Congratulations! The war is over! Now what?

Bill Woods wrote:Only if missiles have to fit in the tubes with tight tolerance. And why should they? Make the standard tube big enough to handle the biggest missile, and put expandable sabots on smaller missiles. Or kick them out sideways; any ship that has berthing for a cutter can deploy missiles through that port.

There is no Sabot possible to make a missile smaller.

Changing to a "standard" tube that can handle any type of missile means modifying every ship in your fleet and putting huge tubes in small ships for missiles they don't have the magazine space for.

Bill Woods wrote:Well, sure but if you can afford to put a port in the hull big enough to pass eight missiles and the surrounding paraphernalia of the pod, then you could afford to put enough launchers to dispense missiles in sets of eight.

The space used for eight additional launchers is space taken from your magazines. Why not use that space for pods and the additional missiles they contain?

The only drawback to pods is that you can't change the ratio of pen-aids to attack missiles because pods have to be pre-configured with a set ratio (i.e. one Dazzler, one Dragon's Teeth, One ACM, and six MK-23 attack missiles in an Apollo pod.)

With microfusion powered missiles pods also do the missile activation. Tube-activation needs all kinds of shielding and safety mechanisms, most of which is unneeded for the pod.

Tube-launched micro-fusion missiles are at a 18 second cycle rate, IIRC. At any rate, it's significantly higher than tube-launched capacitor missiles (for Manticoran missile tubes), and pod deployment rates.


Time between salvos is also an important factor. With an 18 second tube cycle rate, and a 12-second pod rate, in 2 tube launches, you would have 3 pod drops. And each pod, assuming Apollo, would have 8 shipkillers/EW plus control, which means 24 missiles and 3 controls. With tubes, you'd need 12 regular missile tubes, and 1.5 Apollo control tubes per pod deployment mechanism to match fire rates. And that assumes that Mark-23s and Apollo control missiles have the same fire rate as the DDM-launchers on the Sag-C.
If you switch to Mark-16 DDMs, with 14 missiles per pod, you'd get 42 missiles, which means you'd need 21 tubes per pod deployment mechanism.


Pods get a lot more missiles out in a shorter period of time than standard tubes


Frankly, I suspect that the primary reason for the launchers these days is not so much the imparted velocity for its own sake of velocity towards the target, but for the sake of wedge clearance requirements.

Bill Woods wrote: Only if missiles have to fit in the tubes with tight tolerance. And why should they? Make the standard tube big enough to handle the biggest missile, and put expandable sabots on smaller missiles. Or kick them out sideways; any ship that has berthing for a cutter can deploy missiles through that port.

No reason one has to have expendable sabots. Only have to have a interchangeable liner in the missile tube itself that allows the power to conduct through it. Since we have word that for the missile tubes grav drivers to work, tolerances have to be fairly tight.

Somtaaw wrote:
Well, time,control links and efficiency.

Your average CA/BC has a reload on broadside tubes of what, 6 to 8 seconds per tube? So even a Nike-class (off-bore firing excluded) is only going to be throwing 50 missiles every, say 20 seconds, from each broadside. In that same 20 seconds, you've deployed a triple pattern of 6 pods per pattern, 144 missiles (assuming Apollo) or 252 missiles (assuming BCP). Even with off-bore, a Nike class firing delayed activation double broadsides is now only pushing 100 missiles, which is still only 2/3 of what Apollo pods are putting into space.


But excluding the raw numbers, efficiency is a big issue. Your ship's travelling at 400-600 gravities, and unless you're tractoring every single missile as you float them out, they're strung out like a breadcrumb line behind you. That's going to require one helluva lot of control link time just to guide them for simultaneous Time-on-Target. Which means you're getting less time to concentrate on boosting your penaid efficiency, which means your over-sized broadside salvo's are now less efficient because you're focusing more on salvo size and less on actually hitting what you're shooting at.

Strawman? Offbore is excluded? What possible justification do you have for this Juxtaposition?

Who cares if your missiles are floating out behind? Your point on the speed of light not working behind your ship, but only in the direction you wish to fire is laughably absurd. The only information said missiles need is a coordinate. That is all. So, no, your penaid efficiency has zilch to do with a string bean.

