New Manty ship ideas.

Dafmeister wrote:I'm not sure that we'll see the full FTL comm setup in a missile, though. The Apollo control missile isn't just FTL comm, it also has a large tactical AI system on-board. If this was minaturised to the point that it could be fitted into a shipkiller, then the same minaturisation and increase in capability would also be applied to shipboard ECM and decoys, negating the effect.

The tactical AI system was fitted because the Apollo was a relay unit. Giving it the capability to make local decisions with FTL direction makes sense given the expense of the missile(not only is it quite expensive, it displaces two attack heads) and maximises the benefits of having a tiered control system.

The question of how many missiles a single ACM can control hasn't been answered and nobody has had time to develop a counter. If some Navy out there develops a countermissile that can spot and intercept ACMs, the RMN is going to lose some of their current combat edge.

Believe me, I don't expect to see direct FTL control of every missile any time soon. The sheer advantages of pod-laying when each pod has its own ACM wins out over the disadvantages of mismatched shipboard launchers.

munroburton
wrote:Correct. The Apollo control missile displaces two MK23 missiles. Since the length must remain almost the same to fit into a pod, this suggests the control missile is quite wide. Too wide to fire out of MK23 launchers.

I think the RMN found that retrofitting Gryphons to fire MK23s internally wasn't very effective and they preferred to build new SD(P)s because of all the other technical improvements that could be included in the design. Also, Gryphons aren't fitted with Keyhole 2(or even 1), which is essential to the operation of Apollo's FTL control links, so it seems very unlikely that they would be able to fire control missiles internally - not to mention Apollo is a relatively new innovation and the RMN hasn't had time to refit Gryphons with those. The MK23 firing Gryphons were converted before or during the Havenite ceasefire.

Refitting many old Sphinx- and Gryphon-Class SDs might also be out of question, as most of these ships were assigned to D'Orvilles Homefleet and Kuzaks San Martin-Fleet (2nd Fleet) and destroyed in the Battle of Manticore ... only few mothballed ships (of even older classes) might be left ...

To the size problem of the Apollo Missiles: with offbore fire capability of the Mk23s you might be able to equip a ship with broadside Mk23s and fire the Apollos from say 1-3 dedicated tubes in the chasers ...

But in the end munroburton may be right:

IMO, by the time they get around to fitting shipboard ACM launchers, each missile will be fitted with its own FTL communicator. This restores the 'dreadnought' principle of uniform main armament and eliminates the risk of a few early battle hits taking out the control missile launchers and crippling Apollo capability.

kzt wrote:There are maybe a dozen or so Gryphon's modified to fire Mk23s from their tubes per HoS. Presumably they have launchers sized to handle Apollo control missiles and KH2s.

I seriously doubt it. I'm pretty sure those conversions happened before Apollo.

And a Keyhole bay takes up a pretty noticeable chunk of broadside. It's going to squeeze the space for missile launchers (which already have issues with avoiding missile wedge startup fratricide - reducing the clearance between them isn't going to help any)

One of the nice things about keyhole in a podlaying class is that the keyhole bay isn't competing for space with your primary offensive armament.

Now you obviously can put keyhole on a tube-based designs; the Nike-class does. But as evidence of the squeeze it causes, note the BC(L) only mounts 5 more tubes than the Sag-C CA. And that despite having 5 times the mass and nearly 3 times the broadside surface area, while carrying the same Mk16 missile.



I think the (current) Gryphon conversions have no Keyhole (neither original nor II) and no Apollo control missile launchers.

I am not entirely sure whether a standard SD modified or built from the outset to fire MDMs from internal tubes would be a worthwhile design.

The BC(L) was designed to have a ship that can fill the role RMN doctrine reserves for Battlecruisers in an MDM environment, something the BC(P) was not able to do due to its low combat endurance.
SD(P)s, however, are designed to fill the same role SDs had previously; while they had to sacrifice some secondary abilities in order to be workable (Marine complements say hello!), they are still performing the same mission.

While Mk23 are not a problem for refit, they have been done, the Harrington 2s also have Apollo missiles although not strictly stated as being internally launched, it does state that the Harrington 2's where given "internal tubes and modest ammunition for them", in case the pod core was was crippled.

