What about DN(P)s for the GA?

Kizarvexis wrote: SNIP Brevity

I appreciate your long post Kiz. Keep em coming!

If your initial knowledge in which you wrote your long detailed post was true, I would agree with you, but your base premise is based on inadequate knowledge.

Seems you also did not take to heart, fully consider/appreciate the implications of one previous post regarding L/D ratios(EDIT: Length:~Diameter) and placement of weapon systems.

A look in the back of the book Storm from the Shadows at the NIKE BCL will show that all broadside offensive/defensive systems are stuck only in the central section of hull. Better yet, look in the book House of Steel(If you do not own it, it is wonderful for the Honorverse addict). PS. Offensive/Defensive systems minus sensors make up about 10% of broadside area. Give or take.

This central hull section can effectively be as long or as short as a Honorverse designer wishes. There is an extreme, somewhere out there, but we do not know where.

Max height/width compared to length ranges from a ratio of 3.5 in LAC's to over 8.5 in a destroyer. Currently, per HoS, all Capital ships, be they DN/SD, no matter what age, even though we know there have been massive changes in compensators etc, all reside in 6.9 even though a CLAC and Merchant marine hulls with exact same acceleration run at a ratio of 6. Clearly broadside area for offensive/defensive systems are NOT driving factors.

wastedfly wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:You really don't believe that the GA will develop a new defensive tech to go into their next gen ships, do you? It seems to me that all of your ideas are based around BuWeaps sitting on their hands

We have tons of information in MWW's universe. You have a brain crewdude48; use it. Propose this new and improved system that balances offensive tractored Apollo pod alpha strikes. Stating in thread after thread; NOT INVENTED HERE is not a valid argument.

New defensive systems? Here are a few that were invented right here on this forum. A longer range CM with a grav receiver instead of a laser receiver allowing longer range intercepts. The Naginata drone; an unmanned version of a Katana, smaller, with deeper CM magazines and five to ten times the accel. The Tortuga drones; small drones that fly next to the ship that can rotate to place its wedge parallel to the sidewall, within the ships wedge, a.k.a. "turning turtle." A way to jam the FTL link on the Apollo Control Missile, or maybe just a massive "gravitic noise" generator, to "burn out" (if that is even possible) the reciever.

Yes, they all have issues; I have even argued against the Tortuga drones.

Heck, when the Grand Fleet takes out Yedlin, they might find some cool new piece of tech on the Technodyne mainframe that Battle Fleet was uninterested in, and was classified and forgotten. Improbable but possible.

However, with Hemphill and Foraker working together and with their universe's All-Mighty Being on their side, I do not believe that they will be unable to do something to make GA ships much more survivable. And if they can, DNs that are designed to fight for only twenty minutes will be useless.

crewdude48 wrote:You really don't believe that the GA will develop a new defensive tech to go into their next gen ships, do you? It seems to me that all of your ideas are based around BuWeaps sitting on their hands about defense during the rebuilding period. In my opinion, they probably started working on a new and better missile storm defense before Apollo was ever fielded. And considering all of the research and researchers aboard the Gryphon station (Waylend?) survived, I suspect it will be ready to install on the new construction.

At this point it has clearly been demonstrated that ships running Apollo can, in a single salvo, each fire about 2000 attack missiles. So a single Apollo squadron can deliver 12,000 FTL controlled attack missiles over less then 2 seconds.

12,000 RHN attack missiles are pretty damn destructive to a SD(P) squadron. As was demonstrated at BoM the same number of RMN Apollo missiles is about an order of magnitude more lethal, sufficient to utterly destroy at least 4 RHN SD(P) squadrons.

So exactly how do you suggest that a squadron should defend itself against 12,000 Apollo attack missiles arriving over less then 2 seconds such that you stop well in excess of 90%?

kzt wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:You really don't believe that the GA will develop a new defensive tech to go into their next gen ships, do you? It seems to me that all of your ideas are based around BuWeaps sitting on their hands about defense during the rebuilding period. In my opinion, they probably started working on a new and better missile storm defense before Apollo was ever fielded. And considering all of the research and researchers aboard the Gryphon station (Waylend?) survived, I suspect it will be ready to install on the new construction.

