Missile Counter Missile

J6P 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.

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

Uh... yeah. I know. That's what I said in my original post. Try re-reading it. Maybe you'll see it this time.

And it doesn't matter if the power sources are reactors or caps, you're still gonna have a much longer missile, and that's only for a single booster. If I read the original post correctly, skimper proposed* not only a single booster, but multiple boosters, which could possibly increase the length to more than double or even triple the standard length.

*Need to clarify that since I have skimper on ignore, I didn't actually read his post - I'm only going by what was quoted in other people's posts, so maybe there was something that wasn't quoted that I missed. Not that I'm going to look at his post anyway just to check...

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.

How far does a missile compensator missile field extend?

Far enough to allow the 2+ meter wide sustainer - excuse me... *forward stage* - to move 2-3 meters off to one side so that once it *does* clear the field, the booster won't hit it?

If the field extends the same distance relative to its size as that of a ship, then my WAG is the field *might* extend 15cm beyond the skin of the missile.

J6P wrote: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.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, and just address this.

If you're talking about doing this with CMs only, then that's a completely different argument as far as numbers carried by the ship. I have no issues with proposals on boosted CMs, provided the booster burns out (or otherwise shuts down) *prior* to forward stage wedge light-off.

Or, as I mentioned before, have the booster at the *front* end, so that it *wouldn't* have to shut down while getting out of the way of the *other* half of the missile.

The thing is, you must have missed the part of the original post where it was suggested to do this staging thing on *full-up attack missiles* where the stages continue on to take out incoming missiles while the main stage continues to attack its target ship.

Edit: What amazes me is that it seems that some of you are *supporting* skimper's idea of using a Mk23 or something similar as a multi-staged attack and countermissile, where the booster(s) continue, under power and after separation, to take out incoming missiles, while the main attack missile continues on to target an enemy ship.

I guess in my case, I reject anything skimper proposes automatically because pretty much everything he proposes is either stupid, or against what the author has said. If that makes me a Hamish Alexander to skimper's Hemphill, then so be it. Only difference is that even Hemphill was right a lot of times.

Supporting Skimpies "idea" as is? No.

Highly modified.

MaxxQ wrote:rward (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.

We seem to agree. But were at crossed points due to a Skimpy influence it would appear.

If compensator encompasses the CM lodged on top or behind the main booster for several meters(However long the CM is), the compensator field is going to be much farther afield than skin depth on only the booster. Otherwise the CM's past the end would have to survive 45,000g or 90,000g. Clearly this does not seem to be the case in the Cataphracts case. If this is true then compensator field should be quite wide near the main booster and a forward "grafted" CM should be able to slide along side the booster in same field. If one has 45,000g on half the missile while the other half is at 0g, well, can we say shredder? If RCS creates a Tumble as it ejects the CM, this is just fine. This is easily correctable.

Though, why put a single small CM on the front? May as well put it on the rear. There is no rocket exhaust. If one CM was at the front end that would intrinsically imply 2 CM's attached to the booster IMO. That gets mighty long requiring even larger more massive CM tubes. Now I suppose it could be possible to graft those CM's onto a booster phase before the CM tubes making the missile handling equipment smaller, but at the same time more complex.

No, not a simplistic solution.

Maybe someone will quote me.

The use of ddm creates a problem thus most ddm are tube launched and can use a LERM instead for CM duty.

16 million km range LERM missiles fired from the main tubes make for a good long range CM. Do not even need warheads so you can keep costs down and maybe increase range.

For MDM you use up the first stage, then go ballistic, launch the CM stages and the final warhead stage. Let them separate and drift until in range the CM will fly off and engage the incoming missiles then the warhead section will engage when in range and proceed to attack. They separate while coasting then fire up their wedges. The missiles would need be made to do this.

The CM Stages would need to have capacitor powered Stages. Be they full capacitor or minifusion and capacitor power plants.

The tube launched LERM missiles are smaller than the DDM mk16 missiles. Can be fired as fast as the tube can be loaded even while the DDM mini fusion plant is being fired up? If fired up before placed in the tube. Might have to redesign the tubes. Fire a LERM between DDM missiles. While triple or quad stacking a broadside or chase for a Roland. Two or three to one for the cost of four Mk16 per tube a Roland would gain 8-12 LERM Long Range CM or standard LERM missiles. 48 missiles traded for 84-144 LERM.

J6P wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:rward (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.

We seem to agree. But were at crossed points due to a Skimpy influence it would appear.

If compensator encompasses the CM lodged on top or behind the main booster for several meters(However long the CM is), the compensator field is going to be much farther afield than skin depth on only the booster. Otherwise the CM's past the end would have to survive 45,000g or 90,000g. Clearly this does not seem to be the case in the Cataphracts case. If this is true then compensator field should be quite wide near the main booster and a forward "grafted" CM should be able to slide along side the booster in same field. If one has 45,000g on half the missile while the other half is at 0g, well, can we say shredder? If RCS creates a Tumble as it ejects the CM, this is just fine. This is easily correctable.

Though, why put a single small CM on the front? May as well put it on the rear. There is no rocket exhaust. If one CM was at the front end that would intrinsically imply 2 CM's attached to the booster IMO. That gets mighty long requiring even larger more massive CM tubes. Now I suppose it could be possible to graft those CM's onto a booster phase before the CM tubes making the missile handling equipment smaller, but at the same time more complex.

No, not a simplistic solution.

Now this I can agree with, except I don't think a compensator field extends that far. I don't think it's really needed either, at least not for non-man-rated missiles. Sure, that's a lot of G's, but I doubt it's beyond Honorverse materials physics.

