A new Honorverse Ship Type ?

Jonathan_S wrote:

JDredd wrote:While thinking about HH ships while rereading the series it occurred to me that we are missing an obvious shiptype, an anti missile podnaught ! I know all about LAC's being quickly and easily built but they take a lot of manpower for each ship.

An AM(p) (I know had to call it something) would have the manpower requirements of a BC(P) or less, probably a lot less. I was thinking of the cannisters that Haven threw out of main missile tubes in one of the earlier books, forget which one, and it occurred to me that they could use those cannisters or something bigger with more missiles (Mk31's +) in and just drop loads of pods around their fleet. They could be pushed further out when defending an area and if they built the hulls on something small and fast could still be used in fleet actions, they drop their pods and leggit

Just a thought

To date David Weber has been against pods for CM missiles. However it is possible that events at Galton might cause him to have the RMN change their minds about that.

Still, with the exception of the CLAC (and maybe the Roland) he's had the RMN committed to keeping their warships multi-purpose; so there really aren't any dedicated anti-missile escorts. Turning an entire BC sized vessel into one would be a major deviation from their established policy. (Which doesn't necessarily means it's a horrible idea -- though you'd want to make sure it wasn't ever detached for independent duty. I guess you'd basically change the composition of SD(P) squadrons to add one or two of your AM(P)s as permanent parts of the squadron)

Perhaps the time simply wasn't ripe for RMN use. Especially considering all of their other breakthroughs. And would those CM pods need control links and FTL?

It makes sense that the MA adopted them to counter the insane number of missiles the GA tend to toss around. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I've been wondering when/if the CM pod would make an appearance for years.

It's a logical progression and defensive counter- if offensive missile volley densities are vastly increased by pods, then why not use the same concept for defensive missiles?

A dedicated defensive unit using CM pods isn't necessary and, as previously pointed out, is contrary to Manty naval doctrine. Just trade off some of the offensive payload of the pod layers for defensive CM pods. CM pods don't have to be the size of the Apollo or even Mk16 pods. Both are huge missiles and CM's aren't nearly as big. Even if the CM pods are big enough to result in a trade ratio of 3 CM pods for every 2 offensive pods, you're talking about a LOT more missiles per pod, too. How many CMs could be in a CM pod the size of a Mk23 flatpak or a Mk16 pod? 20? 30? 40? More?

The control link issue is still there- but why not control through the pod and let the pod order its' missiles around? One ship side link per pod and then the pod sends the orders to the individual missiles. If they can develop the Apollo control missile, then a control module for something the size of a pod shouldn't be an issue.

jtg452 wrote:I've been wondering when/if the CM pod would make an appearance for years.

It's a logical progression and defensive counter- if offensive missile volley densities are vastly increased by pods, then why not use the same concept for defensive missiles?

A dedicated defensive unit using CM pods isn't necessary and, as previously pointed out, is contrary to Manty naval doctrine. Just trade off some of the offensive payload of the pod layers for defensive CM pods. CM pods don't have to be the size of the Apollo or even Mk16 pods. Both are huge missiles and CM's aren't nearly as big. Even if the CM pods are big enough to result in a trade ratio of 3 CM pods for every 2 offensive pods, you're talking about a LOT more missiles per pod, too. How many CMs could be in a CM pod the size of a Mk23 flatpak or a Mk16 pod? 20? 30? 40? More?

The control link issue is still there- but why not control through the pod and let the pod order its' missiles around? One ship side link per pod and then the pod sends the orders to the individual missiles. If they can develop the Apollo control missile, then a control module for something the size of a pod shouldn't be an issue.

Though one possible complication is the Apollo control missile is directing 8 other missiles at the same target -- while a pod sending a similar cluster of CMs after a single inbound missile is far too likely to result in CMs committing mutual wedge fratricide. You normally need more CMs so you can target more individual incoming missiles -- rather than trying to throw half a dozen or more CMs all simultaneously after the same missile.

Spreading fire, it seems to me, would be a more complicated problem for a smart relay to handle than having it concentrate an entire pod's fire onto a single target.

Would a CM 'pod' even have to leave out the back of the ship? I mean, if the size is much smaller than a conventional pod, isn't there the potential to place 2 or 4 four 'CM Pod' launches in the broadsides of the ship?

