Defensive pods

So you are going to deploy more CMs when they already can deploy more than they can control? Or is this supposed to include long range sensors, FTL data relays, enormous computer capability, an ECCM suite, dozens of fire control links and a partridge in a pear tree?

kzt wrote:So you are going to deploy more CMs when they already can deploy more than they can control? Or is this supposed to include long range sensors, FTL data relays, enormous computer capability, an ECCM suite, dozens of fire control links and a partridge in a pear tree?

Did you read the first post or are you going to repeatedly assume I am proposing to make mobile CM canisters?

Rakhmamort wrote:

kzt wrote:So you are going to deploy more CMs when they already can deploy more than they can control? Or is this supposed to include long range sensors, FTL data relays, enormous computer capability, an ECCM suite, dozens of fire control links and a partridge in a pear tree?

Did you read the first post or are you going to repeatedly assume I am proposing to make mobile CM canisters?

If I understand correctly, you're proposing the using the kind of ECM/EW equipment like that employed on Dazzlers in a defensive role, jamming and disrupting the sensors on inbound attack missiles. And mounting that equipment on a drone the size of a missile pod?


A large part of the problem is the terminology you're using has a different meaning that what you apparently think you're using it to mean.
"CM" means "countermissile" - as in the anti-missile missiles. If I understand correctly, you are proposing a new kind of anti-missile platform something like a decoy drone with significant missile sensor jamming and disruption capability that is the approximate size and shape of a missile pod.

Kytheros wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:
Did you read the first post or are you going to repeatedly assume I am proposing to make mobile CM canisters?

If I understand correctly, you're proposing the using the kind of ECM/EW equipment like that employed on Dazzlers in a defensive role, jamming and disrupting the sensors on inbound attack missiles. And mounting that equipment on a drone the size of a missile pod?


A large part of the problem is the terminology you're using has a different meaning that what you apparently think you're using it to mean.
"CM" means "countermissile" - as in the anti-missile missiles. If I understand correctly, you are proposing a new kind of anti-missile platform something like a decoy drone with significant missile sensor jamming and disruption capability that is the approximate size and shape of a missile pod.

Eh lots f other people in the tread started talking about CMs and CM pods. But Rakhmamort didn't. He seems to have consistently talked about free flying pods launching dazzlers to screw up income missile's sensors.

I think there are still significant issues with both the concept and with the degree of minaturization he thinks is possible on the components to make a pod free flying. But he never (that I can see) said those dazzlers used defensively were "CMs".

Kytheros wrote:
If I understand correctly, you're proposing the using the kind of ECM/EW equipment like that employed on Dazzlers in a defensive role, jamming and disrupting the sensors on inbound attack missiles. And mounting that equipment on a drone the size of a missile pod?

You misunderstood just about everything.
1) The defensive pod isn't going to have the Dazzler capabilities. It will launch single drive missile with Dazzler warheads.
2) The defensive pod is going to be half the size of a standard MDM pod. It will only contain 4 single drive Dazzlers instead of 10 MDMs (or 8 MDMs plus an ACM).
3) Yes, Ghost Rider drone technology (as of Battle of Elric) will be incorporated into the pod.

A large part of the problem is the terminology you're using has a different meaning that what you apparently think you're using it to mean.
"CM" means "countermissile" - as in the anti-missile missiles. If I understand correctly, you are proposing a new kind of anti-missile platform something like a decoy drone with significant missile sensor jamming and disruption capability that is the approximate size and shape of a missile pod.

I have never mismatched terminologies. I only discussed counter-missiles in this thread because other people keep insisting that the pods I am proposing are going to launch counter-missiles. They are not, there's already an existing platform for that.

---
I really don't see why this defensive pod is not plausible. The only 'new' thing here is the pod being mobile. It's an engineering problem. Recon drones are mobile, so why can't pods be designed to be mobile?

Bottom line, the pod can be built. It's only convincing BuWeaps why they should build the pod and I've already pointed out some reasons why these pods would be very useful in the upcoming war with the SLN.

Jonathan_S wrote:Eh lots f other people in the tread started talking about CMs and CM pods. But Rakhmamort didn't. He seems to have consistently talked about free flying pods launching dazzlers to screw up income missile's sensors.

I think there are still significant issues with both the concept and with the degree of minaturization he thinks is possible on the components to make a pod free flying. But he never (that I can see) said those dazzlers used defensively were "CMs".

Thank you for keeping track of what is being said and who is saying them.

As for the problems of making a pod mobile, I already said it's just an engineering problem. Recon drones are mobile. They were even fitted with nukes to take out Haven's control platforms. I know pods are bigger than recon drones, even the half pod size I am envisioning for these defensive pods. However, I've already pointed out that the Dazzlers that will be used are single drive ones. The space savings from using 4 single drive missiles instead of 5 MDMs (half the complement of a non Apollo pod) would be more than enough to fit in the necessary drive module/s to make the pod mobile (especially if you consider the removal of the 5th mass driver to launch the 'missing' 5th MDM).

Rakhmamort wrote:. The space savings from using 4 single drive missiles instead of 5 MDMs (half the complement of a non Apollo pod) would be more than enough to fit in the necessary drive module/s to make the pod mobile (especially if you consider the removal of the 5th mass driver to launch the 'missing' 5th MDM).

There is a geometry issue that you are ignoring. Pods are not shaped like impeller drive vessels and nodes have to be extended out of the surface of the object. So I'm not saying this can't possibly fit in the pod bay, but it's not trivial.

