Upcoming designs: regarding the Apollo ACM...

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

Theemile wrote:A Pod is not a pod is not a pod.

Ther have been at least 19 marks of Pods in RMN service, each with different capabilities and missile loads.

There was a discussion in Storm from the Shadows I believe, on the progression of missile pods and their capabilities in RMN servce. Flatpacks, the current pod style that stack more optimally and have tractors built in, only held 10 Mk 23s. IIRC, the Mk 19 is the Apollo version, and the Mk 17 and Mk 18 were also in the flat pack family.

Thanks for the references.

That said y'all, keep in mind that my thought for this thread is "we're pissed geeks from Weyland" trying to optimize the heck out of what the RMN can do with our coolly integrated newness to lower the ka-boom any where the baddies are in the galaxy. So really creative and interesting Flat Pack configurations with varying capability missiles (including perhaps some Apollo Control Missile variants) seems likely.

By the way, given that the ACM tech is apparently derived from some of the same technology in the bigger FTL RC drones, arguing that "it can't do that..." seems counterproductive. This is the "Aubrey Wanderman hooked this to that" in HoE, or "Dominica Santos made recon drone parts from missile guidance bits" in OBS type of tech, eventually combined with Ginger Lewis sensibility, Jaruwalski tactics, and Foraker's overall genius for deployably dangerous almost-as-good tech.

We're not dismissing you without cause - The Apollo-light conversations fill many megs of data on this forumn and we asked David directly if a FTL drone or standard shipborne FTL set could interface with an Apollo Command Missile - and the answer we got was something like "If it was that simple, why did Admiral Hemphill spend x # of Manticorian Dollars and end up with Keyhole II modules to get it to work. No it cannot be done."

So we're not just saying that it cannot be done this way - We've been told by the Honorverse's creator that it cannot happen and isn't going to change tomorrow. You are just VERY late to the discussion.

We've also been told that technology will continue to improve, and there will still be breakthroughs which will change things. What breakthroughs and when, is up in the air; But until David tells us different, you need a 120 KTon KHII moldule and a 70 KTon computer system to control missiles via FTL.

--snipping--

Theemile wrote:...So we're not just saying that it cannot be done this way - We've been told by the Honorverse's creator that it cannot happen and isn't going to change tomorrow. You are just VERY late to the discussion.

We've also been told that technology will continue to improve, and there will still be breakthroughs which will change things. What breakthroughs and when, is up in the air; But until David tells us different, you need a 120 KTon KHII moldule and a 70 KTon computer system to control missiles via FTL.

I'll buy that, given that the MWW has ultimate say. Doesn't change the question about "Tube launched, multiple synch'd", sorta weird pod configurations etc. that could be used, just what kind of ship is required to control them. Also, I'm talking about using the same set of people who designed the innovations which created the ACM that they came up with in the first place for Hemphill's approval. The idea is to find wrinkles in how to use the existing tech that make it more tactically useful or powerful or available for wider deployment.

SharkHunter wrote: I'll buy that, given that the MWW has ultimate say. Doesn't change the question about "Tube launched, multiple synch'd", ...

Forget the "Tube launched, multiple synch'd" idea. With the expense of modifying/building tubes, vs the low cost and flexibility of coming up with a new Flatpack pod it just ain't goin' ta happen.

Smaller combatants don't need the extreme range advantage FTL/ACM control provides and don't have room for the HUGE ACM.

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

Theemile wrote:...So we're not just saying that it cannot be done this way - We've been told by the Honorverse's creator that it cannot happen and isn't going to change tomorrow. You are just VERY late to the discussion.

We've also been told that technology will continue to improve, and there will still be breakthroughs which will change things. What breakthroughs and when, is up in the air; But until David tells us different, you need a 120 KTon KHII moldule and a 70 KTon computer system to control missiles via FTL.

I'll buy that, given that the MWW has ultimate say. Doesn't change the question about "Tube launched, multiple synch'd", sorta weird pod configurations etc. that could be used, just what kind of ship is required to control them. Also, I'm talking about using the same set of people who designed the innovations which created the ACM that they came up with in the first place for Hemphill's approval. The idea is to find wrinkles in how to use the existing tech that make it more tactically useful or powerful or available for wider deployment.

In thinking on your idea of ship/tube launching Mk23-e FTL control missiles I don't think it will happen in the RMN. As far as I understand it ships are built with specific sized tubes with specific technology for specific missiles and changing those tubes is not a small task. If I think about the flat pack missile pods when the Mk23-e packs came out the capacity of missiles dropped from 10 MK23 missiles to 8 Mk23 missiles and one Mk23-e missile, I think. Which would seem to mean that the Mk23-e missile is a physically larger beast. Therefore it can't be tube launched from a current designed ship.

Though, it may be interesting to see how the Mk23 and Mk23-e are adapted to the Haven ship design. Maybe their pods for their SD(P) variants ships are of a significant different dimension such that different combination can be made. As far as I know, the Haven pods held more missiles and the individual missiles were larger than the RMN ones. I'm excited to see what innovations Foracker/bolthole can come up with for RMN missiles.

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

Theemile wrote:...So we're not just saying that it cannot be done this way - We've been told by the Honorverse's creator that it cannot happen and isn't going to change tomorrow. You are just VERY late to the discussion.

We've also been told that technology will continue to improve, and there will still be breakthroughs which will change things. What breakthroughs and when, is up in the air; But until David tells us different, you need a 120 KTon KHII moldule and a 70 KTon computer system to control missiles via FTL.

