Missile Counter Missile

Purposefully eschewing the obvious or serious NIH syndrome giving 0.0001s of mental capacity. (0.0001s is long enough to activate the POST NOW automatic lower brain function response trigger without any cognitive higher functions added)

1) Given more than 0.0001s of brain cognitive function, it is a simple process of elimination determining the front tip missile does NOT have to be launched FORWARD at a higher acceleration than the main. Dump it out the rear. No differential acceleration except going from whatever compensator field gravitational field of the main stage to 0g is. It is not operating in atmosheric turbulence! Sheesh. Said forward missile already has reaction thrusters to boost it the couple meters it needs to clear. Pause time till wedge activation is all of a measly sub 1 second as the 1st missile is still accelerating at a minimum of 45,000g, 90,000g++ is far more likely. If 10km wedge, it clears in sub 1s territory. 1s moves main stage 225km forward.

2) Cataphract TYPE, not the exact missile, is already 2 missiles. Will obviously not work with RMN style MDM's with their integrated impeller rings. Ergo pt [3]

3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

4 Would drop grafted missile at the 5.5-6Mkm range for both stages to attack a single salvo. Theoretically, could drop farther out, only if there are multiple salvos incoming, where the 1st stage missile goes after the 1st salvo near the 8Mkm max range, dropping off its 2nd stage before impact allowing the second stage to go after the next salvo at around the 10Mkm range.

5) Main 1st stage with its lower acceleration compared to CM's would have poor interception rates.

Do you guys realize how LARGE and expensive the ICBM interception missiles are they are now putting on destroyers? Is this additional capability worth it?

After all Cataphract style CM missile would fill same role. Extended interception. Is it really worth the added expense and tonnage to intercept MDM's at 7-8Mkm instead of a maximum of 3.5Mkm or so? Just like the wet navy Destroyer today, the Honorverse ships in question would have a partial load out of these larger more expensive missiles. By no means would this be the new standard exclusive counter missile load out. These missiles would be the minority percentage of CM load totals.

J6P wrote:1) Given more than 0.0001s of brain cognitive function, it is a simple process of elimination determining the front tip missile does NOT have to be launched FORWARD at a higher acceleration than the main. Dump it out the rear. No differential acceleration except going from whatever compensator field gravitational field of the main stage to 0g is. It is not operating in atmosheric turbulence! Sheesh. Said forward missile already has reaction thrusters to boost it the couple meters it needs to clear. Pause time till wedge activation is all of a measly sub 1 second as the 1st missile is still accelerating at a minimum of 45,000g, 90,000g++ is far more likely. If 10km wedge, it clears in sub 1s territory. 1s moves main stage 225km forward.

No. Just no.

Unless your reaction thrusters are accelerating the sustainer at a higher G-rate than the booster, I don't care how short the distance to be moved out of the way is, the booster is *still* going to be pushing against the sustainer at 45k G's once the two parts separate. Has nothing to do with atmospheric effects. I don't even know why you think I was thinking about that. I never said atmospheric drag would keep the stages together - in a pushing booster configuration (where the booster is *not* shut down or has its accel lowered temporarily, which doesn't happen with Honorverse missiles), the sustainer would *absolutely have* to have a higher accel in order to pull away from the booster in a straight line. Acceleration works exactly the same in a vacuum as it does in an atmosphere.

The freaking sustainer will be be moving at whatever speed it was at when the separation occurred, while the booster will be moving faster with every second (it's called acceleration - you know, that "per second per second" thing), half-second, 0.1 seconds, pico-seconds that passes between separation. Even if your apparently really powerful RCS thrusters move the sustainer sideways, it won't be fast enough to get it out of the way of the booster, which is still accelerating at 45k G's (or whatever). IOW, it's *still* going to be pushing against the sustainer, even if the sustainer is being moved sideways (or up or down - as if it matters ), resulting in off-center pushing which would set the sustainer to tumbling.

This is why I said pulling the sustainer would probably work better than pushing it - no need for RCS at that point at all. The booster would continue accelerating away from the sustainer until the sustainer clears the wedge (which is probably in the time you said - *that* part you got right anyway).

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

Something else I thought of later on after writing my previous post: these Frankensteinian abominations wouldn't work with existing podlayer designs because the pods would be so much larger to accomodate the extra length. Things are tight enough trying to get normal-sized pods out of the hammerhead of a podlayer - imagine how much larger the hole will be to accommodate longer pods.

MaxxQ wrote:

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

Well I guess with capacitors you've got the theoretical ability to spread them out; put half of them in the booster stage and half in the 2nd stage. Can't do that with one microfusion plant

Of course spreading them out almost certainly drives up the size of the stages. (Or already did so on a cataphract; I assume the CM drive powered stage and the normal missile drive stage have independent power sources)

MaxxQ wrote:The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

Something else I thought of later on after writing my previous post: these Frankensteinian abominations wouldn't work with existing podlayer designs because the pods would be so much larger to accomodate the extra length. Things are tight enough trying to get normal-sized pods out of the hammerhead of a podlayer - imagine how much larger the hole will be to accommodate longer pods.

I guess, playing devil's advocate that if you were willing to give up a lot of pod storage you could arrange pods with the missiles pointed lengthwise. In that arrangement the missile length is irrelevant to how many can pass through the hammerhead.

(Well my understanding is the real choke point is the aft impeller rooms, not the hammerhead itself. Those have to be directly inboard of the aft impeller ring; which is already the narrowest hull diameter)

MaxxQ wrote:
No. Just no.

Unless your reaction thrusters are accelerating the sustainer at a higher G-rate than the booster

Ok, MAJOR problem...

What the Hell is a sustainer? I have never seen this word used in conjunction with a missile before. What is it "sustaining"?

