Future Point Defense Options

Well, if you are going to send CM pods out with the ECM units, why not go whole hog and send some Ghost Rider drones out on the best vector to get positions between your fleet and the enemy fleet about the time when they would be opening fire.

Send missles with CM/Viper canisters out with an initial launch of missiles not to attack the enemy formation but to be long range interceptors. Your Ghost Riders would have the FTL links to communicate with your fleet tactical net and less than regular tactical communications to communicate with the cannester missles and the Vipers.

if you set the cannester missles to maximum acceleration and the the cannesters go ballistic for a relativly long interval (and you use Dual Drive missiles) they will effectivly dissapear from the enemy tactical screens except as tracking of potential ballistic weapons but will be able to manuver to discharge the canisters and then Vipers after powered manuvering to adjust for targets.

When you enemy launches its volley, you fire the Vipers as the are comming into engagement range of the incomming missiles using the Ghost Riders to pass along the targetting data. You start the attrition of the incommng missles well beyond you normal intercept range including fairly close to the attacking forces. That reduces what is comming at you and hopefully allows for lower numbers of targest and better engagement of what is left.
It also has to make the attacker wonder what the hell is going on when you send out an "early" launch and they essentialy go dark when the 1st stage runs out of power.

The trick would be to correctly guess where you need to have the canisters (and drones) to engage when the enemy is ready to fire. Don't know how effective this would actually be but if your targets are not at end-of-powered-flight they would (should) be both at lower speeds, not as likely to be protected by enemy ECM, and not manuvering to avoid counter-measures. Anything you can destroy well beyond your own normal CM engagement range is a big plus.

SharkHunter wrote:2nd idea: and yes, I know we've already said "no pod CM solutions", argued in the past, etc., and I'm admitting this might be a Horrible Hemphill idea, (aka one that has no legs vs. one of her great working systems).

Anyway...strictly thinking about sizing, the Viper CM used by the Katanas is rather tiny - has to be useful to be carried on LACs in any useful quantities. I'm tying that small size to two more thoughts, basically starting with "MDM and DDM missile body diameters are huge by comparison". Then there's this nugget

Pearls of Weber wrote:The function of a CM canister is not to throw out hordes of CMs (which couldn't be effectively guided, anyway), but rather to allow a ship to put out all the CMs it can handle at any given moment, regardless of what has happened to its dedicated CM launchers. If, for example, you've taken a hit that destroyed three CM launchers but the guidance channels are still intact, you simply seed your next salvo of shipkillers with a CM canister, only three of whose missiles (I am assuming a 5-missile canister from a larger unit) actually spin up and go after incoming threats.

Given that the easiest time to go after attack missiles is in their initial boost phase before they get up to speed, I'm thinking that you could have a smaller percentage of Mark 16 or 23 pods with two or three "Viper canister" missiles per pod, with multiple Vipers per attack missile that separate and fire up instead of the final warhead stage of a shipkiller. Those might be launched as part of the pods with the ECM birds, and use some of the dedicated control channels of the -E to get the Vipers on target.

Okay, now ducking the noodle launching bazooka and requesting BuWeaps slaughtering or validation of the idea <cringe>.

The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

SWM wrote:The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

Yep. Although I'm sure they wouldn't object if someone instead (or in addition) solved the problem of simultaneously controlling all the CM waves they are currently physically capable of launching

SWM wrote:The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

Quibbles, japes, and holliganisms:

Control total is easily rectified. Open a physics book. Say what? You mean bandwidth is a direct function of frequency used. Ya don't say. Or just add a bit more tonnage. Can easily be added to existing ships. From text it would seem to indicate this has already been done to some extent when reading the early books.

After this, their main problem is interception ratio. Sending over 7:1 is really bad(Solon). Need FTL. Has very little to do with range.

If one wishes to quibble about range:p

@0.8c by ~20s = 6Mkm = SDM territory

If 1st CM in an SDM canister arrangement misses, follow on salvo if launched immediately when you see 1st miss, will have the follow on CM engaging 250,000km from the ship. CM@20s@130,000g = 250,000km

The real problem is SDM canisters. One cannot fit more than a single CM into a missile body until they get gigantic(MK-23) sized. Requires a new miniature breed of CM's. In either case, cannot be retrofitted to existing ships. So, not a fan of canisters unless forced.

Of course the "range" problem can be quite simply rectified via EXISTING well known technology. Set CM's to 1/2 power settings just like their larger brethren. If scaled like their larger brethren, a 75s duration turns into 225s@65,000g obtaining 16Mkm range.

1st engagement at 16Mkm, next salvo engagement at 3.75Mkm. 16Mkm/0.8c = 55s. Since you are not stupid and expecting 1:1 kill ratio, you launch your birds expecting say, 20% misses. Time to vector in onto the misses is say, 15-20s. Allows upwards of 3 follow on salvos fired.

All about FTL component. Without it, no sauce.

wastedfly wrote:

SWM wrote:The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

Quibbles, japes, and holliganisms:

While you may disagree with David about counter-missile control, it is still his universe. Counter-missile canisters do exist in his universe, but the author has specifically stated that the problem right now is not firing more counter-missiles, but intercepting missiles further out. That is the purpose of this thread.

SWM wrote:The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

wastedfly wrote:
Quibbles, japes, and holliganisms:

SWM wrote:While you may disagree with David about counter-missile control, it is still his universe. Counter-missile canisters do exist in his universe, but the author has specifically stated that the problem right now is not firing more counter-missiles, but intercepting missiles further out. That is the purpose of this thread.

