?

markusschaber wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:On a freighter I believe there are just 2 impeller rooms - a forward one and an aft one, and all the components to run the alpha and beta nodes are grouped into that one big easy to access room. (Though I'm not sure we have text-ev for that; and it's not impossible that they'd have at least 4, forward alpha, forward beta, aft beta, aft alpha)

I've been under the impression that they only had alpha nodes (which can switch between impeller and Warshavski sails). Non-hyper capable units only have the (much simpler) beta nodes. Only Warships with their double layered impeller need both kinds of nodes.
(And the new LACs used Beta-Squared nodes, which were bigger and stronger, but fewer of them needed per ring.

IIRC some freighters do just have alpha nodes (especially those that never leave the League), but I got the impression that was uncommon.

penny wrote:If compensator size and ship size affect acceleration, it seems intuitive that reducing the size of a missile by volume on the fly would equate to increasing the size of the compensator, on the fly, resulting in a higher potential acceleration. If all else is equal vs a missile’s and a ship’s acceleration.

Jonathan_S wrote:first, we don't know that all else is equal between a missile's acceleration and a ship -- the ship uses a stand-alone compensator while the missile's drive somehow (RFC wasn't real clear) produces a compensating effect. So smaller missiles may or may not have inherently higher accelerations.

True. True. But the principle of compensation should be the same regardless of the nuts and bolts utilized to achieve it. If not, then therein lies the entry point that exists to exploit the difference. Tum te tum per the MAlign.

Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN MDMs seem to have the same acceleration as their SDMs; so the larger size doesn't seem to have slowed them any.

Which might be the result of a larger volume available to house the built-in compensator.

Jonathan”S wrote:But even if that's true, RFC has said MDMs currently can't handle the different drives having different accelerations -- so even if dropping a spent drive would theoretically allow the missile higher acceleration (and it's not clear that it would) in practice it couldn't because the remaining drives must be set to the same accel as the spent one; whether or not it's still attached to the missile.
(Cataphracts are obviously different as they have a CM stage grafted onto their nose; and it does have a different accel)

But all of that could be a function of the static nature of a compensator whose compensation effect cannot change. If the volume of the compensated area magically changes on the fly then it seems as if the compensation effect would increase, allowing for a higher drive setting. IOW, the static nature of the existing setup might be a function of the static compensation effect.

Jonathan _S wrote:(And at least for fusion powered MDMs you'd be dropping like 1% of the missile with a spend drive; so even if missile size does affect accel, and even if you overcome the limitation of drive settings, physically staging isn't going to buy you a meaningful increase in accel when you can drop so little of the missile with each burnt out drive

I see your point and it is well taken. Actually I realized from the onset that the extreme difference in the volume occupied by our chemically powered rockets wouldn't equally transfer to the equation. Our rocket fuel is just so volume intensive. But losing even a small volume of the missile should equate to a potentially significant increase in performance.

Anyway, back to the question of the survivability of a smaller target. Admittedly I forgot that the wedges of the missiles are targeted. But I never understood why a missile's wedge isn't dropped before point defense can target them. I understand not being able to avoid CMs because the missile is still trying to reach attack range. But of the missiles that do survive the CM envelope and reach attack range, it seems as if their wedge can be dropped long before it is. The wedge is no longer needed for anything. And there would be nothing for point defense to target but the missile body itself. Now, I do recall text saying the missiles are targeted right before they fire. I think the missile telegraphs its intentions somehow like an inexperienced prize fighter telegraphing his punch. But if that “telegraph” is somehow hidden (its preparation to fire) then point defense would be at a disadvantage. No wedge and no warning. I think the telegraph is explained in the missile reorienting itself to deliver its payload. Like the ship rotating to bring its broadsides to bear. Seems that entire process can be reengineered.

The only drive a missile has is the wedge. No Wedge then the missile is ballistic and thus predictable to the CIWS of the target.
Yes there are some thrusters to orient the laserhead but these are very limited.
Liek a Knight in Chess a Laserhead missile probably needs to maintain a degree of indirection so that its wedge is between it and the target for a lot of time but also always moving so that it's not easy to get a CM inside it's wedge.

