Author Topic: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs  (Read 6482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« on: February 07, 2012, 06:28:21 PM »
Thiosks comment had me think about this, so I thought I would throw in some uses and designs for multi-warhead missile design.

MIRV or multi-stage/multi-warhead missiles dont get used very often because they are big. No getting around that. Big launchers reload slower, and there are ZERO inherent advantages to using big missiles over the average size 3 to size 6 that tend to be the standards.

BUT, big missiles are exactly whats needed for multi-warhead attacks. So, why use them when a good old size 4 does the trick?

The single biggest reason for using them? Saturation!

2nd biggest reason? Range.

MIRV or multi-stage/multi-warhead missiles dont get used very often because they are big. No getting around that. Big launchers reload slower, and there are ZERO inherent advantages to using big missiles over the average size 3 to size 6 that tend to be the standards.

BUT, big missiles are exactly whats needed for multi-warhead attacks.

Multi-stage missiles let you do both of those things, and they are both significant advantages. Lets start with #1, Saturation.

Saturation
Nothing is more annoying that to watch your big (expensive) missiles got knocked out of space by a wall of cheap anti-missile missiles. So, that generally means that most folks either add more launchers, and generally pursue launcher reduction tech to get to box launchers. Ultimately, the goal is to put more missiles in space then the enemy can effectively shoot down. So, its a numbers game.

Numbers win in Aurora, most of the time. But, there are some issues with how saturation of a target is achieved, and if its sustainable. For most situations, a lot of size 3 to size 6 box launchers with your standard naval missiles are going to do the trick. The down side is that once those box launchers are empty, your ship isnt doing much except soaking up enemy fire in return. And NOT getting shot in return leads us to point #2 Range...

Range
So, the best kinds off offensive missiles are where you can shoot your missiles off before the bad guys can fire back. Best kind of fight is an unfair one! :) So, the problem generally is how to do this when your similar tech, or lower tech than the bad guys. This can be especially true early in the game when your bumping into unfriendly robotic ships with HORDES of anti-missiles and missile tech thats just all around better than what your navy can field.


And those two point combine are where MIRV/multi-stage/multi-warhead missiles can shine.

Example:
A traditional naval force encounters some unfriendly robotic ships. Said bad guys have better AMM, and slightly better range on their basic missiles. A slugging match ensues, with the naval force getting nothing through the AMM's fired by the bad guys. The bad guys inflict damage on the player.

Now, the player is stuck. If they push into close range, they get to see what sandblasting means. If they allow the hostiles to run and rearm, they get to repeat the same drill. Lots of missiles spent for no return, but his ships get shot up.

The traditional solution would be to ignore the system, research box launchers and come back with the mass salvos those produce. Its a good system and strategy, and it works well.

Here is an alternative;
Player race has a max range of 52.5m km, bad guys 65m km. Player AMM range is 2m km, bad guys, 3m km. In this scenario, bad guys are going to have birds in the air long before the good guys.

Solution, dont play to their strengths!

Instead of using the standard naval missile, like this one;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-4-C Gato III
Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 30000 km/s    Endurance: 29 minutes   Range: 52.5m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.28   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 210,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.405
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 450%   3k km/s 150%   5k km/s 90%   10k km/s 45%

You could be using something like this;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-12-C Haifisch III
Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 8    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 30000 km/s    Endurance: 43 minutes   Range: 77.5m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.42   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 320,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 8.545
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 450%   3k km/s 150%   5k km/s 90%   10k km/s 45%

Range is better and the to hit chances are the same, and it packs a MUCH bigger warhead. The problem is, from an anti-missile perspective, this is just as easy to shoot down as standard size 4 missile. This is why big missiles are not used often, it just doesn't pay off.

