BB(P/C) for rear area security

happycube76 wrote:It's so ironic that Haven is probably getting extremely detailed SLN tech info... and has absolutely no R&D use for it.

Considering the fact that they just helped plow under a modern (by SLN standards) fleet of SDs, I think that Manticore might be willing to hand them a few captured SDs to play around with already.

While Haven was compelled to emulate the new tactical paradigm developed by the RMN, Haven was still dependant on basic technology that was grudgingly supplied by the SL or transtellars to implement that paradig. The SLN is antiquidated, but the basic technology base of the SL core worlds is far more advanced than Haven's and nearly equal to manticore

One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems. Could offer everything the Nike does but at twice the capabilities and wouldn't suffer the armour spacing problems. Could even up the Nike armour by 25%. 150% of the Nike Grasers, and full Invictus levels of defense. One could even mix CM in with the KH1 platforms PD.

The SDL to differentiate it from the old school SD designation. Larger than Nike command decks, larger crew quarters, more marines, more stores and life support, longer reserves for longer duration and enough ammunition to stay in active duty for longer than other ships, even the Nike.

Soylent Green is people!!!

Try climbing up on the bar and yelling that in a crowded tavern.

Lord Skimper wrote:One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems. Could offer everything the Nike does but at twice the capabilities and wouldn't suffer the armour spacing problems. Could even up the Nike armour by 25%. 150% of the Nike Grasers, and full Invictus levels of defense. One could even mix CM in with the KH1 platforms PD.

The SDL to differentiate it from the old school SD designation. Larger than Nike command decks, larger crew quarters, more marines, more stores and life support, longer reserves for longer duration and enough ammunition to stay in active duty for longer than other ships, even the Nike.

Lord Skimper wrote:One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems. Could offer everything the Nike does but at twice the capabilities and wouldn't suffer the armour spacing problems. Could even up the Nike armour by 25%. 150% of the Nike Grasers, and full Invictus levels of defense. One could even mix CM in with the KH1 platforms PD.

The SDL to differentiate it from the old school SD designation. Larger than Nike command decks, larger crew quarters, more marines, more stores and life support, longer reserves for longer duration and enough ammunition to stay in active duty for longer than other ships, even the Nike.

If you build an SD(L), you want Mk-23, KH-2, and Apollo.

The BC(L) is absolutely perfect for space control short of an SD(P).

If you need more firepower, tractor on some external Mk-23 pods or team it with a BC(P)

BTW, why was theRMN recalling ALL of the BC(P)s from Tenth Fleet and reassigning them to Eighth Fleet. They will not be getting upgraded to KH-2 to enable Apollo. They will not even get upgrades to KH-1 because of increased vulnerability. They might be spear carriers for Apollo SD(P)s. However; I think Weber has something else in mind.

Lord Skimper wrote:One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems. Could offer everything the Nike does but at twice the capabilities and wouldn't suffer the armour spacing problems. Could even up the Nike armour by 25%. 150% of the Nike Grasers, and full Invictus levels of defense. One could even mix CM in with the KH1 platforms PD.

The SDL to differentiate it from the old school SD designation. Larger than Nike command decks, larger crew quarters, more marines, more stores and life support, longer reserves for longer duration and enough ammunition to stay in active duty for longer than other ships, even the Nike.

Skimper, why on Earth would you think that your SD-sized BC(L) would have fewer crew than an SD? If you are scaling up the number of weapons, you have to scale up the number of people manning those weapons and maintaining those weapons. You have to scale up the power supply going to those weapons, and thus the engineering crew to support the generators. You have to scale up the impellers and thrusters, and the people working on those systems. You have to scale up the life-support, and the crews working that. You have to scale up the damage control systems and crew, because they have to cover a lot more area, systems, and crew. You have to scale up the medical support. You have to scale up the officers overseeing all those crew. Essentially, you have to scale up the crew by the same amount you scale up everything else. In the end, you get a larger crew size for your so-called SDL than for a modern SD.

Lord Skimper wrote:One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems.