Captain Golding wrote:The only drive a missile has is the wedge. No Wedge then the missile is ballistic and thus predictable to the CIWS of the target.
Yes there are some thrusters to orient the laserhead but these are very limited.
Liek a Knight in Chess a Laserhead missile probably needs to maintain a degree of indirection so that its wedge is between it and the target for a lot of time but also always moving so that it's not easy to get a CM inside it's wedge.

A missile is not trying to achieve a zero/zero intercept with the ship. Nor is it trying to hold station. So why should its ballistic nature matter? At the moment of fire a wedge is a liability.

penny wrote:

Captain Golding wrote:The only drive a missile has is the wedge. No Wedge then the missile is ballistic and thus predictable to the CIWS of the target.
Yes there are some thrusters to orient the laserhead but these are very limited.
Liek a Knight in Chess a Laserhead missile probably needs to maintain a degree of indirection so that its wedge is between it and the target for a lot of time but also always moving so that it's not easy to get a CM inside it's wedge.

A missile is not trying to achieve a zero/zero intercept with the ship. Nor is it trying to hold station. So why should its ballistic nature matter? At the moment of fire a wedge is a liability.

Don’t forget that the wedge does shield the missile from the PDLC fire of most of the rest of the enemy formation. Dropping the wedge might make the missile slightly harder to see ( though by that point the ships should have it vector nailed down extremely well, and without the wedge it can’t take evasive action) but it’s now exposed to defensive fire from any direction, not just from a narrow disc that can slip between its wedge planes. (We’ve even seen missiles pitch up or down to shield themselves from defenses until seconds (e.g. against the triple ripple)
It likely also gives them protection from fratricidal from other nearby warheads (though with large salvos there can still be a bit of that). And if you drop it too soon the target can roll and the missile won’t be able to try to redirect around the wedge to attempt a passing snap shot.

Also if you’re going for a contact nuke hit you need the wedge as it’s an integral part of the sidewall penetrator that gets the nuke through)

penny wrote:True. True. But the principle of compensation should be the same regardless of the nuts and bolts utilized to achieve it. If not, then therein lies the entry point that exists to exploit the difference. Tum te tum per the MAlign.

We don't know that they are the same. We don't know what magic for compensation works for missiles. All we know is that it's different from the standalone compensators for ships.

But also, we don't know what the compensated volume of the missile is in the first place. Maybe the minimum practical volume of compensation is already much larger than the missile itself, so making it smaller or less massive wouldn't lead to a reduction in the compensated volume, which in turn wouldn't lead to an increase in acceleration. The missile volume isn't limited by the wedge's compensated volume: it's instead limited by the size of the tubes it's fired from and the pods it's stored in. And since it's stored and fired in full size, the size of the missile after dropping a stage is completely irrelevant.

Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN MDMs seem to have the same acceleration as their SDMs; so the larger size doesn't seem to have slowed them any.

penny wrote:Which might be the result of a larger volume available to house the built-in compensator.

It's practically exactly the same, so it's highly unlikely that two different compensators on two different missile bodies achieved that entirely by coincidence.

However, it could be intentional because having time-on-target solutions with other missiles is a useful thing to have.

But all of that could be a function of the static nature of a compensator whose compensation effect cannot change. If the volume of the compensated area magically changes on the fly then it seems as if the compensation effect would increase, allowing for a higher drive setting. IOW, the static nature of the existing setup might be a function of the static compensation effect.

It doesn't look like that's how impellers work. The impeller is locked to a specific acceleration setting, regardless of what is being compensated. Though it's not impossible that changing one makes the other change due to how the equations work.

I see your point and it is well taken. Actually I realized from the onset that the extreme difference in the volume occupied by our chemically powered rockets wouldn't equally transfer to the equation. Our rocket fuel is just so volume intensive. But losing even a small volume of the missile should equate to a potentially significant increase in performance.

Or, conversely, an even smaller change in performance. Suppose that a change in volume results results in the square of that changing in acceleration. That means a 1% change in volume results in a 0.01% change in performance. That's actually rounding error.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:True. True. But the principle of compensation should be the same regardless of the nuts and bolts utilized to achieve it. If not, then therein lies the entry point that exists to exploit the difference. Tum te tum per the MAlign.

We don't know that they are the same. We don't know what magic for compensation works for missiles. All we know is that it's different from the standalone compensators for ships.

