The future of "Donkey"

One of the things most of us love about Shannon Foracker is the shear number of technical innovations she has come up with to allow the new Havenite Navy to keep pace with Manticore. For me the Donkey system used in the First Battle of Manticore is one of the more ingenious.

However with the Grand Alliance established and the Manties now sharing out their toys, we dont want Shannons lower tech but more innovative methods going to waste. While she and Hemphill are going to be turning out some amazing new tech in the future, does anyone think that her little missile pod manipulator may continue to see use.

On the downside Manticores pods already have their own on board tractor systems, but Donkey does allow podnought fleets to carry and launch almost stupidly huge numbers of missiles all at once from cruder pod forms. Given the that missile production numbers are going to be critical, it might be smarter for them to make pods simpler and give co-ordination to more complex "nodes" (similar to how Apollo is one bigger/smarter node controlling a clutch or more straightforward MK23's).

Donkey also provides a good platform for increasing the number of control links a ship could put out. A future version could have control link nodes that suppliment the ships overwise restricted number. Alternatively Apollos clutch node control effect (1 node controlling 1 missile which is controlling 8 more) may make this a moot point anyway.

Thoughts?

My suspicion is she will ask some obvious questions, starting with "Can you explain why you have your surface mounted pods running off the on-board fusion reactor instead of a power cable from the ship?"

Valen123456 wrote:One of the things most of us love about Shannon Foracker is the shear number of technical innovations she has come up with to allow the new Havenite Navy to keep pace with Manticore. For me the Donkey system used in the First Battle of Manticore is one of the more ingenious.

However with the Grand Alliance established and the Manties now sharing out their toys, we dont want Shannons lower tech but more innovative methods going to waste. While she and Hemphill are going to be turning out some amazing new tech in the future, does anyone think that her little missile pod manipulator may continue to see use.

On the downside Manticores pods already have their own on board tractor systems, but Donkey does allow podnought fleets to carry and launch almost stupidly huge numbers of missiles all at once from cruder pod forms. Given the that missile production numbers are going to be critical, it might be smarter for them to make pods simpler and give co-ordination to more complex "nodes" (similar to how Apollo is one bigger/smarter node controlling a clutch or more straightforward MK23's).

Donkey also provides a good platform for increasing the number of control links a ship could put out. A future version could have control link nodes that suppliment the ships overwise restricted number. Alternatively Apollos clutch node control effect (1 node controlling 1 missile which is controlling 8 more) may make this a moot point anyway.

Thoughts?

Off-topic, but I wanted to thank you for writing this, as it reminded me to put tractor emitters on the pods I built for the Agamemnon BC(P) I just finished. I *knew* there was something missing.

On-topic: Only referencing your final paragraph, I don't see how a Donkey could increase the control links as the pods aren't involved in missile command and control at all. The ship still needs as many links as possible to control the missiles directly. Using a pod as a "multiplier" (especially since the pods don't have FTL comm abilities) gets you the same limitations as lightspeed C&C from a ship.

Adding FTL capability to a pod would have the result of making the pod even larger, which is a major downside, as I was just barely able to fit the pods in the aforementioned Aggie. While an SD(P) has a bit more room than an Aggie, there's also six pods per salvo, as opposed to the Aggie's four. The pods themselves are all a standard size no matter which missiles it is carrying, and even thought the Aggie's normal loadout of Mk-16s are smaller than Mk-23s, it's still cramped inside the pod with fourteen missiles and all the associated capacitors, fusion reactors, bunkerage and so on. There's no room for additional equipment with the current size.

MaxxQ wrote:On-topic: Only referencing your final paragraph, I don't see how a Donkey could increase the control links as the pods aren't involved in missile command and control at all. The ship still needs as many links as possible to control the missiles directly. Using a pod as a "multiplier" (especially since the pods don't have FTL comm abilities) gets you the same limitations as lightspeed C&C from a ship.

Adding FTL capability to a pod would have the result of making the pod even larger, which is a major downside, as I was just barely able to fit the pods in the aforementioned Aggie. While an SD(P) has a bit more room than an Aggie, there's also six pods per salvo, as opposed to the Aggie's four. The pods themselves are all a standard size no matter which missiles it is carrying, and even thought the Aggie's normal loadout of Mk-16s are smaller than Mk-23s, it's still cramped inside the pod with fourteen missiles and all the associated capacitors, fusion reactors, bunkerage and so on. There's no room for additional equipment with the current size.

In theory you could build something the size of a pod, that could be dropped using the pod rails, like a pod, but carry no missiles of its own.

But by itself that doesn't add fire control because even if you crammed a pod sized object full of light-speed fire control links it still need to relay back into the ship's tactical section. So unless you can build an aggregate link to let the pod sized object act like a port multiplier while still passing all the data back over the new (and shorter ranged) link to the ship then you haven't increased your control channels. Just moved relayed them awkwardly.

I wonder if htere is a donkey version used by LACs. It would allow a deployed squadron be able to increase their punch.

I think her system defense units she created will be crucial, especially combined with FTL comm and the longer range missiles. SAy they are spread accross the alliance systems, first with beowolf. I am hopping if the league makes a move, such system will keep them in check.