Although that was the stated purpose of the thread, it is not really the true problem. The true problem is dealing with the large shoals of missiles that the modern pod layers allow. Honor Harrington's belief is that the solution is to start intercepting and thinning those shoals further out, which prompted this thread. If there is in fact a way of doing that closer in, she would no doubt be in favor of it - she just, at this time, doesn't believe that there is more that can be done with close in defense. It is possible that there is a tactic/defense that might be suggested that she has not thought of, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered. What that tactic/defense might be, I have no idea, but the point to keep your eye on the real target here.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

SWM wrote:While you may disagree with David about counter-missile control, it is still his universe. Counter-missile canisters do exist in his universe, but the author has specifically stated that the problem right now is not firing more counter-missiles, but intercepting missiles further out. That is the purpose of this thread.

Although that was the stated purpose of the thread, it is not really the true problem. The true problem is dealing with the large shoals of missiles that the modern pod layers allow. Honor Harrington's belief is that the solution is to start intercepting and thinning those shoals further out, which prompted this thread. If there is in fact a way of doing that closer in, she would no doubt be in favor of it - she just, at this time, doesn't believe that there is more that can be done with close in defense. It is possible that there is a tactic/defense that might be suggested that she has not thought of, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered. What that tactic/defense might be, I have no idea, but the point to keep your eye on the real target here.

I will grant the point. But it is still true that David has specifically said that counter-missile canisters will not solve the problem, and Wastedfly's expectations on counter-missile control is does not match what David has described.

--snipping--

SWM wrote: The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

That's where I'm sorta trying to figure out if a "canister size" missile "top stage" for an MDM might fire multiple Vipers from the equivalent space of top stage/warhead area, etc.

Part of what David has said is difficult in terms of missile control in the the CM environment is what he referred to as the space equivalent of "battlefield smoke" that you simply can't cut through control wise very easily.

Think of say the entire bandwidth of a Keyhole II-equipped ship controlling nothing but "missile suppression" at the extended ranges required to "clear the smoke". The 23-E's FTL links give 64x light speed control, so presumably a tied-in "canister" of 3-4 Vipers per 23X would be equally controllable at 64x the range. That one ship's duty is focused singly on radically reducing and suppressing the incoming storm (including target designating of which enemy SD(p)'s, etc. are still launching), so that your close in CM's have less to do.

It also occurs to me that "downrange CM's" might not even need as much power for acceleration, given that they're already arriving at a significant percentage of C based on the attack missile's boost. Possible they could be quite a bit smaller even than the Katana's Vipers.

Yes/no/maybe, splatter me with bazooka launched noodles? (the current punishment for bad ideas on the forum apparently)

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

SWM wrote: The big problem with this is that this does not solve the problem. Manticore does not need to fire more counter-missiles. They can already fire more counter-missiles than they can control. The problem they want to solve, as is explicitly stated in the original post, is to intercept missiles further out than they can do right now. Counter-missile pods and canisters do not solve this problem.

That's where I'm sorta trying to figure out if a "canister size" missile "top stage" for an MDM might fire multiple Vipers from the equivalent space of top stage/warhead area, etc.

Part of what David has said is difficult in terms of missile control in the the CM environment is what he referred to as the space equivalent of "battlefield smoke" that you simply can't cut through control wise very easily.

Think of say the entire bandwidth of a Keyhole II-equipped ship controlling nothing but "missile suppression" at the extended ranges required to "clear the smoke". The 23-E's FTL links give 64x light speed control, so presumably a tied-in "canister" of 3-4 Vipers per 23X would be equally controllable at 64x the range. That one ship's duty is focused singly on radically reducing and suppressing the incoming storm (including target designating of which enemy SD(p)'s, etc. are still launching), so that your close in CM's have less to do.

It also occurs to me that "downrange CM's" might not even need as much power for acceleration, given that they're already arriving at a significant percentage of C based on the attack missile's boost. Possible they could be quite a bit smaller even than the Katana's Vipers.

Yes/no/maybe, splatter me with bazooka launched noodles? (the current punishment for bad ideas on the forum apparently)

There is not enough room in an MDM for counter-missiles.

Valen123456 wrote:Lets have some ideas on how this could be achieved both in forms of the ship tactics (some of which the next paragraph discussed) and new forms of weapons/sensors/drones/ECM technology.

From the same simulation of Filereta's destruction:

A Rising Thunder
Chapter Sixteen wrote:Lorelei was the latest addition to the Ghost Rider stable … the last one the R&D staff on HMSS Weyland had produced before the space station’s destruction. Given how recently it had gone into production (and how quickly destruction of the production lines had followed), the RMN had a lot fewer of the new platforms than anyone would have liked, and she hated the thought of expending so many of them.

You’d hate expending your wallers even worse, Honor, she told herself tartly. Of course, if they don’t work the way we expect them to, you may just have expended both of them. Wouldn’t that be fun?

I think it is somewhat implied that Lorelei decoys are launched from Mk-23 compatible pods or from Mk-23 compatible missile tubes. The numbers are certainly more than I'd expect boat bays to be able to handle.

That simulation in ART demonstrates a greater reliance on ECM for intermediate range defense than was previously possible -- and will be delayed by the destruction of Manticore's infrastructure. Are there any ways that the ECM defenses can be improved? Perhaps adapting the Dazzler pen-aid ECM to cause missiles to break lock further out and/or permanently cripple missile sensors?