But taking that same size 12 missile, you can turn it into something like this;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-12-Km Kingfisher III ASM
Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 12500 km/s    Endurance: 117 minutes   Range: 87.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 9.04
Second Stage: SS-N-1b Krait Submunition x4
Second Stage Separation Range: 4,000,000 km
Overall Endurance: 2 hours   Overall Range: 91.4m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 125%   3k km/s 40%   5k km/s 25%   10k km/s 12.5%

Same size 12, only a third the speed, but great range. More importantly, its packing 4 submunitions. The big difference is that the missile only costs .495 MORE than the standard size 12 above it. Even more importantly, its packing 4 smaller missiles on board, these;

Code: [Select]
SS-N-1b Krait Submunition
Missile Size: 1.5 MSP  (0.075 HS)     Warhead: 3    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 17
Speed: 28400 km/s    Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 4.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 1.635
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 482.8%   3k km/s 153%   5k km/s 96.6%   10k km/s 48.3%

Individually, these little guys are moderately fast, have a better chance to hit than the either standard size 4 or size 12, and add 4m km to the effective range of the multi-stage package. So the total range of the whole package is 95.4m KM!!! And this is ION tech!

Now, from a total damage perspective, the standard size 12 hits much harder, and digs much deeper into the bad guys armor. But its probably not going to make it since the salvo density is going to be low, unless its being mass fired from box launchers. The little submuntions do the same damage, but in smaller size 4 chunks. AND if one of them gets intercepted, there are still three more warheads that need to be countered.

Now, take something like this missile and load it up on a ship like this;
Code: [Select]
Wolverine class Cruiser    15,950 tons     964 Crew     2952 BP      TCS 319  TH 567  EM 1200
5078 km/s     Armour 9-56     Shields 40-300     Sensors 44/33/0/0     Damage Control Rating 15     PPV 72
Maint Life 2.3 Years     MSP 578    AFR 407%    IFR 5.7%    1YR 148    5YR 2221    Max Repair 224 MSP
Magazine 480   

Applied Dynamics E850 Ion Engine (27)    Power 60    Fuel Use 60%    Signature 21    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 400,000 Litres    Range 75.2 billion km   (171 days at full power)
Gamma R300/14 Shields (20)   Total Fuel Cost  280 Litres per day

Krupp SM-12 Box Launcher (40)    Missile Size 12    Hangar Reload 90 minutes    MF Reload 15 hours
Intek Harpoon A Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 184.8m km    Resolution 100
SS-N-12-Km Kingfisher III ASM (20)  Speed: 12,500 km/s   End: 116.7m    Range: 91.5m km   WH: 0    Size: 12    TH: 41 / 25 / 12
SS-N-12-C Haifisch III ASM (20)  Speed: 30,000 km/s   End: 43m    Range: 77.5m km   WH: 8    Size: 12    TH: 150 / 90 / 45

Teksystems Skyband 126/50 Search Sensor (1)     GPS 11200     Range 126.7m km    Resolution 50
Thermal Sensor TH4-44 (1)     Sensitivity 44     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  44m km
EM Detection Sensor EM3-33 (1)     Sensitivity 33     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  33m km

Note: The fire control above is overbuilt deliberately to counteract enemy ECM

You can salvo 10 of these missiles at a time, for 4x40 warhead salvos. Or you can alpha strike a target for one big 160 warhead salvo. That is a lot of hurt in one place!!

Now, the downside is that most ships dont need that many hits to kill them (full salvo is 480pts of damage). Even assuming 50% get knocked down or miss (which is VERY generous) thats still 240points of damage. On most ships, there will be wasted missile damage.

So, if you want to maximize your potential to inflict the most damage across a fleet and not just one ship, you can replace the 4x unguided submuntions with three of these;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-2-P Pugio-B Submunition
Missile Size: 2 MSP  (0.1 HS)     Warhead: 3    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 30000 km/s    Endurance: 2 minutes   Range: 4.1m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.2912   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 220,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.1662
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 450%   3k km/s 150%   5k km/s 90%   10k km/s 45%

Now, and residual missiles will seek out other targets. :) So, if you have two of the cruisers listed above, and the both fire all launchers at separate targets, that's 120 warheads per target. Assuming the targets are destroyed before all missiles finish impacting, there could be a fair number of loose missiles looking for targets.