For someone who gets hung up on minor issues with the line art, you sure are bad at applying scaling rules.

Let us compare something here. The Reliant Flight 3/4 BCs, at nearly a million tons of displacement, carried 56 missile tubes total, 8 lasers, 16 grasers, 48 CM launchers and 48 PD clusters.
The Nike-class BC(L), at about 2.5 times the tonnage, carries 50 Missile tubes, 32 Grasers, 64 CM launchers and 84 PD clusters.

Can you do the math here? To get an equivalent throw weight, it was necessary to increase weight by 2.5 times. Now, given that the last pre-Pod SD design was already pretty close to the usable weight limit, and given that an Invictus only weighs in at 400 ktons more, where exactly do you propose to find the weight savings necessary to replace missile launchers on almost a one-to-one basis? You're talking about "a triple-stacked 450 missile salvo", which means you're talking about a single-salvo throw weight of 150 missiles. A Gryphon-class SD, as you may not know, mounts just 92 missile launchers in total, and you want to find room for 60 more on a platform that size, while at the same time also mounting not 2, but 4 Keyhole platforms?

Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff?

Not all missile tubes are created equal. They are not all endowed by their creator with the capability to fire fusion powered MDMs off bore much less Mk-23s or the even bigger,capacitor fed MDMs that the last flight of Gryphon class SD fired. The fact that a 300,000 ton Rolland DD mounts 12 Mk-16 tubes suggest that an 8 million ton SD could mount a shit load of them.

The E wrote:

Lord Skimper wrote:One could make a new tech SD sized BCL. The biggest problem with the old school SD was the missiles only being able to fire out of one aspect. The second being the big crew size. A SD sized BCL could have a reduced crew, more missiletubes with Mk16 and quad KH1. Putting a triple stacked 450-600 Mk16 missile wave with Nike level ammunition levels, with 4 keyhole 1 platforms, such an SDL would have twice the munition capacity of an Invictus and wouldn't suffer the pod problems.

For someone who gets hung up on minor issues with the line art, you sure are bad at applying scaling rules.

Let us compare something here. The Reliant Flight 3/4 BCs, at nearly a million tons of displacement, carried 56 missile tubes total, 8 lasers, 16 grasers, 48 CM launchers and 48 PD clusters.
The Nike-class BC(L), at about 2.5 times the tonnage, carries 50 Missile tubes, 32 Grasers, 64 CM launchers and 84 PD clusters.

Can you do the math here? To get an equivalent throw weight, it was necessary to increase weight by 2.5 times. Now, given that the last pre-Pod SD design was already pretty close to the usable weight limit, and given that an Invictus only weighs in at 400 ktons more, where exactly do you propose to find the weight savings necessary to replace missile launchers on almost a one-to-one basis? You're talking about "a triple-stacked 450 missile salvo", which means you're talking about a single-salvo throw weight of 150 missiles. A Gryphon-class SD, as you may not know, mounts just 92 missile launchers in total, and you want to find room for 60 more on a platform that size, while at the same time also mounting not 2, but 4 Keyhole platforms?

Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff?

Another problem is the volume vs. surface area. If you increase the volume (and mass) by, say, a factor of 4, you only increase the surface area by a factor of 2.5. So scaling up the size by 4 does not mean you can multiply the number of broadside weapons by 4.

You don't have enough surface area to install all the missile tubes you have described.

SWM wrote:Another problem is the volume vs. surface area. If you increase the volume (and mass) by, say, a factor of 4, you only increase the surface area by a factor of 2.5. So scaling up the size by 4 does not mean you can multiply the number of broadside weapons by 4.

You don't have enough surface area to install all the missile tubes you have described.

A valid point.

However; a Nike already has SD class energy armament, PDLCs and CMs. If you do not increase the energy armament ,you have more surface area available for missile tubes.

Also, Nike has a missile armament that is only 25% greater than the SaggyC which is 1/3 the tonnage. Nike missile tubes were not limited by tonnage or surface area but by the emphasis of survivability over firepower.