Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests

Stupid Apollo Tricks

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by drinksmuchcoffee   » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:29 pm

drinksmuchcoffee
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:51 am

kit wrote:...
Edit: You should also keep in mind that a sidewinder missile circa 1958 using really simple electronics is perfectly capable of calculating in real time an intercept course against a jet fighter that can maneuver much more effectively than a Honorverse missile can. It isn't computationally complex and doesn't require the Honorverse bank of computers to guide it.


Yes, but from the textev, info dumps, and other threads in this forum it is clear that counter missiles in the honorverse are not fire-and-forget. Control channels are required to guide counter missiles to their targets. That's why they don't use counter missile pods to launch enough counter missiles to stop the titanic missile salvos being thrown about.

Edit: Yes, in 1958 we had air-to-air missiles that could intercept jet fighters. Even so, in 2016 it is still an enormous technical challenge to design a reliable anti missile that has a decent chance of intercepting an inbound ICBM, which can't even maneuver at all. Closing velocity does matter.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by Joat42   » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:49 pm

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

drinksmuchcoffee wrote:
kit wrote:...
Edit: You should also keep in mind that a sidewinder missile circa 1958 using really simple electronics is perfectly capable of calculating in real time an intercept course against a jet fighter that can maneuver much more effectively than a Honorverse missile can. It isn't computationally complex and doesn't require the Honorverse bank of computers to guide it.


Yes, but from the textev, info dumps, and other threads in this forum it is clear that counter missiles in the honorverse are not fire-and-forget. Control channels are required to guide counter missiles to their targets. That's why they don't use counter missile pods to launch enough counter missiles to stop the titanic missile salvos being thrown about.

Edit: Yes, in 1958 we had air-to-air missiles that could intercept jet fighters. Even so, in 2016 it is still an enormous technical challenge to design a reliable anti missile that has a decent chance of intercepting an inbound ICBM, which can't even maneuver at all. Closing velocity does matter.

Add to that all the ECM going on and it gets even more difficult.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by kzt   » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:53 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

No, we and the Soviets had perfectly effective ABMs in the 60s. The Russians still do. They deployed theirs to protect Moscow, we decided to protect the middle of North Dakota. It's that the US government decided that we couldn't use nukes that makes this hard.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by cthia   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 11:36 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Weird Harold wrote:
cthia wrote:Utilizing ballistically launched Apollo missiles as sheep herders - forcing your enemy into a particular region of space.


A missile in its ballistic phase is almost untrackable. How is your enemy going to know you're herding him?

In one of the books it stated that launching ballistically made the enemy alter its vector to respect the launch. No one was going to remain affixed to the same vector in the face of a ballistic launch.

The missiles could be made to "leak" position intermittently.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:23 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8793
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:
A missile in its ballistic phase is almost untrackable. How is your enemy going to know you're herding him?

In one of the books it stated that launching ballistically made the enemy alter its vector to respect the launch. No one was going to remain affixed to the same vector in the face of a ballistic launch.

The missiles could be made to "leak" position intermittently.
First, that's more for non-MDMs. At any range the MDM is controllable there's enough reach on the final drive to overcome any course change the enemy can make during it's flight - changing course isn't an effective evasion technique. With SDMs/EDMs they can change course by as little as a couple degrees and pass outside of the laserhead's standoff range - because the missiles have no ability to manouver after their drive shuts down.

So there's no assurance that an enemy will alter course due to an MDM ballistic segment - since they can't get out of it's engagement basket anyway.

but even if they do, making them change course is one thing, driving them where you want them is another. If we assume they'll course changes in 90 degree increments they've still got 5 degrees of freedom to choose from - turn 90 degrees away, or towards, or up, or down, or pull a 180 and reverse course. The number of missiles it would take to successfully herd them somewhere would seem to exceed the number it take to just kill them.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by drinksmuchcoffee   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:02 pm

drinksmuchcoffee
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:51 am

kit wrote:...
See the drawing of a lasing rod that was in one of the books. Look at the size of the grav sensor shown. So no, the CMs have the grav sensor on them.


