What about CM pods?

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.

Wait a moment. Doesn't each pod contain a number of cells within which the missiles is fitted exactly, each with a launcher of its own to launch its missile BEYOND the zone within which it cannot bring their impeller wedges up?

That would mean that pods CANNOT carry counter-missiles, unless each CM is encased within a shell that's the same size as a missile. What's the point in THAT?

dreamrider wrote:

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

And of course, the big advantage of LACs is that they can be reused, and DURING combat they can return to their CLAC to reload their magazines - not that we see many really extended battles anymore.

hanuman wrote:Wait a moment. Doesn't each pod contain a number of cells within which the missiles is fitted exactly, each with a launcher of its own to launch its missile BEYOND the zone within which it cannot bring their impeller wedges up?

That would mean that pods CANNOT carry counter-missiles, unless each CM is encased within a shell that's the same size as a missile. What's the point in THAT?

Both the RMN and PRN/RHN have what are called CM canisters to provide back-up against battle damage to internal CM launchers. Those canisters are launched from main armament/shipkiller lunch tubes -- the same launchers as are fitted to Pods.

Each canister contains three to five CMs depending on the size tubes a ship mounts. There is a "Pearl of Weber" in the FAQ link at the top of the page that explains fully.

One CM (or two) canister(s) would fill a LACs CM control links, therfore a pod loaded with CM canisters would provide 8-12 salvos depending on the LAC model, canister capacity, and pod model. (it would probably require older, non-fusion, pods, like the MK10 carried by Wayfarer.)

Weird Harold 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.

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.

One problem with this idea is that pods are subject to proximity (soft) kills in the Honorverse. All it would take is one salvo of missiles (probably the very first) directed at the LACs in order to kill the pods.

Another problem is while Shrikes (and presumably by extension Ferrets and maybe Katanas) can tow up to 3 missile pods, doing so degrades both the acceleration and stealth capability of LAC, making them easier to target.

Vince wrote:One problem with this idea is that pods are subject to proximity (soft) kills in the Honorverse. All it would take is one salvo of missiles (probably the very first) directed at the LACs in order to kill the pods.

Given that a typical missile engagement gives time for 4-8 CM salvos, it's not likely that any CMs would be lost if (or when) the pod is killed. Preserving the internal magazine CMs (which are not vulnerable to soft-kills) for however many salvos can be sent from a pod (or pods) would seem to be worth a few gravs acceleration.

FWIW, I don't see LACs towing more than one pod because of the degradation of speed and stealth towing more. Whether a LAC has enough hull space to Limpet a pod or two is an open question, but that would be the preferred option if available.

The idea is a definite Kludge but it could provide 30-50 more CMs per LAC if the missile environment gets any worse than it is now.

Weird Harold wrote:

Vince wrote:One problem with this idea is that pods are subject to proximity (soft) kills in the Honorverse. All it would take is one salvo of missiles (probably the very first) directed at the LACs in order to kill the pods.

Given that a typical missile engagement gives time for 4-8 CM salvos, it's not likely that any CMs would be lost if (or when) the pod is killed. Preserving the internal magazine CMs (which are not vulnerable to soft-kills) for however many salvos can be sent from a pod (or pods) would seem to be worth a few gravs acceleration.

FWIW, I don't see LACs towing more than one pod because of the degradation of speed and stealth towing more. Whether a LAC has enough hull space to Limpet a pod or two is an open question, but that would be the preferred option if available.

The idea is a definite Kludge but it could provide 30-50 more CMs per LAC if the missile environment gets any worse than it is now.

Harold,
I don't think it is a kludge at all. I can get behind the idea of dedicated, conformal LAC 'saddlebag' CM pods; much more so than CM pods from SD(P)s.

I think if you built and shaped the pod model specifically for the purpose, you could probaly limpet 2 pods running about 24 CM per pod on each Katana, especially since there would be some surface arrays, for CM fire control, that you would not need until the pods were dropped in the outer CM envelope. You could possibly also give additional flexibility to your strike LACs, and the overall operational ability to 'surge' the CM team against the opening salvos, by putting CM pods on the strike LACs when appropriate.