I'll buy that, given that the MWW has ultimate say. Doesn't change the question about "Tube launched, multiple synch'd", sorta weird pod configurations etc. that could be used, just what kind of ship is required to control them. Also, I'm talking about using the same set of people who designed the innovations which created the ACM that they came up with in the first place for Hemphill's approval. The idea is to find wrinkles in how to use the existing tech that make it more tactically useful or powerful or available for wider deployment.

Since, as been pointed out by others above, it is so much easier to change a pod design than a tube, one new pod that someone proposed during the copious ACM discussions and no one really poked holes in was a 5xACM Pod -instead of using Tube launchers for ACM, just carry the ACMs in Pods and have the ACMs negotiate with the tube launched Mk-23s. The only issue is we havn't seen RMN missile RF control links hand off to a 2nd controller.

However, Tube launched Mk 23s (on Medusa, Harringtons and Harrington IIs) have been mostly used to thicken ECM in the Pod launches (especially in Grayson practice), NOT fire attack missiles, so the ACM Pod isn't that useful. For the literal handful of Gryphons converted to Mk23 tubes, thay may be useful, but as noted, there are only a few such ships. The only other ships to mount Mk 23 tubes, the Minotaur and Chimara CLACs, really only mount the missiles as a secondary armament.

Theemile wrote:The only issue is we havn't seen RMN missile RF control links hand off to a 2nd controller.

IIRC, we have seen ships control missiles launched by other ships several times. Handing control to an ACM-B wouldn't be much different than having the Flagship (or other KHII equipped ship) control an entire squadron's salvo.

NB: as proposed, and ACM-B would be able to control any Mk of RMN missile; it would be most useful with DDM or MDM missiles, but would greatly expand the controllable numbers of any missile type. i.e Turn control of several ACM-Bs to a Roland and the stacked salvo size goes from twenty-four MK-16Gs to hundreds of missiles -- more than a single Roland could launch, actually.

--snipping--

Weird Harold wrote:IIRC, we have seen ships control missiles launched by other ships several times. Handing control to an ACM-B wouldn't be much different than having the Flagship (or other KHII equipped ship) control an entire squadron's salvo.

NB: as proposed, and ACM-B would be able to control any Mk of RMN missile; it would be most useful with DDM or MDM missiles, but would greatly expand the controllable numbers of any missile type. i.e Turn control of several ACM-Bs to a Roland and the stacked salvo size goes from twenty-four MK-16Gs to hundreds of missiles -- more than a single Roland could launch, actually.

I like the idea of putting KH-II on a CLAC, problem being it keeps the LAC's recovery vessel in the battle space, which is not optimum. Likely there would be some battles where that would be useful, so long as the CLAC can hyper out in case someone starts tossing missiles thataway.

As a variant, I'm wondering if a Mycroft has Keyhole II control capabilities. AKA something like "drop that sucker back there a ways", use a smaller ship or ships to communicate with the Mycroft which communicates with the ACM(s) (presumably our 'B' variant which is set up so that any long range RMN missile coded to it and in "formation" can follow/lead it in ).

It's not like an FTL signal pointed away from the battling ships is going to be localized by an enemy, right? Not as quick as if it were on the forward ship(s) but hey, 64xC is still damn useful, right?

SharkHunter wrote:As a variant, I'm wondering if a Mycroft has Keyhole II control capabilities.

Since Mycroft IS a Keyhole II platform with added power and computing support modules, I suspect it does have "KHII control capabilities"

Weird Harold wrote:

Theemile wrote:The only issue is we havn't seen RMN missile RF control links hand off to a 2nd controller.

IIRC, we have seen ships control missiles launched by other ships several times. Handing control to an ACM-B wouldn't be much different than having the Flagship (or other KHII equipped ship) control an entire squadron's salvo.

NB: as proposed, and ACM-B would be able to control any Mk of RMN missile; it would be most useful with DDM or MDM missiles, but would greatly expand the controllable numbers of any missile type. i.e Turn control of several ACM-Bs to a Roland and the stacked salvo size goes from twenty-four MK-16Gs to hundreds of missiles -- more than a single Roland could launch, actually.

No, the problem isn't the FTL handofff between ships - Apollo has that covered in it's playbox. We've never seen the RF links move between control platforms. If a ship launches a missile - the ship controls the missile. For an ACM pod to work, the control links have to jump from the launching ship to the Pod launched ACM's control, or be configured prior to the launch to communicate with the ACM, and never have a wedge block the signals. Not saying it cannot happen, but it is different firing mode than we have ever seen and may not be possible.

Remember, the Apollo attack missiles are MODIFIED Mk-23s with a different firecontrol comm system to cross talk via "short" range with the ACM - forming more of a small mesh wifi (or Lifi) network, than the normal long distance 1 way control parameter update. Since they are not launching in formation with the pod ACM, would it work? Probably, but sadly, that's a David decision.

Theemile wrote:We've never seen the RF links move between control platforms. If a ship launches a missile - the ship controls the missile.
...

Shadow of Saganami
Battle of Monica wrote:Hexapuma and Aegis, with their own counter-missiles and enough from the other ships to fill all their redundant control links, destroyed two hundred and nineteen missiles in the outer zone, ripping them apart with precisely directed counter-missile kamikazes.

Yes, I know that is about counter missiles. It is however the first explicit example I turned up in a quick search.

Maya's Marksman-class cruisers are built on the philosophy of being able to pick up missiles fired by their missile ships (avalanche-class?) as the missiles catch up to and pass the Marksman ships.