A new Honorverse Ship Type ?

Jonathan_S wrote: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.

The point, as you say, is to project CM's at a much further distance from the ship, to enable multiple CM broadsides; since a modern missile is launched in such numbers and attains such speed as it gets to normal CM range that the defense is severely hampered. When Honor saw what Galton did, she said that the "multidrive counter-missile of theirs looks like a more fully developed version of the one Admiral Foraker and Admiral Hemphill are working on at Bolthole".

The problem, as you also say, is to increase control links that can be effective at that range; which is why I am sorry that they are not working on a thing that several people have proposed in this thread: a pod with a wedge and FTL transceiver to serve as an Apollo-like controller for the swarm of standard CM's carried out to long range before being ejected.

Jonathan_S wrote:
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]

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.

Either we go with the statement being correct of too few CM control links, or we assume his math is incorrect.

Neither is incorrect. You forgot the Delta V of that engagement. From memory, Honor had a Dv of ~35,000km/s

That would give ~11 salvos. From rest obviously 75/8 = 9 salvos but that 9th salvo has a whopping 3s of drive time which would be too few CM's... so why they designed to 8 when by light speed limitations the last TWO salvos are too far downrange, which means total control links allows for 10 salvos or could be read as few as 6... So, we can infer either barely too few links, or WAY too few control links.

Another aspect... unless BuWeaps simply forgot, Dv in an engagement or damage redundancy requirements which RFC has blatantly included in his books prior to this(or am I thinking of SAG-C description in later books?)... So, RFC must be thinking physical limitation of Keyhole would be his answer I'll bet. Though offensively they can fire off thousands but maybe only control as few as 1200 CM's or as many as 2000CM's on newest Invictus? Offensive capability baked in at several times its defensive capability... Ok. Think I'll take my chances in a LAC in the Honorverse.

PS: I'll let you figure out how far from mama's purse strings CM's travel in whopping 3s. Though, they should be fired and fly figure 8's on the open aspects of the wedge. Who knows they could block an attacking missile or two.

tlb wrote:The point, as you say, is to project CM's at a much further distance from the ship, to enable multiple CM broadsides; since a modern missile is launched in such numbers and attains such speed as it gets to normal CM range that the defense is severely hampered. When Honor saw what Galton did, she said that the "multidrive counter-missile of theirs looks like a more fully developed version of the one Admiral Foraker and Admiral Hemphill are working on at Bolthole".

The problem, as you also say, is to increase control links that can be effective at that range; which is why I am sorry that they are not working on a thing that several people have proposed in this thread: a pod with a wedge and FTL transceiver to serve as an Apollo-like controller for the swarm of standard CM's carried out to long range before being ejected.

The extended range part of the equation isn't something that I even considered when I started thinking of CM pods but it makes sense.

Just throwing missiles fairly dumb out there and hoping for the best isn't an option. I was looking for a way to thicken the CM volleys at the current ranges when another option is to extend the engagement envelope and get in more shots.

Then again, I don't see why a control module on a pod wouldn't mean that you couldn't do both. If they can downsize everything enough to squeeze it into an Apollo, then working with something as big as a missile pod and not needing the processing power of the Apollo attack computer should be a piece of cake.

Being a history buff, I keep seeing parallels to history.

Think of the linear infantry tactics of the American Revolution/Napoleonic War era.

Smooth bore muskets with an engagement range of 100 yards or so (less if you want individual targets engaged) used in mass fired volleys. The British learned to use a line with multiple ranks in defense and to volley fire by platoon or half platoon so there's fire to the flanks of the attack column and there's a constant hail of bullets.

Use the same tactics 50 years later in the Civil War with rifled muskets with an engagement range of hundreds of yards and you get Pickett's Charge.

Difference? Rate of fire increased by around 50% and the engagement range had, at least, tripled.

The Honorverse has conquered the rate of fire issue. Now extending the engagement envelope and thickening the close in volleys are the next logical progressions.

jtg452 wrote:Being a history buff, I keep seeing parallels to history.

Think of the linear infantry tactics of the American Revolution/Napoleonic War era.

Smooth bore muskets with an engagement range of 100 yards or so (less if you want individual targets engaged) used in mass fired volleys. The British learned to use a line with multiple ranks in defense and to volley fire by platoon or half platoon so there's fire to the flanks of the attack column and there's a constant hail of bullets.