The life support when automation takes over crew stations, will free up ammunition space, as will crew space etc... SD had huge crews, SD(P) lowered this to half or a Quarter. The Wolfhound is 50% larger with 25% of the crew of older destroyers. This should free up huge crew quarters which on SD are noted to be generously large and spacious. While most of this space will be used for ammunition fitting room for 300 marines shouldn't be a problem. SD are noted to have about 10-12,000 crew automation should reduce this to less than 3000.

SD(P) have never been really tested in close quarters combat, one doesn't really know what happens when the pods go off inside the ship although the deployment rail / door if jammed kills the Invictus ability to fire missiles.

The Harrington Greyson SD(P) has 60 plus cm and PD and 24 of each Graser and missile tubes (32) missile tubes for the Harrington 1. And the broad side only covered 1/2 to 2/3 of the length of the ship.

Keyhole 2 is a tethered platform roughly the side of an LAC, not a destroyer, tethered likely means with tractor beams rather than wires, mounting this on the side of the ships likely means that it could be fit to other ships during a refit.

As for no space on the external hull, a Gryphon SD is a few % points smaller than an Invictus or Harrington SD(P). It has a broadside 3x the size of a Nike BC. Doubling the numbers of what is there, and shifting the size from BC to SD should fit nicely.



The Saganami C CA also points out that quad broadsides can be brought to bear on targets. As such 200 missile waves could be launch from such a SD.
This shouldn't be a problem and as noted the ships exist but are no longer part of the active wall, freeing them up for refit is not a problem, given the on or the Yawata strike, which ever you prefer, did not take out the smelter or fabrication facilities. Doing a Greyson park the ship a build the refit dock around it with techs from Grendlesbane, Hancock and anyone from Silesia and new recruits / retired personnel should also expedite such refits.

Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it especially when you have refitted ships to look at, and all the instruction manuals. Plus grief and anger make great motivators for those who otherwise stayed at home, and all the 100's of 1000's of commercial spacers now idled.

For those with lesser security clearance thereis lots of declassified removal work that the less trusted could start out with. Laser removal berth removal bulkhead removal...all sorts of things the under trained or unreliable can do.

Of course there are the Sollie SD's, there are around 200 of them and all the Haven SD's that survived. 3 Dozen Beowulf SD's and whatever the Andie's might want to sell, Whatever the Silesian's Had albeit those would likely be the most primitive. That would leave 3 - 400. For most of these ships striping them out of bulkheads weapons and non automated systems while keeping staterooms, life support, hanger bays, ammunition feeds, and grasers, plots bridge and command decks and await new automated systems and installation by future crew members and rotating Silesian crews in as they will be transformed from backwater crews to building new docks and berths in Silesia. Being absorbed into the SEM means your going to improve their general lot and tech levels.

Use what you have of course most of the olderships will be filling up the Silesian byways until replaced with the newer tech. Better this newer tech be built in many out of the way places than in singular locations. Especially if one can't detect ghostly ships. 50 additional refit bases located in Silesia could come in handy especially when everyone and every slip else where is busy doing something else. In this case what you have is many real noebarb worlds happy for tech and training and reorganisation....

yanessa wrote:
Refitting many old Sphinx- and Gryphon-Class SDs might also be out of question, as most of these ships were assigned to D'Orvilles Homefleet and Kuzaks San Martin-Fleet (2nd Fleet) and destroyed in the Battle of Manticore ... only few mothballed ships (of even older classes) might be left ...

Actually, fewer then 30 traditional RMN SDs were in HomeFleet and none were in 2nd fleet (which was comprised completely of Medusas and Harringtons).
We know of fewer than 30 other standard SDs where were destroyed after Thunderbolt, which should leave over 150 survivors (before the Yawata Strike), not to mention the DNs.

Lord Skimper wrote:While Mk23 are not a problem for refit, they have been done, the Harrington 2s also have Apollo missiles although not strictly stated as being internally launched, it does state that the Harrington 2's where given "internal tubes and modest ammunition for them", in case the pod core was was crippled.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/82/1

Refits of this nature have, in effect, already been carried out by the RMN with the shift in compensators and the improvements in EW and communications equipment. It is not physically possible to "refit" existing SDs as pod designs. It is possible (although extremely expensive and time consuming) to refit them by removing their old broadside launchers and refitting a smaller number of MDM missile tubes. In the process, however, their magazine space will also have to be ripped out and completely rearranged, including new high-speed ammo handling equipment to move the (much) larger missiles to the launchers. Basically, you'll be removing a triple-14" turret and replacing it with a double-18" turret, with an accompanying 1/3 reduction in ammunition stowage. The time it will take to rip that much of a ship apart and rebuild it would be far better spent in simply building a new one from the keel out. You could probably build half a new ship for the cost of the "refit," and the yard time involved would probably be no more than 25%-30% greater than that which would be required for the "refit." Why tie up yard space producing a stack of SDs which will not be able to remotely match the rate of fire a proper pod design could when doing so will set back your new construction projects by, literally, years? Far better to think in terms of some sort of "strap on" pod launcher system such as the Andies came up with on ships which are otherwise pretty much unchanged.

