?

penny wrote:The jettisoning system is something that I had to moan over all alone in my ready room. The section containing the warhead has to gain separation from the separated missile body containing the reactor. I considered both a mass driver application and a repulser beam(s). The reason I was enquiring about the mass of the warhead is that if it is insignificant to the application, then a repulser beam may be able to shoot it out like a cannon; IINM that repulser beams are not visible. Admittedly I do not know how bulky mass drivers are, but they are designed to shoot the entire volume of a missile out of tubes very quickly. Handling a small warhead should be easy peasy.

The reactor is still functioning. It can supply power to repulser beams. It can also provide power to some type of ECM. Detonating might provide the ECM if enough separation can be achieved. If not, the reactor can provide power for some type of MAN ECM that is blaring loudly like an old ghetto boom box.

That is less of a reactor ejection system than of a warhead projection system. I can see the value in the later: project it forwards and in the direction of the target, imparting even the necessary rotation it will need to hit the ship. Ejecting the reactor I see no value on: the time between dropping the wedge and the warhead detonating is a couple of milliseconds at most, so the separation it's going to achieve in that is going to be measured in a couple of missile lengths anyway. And that makes detonating the reactor a risky proposition.

The projection system makes sense. And is actually in use: the lasing rods are projected forwards already.

Perhaps you can see me, but your targeting system still has to hit me … in time; after it struggles to find me after my illuminating street light (wedge) duped you and dropped.

That's already the case for all missiles. Dropping the wedge earlier is a worse proposition because it removes the impenetrable barriers for other ships and forces the missile to go ballistically for a longer period. The defending ships' tracking arrays will be looking for the first opportunity to shoot and finding the missile is no more difficult than it was before. This just gives the defending ship more time to shoot.

That won't be the same for other ships that will not be able to find the missile in time after the wedge drops. And if the missile rolls away from the target then deploys some sort of repulser beam to shoot the warhead assembly away quickly, then drops the wedge while the missile orients itself to fire that would solve the problem. The point being that designers of the missile also know the ins-and-outs needed to make it work. And … as I communicated to Thinksmarkedly, when the missile is pitching and yawing, its profile and quickness is important. Do note that radar will lose lock down the throat if the missile momentarily pitches, drops wedge, then reorients and fires. Or whatever field tested results worked.

The warhead can't be shot forwards from the impeller and cross the compensated volume. We don't know how much that is, but the warhead cannot cross it, otherwise the missile body is going to overrun it or the pusher beam is going to shred the warhead. If it crosses that, it's also not going to rotate with the missile when the missile uses the wedge to orient itself on the target.

The rotation is done with the wedge because that is much faster than Newtonian Physics for all we've been told. And therefore, the wedge lip never comes between the missile and its target. There is no moment in which the targeted ship loses track of the missile nose.

Maybe the warhead is shot sideways from the missile, so it quickly falls behind because it continues ballistically while the missile is still accelerating forwards. In that case, the missile becomes a decoy to the actual warhead. The problem then is that the targeted ship sees all of this happen, so it won't work as a surprise after the first salvo. The only question is whether the ship has time to react to it and reorient the PDLC it was veering on the missile to the warhead itself: if the interval is too short, then the PDLC beam can still inflict damage because the separation is too short; if it is long enough, then there's time for the defending ship to react to that warhead that is moving in a predictable fashion and not evading.

At any rate, the missile body containing the reactor is still functioning and should be used in the equation in some capacity if possible.

That being? The missile wedge is not powerful enough to cause damage to the ship if it hits the ship's wedge. And given the velocity it's coming at, it does not have the acceleration to ram the ship: it can only impact the roof or floor of the wedge.

The thing that a reactor can do with its detonation is be effective ECM. That's what a Dazzler does. But a Dazzler does not carry a warhead: so if it were possible to do both, why didn't the RMN do it?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:The jettisoning system is something that I had to moan over all alone in my ready room. The section containing the warhead has to gain separation from the separated missile body containing the reactor. I considered both a mass driver application and a repulser beam(s). The reason I was enquiring about the mass of the warhead is that if it is insignificant to the application, then a repulser beam may be able to shoot it out like a cannon; IINM that repulser beams are not visible. Admittedly I do not know how bulky mass drivers are, but they are designed to shoot the entire volume of a missile out of tubes very quickly. Handling a small warhead should be easy peasy.

The reactor is still functioning. It can supply power to repulser beams. It can also provide power to some type of ECM. Detonating might provide the ECM if enough separation can be achieved. If not, the reactor can provide power for some type of MAN ECM that is blaring loudly like an old ghetto boom box.

