Future Point Defense Options

--snipping--

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

That's sorta the question I'm asking. I tend to think of the MDM "missile stages" sort of as if they're dropping off like on the Saturn V, but that may be totally invalid, in which case this next bit is moot.

My head thinks Saturn 1B, (orbital only 2 stage) + ? leaves a whole lot of space for "somethings" before it's as big as the -V, wondering if a set of 'LAC or even smaller' CM's could be subbed in for that "3rd stage and payload space". Granted, that's turning the MDM into a "DDM+". Or maybe instead of CM's it spits out a set of multi megatonnage nukes to englobe an oncoming salvo? Would that work?

--snipping--

Weird Harold wrote: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?

Now that is in the realm of -ff--- brilliant!, likely an easy-to-program solution, and WAY closer to what I had in mind for controlling a downrange CM mini-salvo, that is, taking out the missile early in it's launch. Instead of using some of the Dazzlers to burn through ECM, use them to target the incoming salvos themselves with that nuke burst, sort of like the triple ripples, etc. that Haven used briefly to take out the Manticoran LAC's offensive punch.

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

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

That's sorta the question I'm asking. I tend to think of the MDM "missile stages" sort of as if they're dropping off like on the Saturn V, but that may be totally invalid, in which case this next bit is moot.

My head thinks Saturn 1B, (orbital only 2 stage) + ? leaves a whole lot of space for "somethings" before it's as big as the -V, wondering if a set of 'LAC or even smaller' CM's could be subbed in for that "3rd stage and payload space". Granted, that's turning the MDM into a "DDM+". Or maybe instead of CM's it spits out a set of multi megatonnage nukes to englobe an oncoming salvo? Would that work?

No, MDMs do not work that way. There are no stages on Manticoran MDMs. That is why it is called a multiDRIVE missile. Each missile has multiple drives, which turn on in sequence. The old drives do not drop off; they are still attached to the missile.

Cataphracts are different, which is why the text talks about them having multiple stages.

Most of the volume of the missile is taken up by those drives and by the generator (or capacitors) which are powering them. The warhead and laserheads are only a small part of the missile, and each counter-missile is larger than the warhead.

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.

SharkHunter wrote: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.

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

<Quotes re-ordered and snipped>

True, there's not enough room in a Mk-23 to replace the warhead with one or more Mk-31 or Viper CMs, but Sharkhunter is talking about a Cataphract style two-stage missile with multiple second stage components.

"Canister" rounds fit three to five counter missiles in a main-battery missile tube; there ought to be room for counter missiles in a second stage with a Mk-23's diameter.

Replacing the warhead in a Mk-23 with LAC/DD sized counter missiles might be possible, but that wouldn't be what Sharkhunter is proposing, because MDMs don't have multiple stages, just multiple drives. (they don't drop stages as the burn out.)

Building a Cataphract style CM-canister delivery missile would probably be fairly simple, but it wouldn't fit in existing missile tubes or pods.

Replacing a Mk23 (or Mk-16) warhead with smaller (older?) CMs as a "multiple target warhead" would certainly extend CM range, but control becomes a problem. An ACM as currently produced can each control Eight Mk-23s; how much modification/upgrade will be required to manage 24 to 40 CMs? (depending on how many can be squeezed into the warhead space of a Mk-23)

Another problem for the MTW concept -- whether MDM or Catphract style -- is that it takes missile tubes/pods out of the offensive role and reduces offensive fire-power.

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.

SharkHunter wrote: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.

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

Weird Harold wrote:<Quotes re-ordered and snipped>

True, there's not enough room in a Mk-23 to replace the warhead with one or more Mk-31 or Viper CMs, but Sharkhunter is talking about a Cataphract style two-stage missile with multiple second stage components.

"Canister" rounds fit three to five counter missiles in a main-battery missile tube; there ought to be room for counter missiles in a second stage with a Mk-23's diameter.

Replacing the warhead in a Mk-23 with LAC/DD sized counter missiles might be possible, but that wouldn't be what Sharkhunter is proposing, because MDMs don't have multiple stages, just multiple drives. (they don't drop stages as the burn out.)

Building a Cataphract style CM-canister delivery missile would probably be fairly simple, but it wouldn't fit in existing missile tubes or pods.