There is another strength of the system. The LAC CM force could possibly drop some shoals of pods in positions where you would not position the LACs themselves for the CM engagement. And if you built decoys into the LAC pods... I kinda like this.

Harold, would you consider relocating to Bolthole for a couple years?

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Given that a typical missile engagement gives time for 4-8 CM salvos, it's not likely that any CMs would be lost if (or when) the pod is killed. Preserving the internal magazine CMs (which are not vulnerable to soft-kills) for however many salvos can be sent from a pod (or pods) would seem to be worth a few gravs acceleration.

FWIW, I don't see LACs towing more than one pod because of the degradation of speed and stealth towing more. Whether a LAC has enough hull space to Limpet a pod or two is an open question, but that would be the preferred option if available.

The idea is a definite Kludge but it could provide 30-50 more CMs per LAC if the missile environment gets any worse than it is now.

Harold,
I don't think it is a kludge at all. I can get behind the idea of dedicated, conformal LAC 'saddlebag' CM pods; much more so than CM pods from SD(P)s.

I think if you built and shaped the pod model specifically for the purpose, you could probaly limpet 2 pods running about 24 CM per pod on each Katana, especially since there would be some surface arrays, for CM fire control, that you would not need until the pods were dropped in the outer CM envelope. You could possibly also give additional flexibility to your strike LACs, and the overall operational ability to 'surge' the CM team against the opening salvos, by putting CM pods on the strike LACs when appropriate.

There is another strength of the system. The LAC CM force could possibly drop some shoals of pods in positions where you would not position the LACs themselves for the CM engagement. And if you built decoys into the LAC pods... I kinda like this.

Harold, would you consider relocating to Bolthole for a couple years?

dreamrider

I'm actually suprised no one has mentioned loading CM canisters in the missiles tubes of Shrikes and Ferrets.

Assuming 3 CMs fit in a Shrike Missile sized canister as a DD/CL canister can, a Ferret can extend it's loadout by as many as 171 CMs

Theemile wrote:I'm actually suprised no one has mentioned loading CM canisters in the missiles tubes of Shrikes and Ferrets.

Assuming 3 CMs fit in a Shrike Missile sized canister as a DD/CL canister can, a Ferret can extend it's loadout by as many as 171 CMs

I don't think LAC shipkillers are big enough.

SWM wrote:

Theemile wrote:I'm actually suprised no one has mentioned loading CM canisters in the missiles tubes of Shrikes and Ferrets.

Assuming 3 CMs fit in a Shrike Missile sized canister as a DD/CL canister can, a Ferret can extend it's loadout by as many as 171 CMs

I don't think LAC shipkillers are big enough.

The only drawing I found showed them about the same size as DD/CL missiles. If I was the person designing LAC missiles I'd be kind of irate if someone put a tube diameter in was ALMOST big enough for me to use DD/CL components, but instead would force me to do a whole new drive/capacitor/warhead design. But not sure if DD/CL launchers had CM canisters at all.

SWM wrote:

Theemile wrote:I'm actually suprised no one has mentioned loading CM canisters in the missiles tubes of Shrikes and Ferrets.

Assuming 3 CMs fit in a Shrike Missile sized canister as a DD/CL canister can, a Ferret can extend it's loadout by as many as 171 CMs

I don't think LAC shipkillers are big enough.

Looking over MaxxQ's recently posted renders on deviantart, I think you are probably right, for the current gen CM.
Unfortunately, his family of shipkillers includes the Viper, but not the LAC missile (Do we know that Mk#?)

If the standard Shrike/Ferret shipkiller approximates the size of the Mk13, but shorter, it might be possible to design a purpose-built CM, less massive and long ranged than the Mk30/31, possibly with a soft triangular cross-section ahead of the impeller ring, that could fit as many as 3 CM in a LAC-fired canister bus. Certainly no more than that, and they would have to be more limited envelope birds.

2 CM submunitions doesn't look like it would be an efficient configuration.

dreamrider

Wait a moment. Hasn't RMN LAC doctrine changed to providing LACs only with CM missiles, with their offensive armament being grasers?