Use the same tactics 50 years later in the Civil War with rifled muskets with an engagement range of hundreds of yards and you get Pickett's Charge.

Difference? Rate of fire increased by around 50% and the engagement range had, at least, tripled.

Pickett's Charge had an additional problem (that the Napoleonic soldiers could have also faced): they were trying to advance over a field that was also exposed to Union artillery fire. By the time of the ACW, the rifled musket firing the Minié ball had a longer effective range than field artillery; particularly when the cannon were firing case or canister rounds. But in defense, from protected positions, those same cannons rained hell on advancing troops. From Wikipedia:

The infantry assault was preceded by a massive artillery bombardment that was meant to soften up the Union defense and silence its artillery, but it was largely ineffective.

Since the lines were separated by three quarters of a mile (the distance needed to advance over open ground); the Confederate artillery was near the limits of effective fire (total range of under 2000 yards).

Using CM pods for attrition of incoming missiles demands that you provide a few things for the CMs. One is a enough control channels to control the Pod launched CMs independent of what you have on your warships for controlling their own CMs
You also have to have a way to get the CM pods further out than the engagement range of the hyper capable warships so that when you launch from the pods you get your interceptions far enough out so that the destroyed missiles are taken out of the targeting queue (so you don't send a warships CM or two for a target that isn't there
Part of that would seem to demand you put your dedicated CM ships somewhere on the outside edge (forward to the "side of your fleet front facing the opponent ) so you can both launch the CM pods so they intersect the incoming missiles volleys and that you have a clearer line of communication given that all the ECM being generated by both your own ships and the decoys etc of the incoming missiles. And repeat for each volley being sent in. You flush pods with boosters to sprint out , fire their CM, and then keep it up.
Depending on how far the effective range of the propulsion of whaterver is getting the pods out there, you might even be able to launch a double batch at the 1st wave incoming and then it gets down to dropping timeframes.

How big are these pods? how many CMs does each carry, how fast can you get accurate targeting information to them. How fast and how far can a pod get from it's launching vessel and still be effective?

I remember reading the Japan was using what amounted to Anti-aircraft shells for the 12" and up for their battle ships. They even used them a few times. However, they were big flack bursts and the major effect was probably to draw their fighter pilots attention to "something is out in that directions"--as apparently the radio communication between fighters and carriers was iffy.

Brigade XO wrote:Using CM pods for attrition of incoming missiles demands that you provide a few things for the CMs. One is a enough control channels to control the Pod launched CMs independent of what you have on your warships for controlling their own CMs
You also have to have a way to get the CM pods further out than the engagement range of the hyper capable warships so that when you launch from the pods you get your interceptions far enough out so that the destroyed missiles are taken out of the targeting queue (so you don't send a warships CM or two for a target that isn't there
Part of that would seem to demand you put your dedicated CM ships somewhere on the outside edge (forward to the "side of your fleet front facing the opponent ) so you can both launch the CM pods so they intersect the incoming missiles volleys and that you have a clearer line of communication given that all the ECM being generated by both your own ships and the decoys etc of the incoming missiles. And repeat for each volley being sent in. You flush pods with boosters to sprint out , fire their CM, and then keep it up.
Depending on how far the effective range of the propulsion of whaterver is getting the pods out there, you might even be able to launch a double batch at the 1st wave incoming and then it gets down to dropping timeframes.

How big are these pods? how many CMs does each carry, how fast can you get accurate targeting information to them. How fast and how far can a pod get from it's launching vessel and still be effective?

I remember reading the Japan was using what amounted to Anti-aircraft shells for the 12" and up for their battle ships. They even used them a few times. However, they were big flack bursts and the major effect was probably to draw their fighter pilots attention to "something is out in that directions"--as apparently the radio communication between fighters and carriers was iffy.

Yes, you need sufficient controls for the counter missiles and if you can get them out far enough, then this needs to include an FTL link. You get that extra distance either by making the CM's multi-stage (such as Galton did or Bolthole is testing) or you put an engine on the pod itself.

I do not believe that the Grand Alliance will build a dedicated counter missile ship. Note that Galton got off three launches that met Honor's missiles before they came into range of the standard counter missile defenses.

The problem with really big guns is that they cannot track a moving plane at any, but really long distances. So perhaps if the payload was flechettes with only a small spreader charge that went off well down range, then you might actually put some holes into the incoming planes.