That is less of a reactor ejection system than of a warhead projection system. I can see the value in the later: project it forwards and in the direction of the target, imparting even the necessary rotation it will need to hit the ship. Ejecting the reactor I see no value on: the time between dropping the wedge and the warhead detonating is a couple of milliseconds at most, so the separation it's going to achieve in that is going to be measured in a couple of missile lengths anyway. And that makes detonating the reactor a risky proposition.

The projection system makes sense. And is actually in use: the lasing rods are projected forwards already.

Perhaps you can see me, but your targeting system still has to hit me … in time; after it struggles to find me after my illuminating street light (wedge) duped you and dropped.

That's already the case for all missiles. Dropping the wedge earlier is a worse proposition because it removes the impenetrable barriers for other ships and forces the missile to go ballistically for a longer period. The defending ships' tracking arrays will be looking for the first opportunity to shoot and finding the missile is no more difficult than it was before. This just gives the defending ship more time to shoot.

That won't be the same for other ships that will not be able to find the missile in time after the wedge drops. And if the missile rolls away from the target then deploys some sort of repulser beam to shoot the warhead assembly away quickly, then drops the wedge while the missile orients itself to fire that would solve the problem. The point being that designers of the missile also know the ins-and-outs needed to make it work. And … as I communicated to Thinksmarkedly, when the missile is pitching and yawing, its profile and quickness is important. Do note that radar will lose lock down the throat if the missile momentarily pitches, drops wedge, then reorients and fires. Or whatever field tested results worked.

The warhead can't be shot forwards from the impeller and cross the compensated volume. We don't know how much that is, but the warhead cannot cross it, otherwise the missile body is going to overrun it or the pusher beam is going to shred the warhead. If it crosses that, it's also not going to rotate with the missile when the missile uses the wedge to orient itself on the target.

The rotation is done with the wedge because that is much faster than Newtonian Physics for all we've been told. And therefore, the wedge lip never comes between the missile and its target. There is no moment in which the targeted ship loses track of the missile nose.

Maybe the warhead is shot sideways from the missile, so it quickly falls behind because it continues ballistically while the missile is still accelerating forwards. In that case, the missile becomes a decoy to the actual warhead. The problem then is that the targeted ship sees all of this happen, so it won't work as a surprise after the first salvo. The only question is whether the ship has time to react to it and reorient the PDLC it was veering on the missile to the warhead itself: if the interval is too short, then the PDLC beam can still inflict damage because the separation is too short; if it is long enough, then there's time for the defending ship to react to that warhead that is moving in a predictable fashion and not evading.

At any rate, the missile body containing the reactor is still functioning and should be used in the equation in some capacity if possible.

That being? The missile wedge is not powerful enough to cause damage to the ship if it hits the ship's wedge. And given the velocity it's coming at, it does not have the acceleration to ram the ship: it can only impact the roof or floor of the wedge.

The thing that a reactor can do with its detonation is be effective ECM. That's what a Dazzler does. But a Dazzler does not carry a warhead: so if it were possible to do both, why didn't the RMN do it?

We know how missiles are built we have graphics in the back of SFTS showing the detonation process - the "warhead" that separates is the lasing rod assemblies - the missile sensors, nuke and grav field emitter are still in the missile bodies. The nuke in the missile body needs to go off, and the grav field emitter needs to focus that blast at the independent warheads to create the lasers, destroying the missile body in the blast. The reactor still needs to be in the missile to power the nuke (it's grav pinched) and the grav field emitters to focus the blast field at the laser rods.

If the missile body is destroyed before the bomb goes off - no x-ray lasers (so it can't be a decoy). If the missile body goes somewhere else away from the Laser rods - no x-ray lasers (so the reactor can't be used to hit the ship). When the bomb goes off to make x-ray lasers - no more missile body (or reactor for that matter).

Theemile wrote:We know how missiles are built we have graphics in the back of SFTS showing the detonation process - the "warhead" that separates is the lasing rod assemblies - the missile sensors, nuke and grav field emitter are still in the missile bodies. The nuke in the missile body needs to go off, and the grav field emitter needs to focus that blast at the independent warheads to create the lasers, destroying the missile body in the blast. The reactor still needs to be in the missile to power the nuke (it's grav pinched) and the grav field emitters to focus the blast field at the laser rods.

If the missile body is destroyed before the bomb goes off - no x-ray lasers (so it can't be a decoy). If the missile body goes somewhere else away from the Laser rods - no x-ray lasers (so the reactor can't be used to hit the ship). When the bomb goes off to make x-ray lasers - no more missile body (or reactor for that matter).

Well, he was proposing to add capacitors, to be charged by the fusion reactor before the separation. We know that capacitors are sufficient to power the explosion.

