The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

Couple misconceptions: Well not misconceptions but promulgated facts.

First: Keyhole currently was originally forseen as a multiple platform variant without ECM/PDLC's etc. Bells whistles were added later and seen to "greatly" improve ship defense. How small was this multiple platform keyhole? Is this the already seen in the BCL/BC'P? Is the BC Keyhole sans PDLC/ECM/Wedge/onboard power? Judging from the books, I would say not. Or, can it go smaller to Heavy cruiser range?(whatever tonnage def you wish to use). IF one strips the bells and whistles off and strips down total number of control channels, how small can one make it?

Well smallest is obviously Apollo sized tractored. If one really wanted to be kludge factored, just take an apollo missile turn it around so its butt end faces where you are firing and hold it in place via a tractor. BOOM, BADDDA BING! Roughly 250 tons for a tidy single LONG RANGE FTL/lightspeed control link and upwards of 8 SHORT RANGE control links depending on usage. Note I did not even delve back into the usage of pre-existing FTL RD's, or other communication buoy types that are all cannon for communication good enough for visual/audio over vast distances and the bandwidth required therein.

Offhand, the arbitrary 65,000 ton keyhole one and the 120k ton Keyhole II tonnage limitation regarding small ships are just that, completely arbitrary for getting control links "around" the wedge. Will these keyhole be less capable than their larger peers? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No. These are light combatants after all.

**************************************************
Regarding DDM MK16 tubes and the SAG-C. The hull size(beam) of the SAG-C is not tied to the DDM missile tube. What is true is that it is currently the smallest ship that carries broadside DDM fusion powered tubes. Key term is FUSION. As DW has posted before one has a breach loaded missile tube tied to a fusion "start" section tied to the magazine. We have dimension for the MK-16 at 15m. If one went nose to tail this obviously requires approx 45m and with rounding for blast/damage doors etc will require 50m. Of course the real number is not 45m, but 30m. The "warm up" fusion stage could easily be a double clamshell design.

Regarding "angled DDM" tubes. Do remember the "gain" is the cosine. 15 degrees still has a cosine of 0.97... You just saved yourself all of 3%... 30 degrees saves 13%. Hardly worth mentioning for hull beam depth savings.

PS. I already would state those missile tubes are already 'angled', otherwise the missiles when wedge activation occurs would fratricide each other if they were all shot perfectly aligned. Missile tubes are already aligned with the sidewall on different vectors. As shown above, you save ~~...~~ 3% in beam dimensions. Hardly worth mentioning.

*************************************
Regarding light units not controlling missiles in long range duels of the wall and are just there as human shields: I have this to say: Battles like Solon/BoMa where there are plenty of light units, they were controlling missiles, but due to keeping the story line READABLE = simplistic, it is not shown.

The primary function of KH for smaller ships appears to be intended as defensive, not offensive. So it isn't a guidance platform, it's missile defense platform Exactly how this all works out is kind of vague. Realistically it shouldn't be any more effective than a pair of LACs....

kzt wrote:The primary function of KH for smaller ships appears to be intended as defensive,

Well, since one does not exist currently: What in this universe makes you believe this?

Relax wrote:

kzt wrote:The primary function of KH for smaller ships appears to be intended as defensive,

Well, since one does not exist currently: What in this universe makes you believe this?

Because that is what David stated as the main reason to get a smaller keyhole for future cruisers.

Relax wrote:PS. I already would state those missile tubes are already 'angled', otherwise the missiles when wedge activation occurs would fratricide each other if they were all shot perfectly aligned. Missile tubes are already aligned with the sidewall on different vectors. As shown above, you save ~~...~~ 3% in beam dimensions. Hardly worth mentioning.

Out of curiosity, wouldn't it do to kick the missiles out with differing amounts of acceleration imparted by the launchers, so that, when they light off their own impellers, they're spread out in a staggered row and outside wedge fratricide?

Or, for that matter, couldn't firing combine both variable thrust launches with slightly divergent directions, so that they wouldn't need to tilt the launchers or vary the initial kick too much to spread them out well enough?

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/166/1 gives some of the differences and similarities between Keyhole I and Keyhole II:

A) Keyhole I is light-speed links only, while Keyhole II has FTL links.

B) Both Keyhole I and II have on-board power supplies, but in practice are generally powered from the main ship.

