BB(P/C) for rear area security

namelessfly wrote:

A quick way to rearm LACs?

Of course a missile pod sized drone with say a 10,000 gee impeller drive to get forward deployed, an FTL FC relay and sensors, and launching tubes with magazines for dozens of CMs would be really useful.

Far too expensive for the minimal benefit it would have over additional LAC.

Or more correctly said, it would be cheaper and more effective to have more LACs.

If the ship in question is deployed with a CLAC to carry LACs, you are right. I am thinking of a system for BCs, CAs,

It´s far too easy to kill them off before they launch.

namelessfly wrote:If the ship in question is deployed with a CLAC to carry LACs, you are right. I am thinking of a system for BCs, CAs,

The whole "what is the threat profile" issue comes up when you step down to individual ships. Home fleet's destruction answered the question of "what constitutes a severe missile threat to a fleet", and that was what I was thinking of trying to work on.

I'd guess twice the maximum density of missile fire a CA or BC can deliver alone is about the maximum that it is practical to design it to be able to absorb by itself for some period while it runs or kills the threat. Maximum would include delayed activation missiles etc. I'm not sure what maximum is for a Sag-C or BC(L), but it's a lot of missiles.

I am going to weigh in on this very briefly.

First, I did read the whole thread and thought the argument against battleships was pretty decisive. But then some of you turned right around and started designing your own ship types when existing types would do the job. Want to defend an unimportant planet out in verge? Send in a squadron of Rolands or perhaps Sag Cs with freighter stuffed with appropiate sized pods. Appropriate might vary from situation to situation. Also some lacs with freighter to serve as tender. Best forjob would probably be ferrets. You can argue with force mix, but the thing is, at this moment in time, 30 million km is about all the range u need against current SLN capabilities. Also number of missle tubes aren't nearly as important as control links. Both Sag Cs and Rolands have those aplenty. Witness Spindle where Terokov's Sag C squadron destroyed enough SLN SDs (48, as I recall) to force the surrender of the rest.

You can argue that SLN will improve as war goes on. To be sure, providing SL holds together long enough for r and d to kick in and hardware to be produced. The way RFC is telling the story, that is doubtful. But still, if it does happen that original mix is insufficient, you make adjustments.

There are really only two reasons to develop new ship designs. The first is that what you have on hand won't do the job. That simply doesn't seem to be the case here. The second is the introduction of new tech that constitutes a force multiplier that renders current designs obsolete. That could be coming up. Wanna be a fly on the wall when Shannon Foraker and Sonja Hemple get their heads together? I bet we see the streak drive and possibly the spider with Herlander Simoe's assistance. Lots to look forward to in the sequel to ART.

Don

One of the virtues of hyper capable warships is that you can quickly redeploy them to another star system if you think you might need them there. One of the vices of hyper capable warships is that some commander might take them gallivanting off on some wild goose chase leaving a system undefended. See First Hancock in SVW. The vices of "fixed defenses" that are not hyper capable is that they can not be redeployed to another system if the local cammander feels a need to. One of the Virtues of fixed defenses is that they aren't hyper capable which ensures that a local cammander will not be able to redeploy them thus leaving the system that those defenses are supposed to protect unprotected.

We have seen light warships employing missile pods from arsenal ships extremely effectively. The battle of Spindle is THE classic example.

However; we have also seen light warships employing missile pods from arsenal ships get reamed because the arsenal ships are vulnerable. The battle of Torch is THE classic example.

Given the Cataphract missiles deployed by Mesan backed Stae Sec rejects at Torch and supplied by the Mesans to the SLNfor Adm Fillarta's attack on Manticore, the GA better cease assuming that they will always beable to engage the SLN and everyone else from beyond the opponent's effective missile range.

What I see a need for is a "fixed defense" system that is cheaper than the equivalent capability in a hyper capable combatant, can be quickly deployed by heavy lift large freighter, that can engage targets out to the hyper limit from it's established, "fixed" position, and is far less vulnerable than a freighter or an arsenal ship. Something with the ammunition capacity comparable to a BC(P) or Nike but is NOT hyper cable, has bubble sidewalls and armor that give it the damage tolerance of a Nike, and CM and point defense capability comparable to or somewhat better than a Nike. Such a system might be a pod design but Skimper is right that a system with missile tubes carries more missiles per ton and cost less than a comparable number of missiles in missile pods. It would be nice if such a system could launch and manage somewhat larger salvos than a Nike.

