Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests

Counter missile pods

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Counter missile pods
Post by svenhauke   » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:24 pm

svenhauke
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:36 pm

just thinking

if you use missile pods, why not countermissile pods ?

controll links ?

put them in the pods

which reminds me, why not just replace 1 missille in a pod with a controll missile, even sublight it would be 10 x as many missiles under control
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by Grashtel   » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:35 pm

Grashtel
Captain of the List

Posts: 449
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:59 am

svenhauke wrote:just thinking

if you use missile pods, why not countermissile pods ?

Go read http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/163/1 for Mr Weber's reasoning on this, and the rest of http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/series/Harrington/ for a whole bunch of other stuff that he has posted about various topics.

controll links ?

put them in the pods

Honorverse control links refer to more than just the transmitters used to send the commands to the missiles, its the computing hardware as well, and as that is both large and expensive putting in a pod is not possible.

which reminds me, why not just replace 1 missille in a pod with a controll missile, even sublight it would be 10 x as many missiles under control

Which is exactly what Apollo does (well two missiles due to the size of the control missile), and Apollo pods are quickly becoming the standard Mk23 pods. For Mk 16 pods it might be a good idea but you would need to develop and build a DDM control missile, which due to the Yatawa Strike is not a priority, particularly as only BC(P)s use Mk 16 pods and there aren't many of them with more being unlikely to be built due to the problems of making a podlayer that small
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by svenhauke   » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:46 pm

svenhauke
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:36 pm

ok ty for the countermissile pod link

i asumed with the missile pod control missile idea,

and yes its apollo sublight

as theres no need for a transmitter for ftl, a simple exchange of a standard laserhead for the controll package would be possible this would enable any standard pod to be considered as a single missile and make every ship without any shipboard modification capable of controling 10x as many missile

seems to be a tactical advantage to me, exchange 1 missile 10x as much firepower
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by SharkHunter   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:11 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Thinking about this one a little bit more, but not in the traditional "CM wedge on shipkiller wedge" sense of a CM, and
definitely with a WAY different modus operandi. I'd have the
"first stage" impellers for a long range CM solution push the pod, not individual missiles].

In the Honorverse, an uncontrolled missile is pretty much as good as a miss, and at DDM/MDM ranges, even planned "rotating control" of the links screws with accuracy significantly. What if your "long range CM" solution is designed to deliberately screw with the enemy fleet's ability to control the shipkillers, (AKA they are ECM, not CM) with huge jamming systems in what would have otherwise been the "warhead space". Think of the clumped missiles with an ACM not being able to acquire their targets or get good links back to the ships, etc.

Thoughts?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by SharkHunter   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:16 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

...particularly as only BC(P)s use Mk 16 pods and there aren't many of them with more being unlikely to be built due to the problems of making a podlayer that small
Quick nit: all Mk 16- capable ships can use pods, including the Rolands, the Sag-C's, Nike's, etc. In fact, ANY RMN ship that an limpet or tow pods can use them if their tactical computers have the interface information required, and I'd assume that one of the major upgrades for ALL RMN/GSN ships besides the SD(p)'s and CLACs would have that as an early retrofit. I wouldn't even be surprised if the CLACs wouldn't be retrofit also.
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by Somtaaw   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:21 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

SharkHunter wrote:Thinking about this one a little bit more, but not in the traditional "CM wedge on shipkiller wedge" sense of a CM, and
definitely with a WAY different modus operandi. I'd have the
"first stage" impellers for a long range CM solution push the pod, not individual missiles].

In the Honorverse, an uncontrolled missile is pretty much as good as a miss, and at DDM/MDM ranges, even planned "rotating control" of the links screws with accuracy significantly. What if your "long range CM" solution is designed to deliberately screw with the enemy fleet's ability to control the shipkillers, (AKA they are ECM, not CM) with huge jamming systems in what would have otherwise been the "warhead space". Think of the clumped missiles with an ACM not being able to acquire their targets or get good links back to the ships, etc.

Thoughts?



