BB(P/C) for rear area security

It is unlikely that every alliance system will be considered worthy of having one or multiple Mycroft platforms that are the size and nearly the cost of an SD(P). Keep in mind that Weber has hinted that the logistical and ammunition costs of a full load of Apollo pods for an SD(P) rivals or exceeds the cost of the SD(P). Mk-16Gs are much cheaper. Abby Hearnes' insight of using recon drones to provide battle management FTL gives us the demiApollo system that reamed Crandall at Spindell. The reference in the battle of Saltash about not being able to stop they last three missile salvos when the surviving SLN Captain struck his wedges to surrender suggests that Recon Drones will get modified to function as an FTL relays to control normal Mk-16G missiles. This will enable near Apollo performance for a small fraction of the logistical and economic costs of Mycroft.

Weber also hints that missile pods cost serious money. Perhaps a missile pod is not as expensive as it's full compliment of missiles, but perhaps 1/4 to 1/2? If so, a fort with specs similar to an upsized Nike with perhaps 10,000 Mk-16s fired from say 96 internal tubes backed up by recon drones and LACs to scout and provide FTL comm relays gives very nearly the
defensive capability of an Apollo SD(P) at a small of the cost.

This is worth doing.

Theemile wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Agreed. I miswrote.

However; even when missile armaments were involved that were not as decisive as energy weapons and even the biggest, nastiest SDMs had an effective range of only few million kilometers. The volume that a fort could provide missile defenses for was even smaller. This reality compelled a defender to fortify not only inhabited planets but their various industrial and ore processing platforms. The forts could be attacked in isolation and defeated in detail. With MDMs, forts have a theoretical capability to defend every target within the system out to the hyper limit. Given Apollo or LACS or recondrones or Hermes Buoys to provide FTL sensor data and perhaps FTL relay for FC links, a single fort can engage targets throughout the system.

The point is that while Skimper's original idea for a SD sized system control ship might be off, the concept of a large, DDM or MDM platform that can launch bigger salvos than a Nike is very valid.

Actually this is very valid. We've been missing something in this discussion - Any system the Alliance want to hold is going to have Mycroft - correct?

Mycroft is the KH2 daughter of the Havenite Morierty program. Morierty originally had 3 CA sized control platforms. The CA sized control platforms were found to be vulnerable to Manty tech attacks, so they were to be replaced by SD sized control platforms which contained defenses.

So, in essence, Morierty grew to 3 SD sized Forts. Mycroft will probably be the same - except each will now have KH2 modules.

So every system protected with Mycroft will probably have 3 medium sized forts protecting it.

A "Tower" SD sized up to 9 million tons with full bubble sidewall and wedge when need be, with a full cylinder tube, no conning tower, perhaps something in the hammerhead, could fulfill this roll. With two extra broadsides (4 total) and 50 Mk16 per broadside plus DDM CM 50 per broadside, add in 50 PD on each broadside, incorporate 4 Keyhole 1, full compensator and a civilian hyperdrive. Mount a dozen grasers per side plus 8 on each hammerhead, a dozen DDM CM and PD on each hammerhead as well.

A mini hyperspace moveable forte. With 200 Mk16 per tube and 60-120 DDM CM per launch tube.

It will all fit.

A couple per "side" LAC or Shuttle bays. Say 8 total with inner shuttle docks off the bays.

1 at each "broadside" end.

Wedge would be full SD strength.

Hyper drive freighter type, as small as possible.

As much automation as possible. Crews quite small.

Mk16 missiles to control costs, as they are back water / defensive systems where fortes are not to be built and SD(P) are not going to frequent. Yet much more capable than any lesser ship. DD CL CA BCL... Able to move about a system or just park in orbit bubble up all the time. Hyper drive to move it about. Not quickly but much faster than a forte.

Yes this will take up an SD(P) or BCL yard slip but the cost of the 18000 mk16 missiles will be much less than 2 loads of SD(P) Mk23 pods.

Having an SD(P) parked in a system with a load of pods cycling through 12 times a year and should one need flee the cost of leaving or destroying a 1000+ pods is prohibitive. With a big tower, there is no cost at all.

Lord Skimper wrote:A "Tower" SD sized up to 9 million tons with full bubble sidewall and wedge when need be, with a full cylinder tube, no conning tower, perhaps something in the hammerhead, could fulfill this roll. With two extra broadsides (4 total) and 50 Mk16 per broadside plus DDM CM 50 per broadside, add in 50 PD on each broadside, incorporate 4 Keyhole 1, full compensator and a civilian hyperdrive. Mount a dozen grasers per side plus 8 on each hammerhead, a dozen DDM CM and PD on each hammerhead as well.

A mini hyperspace moveable forte. With 200 Mk16 per tube and 60-120 DDM CM per launch tube.

It will all fit.

A couple per "side" LAC or Shuttle bays. Say 8 total with inner shuttle docks off the bays.

1 at each "broadside" end.

Wedge would be full SD strength.

Hyper drive freighter type, as small as possible.

As much automation as possible. Crews quite small.

Mk16 missiles to control costs, as they are back water / defensive systems where fortes are not to be built and SD(P) are not going to frequent. Yet much more capable than any lesser ship. DD CL CA BCL... Able to move about a system or just park in orbit bubble up all the time. Hyper drive to move it about. Not quickly but much faster than a forte.

Yes this will take up an SD(P) or BCL yard slip but the cost of the 18000 mk16 missiles will be much less than 2 loads of SD(P) Mk23 pods.