At this point it has clearly been demonstrated that ships running Apollo can, in a single salvo, each fire about 2000 attack missiles. So a single Apollo squadron can deliver 12,000 FTL controlled attack missiles over less then 2 seconds.

12,000 RHN attack missiles are pretty damn destructive to a SD(P) squadron. As was demonstrated at BoM the same number of RMN Apollo missiles is about an order of magnitude more lethal, sufficient to utterly destroy at least 4 RHN SD(P) squadrons.

So exactly how do you suggest that a squadron should defend itself against 12,000 Apollo attack missiles arriving over less then 2 seconds such that you stop well in excess of 90%?

Literally the entire post above yours.

crewdude48 wrote:Literally the entire post above yours.

So "Magic!"

Whatever.

kzt wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:Literally the entire post above yours.

So "Magic!"

Whatever.

No. Tech designed to degrade or ruin the advantage the FTL controlled missiles have. ie grav jammers (like radar jammers) and such.

`

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Rather he was saying consider two different 48MT units of wallers. Because 6MT DNs carry more than 75% the defensive emplacements of 8MT SDs, the 8 DNs in their 48MT wall of battle will have more CM tubes and PDLCs than the 6 SDs in their 48MT wall of battle.

But Wastedfly doesn't carry that computation out to the number of CM tubes and PDLCs 48MT of LACs provide -- especially if the come up with a LAC optimized for the anti-missile role.

Or 48MT of anything except DN(P)s -- Yet he cites "greater number of hulls" as an argument for DN(P)s.

Just to provide a quick fact-add here and then jump out of the way (I have no grazer in this fight). Information is from House of Steel.

The last "standard" DN (Bellerophon-Class) DN was about 8MT, had 24CM and 24PD in each broadside and 8CM/8PD in chase armament. The last non-pod SD (Gryphon-Class, 8.3MT) had 28CM and 30PD per broadside and 10/10 in the chase--so about 15-20% more defense on a SD than a DN.

The Invictus-class (latest SD(P) ) has 84cm and 62PD per broadside and 24/24 fore and 14/24 aft....substantially more than anything before it. We don't have stats for a DN(P) since none have been built, but using the same ratio as the non-pod ships, it would be about 72cm/52pd per broadside and 20/20 fore and 12/20 aft.

The Ferret and Shrike-B LAC's have 4CM and 6PD fore and aft, while the katana has 5CM (also used for anti-ship missiles) with 3DP fore and 6 aft.

And one last comment...the argument is a bit silly (IMHO): 300 years ago Honorverse time the biggest and baddest ship was the Battleship; 150 years ago it was the Dreadnought; today it is the Superdreadnought. Whatever comes next may eventually get it's own designation, whatever the size is (super-duper dreadnought? Me, I prefer a name from E.E. Smith--a Mauler)

OK, gentlemen, please resume. Interested in seeing where this comes out.

kzt wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:Literally the entire post above yours.

So "Magic!"

Whatever.

Any Sufficiency Advanced Technology is Indistinguishable from Magic--Arthur C. Clarke

Jonathan_S wrote:I think you misunderstood what wastedfly was saying. He wasn't claiming that a 6MT DN had the same number of defensive emplacements as an 8MT SD.

Rather he was saying consider two different 48MT units of wallers. Because 6MT DNs carry more than 75% the defensive emplacements of 8MT SDs, the 8 DNs in their 48MT wall of battle will have more CM tubes and PDLCs than the 6 SDs in their 48MT wall of battle.


Which is true, as far as it goes.
But since costs don't scale that way, and ships aren't normally allocated to systems by mass, it seems (to me) a largely pointless bit of comparison. The 8 DNs will take longer and cost more to build, then cost more to man and maintain than the 6 SDs.

No, I understood perfectly. I'm saying that (with the proviso that, as I stated, I don't have HoS available at the moment) I don't believe that 48Mt of DN(P)s will carry a worthwhile increase (or perhaps even any increase) in defensive armament over 48Mt of SD(P)s. Certainly not enough to compensate for the inherently weaker hulls.

kzt wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:Literally the entire post above yours.

So "Magic!"

Whatever.

In the same way that the sidewall was magic when combating the impeller head missile.

Exactly what part of the long range CM is magic? Or the Naginata or Tortuga drones? We have no evidence that FTL can be jammed, but we also have no evidence the other way, so how is that magic?