The life support when automation takes over crew stations, will free up ammunition space, as will crew space etc... SD had huge crews, SD(P) lowered this to half or a Quarter. The Wolfhound is 50% larger with 25% of the crew of older destroyers. This should free up huge crew quarters which on SD are noted to be generously large and spacious. While most of this space will be used for ammunition fitting room for 300 marines shouldn't be a problem. SD are noted to have about 10-12,000 crew automation should reduce this to less than 3000.

SDs have 5,000-6,000 crew. Nor are the crew spaces large and spacious. They are for flag officers, but otherwise they're not dissimilar from any other ship.

The Harrington Greyson SD(P) has 60 plus cm and PD and 24 of each Graser and missile tubes (32) missile tubes for the Harrington 1. And the broad side only covered 1/2 to 2/3 of the length of the ship.

The point defense mounts run the length of the broadside, not just the forward half. Defenses are mounted at the upper and lower turns of the hull, while antiship weapons are mounted on discrete weapon decks closer to the centerline.

Keyhole 2 is a tethered platform roughly the side of an LAC, not a destroyer, tethered likely means with tractor beams rather than wires, mounting this on the side of the ships likely means that it could be fit to other ships during a refit.

Could? Sure. Worth the time and resources? Nada.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/80/1

You can, indeed, if you wish refit the grav-pulse system even to a pre-pod superdreadnought if you really wanted to. I'd estimate, however, that the time requirement to install this system aboard any ship (pod-layers or pre-pod) from scratch would be a minimum of four to six months.

As for no space on the external hull, a Gryphon SD is a few % points smaller than an Invictus or Harrington SD(P). It has a broadside 3x the size of a Nike BC. Doubling the numbers of what is there, and shifting the size from BC to SD should fit nicely.

Go look at the lineart. The Keyhole bay sits right in the middle of where the weapons decks would be. Judging by the spacing, it takes up at least 2 weapons decks, and you could fit 9 grasers per deck in the same length. That is a massive amount of hull space being occupied by Keyhole.

The Saganami C CA also points out that quad broadsides can be brought to bear on targets. As such 200 missile waves could be launch from such a SD.
This shouldn't be a problem and as noted the ships exist but are no longer part of the active wall, freeing them up for refit is not a problem, given the on or the Yawata strike, which ever you prefer, did not take out the smelter or fabrication facilities. Doing a Greyson park the ship a build the refit dock around it with techs from Grendlesbane, Hancock and anyone from Silesia and new recruits / retired personnel should also expedite such refits.

Being able to process raw materials into refined materials is just 1 half of the equation. Having completed missile launchers for installation is what matters, and there's no prospect of having those available soon.

And again I remind you that refitting a ship is not easy. The shipyards have heavy equipment which makes carving a ship up easier. Hancock Station had a hell of a time just cutting into a battlecruiser's hull in SVW, so what makes you think a crew with absolutely no support would be able to refit a superdreadnought?

Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it especially when you have refitted ships to look at, and all the instruction manuals. Plus grief and anger make great motivators for those who otherwise stayed at home, and all the 100's of 1000's of commercial spacers now idled.

Motivation means jack if the proper tools aren't available to do the job. Go ahead and try to remove the triple 16" turret from the USS Missouri with crowbars and axes if you don't believe me.

Of course there are the Sollie SD's, there are around 200 of them and all the Haven SD's that survived. 3 Dozen Beowulf SD's and whatever the Andie's might want to sell, Whatever the Silesian's Had albeit those would likely be the most primitive. That would leave 3 - 400. For most of these ships striping them out of bulkheads weapons and non automated systems while keeping staterooms, life support, hanger bays, ammunition feeds, and grasers, plots bridge and command decks and await new automated systems and installation by future crew members and rotating Silesian crews in as they will be transformed from backwater crews to building new docks and berths in Silesia. Being absorbed into the SEM means your going to improve their general lot and tech levels.