While one can argue that Apollo or even Mk-23s are a more cost effective solution than Mk-16s, Weber has made it rather clear that Apollo is to be reserved for SD(P)s and defenses for MAJOR systems such as Manticore and Grayson. Given a ballistic phase, the range of a Mk-16 is equal to a Mk-23. Given the Mk-16G upgrade it is effective against anything (similar to the high velocity, high elevation, 12" guns on the Alaskas). Given recon drones or LACs to provide tactical data via FTL and minor modifications to the Mk-16s and minor modifications to the recon
drones and/or LACs to enable relaying FTL comm control to the Mk-16s, you have very nearly Apollo performance without the extreme cost of disposable Apollo control missiles.

n7axw wrote:I am going to weigh in on this very briefly.

First, I did read the whole thread and thought the argument against battleships was pretty decisive. But then some of you turned right around and started designing your own ship types when existing types would do the job. Want to defend an unimportant planet out in verge? Send in a squadron of Rolands or perhaps Sag Cs with freighter stuffed with appropiate sized pods. Appropriate might vary from situation to situation. Also some lacs with freighter to serve as tender. Best forjob would probably be ferrets. You can argue with force mix, but the thing is, at this moment in time, 30 million km is about all the range u need against current SLN capabilities. Also number of missle tubes aren't nearly as important as control links. Both Sag Cs and Rolands have those aplenty. Witness Spindle where Terokov's Sag C squadron destroyed enough SLN SDs (48, as I recall) to force the surrender of the rest.

You can argue that SLN will improve as war goes on. To be sure, providing SL holds together long enough for r and d to kick in and hardware to be produced. The way RFC is telling the story, that is doubtful. But still, if it does happen that original mix is insufficient, you make adjustments.

There are really only two reasons to develop new ship designs. The first is that what you have on hand won't do the job. That simply doesn't seem to be the case here. The second is the introduction of new tech that constitutes a force multiplier that renders current designs obsolete. That could be coming up. Wanna be a fly on the wall when Shannon Foraker and Sonja Hemple get their heads together? I bet we see the streak drive and possibly the spider with Herlander Simoe's assistance. Lots to look forward to in the sequel to ART.

Don

If it's the size of a battlecruiser, uses the same materials to build as a battlecruiser, uses the same crew as a battlecruiser, and has roughly equivalent capabilities as a battlecruiser, then it's certainly not going to be any different than just building the darn battlecruiser. Any difference in the price tag is going to disappear as a rounding error on the scale of construction the Alliance is working on. Every one of those mini forts aren't going to have capabilities radically different from an existing class, and every one you build is a battlecruiser you're not building. So since these mini forts don't buy you substantially better capabilities, nor fundamentally alter the economic and industrial equation, the Alliance should just build more battlecruisers.

Duckk wrote:If it's the size of a battlecruiser, uses the same materials to build as a battlecruiser, uses the same crew as a battlecruiser, and has roughly equivalent capabilities as a battlecruiser, then it's certainly not going to be any different than just building the darn battlecruiser. Any difference in the price tag is going to disappear as a rounding error on the scale of construction the Alliance is working on. Every one of those mini forts aren't going to have capabilities radically different from an existing class, and every one you build is a battlecruiser you're not building. So since these mini forts don't buy you substantially better capabilities, nor fundamentally alter the economic and industrial equation, the Alliance should just build more battlecruisers.

I am am presuming that it has BC+ armament but the increased mass enabled by no need for mobility allows far more armor mass, deeper voids in the armor to enhance survivability, bubble sidewall generators that make it less vulnerable than a BC, smaller crew and less comprehensive accomodations enabled by being deployed near the orbital facilities of an alliance system, all for less cost than a BC because of no hyperdrive, Warashawki sails, Alpha nodes ect.

Best of all, there isno risk of a Yanci Parks taking it away on a wild goose chase to leave the system uncovered.

I am am presuming that it has BC+ armament but the increased mass enabled by no need for mobility allows far more armor mass, deeper voids in the armor to enhance survivability, bubble sidewall generators that make it less vulnerable than a BC, smaller crew and less comprehensive accomodations enabled by being deployed near the orbital facilities of an alliance system, all for less cost than a BC because of no hyperdrive, Warashawki sails, Alpha nodes ect.

