Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

Jonathan_S wrote:Given RFC's categorical statement that those control links cannot be repurposed I see a couple possibilities for how this text could be read (other than an authorial mistake)

1) The skew turn to bring Hexapuma to bear on the battlecruiser might have caused her wedge to interpose between her and the destroyer -- that alone would have cut the downlinks (they can't transmit effectively through the ship's wedge; and a mere heavy cruiser doesn't have any type of Keyhole to allow it to control missiles while rolled)

2) The text said "to deal with the damned battlecruiser" not 'to deal with the missile salvo' -- so they might have been cutting links to the existing Mk16 DDM in order to refocus on sending double-broadsides after the BC.
The text doesn't mention counter-fire from Hexapuma, but it would be crazy not to launch on the BC. If you weather the sucker punch you need those missiles in flight to start hitting back -- if you go full defensive especially against a heavier opponent, you're going to lose it's just a matter of time.

Ah, okay. Clears it up a bit, thank you.

Theemile wrote:
That being said, I'm still on the current distributed solution - having your defenses in a handful of ships is dangerous, with single point failure.

As seen in the series, in fleet use, you can't guarantee that you have sufficient specialist units in position, working, and available for your mission. Forex, prior to the series, Flagship CAs (Crusader) were built in a 7:1 ratio to the Prince Adrians class CAs. Sufficient ships were never available to be squadron flags, so when the Star Knights came available, they tended to be used as flagships, not powerful, independent cruisers, as they were intended.

If I am correct, part of the issue with the Crusaders was also their funding being cut by Janacek.

Maybe seeing if they can tie LACs in to control the CMs could work? Given that LAC carriers are turning to a more defensive role and don't have much armament to begin with, stuffing extra CM control channels onto either the LACs or the carriers doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:

Theemile wrote:
That being said, I'm still on the current distributed solution - having your defenses in a handful of ships is dangerous, with single point failure.

As seen in the series, in fleet use, you can't guarantee that you have sufficient specialist units in position, working, and available for your mission. Forex, prior to the series, Flagship CAs (Crusader) were built in a 7:1 ratio to the Prince Adrians class CAs. Sufficient ships were never available to be squadron flags, so when the Star Knights came available, they tended to be used as flagships, not powerful, independent cruisers, as they were intended.

If I am correct, part of the issue with the Crusaders was also their funding being cut by Janacek.

Maybe seeing if they can tie LACs in to control the CMs could work? Given that LAC carriers are turning to a more defensive role and don't have much armament to begin with, stuffing extra CM control channels onto either the LACs or the carriers doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.

25 Crusaders were built, for 175 Prince Adrians - a 1:7 ratio forming 25 squadrons. Additional Crusaders were planned, but cut back to the exact ratio, and this left holes in planning, since entire squadrons do not go into maintenance together.

Prior to Apollo, ships did not pass missile control links much. I'm not certain if it's possible to pass control of non-pod launched missiles from one ship to another en mass.

Theemile wrote:
25 Crusaders were built, for 175 Prince Adrians - a 1:7 ratio forming 25 squadrons. Additional Crusaders were planned, but their exact ratio, left holes in planning, since entire squadrons do not go into maintenance together.

Prior to Apollo, ships did not pass control links much. I'm not certain if it's possible to pass control of non-pod launched missiles from one ship to another en mass.

"One of Janacek's decisions as First Lord was to cut funding for the Crusader-class for almost seventy percent, thus reducing the number of available ships and increasing every individual ship's price tag. Eventually, the number of available Crusaders was insufficient to meet the demands of flagships for the Prince Consort-equipped squadrons, thereby forcing the Navy to employ the newer Star Knight-class vessels instead."

In terms of control links, maybe if they used pod-based CM canisters? That way each ship could take individual control and the control links could be balanced, plus they could be limpet-mined to the ship's hull before the battle. Real question is how many missiles a Katana or Shrike-class LAC can handle, to be honest.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:

Theemile wrote:
25 Crusaders were built, for 175 Prince Adrians - a 1:7 ratio forming 25 squadrons. Additional Crusaders were planned, but their exact ratio, left holes in planning, since entire squadrons do not go into maintenance together.

Prior to Apollo, ships did not pass control links much. I'm not certain if it's possible to pass control of non-pod launched missiles from one ship to another en mass.

"One of Janacek's decisions as First Lord was to cut funding for the Crusader-class for almost seventy percent, thus reducing the number of available ships and increasing every individual ship's price tag. Eventually, the number of available Crusaders was insufficient to meet the demands of flagships for the Prince Consort-equipped squadrons, thereby forcing the Navy to employ the newer Star Knight-class vessels instead."

In terms of control links, maybe if they used pod-based CM canisters? That way each ship could take individual control and the control links could be balanced, plus they could be limpet-mined to the ship's hull before the battle. Real question is how many missiles a Katana or Shrike-class LAC can handle, to be honest.

A Katana has 5 CM launchers in it's front aspect, Shrike's have 4 - a capital missile CM canister holds 5 CMs, so a 12 cell Flatpack pod would launch 60 CMs. Unless they can spread a single pod across a squadron, I fear a single CM pod would overwhelm a Katana's firecontrol.

(Cruiser CM canisters hold 4 CMs, DD canisters 3. The Mk16 based flatpack Pod holds 14 missiles, or 56 CMs. (was checking just in case it was the superior launcher.))

Theemile wrote:
A Katana has 5 CM launchers in it's front aspect, Shrike's have 4 - a capital missile CM canister holds 5 CMs, so a 12 cell Flatpack pod would launch 60 CMs. Unless they can spread a single pod across a squadron, I fear a single CM pod would overwhelm a Katana's firecontrol.

