StealthSeeker wrote:Jonathan_S wrote:Second there are still maximum dimensions on the pods that they can handle. Fatter missiles could just mean less per pod, but a longer missile might not be able to squeeze into the pods a given SD(P) can carry.
As I read the books my mind created the idea that missile pods were of a standardized dimension much like cargo containers on ships today. The number of missile put into a pod was determined by how many of the new sized missiles could be fit into the standard dimension pod. Thus, as missiles got larger, the number of missiles they put in the pods was reduced, as with the Mk-23 missiles.
But if changes to the SD(P) was necessary I can't see it being any more that re-spacing the rail system on the inside and maybe expanding the hatch through which the pods would enter and exit the ship. If I were designing these ships, I would create a modular railing system that could easily be changed over from one size pod to another. This way an SD(P) could take on what ever missile might currently be available if the pod sizes were indeed different.
Jonathan_S wrote:More applicably, it's possible that then much larger Havenite missiles might require pods that are physically too large for RMN ships to carry -- that might limit the ability to supplement the RMN's missile stockpile until their production plants are rebuilt. (Though their existing supply should be more than sufficient)
Even if the Havenite missiles could be put into RMN ships I wouldn't be doing that. I would be doing a redeployment of types of ships to better utilize types of resources. For instance, I would replace 2/3 of the SD's at the Beowulf terminus with Haven Ships so the In a battle Haven missiles would be use rather than RMN missiles. Haven's missiles would be given the added effectiveness of getting FTL recon updates to their targets.
The ships I pulled out of Beowulf I would be sending to critical places in Haven to augment the ships there with better recon capabilities and at least some long range missile capability if it is needed. The Haven sips would become a large part of the front line ships until RMN missiles were back into full production.
I'm sure the pods are all of a common size - I was just pointing out that some missiles are bigger than the dimentions of the standard pod.
I'm sure that to some extent you can adjust SD(P)s for different pod sizes; certainly they switched pretty seamlessly from the original pods to the flatpack designs. But again there are some limits beyond just the pod rail spacing. It's a tight squeeze to get 6 pods through the aft impeller ring to get to the armored pod hatched in the aft hammerhead. It seems to me that you could make pods that were "longer" on the rails
(took up more horizontal length along the hull axis) without too much impact, but if you make them noticeably "taller" or "wider" you'd have to redo the armored pod hatches, and you risk not being able to fit 6 through the choke point of the aft impeller rooms.
SD(P)s are still way more flexible that broadside tubes -- just not infinitely flexible. You do still run into dimensional limits that are hard to work around.
Weird Harold wrote:
No. Even at 64 Lights the time lag from the terminus would be excessive. Not only that, the Mycroft installation doesn't need to be "complete" to be operational. One Keyhole II/Mycroft control platform is all that is required for an Appollo System Defense Missile storm with FTL control.
Assuming that the SLN happen to come within it's FTL control link range. (Though if you stuck it in planetary orbit they'd have to).
We know from AAC that 8 lm is beyond the range of Apollo (unless you have some kind of FTL relay). (We also know that 3 lm is within range; because that's how far back Giscard's ships were when Yanakov's ships unleashed Apollo for the first time. (So somewhere between those two values the FTL signal link can't be reliably maintained; even though the lag is still trivial. You need a repeater; which is what the additional Mycroft nodes would provide)
