Three-stage vs. two stage multidrive missiles

But now we have only three classes of them
->DDM anything lighter than waller
->three stage wallers
->four stage system defence
What about creating DDM with Apollo control bird? Against Sollies DDM would be better, cus MDM are a big overkill for a quite long time.

Draken wrote:But now we have only three classes of them
->DDM anything lighter than waller
->three stage wallers
->four stage system defence
What about creating DDM with Apollo control bird? Against Sollies DDM would be better, cus MDM are a big overkill for a quite long time.

I still say that I expect other Honorverse star nations to be working on MDM designs within 2 years.

An Apollo DDM is a possibility, but it would probably have to be almost as big as an Apollo MDM. Remember that the Apollo doesn't have a warhead, and is double the size of a regular MDM. Most of that size is due to the FTL comm equipment and to a lesser extent the computer processor. They had a hard time fitting into even an oversize MDM; the only thing they can shrink to make it a DDM is to cut out one drive, which makes it only a little smaller. A missile that size would be too big for a cruiser, or even for a Nike battlecruiser. We aren't even sure that an Apollo MDM will fit on a superdreadnought broadside, so there is no guarantee that the DDM version can fit on the broadside either. Which means that it's a pod weapon, just like the Apollo MDM. Why build a DDM pod when you already have MDM pods at only a little more cost?

JeffEngel wrote:snip

Also - if the third drive does not represent much more trouble, why is it that they are using merely two drive missiles at all for the cruisers? Certainly the DDM was a stretch to fit into the Roland at all, but if the 3 drive missiles are that much better and not much harder to build - heck, if you're committed to them anyway and they're not much bigger than the DDM's - why not just build the Rolands a bit larger and fill them with a 3 drive missile, perhaps even the same missile you use on the larger ships and spare yourself one more ammunition type?

snip

(Bold mine)

Here's a size comparison of the various missiles:

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -465723294
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -465723413

Now, if you were to scale up the Roland the same proportions as the differences between the -16 and the -23, you'd end up with a destroyer the size of a heavy cruiser.

Also, what SWM says about the size of the Apollo Control Missile is true - you *can't* shrink it down any more - at the moment. No, I don't have any "insider" info relating to that... it's simply a reasoned bit of speculation that eventually, the RMN will be able to downsize the ACM somewhat.

I suppose you could do *another* pod-type that carries something like 10 DDMs and an ACM, but I don't really see the point.

Draken wrote:But now we have only three classes of them
->DDM anything lighter than waller
->three stage wallers
->four stage system defence
What about creating DDM with Apollo control bird? Against Sollies DDM would be better, cus MDM are a big overkill for a quite long time.

Also anti-LAC (Vipers in the RMN) and LAC anti-ship missiles (whatever Ferrets and Shrikes use)

SWM wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Well classically you always had at least 4 missiles types:
1) LAC missiles
2) DD/CL missiles
3) CA/BC missiles
4)Capital BB/BN/SD missiles.

[snip]

Actually, the system defense missile has also been a fifth classical missile type, even bigger than the capital missile. We saw an example all the way back in HoTQ when Blackbird launched them at Honor.

Yeah I actually thought about including those, but I was thinking ship missiles. (Just didn't actually say ship missiles).

And other navies might split things up differently, as well. But the point is there was never (at least not in recent history) a common missile for all classes, nor were there usually a separate missile design for each class.

But right now, in real front line, service Manticore only has a couple more missiles that the historic 4 (or 5).
1. Anti-LAC Vipers
2. Ferret/Shrike LAC missiles
3. Mk35 LERM for Wolfhound DDs and Avalon CLs
4. Mk16 DDMs for Roland DD, Sag-C, Agamemnon BC(P), and Nike BC(L)
5. Mk23 MDM for SD(P)s
6. Mk23-E Apollo control missile
(7. 4 drive MDM for system defense)
(8. 4 drive Apollo control missile for system defense)

So one more LAC/anti-LAC missile, then the 3 extra designs for the 3 and 4 drive Apollo control missiles.

Of course they're also in a bit of a transitional stage, so they've still got lots of older ships with various SDMs; plus Sag-Bs with Mk14 ERMs. But that happens anytime you transition to a larger missile - you have to keep the smaller ones in inventory until you retire or refit all the ships with the older/smaller launchers.

SWM wrote:

Draken wrote:What about creating DDM with Apollo control bird?

An Apollo DDM is a possibility, but it would probably have to be almost as big as an Apollo MDM. Remember that the Apollo doesn't have a warhead, and is double the size of a regular MDM. Most of that size is due to the FTL comm equipment and to a lesser extent the computer processor. They had a hard time fitting into even an oversize MDM; the only thing they can shrink to make it a DDM is to cut out one drive, which makes it only a little smaller. A missile that size would be too big for a cruiser, or even for a Nike battlecruiser. We aren't even sure that an Apollo MDM will fit on a superdreadnought broadside, so there is no guarantee that the DDM version can fit on the broadside either. Which means that it's a pod weapon, just like the Apollo MDM. Why build a DDM pod when you already have MDM pods at only a little more cost?

Plus you don't get the full benefit of the Apollo control missile until you've got a Keyhole II along. And not even the BC(L) or BC(P) have enough volume to mount those (they can barely squeeze in the smaller Keyhole I relays).

Now, thinking about it, there are reported benefits to the Apollo missile controls even under lightspeed fire control. So it maybe not be totally inconceivable that we might see a DDM with the missile control links and the Apollo computer, but without the FTL link.
That should make it a lot smaller than the FTL com capable MDM version - maybe even small enough (and good enough) to be worth doing.