The pod launches and using its wedge moves away from the ship. The FTL link in the back controls when it launches the CM and then 'suicides' itself into the missile swarm - or goes vertical and races to take 1 or more missiles straight on its wedge. If each CM Pod only has 8 Vipers, even 8 or 12 of them fired (off-bore firing) would take out another 50ish missiles before they reach ship-based CM range. And with an FTL link they could target those with the highest hit probability - or those most likely to target a weak part of the ship.

I still don't see why CM pods cannot be tractored and carried inside the wedge as missiles once were. Degradation of acceleration shouldn't be a problem any more with the GAs commanding advantage in accel, so they should also be able to be towed outside the wedge. Towed CM pods sole job would be to turn those insane Alpha launches into lunches.

Dunno how towed CMs would affect LAC doctrine. Should you have the LACs let the Alpha launch through so the ship's towed CM pods can deal with them, leaving the follow up launches to the LACs? Because towed pods would be a use them or lose them proposition.

jtg452 wrote:I've been wondering when/if the CM pod would make an appearance for years.

It's a logical progression and defensive counter- if offensive missile volley densities are vastly increased by pods, then why not use the same concept for defensive missiles?

A dedicated defensive unit using CM pods isn't necessary and, as previously pointed out, is contrary to Manty naval doctrine. Just trade off some of the offensive payload of the pod layers for defensive CM pods. CM pods don't have to be the size of the Apollo or even Mk16 pods. Both are huge missiles and CM's aren't nearly as big. Even if the CM pods are big enough to result in a trade ratio of 3 CM pods for every 2 offensive pods, you're talking about a LOT more missiles per pod, too. How many CMs could be in a CM pod the size of a Mk23 flatpak or a Mk16 pod? 20? 30? 40? More?

The control link issue is still there- but why not control through the pod and let the pod order its' missiles around? One ship side link per pod and then the pod sends the orders to the individual missiles. If they can develop the Apollo control missile, then a control module for something the size of a pod shouldn't be an issue.

2Mkm 60s burn CM's = 12t
3.75Mkm 75s burn CM's ~=15t if go by burn time as only "advance"

DDM MK-16 6rods 94t
MDM Mk-23 10rods larger warhead 3 stages. 50% for stage increase tonnage and 66% for payload increase. Lets just call it ~50% increase so ~150t
MK-23E displaces 2 MK-23 ~300t

1 flatpack pod = 8@150t and 1@300t = payload 1500t

1500t/15t = 100 CM's per flatpack pod.

1 SD'P Invictus CM launch is 84CM*2 + 24 + 14 = 206 and can fire off ~75s/8s launch = 9 launches, but last one cannot get out far enough before PDLC takes over, so in effect the best SD'p can get 8 launches of 206 birds or ~1650 CM's against an alpha strike. Same Invictus ship can launch using Apollo = 8*??? RHN ships were launching 3000 missiles per ship at Battle of Manticore. We seem to have a massive offensive/defensive problem if we assume the "bad guys" aren't stupid and have same capability or nearly so. Defensive capability is several times worse than offensive.

I don't know about you, but having 1 pod rail with ability to increase CM fire rate by 50% of CMs fired to at least get CM defensive ability upwards of 2000 per ship against an alpha strike + EW/PDLC is only a partial step in the right direction if you asked me. Having CM pods permanently attached to the hull with ability to dump hundreds of CM's at a moments notice, if not a couple thousand seems far better yet. Would decrease the control link issue as well.

Being able to survive and get the Hell out of Dodge seems the more prudent route.

Are CMs powered/ powered up by the same system that ship killers are? Or are they more like capacitor driven?

If you did use a pod design is it possible to tractor one more CM pods to a LAC and then "launch' the pods prior to the LAC engaging incoming volleys of missiles.? In the anti-missile role, we see LACs closing on the fringes of firing solution of the opposition and then using their own CMs to intercept missiles before they can get within range of the CM engagement envelope of the ships they are protecting. IF a LAC moves to where it can drop CM pods, the pods would still be the LAC (presuming the LAC continues to accelerate in a recriprical course to the incoming ship killers) and the pods could use a ripple fires sequence to target missiles that get "behind" the engagement arcs of the LAC. That also presumes the LAC and perhaps a ship being defended will be sending the tactical information to the pod/CM.