The proposal is (perhaps) to only have the warhead, control electronics and these extra capacitors in the very front of the missile and at the appropriate time separate the nose assembly from the rest of the missile. My only complaint about this process is that it adds weight (the capacitors) in order to achieve some benefit only for the tiniest fraction of a second between dropping the wedge, separation of the nose and the warhead explosion. Since the designers can make the time separation between dropping the wedge and the warhead explosion vanishingly small, the benefit is also vanishingly small.

Theemile wrote:We know how missiles are built we have graphics in the back of SFTS showing the detonation process - the "warhead" that separates is the lasing rod assemblies - the missile sensors, nuke and grav field emitter are still in the missile bodies. The nuke in the missile body needs to go off, and the grav field emitter needs to focus that blast at the independent warheads to create the lasers, destroying the missile body in the blast. The reactor still needs to be in the missile to power the nuke (it's grav pinched) and the grav field emitters to focus the blast field at the laser rods.

If the missile body is destroyed before the bomb goes off - no x-ray lasers (so it can't be a decoy). If the missile body goes somewhere else away from the Laser rods - no x-ray lasers (so the reactor can't be used to hit the ship). When the bomb goes off to make x-ray lasers - no more missile body (or reactor for that matter).

STFS, how did I forget that step-by-step missile attack diagram was in the back of that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Those diagrams confirm that the wedge drops the moment before the lasing rods (which it calls the "laserheads") are ejected.

The Mark 13 diagram in IFF also shows that the missile nose contains the laserhead control system; which I believe is the control computer + short ranged control link where the missile body tells each lasing rod where exactly to point itself. (As it appears they don't have targeting sensors of their own)


I'll also note, for those who don't care to go look at those diagrams right now, that SFTS shows the warhead section [sensors, nuke, laserheads (aka lasing rods), etc.] taking up about 55% the length of the Mk16.
(Up somewhat from the about 50% of the length it took up of the Mk13 SDM diagram -- so the Mk16 is a bigger missile, with and extra drive and a fusion reactor, yet the warhead still takes up proportionately more of it)

Given the size of those missiles I'd guestimate that whole warhead forend as roughly the size of hatchback for the Mk13, a minivan for the MK16, and maybe a sprinter van for the Mk23.

tlb wrote:Well, he was proposing to add capacitors, to be charged by the fusion reactor before the separation. We know that capacitors are sufficient to power the explosion.

The proposal is (perhaps) to only have the warhead, control electronics and these extra capacitors in the very front of the missile and at the appropriate time separate the nose assembly from the rest of the missile. My only complaint about this process is that it adds weight (the capacitors) in order to achieve some benefit only for the tiniest fraction of a second between dropping the wedge, separation of the nose and the warhead explosion. Since the designers can make the time separation between dropping the wedge and the warhead explosion vanishingly small, the benefit is also vanishingly small.

And we see for those diagrams the warhead forend is a significant part of the missile. You're not dropping 2/3rds the length if the warhead section alone (before you add a capacitor ring to power it all) is 50-55% of the length. And as noted previously, if you blow up a separated reactor before setting off the warhead (using the capacitor you added to it) it'll still almost certainly kill the warhead.

The warhead assembly is big enough you can't easily throw it clear of the missile -- not far enough for it to survive the blast of a failing fusion reactor.

Mk 13 missile cutaway
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/honorverse/images/b/bf/Mk_13_missile.png/revision/latest?cb=20170110171323

Mk 16 missile cutaway


Mk16 Missile Terminal Sequence






and MaXXQ's missile comparison:
https://forums.scifi-meshes.com/uploads/vb_attachments/16104/106298.jpg

and CM Comparison:
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/4c2562a6-da78-48fd-ac00-d4549a769164/d7pa278-d84f8928-14f0-4f14-86c3-4d25240ddf80.jpg/v1/fill/w_605,h_350,q_70,strp/cm_and_viper_family_portrait_002_by_maxxqbunine_d7pa278-350t.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9Njg3IiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNGMyNTYyYTYtZGE3OC00OGZkLWFjMDAtZDQ1NDlhNzY5MTY0XC9kN3BhMjc4LWQ4NGY4OTI4LTE0ZjAtNGYxNC04NmMzLTRkMjUyNDBkZGY4MC5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTE4OCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.0D05yoGCDdLZXYlC-8yfQG-g1zujodKH3hSBA092xvw

If those truly are to scale, something is off.

We know mass of MK21 CM
We know mass of MK 13 SDM
We know mass of MK16 DDM

By MERE diameter scaling(not length) If Mk21 is 10t
This would put the Mk30/31 CM around 20t
This would put the MK 9 Viper around 30t

BUT: MK9 vrs On scale picture with MK13 SDM this is NOT close at all as MK9 diametrically is 50% that of the Mk13(4X smaller) and is ~50% shorter making it 8X smaller than the MK13 which we know is 74t. This would put the MK9 Viper at 10t or less even though we know the Mk21 is 10t or is it 12t? I always get that number mixed in my memory banks. In either case, we have a problem.