Does this scenario have a drawback? Sure it does. Once the missiles are floated they are gone. A ship can't hold as many missiles etc. A tractored pod can hold 8-14 missiles per tractor(before tractored pods) Otherwise there is only 1 recoverable missile per tractor. Suppose pinnaces could go out and pick up unused missiles for small ships.

But from the books, not physics, the juxtaposition that the initial velocity imparted by the missile tubes/pods is required, simply does not hold. Pods are required for other reasons.

PS. If one eliminates the false pretense of the initial velocity required for the missiles, firing times for the missiles drops precipitously comparatively speaking. Therefore, the VOLUME Of fire compared to pods is the same. Of course with one jot of his mighty pen, RFC could just decrease pod deployment time...

Bill Woods wrote: Only if missiles have to fit in the tubes with tight tolerance. And why should they? Make the standard tube big enough to handle the biggest missile, and put expandable sabots on smaller missiles. Or kick them out sideways; any ship that has berthing for a cutter can deploy missiles through that port.

Relax wrote:No reason one has to have expendable sabots. Only have to have a interchangeable liner in the missile tube itself that allows the power to conduct through it. Since we have word that for the missile tubes grav drivers to work, tolerances have to be fairly tight.

No reason to do either:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/175/1
Capital missiles, multi-stage missiles, and missile pods
Note that an MSM launcher can fire a smaller missile, although the smaller launchers cannot fire MSMs.

So you won't need either a sabat or a sleeve for a SD to fire a BC missile out of it's capital missile tube. Another example would be the ability to fire a Mk-23 missile out of a tube built for an Apollo control missile.

I don't know if there is a lower limit to this or not. Theoretically, an apollo missile tube could fire a single counter missile, and they use CM canisters because that allows them to fire 3, 4, or 5 CM's from one tube.

My guess, however, is that we are looking at a lower limit about 1/2 the size of the upper limit. An apollo tube would be able to fire a Mk-23 but not a Mk-16, a Mk-23 tube would be able to fire a a Mk-16 but not a DD missile, etc.

The bigger missile tube does take up more space, so it would not make sense to put a bigger tube than you need. For example, a Harrington C class might have 24 Mk-23 tubes and 6 Apollo tubes. It takes a hit that damages 3 Mk-23 tubes, it can fire M-23's out of half it's apollo tubes.

kzt wrote:

Loren Pechtel wrote:Spider drive--stealthy but Oyster Bay was a one-shot. Now that they realize there can be a threat without wedges it's unlikely to get through.

The graser torpedoes--basically a super-warhead missile. To be of any use you have to get a missile through in the first place.

Using a DD squadron I can tie down at least 1/2 of the RMN by sending them out to respond to events a few light months out. And if the RMN isn't willing to dedicate many hundreds of light to heavy warships to perimeter control then they will get their head handed to them again.

Let's say I have a freighter that exits hyper heading for the WHJ. It takes 4 hours to reach it, during which time the crew unloads 20 graser torps. Which very slowly head in the direction of the main fleet anchorage...

The graser torps wouldn't get through. They know the danger now, they feel they can find them. All the MA would accomplish is to waste a ship. (It wouldn't have time to cycle it's hyper generator before it ate missiles.)

Somtaaw wrote:But excluding the raw numbers, efficiency is a big issue. Your ship's travelling at 400-600 gravities, and unless you're tractoring every single missile as you float them out, they're strung out like a breadcrumb line behind you. That's going to require one helluva lot of control link time just to guide them for simultaneous Time-on-Target. Which means you're getting less time to concentrate on boosting your penaid efficiency, which means your over-sized broadside salvo's are now less efficient because you're focusing more on salvo size and less on actually hitting what you're shooting at.

Milliseconds of CPU time will tell you by how much to spread out the activations in order to get a time on target attack.

Note, also, that another ship design comes to mind: Put some special tubes in the back of the ship. They're not standard launch tubes but rather meant to drop missiles at a much higher rate because they work with a continuous feed system. No kick, they're just dropped in space.