If you kill 2 or 3 more missiles using each pod you are still doing the job of thining out the shipkillers before they get into the ships CM range. Since that kind of interception is probably outside the preset ECM of the shipkillers your CMs would either not have to deal with the ECM or make the shipkillers trigger the ECM early with attendant affects no power and effectiveness.

Using the empty CM pod as a relatively low speed and with a relatively underpowered wedge as an obstacle to shipkillers might even occasionally work. Not sure if you have enough power/speed with a pod to put into an effective position to make an interception. Interesting idea.

Just a thought, we know that the more modern RMN/GSN Keyhole platforms have PD Lasers on them (and are fed power by the ship they're tractored to), thus giving a massive boost in off-axis defence.

Could Keyhole Platforms be adapted to hold an ejectable CM cannister with reloads being tractored from the ship?

Michael Everett wrote:Just a thought, we know that the more modern RMN/GSN Keyhole platforms have PD Lasers on them (and are fed power by the ship they're tractored to), thus giving a massive boost in off-axis defence.

Could Keyhole Platforms be adapted to hold an ejectable CM cannister with reloads being tractored from the ship?

They already fire CMs, don't they?

The issue is indeed resupplying the platforms. I don't think there's time during a major engagement to safely do that.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Michael Everett wrote:Just a thought, we know that the more modern RMN/GSN Keyhole platforms have PD Lasers on them (and are fed power by the ship they're tractored to), thus giving a massive boost in off-axis defence.

Could Keyhole Platforms be adapted to hold an ejectable CM cannister with reloads being tractored from the ship?

They already fire CMs, don't they?

The issue is indeed resupplying the platforms. I don't think there's time during a major engagement to safely do that.

I don't think Keyhole's fire CMs. They have firecontrol (relays) for them; but I thought all the CMs were launched from the ship.

OTOH at the moment you'd need to add more CM fire control before you start slinging more CMs. We saw at, IIRC, Salon, that an Invictus is already capable of launching more CMs than it can control (even with both its Keyhole IIs)

At All Costs wrote:The Mod-2-XR counter-missile launcher had a cycle time of eight seconds, which meant there was time for eleven launches per tube.
[snip]
the Royal Manticoran Navy had added the Keyhole platforms to its bag of tricks.
Instead of a half-dozen or a dozen counter-missiles per ship, they could bring the fire of their entire broadside counter missile batteries to bear. They weren't restricted to the telemetry links physically mounted on their after hammerheads; they had sufficient links to control all of their counter-missiles aboard each Keyhole, and each ship had two Keyholes deployed. And as missile defense Plan Romeo rolled Honor's ships up on their sides, those platforms gained sufficient "vertical" separation to see past the interference of subsequent counter-missile salvos fired at far tighter intervals than had ever before been possible.
They still couldn't control eleven salvos . . . but they could control eight, and each of those eight contained far more missiles than anyone else could have managed.
Javier Giscard's staff had anticipated no more than five CM launches, and they'd allowed for an average of only ten counter-missiles per ship, for a total of two hundred per launch. Their fire plans had been predicated on facing somewhere around a thousand ship-launched CMs, and perhaps another thousand or so from the Katanas.
What they got was over seventy-two hundred from Honor's starships alone.

So there doesn't seem to be much point to SD(P)s or BC(P)s rolling pods of Mk31 CMs -- not when their onboard launchers can already put out about 38% more CMs than they can control.

Now if they developed an even longer ranged CM, one presumably too large to fit in even the CM tubes for the Mk31/Viper, then rolling pods of that oversized missile might make some sense. Especially if there was some forward fire control to hand them off to.

Or, maybe if they developed a wedge powered pod like Galton did the podlayers could roll those self-propelled pods which could fly themselves out to the LAC screen and launch Mk31s for the LACs to control after their onboard magazines were exhausted.

But otherwise the podlayers need a further increase in their CM fire control before they start looking at launching even more CMs -- because a CM you can't control is barely worth firing.