This sounds very much like the Tripple Ripple style missile defense I had posed a few months ago. My idea had been that of the nuclear warheads exploding right in front of the missiles, so their wedges basically direct the plasma into the missile (corrupting the seekers).

Your idea would be more or less the same, except you'd be intentionally detonating what boils down to a Dazzler behind the missiles to cut the control links.

Either way, I think it's potentially viable.
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by Relax   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:34 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

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

On an MDM fired from ~60Mkm, the last 15Mkm are all on the internal sensors of the missiles themselves, so cutting the control links via a dazzler, is frankly impossible. Besides, space is gigantic. The volume of space you need to "dazzle" has a radius of at least 60,000km. Diameter of the earth is 12,700km to put that into perspective... If you get "lucky" you may dazzle a single or two missiles for a VERY short period of time before the dazzle race along at 240,000km/s. So, wonderful your dazzler just "dazzled" for approx a tiny fraction of a second.

Triple ripple should never have worked originally. Space is enormous. Those missiles are spaced enormously far apart. Even the monster salvos we have seen at BoMa could easily have had their missiles spaced 1000km apart and still had room to spare. Yes, one might get lucky and blind a single missile or so, but more than one? Pull the other leg. It was plot device. The plot device was also "quickly" overcome.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by Jonathan_S   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:37 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8796
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Somtaaw wrote:This sounds very much like the Tripple Ripple style missile defense I had posed a few months ago. My idea had been that of the nuclear warheads exploding right in front of the missiles, so their wedges basically direct the plasma into the missile (corrupting the seekers).

Your idea would be more or less the same, except you'd be intentionally detonating what boils down to a Dazzler behind the missiles to cut the control links.

Either way, I think it's potentially viable.

First, unless you were close enough to burn out the receiver on the missile even a big nuke could only generate momentary interference. The ship could most likely reestablish the control link. At most a carefully timed single detonation could force a hand-off to the autonomous terminal attack mode a handful of seconds early.
So you'd need a lot of nukes to white out a control link for any appreciable period of time.

Second (again unless close enough to fry circuitry) this is likely useless against FTL controlled missiles. The nukes won't have any effect on the alpha-wall ripples they use for signalling and it's unlikely they'd be close enough to disrupt the tightbeam or laser links between the Apollo control missile and it's brood of slaved attack/ECM birds.
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by SharkHunter   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:53 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

--snipping--
Jonathan_S wrote:...So you'd need a lot of nukes to white out a control link for any appreciable period of time.

Second (again unless close enough to fry circuitry) this is likely useless against FTL controlled missiles. The nukes won't have any effect on the alpha-wall ripples they use for signalling and it's unlikely they'd be close enough to disrupt the tightbeam or laser links between the Apollo control missile and it's brood of slaved attack/ECM birds.
Not sure on either count but you may be right on the Alpha-wall part.

But my thought is that "downrange" even a wedge obscures an ever widening circle in front of a controlling ship. That's partially why ship killer salvos are programmed to spread out. Still, at extended ranges, that requires 1/10,000 of a degree resolution to even get a "link" within proximal range. So let's say you had a "sprint CM" salvo that was designed to "fire past" the incoming shipkillers quickly and then build a several second dazzler style jamming circle in space to do just that. Your sprinted CM's "know" where your own ships are going to be and would be set to jink/shield right at the optimum time to break the absolute "needed to control" region of near-attack space. It seems like it would reduce the "still controlled" missile count by a worthwhile amount. Thoughts?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Counter missile pods
Post by Somtaaw   » Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:11 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

Well the graser torpedoes the Sharks fired had particle shields, and so does virtually every ship. Blowing up a big enough, dirty nuke, right in a missiles face, is just about guaranteed to annihilate the sensors of any missiles it's close to.

And the wedge is like a broom, so you just have to get "close" and the missile wedge itself would sweep that sudden particle spike right into the sensors. The only missile that might have particle shielding at all, would be the Apollo.


Now a dazzler, trying to even temporarily jam hostile missile control links, would have to be seeded with your attack wave, or fired relatively close to the same time. The farther out you can even temporarily cut missile links, the more survivable you make that salvo.
Top

Return to Honorverse