 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2012, 07:04:17 PM »
Now, for further fun and destruction, you can use this for long range shuttle strikes even in frontier systems by basing these missiles off of FACs like this;

Code: [Select]
Z-Class class Fast Attack Craft    650 tons     44 Crew     149.4 BP      TCS 13  TH 42  EM 0
9230 km/s     Armour 1-6     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3.6
Maint Life 8.13 Years     MSP 72    AFR 6%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 29    Max Repair 56 MSP
Magazine 24   

Rolls Royce E85b FAC Ion Engine (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 600%    Signature 42    Armour 0    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres    Range 23.1 billion km   (28 days at full power)

Krupp SM-12 Box Launcher (2)    Missile Size 12    Hangar Reload 90 minutes    MF Reload 15 hours
Elgin M130/50 Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 130.7m km    Resolution 50
SS-N-12-Km Kingfisher III ASM (2)  Speed: 12,500 km/s   End: 116.7m    Range: 91.5m km   WH: 0    Size: 12    TH: 41 / 25 / 12

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

A squadron of 10 of these (with at least one sensor platform), will put 20 of those missiles in the air for 80 warhead salvos!


Long Range Missiles
Now, if what your really needing is DISTANCE, then there are two other things to look at.

First off is the "booster" missile concept. So, you have a good missile, but you want to stay WAY out of range of the bad guys. Or, you have a PDC that just doesn't have the range to hit those pesky survey ships the bad guys keep flooding into your system.

Solution: Booster missiles!

Remember the standard Size 4 missile above?
Code: [Select]
SS-N-4-C Gato III
Missile Size: 4 MSP  (0.2 HS)     Warhead: 4    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 15
Speed: 30000 km/s    Endurance: 29 minutes   Range: 52.5m km
Active Sensor Strength: 0.28   Sensitivity Modifier: 110%
Resolution: 50    Maximum Range vs 2500 ton object (or larger): 210,000 km
Cost Per Missile: 3.405
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 450%   3k km/s 150%   5k km/s 90%   10k km/s 45%

Only 53m km isnt going to get very far. But say you have some size 8 launchers on your small PDC's hanging out on a nearby asteroid. Converting that standard missile into a submunition and slapping it on a size 8 missile gets you;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-8-B Javelin
Missile Size: 8 MSP  (0.4 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 15000 km/s    Endurance: 83 minutes   Range: 75.0m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.405
Second Stage: SS-N-4-C Gato III ASM x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 52,000,000 km
Overall Endurance: 2 hours   Overall Range: 127.5m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 150%   3k km/s 50%   5k km/s 30%   10k km/s 15%

Nothing fancy, but it has a 75m km range. Add that to the existing size 4's range and you now have a missile with a 127.5m km range

Those size 12 PDC launchers from earlier? Same thing;
Code: [Select]
SS-N-12-V Long Lance Mk I
Missile Size: 12 MSP  (0.6 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 12500 km/s    Endurance: 183 minutes   Range: 137.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 5.905
Second Stage: SS-N-4-C Gato III ASM x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 52,000,000 km
Overall Endurance: 4 hours   Overall Range: 190.0m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 125%   3k km/s 40%   5k km/s 25%   10k km/s 12.5%

Now the total range is 190m km!

To be perfectly honest, I have only had the need to use boosters twice, and there are diminishing returns on long range missile designs. If you want to get further out, drones are a better way to go, but then you have to mess around with sensors to trigger the 2nd stage.

DESIGN NOTES
If your going to build MIRV/multi-warhead missiles, there are a couple of fast rules;

1) If your building mines, make sure your sensor range and your missile ranges align. No sense in having missiles that can go farther than they can see. And, if the bad guys are using ECM, make sure your sensor tech is longer range than your actually missile fuel. Otherwise, you will have problems.

2) If your building offensive multi-warhead missiles MAKE SURE the separation range is OUTSIDE of the bad guys AMM sensor range. If the bad guys sensor/fire control is at 4m km and thats your seperation range, your fine. Your missiles will fire the 2nd stage before the AMM can come anywhere close. If their range is 6m km, and your seperation is at 4m km, your going to have a problem.
 

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2012, 08:20:19 PM »
I have considered boosters for ultra-long range alpha strikes.  The doctrine involved an all cloak thermal suppressed fleet (tech advantage FTW) with box launchers.  Light up with an ultra large active sensor and fire con then launch one humongous alpha strike from a range that is impossible to respond to. 
After it hits, simply disappear again. 

Conclusion is that you are better off housing your standard ASM onto a drone.  Missile fuel expenditure for long range gets prohibitive fast. 

With Magnetic Confinement, I have managed to make a size 20 drone pack 3 standard size 4 ASMs with a flight time of around 1 day and a range of ~1 billion km. 