OTOH, I can think of better ways to extend CM range without all the complications of boosters separating and continuing on to take out incoming attack missiles.

One method would be to take out a single Mk23 from a pod, and replace it with a modified Mk23. I just checked my meshes, and this would allow four CMs (either regular Mk30/31 or four Mk9 Vipers with a drive ring on the carrier missile removed) to be carried along with the rest of the Apollo missiles (seven attack Mk23s and the Apollo Control Missile) for as far as the drives would last.

The CMs could be released when the drive is shut down (or burns out), and, with a little reprogramming of the ACM targeting systems, and under the control of the ACM, proceed on to intercept incoming missiles. With the FTL links to the command ship(s), this would help to reduce the control loop problems of long distance CM flight profiles.

Obviously, the advantages are that you can engage at longer ranges, getting that multilayered defense you want, and you don't need to make any major modifications to the launching ships. This is assuming pod-launched missiles. For tube launchers, you would need to either accept lightspeed comm limitations or (shudder, because it's something else that skippy proposed elsewhere) launch an Apollo ACM from a tube to control a flight of CM-carrying Mk23s.

This sort of thing would only work for any ship that can carry Mk23-sized MDM missiles, as DDM Mk16s are too small to carry more than one CM of any type.

The disadvantages are that you lose 12.5% of your attack missile capabilty per pod that has a CM carrier, and whatever % you replace your tube-launched attack missiles *plus* the percentage of tube-launched ACMs a ship might carry. Also, the ACM is larger in diameter, so you would need to have a dedicated tube or four (one for each broadside and one in each hammerhead) at a minimum for them if going the tube-launched direction.

I admit there's a certain appeal to that, but LACs can do the same thing (provide farther forward CM support than ship-launched CMs) with more flexibility and no need for *any* kind of modifications.

Edit: I see skippy posted.

skimper wrote:Maybe someone will quote me.

This was as far as I saw before hitting the "post" button on my post. All I have to say is...

Please don't!

J6P wrote:Supporting Skimpies "idea" as is? No.

Highly modified.

It seems based on your last big post that you've modified it so far you now just seem to want longer ranged CMs... (And you're not alone in that, even in the books the Manticoran people have said something has to be done to increase defensive depth; and there have been proposals here on ways to do it ever since)

But I'm confused, if that's what you want, why you're arguing to keep something similar to Skimper's rube goldberg designs; multiple seperating stages?
Why not just advocate a dual drive CM?


That'd be a lot smaller without the need to stage. And, due to their short run-times, the power for 2 CM drives is low enough that I'm guessing the necessary capacitors to power it would still be smaller that a microfusion reaction w/ fuel; which lets you keep the faster launcher cycle times (no fusion initiation delay).

A Mark 31 CM is good for 130,000 g at full power, and 75 seconds flight time. Dial that back to 50% power and you should triple the flight time. So a 50% + 100% dual drive (not stage; no separation) should let the missile fly out to 30 million km in 300 seconds. Heck just running it at 100% + 100% dual drive gives you 9 million km in 150 seconds. (With no need for rube golderberg contraptions to separate stages while under power)


Now RFC has shot down dual drive CMs before, saying that (based on current constraints with sensors and fire control) they aren't worth the extra room they take up. But those objections apply doubly so to a dual stage CM...



Skimper's original idea, while nuts , does seem to be an attempt to work around RFC's objection by reusing something that was already being carried and launched. He was wrong about how GA missiles worked, and the concept is way more complicated that he said, but it was one way to work around the size issue of bigger CMs. But your modified version doesn't appear to have that attempted benefit (bringing me back to my confusion)

Well. RFC already said "never" to CM pods.

I believe he has already said "NO" to DDM CM's as well. Otherwise, this would be excellent. One low drive, one sprint. Shortened capacitor time to keep the missile less massive and smaller. One could have say, a "half power" 65,000g with a run time of 110s or so to get the range with 20s sprint. OR shut down sooner for a longer sprint endurance. Assumes capacitor birds of course. Fusion cannot be turned on off. Besides I seriously doubt micro fusion can scale down further than it already is in the MK-16. Who knows maybe it can.

Yet he has Honor wanting roughly ~8Mkm CM interception basket. LAC's can never achieve this as it takes them an eternity to get out this far ahead or to the side. Add in that MDM's can then simply fly around the LAC's and now the defender is absent his LAC's being able to fire as well. Or worse yet, the missiles come in from behind or the side.

I was essentially ruminating, mixing several ideas around. Without a huge amount of detail, honestly all these extended CM ideas are pretty much pokes in the dark.

We have no idea regarding anything for masses of DDM drive trains for instance. We have no idea how much tonnage in MK-16 is laser warhead and how much is DDM and how much is power budget. We also have no idea how well these tonnages we have no idea about, scale. Many things in engineering land simply do not scale well. Others are perfectly linear. Some are vastly more efficient the smaller they get. We simply have no idea.

Ok, maybe MaxxQ has a better idea , but I doubt, RFC is going to nail himself down tighter than he already has especially regarding his missile tech.

Anywhoo, just something to pass the time and ruminate about. Actually NO! It is the end of the WORLD!!!

J6P wrote: Ok, maybe MaxxQ has a better idea , but I doubt, RFC is going to nail himself down tighter than he already has especially regarding his missile tech.

Maybe. But unlike a certain person, I'm not so wedded to it that I expect it to actually be implemented. In fact, I expect it *will* be shot down by RFC, and I have no problems with that. At least when it *is* shot down, I won't ever try to resurrect it again... and again.. and again. Nor will I try to make the same proposal, but just worded differently to try to get around the "restrictions" imposed by RFC.