Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

tlb wrote:I wonder if a two stage CM would be worthwhile, to try and make the longer range missile kill. The wedge makes a missile very myopic, so put better seeker instrumentation in and make use of an intermediate ballistic phase to scan for targets (probably need to net these together to balance the attack plan).

Galton thought so. And TEIF tells us that Hemphill and Foraker are working on such a thing themselves.

So the in-universe thinking seems to have shifting to believing that in fact a two stage / two-drive CM would be worthwhile.

Though I tend to doubt the CM is going to need to go ballistic during its flight.
Even if they reduce the individual drive endurance back down to the classic 60 seconds, given the 130000g accel of a current RMN CM that'd give it a powered range of 9.1 million km. (That actually exceeds the powered range of a normal single drive missile!)
But I guess if being ballistic helped with seeing they could always build even lower endurance drives, or just not use a significant fraction of one or both drives

tlb wrote:I wonder if a two stage CM would be worthwhile, to try and make the longer range missile kill. The wedge makes a missile very myopic, so put better seeker instrumentation in and make use of an intermediate ballistic phase to scan for targets (probably need to net these together to balance the attack plan).

Jonathan_S wrote:Galton thought so. And TEIF tells us that Hemphill and Foraker are working on such a thing themselves.

So the in-universe thinking seems to have shifting to believing that in fact a two stage / two-drive CM would be worthwhile.

Though I tend to doubt the CM is going to need to go ballistic during its flight.
Even if they reduce the individual drive endurance back down to the classic 60 seconds, given the 130000g accel of a current RMN CM that'd give it a powered range of 9.1 million km. (That actually exceeds the powered range of a normal single drive missile!)
But I guess if being ballistic helped with seeing they could always build even lower endurance drives, or just not use a significant fraction of one or both drives

Actually my initial thought on what they might do involved a pod with motive power that would carry regular CM's out to engagement range and that would have the additional instrumentation to find the incoming missiles and direct the attack. I am not sure which would be cheaper or more flexible and I certainly do not know what Bolthole is planning..

tlb wrote:
So the in-universe thinking seems to have shifting to believing that in fact a two stage / two-drive CM would be worthwhile.

Though I tend to doubt the CM is going to need to go ballistic during its flight.
Even if they reduce the individual drive endurance back down to the classic 60 seconds, given the 130000g accel of a current RMN CM that'd give it a powered range of 9.1 million km. (That actually exceeds the powered range of a normal single drive missile!)
But I guess if being ballistic helped with seeing they could always build even lower endurance drives, or just not use a significant fraction of one or both drives

Actually my initial thought on what they might do involved a pod with motive power that would carry regular CM's out to engagement range and that would have the additional instrumentation to find the incoming missiles and direct the attack. I am not sure which would be cheaper or more flexible and I certainly do not know what Bolthole is planning..[/quote]

Well, depending on how you could bring Apollo into it, it could be possible to graft an CM canister onto a MDM missile and fire it (them) at incoming volleys that are not in the firing solution for your shots at your advisory. You would need really fine control as your going to have to deal with possible fraticide with the counter missiles when they launch/eject from the canister but it might be possible to -with Apollo and FTL to give CMs much better targeting information. That would be on the relative positions of the incoming missiles with speed, acceleration etc but current, not what was stuck in if the same CM was fired it's home ship. It's also -probably- going to be closing on an interception points with the incoming missiles at LOWER VELOCITY even if they are still under power and not in a ballistic phase. Earlier to hit. Every one you do destroy is one less that gets to the direct ship launched range at higher velocity and one less that could get though your "normal" ppg and counter missile defensive envelope. Real time targeting at several hundreds of times the engagement range of your regular CM launches. l will even suggest that once the missile with the CM canister lets go it's volley it could modify it's direction to head off in the direction of your aggressor force. Create kind of a "Dam where did that come from?" situation and distract your opponent's targeting just a mite....Wouldn't hurt you, might hurt them.

Brigade XO wrote:it could be possible to graft an CM canister onto a MDM missile and fire it (them) at incoming volleys that are not in the firing solution for your shots at your advisory. You would need really fine control as your going to have to deal with possible fraticide with the counter missiles when they launch/eject from the canister

If CM's can already be fired from a pod or a canister, then the problem of fratricide on launch has already been solved.

Brigade XO wrote:Well, depending on how you could bring Apollo into it, it could be possible to graft an CM canister onto a MDM missile and fire it (them) at incoming volleys that are not in the firing solution for your shots at your advisory. You would need really fine control as your going to have to deal with possible fraticide with the counter missiles when they launch/eject from the canister but it might be possible to -with Apollo and FTL to give CMs much better targeting information. That would be on the relative positions of the incoming missiles with speed, acceleration etc but current, not what was stuck in if the same CM was fired it's home ship. It's also -probably- going to be closing on an interception points with the incoming missiles at LOWER VELOCITY even if they are still under power and not in a ballistic phase. Earlier to hit. Every one you do destroy is one less that gets to the direct ship launched range at higher velocity and one less that could get though your "normal" ppg and counter missile defensive envelope. Real time targeting at several hundreds of times the engagement range of your regular CM launches. l will even suggest that once the missile with the CM canister lets go it's volley it could modify it's direction to head off in the direction of your aggressor force. Create kind of a "Dam where did that come from?" situation and distract your opponent's targeting just a mite....Wouldn't hurt you, might hurt them.