Considering that the main purpose of this fleet is to deep strike and cripple enemy infrastructure, I am likely launching against a planet.  If I decide that planetary death is all I want, I may not need firecons/active sensors either.  (1 billion km range firecons and sensors are HUGE)
 

Offline blue emu

  • Commander
  • *********
  • b
  • Posts: 344
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2012, 08:26:50 PM »
A couple of additional points:

Quote
1) If your building mines, make sure your sensor range and your missile ranges align. No sense in having missiles that can go farther than they can see.


True for mines, but not entirely true for ship-based missiles. In a stern-chase (with the opponent moving away from you), the endurance that your missile requires in order to catch up to him might be considerably greater than the sensor range needed to keep him targetted. It depends on the ratio between your missile speed and the target's speed.

Also... another good way that I've found to achieve saturation of the opponent's PD defenses is to manufacture several marks of long-range missile which are basically identical except for speed. Then you can fire several salvos of the slowest missile, followed by several salvos of a faster model, then several salvos of a still faster model, and so on. The faster missiles (fired last) will gradually catch up to the slower missiles while en-route to the target... and if you've timed it correctly, you will have all of the salvos that you fired arriving on-target at just about the same time, in one massive time-on-target wave of salvos. This can be extremely effective for creating a PD overload situation.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 08:28:40 PM by blue emu »
 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2012, 09:43:18 PM »
A couple of additional points:
 

True for mines, but not entirely true for ship-based missiles. In a stern-chase (with the opponent moving away from you), the endurance that your missile requires in order to catch up to him might be considerably greater than the sensor range needed to keep him targetted. It depends on the ratio between your missile speed and the target's speed.

Also... another good way that I've found to achieve saturation of the opponent's PD defenses is to manufacture several marks of long-range missile which are basically identical except for speed. Then you can fire several salvos of the slowest missile, followed by several salvos of a faster model, then several salvos of a still faster model, and so on. The faster missiles (fired last) will gradually catch up to the slower missiles while en-route to the target... and if you've timed it correctly, you will have all of the salvos that you fired arriving on-target at just about the same time, in one massive time-on-target wave of salvos. This can be extremely effective for creating a PD overload situation.

Absolutely true. Just takes a bit of math (ok, a lot of math depending on the speeds). I have done that with missiles before, and it can be pretty hairy for the PD. It was also pretty hairy for me keeping all those ships, with different reload times synced up. :)
 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2012, 09:54:30 PM »
Conclusion is that you are better off housing your standard ASM onto a drone.  Missile fuel expenditure for long range gets prohibitive fast. 


Yep, I agree. Thats why I said at the end of that, that past about 190m to 200m km, your better with drones, as the missiles start getting into diminishing returns.

The trick I found going after ships with drones is the sensors. They have to be big enough to spot something outside AMM range, or the drones get splashed, they are just much bigger and slower than missiles, so they are sitting ducks.

The best luck I found was thermal seekers. They dont trigger enemy sensors until after the missiles have launched and started impacting. The down side to thermals is you have to be shooting at a planet or something with a large thermal signature, around 1800+ to get decent detection range off of them.
 

Offline sublight

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Captain
  • *
  • s
  • Posts: 592
  • Thanked: 17 times
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2012, 08:54:47 AM »
The best luck I found was thermal seekers. They dont trigger enemy sensors until after the missiles have launched and started impacting. The down side to thermals is you have to be shooting at a planet or something with a large thermal signature, around 1800+ to get decent detection range off of them.

That's less effective than you'd think. I've used drones for long-range planetary bombardment before, and found that self guided missiles with passive sensors won't lock onto population signatures. If you've gotten population signatures to trigger MIRV separation then I may have to switch my interplanetary bombardment strategy from armored drones to MIRV drones.
 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2012, 09:54:10 AM »
I haven't tried going after planetary populations with thermal drones, so I honestly don't know if they will trigger separation or not. I would have to try it.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2012, 12:41:01 PM »
I haven't tried going after planetary populations with thermal drones, so I honestly don't know if they will trigger separation or not. I would have to try it.

I don't think it will. I believe I built in a safeguard against automated targeting of populations. Partly because you don't want to wipe out potential loot by accident but more importantly because it would embarassing to accidently nuke the planet you were trying to defend.

