Fire Control control channels

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

[ShadoCat]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

I don't see a problem with it if we assume that the launcher has the electronics in it to link to the missiles that it launches.  That way the fire control would handle IDing targets and keeping track of where they are and what they are doing (velocity, acceleration, & distance).  Also, the fire control knows where the target is in relation to some fixed point on the ship.  Assuming you let each weapon know where it is in relation to that fixed point on the ship, its electronics should be able to handle the math to do the offset.

[welchbloke]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

I don't see a problem with it if we assume that the launcher has the electronics in it to link to the missiles that it launches.  That way the fire control would handle IDing targets and keeping track of where they are and what they are doing (velocity, acceleration, & distance).  Also, the fire control knows where the target is in relation to some fixed point on the ship.  Assuming you let each weapon know where it is in relation to that fixed point on the ship, its electronics should be able to handle the math to do the offset.

I don't have a problem with it either; I've always assumed that the missiles have a significant percentage of on-board processing that is doing the actual intercept calculation.  For me the FC is providing the missiles with a position and velocity for the target and the missile guides itself to the target (sort of like a very clever semi active air-to-air missile).  Now that this can of worms has been opened however, I have a related observation.  Should there be a limit to the number of targets an individual FC/ Search sensor can track?  In the real world radar systems are limited either by component/software limitations or (rarely at present) physics to an upper limit of targets that can be tracked.  Each system then has a prioritisation algorithm to calculate which tracks are maintained and which are dropped to provide capacity to track more important targets.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

Part of the reason I do have an issue is that I'm not assuming that each missile can resolve it's own targetting,  at least not without it's own onboard sensor package.  

Instead my presumption is that since the host fire control is providing terminal guidence then there should be a limit to how many platforms any one FC can guide.  Even with this presumption I've got additional issues.  If the host FC is providing terminal guidence then lightspeed lag should start to degrade accuracy at range.  

For there to be onboard guidence it really should be a component that is researched and generationally upgradable.  I know that it's been discussed previously, but I'm not finding it with a basic search.  

What I'd like to eventually see is a means, with advanced technology, to have varying types of guidance packages.  Various types of capabilities should be achievable.  Guidence hand off, ballistic launch with sensors off and then activate at a preset wayppoint,  programable targetting, stand-off for sensor only platforms (ie recon drones), etc etc etc.

Current fire controls can only paint a single target.  Channels could allow for limited multiple targetting as well as multiple salvo/missile control.  

I'll grant that there is a strong arguement that all fire control system is doing is target painting with the missile platform actually handling the guidence.  That arguement being that the chance to hit is solely calculated based on missile component construction modified by verious target parameters.  If that is really the vision of the current missile guidence then perhaps a new type of fire control and missile component could be introduced to give the ship the abilities I've roughly outlined.

[James Patten]

TransNewtonian materials allow instant (no time lag for light speed) communications, and I assume real-time tracking.  So the fire control has no lag for light speed either for the target or for the missile.

[welchbloke]

Part of the reason I do have an issue is that I'm not assuming that each missile can resolve it's own targetting,  at least not without it's own onboard sensor package.

 
I have to admit I don't see why you have an issue with the missiles at least having a passive sensor suite.  A FC sensor illuminating a target that is then locked on to by a passive sensor on the missile is very old technology even now.   The AIM-7 Sparrow has been using this technique since the late '60s/early 70s.  Anyhow, that's the beauty of Aurora everyone can create their own vision of how their particular universe works  

Instead my presumption is that since the host fire control is providing terminal guidence then there should be a limit to how many platforms any one FC can guide.  Even with this presumption I've got additional issues.  If the host FC is providing terminal guidence then lightspeed lag should start to degrade accuracy at range.  

For there to be onboard guidence it really should be a component that is researched and generationally upgradable.  I know that it's been discussed previously, but I'm not finding it with a basic search.  

What I'd like to eventually see is a means, with advanced technology, to have varying types of guidance packages.  Various types of capabilities should be achievable.  Guidence hand off, ballistic launch with sensors off and then activate at a preset wayppoint,  programable targetting, stand-off for sensor only platforms (ie recon drones), etc etc etc.

I do like the idea of various guidance packages, I would be very keen to see these options available.

Current fire controls can only paint a single target.  Channels could allow for limited multiple targetting as well as multiple salvo/missile control.  

