--snipping--
SWM wrote:SharkHunter wrote: Instead, make the dang thing available as a tube launched proposition and make it possible for ALL RMN/GA missiles to slave to their assigned control missile. For example, let's say that you use the ACM to update 3 pods times 10 Mark-23 attack missiles instead of 1x8. Or 3 pods times 14 Mark-16Gs, or if we decide that there's a way to do it while the RMN yards are retooling, an extended range CM/Cataphract-ish two stage missile.
Yea/nay whatch-y'all think?
It's been suggested before. The biggest problem, of course, is that it requires a tube twice the size of an attack missile. There have been arguments here before about whether it is practical to put ACMs in broadside tubes (I don't recall any argument about chaser tubes). But I think you are overestimating the capacity of the Apollo attack missile. I don't think it has enough control links to manage 30 missiles. I think it only has 8. Are you talking about a new model of ACM with more control links?
Another problem is that putting 30 missiles together in a clump makes an easier target for point defense than 8 missiles in a clump. It also makes for less flexible targeting, since all the missiles controlled by an ACM are going for the same target from the same aspect angle.
...
In reverse order:
...the 30 in a clump (or 42 if it were controlling 3 pods worth of Mark-16's. My reading is that the missiles essentially maintain "formation" covering the ACM until just short of attack range.
Likely they'd disperse before coming into even extended CM range, so as to get the maximum number of angles to hit the ship with. If an ACM could guide 'three clumps' then (by example) you could have 8 ACMs targeting one op-force SD(p) but you'd gain an additional 40ish shipkillers in the process, and twice the number of Dazzler/Dragons teeth. (2 more missiles at 10 missiles per pod instead of 8 x 24 pods less ECM). The additional ECW/Pen aids force the op force CM fire into "hit what? mode twice as badly)
...Control channel wise: I think it has 8 because it was designed one missile per pod. If it were even an issue other than that, up until about 20 seconds short of an op-force, rotating links would accomplish that much, then the ECM says "disperse thusly". If a ship can do it, seems likely that an ACM should be able to pass on the commands equally well.
...Synching up in space would be a "timed fire" operation to that the grav driver spitting out the ACM (likely out of forward or chaser tubes) would match "it's POD missiles" within a small enough milliseconds range to get the job done.
...I can also see a design (in my head) where the Keyhole of one SD(p) could continue to fire and control the ACMs of a squadron mate/group even if it's run dry, or from the pods launched by Sag-C(s), Aggie, or Nike(s). The "synch up" from the launch point would be more complex but give them a million or so kilometers to do the synching, etc..
...Finally yes, the ACM tube size would be pretty big. But your pods would gain 2 for 1, and in essence "space is space is space", by which I mean either you have 1000+ Apollo missiles in 1000 pods+, and lose 2000 attack missiles, or have a lesser count tube fired, and get those 2000 back, or maybe even more attack/ECM birds if the SD(p) were loaded with Mark-16G's for a specific battle. Plus the "synching with other pod-launched missiles from other ships, etc." makes your offensive power even more tightly controllable.
Keep in mind, this isn't a tube launch from an existing ship, it's a newer design than the Invictus, designed to take advantage of lessons learned up to now. Thoughts?