C) Both Keyhole I and II have ghost-rider style impeller rings, but in general are held in place by tractors from the main ship.

D) Keyhole II has PDLCs for self-defense while Keyhole I does not.

There is also one other statement in that Pearl which is relevant to the discussion about lighter ships:

One interesting thing the RMN has observed now that Keyhole-Two has actually been deployed in combat is that the platforms' "self-defense" capability has proved a very valuable adjunct to be Navy's starships' antimissile defenses. Indeed, our good friend Sonja Hemphill is currently tinkering around with a considerably smaller, simpler platform whose primary function would be missile defense and which could probably be fitted to smaller combatants.

Relax, there is your evidence that the Keyhole-lite for cruisers is primarily for defensive purposes rather than offensive.

He used the word intended for smaller ships. I just got done stating an apollo control missile sans impeller activation would work just as well with the obvious power boost for CM control to its transmitter.

Everyone already knows Keyhole allows to fight behind the wedge. That is a given. What is also a given is its ability to control missiles. The only difference becomes its ECM/PDLC ability. Is it needed in the same platform? No. Therefore any light unit Keyhole is only limited in size by the number of control links. End of story. Anything beyond this is additional superfolous and additional bells and whistles. Besides it makes a lot of sense to have multiple platforms and not stuffed into a single platform. After all these platforms are directly in the optimum line of fire.

Relax wrote:We have dimension for the MK-16 at 15m.

We do?

Maybe you do, but I don't, and neither does my BuNine missile spreadsheet.

I don't recall ever actually giving the correct dimensions of a Mk-16, although others have done a little studying of my images and come pretty close to the correct dimensions. IIRC, those estimates were a couple meters or so shorter than your guess.

Edit: I just went back to the spreadsheet on a hunch, and it looks like you didn't even confuse your guess with the dimensions of the Mk-23 (which might have been understandable). Your guess is too short for a -23.

No matter. It doesn't contradict your point. I just don't like seeing guesses thrown around as facts.

Back to the topic at hand, another reason that angled tubes won't work is because you would need a larger opening (longer but not not taller), which would increase the vulnerability of the hull in those areas. By mounting them perpendicular to the long axis of the ship, you reduce the size of the hole in the main passive armor to the bare minimum.

MaxxQ wrote:Back to the topic at hand, another reason that angled tubes won't work is because you would need a larger opening (longer but not not taller), which would increase the vulnerability of the hull in those areas. By mounting them perpendicular to the long axis of the ship, you reduce the size of the hole in the main passive armor to the bare minimum.

The whole launcher sits in an armored bathtub capable of largely containing a multi-megaton explosion at contact range. So I'd argue that the size of the hole in the skin armor is pretty much insignificant.

MaxxQ wrote:

Relax wrote:We have dimension for the MK-16 at 15m.

We do?SNIP

No matter. It doesn't contradict your point. I just don't like seeing guesses thrown around as facts.

Back to the topic at hand, another reason that angled tubes won't work is because you would need a larger opening (longer but not not taller), which would increase the vulnerability of the hull in those areas. By mounting them perpendicular to the long axis of the ship, you reduce the size of the hole in the main passive armor to the bare minimum.

True, we do not know precisely the true length of the MK-16 to be 15.01m long. We do know they are close.

Erm, I didn't make up that number. I inferred the number from your drawings and from the books when DW gave the length of the laser head.

As far as I am concerned anytime one can "guesstimate" anything within 25%, it is good enough. Especially for all of the SWAG'ing we do here on the forums.

And no, my 15m is certainly not cannon. It is just ~~~ Mheh, close enough.

*******************************************

Regarding hole size in armor: It is the exact same. Outside of the total that is. Just means you get to place the slightly displaced armor elsewhere. Difference between a circle and an ellipse is .... nothing other than the angle. Take a circle and rotate it an angle and viola you have an ellipse. So, actually, the angled tube would be a SMALLER hole to a true perpendicular broadside shot as more passive armor would be in the way of the shot.

.... Flip a coin, what is your pleasure, maximum protection from a perfect broadside shot, or max protection against an angled shot...

PS. Guess both Mk-23 and 16 do run along at 46,000g. I swear there was a quote in AAC with 96,000g for the MDM, but a quick search in AAC did not find it so...