Please forgive my time between posts nowadays.
Jonathan_S wrote:At this point things have bounced around so much I think I've lost the plot.
I apologize for that. Part of the reason may be that I don't have the same amount of time to spend in the forum as I've had for years and I go a bit long between posts.
The rest is caused by the subject matter. It isn't that I have been bouncing around. This is the venerable question thread. And any brainstorming achieved here can have far reaching implications elsewhere. And so goes my dilemma as theories and implications come together in my head.
I have been entertaining the same things from the outset. It is just that there have been several benefits closely related to each notion.
From the beginning, I have championed multistage missiles that actually separate spent stages. The perceived benefits have always been …
1)
Increased acceleration because of an ever decreasing volume, enroute, to compensate. Which theoretically allows for a higher drive setting to be preset along the way for each successive stage since the equation with compensated volume has or will change.
- In addition to increased acceleration there is also a side band discussion and acknowledgement of the perceived benefits of nimbleness: quickness and response time.
- Nimbleness: Reaping the benefits, the discussion entertains the possibility that the missiles might be more effective at up the kilt shots.
It is ike Kaleb Johnson the slow running back for Iowa who has become a great running back because he changes direction faster than anyone else (or in the case of the missile
anything else). To be honest, I see a missile that has become a little gnat. It has shed the bulk of the ball-and-chain that was dragging it down. From the eye candy containing lots of info that Jonathan posted a few clicks upstream, I feel optimistic about shedding two thirds of the missile by the time the missile is ready to detonate. At this point the missile body should simply contain the reactor and the warhead.
2)
Increased survivability. It presents a smaller target to hit. Like LAC like missile.
- The tactic naturally begs the question of how to shed as much additional “dead weight” as possible by the time the missile passes the CM defense.
- The reactor is certainly not an obvious consideration. Has the reactor outlived its usefulness? If so, separate it from the main missile body.
Survivability draws on the following facts and deserves the following section:
3) When a missile is being tracked it is not being tracked by traditional radar. Its wedge is being tracked by gravitics. I don't think a missile body can be tracked by radar through its wedge any more than a ship can be tracked through its wedge. A wedge's effect has a tendency to spread energy about itself. So any targeting radar would be scattered. There is no radar return from the wedge.
I agree that after the wedge drops, targeting radar can track the missile body.
If that entire process has enough time. Targeting radar will need to quickly find the object that now has no wedge and has been made as small as possible.
In accordance with my original theory, shedding volume every chance it gets, the profile of the missile changes for many of the
other ships that need a good look at the target for their PDLCs to be of any help. IOW, the reduction in profile can help to reduce the engagement to a one-on-one confrontation. No more massed PDLCs from the fleet ganging up on one missile. Mano a Mano.
All of the above brings us all up to speed with how we got to this point and why I am considering whether the profile can be further minimized by shedding the section of the remaining missile body that houses the reactor. Dropping a further third of the original missile body represents a significant reduction in profile.
4) Stage separation of the reactor will reduce the missile's huge profile considerably. Are there any other possible benefits? I see two possible benefits.
- Dependent upon the proper timing, the reactor might be programmed to explode as close to the missile detonating as possible. As the reactor’s stage separates, the missile is still accelerating away from the body. If it can get enough separation from the reactor, it can explode and possibly have a favorable effect on enemy sensors and targeting, thus serving as a distraction from the actual threat.
The reactor might not be able to achieve enough range to explode before the warhead detonates so as to serve as a distraction. However, like in football, the play will mimic a quarterback keeper. A sneak play.
After the wedge has dropped, radar is looking for a target. The separated stage containing the reactor is one third of the missile body. The point defense will be tackling the wrong running back. The missile body containing the reactor is not carrying the ball (warhead). Uh oh. Sucker play.
It is important to realize that the final stage of separation will be made only after the missile has maneuvered for a shot and moments before detonation. Stage separation will limit the chances of the warhead being targeted. It would simply be like evolution if the missile were an animal. Consider if point defense has been successful lots of times because it was lucky enough to hit the tail-end of the missile body. Evolution has allowed the animal to shed its tail.
- Other implications not yet discussed. Depending on range to target, this missile can choose to delay separating a stage until it penetrates the CM defense. Then the additional acceleration obtained after separating the stage at that particular point might allow the missile enough additional acceleration to throw off point defense when guessing the missile's vector. Trial and error in field testing.
Hey! Perhaps the reactor need not detonate. We only want it to serve as a distraction. Perhaps the reactor can quickly build up to exploding without exploding, as in generating a lot of heat to attract attention.5) Stage separation has mostly been a tactic that is suited for multistage missiles, thus, of interest to the MAN. I have been ambitious and trying to discuss why it might also be a tactic that multi-drive missiles could eventually adopt. This made for a more convoluted discussion.
But now the conversation is going to shift gears when applying it to the MAN’s 3-second firing warhead.
The evolution of weapons and tactics.So, as you can see Jonathan, nothing has changed from my initial theories and no bouncing around has taken place except within my original suppositions. I simply never got a chance to make it to the goalposts that I see in my own head. Most of my threads are that way. I never make it to the end. Or even the middle in many cases.
I can see my own goalposts; but when everyone is against me, then you are the defense. The defense can only see their own goalposts. Turn around and join me and you'll be able to see my goalposts; and then, let's figure out how to do this thing. Aren't we all brainstorming at Bolthole? If not I'll take my research to a far away system.
