Future Point Defense Options

Weird Harold wrote:Replacing a Mk23 (or Mk-16) warhead with smaller (older?) CMs...

<snip>

As of AAC, the Mk 31s are "smaller and longer ranged" than the earlier mks of missiles, including the mk 30s Honor had at Sidemore in WoH. So Manty CMs are getting smaller as they get more capable.

SWM wrote:I will say it again--there is not enough room inside an existing attack MDM (including the MK-23 attack missile) for any counter-missile--whether old, or new, or LAC, or whatever. There isn't enough room. Talking about MDMs is just confusing the issue.

Old-school SD, firing missiles smaller (lighter, smaller diameter and shorter) than a Mk23, could pack at least 5 CMs into a canister. Which suggests that if you replace the warhead section on a Mk23 you have quite a bit of space for CMs.

Theemile wrote:As of AAC, the Mk 31s are "smaller and longer ranged" than the earlier mks of missiles, including the mk 30s Honor had at Sidemore in WoH. So Manty CMs are getting smaller as they get more capable.

As Sharkhunter noted, the payload of a Multiple Target Warhead (MTW) wouldn't need the range or speed of a Mk-31/Viper because the carrier stage would provide most of the accel/speed required. Presumably that would mean each CM in the payload could be even smaller than a ship-launched CM.

SWM wrote:To get a counter-missile onto another missile, you will have to design a new missile.

True, but it shouldn't be necessary to design from scratch.

Perhaps a Mk-16 with the warhead section stripped away then shortened and fattened to fit a Mk 23 compatible tube/pod with a redesigned CM-canister filling out the resulting difference in length?

It would still have the problems of control links and/or control lag plus displacing a offensive missile slot.

SWM wrote:I will say it again--there is not enough room inside an existing attack MDM (including the MK-23 attack missile) for any counter-missile--whether old, or new, or LAC, or whatever. There isn't enough room. Talking about MDMs is just confusing the issue.

Maxqq's family portrait of missiles

It certainly looks like there's room to replace the warhead of a Mk-23 with at least one Viper according to Maxqq's rendering of relative missile sizes. Maybe even room to replace the warhead of a Mk-16.

Modifying the Mk-13 with a MTW would be iffy if an all-up CM is used; but there's still a lot of space when the warhead is omitted.

SWM wrote:I will say it again--there is not enough room inside an existing attack MDM (including the MK-23 attack missile) for any counter-missile--whether old, or new, or LAC, or whatever. There isn't enough room. Talking about MDMs is just confusing the issue.

To get a counter-missile onto another missile, you will have to design a new missile.

What we don't know is whether Manticore could design a 2-stage missile where the second stage is essentially a canister, and still make it comparable in size to the current generation of MDMs (or perhaps the old and somewhat larger capacitor-powered MDMs). That might be possible, and I will defer to others (Maxxq?) who could say better.

I think I am going to have disagree with the size issue. Something I proposed way back was more or less the same idea.

You could actually fit it into the warhead section maybe 2 or 3.

Look at MAXXQ's art: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -465723294

So now I have fit the--heck--call it 3 missiles in there. Is it actually worth while doing? Those 3 missiles if guided are worth one incoming. Fire and forget maybe a half, probably less. Sure we can make the missiles smaller with smaller sensors so they are even worse.

Let see we have to redesign the whole forward section that frame to support Laserheads is not going to come close to working for a lot less other bigger stuff stuff. And stuff gets complicated from there. How do you talk to the sub-munitions ...

Biggest problem and why I dropped the idea way back when is if I have to give up a 2 offensive missiles to achieve one successful intercept then I seem to have given up more than I get.

Not going to go find all my spread sheets. Suffice to say that the forum at that time convinced me and I distinctly remember a huge number of hoops I was having to jump through to make it even a minor irritant.

All of which may change in the next book but not the way I would bet.

Have fun,
T2M

Weird Harold wrote:Maxqq's family portrait of missiles

It certainly looks like there's room to replace the warhead of a Mk-23 with at least one Viper according to Maxqq's rendering of relative missile sizes. Maybe even room to replace the warhead of a Mk-16.

Maxqq's Family Portrait of Counter Missiles

It certainly looks like a Mk-21 CM would be a good choice (as a starting point for MTW elements) since it would likely fit even the Mk-13 missile's warhead space. That would give even older ships a long-range CM capability.

Maxqq needs to be consulted as to actual sizes, because the perspective views linked make it difficult to assess space available.

--snipping--

thinkstoomuch wrote:...Biggest problem and why I dropped the idea way back when is if I have to give up a 2 offensive missiles to achieve one successful intercept then I seem to have given up more than I get.

Not going to go find all my spread sheets. Suffice to say that the forum at that time convinced me and I distinctly remember a huge number of hoops I was having to jump through to make it even a minor irritant.

All of which may change in the next book but not the way I would bet. Have fun, T2M

Good points, I think part of our logic was that the "downrange option" would thin a salvo enough to be worth it because the attack missiles wouldn't be up to speed yet or that it would force the ECM into defense mode instead of penetration mode, etc., and therefore easier to attack even with multiple "small size/sensor CM's" per missile controlled by an Apollo class AI. I'd alter my logic even further by not trying to hit the attack missile with a wedge, btw, if a "CM" nuke burst could fry one or more ship-killers headed my way. Thoughts?

Weird Harold wrote:Maxqq's Family Portrait of Counter Missiles

It certainly looks like a Mk-21 CM would be a good choice (as a starting point for MTW elements) since it would likely fit even the Mk-13 missile's warhead space. That would give even older ships a long-range CM capability.

Maxqq needs to be consulted as to actual sizes, because the perspective views linked make it difficult to assess space available.

I missed your post.

Its all the scroll wheel's fault.

The friction coefficient got me.

My apologies though mine link did include the Mark 23 and the Viper in the same picture. All of it is to be taken with a grain of salt. IMO.

Slinks away,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:My apologies though mine link did include the Mark 23 and the Viper in the same picture. All of it is to be taken with a grain of salt. IMO.

Yeah, you linked the same one I quoted from my earlier post. It does take extrapolation from both images to get a feel for whether and how many CMs would fit in the warhead spaces.

Imagine that MaxxQ has already posted to a similar idea,

MaxxQ wrote:If you're thinking about creating a CM carrier/cannister out of something the size of a Mk16 DDM, forget it. You can't get more than one CM inside a DDM - they're just too small in diameter. Minimum size for carrying multiple CMs is Mk23.

Or are you suggesting something along the lines of using an Apollo-capable Mk16 as a booster for a single CM? Seems a little wasteful to me, for only a single CM. Better off going with the Mk23 version I proposed upthread.

From Topic: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5705&hilit=cannister

Page 4.

A good topic to read posted when I was off on my yearly wander. <shrug>

Hope it helps,
T2M