?

Jonathan_S wrote:The Mk31 was already a brand new breakthrough in CM performance, the highest acceleration of any missile the RMN has and the first extended drive CM. And then they stuck a single-rod laser-head onto its nose, which has to be at least a 15% increase in length, and it didn't lose even a single g of acceleration.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The Mk31 was already a brand new breakthrough in CM performance, the highest acceleration of any missile the RMN has and the first extended drive CM. And then they stuck a single-rod laser-head onto its nose, which has to be at least a 15% increase in length, and it didn't lose even a single g of acceleration.

Wait, a CM with laser? Where was this?

I'm not doubting, I just don't remember it. CMs don't shoot, they ram.

At All Costs wrote:Grayson-designed Viper anti-LAC missile.
The Viper was about two-thirds the size of a standard LAC missile, but it was quite different. It carried a much smaller warhead, without the multiple lasing rods of a conventional warhead, in order to incorporate significantly better seekers and an enhanced AI. And it also was designed for engagements at much shorter ranges. Engagements in which massive acceleration, agility, and the ability to reach targets quickly were vastly more important than endurance. Which was why the Viper used the same drive systems as the Mark 31 counter-missile.

Storm From The Shadows wrote:That was also the reason it had been such a challenge to squeeze a laser head capable of dealing even with LACs into the new Viper anti-LAC missile. The bay for the single lasing rod was almost two thirds the length of the entire missile body, and finding a place where it could be crammed in had presented all sorts of problems.

At All Costs wrote:Dillinger didn't really like to think about just how expensive each of his LACs' "counter-missiles" actually was. The systems built into the Viper for its anti-LAC role meant it cost twice as much as the standard extended-range Mark 31 CM on which it was based. But the Viper retained the Mark 31's basic drive system, and a counter-missile's impeller wedge was what it used to "sweep up" attack missiles. Which meant the Viper was still perfectly capable of being used defensively, and earmarking a percentage of them for missile defense, rather than using magazine space on dedicated Mark 31s which couldn't be used in the anti-shipping role, simplified their ammunition requirements and gave them a potentially useful cushion both offensively and defensively.

House of Steel wrote: Their multipurpose launchers fire the Viper missile, which can be used in either counter-LAC or counter-missile mode. Used in the second mode, the Viper remains an extremely capable counter-missile, matching the antimissile performance of the cheaper dedicated Mark 31 counter-missile from which it was derived.

penny wrote:
(SNIP by RAW of most of the original)

Which is why I suggested that separating a spent stage could be reserved until this moment. If the missile's acceleration suddenly changes due to dropping a spent stage, then the extra boost of acceleration might be enough to throw the PDLC computer off for a split second. A split second delay might as well be an hour delay in this threat environment.