They have heard of the LAC systems, they have heard of the ftl tech, they have heard of the missiles, but is anyone in the league expecting the Haven defensive systems being so key. It will allow more ships to redeployed for raiding and convoy escort.

SYED wrote:I wonder if htere is a donkey version used by LACs. It would allow a deployed squadron be able to increase their punch.

I think her system defense units she created will be crucial, especially combined with FTL comm and the longer range missiles. SAy they are spread accross the alliance systems, first with beowolf. I am hopping if the league makes a move, such system will keep them in check.

They have heard of the LAC systems, they have heard of the ftl tech, they have heard of the missiles, but is anyone in the league expecting the Haven defensive systems being so key. It will allow more ships to redeployed for raiding and convoy escort.

About raiding forces, perhaps the GA can figure out how to make missle pods and Keyhole small enough to be towed by frigate, we will have a frigate/destroyer raid force, frigate tow pod, destroyer tow key hole and raid infrastructures. Currently, GA's BC is enough to take out SLN wallers so I think these guys can handle local destroyers/cruisers.

vietnamabc wrote:
About raiding forces, perhaps the GA can figure out how to make missle pods and Keyhole small enough to be towed by frigate, we will have a frigate/destroyer raid force, frigate tow pod, destroyer tow key hole and raid infrastructures. Currently, GA's BC is enough to take out SLN wallers so I think these guys can handle local destroyers/cruisers.

With pod mounted grav lances, because we haven't come up with enough absurd stuff yet?

vietnamabc wrote:About raiding forces, perhaps the GA can figure out how to make missle pods and Keyhole small enough to be towed by frigate, we will have a frigate/destroyer raid force, frigate tow pod, destroyer tow key hole and raid infrastructures. Currently, GA's BC is enough to take out SLN wallers so I think these guys can handle local destroyers/cruisers.

Seeing as Keyhole almost the size of a frigate, you couldn't possibly shrink it to be small enough to be hauled by a frigate.

Frigates are a dead topic. David has made it clear that frigates are useless to any significant navy. See this Pearl, among many others: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1.

SYED wrote:I wonder if htere is a donkey version used by LACs. It would allow a deployed squadron be able to increase their punch.

I think her system defense units she created will be crucial, especially combined with FTL comm and the longer range missiles. SAy they are spread accross the alliance systems, first with beowolf. I am hopping if the league makes a move, such system will keep them in check.

They have heard of the LAC systems, they have heard of the ftl tech, they have heard of the missiles, but is anyone in the league expecting the Haven defensive systems being so key. It will allow more ships to redeployed for raiding and convoy escort.

A LACs hauling issue isn't tractor capability - which is the problem the donkey fixes - it is impeller power and fire control. Pods destroy a LAC's stealth and most of its accel. Also, LACs do not have the long range firecontrol to control MDMs effectively.

All a donkey will do is take the place of 1 of the 3 pods a LAC can (badly) haul now, not add more.

Jonathan_S wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:On-topic: Only referencing your final paragraph, I don't see how a Donkey could increase the control links as the pods aren't involved in missile command and control at all. The ship still needs as many links as possible to control the missiles directly. Using a pod as a "multiplier" (especially since the pods don't have FTL comm abilities) gets you the same limitations as lightspeed C&C from a ship.

Adding FTL capability to a pod would have the result of making the pod even larger, which is a major downside, as I was just barely able to fit the pods in the aforementioned Aggie. While an SD(P) has a bit more room than an Aggie, there's also six pods per salvo, as opposed to the Aggie's four. The pods themselves are all a standard size no matter which missiles it is carrying, and even thought the Aggie's normal loadout of Mk-16s are smaller than Mk-23s, it's still cramped inside the pod with fourteen missiles and all the associated capacitors, fusion reactors, bunkerage and so on. There's no room for additional equipment with the current size.

In theory you could build something the size of a pod, that could be dropped using the pod rails, like a pod, but carry no missiles of its own.

But by itself that doesn't add fire control because even if you crammed a pod sized object full of light-speed fire control links it still need to relay back into the ship's tactical section. So unless you can build an aggregate link to let the pod sized object act like a port multiplier while still passing all the data back over the new (and shorter ranged) link to the ship then you haven't increased your control channels. Just moved relayed them awkwardly.

Thanks for that ... i am just an imaginative sci-fi amateur throwing ideas around so if someone can confirm why my ideas dont work im very grateful.

To tell the truth the Honorverse has kind of spoiled several other scifi series for me, given the feasibility and rationale behind tech designs and capabilities. Even before I found the Honorverse i was tending to regard the old scifi classics as less and less appealing because of the logical falicies in technology. Now I can barey take them with any seriousness because the tech is so sloppy or built around viewers/media capabilities instead of inuniverse logic.

Truth be told i am still not entirely clear about exactly a control link actually consists of. Whist i understand the coordination required for fire control and the impact of increased number of links on new Manticoran ships, im not clear on what the "link" actually is. Is it a frquency channel that requires more computer processing power, or is it a physical signal broadcaster/reciever for each missile tube?