But also, we don't know what the compensated volume of the missile is in the first place. Maybe the minimum practical volume of compensation is already much larger than the missile itself, so making it smaller or less massive wouldn't lead to a reduction in the compensated volume, which in turn wouldn't lead to an increase in acceleration. The missile volume isn't limited by the wedge's compensated volume: it's instead limited by the size of the tubes it's fired from and the pods it's stored in. And since it's stored and fired in full size, the size of the missile after dropping a stage is completely irrelevant.

Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN MDMs seem to have the same acceleration as their SDMs; so the larger size doesn't seem to have slowed them any.

penny wrote:Which might be the result of a larger volume available to house the built-in compensator.

It's practically exactly the same, so it's highly unlikely that two different compensators on two different missile bodies achieved that entirely by coincidence.

However, it could be intentional because having time-on-target solutions with other missiles is a useful thing to have.

But all of that could be a function of the static nature of a compensator whose compensation effect cannot change. If the volume of the compensated area magically changes on the fly then it seems as if the compensation effect would increase, allowing for a higher drive setting. IOW, the static nature of the existing setup might be a function of the static compensation effect.

It doesn't look like that's how impellers work. The impeller is locked to a specific acceleration setting, regardless of what is being compensated. Though it's not impossible that changing one makes the other change due to how the equations work.

I see your point and it is well taken. Actually I realized from the onset that the extreme difference in the volume occupied by our chemically powered rockets wouldn't equally transfer to the equation. Our rocket fuel is just so volume intensive. But losing even a small volume of the missile should equate to a potentially significant increase in performance.

Or, conversely, an even smaller change in performance. Suppose that a change in volume results results in the square of that changing in acceleration. That means a 1% change in volume results in a 0.01% change in performance. That's actually rounding error.

Can anyone post the statements made by David about a missile's compensator?

Anyway, the suggestion is simply a theory of concept. Something that may be worth investigating by open-minded navies. And do consider that a much larger percentage of a missile's body might be discarded if some navy were to specifically design its missiles for this tactic. We already know the Cataphracts may be a prime candidate.

Captain Golding wrote:The only drive a missile has is the wedge. No Wedge then the missile is ballistic and thus predictable to the CIWS of the target.
Yes there are some thrusters to orient the laserhead but these are very limited.
Liek a Knight in Chess a Laserhead missile probably needs to maintain a degree of indirection so that its wedge is between it and the target for a lot of time but also always moving so that it's not easy to get a CM inside it's wedge.

penny wrote:A missile is not trying to achieve a zero/zero intercept with the ship. Nor is it trying to hold station. So why should its ballistic nature matter? At the moment of fire a wedge is a liability.

Jonathan_S wrote:Don’t forget that the wedge does shield the missile from the PDLC fire of most of the rest of the enemy formation.

That isn't exactly how I understand that the RMN’s mutual defense doctrine works. The massed mutual defense of tightly packed formations is mostly effective against missiles before they breach the CM envelope. Mostly. It is a very effective strategy that brings thousands of CMs to bear against heavy salvos; wiping them from the plot in job lots. But once the missiles breach that thick CM envelope, the mutual effectiveness of tight formations is reduced dramatically. The formation does not enjoy the same massed protection from the total of the fleet’s PDLCs. The geometry of the problem makes it impossible once the missiles breach the CM envelope. There will be a limited amount of ships with the correct firing arc on any given missile with its PDLCs.

Again, the geometry simply makes it impossible for certain PDLCs. How well do you think you could hit a target flying past your window at a significant fraction of C? Besides, at that point inside the formation, any given ships’ PDLCs are concerned with its own asses. Now, if it has been determined that the enemy fire has been concentrated on just one or two, or a few of your consorts, then other very specific ships in the formation can pay you some attention. The CO can even order the ships in tighter to share PDLC fire. But at that point, do not expect hordes of the missiles that have breached the outer CM envelope and/or have reached attack range to be stopped. If many at all.

Also, and again as I repeat hearing from text, the PDLCs wait for the exact moment the missile intends to fire before engaging. If not, it would take a barrage of PDLC fire before killing a single missile on the fly. PDLCs effectively wait for the birds to “perch.”

HAVE YOU EVER SHOT SKEET? SAME CONCEPT.

It is difficult to hit the target before it reaches its peak altitude.