Replacing a Mk23 (or Mk-16) warhead with smaller (older?) CMs as a "multiple target warhead" would certainly extend CM range, but control becomes a problem. An ACM as currently produced can each control Eight Mk-23s; how much modification/upgrade will be required to manage 24 to 40 CMs? (depending on how many can be squeezed into the warhead space of a Mk-23)

Another problem for the MTW concept -- whether MDM or Catphract style -- is that it takes missile tubes/pods out of the offensive role and reduces offensive fire-power.

I know, I know. We can adapt the SLN SDs to tractor a whole bunch of large pods that have multi stage CM packages

Thanks -- you got exactly what I was thinking. Space vs. capability tradeoff, etc. for that "missile size space".
Now then...

--snipping--

Weird Harold wrote:Replacing a Mk23 (or Mk-16) warhead with smaller (older?) CMs as a "multiple target warhead" would certainly extend CM range, but control becomes a problem. An ACM as currently produced can each control Eight Mk-23s; how much modification/upgrade will be required to manage 24 to 40 CMs? (depending on how many can be squeezed into the warhead space of a Mk-23)

Another problem for the MTW concept -- whether MDM or Catphract style -- is that it takes missile tubes/pods out of the offensive role and reduces offensive fire-power.

I think the argument I'd make tactically (and I've sorta moved towards thinking anti-missile dazzler bursts at this point) is along the lines of "out of XX,000 missiles launched, if I can launch XX,000 - X,000 and that it thins the incoming attack storm by X% or more per attack missile salvo, more of my ships will survive to fire still more stacked salvos.

For example, if Home Fleet could have launched 5% of their attack missiles in "anti-missile mode", and taken out 5% of the incoming storm per salvo, maybe 50% of the RMN ships would have have survived the initial "donkey based" launch long enough to launch all of their missiles in stacked salvos while the Havenite situation would have absolutely sucked.

Missiles have wedges. Do they also have sidewalls? If not, is it possible to have something stealthy out there that could shoot missiles as they pass through the undefended gap between the upper and lower wedges?

fallsfromtrees wrote:Missiles have wedges. Do they also have sidewalls? If not, is it possible to have something stealthy out there that could shoot missiles as they pass through the undefended gap between the upper and lower wedges?

They do not have sidewalls. LACs in fact do shoot at missiles if they are close enough.

Are you talking about trying to get something inside the wedge? There's no point in doing that--if you can get that close, you can just kill it with mutual wedge destruction.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Missiles have wedges. Do they also have sidewalls? If not, is it possible to have something stealthy out there that could shoot missiles as they pass through the undefended gap between the upper and lower wedges?

Re-read A Rising Thunder Chapter Sixteen.

The simulation of Filareta's attack explicitly describes the forward LAC screen doing exactly what you suggest. The problem Honor sees is that LACs aren't "organic" to the wall; she wants the wallers to be able to defend themselves without a forward screen of LACs.

Without some sort of forward platform, like a LAC, there is no way to shoot "up the kilt" on a missile storm. Point-Defense Laser Clusters are too large and power-hungry to mount on drones; a LAC is probably the smallest platform you could mount one on and power it. A pinnace's lasers could probably destroy a missile, but the range and rate of fire are both probably too low to be effective as a LAC replacement.

Weird Harold wrote:True, there's not enough room in a Mk-23 to replace the warhead with one or more Mk-31 or Viper CMs, but Sharkhunter is talking about a Cataphract style two-stage missile with multiple second stage components.

"Canister" rounds fit three to five counter missiles in a main-battery missile tube; there ought to be room for counter missiles in a second stage with a Mk-23's diameter.

Replacing the warhead in a Mk-23 with LAC/DD sized counter missiles might be possible, but that wouldn't be what Sharkhunter is proposing, because MDMs don't have multiple stages, just multiple drives. (they don't drop stages as the burn out.)

Building a Cataphract style CM-canister delivery missile would probably be fairly simple, but it wouldn't fit in existing missile tubes or pods.

Replacing a Mk23 (or Mk-16) warhead with smaller (older?) CMs as a "multiple target warhead" would certainly extend CM range, but control becomes a problem. An ACM as currently produced can each control Eight Mk-23s; how much modification/upgrade will be required to manage 24 to 40 CMs? (depending on how many can be squeezed into the warhead space of a Mk-23)

Another problem for the MTW concept -- whether MDM or Catphract style -- is that it takes missile tubes/pods out of the offensive role and reduces offensive fire-power.

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.