And blowing up tracking of missiles at range doesn't help. They are still pointed at the target and will reacquire it, as they know exactly where they are based on the guidance telemetry. If they are using a FTL guidance module they will have a near-real time model of where stuff is that is hard to break up due to the inability of that target to maneuver far enough and you not knowing exactly what their model is.

kzt wrote:There is a geometry issue that you are ignoring. Pods are not shaped like impeller drive vessels and nodes have to be extended out of the surface of the object. So I'm not saying this can't possibly fit in the pod bay, but it's not trivial.

As I said, it's just engineering. I don't know how big the pod's propulsion equipment should be but I believe RC drive modules would be good enough for the defensive pod. The pod does not need to have very high acceleration, just fast enough to get into position and maintain formation with the ship/s it is defending.

And blowing up tracking of missiles at range doesn't help. They are still pointed at the target and will reacquire it, as they know exactly where they are based on the guidance telemetry.

If the Elric picket using the ghost rider drone technology was able to spoof a lot of Haven's missiles WITHOUT the help of Dazzlers, then I'm sure combining the two would yield a better result. Especially against an opponent that still does not have the fire control to handle fighting at MDM ranges.

If they are using a FTL guidance module they will have a near-real time model of where stuff is that is hard to break up due to the inability of that target to maneuver far enough and you not knowing exactly what their model is.

I did say it is going to be useful at the start of the war with the SLN. The SLN don't have FTL control links yet. We don't know when they'll develop it.
Using Apollo against teh SLN is overkill. Using the newest tech against the SLN at this point is counterproductive especially since the war making resources of the Manticorian and Grayson navies are wrecked. It is easier to build facilities that will produce not so top of the line technologies than build for something that is going to produce cutting edge components.

One question.
What type of defensive pofs are we talking here?

System defense pods to take on ships?

CM defense pods for fleet action?

CM defense pods for system defence?

Because I could see a use for that last one in a larger/important system.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Rakhmamort wrote:

Kytheros wrote:
If I understand correctly, you're proposing the using the kind of ECM/EW equipment like that employed on Dazzlers in a defensive role, jamming and disrupting the sensors on inbound attack missiles. And mounting that equipment on a drone the size of a missile pod?

You misunderstood just about everything.
1) The defensive pod isn't going to have the Dazzler capabilities. It will launch single drive missile with Dazzler warheads.
2) The defensive pod is going to be half the size of a standard MDM pod. It will only contain 4 single drive Dazzlers instead of 10 MDMs (or 8 MDMs plus an ACM).
3) Yes, Ghost Rider drone technology (as of Battle of Elric) will be incorporated into the pod.

A large part of the problem is the terminology you're using has a different meaning that what you apparently think you're using it to mean.
"CM" means "countermissile" - as in the anti-missile missiles. If I understand correctly, you are proposing a new kind of anti-missile platform something like a decoy drone with significant missile sensor jamming and disruption capability that is the approximate size and shape of a missile pod.

I have never mismatched terminologies. I only discussed counter-missiles in this thread because other people keep insisting that the pods I am proposing are going to launch counter-missiles. They are not, there's already an existing platform for that.

---
I really don't see why this defensive pod is not plausible. The only 'new' thing here is the pod being mobile. It's an engineering problem. Recon drones are mobile, so why can't pods be designed to be mobile?

Bottom line, the pod can be built. It's only convincing BuWeaps why they should build the pod and I've already pointed out some reasons why these pods would be very useful in the upcoming war with the SLN.

Pod mobility isn't really a new thing. Pods are already mobile. The degree to which they are mobile *might* be a new thing, if you wish to define it that way.

The pods currently used by the RMN (and even the older pods) all have RCS thrusters. These are required to spread the pods out after being deployed and to align them on the attack axis. However, you state later that you wish for them to be able to maintain stationkeeping with the ship they are to protect, and that brings up other cans of worms. It would definitely need an impeller drive, which requires certain design considerations. These considerations *may* make it difficult to design a pod like you describe that could work with standard pod-launching equipment (as BuNine has defined it).

Also, even half a pod (flatpack) is nearly twice the size of a standard Star Knight/Fearless recon drone (which is the most current drone we have blocked-out at the moment), so these half-pods will absolutely need to be launched from pod bays. As the bays are designed now, this may be difficult to do (note, I said difficult, not impossible) while still maintaining a standard attack missile loadout. Forex, look at the following three images for the Agamemnon:

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -487154356

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -486663899

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/A ... -486663893

That pod arrangement makes it difficult to swap out one pod for another, although there is provision to get the outer layer of pods onto the inner launch rails, as well as transferring from damaged rails to operational ones. But the question is: where do you place these defensive missile pods? I suppose you could seed one per four-pod salvo, but how many ship commanders would be willing to give up 25% of their attack capability for defensive missiles such as these?

Or, you could only have the defensive pods at the aft end of the bay (first pods launched, then placed in position before you get to the attack missile pods), except if you need to get your attack missiles out Right Now!

Don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to shoot down your thoughts on this. I'm just trying to work through the ways that it *might* work, but there are other things to take into consideration. Oh, and SD(P)s don't have much more room in the bays than BC(P)s. They're packed as tightly as the Aggie's bays.

OTOH, David has hinted at new podlayer designs that might be able to do what you want fairly easily. I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine on what these new designs might look like, as I haven't seen or heard what he has in mind (no, I don't get to see everything).