Hybrid missile/Graser Torp

kzt wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Re: Spider drive graser torpedo.
ISTR that Spider Drive Graser Torpedoes are larger than missile pods. Partly because they still require a ton of capacitor space.

I think they are more LAC sized than missile or missile pod sized. The graser alone is like 3000 tons, which is roughly in the scale of an RMN MK23 pod.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Thanks. Do you remember if there was any discussion of the output of the micro-fusion plant vs. a regular plant, or how either relate to the fission plants? I think Cthia is looking for "unstoppable MA tech advances" but it is hard to tell sometimes.

Rob

I suppose it is hard to tell with me sometimes Rob. Because of my brain's wiring. My Apology. ::shrug::

Oftentimes, my thoughts are so progressive and operating at such breakneck speeds, I need to let the plot settle in my own head, so that I can catch up to myself. Oftentimes my notions come to me in the midst of entertaining and many other daily demands on my time that I even lose track of the notion or thread in my head. I play chess a lot, and I've a habit of looking so many moves into the future. If I don't, I'll never be able to stop my niece from whacking my ass in 3D chess and continue to hold my own on a flat board. We've always been a chess playing family. "It keeps your brain sharp," my great grandfather says my great great grandfather said. There has never been a case of Alzheimers in my family. Make of that what you will.

I'm not only looking for unstoppable tech, but unprecedented tech, practicality and efficiency in design that the MA can bring to the table. Sometimes it is the little things, or the unforeseen advances in tech that can make a huge difference in -- or even win -- a war. Micro power plant technology in the MAs hands could allow unexpected iterations of their tech. Much like the GR program was ever-changing. As far as practicality, a lot of the MA tech seems to be impractical. Like the first iteration of the graser torps, iinm, were so slow and cumbersome in their deployment -- albeit from a jury rigged setup -- that it left them so exposed, for it to be practical.

If they ever get to the point where they can deploy their tech practically, it'll increase their effectiveness by dramatically increasing their logistics, tactics and overall strategy.

P.S. I always thought we've failed to consider possible MA battle doctrine. For example, why can't MA tubes be designed to be much much bigger to be able to launch much larger ordnance?

They may not have so much other tech fighting for elbow room on their ship's outer skin, like CM tubes, escape pods or several boat bays.

No escape pods because their crew have orders to escape to Valhalla if cornered. "You'll take no prisoners, 'coppers!'".

cthia wrote:P.S. I always thought we've failed to consider possible MA battle doctrine. For example, why can't MA tubes be designed to be much much bigger to be able to launch much larger ordnance?

We were explicitly told that they are -- or at least that the Lenny Det's have the ability to launch the giant graser torps from internal launchers. Which would be a damned lot larger tube

I don't know whether they also have oversized missile tubs (which would still vastly smaller the GT tubes) to let them tube launch a full up Cataphract or other oversized missile. (Heck, since they are also pod layers they might not have any offensive missile tubes; and just use their pods)

Jonathan_S wrote:SNIP

Just wondering did you see my reply? I know 4 days late... but I did it.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:P.S. I always thought we've failed to consider possible MA battle doctrine. For example, why can't MA tubes be designed to be much much bigger to be able to launch much larger ordnance?

We were explicitly told that they are -- or at least that the Lenny Det's have the ability to launch the giant graser torps from internal launchers. Which would be a damned lot larger tube

I don't know whether they also have oversized missile tubs (which would still vastly smaller the GT tubes) to let them tube launch a full up Cataphract or other oversized missile. (Heck, since they are also pod layers they might not have any offensive missile tubes; and just use their pods)

Thanks for the memo. Where'd the wise Wizard avail us of that info?

I was thinking that the Lenny Dets would undoubtedly have to be the one warship to incorporate everything they'd learned thus far, of course. I can't help but recall the discussion upstream within the Onion - the smaller, more significant Detweiler Onion, that is -- about not yet breaking the secret of micro power plant technology. Though unspoken, I got the feeling the implications are undoubtedly across the board.

If the Lenny's are already tube firing them, what will a breakthrough in power plant technology mean for the Lennys? It's a rhetorical question lacking so much input, but one has to wonder.

Aren't you all wondering about the Lennys? They're coming, ya know.

A podlayer that has no tubes? Is there such a mythical beast in GA folklore?

cthia wrote:
A podlayer that has no tubes? Is there such a mythical beast in GA folklore?

Yes, they are called Agamemmons and Invicti. While Grayson included some shipkiller tubes in their 2nd gen podpaughts, Manticore did not, in favor of larger pod bays.

BTW, Havenite podnaughts have no shipkiller tubes, nor is there any reference of Andermani podnaughts carrying (or not carrying) missile tubes.

All of course, have CM tubes.

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:If the missiles were always capable of flexibly choosing different accelerations for each drive then we're confronted with virtually every engagement we've ever seem both sides used sub-optimal acceleration profiles. Setting all 3 drives to low acceleration isn't the best profile until the range is in excess of 70 million km.

Finally had time: Sorry took so long:
In short: A screw up with no solution.