Another possibility is your fleet deploys a shell of drones with FTL receivers and CM fire control links. Kind of like a cross between an Apollo Control Missile and a Keyhole. Unlike an ACM it's a non-expendable drone and talks to CMs rather than MDMs; but unlike a Keyhole you talk to it via FTL (probably from a Keyhole II)

That doesn't work if you're engaged by total surprise; but if you suspect combat is possible you should have time to get those relay drones out.

The one drawback to an extended range CM doctrine is that it should be less effective. The longer the range that CMs engage, the more dispersed enemy salvos are, except the RMN and RHN. Dunno if we have any details on the flight profiles of pre Andermani missiles. CMs are fired in dense clusters which should be more effective the closer the enemy salvo is to the fleet – where the salvo has maneuvered into more of a closely knit group for attack.

Of course, the saving grace is hopefully there'll be time for more CM launches and their effectiveness is considered collectively.

Anyway, when I said use regular missiles for CM duty in a pinch, I’d think those missiles should be used to kill any missile beyond range of a CM launch, thus thining the herd for CMs. Whatever misses can continue on to attack enemy LACs.

Another option (both of these options need to be field tested) is to attack with missiles closer in. The closer the missiles the less room a missile will have for evasive maneuvers and still be able to hit the intended target. Missiles with the guidance of Apollo closer in should be more effective with no lag. And missiles can be double teamed. Missiles do not have a peripheral vision to detect a companion missile targeting it.

Question: Early on in the series IINM weren't there launches to protect the LACs that were out in front? Which had to’ve been CM launches which implies that LACs are inside CM range? That doesn't seem likely.

penny wrote:The one drawback to an extended range CM doctrine is that it should be less effective. The longer the range that CMs engage, the more dispersed enemy salvos are, except the RMN and RHN. Dunno if we have any details on the flight profiles of pre Andermani missiles. CMs are fired in dense clusters which should be more effective the closer the enemy salvo is to the fleet – where the salvo has maneuvered into more of a closely knit group for attack.

Of course, the saving grace is hopefully there'll be time for more CM launches and their effectiveness is considered collectively.

Anyway, when I said use regular missiles for CM duty in a pinch, I’d think those missiles should be used to kill any missile beyond range of a CM launch, thus thining the herd for CMs. Whatever misses can continue on to attack enemy LACs.

Another option (both of these options need to be field tested) is to attack with missiles closer in. The closer the missiles the less room a missile will have for evasive maneuvers and still be able to hit the intended target. Missiles with the guidance of Apollo closer in should be more effective with no lag. And missiles can be double teamed. Missiles do not have a peripheral vision to detect a companion missile targeting it.

Question: Early on in the series IINM weren't there launches to protect the LACs that were out in front? Which had to’ve been CM launches which implies that LACs are inside CM range? That doesn't seem likely.

LACS wern't used heavily until the last phases of the first war, and usually were used independently of the wall at that time. LACs were used by the AMCs mid-war in a close in role, but as a surprise force multiplier, not a defending unit.

penny wrote:The one drawback to an extended range CM doctrine is that it should be less effective. The longer the range that CMs engage, the more dispersed enemy salvos are, except the RMN and RHN. Dunno if we have any details on the flight profiles of pre Andermani missiles. CMs are fired in dense clusters which should be more effective the closer the enemy salvo is to the fleet – where the salvo has maneuvered into more of a closely knit group for attack.

Of course, the saving grace is hopefully there'll be time for more CM launches and their effectiveness is considered collectively.

Anyway, when I said use regular missiles for CM duty in a pinch, I’d think those missiles should be used to kill any missile beyond range of a CM launch, thus thining the herd for CMs. Whatever misses can continue on to attack enemy LACs.

Another option (both of these options need to be field tested) is to attack with missiles closer in. The closer the missiles the less room a missile will have for evasive maneuvers and still be able to hit the intended target. Missiles with the guidance of Apollo closer in should be more effective with no lag. And missiles can be double teamed. Missiles do not have a peripheral vision to detect a companion missile targeting it.

Given the attack range of the laser head, the incoming missiles are most closely bunched before the midpoint, not after. Further the closer to the target that missiles are attacked, then the faster they are going; so the less time that a CM has to adjust. I expect it is the speed of the modern multidrive missile that is dictating that there must be a way to get an earlier defense wave. In the single drive era, it was possible to launch multiple groups of regular CM's at a single wave of incoming missiles. Now the speed is such that you might not have time to launch two groups.