To use it you can't be heading too directly towards your target as the missiles have to end up spaced beyond fratricide range.

darrell wrote:
No reason to do either:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/175/1
Capital missiles, multi-stage missiles, and missile pods
Note that an MSM launcher can fire a smaller missile, although the smaller launchers cannot fire MSMs.

Your link says nothing of the sort.

And yes, we know there is a tolerance band for size. For instance CA's missile tubes have different sized missiles they can fire, but for instance older CA's could not fire the LERM at Monica. SoSAG (Could be a length issue, not a diameter issue) Just says, "Not big enough to..."

Since then, the missiles diameters etc have been effectively cannonized RFC via MaxxQ's drawings with RFC's explicit endorsement.

Loren Pechtel wrote:
The graser torps wouldn't get through. They know the danger now, they feel they can find them.

Ok, how are they going to do this? It's the size of a LAC and at least 10 times more stealthy. They can't detect the drive, they can't detect it with active sensors, they can't detect it with grav sensors and it has already evaded the perimeter security. The MA's detection range is a light second, and that was done by people who deeply understood the stealth systems and drive.

Relax wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:
Well, time,control links and efficiency.

Your average CA/BC has a reload on broadside tubes of what, 6 to 8 seconds per tube? So even a Nike-class (off-bore firing excluded) is only going to be throwing 50 missiles every, say 20 seconds, from each broadside. In that same 20 seconds, you've deployed a triple pattern of 6 pods per pattern, 144 missiles (assuming Apollo) or 252 missiles (assuming BCP). Even with off-bore, a Nike class firing delayed activation double broadsides is now only pushing 100 missiles, which is still only 2/3 of what Apollo pods are putting into space.


But excluding the raw numbers, efficiency is a big issue. Your ship's travelling at 400-600 gravities, and unless you're tractoring every single missile as you float them out, they're strung out like a breadcrumb line behind you. That's going to require one helluva lot of control link time just to guide them for simultaneous Time-on-Target. Which means you're getting less time to concentrate on boosting your penaid efficiency, which means your over-sized broadside salvo's are now less efficient because you're focusing more on salvo size and less on actually hitting what you're shooting at.

Strawman? Offbore is excluded? What possible justification do you have for this Juxtaposition?

Read more carefully then, I did a sample of both off-bore excluded and included for analysis purposes. A Nike class can fire essentially "quadruple" broadsides, which in actuality is a delayed double broadside, from both broadsides, 50 broadside tubes doubled is 100 missiles. Which is exactly what I pointed out, any other ship all the way back to the CL Fearless could do delayed activation double broadsides, you still can't push out missiles as fast as pods do. The only ships that could, were missile heavy superdreadnoughts, that in a single launch could put 60 missiles into space, which means Gryphon's and maybe Sphinx class and that's it, maybe one of the Andermani SD's could we never got a detailed count of how many their "missile heavy" design had for tubes.

Relax wrote:Who cares if your missiles are floating out behind? Your point on the speed of light not working behind your ship, but only in the direction you wish to fire is laughably absurd. The only information said missiles need is a coordinate. That is all. So, no, your penaid efficiency has zilch to do with a string bean.

And you should care about missiles being strong along. You're accelerating at 500 gravities, and if you release one missile per tube every 12 seconds, how far are your missiles strung along? I don't have a handy spreadsheet for this, so if my math is wrong please forgive, but it looks to be around every 416m you'd be leaving a missile? Can someone confirm that number?

And that's still assuming that floating your missiles out doesn't get them vaporized by your own wedge as you keep accelerating. Unless you're accelerating 180 degrees AWAY from your intended target, and you're only dropping missiles for a short time, you can no longer guarantee getting 100% of your SDMs to even reach attack range with time left for terminal maneuvers or deceptive attack runs.

Now if we're talking just kicking MDM's out of the tubes, you're completely right, stringing them along as fast as you can cycle your tubes won't matter to something with anywhere from two to four full drive packages. You can use multiple drives to get them all accelerating into a group, then go ballistic and reserve final drives for their terminals.