Counter missiles do not have lasing rods. They use their impeller wedge to "sweep" up inbound missiles.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:26 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8793
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

drinksmuchcoffee wrote:
kit wrote:...
See the drawing of a lasing rod that was in one of the books. Look at the size of the grav sensor shown. So no, the CMs have the grav sensor on them.


Counter missiles do not have lasing rods. They use their impeller wedge to "sweep" up inbound missiles.

I'm fairly confident kzt was pointing out that s lasing rod is smaller diameter than a CM; so if the book called out a grav sensor on a little individual lasing rod that it would be inconceivable if the larger nose of a CM to lack one.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by kzt   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:12 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

cthia wrote:In one of the books it stated that launching ballistically made the enemy alter its vector to respect the launch. No one was going to remain affixed to the same vector in the face of a ballistic launch.

The missiles could be made to "leak" position intermittently.

The missile has a running fusion reactor and no wedge in which to magically dump the waste heat. It's going to be visible optically...
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by drinksmuchcoffee   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:52 pm

drinksmuchcoffee
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:51 am

Jonathan_S wrote:...
I'm fairly confident kzt was pointing out that s lasing rod is smaller diameter than a CM; so if the book called out a grav sensor on a little individual lasing rod that it would be inconceivable if the larger nose of a CM to lack one.


From http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/160/1

Most importantly, perhaps, the sheer size of the drives required to produce the needed performance preclude packing the bird with lots and lots of really sensitive and smart homing systems. Obviously, the CM has at least some homing capability, but it is inherently short-ranged. Think of it as myopic, if you will. In order to get any really useful PK numbers, each CM requires external guidance from something which has much better sensors and much better ability to penetrate defensive ECM--i.e., the fire control systems of the ship which launched it. This limits the number of intercepts to the number the launching vessel has "channels" to control. Once the CM reaches a range at which its shorter-ranged, more simple-minded onboard systems have secured a high confidence lock on its target, it hands itself off to onboard control, releasing the fire control link to the main ship (and, incidentally, giving missile defense a much better handle on threat assessment, since the CM won't hand itself off unless the PK has reached certain parameters stored in its onboard computers, and in the RMN, those parameters basically specify about an 80% PK). Until and unless a CM disengages itself, the launching ship either controls it clear to target or decides when it will disengage, leaving the CM to its own devices, in order to pick up and control a fresh CM.


and from http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/162/1

The nature of the CM itself only adds to the problem, because its onboard target seeking is much less sophisticated than that of a shipkiller. It needs more control for the intercept because the sheer size and power of the impeller drive engineered into it puts too much squeeze on its (much smaller to begin with) internal volume to permit the same self-targeting ability as a shipkiller and its targets are already harder to lock up (courtesy of all the penaids loaded into them, decoys, small size of target, etc.) than the target the more capable shipkiller is looking for to begin with. So you have greater need than ever for fire control from some more sophisticated platform, but the greater the numbers of CMs you send downrange, the more that control ability is restricted.


That of course doesn't mean that a CM wouldn't have a grav sensor. It just means that any such sensor is myopic and short-ranged. Counter missiles need active guidance in order to have a reasonable PK.
Top
Re: Stupid Apollo Tricks
Post by Relax   » Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:55 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

The problem of CM's in the Honorverse is roughly the same as intercepting ballistic missiles are today. And no, it is not the velocity as "THE" problem. Rather the problem is sensor based. KNOWING the vector of the incoming object. Rather, the accuracy of that vector is the problem. This is where the velocity comes in. Since there are always errors in the real world, the time alloted to fix the errors in your sensor sampling, shrinks.

If sensors were perfect, velocity would not matter at all.

PS. It is impossible for a CM with a single point of reference to obtain a vector of an incoming missile and intercept. It can ONLY home. Weaving can help here on earth for such intercepts such as torpedos where the velocities are slow compared to the weave pattern amplitude time constant. In space there is no medium in which to work against. We would still be looking at pico arc seconds of difference at the immense ranges MDM's and CM's go autonomous.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top

Return to Honorverse