SWM wrote:A ballistic phase gives the enemy extra time to figure out where your salvo is going. The missiles have to be aimed in the general direction of your target when the first stage cuts off. If you had continuous power, you could delay the point at which you give away your general target until later in the trajectory.

As has been posted Multiple times from multiple people all using simple math, your stated point is complete BS.

The stand off attack range of the missiles in question ALONE makes your point completely BS.

Relax wrote:

SWM wrote:A ballistic phase gives the enemy extra time to figure out where your salvo is going. The missiles have to be aimed in the general direction of your target when the first stage cuts off. If you had continuous power, you could delay the point at which you give away your general target until later in the trajectory.

As has been posted Multiple times from multiple people all using simple math, your stated point is complete BS.

The stand off attack range of the missiles in question ALONE makes your point completely BS.

A little civility, if you don't mind. I have had my differences of opinion with SWM, but I don't see the need to be abusive.

Relax wrote:

SWM wrote:A ballistic phase gives the enemy extra time to figure out where your salvo is going. The missiles have to be aimed in the general direction of your target when the first stage cuts off. If you had continuous power, you could delay the point at which you give away your general target until later in the trajectory.

As has been posted Multiple times from multiple people all using simple math, your stated point is complete BS.

The stand off attack range of the missiles in question ALONE makes your point completely BS.

I said "in the general direction." It was overly simplistic, but my point was that a ballistic phase does not allow a missile to maneuver as much as a third boost phase, so an MDM can disguise its general targeting longer.

Here is a more detailed explanation.

Consider a DDM with ballistic phase. As drive 1 cuts off, the missile must be aimed within X degrees of the target. This is because by the time drive 2 ignites, the missile will be millions of miles off the direct line between attacking ship and target ship, and will only have 1 drive left to compensate for this offset.

When a 3-drive MDM cuts off drive 1, it can be aimed at a much wider angle Y. That is because it still has 2 drives left to maneuver.

That's what I meant with my overly simplistic statement.

Here is the simple math for those who wish to read(again):

Assumptions:
0) Wedge geometry per pearl for angles dims etc.
1) Task Force with normal spacing.
2) Spacing is less than wedge width for even Havenites
3) Wedge SD is 300km wide.
4) Task force of 100 ships.
5) Task force grid = approx 10x10
6) Grid total width/height = approx 6000km
7) Add LAC's if you wish, but main targets are SDP.
8) Stand off attack range is +++30,000km for Havenites
9) Stand off attack range is 50,000km or greater for RMN

At this point no need bothering with actual physics as everyone can figure out 30-50,000km is vastly >> than the 6000km arrayed task force. Each missile can attack EVERY single ship. To continue to allow each missile to attack EVERY single ship using ballistic phase:

10) Acceleration for SDP is sub 600g
11) To hit any ship in said formation = 30,000-6000 km
12) Time required at 600g to move 24,000km for 100% completely ballistic missiles, no secondary or tertiary drive activation.
13) 24,000,000 = 1/2(600g*~10ms^2/g)(t^2)
14) t = 89s@30,000km
15) t = 141s@60,000km stand off attack range
14a) t@drift vel of 1st drive = 7Mkm ballistic
15a) t@drift vel of 1st drive = 11Mkm ballistic
14b) t@drift vel of 2nd drive = 14Mkm ballistic
15b) t@drift vel of 2nd drive = 22Mkm ballistic

Assume simple ship rotate broadside away: Should be an obvious move for defensive tactic against ballistic = required change of 30,000km vertically,

t = SQRT(30,000,000)/0.5sine30(92,000g*10) = 11.4s
= no CM launches. See 24i).

16) Do we really want to get into how much drive time is required for the missile to make up 'x' movement by the ships?
17) Ok, here goes EXAMPLE:
18) For DDM 1st Drive attains velocity of ~80,000km/s
19) For giggle and gits Call a drift time of 5minutes(300s) = 24Mkm traveled
19a) Total 24Mkm + DDM@360s@46,000g(30Mkm) = 54Mkm

Roughly approximate to a 3 drive missile distance AKA SOLON for instance. But @ Solon only drifted ballistically 11Mkm due to initial velocity. This is for a calculated 0m/s initial velocity. Or you might notice the 11Mkm at Solon lines up EXACTLY with 15a) Hey, guess what? RFC, DW, 1st space Lord, our favorite author in chief ain't stupid folks! He did the simple math in other words. Anyways, back to:

20) Ship can move: 270,000km laterally in 5min@600g&0rotation negative time to 90 degrees line of motion.
21) Missile drive time required for lateral translation
22) 270,000,000m = 1/2sine30(46,000g*~10ms^2/g)(t^2)
23) t = 48.5s, so less than single drive.
24) Rerun numbers with single sprint drive
24a) 270,000,000m = 1/2sine30(92,000g*~10ms^2/g)(t^2)
24b) t = 34s.
24c) Distance out when enemy sees 2nd drive
24d) d = 2.7Mkm.
24e) Assume instant CM launch under computer control
24f) CM's intercept at 750,000km
24g) CM's 2nd salvo @8s @439,000km
24h) CM's 3rd salvo @16s @ 210,000km
24i) CM's 4th salvo @24s @65,000km(Inside PDLC) and subtract travel time of launcher to sidewall velocity/outside wedge. IE can't get fired out to 65,000km range with 10s left. Missiles already exploded before CM pegs em.

Anyways extrapolate your own scenarios.