Steve
 

Offline Erik L

  • Administrator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Thanked: 366 times
  • Forum Admin
  • Discord Username: icehawke
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2012, 01:05:52 PM »
I don't think it will. I believe I built in a safeguard against automated targeting of populations. Partly because you don't want to wipe out potential loot by accident but more importantly because it would embarassing to accidently nuke the planet you were trying to defend.

Steve

Friendly nuclear fire FTW. ;)

Offline jseah

  • Captain
  • **********
  • j
  • Posts: 490
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2012, 06:18:51 PM »
I dismissed using self-guided drones as sensors are a faff to use.  You could fit in an entire ASM into the space required for a decent sensor.  Multiplied over all the missiles you are launching in any decent alpha strike, that's alot of PD saturation power you are missing. 


The result was a sensor frigate with nothing but a size 50 active sensor with 1 billion km range (res 100). 

And a correspondingly huge size 12? 20? firecontrol.  Thank god planets don't have ECM. 
 

Offline Theokrat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 236
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2012, 07:29:50 AM »
A few remarks:

1) The separation range of the Kingfisher is equal to the range of the submunition, which can lead to severe problems in chasing battles. What happens if the target ship is flying away from the incoming missiles? The Kingfisher releases the submunition at range of 4m km. Two minutes later the Kraits arrive at the scene, but by that time the target has moved further away. The Kraits have expanded their range and go down uselessly.

To avoid the embarrassment that this could cause, one has to design the separation range such that it is not only outside of the enemy’s PD range (i.e. as large as possible), but also such that the enemy can reliable intercepted, even if he is speeding away (i.e. making the separation range as small as possible). If the anticipated targets move at v_t, and your missiles move at v_m and have range of r, then you want a separation range s of s = r * (1- v_t / v_m). Versus an enemy capable of 4000km/s for example you would the Kingfisher to release the Kraits at no more than 3.4m km

2) There is actually not much benefit in using multiple submunitions for a missile. The “first stage” is all engines and fuel, and those scale exactly with the missile size. The only two reasons to ever go for a larger missile size are to achieve either a better damage-template from a larger warhead or in order to get better sensors. Neither applies to the Kingfisher Design above.

Consider the following design. Only 25% as large as the kingfisher, carrying 1 krait, but with the same range.

Code: [Select]
SS-N-3-Km Princefisher III ASM
Missile Size: 3 MSP  (0.15 HS)     Warhead: 0    Armour: 0     Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 12500 km/s    Endurance: 117 minutes   Range: 87.5m km
Cost Per Missile: 2.26
Second Stage: SS-N-1b Krait Submunition x1
Second Stage Separation Range: 4,000,000 km
Overall Endurance: 2 hours   Overall Range: 91.4m km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 125%   3k km/s 40%   5k km/s 25%   10k km/s 12.5%

The advantage over the Kingfisher is twofold: You can launch them much more rapidly in concession (rate of fire is four times as high, while launchers are a quarter in size, meaning you can launch 4 times as many in the same time), and they are hard to intercept. Of course the missile should not get into PD range in the first place, but it will be detected & engaged later, so the safe zone is larger. Additionally its harder to intercept for a small vessel in front of the enemy fleet that might not be detected. As a minor point it also allows for a finer tuning in attack runs, i.e. you could fire 18 kraits this way, while with the Kingfisher you would be constrained to either 16 or 20. Not that relevant in an alpha strike, but worthwhile when finishing of stranglers (1 shot at a time vs 4). There is no drawback in the Princefisher compared to the Kingfisher, except if the size-12 launchers are already abundantly in use.


3) The designs are really slow. The Kingfisher takes 2 hours to reach its maximum range! This can become a serious problem in two cases.

First, against an enemy that is trying to disengage. Suppose the enemy is at a similar tech level and capable of running at 5000km/s. This means that in the 2 hours that it takes the Kingfisher to reach its maximum range, an enemy can move a whopping 36 million kilometers. Thus if trying to hit an enemy that is fleeing the range drops by this amount and the Kingfisher “only” has an effective range of 55m km in this situations.

Second, against an enemy that has similar ranged, but faster missiles. Unguided missiles are lost when their firecontrol is destroyed. 2 hours can be a long time in combat.