Use what you have of course most of the olderships will be filling up the Silesian byways until replaced with the newer tech. Better this newer tech be built in many out of the way places than in singular locations. Especially if one can't detect ghostly ships. 50 additional refit bases located in Silesia could come in handy especially when everyone and every slip else where is busy doing something else. In this case what you have is many real noebarb worlds happy for tech and training and reorganisation....

Again, see the nightmare job it took just to replace a fusion plant in SVW. Completely rebuilding an obsolete SD is not going to happen.

munroburton wrote:Can the control missiles be fired from a broadside tube? I was under the impression that they were of a far larger diameter and wouldn't fit into a regular launch tube, which is why Apollo pods have fewer tubes than older pods - the larger-bore control missile tube doesn't leave as much room for shipkillers.

You definitely can't launch KH2 from a broadside tube, or even refit it into an older ship - the KH platform is the size of a pre-war destroyer and is carried in a semi-recessed bay on the side of the ship.

Correct. The Apollo control missile displaces two MK23 missiles. Since the length must remain almost the same to fit into a pod, this suggests the control missile is quite wide. Too wide to fire out of MK23 launchers.
[/quote]
The people who were ordering the rebuild of the Gyphons and specifying the equipment to be installed are the same people who are in charge of the development of Apollo. So it's not like Apollo is going to come as a big shock to them, as they have known for a decade plus where R&D was going. The obvious approach is to install a set of larger missile tubes and feed systems. For cover you could size it as the buttercup era missiles, which are apparently larger than the Apollo control missiles.

kzt wrote:

munroburton wrote:Can the control missiles be fired from a broadside tube? I was under the impression that they were of a far larger diameter and wouldn't fit into a regular launch tube, which is why Apollo pods have fewer tubes than older pods - the larger-bore control missile tube doesn't leave as much room for shipkillers.

You definitely can't launch KH2 from a broadside tube, or even refit it into an older ship - the KH platform is the size of a pre-war destroyer and is carried in a semi-recessed bay on the side of the ship.

Correct. The Apollo control missile displaces two MK23 missiles. Since the length must remain almost the same to fit into a pod, this suggests the control missile is quite wide. Too wide to fire out of MK23 launchers.

The people who were ordering the rebuild of the Gyphons and specifying the equipment to be installed are the same people who are in charge of the development of Apollo. So it's not like Apollo is going to come as a big shock to them, as they have known for a decade plus where R&D was going. The obvious approach is to install a set of larger missile tubes and feed systems. For cover you could size it as the buttercup era missiles, which are apparently larger than the Apollo control missiles.

Knowing the direction of R&D and knowing how big the sucker will be when operaational are two different shoes IMHO
And as I recall, the buttercup Missiles were similiar in size to the Mk23 ...

kzt wrote:The people who were ordering the rebuild of the Gyphons and specifying the equipment to be installed are the same people who are in charge of the development of Apollo. So it's not like Apollo is going to come as a big shock to them, as they have known for a decade plus where R&D was going. The obvious approach is to install a set of larger missile tubes and feed systems. For cover you could size it as the buttercup era missiles, which are apparently larger than the Apollo control missiles.

Not entirely correct.

SftS Chapter 12 wrote:“Essentially, Admiral Gold Peak,” he began, “Apollo is a new step in missile command and control. It’s a logical extension of other things we’ve already been doing, which marries the existing Ghost Rider technology with the Keyhole platforms and the MDM by using the newest generation of grav-pulse transceivers. What it does is to establish near-real-time control linkages for MDMs at extended ranges. At three light-minutes, the command and control transmission delay for Apollo is only three seconds, one-way, and it’s turned out that we’ve been able to provide significantly more bandwidth than we’d projected as little as seven months ago. In fact, we have enough that we can actually reprogram electronic warfare birds and input new attack profiles on the fly. In effect, we have a reactive EW and target selection capability, managed by the full capability of a ship of the wall’s computational capacity, with a shorter control loop than the shipboard systems trying to defeat it.”

Bold is my emphasis.

So it was going that way, yet the idea was not anything like a design.

One of LT Edwards ideas was instead of replacing a drive to a missile with the FTL comm capability.

I think it is actually larger than a Buttercup-ERA Missile. They could fit of those in a pod. Based on what little I can draw maybe 6 would fit in a pod. Very shaky reasoning.

Have fun,
T2M