What about CM pods?

hanuman wrote:I don't think CM-pods would be very economical. They are so much smaller than attack birds that they can be stored in relatively large numbers inside a ship's magazines, whereas the reason for missile pods is that they're so large that a ship's magazines can contain only a limited number of them.

The need to deploy more missiles during combat than what can be stored WITHIN a ship makes it worthwhile to spend the money to build housing, power plants and launchers for all those pods.

But because counter-missiles are so small, they can be stored in high enough numbers inside a ship's magazine to make it unnecessary to make that investment in pods.

Well, I think the real point of the OP suggestion of CM pods was to provide another way to get them further out and extend the CM envelope. However, I think LACs in a CM role, and probably tube-launched missiles with a MIRV CM payload are both better approaches to pushing out the intercept window. Particularly if the MIRV CM "bus" could double as a "CM Apollo" to shorten the control loop.

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:Well, I think the real point of the OP suggestion of CM pods was to provide another way to get them further out and extend the CM envelope. However, I think LACs in a CM role, and probably tube-launched missiles with a MIRV CM payload are both better approaches to pushing out the intercept window. Particularly if the MIRV CM "bus" could double as a "CM Apollo" to shorten the control loop.

dreamrider

Still, there's no need for a "CM Pod" when a standard pod can be loaded with CM Canisters. The problem is still command and control and the only real utility would be to extend a forward deployed LAC's CM magazine capacity -- fire off the pod in one or two launcher bursts instead of using internal CMs. A slow vulnerable and cumbersome solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Weird Harold wrote:

dreamrider wrote:Well, I think the real point of the OP suggestion of CM pods was to provide another way to get them further out and extend the CM envelope. However, I think LACs in a CM role, and probably tube-launched missiles with a MIRV CM payload are both better approaches to pushing out the intercept window. Particularly if the MIRV CM "bus" could double as a "CM Apollo" to shorten the control loop.

dreamrider

Still, there's no need for a "CM Pod" when a standard pod can be loaded with CM Canisters. The problem is still command and control and the only real utility would be to extend a forward deployed LAC's CM magazine capacity -- fire off the pod in one or two launcher bursts instead of using internal CMs. A slow vulnerable and cumbersome solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Yes, that's what I said.

dr

dreamrider wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:quote="dreamrider"]Well, I think the real point of the OP suggestion of CM pods was to provide another way to get them further out and extend the CM envelope. However, I think LACs in a CM role, and probably tube-launched missiles with a MIRV CM payload are both better approaches to pushing out the intercept window. Particularly if the MIRV CM "bus" could double as a "CM Apollo" to shorten the control loop.

dreamrider/quote]

Still, there's no need for a "CM Pod" when a standard pod can be loaded with CM Canisters. The problem is still command and control and the only real utility would be to extend a forward deployed LAC's CM magazine capacity -- fire off the pod in one or two launcher bursts instead of using internal CMs. A slow vulnerable and cumbersome solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.[/quote]

Yes, that's what I said.

dr[/quote]

I must have missed the part where you suggested loading CM-MIRV (properly known as canisters) into a standard pod.

The rest of my post concerns the usage and utility of a configuration you didn't suggest.

You are correct that I never suggested loading CM cannisters in a pod. I don't really see the utility.

I think a tube launch of this class of weapons is a better, more flexible option. Of course, Invictus class ships would have no option but to launch via pod.

A CM MIRV like I am suggesting is not quite the same as a CM canister. The CM canister as it has been described and used (mostly by Haven) so far in the textev is simply a way to increase a ships output of CM for the usual CM envelope. It gets the CM load beyond the sidewall via a main launchers 'porthole' and releases the CM payload to do their thing. What I am suggesting might happen with a CM MIRV would be to bus the cluster of CM beyond their usual drive range, then deploy them for an extended range CM engagement, ala what LACs do for Manticore now. Control could either be via the LAC force of the outer missile screen, via the launching ship, or, if Hemphill's minions get clever and busy, via a CM specialized Apollo-like AI aboard the delivery missile 'bus'.

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:I think a tube launch of this class of weapons is a better, more flexible option. Of course, Invictus class ships would have no option but to launch via pod.

A CM MIRV like I am suggesting is not quite the same as a CM canister. The CM canister as it has been described and used (mostly by Haven) so far in the textev is simply a way to increase a ships output of CM for the usual CM envelope. It gets the CM load beyond the sidewall via a main launchers 'porthole' and releases the CM payload to do their thing.

There is a Pearl that says:

The canisters of CMs which can be fired from conventional launchers are intended to put a "fast pack" of missiles sufficient to make up losses from the normal tubes into space. They are not intended to throw up a solid wall of missiles which can't be adequately controlled in the first place. The notion that a ship would launch shpikiller-sized pods of CMs in order to thicken the defensive fire thus runs afoul of the fact that thickening it by that huge a number would tend to enormously reduce the effectiveness of the defenses by seriously degrading the ability to steer the missiles to intercepts in such a control-adverse (if I may use the term) environment.

dreamrider wrote: What I am suggesting might happen with a CM MIRV would be to bus the cluster of CM beyond their usual drive range, then deploy them for an extended range CM engagement, ala what LACs do for Manticore now. Control could either be via the LAC force of the outer missile screen, via the launching ship, or, if Hemphill's minions get clever and busy, via a CM specialized Apollo-like AI aboard the delivery missile 'bus'.

dreamrider

You still are going to run into control issues -- as noted earlier, RMN ships can put more CM's into space than they can control and without that hypothetical FTL control node, your idea just pushes CMs beyond the range of shipboard control links.