And … the effectiveness of the PDLCs currently depend on the ease of targeting and hitting the missile's huge wedge. If you eliminate the liability of the wedge that has now become a targeting beacon – along with the warning it is about to fire – and the survivability of the missile will approach one hundred percent IMO. It won't matter that there is no longer a wedge to protect it anymore. A missile fires in microseconds. Any PDLC fire, even if it is lucky enough to be on target, will be like firing into the transporter beam well into the sequence of Captain Kirk beaming aboard ship. A moment too late and a laser stilleto too short. Plus, do consider that PDLC fire from the ships farther away on a target as small as a missile body that has shed its inert volume and has no wedge will be next to impossible to hit. Unless you have a country boy manning the PDLCs and he has experience shooting needles in a haystack.

Jonathan_S wrote:Dropping the wedge might make the missile slightly harder to see ( though by that point the ships should have it vector nailed down extremely well, and without the wedge it can’t take evasive action) but it’s now exposed to defensive fire from any direction, not just from a narrow disc that can slip between its wedge planes. (We’ve even seen missiles pitch up or down to shield themselves from defenses until seconds (e.g. against the triple ripple)
It likely also gives them protection from fratricidal from other nearby warheads (though with large salvos there can still be a bit of that). And if you drop it too soon the target can roll and the missile won’t be able to try to redirect around the wedge to attempt a passing snap shot.

Also if you’re going for a contact nuke hit you need the wedge as it’s an integral part of the sidewall penetrator that gets the nuke through)

Dropping the wedge will simply make the target “slightly harder” to see??? It will make it impossible to see; in time. The wedge is being tracked. Then it disappears as will the target to the targeting system in the midst of so many brighter icons. Simply knowing the vector isn't enough. It isn't even precise enough as it is. Targeting relies on the size of the wedge from the missile and the CM having difficulty missing each other. Targeting also relies on the accuracy of the PDLCs hitting -- or not being able to miss -- a huge target like the wedge.

penny wrote:Dropping the wedge will simply make the target “slightly harder” to see??? It will make it impossible to see; in time. The wedge is being tracked. Then it disappears as will the target to the targeting system in the midst of so many brighter icons. Simply knowing the vector isn't enough. It isn't even precise enough as it is. Targeting relies on the size of the wedge from the missile and the CM having difficulty missing each other. Targeting also relies on the accuracy of the PDLCs hitting -- or not being able to miss -- a huge target like the wedge.

Whether it is impossible to see depends on whether the target is within effective range of targeting radar and other active systems. If the PDLC is hitting a wedge, then that is the same as a miss; because the laser beam will not penetrate the wedge. The laser beams from the PDLC are attempting to hit the missile body itself, a harder thing to find (hence targeting radar).

It is only the counter missile that is effective when hitting the wedge. If the incoming wedge is down, then the CM will continue on after the incoming missile is destroyed.

In one of the books the RMN and SLN were shooting missiles at each other from very distant range, such that the SLN missiles needed a ballistic phase. The RMN missiles were programmed to sweep though that ballistic group and wipe them out before continuing onward to attack the SLN fleet.

Fleets adopt formations like the wall of battle to increase the ability of each others’ PDLCs to provide mutual protection.

Missile attack often focus on just a handful of ships at a time to try to saturate their point defense; so the ships surrounding them are free to provide mutual support as the missiles aren’t currently targeting them, only targeting their neighbor.

And Ione reason to stack into a wall is because PDLCs can’t penetrate wedges. You want to be sure you have point defense fire able to come from all angles so the missile can’t angle its wedge against all the ships surrounding the targets. If the the wedge planes are horizontal then ships in the wall above or below the target likely won’t have a shot, they’d only see the top or bottom of the wedge, but the ships ahead or behind the target in the wall will be aligned with the slit between the wedges and can fire on the missile body. If the missile spins 90 degrees so now the wedge planes are vertical (but the nose still pointed at the target) now it’s the ships above be and below the target that can aim through the slit.


And now that the RMN has adopted a tactic of fighting behind their wedge it’s only their. Keyholes and consorts that could have any line of sight on the missile body - and so have any chance of picking off the missile before it potentially crests the target’s wedge and tries for a snap shot as it overflies. (Because either they aren’t targeted and so don’t have to roll or they roll such that their sides still angle somewhat up or down so they have line of sight to part of the approach to the formation.