Just an FYI: By scaling the picture also shows the MK16 vrs MK23 is roughly 1.33X diameter and 1.33 or 94t *1.33*1.33 = 165t and Apollo would be ~north of 240t.

NIT: MK13 vrs Mk16 when scaled obtain an ~83t MK13 and both have identical diameters. Are we sure that is the MK13 and not ERM version which we know cannot be fired out of the old MK13 missile tubes? I know the picture says otherwise but... It would partially help the ratio's and make a bit more sense.

Anyways, I am sure I typed this exact same thing about 10 years ago... g

The HOLOTANK is working!

Thanks Theemile!!

tlb wrote:Well, he was proposing to add capacitors, to be charged by the fusion reactor before the separation. We know that capacitors are sufficient to power the explosion.

Thanks, but not just the same volume of previous capacitors. I am talking about a much smaller bank of capacitors. I am banking (no pun intended) on the notion that the entire previous bank of capacitors were not needed for several microseconds of detonation. After all, if we must install the same volume of capacitors as was consumed by the reactor, then the exercise is moot anyway.

That is why I questioned whether the power needed is too “cost” prohibitive, i.e., too big a power budget to expect from a relatively small bank of capacitors.

tlb wrote:Well, he was proposing to add capacitors, to be charged by the fusion reactor before the separation. We know that capacitors are sufficient to power the explosion.

penny wrote:Thanks, but not just the same volume of previous capacitors. I am talking about a much smaller bank of capacitors. I am banking (no pun intended) on the notion that the entire previous bank of capacitors were not needed for several microseconds of detonation. After all, if we must install the same volume of capacitors as was consumed by the reactor, then the exercise is moot anyway.

That is why I questioned whether the power needed is too “cost” prohibitive, i.e., too big a power budget to expect from a relatively small bank of capacitors.

I never said otherwise. Manticore's engineers would know exactly how big the capacitor bank had to be to power the electronics and the explosion.

PS: We know that the missile has to periodically view the target (or at least the outlines of the target's wedge to look for the openings), but that means the target also can intermittently see the missile body. Neither will be completely blind.

tlb wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:One interesting piece mentioned is the improved gravitational lazing in the laser rods ejected from the warhead-?as opposed to the missile body? just prior to detonation - to focus the energy from the detonation on a target- which implies that probably EACH lazing rod has it's own gravitational focusing system probably powered by a capacitor because if you cut off the power from the device you are going to loose the focus and concentration on the target.

I do not think that is correct. It is true that there has to be something with the rods to aim them in the correct direction after ejection. But the big gravitational focusing acts on the nuclear explosion, to shape from being spherical to being more directed at the rods and so increasing the amount of power that they receive.

That would be one powerful grav focus device. So you would have to have that already generator on with a "hole " left in the field to force the detonation at the rods. Of course, just after detonation the generator is going to vaporize as the warhead (with missile attached) is going to move though that explosion.

tlb wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:One interesting piece mentioned is the improved gravitational lazing in the laser rods ejected from the warhead-?as opposed to the missile body? just prior to detonation - to focus the energy from the detonation on a target- which implies that probably EACH lazing rod has it's own gravitational focusing system probably powered by a capacitor because if you cut off the power from the device you are going to loose the focus and concentration on the target.

I do not think that is correct. It is true that there has to be something with the rods to aim them in the correct direction after ejection. But the big gravitational focusing acts on the nuclear explosion, to shape from being spherical to being more directed at the rods and so increasing the amount of power that they receive.

I think you're right. I'd assume that the grav lensing for laserheads is a outgrowth of the advanced versions of the old
"burn" modes on pre-laserhead missiles. IFF described the those later ones as

In Fire Forged wrote:The development of another generation of powerful practical micronized grav generators marked the next evolutionary step in missile warfare in 1806 with the introduction of the first nuclear gravitically directed energy weapon (NGDEW). The key components were grav lens arrays derived from those that had dramatically increased shipboard laser/graser effectiveness roughly fifty years earlier. The very first of these arrays was called a “plate array” and simply reflected the bomb’s energy off a flat artificial grav wave similar to an impeller or sidewall behind the warhead. Research continually tightened the focus of the grav arrays as impeller missile standoff ranges grew from tens of hundreds to tens of thousands of kilometers over the ensuing decades. The early grav lens arrays were quite large, however, and frequently displaced the sidewall penetrators until further refinements could reduce their sizes.

And (since those missiles lacked lasing rods) those grav lenses were definitely on the missile itself.

And yes, they'd probably be overwhelmed quite quickly and be vaporized with the rest of the missile body. But as long as they increase the effectiveness of the attack some before failing they've done their job.