Armor is cheap and bountiful as to be nigh irrelevant in a cost analysis. Bubble sidewalls on top of the other defensive systems is an added cost. And while the mini fort won't have to pay for interstellar capability, that just means they rack up other incidental costs instead, such as the transport costs and the overhead of the maintenance ships which have to stop by periodically to keep them working.

Best of all, there isno risk of a Yanci Parks taking it away on a wild goose chase to leave the system uncovered.

By the same token, they won't have interstellar capability to get the hell out of Dodge when things go pear shaped. Being able to flee the system if necessary tilts things in favor of the hyper capable ships. If your forces can't flee the system, then you have to 1) make them expendable enough that losing them won't hurt too much (i.e., LACs); or 2) make them so tough that any likely attack on the system is going to fail miserably (i.e. all up 16+ million ton forts). That's why no one in the Havenite wars deployed forts outside of critical defensive commitments. It's not worth the price tag to place them everywhere if you cannot guarantee the system will remain in your hands at the end of the day.

n7axw wrote:There are really only two reasons to develop new ship designs. The first is that what you have on hand won't do the job. That simply doesn't seem to be the case here. The second is the introduction of new tech that constitutes a force multiplier that renders current designs obsolete.

Yup, and simple truth is that there´s not all that much need for additional new designs.
There´s a clear niche waiting for a new light cruiser, and there may be some reason to develop a 2nd generation replacement for the Roland(developments have partially outrun their design, always a risk when building novel small designs) and also a destroyer or light cruiser with a larger contingent of marines as this seems to have become an issue that is a bit difficult to fix.

A new CL that also has a larger marine component could deal with 1st and 3rd all in one. And Roland is far from obsolete, just not quite as optimal as it was meant to be.

n7axw wrote:I bet we see the streak drive and possibly the spider with Herlander Simoe's assistance.

I wouldn´t expect those anytime soon. Also, i´m still to see a good suggestion on just how much larger a streak drive is than a regular, and spider drive i doubt will be used for any regular ships.

Wouldn´t be surprised if there comes a Manticoran "submarine" later on though.

Tenshinai wrote:

n7axw wrote:There are really only two reasons to develop new ship designs. The first is that what you have on hand won't do the job. That simply doesn't seem to be the case here. The second is the introduction of new tech that constitutes a force multiplier that renders current designs obsolete.

Yup, and simple truth is that there´s not all that much need for additional new designs.

Eh, there's not much need for new roles. But the only current hyper-capable RMN warship design that wouldn't be significantly revised given time and money and shipyards (even given no additional new tech beyond what the RMN has now) is the Nike-class BC, I think. IIRC, RFC's current thinking (as of his last discussion of this here) is something in the Sag-C range may end up replacing the existing DD, CL, and CA. And I suspect even there you'd want a larger marine contingent than a Sag-C has.

drothgery wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Yup, and simple truth is that there´s not all that much need for additional new designs.

Eh, there's not much need for new roles. But the only current hyper-capable RMN warship design that wouldn't be significantly revised given time and money and shipyards (even given no additional new tech beyond what the RMN has now) is the Nike-class BC, I think. IIRC, RFC's current thinking (as of his last discussion of this here) is something in the Sag-C range may end up replacing the existing DD, CL, and CA. And I suspect even there you'd want a larger marine contingent than a Sag-C has.

Although it's certainly possible that without the running sore of Silesia to police there couldn't be less post-war need for individual units to act as anti-piracy patrol. (Of course my assumption might be quite wrong depending on how the League fractures and how long it takes the remnants to stabilize)

In something the size of a Sag-C that might lead to less integrated Marine detachments than was the norm in pre-war designs. In ships like Honor's original Fearless Marines were tightly integrated enough to the ship's company that they all had shipboard duties and even ran some of the broadside weapons, in addition to their boarding or ground-side duties.

But in a new design, to keep personnel costs in check, you might instead end up with designs that have space allocated for marines (armories, bunks, kitchen capacity, etc, etc) but often sail without the majority of their Marines aboard. Then you could allocated a more limited number of Marine units to ships when their missions anticipated a need.

Of course that means that when the 'extra' Marines are aboard that the ship is somewhat overmanned since they'd largely be supernumerary; outside of specific Marine combat situations. And inevitably this would occasionally lead to issues where the Admiralty guessed wrong and a ship didn't have the 'extra' Marines aboard that an emerging situation called for.


But, like equipping all Rolands with flag bridges, it's a compromise that gives you the ability to tack on capabilities when you anticipate a reasons.