(Cruiser CM canisters hold 4 CMs, DD canisters 3. The Mk16 based flatpack Pod holds 14 missiles, or 56 CMs. (was checking just in case it was the superior launcher.))

True. I guess the best way would then be the carrier handling them, or finding a way to slip control links into the pods themselves. An Apollo pod holds what, eight missiles plus the control one? Thats forty CMs with a decent amount of space in the pod for Control Links and telemetry. It doesnt need to operate for as long as Apollo either, so it should be feasible, especially with micro-fusion plants.

Edit: Plus each LAC can likely handle at least three volleys of their own CMs at a time, and building more in shouldnt be too big of an issue, I dont think.

Theemile wrote:A Katana has 5 CM launchers in it's front aspect, Shrike's have 4 - a capital missile CM canister holds 5 CMs, so a 12 cell Flatpack pod would launch 60 CMs. Unless they can spread a single pod across a squadron, I fear a single CM pod would overwhelm a Katana's firecontrol.

(Cruiser CM canisters hold 4 CMs, DD canisters 3. The Mk16 based flatpack Pod holds 14 missiles, or 56 CMs. (was checking just in case it was the superior launcher.))

I'd be a bit worried about trying to spam 60 CMs out of a single pod -- each has a multi-km wide wedge and it'd seem a real challenge to achieve necessary separation to avoid mutual wedge fratricide with 60 CMs trying to launch out of an area of, what, a hundred or so m^2?

You can play some games with slightly sequencing the starts (though you still have to avoid clipping a CM body with another's wedge), and the pod's grav drivers should be angled to provide some separation before wedge ignition. But with 12 canisters then having to spread 4 CMs apiece out... I don't know where they'd all fit.

Jonathan_S wrote:I'd be a bit worried about trying to spam 60 CMs out of a single pod -- each has a multi-km wide wedge and it'd seem a real challenge to achieve necessary separation to avoid mutual wedge fratricide with 60 CMs trying to launch out of an area of, what, a hundred or so m^2?

You can play some games with slightly sequencing the starts (though you still have to avoid clipping a CM body with another's wedge), and the pod's grav drivers should be angled to provide some separation before wedge ignition. But with 12 canisters then having to spread 4 CMs apiece out... I don't know where they'd all fit.

Maybe slightly angle the launchers? Dunno, we know that CM cannisters work, so if you can get enough separation between the canisters it should be fine.

Zendikarofthewest wrote:

Theemile wrote:
A Katana has 5 CM launchers in it's front aspect, Shrike's have 4 - a capital missile CM canister holds 5 CMs, so a 12 cell Flatpack pod would launch 60 CMs. Unless they can spread a single pod across a squadron, I fear a single CM pod would overwhelm a Katana's firecontrol.

(Cruiser CM canisters hold 4 CMs, DD canisters 3. The Mk16 based flatpack Pod holds 14 missiles, or 56 CMs. (was checking just in case it was the superior launcher.))

True. I guess the best way would then be the carrier handling them, or finding a way to slip control links into the pods themselves. An Apollo pod holds what, eight missiles plus the control one? Thats forty CMs with a decent amount of space in the pod for Control Links and telemetry. It doesnt need to operate for as long as Apollo either, so it should be feasible, especially with micro-fusion plants.

Edit: Plus each LAC can likely handle at least three volleys of their own CMs at a time, and building more in shouldnt be too big of an issue, I dont think.

Pods should recoil horribly (we don't see this in the books, but it's basic physics), so having control links in the pod is probably a bad idea, as even a tumble will cause loss of the control links. Jonathan S detailed the use of an ACM with CMs above - a new Control CM could be built for CMs, but could it field 40 control links aimed at not 1 but 40 targets? doubtful.

The 3 broadside control design in modern ships is for a single, cohesive volley of ship killers to overwhelm a target's defenses. CMs are intended to be used more as a constant stream, slowly eroding the incoming volleys of ship killers. Control links seem to work in a phased approach, capable of gently guiding several salvos through space at the same time, but only able to give targeting focus to a relative handful of missiles at a time. In a Sag-C, for instance, in the 6 minutes of the controlled flight of a mk16, twenty 40 missile salvos can be fired, but only 128 missiles can be in target acquisition at any time. It was mentioned at the battle of Lovat, that the RMN taskforce had 8 CM salvos in space at any time, and could have had 11 salvos, but lacked the fire control to have any more.

Even if a Katana can control 3 salvos of CMs in acquisition at any time, a CM canister pod would saturate the fire control of 1/2 an 8 ship squadron.

One possible future design mentioned is a "modular" LAC, where the missile magazine is essentially an ejectable cargo container, and LACs can reload quickly - whether from a larder or a tractored spare magazine module, allowing LACS to get back in the fight sooner.

But that for tomorrow, and a whole new ship design at that. Supposedly, there are still a handful of the original Shrike-As still floating around some backwater, so I don't see the thousands of relatively new Shrikes and Katanas being replaced en-mass any time soon.

Theemile wrote:
Pods should recoil horribly (we don't see this in the books, but it's basic physics), so having control links in the pod is probably a bad idea, as even a tumble will cause loss of the control links. Jonathan S detailed the use of an ACM with CMs above - a new Control CM could be built for CMs, but could it field 40 control links aimed at not 1 but 40 targets? doubtful.

I do wonder if the tractor beams are precise enough to prevent the recoil, but your comment about Control Links makes sense. Im not sure that there is enough space for forty control links a pod, but even thirty CMs would still be significant. Maybe using beamed power? Dunno.

I think what they are likely to do is just massively increase control links in general, for both ship-killers and CMs going forward. Keyhole I/II will help quite a bit though, I think.

One interesting possibility would be MDCMs, maybe launched from limpet pods or retrofitted to broadsides? Accuracy would be worse at that range, though.