solutions than this idea.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by kzt   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:38 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

BrightSoul wrote: I suspect that LACs are a far cheaper, durable and versatile solutions than this idea.

LACs are far too easy to bypass, they have to be kept close to the fleet unless you can count on your opponents being morons.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Relax   » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:02 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Jonathan_S wrote:And I was just guessing the transmit side of the FTL comm was the bulky power hungry part, but I certainly could be wrong about that.


How big is your receiver for radio? How big is a receiving Sono buoy transducer? How big is a RADAR receiver? How big is a Laser detector(Pst, you are being lazed stupid tank driver! RUNNNNN!)? All are miniscule. How much power do they require? Miniscule.

How big is the Transmitter that sent the signal? -->

Irrelevant

Transmitter size is proportional to power. Power = range.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top

Return to Honorverse