I'll grant that there is a strong arguement that all fire control system is doing is target painting with the missile platform actually handling the guidence.  That arguement being that the chance to hit is solely calculated based on missile component construction modified by verious target parameters.  If that is really the vision of the current missile guidence then perhaps a new type of fire control and missile component could be introduced to give the ship the abilities I've roughly outlined.

I would like to see the introduction of new missile modules for the options you mentioned earlier.

[Charlie Beeler (OP)]

That's probably the root of my issue with it.  I've been considering that Aurora missiles to actiively controlled by the fire control suite vs being semi-active like the Sparrow series missiles.

Eventually I'd like to see at least 3 different types of missile control.  Fully controlled, semi-active, and independent.  Ideally generational enhancements that reduce size requirements as well as improved capabilities.

[welchbloke]

That's probably the root of my issue with it.  I've been considering that Aurora missiles to actiively controlled by the fire control suite vs being semi-active like the Sparrow series missiles.

Eventually I'd like to see at least 3 different types of missile control.  Fully controlled, semi-active, and independent.  Ideally generational enhancements that reduce size requirements as well as improved capabilities.

That seems reasonable.  There would have to be some advantage to having command guidance to encourage players to use it rather than semi-active or active.  Perhaps, as in the real world, the advantage could be that the command guidance is much more difficult to jam and command guided missiles negate/significantly reduce the usefulness of ECM.
The trade off would then be a limited salvo size(due to the number of channels available) that ignores ECM, versus a larger salvo size that is affected by ECM.  Active missiles could be used to fire at targets beyond FC range and instead get launched at a waypoint before becoming active and searching for their own targets (like the Kzinti Long Lance drone in SFB).
I'd be interested in what other people think of this suggestion.

[Kurt]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

I think this is an interesting point.  One fire control can handle anywhere from one to infinity missiles, which is unrealistic if you assume it is doing anything more than illuminating the target.  

Another point has been rattling around in my head ever since I finished my last battle in the 6P campaign.  This idea/question has bounced off of something I recent read in Weber's "At All Costs" and now "Storm From the Shadows".  Currently, in Aurora, FC's either have a lock or they don't.  100% or 0%.  And you need an FC even if you are launching missiles with their own internal guidance (IIRC), or drones that don't really need to be guided.  It would seem to me that instead of the "to-hit" calculation being based on the relative speeds and manueverability, that the quality of the FC and the range should be taken into account as well.  After all, it would stand to reason that an FC operating at 98% of its range would have a harder time guiding missiles than the same FC operating at 5% of its range.  

Kurt

[welchbloke]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

I think this is an interesting point.  One fire control can handle anywhere from one to infinity missiles, which is unrealistic if you assume it is doing anything more than illuminating the target.  

Another point has been rattling around in my head ever since I finished my last battle in the 6P campaign.  This idea/question has bounced off of something I recent read in Weber's "At All Costs" and now "Storm From the Shadows".  Currently, in Aurora, FC's either have a lock or they don't.  100% or 0%.  And you need an FC even if you are launching missiles with their own internal guidance (IIRC), or drones that don't really need to be guided.  It would seem to me that instead of the "to-hit" calculation being based on the relative speeds and manueverability, that the quality of the FC and the range should be taken into account as well.  After all, it would stand to reason that an FC operating at 98% of its range would have a harder time guiding missiles than the same FC operating at 5% of its range.  

Kurt

I have no issue with this in general terms.  I think it really depends upon how 'realistic' you want to make things.  Most radars (inc FC ones) have a 'sweet spot' that they are optimised for.  They certainly lose performance as you approach max range; however, if you are going down this road then other factors become important.  Radars have a minimum range and also lose performace as they appraoch min range,  for fast moving targets the update rate of the radar becomes important.  Of more relvance all radars have what is some times called a range cell resolution.  Basically, this is how far apart 2 objects have to be before they become detected as seperate targets.  To link this to your range performace degradation (I meadered there eventually ) at max range the FC might see one larget target that doesn't become resolved into separate targets until perhaps 75% range.  So an AMM system might launch 5 missiles in 5v1 mode at long range but would have to start launching additional missiles once the salvo had resolved into individual missiles.  This would have implications for missile combat but would certainly be more representative and would increase 'the fog of war' a little.