Take the example of the bad guy you brought up with the 68m range. It would take the Kingfisher 5,200s=1.4 hours to reach that range. If the enemy travels has ECM-5 (what I infer from your example) and travels at say 7,500, then he will reach that point within ~3,600s after being fired at, when he entered the engagement range. If his missiles have a (relative) speed of slightly more than 40km/s, then his missiles will reach before ours. If our launching vessel dies, then so does our amazing launch, and it was all invain.

This last point is not necessarily a critique about the design, it just should be kept in mind.
 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2012, 09:47:33 PM »
You are correct in your critique. In the case of the robotic bad guys, these tend to exploit the NPR's tendency to charge right at you, until they get to their optimal range. In that case your shooting "down the well" so the closing speed helps you.

In a stern chase, your absolutely correct, they can be exhausted if the target is fast enough and at the edge of the envelope.

While the missiles are indeed slow, they are still faster than ships, so from an movement impulse perspective, they can be effective. Particularly in a closing fight.

ECM is more of a challenge. What I have seen happen is the missiles in a tail chase, hit the separation range, launch the sub-munitions, but the fire control loses lock due to the distance and the missiles lose guidance. That is annoying.

As far as the PD and detection, the other thing I have seen is that the lag between detection and engagement is in the favor of the missile. Even if they detect further out that 4,000,000 km, the MIRV is going to close to separation range before the launch AMM's can intercept. That lag is also in your favor, because if the bad guys DO detect and launch at a distance, they are wasting AMM's firing at the carrier missile body rather than the warheads. Thats a good thing for the firing player, as the NPR is burning AMM's that WONT be able to shoot at actual warheads.

I see your point about the multiple warhead vs. single, and I agree. From a total cost perspective, its a wash from a build point cost, they are the same for 1 Kingfisher or 4 Princefisher. I am sure the mineral costs are close as well, be interesting to see.

You basically built a booster missile concept to get the distance of the Kingfisher, which I get. The later part of the original post, I mentioned those as well. Its a good solution.

The other piece is being able to make use of larger launchers and platforms that already exist. If your already stocked with Size 3 launchers on everything, than it makes sense to keep using the platform. If your using some size 8 launchers already, than the bigger MIRV's pay off as well.
 

Offline Peter Rhodan

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • P
  • Posts: 117
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2012, 08:00:28 PM »
Personally in the tech disadvantage situation described I use a double procedure tactic. Against robotic ships I reverse course giving me maximum fire time against their incoming ASMs and rely on my AMM to keep me alive. The I close to my AMM range of their now ASMless ships which is always much longer than their AMM range and fire salvos of my remaining AMM ahead of my own ASMs - the trick here is that my AMMs are generally a lot faster than my AMMs so I have to guess at a lunch time to ensure the AMMs arrive at the enemy 3mk AMM range in several salvos ahead of my ASMs - all being well most of the enemy AMM and PD get used up on my AMMs and my big ASMs come through in large numbers.
 

Offline Arwyn (OP)

  • Gold Supporter
  • Commander
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 338
  • Thanked: 40 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Saturation bombardment, MIRV missiles and designs
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2012, 09:10:55 PM »
Personally in the tech disadvantage situation described I use a double procedure tactic. Against robotic ships I reverse course giving me maximum fire time against their incoming ASMs and rely on my AMM to keep me alive. The I close to my AMM range of their now ASMless ships which is always much longer than their AMM range and fire salvos of my remaining AMM ahead of my own ASMs - the trick here is that my AMMs are generally a lot faster than my AMMs so I have to guess at a lunch time to ensure the AMMs arrive at the enemy 3mk AMM range in several salvos ahead of my ASMs - all being well most of the enemy AMM and PD get used up on my AMMs and my big ASMs come through in large numbers.

I have used the same technique previously. In my current game, those empty ASM ships have a very annoying tendency to run for missile resupply at a nearby planet or moon, while the still armed ships continue to close. My last combat had the robots tossing 51 missile AMM salvos at me, at much longer ranges than I could. Hence the reason for the MIRV's, made it very hard for them to engage the submunitions. They had enough missiles, but the dont apparently have enought fire control to engage all of them. It was the only way I could batter through their AMM wall.