Here is a question: Could a LAC be reconfigured to carry/tractor 1 or more 'CM pods'? If a 'CM pod' is much smaller than a normal missile pod, and only carries 5-8 CM, this could be highly useful. The LACs ferry them out to their range, eject the 'CM pods' while flipping over, and let the 'CM pods' continue on a ballistic course until the FTL link activates them. This would add a fourth tier to missile defense ('CM pods', LACs, CMs, Point-Defense), and allow for hits further out against massive salvos.

Erls wrote:Here is a question: Could a LAC be reconfigured to carry/tractor 1 or more 'CM pods'? If a 'CM pod' is much smaller than a normal missile pod, and only carries 5-8 CM, this could be highly useful. The LACs ferry them out to their range, eject the 'CM pods' while flipping over, and let the 'CM pods' continue on a ballistic course until the FTL link activates them. This would add a fourth tier to missile defense ('CM pods', LACs, CMs, Point-Defense), and allow for hits further out against massive salvos.

Yes, LAC's could do so. What their accel is and what distance they achieve before needing to use said pod is another question entirely.

Another route for long range fires are the FTL relay drones. We know RD's can have a giant warhead attached to them. How heavy is said warhead? Could a single Cm or two replace it? Does not give much long range fire, but it is something as said RD's are launching anyways to stand off in rings about 3.75Mk out and and another ring about double that distance outward for FTL inward bound fire control for outward bound CM's.

The obvious is: If RD's can collect said positional data and send the whole enchilada back to mama, why couldn't mama send a vastly smaller packet of positional information said RD would broadcast to the CM's near it? The only question is antenna compatibility between RD and CM's. This decreases number of control links required drastically while incrasing number of CM's controlled. Said broadcasts would be directional so offensive MDM's could not target the RD's. Technically they could I suppose.

Relax wrote:

Erls wrote:Here is a question: Could a LAC be reconfigured to carry/tractor 1 or more 'CM pods'? If a 'CM pod' is much smaller than a normal missile pod, and only carries 5-8 CM, this could be highly useful. The LACs ferry them out to their range, eject the 'CM pods' while flipping over, and let the 'CM pods' continue on a ballistic course until the FTL link activates them. This would add a fourth tier to missile defense ('CM pods', LACs, CMs, Point-Defense), and allow for hits further out against massive salvos.

Yes, LAC's could do so. What their accel is and what distance they achieve before needing to use said pod is another question entirely.

Another route for long range fires are the FTL relay drones. We know RD's can have a giant warhead attached to them. How heavy is said warhead? Could a single Cm or two replace it? Does not give much long range fire, but it is something as said RD's are launching anyways to stand off in rings about 3.75Mk out and and another ring about double that distance outward for FTL inward bound fire control for outward bound CM's.

The obvious is: If RD's can collect said positional data and send the whole enchilada back to mama, why couldn't mama send a vastly smaller packet of positional information said RD would broadcast to the CM's near it? The only question is antenna compatibility between RD and CM's. This decreases number of control links required drastically while incrasing number of CM's controlled. Said broadcasts would be directional so offensive MDM's could not target the RD's. Technically they could I suppose.

Here's an idea for RDs - smaller CMs. We know that you can get a wedge in a missile that can be shoulder launched, why not a build a pack of ~1 ton CMs that burn out in 5-10 seconds or so - an RD could be inside the opfor missile flight path (at a point when the opfor missiles are not maneuvering) and launch these with a spread, and delayed burn. The CMs fire up to spread out and hit the missiles. A handful of RDs, each with a dozen or so small CMs each can rip up launches early in a flight.

Theemile wrote:
Here's an idea for RDs - smaller CMs. We know that you can get a wedge in a missile that can be shoulder launched, why not a build a pack of ~1 ton CMs that burn out in 5-10 seconds or so - an RD could be inside the opfor missile flight path (at a point when the opfor missiles are not maneuvering) and launch these with a spread, and delayed burn. The CMs fire up to spread out and hit the missiles. A handful of RDs, each with a dozen or so small CMs each can rip up launches early in a flight.

Would a small CM have a powerful enough impellers to cause wedge fratricide with anti-ship missiles?

If the power gap is too large the more powerful wedge simple shrugs off the impact and while the weaker one is totally vaporized.

I tend to suspect that shrinking a CM by that much would leave it unable to stop an anti-ship missile.