If what you say is true, and DW's forums words are true, then the actors in the stories are still blithering idiots who have never run the full set of numbers as AAC Zanzibar through Lovat it is ALL faster to target by using MAX power settings on 2 stages, then go ballistic and then come on with 3rd stage on FULL accel giving far superior CM envelope penetration!!!

It is only the ~~~42Mkm~58Mkm range where one needs 2 high settings and 1 end low setting, or 2 low settings and end with 1 high setting and then one can come in only **slightly** slower if one gives a slightly higher ballistic time but obtains superior CM envelope penetration. Anything under 42Mkm should ALWAYS have 2 full power settings, ballistic, followed by 3rd full power setting to target adhereing to the "once set" all 3 stages are set theory .

There is no way to square this in the story canon other than the simple: Author only has one brain and 'x' hours in the day/week/month/year to play with numbers.

Or, as I stated, it's possible that Honor and BuWeaps were overoptimistic and the production missiles never had this hoped for capability.

And technically Honor never quite says explicitly that the drives can be independently programmed.
"We can preprogram the drives to come on-line with any timing and at any power setting we wish!" might mean that the 3 drives can be set to the same single power setting they wish; rather than 3 different power settings.

Her two examples where range is given are all full power and all half power.

"we can get even more than that if we use one or two 'stages' to accelerate the weapon, let it ride a ballistic course to a preprogrammed attack range, and then bring up the final 'stage' for terminal attack maneuvers at a full ninety-two thousand gravities." doesn't actually say the first one or two stages are at half power - so she might be thinking full power, full power, coast, full power.

But I agree that I'd originally understood that to allow flexible power settings.

And yet it only took me 20 years to get around to crunching the numbers in my thread "On MDM flight profiles" viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8922 to realize that if that was true everyone had been misusing MDMs. I was calculating for minimum time to target and yes, up to 41 million km H-H-L is the fastest MDM profile (even though it requires you coast several million km).

Arguably in some cases you might care more about terminal velocity than time to target. It might be interesting to recalculate and figure out the best profile for that at each range and see where it differs (and by how much) from time to target.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:We were explicitly told that they are -- or at least that the Lenny Det's have the ability to launch the giant graser torps from internal launchers. Which would be a damned lot larger tube

I don't know whether they also have oversized missile tubs (which would still vastly smaller the GT tubes) to let them tube launch a full up Cataphract or other oversized missile. (Heck, since they are also pod layers they might not have any offensive missile tubes; and just use their pods)

Thanks for the memo. Where'd the wise Wizard avail us of that info?

Book 12 - At All Costs

At All Costs wrote:The first wave of each attack consisted of a weapon which was as much a fundamental breakthrough, in its own way, as the Manticoran introduction of the multidrive missile: a graser torpedo which used its own variant of the spider drive. It was a large and cumbersome weapon, with the same trilateral symmetry as the Shark-class ships which had launched it, and for the same reasons.
The torpedo’s size made fitting it into magazines and actually firing it awkward, to say the least, and the Sharks had never been intended to deploy it operationally. For that matter, the Sharks themselves had never been supposed to be deployed “operationally.” The Leonard Detweiler class, which had been intended to carry out this operation, had been designed with magazines and launch tubes which would make it possible to stow and fire torpedoes internally, but none of the Detweilers were even close to completion, and it had required the development of an ingenious external rack system to allow the Sharks to use it for Oyster Bay.

(emphasis added)

Jonathan_S wrote:SNIP

My point, was not the perfect optimum, but the fact that H-H-B-H is still superior for T-to-T than L-L-L

Making the "fix" all drives when launch logic: FALSE

As this would make all the actors idiots(RMN/RHN) for the entire series. In short, there is no way possible to make the actors look good by "fixing" drive settings.

In other words, there is no reason to ret-con the books as it cannot be fixed. It is just a:
OOPS!

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:SNIP

My point, was not the perfect optimum, but the fact that H-H-B-H is still superior for T-to-T than L-L-L

Making the "fix" all drives when launch logic: FALSE

As this would make all the actors idiots(RMN/RHN) for the entire series. In short, there is no way possible to make the actors look good by "fixing" drive settings.

In other words, there is no reason to ret-con the books as it cannot be fixed. It is just a:
OOPS!

Oops, I'd missed that point you'd been making.

I'd have to go look through the books for any examples where MDM combat started at less than 41 million km; I'd thought it was more commonly kicked off at around 50-55 (out of a powered range of 65). At that range L-L-L is better than H-H-H; though not as good as a "mixed" drive setting.

Jonathan_S wrote:Oops, I'd missed that point you'd been making.

I'd have to go look through the books for any examples where MDM combat started at less than 41 million km; I'd thought it was more commonly kicked off at around 50-55 (out of a powered range of 65). At that range L-L-L is better than H-H-H; though not as good as a "mixed" drive setting.

There is not a single battle before end of Lovat where Honor were limited by BCP's firing DDM Mk-16 which had a range greater than 40Mkm. Though one did happen "off screen" at Zanzibar at extreme range.