Attacking Darius:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or, do what Harkness did and turn the missiles wedge-first to the other ones, so they sweep the range with their 10x10 km wedges.

But wasn't that only possible because the opposing missiles were in a ballistic phase. Otherwise the first time it met an opposing missile, both would be destroyed.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Or, do what Harkness did and turn the missiles wedge-first to the other ones, so they sweep the range with their 10x10 km wedges.

tlb wrote:But wasn't that only possible because the opposing missiles were in a ballistic phase. Otherwise the first time it met an opposing missile, both would be destroyed.

Indeed. At a 1:1 ratio, you'd only do that if you had a lot more missiles than your enemy. Otherwise, it could at best lead to a draw in the battle. Or as a desperation manoeuvre as you're trying to get to the hyperlimit.

In an attack, you could increase your missile numbers by sending a bunch of dumb missiles trailing yours whose only purpose was to broom the skies. They would be cheaper. But you're still taking up valuable launcher space with them, which could cause other problems later.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:In an attack, you could increase your missile numbers by sending a bunch of dumb missiles trailing yours whose only purpose was to broom the skies. They would be cheaper. But you're still taking up valuable launcher space with them, which could cause other problems later.

Why trailing? In the SLN Hasta attack on Beowulf, the attack missiles were interspersed with recon drones hoping to sneak the them through. If not interspersed, then have the attack missiles just slightly behind the decoy missiles to lessen the number of CM's that they face.

tlb wrote:Why trailing? In the SLN Hasta attack on Beowulf, the attack missiles were interspersed with recon drones hoping to sneak the them through. If not interspersed, then have the attack missiles just slightly behind the decoy missiles to lessen the number of CM's that they face.

I was thinking of a Barricade-like clean up, mid-flight, not close to the target. But even then, I'm not sure why I wrote "trailing." I had a reason when I wrote, but that escapes me now. Maybe I was thinking that those broom missiles need to have the freedom to move so they can intercept their targets, and being in the middle of the attack wave would constrain them so they don't hit friendly missiles.

As for going ahead, I'm now thinking you don't want interposed wedges ahead of the missiles because that would block their views of the targets and break locks.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:As for going ahead, I'm now thinking you don't want interposed wedges ahead of the missiles because that would block their views of the targets and break locks.

We know that attacking missiles are widely dispersed, "widely" meaning much more separation than would be required by the size of the wedges. So maintaining a view of either the target or the attacking ship (for control signals) might not be a problem. I thought that I read that the missile tracks diverge at the beginning and converge on the target at the end; the angle of convergence or divergence should be limited by the need to maintain that communication. Do we know, in general terms, how much separation there is? I am not trying to suggest that this is ever more than graser range.

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:As for going ahead, I'm now thinking you don't want interposed wedges ahead of the missiles because that would block their views of the targets and break locks.

We know that attacking missiles are widely dispersed, "widely" meaning much more separation than would be required by the size of the wedges. So maintaining a view of either the target or the attacking ship (for control signals) might not be a problem. I thought that I read that the missile tracks diverge at the beginning and converge on the target at the end; the angle of convergence or divergence should be limited by the need to maintain that communication. Do we know, in general terms, how much separation there is? I am not trying to suggest that this is ever more than graser range.

I mentioned upstream that missile wedges are around 10x10km (capacitor MDMs probably in the 15x15km range). Graser range against unprotect targets is close to 1 Mkm. Even a separation of 100 wedge widths is well within range of a Graser. (Separation has never been mentioned afik, and probably varies. We do know that at the beginning of the series, a 10% fratricide rate was expected, but I would expect that most of that occurred at the convergence stage as missiles attack their target.)

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I was thinking of a Barricade-like clean up, mid-flight, not close to the target. But even then, I'm not sure why I wrote "trailing." I had a reason when I wrote, but that escapes me now.

I remembered. It was the result of my train of thought and not revisiting the conclusions after I had changed the conditions and edited the text.

I was thinking of chaff and shotgun missiles to cause damage to the oncoming wave, or using Dazzlers to fry them. You can't have those ahead of or in the middle of your formation because it's going to cause damage to your own missiles. They have to be further back.

But then I removed the chaff requirement and was thinking of simple wedge brooming.

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:As for going ahead, I'm now thinking you don't want interposed wedges ahead of the missiles because that would block their views of the targets and break locks.

We know that attacking missiles are widely dispersed, "widely" meaning much more separation than would be required by the size of the wedges. So maintaining a view of either the target or the attacking ship (for control signals) might not be a problem. I thought that I read that the missile tracks diverge at the beginning and converge on the target at the end; the angle of convergence or divergence should be limited by the need to maintain that communication. Do we know, in general terms, how much separation there is? I am not trying to suggest that this is ever more than graser range.

David has suggested that it depends. The missiles have a rather narrow field of view so them must be pointed very close to the actual location to acquire for terminal attack. Part of the job of the controlling ship is to ensure they are positioned for target acquisition TA at the right point.
So, you can fire the missiles directly at the target. Which simplifies TA. Or you can have the missiles make much more complex paths with the requirement that you provide TA dirrctions at the end. This is useful to coordinate a large number of missiles.
Oh, and the rear of the missile must be generally pointed at the controlling ship to get commands.

Of course, the entire point of my exercise was to gain a better CM defense for the MAN. They have got to figure out a way to eat into the many Manty missile launches.

I have always had a vision about Darius as far as the environment being a poster child for their genetic uplift. I may be far off there. I know that Darius is said to be a paradise.

But I have always accepted another possibility that may support both. One is that Darius contains an interesting junction itself. Manticore has the MWJ. What if Darius not only has a junction as well, but a junction with unusual characteristics.

Is it possible for a single termini of a junction to exit right back in the same system? And can that be used as a tactical advantage?

Another possibility is a single termini in Darius providing a Bolthole.

Could a system have a series of termini which has to be transited simultaneously to activate. Like the security system on a nuclear sub where both keys have to be turned simultaneously.

At any rate, I am looking for the system itself to have wrinkles we have never seen before.