That still leaves turning control over to a LAC in a forward position, but wouldn't it be better to give the LAC complete control over the CMs it controls, including when to launch them?

Weird Harold wrote:You still are going to run into control issues -- as noted earlier, RMN ships can put more CM's into space than they can control and without that hypothetical FTL control node, your idea just pushes CMs beyond the range of shipboard control links.

That still leaves turning control over to a LAC in a forward position, but wouldn't it be better to give the LAC complete control over the CMs it controls, including when to launch them?

To be fair LACs do have a problem with endurance in the missile defense role. They can't carry enough onboard CMs for a full SD(P) engagement.

If you could wave a magic wand and make super long range CMs that don't have negative size or cost impacts I could see where you'd want the ability to "blind-fire" CMs from your wall for the forward deployd LAC screen take over and control. That'd give you the deep anti-missile magazines of your wallers but the defensive depth of the forward LAC screen.

Unfortunately such a magic no-tradeoffs CM doesn't seem to be on the horizon. I guess the new better defended CLACs RFC has talked about are one attempt at an alternate solution; by keeping them with the wall they potentially allow the LAC screen to cycle back and reload on CMs. You couldn't have all your LACs engaged at once - but you'd have some LAC CM cover for a much longer period.



My personal "hobby horse" is a CM that's FTL receive-only. I suspect that an FTL receiver (capable of picking up fire control data over no more than say 7 million km) would be a heck of a lot smaller than the FTL receiver and transmitter built into the Apollo Control missile. Possibly even small enough to cram into a new CM design - and cutting the control lag in half is nothing to sneeze at. Combine that with pulling sensor data from FTL equipped drones (already part of Mantie missile defense doctrine) you should be, effectively, better than even that.
-----------

Of course this same though could potentially to applied to make a more deadly DDM; but I suspect there's reason we've only seen FTL fire control mounted on platforms that can hold clear of the ship's wedge. Which, since nothing smaller than an SD(P) carries a keyhole II means FTL receivers for missiles smaller than they use are (at this point) a waste)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:You still are going to run into control issues -- as noted earlier, RMN ships can put more CM's into space than they can control and without that hypothetical FTL control node, your idea just pushes CMs beyond the range of shipboard control links.

That still leaves turning control over to a LAC in a forward position, but wouldn't it be better to give the LAC complete control over the CMs it controls, including when to launch them?

To be fair LACs do have a problem with endurance in the missile defense role. They can't carry enough onboard CMs for a full SD(P) engagement.

If you could wave a magic wand and make super long range CMs that don't have negative size or cost impacts I could see where you'd want the ability to "blind-fire" CMs from your wall for the forward deployd LAC screen take over and control. That'd give you the deep anti-missile magazines of your wallers but the defensive depth of the forward LAC screen.

Wasn't there mention of splitting CLACs up into two designs, with one of them being an 'assault' type which stays with the SD(P)s instead of hypering back out after launching its LAC wing? I'm reasonably sure part of their role was to include rearming empty LACs between salvos during long-ranged combat.

I have my doubts about the viability of that doctrine, however. It's asking a lot to pull LACs into a carrier manoeuvring hard, start shoving it full of missiles and countermissiles, then get the bird back into space and deployed to intercept before the next salvo comes screaming in.

munroburton wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:To be fair LACs do have a problem with endurance in the missile defense role. They can't carry enough onboard CMs for a full SD(P) engagement.

If you could wave a magic wand and make super long range CMs that don't have negative size or cost impacts I could see where you'd want the ability to "blind-fire" CMs from your wall for the forward deployd LAC screen take over and control. That'd give you the deep anti-missile magazines of your wallers but the defensive depth of the forward LAC screen.

Wasn't there mention of splitting CLACs up into two designs, with one of them being an 'assault' type which stays with the SD(P)s instead of hypering back out after launching its LAC wing? I'm reasonably sure part of their role was to include rearming empty LACs between salvos during long-ranged combat.

I have my doubts about the viability of that doctrine, however. It's asking a lot to pull LACs into a carrier manoeuvring hard, start shoving it full of missiles and countermissiles, then get the bird back into space and deployed to intercept before the next salvo comes screaming in.

Yep, that was the "new better defended CLACs RFC has talked about" I mentioned in my next paragraph.

(I didn't explicitly mention the two designs; but yeah, I was talking about the "assault" CLAC. As opposed to the SD sized design configured to carry the most LACs as the possible and to stay the hell out of the way of combat)


And I assume a LAC won't be able to get in, reload, and back between salvos. That's why I think that using the assault CLAC to reload means that some percentage of your screening LACs will always be unavailable -- a tradeoff of peak defenses (all your LACs engaging the first few waves) in exchange for better sustained defenses. Say 2/3rd of your LACs might be available throughout the fight; but another 1/3rd of them always somewhere in the reload maneuver cycle. (But maybe that's too efficient; maybe it's 50% on the line and 50% cycling back)

Jonathan_S wrote:To be fair LACs do have a problem with endurance in the missile defense role. They can't carry enough onboard CMs for a full SD(P) engagement.

That's why I've suggested loading canisters of CMs into conventional pods capable of firing only one tube at a time. Tow or Limpet such a pod to a LAC and you have 8-12 additional salvos of 3-5 CMs per tube; well within any LAC's CM control capability.

It is a solution that can be applied today with the only potential change required is the ability to fire one tube at a time, which I'm pretty sure pods (other than Apollo) are already capable of.

Extended range CMs with FTL receiver control links, are good ideas but they can't be deployed until they've been developed and manufactured -- pods and canister CM rounds are already in inventory.