Thinning the herd before the launch of regular CM's is precisely why extended range CM's are being contemplated. FTL is NOT needed by the regular CM's used in close in defense, but could be very useful for the long range CM defense. But it remains wasteful to use Apollo missiles in defense, when they are needed to attack the enemy.

PS: What do you mean by "pre Andermani missiles"? Should that be "pre Apollo"?

penny wrote:The one drawback to an extended range CM doctrine is that it should be less effective. The longer the range that CMs engage, the more dispersed enemy salvos are, except the RMN and RHN. Dunno if we have any details on the flight profiles of pre Andermani missiles. CMs are fired in dense clusters which should be more effective the closer the enemy salvo is to the fleet – where the salvo has maneuvered into more of a closely knit group for attack.

That's less of an issue than just increased control lag.
Even in close the odds of a CM blundering into a different missile is low - either it hits the one it was aimed at or it doesn't. If it doesn't it might be able to be re-tasked against a missile of the next salvo - but it won't have the delta-v to intercept a different missile of the same salvo.

Now in close if a CM lost lock very early there might be time to re-task it onto a different missile of the same salvo -- but at extended ranges there's more time to lose that lock and get re-tasked so that might be a wash.

Because CMs aren't really fired in dense clusters. You can't fire enough of them to cover a significant percentage of the space the incoming salvo covers -- even if you're firing to intercept at 100,000 km out. And you have to maintain sufficient separation that the CMs don't kill each other with wedge fratricide; so they have to have fairly significant seperation.
CMs are fired in streams with, when possible, two or more CM going after the same missile, but that would be two or three CMs in a sequence. So only 1 CM from a defensive salvo would target a given missile, but another CM from the next salvo might also target it in case it evades the first CM. And, if there's time, if the first CM hits the 2nd CM gets retasked.
And one advantage of extended CM engagements is that you've more time and (assuming enough missile to require spreading your CMs thin) you can create more stagger between re-engagements so you will have time to redirect any follow-on CMs whose target has already been destroyed.

Still, engaging further out is generally in addition to rather than instead of engaging in close. So though hit percentages are lower at extended range that's still reducing the number of missiles that make it to the classic close-range CM envelope. Plus it forces the incoming missiles to start running their ECM and decoys earlier so the defending fleet has more time to counter them.

Jonathan_S wrote:

penny wrote:The one drawback to an extended range CM doctrine is that it should be less effective. The longer the range that CMs engage, the more dispersed enemy salvos are, except the RMN and RHN. Dunno if we have any details on the flight profiles of pre Andermani missiles. CMs are fired in dense clusters which should be more effective the closer the enemy salvo is to the fleet – where the salvo has maneuvered into more of a closely knit group for attack.

That's less of an issue than just increased control lag.
Even in close the odds of a CM blundering into a different missile is low - either it hits the one it was aimed at or it doesn't. If it doesn't it might be able to be re-tasked against a missile of the next salvo - but it won't have the delta-v to intercept a different missile of the same salvo.

Wait... what? Is there textev stating that presently CMs are aimed at individual missiles, rather than fired in such enormous numbers saturating an area? I know you stated below that saturation isn't possible but I think I remember textev of sorts stating that it is, lest my memory fails me.

Jonathan_S wrote:Now in close if a CM lost lock very early there might be time to re-task it onto a different missile of the same salvo -- but at extended ranges there's more time to lose that lock and get re-tasked so that might be a wash.

Because CMs aren't really fired in dense clusters. You can't fire enough of them to cover a significant percentage of the space the incoming salvo covers -- even if you're firing to intercept at 100,000 km out. And you have to maintain sufficient separation that the CMs don't kill each other with wedge fratricide; so they have to have fairly significant seperation.

I could've sworn textev states that CMs are fired in enormous numbers to ensure interception / hit probability. I agree that that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't somewhat aimed.

Jonathan _S wrote:CMs are fired in streams with, when possible, two or more CM going after the same missile, but that would be two or three CMs in a sequence. So only 1 CM from a defensive salvo would target a given missile, but another CM from the next salvo might also target it in case it evades the first CM. And, if there's time, if the first CM hits the 2nd CM gets retasked.

I wasn't aware of that; which means missile salvos are launched within the enemy's maximum CM range?

Jonathan_S wrote:And one advantage of extended CM engagements is that you've more time and (assuming enough missile to require spreading your CMs thin) you can create more stagger between re-engagements so you will have time to redirect any follow-on CMs whose target has already been destroyed.

That is terrific if possible. I just don't see CMs with that sort of capability. Even if the computers are up for the task of already having at least a second target, which implies being able to handle twice the number of missiles in an enemy salvo.

Jonathan _S wrote:Still, engaging further out is generally in addition to rather than instead of engaging in close. So though hit percentages are lower at extended range that's still reducing the number of missiles that make it to the classic close-range CM envelope. Plus it forces the incoming missiles to start running their ECM and decoys earlier so the defending fleet has more time to counter them.

Yes, in addition to close range launches. I'm beginning to see why it is easier to sneak in a nuke.