I haven't had time to consult with the wonderful pages of technical specifications that Jonathan gave on the missiles. But at first glance it appears over two thirds of the missile might be shed along its journey before it finally detonates.
Which brings me back to the question considering whether the tactic is too “cost” prohibitive for a bank of capacitors to be able to produce the amount of power required to allow for separating the reactor and still power the detonation.
If it
is cost prohibitive to separate from the reactor, then losing that final stage is the only step that will not be possible. But an alleged volume decrease of two thirds is still significant.
Like Honor when she was aboard
Fearless I do not have any help from my crew. I've had to retire to my ready room and go at it alone. Shame on the crew. Some information I do not have. I would definitely like to know the size of the warhead itself.
****** *
Jonathan_S wrote:At one point it was the (unproven) theory that smaller missiles must necessarily have higher acceleration (despite the large range of missile sizes with identical acceleration) -- and so to take advantage you wanted missiles that physically staged in order to have greater terminal maneuverability.
I still believe that. Textev has always allowed smaller warships to have a higher acceleration. We currently have a thread trending about how BBs might not be the right platforms for commerce raiding because of their low accel vs smaller units.
It simply seems intuitive that a missile that has an ever decreasing volume enroute, may have a potentially ever increasing acceleration enroute, that wasn't prreviously possible because of the static volume to be compensated, enroute.
Jonathan_S wrote:Okay - IF the theory is true, and if a significant reduction in missile volume could be achieved, then there's some benefit. (We don't know how much benefit, and we don't know what the tradeoffs would be [how much bigger would the missile have to start out out, meaning could it be carried by existing ships and how many fewer would fit in your magazines and pods]
I am the first to agree that we don't know if the theory is ‘true.’ Neither one of our dynamic duo truly knew whether a project is true until the prototype is tested, then retested in the field. But we do know that this notion
appears to be ‘sound.’ And worth investigating. It looks good on paper.
It
very well might turn out that the missiles are too big for tubes and have to be pod fired. They might even become so large that they become system defense missiles that will make invaders think twice. That would certainly turn out to be a welcome windfall of the research if System Defense missiles actually began to fill the role of System Defense Missiles!
Out of all of the technology in the HV, system defense missiles are one of the most disappointing to me. An enemy should come to fear system defense missiles. Even if they have to be five times the size of any previous missile in history, as long as when the missile storm arrives there follows death and destruction in its wake. System Defense missiles never come into play. In
Toll of Honor the system defense missiles the Peep's had were summarily dismissed. They were ignored. It was stated that there were not that many of them anyway. Perhaps a few hundred. But system defense missiles should be so deadly that even several hundred of them should be feared. Perhaps this missile may make them a lot deadlier, scarier and useful.
I simply find it difficult to believe that a missile which has shed an unprecedented 75+ % of its volume at the end won't be highly maneuverable. Talk about pitch and yaw rates and a quickness and nimbleness that makes Sonja pee her pants with glee.
Summary:The missile has lost approximately two thirds of its volume enroute (by my reckoning) if it is a multistage missile. If my theory is correct and a different drive setting can be preprogrammed because the compensated volume for the built-in compensator has changed, then we should already have a much faster and nimbler missile. Depending upon range to target, the missile may be able to delay separation of one of the stages until it passes the CM zone. Then that stage separates and the higher drive setting for that stage along with its higher accel might provide a turbocharged acceleration. Point defense won't expect the increased acceleration at that point. It might or might not be effective. Must be field tested.
Now the final third of the remaining missile will be detached. Depending on how long a missile can survive without a wedge and rad shielding, if it is several seconds then the enemy is doomed because the application has other possible options.*
Detach the final stage which houses the reactor and separate it in mid acceleration. That would be like turning on the afterburner of an F-16 as soon as the F-16 sheds half its weight. IOW, quickly propelling the warhead to target. It might have the effect of shooting the warhead out of the remaining missile body like a cannon.
What is the volume of the warhead?
Jonathan _S wrote:Also I think Sonja Hemphill or Shannon Foraker are practical people and so yes, I think they consider financial costs of production when considering research projects to pursue or advocating for adoption of new designs (or at least the financial costs as a proxy for required production effort).
Something that can't be build built in sufficient numbers to be effective is impractical and either needs to be made more affordable, or abandoned in favor of something that can be built in sufficient numbers.
A missile that's 5% more effective but requires so many resources that you can only build half as many of them isn't actually a benefit; the result of its high production "cost" is that it actually makes you less effective despite the higher "per round" effectiveness.
You've got a similar issue if that 5% more effective missile is so large that a ship can only carry and fire 80% as many of them per salvo -- it's not actually more effective per salvo.
So it isn't at all clear what the benefit is, how this could be more effective, or how it might save lives
True. But my point centers around the fact that neither Sonja nor Shannon had the luxury of letting costs handicap their research when you are staring down the barrel of a gun. The most important thing on their mind would be whether they can get a particular idea to work. They will worry about the production costs afterwards. However, a proof of concept and succeeding at developing a prototype demands all of their attention. Cut down on production costs later. Same as any first generation technology. Costs are secondary…
When you are staring down the barrel of a gun, just git 'er done!Now, the MAlign. They have time to consider costs and who's the boss.
And again, if you can't build many of them but they are extremely effective, then use them as system defense missiles. System Defense missiles might finally get some teeth.
Five failures fuel a sixth success* This was the reason behind me wondering if losing the reactor will
immediately kill the wedge.
Edits for typos and grammar.
.
.
.
.
The artist formerly known as cthia.
Now I can talk in the third person.