[Steve Walmsley]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

At the moment, I am assuming that the fire control paints the target and the missiles home in on the paint, which means there is no limit to the missiles because the fire control is not controlling them directly. That is not written in stone though and a more direct form of control, along with a limited number of control channels might be possible at some point.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Another point has been rattling around in my head ever since I finished my last battle in the 6P campaign.  This idea/question has bounced off of something I recent read in Weber's "At All Costs" and now "Storm From the Shadows".  Currently, in Aurora, FC's either have a lock or they don't.  100% or 0%.  And you need an FC even if you are launching missiles with their own internal guidance (IIRC), or drones that don't really need to be guided.  It would seem to me that instead of the "to-hit" calculation being based on the relative speeds and manueverability, that the quality of the FC and the range should be taken into account as well.  After all, it would stand to reason that an FC operating at 98% of its range would have a harder time guiding missiles than the same FC operating at 5% of its range.  

Yes, I remember a similar theme in Storm from the Shadows. It would add an extra dimension to missile combat if there was a chance of the fire control wandering off target, or even on to another target, at long ranges. My only concern is that this might be tricky for the AI to handle (in terms of deciding when to fire), which is now becoming a factor in a lot of the functionality I consider. It shouldn't be too bad though - I guess each race would have some type of minimum chance to hit they would accept before firing.

Steve

[Kurt]

Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while,  there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control.  Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.  

Steve, I know that your in the middle of a segnificant re-write and this is way late, much less may not be feasible without a major impact to the core missile handling code.  But...  

Should control channels be considered?  At first 1 channel can control 1 missile.  The number of channels impacts FC mass.  Successive generations can control more missiles or be more mass efficient or both.  Or not add it at all and leave missile handling as is for simplicity.

I think this is an interesting point.  One fire control can handle anywhere from one to infinity missiles, which is unrealistic if you assume it is doing anything more than illuminating the target.  

Another point has been rattling around in my head ever since I finished my last battle in the 6P campaign.  This idea/question has bounced off of something I recent read in Weber's "At All Costs" and now "Storm From the Shadows".  Currently, in Aurora, FC's either have a lock or they don't.  100% or 0%.  And you need an FC even if you are launching missiles with their own internal guidance (IIRC), or drones that don't really need to be guided.  It would seem to me that instead of the "to-hit" calculation being based on the relative speeds and manueverability, that the quality of the FC and the range should be taken into account as well.  After all, it would stand to reason that an FC operating at 98% of its range would have a harder time guiding missiles than the same FC operating at 5% of its range.  

Kurt

I have no issue with this in general terms.  I think it really depends upon how 'realistic' you want to make things.  Most radars (inc FC ones) have a 'sweet spot' that they are optimised for.  They certainly lose performance as you approach max range; however, if you are going down this road then other factors become important.  Radars have a minimum range and also lose performace as they appraoch min range,  for fast moving targets the update rate of the radar becomes important.  Of more relvance all radars have what is some times called a range cell resolution.  Basically, this is how far apart 2 objects have to be before they become detected as seperate targets.  To link this to your range performace degradation (I meadered there eventually ) at max range the FC might see one larget target that doesn't become resolved into separate targets until perhaps 75% range.  So an AMM system might launch 5 missiles in 5v1 mode at long range but would have to start launching additional missiles once the salvo had resolved into individual missiles.  This would have implications for missile combat but would certainly be more representative and would increase 'the fog of war' a little.

I like the idea that FC's wouldn't do as well at close range, which would give beam weapons some much needed advantages.

Kurt

[IanD]

Charlie Beeler wrote:
Kurt's query in Mechanics about anti-missile fire controls has reminded me of something that has been bugging me for a while, there is no limit to how many missiles an individual FC can control. Or Beam mounts that a beam FC can control.

That is not written in stone though and a more direct form of control, along with a limited number of control channels might be possible at some point.
Steve

It may be worth remembering that the current Aegis system is capable of tracking >100 targets and perform search, tracking, and missile guidance functions simultaneously. The Aegis system still requires the AN/SPG-62 radar for terminal guidance, but with proper scheduling of intercepts, a large number of targets can be engaged simultaneously.

Thus the tech already exists to track multiple targets and share that targeting data with other launch platforms. In Aurora perhaps this should be modelled as an expensive advanced tech for use in anti-missile/fighter/gunboat platforms?

Regards