As far as I can tell, both booster and top stage are in the exact same compensator gravitational field. Therefore the final needs a minute gravitational acceleration in the radial direction to separate.

MaxxQ wrote:

J6P wrote:3) Only works with capacitor birds. Fusion is a singular power source. Obviously would have to have 2 power sources...

Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

? Because for 2 missiles you need... 2 power sources

I thought things in a compensator field were in free-fall? So you could use a spring to push it out of the way.

MaxxQ wrote:The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

No sense carrying thousands of CM's one cannot use because the ship just blew up as the engagement window remained at a measly 3M km. At 0.7-0.8c closing velocity or more, that can be as short as 10-15s. Cycle time is 8s for the fastest CM tube. 2-7s of drive time even at 130,000g is a whopping 2500km-30,000km. Stand off attack range, is well over 30,000 km last I checked. The SHIPs PDLC's have a better chance at interception. On the other hand if initial engagement is 8Mkm, this gives over 30s of launching time for follow up CM's. We now have a three layered defense. CM, CM, PDLC instead of only a two layered defense. Gives time to combat ECM.

According to your abbreviated logic, the RMN/GSN should scrap their MK31 CM's and go with the older smaller versions as they can carry more of them... Besides interception %%% at closer ranges is far superior to long range.

According to this logic, the RMN should throw out FTL Apollo control missiles as they can carry more MK-23.

According to this same logic, the RMN should scrap their MDM birds and go back to SDM birds. They can carry more of them.

Use of long ranged CM's allows more time to adjust to the swarm headed your direction. The problem with longer ranged CM's is they are much larger. Yes, even MK-31 CM's verses older CM's. The size of much longer ranged CM's are based entirely by their power requirements to reach said distance. To minimize their size requirements it is far more efficient to boost at a lower acceleration for a longer period of time. To make use of this space energy savings it behooves one to make a sprint drive.

At some point the tonnage saved by boosting at a lower acceleration, distance is via time SQUARED, will enable one to add a sprint drive. At a further range, one could then adequately state one could graft 2 sprint sub mini missiles via this tonnage savings from boosting at a lower acceleration. Of course then one has the problem of increased tonnage requirements for the CM tubes and handling systems. Ain't no free lunch. Of course the ship trying to defend itself might be lunch if it cannot start whittling down massive salvos of missiles at a longer range. Allowing to launch MORE CM's per engagement is a good thing.

Personally, optimum would probably be a short low acceleration drive with a secondary sprint drive. No, I would not outfit ships with 100% of these missiles. No, I would not outfit ships with even 50% of these missiles. I could see maybe 1/3 of a ships CM tonnage allotment given to much longer CM missiles with single or dual kill ability.

kzt wrote:I thought things in a compensator field were in free-fall? So you could use a spring to push it out of the way.

Been my impression throughout the books.

Jonathan_S wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Capacitor... fusion... what's the difference? You could replace the word "fusion" in my earlier post with "capacitor" and it wouldn't change my point, so I don't know why you bothered to repeat what I said.

Well I guess with capacitors you've got the theoretical ability to spread them out; put half of them in the booster stage and half in the 2nd stage. Can't do that with one microfusion plant

Of course spreading them out almost certainly drives up the size of the stages. (Or already did so on a cataphract; I assume the CM drive powered stage and the normal missile drive stage have independent power sources)

No, you can't split a fusion plant, but then again, for the same kind of power, one would need the same amount of capacitors *per stage*. That's why I say it doesn't matter if it's caps or a second reactor.

Jonathan_S wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:The rest of your post I have no issues with, as it backs up my assertion that it's a stupid idea, wasteful of assets, and lowers the number of missiles available.

Something else I thought of later on after writing my previous post: these Frankensteinian abominations wouldn't work with existing podlayer designs because the pods would be so much larger to accomodate the extra length. Things are tight enough trying to get normal-sized pods out of the hammerhead of a podlayer - imagine how much larger the hole will be to accommodate longer pods.

I guess, playing devil's advocate that if you were willing to give up a lot of pod storage you could arrange pods with the missiles pointed lengthwise. In that arrangement the missile length is irrelevant to how many can pass through the hammerhead.

(Well my understanding is the real choke point is the aft impeller rooms, not the hammerhead itself. Those have to be directly inboard of the aft impeller ring; which is already the narrowest hull diameter)

True, you *could* do that, but again, you're reducing the number of pods stored. Whether they point outboard or lengthwise, they will take up more space because they are longer pods.

J6P wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
No. Just no.

Unless your reaction thrusters are accelerating the sustainer at a higher G-rate than the booster

Ok, MAJOR problem...

What the Hell is a sustainer? I have never seen this word used in conjunction with a missile before. What is it "sustaining"?

Sorry. Habit from my rocket flying days. The "sustainer" is the upper stage of a rocket, as opposed to the "booster" (or boosters, if you have more than one) which is the lower (or first, second, etc.) stage.

J6P wrote:As far as I can tell, both booster and top stage are in the exact same compensator gravitational field. Therefore the final needs a minute gravitational acceleration in the radial direction to separate.

But the booster is still accelerating at 45k G's. As I said before, even a sideways (or radial, as you put it) push will take time, even if it's just a tenth of a second. How far will that booster be travelling forward in that .5 seconds while *still* accelerating? You *need* to push the upper stage forward (I didn't use "sustainer" - understand now?) enough to allow it to move sideways (or radially) far enough to not be hit by the *still accelerating* booster, unless you're willing to accept a collision that could send the upper stage (or forward stage - whatever) tumbling.

That means that for at least a second or so, the forward stage will need to accel at a higher amount than the booster. RCS ain't gonna give you that kind of accel. If it could, there'd be no need to use a wedge.