Future Point Defense Options

Duckk wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:Another possibility is to mount another Keyhole platform on to a SD(P) which is dedicated to CM fire control. Now I know that Keyhole platforms are quite large but this is a SD(P) we are talking about and even if it adds another weak spot to the armor I would think that the ability to control even more CM would more than make up for that. Sadly this is not something that could easily be fitted to already built ships but for new ships that should provide a nice boost to its ability to defend itself.

Keyholes already manage countermissile fire. It was one of the major defining features of KH1.

What I am talking about is mounting another keyhole platform so instead of two platforms SD(P) would carry 4 platforms so they have access to even more CM fire control which is why I mentioned why I feel it is justified to mount additional keyhole platforms.

Duckk wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:Though seriously. Is there a reason why a "boom mode" warhead on a CM couldn't be designed to take out an attack missile by burning out the shipkiller's seekers/electronics, etc.? That seems much more likely to achieve with lower computational requirements than guiding a CM to a wedge collision at multimillion kilometers in real time, above, below, or in the throat of the shipkiller's wedge? or does that wedge still provide enough particle shielding to stop a boom burn from working?

That's basically the Ziska defense plan. As we saw in AAC, the Alliance had already figured out and implemented countermeasures.

Different use from Ziska/the triple ripple, etc. I was thinking more of a paired set of CM tracking together a standard CM aimed towards it's target within the final range basket (3MM km), and then hitting the boom with the 2nd additional CM. It's still requires a higher density of fire, but requires no more CM links.

SharkHunter wrote:That's basically the Ziska defense plan. As we saw in AAC, the Alliance had already figured out and implemented countermeasures.

Different use from Ziska/the triple ripple, etc. I was thinking more of a paired set of CM tracking together a standard CM aimed towards it's target within the final range basket (3MM km), and then hitting the boom with the 2nd additional CM. It's still requires a higher density of fire, but requires no more CM links.[/quote]If the first CM missed wouldn't that likely be because the MDM was manvouering to avoid it? In which case it seems almost certain that its wedge opening would be pointed somewhere other than towards the pair of CMs.

If that's true then your paired boom CM would also be wasted, wouldn't it?

captinjoehenry wrote:What I am talking about is mounting another keyhole platform so instead of two platforms SD(P) would carry 4 platforms so they have access to even more CM fire control which is why I mentioned why I feel it is justified to mount additional keyhole platforms.

Each KHII module is 120 Ktons and takes up ~10-15% of the broadside space on a SD(p). A Pair of them, their docks, tractors, comm equipment and associated computers takes up ~>400Ktons (Or about the mass of a Sag-B CA). Taking up ANOTHER 5% of the ship's mass and 10-15% of the vital Broadside space will probably not be an acceptable answer to add more CM links.

Theemile wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:What I am talking about is mounting another keyhole platform so instead of two platforms SD(P) would carry 4 platforms so they have access to even more CM fire control which is why I mentioned why I feel it is justified to mount additional keyhole platforms.

Each KHII module is 120 Ktons and takes up ~10-15% of the broadside space on a SD(p). A Pair of them, their docks, tractors, comm equipment and associated computers takes up ~>400Ktons (Or about the mass of a Sag-B CA). Taking up ANOTHER 5% of the ship's mass and 10-15% of the vital Broadside space will probably not be an acceptable answer to add more CM links.

Well without seeing the line of thought of including broadside energy weapons and missile tubes in current SD(P)s I feel like sacrificing even more broadside weapon space is an acceptable option if it increase the SD(P) chance of survival. Now if you want to keep more broadside space I would say they should mount a smaller Keyhole platform that is dedicated to providing CM fire control as an intern solution they could simply mount a modified Keyhole 1 platform.

captinjoehenry wrote:snip
Another possibility is to mount another Keyhole platform on to a SD(P) which is dedicated to CM fire control. Now I know that Keyhole platforms are quite large but this is a SD(P) we are talking about and even if it adds another weak spot to the armor I would think that the ability to control even more CM would more than make up for that. Sadly this is not something that could easily be fitted to already built ships but for new ships that should provide a nice boost to its ability to defend itself.

This would effectively turn the SD(P) into a dedicated missile defense platform, which is something David has already ruled out unless there is something radical that happens.

--hopefully snipping this right--

Jonathan_S wrote:That's basically the Ziska defense plan. As we saw in AAC, the Alliance had already figured out and implemented countermeasures.

SharkHunter wrote:Different use from Ziska/the triple ripple, etc. I was thinking more of a paired set of CM tracking together a standard CM aimed towards it's target within the final range basket (3MM km), and then hitting the boom with the 2nd additional CM. It's still requires a higher density of fire, but requires no more CM links.

Jonathan_S wrote:If the first CM missed wouldn't that likely be because the MDM was manvouering to avoid it? In which case it seems almost certain that its wedge opening would be pointed somewhere other than towards the pair of CMs.

If that's true then your paired boom CM would also be wasted, wouldn't it?

Not really; they're not synchronized perfectly, the paired missile is likely just far enough behind the leader so as to "observe the miss, direction of the jog and kaboom".

Are you guys still arguing over a subject that is inarguable as there is no sustained basis for the arguments as they change, book to book battle to battle where none of it is based anywhere close to reality?

Here's to the Honorverse and its 1960's communication technology. It changed in the 60's as they introduced the first semiconductors. 70s would have been way too advanced.

Relax wrote:Are you guys still arguing over a subject that is inarguable as there is no sustained basis for the arguments as they change, book to book battle to battle where none of it is based anywhere close to reality?

Here's to the Honorverse and its 1960's communication technology. It changed in the 60's as they introduced the first semiconductors. 70s would have been way too advanced.

No... we're discussing the difficulty of hitting an attack missile at extended ranges that is maneuvering at a significant percentage of C in deep space, even with AD 4015 computational technology that's trying to force a miss so said missile can "go smack a difficult target also maneuvering in deep space from one of 4 sides of a cubic volume of space around said target".

Even if the missiles have uber-computer power themselves compared to AD 2015, the only way to link the missiles was FTL, and CMs aren't FTL. So their control is still via electromagnetic spectrum, the same way that for all their complexity, smart phones are glorified radios operating on specific frequencies.

SharkHunter wrote:

Relax wrote:Are you guys still arguing over a subject that is inarguable as there is no sustained basis for the arguments as they change, book to book battle to battle where none of it is based anywhere close to reality?

Here's to the Honorverse and its 1960's communication technology. It changed in the 60's as they introduced the first semiconductors. 70s would have been way too advanced.

No... we're discussing the difficulty of hitting an attack missile at extended ranges that is maneuvering at a significant percentage of C in deep space, even with AD 4015 computational technology that's trying to force a miss so said missile can "go smack a difficult target also maneuvering in deep space from one of 4 sides of a cubic volume of space around said target".

Even if the missiles have uber-computer power themselves compared to AD 2015, the only way to link the missiles was FTL, and CMs aren't FTL. So their control is still via electromagnetic spectrum, the same way that for all their complexity, smart phones are glorified radios operating on specific frequencies.

Sharkhunter, Relax is pointing out that the Honorverse doesn't seem to use many of the Electrical Engineering and computer technologies developed over the last 50 years. Simple things like IP protocols via WiFi mean one radio transmitter can send specialized, separate data to dozens if not hundreds of receivers. Cellular technologies allow secure, encrypted signals to bounce from 1 central transmitter to the next. Some of the "techniques" David is employing appear outwardly outdated compared to what we know now.

If memory serves, Relax is an engineer for Boeing (correct me if I'm wrong here) and has a background in such systems.