Having an SD(P) parked in a system with a load of pods cycling through 12 times a year and should one need flee the cost of leaving or destroying a 1000+ pods is prohibitive. With a big tower, there is no cost at all.

Why not just build an SD? Also, why are we building cruiser-weight missiles into your SD "tower." It's going to be obsolete by the time it gets built.

Lord Skimper wrote:A "Tower" SD sized up to 9 million tons with full bubble sidewall and wedge when need be, with a full cylinder tube, no conning tower, perhaps something in the hammerhead, could fulfill this roll. With two extra broadsides (4 total) and 50 Mk16 per broadside plus DDM CM 50 per broadside, add in 50 PD on each broadside, incorporate 4 Keyhole 1, full compensator and a civilian hyperdrive. Mount a dozen grasers per side plus 8 on each hammerhead, a dozen DDM CM and PD on each hammerhead as well.

Woah woa woa

4 broadsides? What the hell are you talking about this time?

A mini hyperspace moveable forte. With 200 Mk16 per tube and 60-120 DDM CM per launch tube.

Oh. So you want to reinvent the SD, badly. Gotcha.

It will all fit.

Ah! Good to know that you figured that out for us.

A couple per "side" LAC or Shuttle bays. Say 8 total with inner shuttle docks off the bays.

1 at each "broadside" end.

For what, exactly? What's the point?

Wedge would be full SD strength.

One would hope so, given that a smaller wedge wouldn't actually do anything.

Hyper drive freighter type, as small as possible.

Why? The main reason why you build Forts is that they're explicitly immobile on a strategic level. You build them where you need them, and leave them there until the situation changes; If it turns out you don't need them anymore, you dismantle them and set them up elsewhere (or scrap them entirely, if they can't be upgraded to current levels). Point is, you don't need to move them around often enough that wasting tonnage on a hyper generator and Warshawski Sails makes sense.

Mk16 missiles to control costs, as they are back water / defensive systems where fortes are not to be built and SD(P) are not going to frequent. Yet much more capable than any lesser ship. DD CL CA BCL... Able to move about a system or just park in orbit bubble up all the time. Hyper drive to move it about. Not quickly but much faster than a forte.

Bull. Shit. A system that you need to protect, but that doesn't warrant a BatRon or all-up Forts will be just fine with a couple Cruiser squadrons or BatCruRons or LAC stations. You do not need a silly half-fort, half-SD hybrid.

Yes this will take up an SD(P) or BCL yard slip but the cost of the 18000 mk16 missiles will be much less than 2 loads of SD(P) Mk23 pods.

Please cite numbers.

Having an SD(P) parked in a system with a load of pods cycling through 12 times a year and should one need flee the cost of leaving or destroying a 1000+ pods is prohibitive. With a big tower, there is no cost at all.

Except the cost sunk into building a vessel that is worse at being a fort than an actual fort, worse at being a defensive mobile unit than literally anything except a fort, worse at being an SD than an actual SD, and all around unneeded given the capabilities of existing designs. Hell, a BCL BatCruRon can easily match the weight of fire this thing produces, can actually maneuver, and can actually be deployed in more ways than one. So, if I had to choose between a BatCruRon and this latest idea of yours? I'd take the Battlecruisers every single time.

Okay I haven't looked in for a little while so I gotta ask a question so that I can understand Skimper.

What's a "DDM CM"? I haven't seen that one before.

Scuffles wrote:Okay I haven't looked in for a little while so I gotta ask a question so that I can understand Skimper.

What's a "DDM CM"? I haven't seen that one before.

I think that refers to a Skimper concept that basically mounted a CM on a standard missile to create a dual drive CM.

Scuffles wrote:Okay I haven't looked in for a little while so I gotta ask a question so that I can understand Skimper.

What's a "DDM CM"? I haven't seen that one before.

Dual-drive countermissile. RFC addressed this idea some time ago:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/163/1

Dafmeister wrote:

Scuffles wrote:Okay I haven't looked in for a little while so I gotta ask a question so that I can understand Skimper.

What's a "DDM CM"? I haven't seen that one before.

Dual-drive countermissile. RFC addressed this idea some time ago:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/163/1

Although it seems to me that the FTL transceiver is what's really driving a dual-drive CM's extreme size gain.

But Manticore's current extended range CMs are already pushing the effective range for light-speed control from the ship; so you need to do something to increase effectiveness before you bother to further increase their range. (And given the way RFC has set up the rules that 'something' is unlikely to be radically improved fire-and-forget capabilities)

But if someone can come up with a trick or mechanism to cut the fire control link latency (without making a CM approaching the size of an Apollo control missile) then dual drive CMs might, just maybe, become practical.

Lord Skimper wrote:Mk16 missiles to control costs, as they are back water / defensive systems where fortes are not to be built and SD(P) are not going to frequent.

I think this is a false economy. If you compare the cost to lethality ratio between a Mk16 and Mk23 missile I think against any target that took more than a few hits to kill the Mk23 would likely cost less because you'd need to use less of them.

And at extreme range, Mk23 w/ Apollo you'd need a lot less missiles to get a kill than Mk16 (which lacks Apollo).


Unless you think your system defense is largely going to be shooting up frigate through light cruiser sized pirates I think you'd expend more dollars of Mk16s than you would of Mk23 w/ Apollo.
Ok, so you might save a some dollars on the initial costs to fill the magazine, but not enough (in my mind) to justify the higher ammo consumption costs and the sharply reduced effectiveness against the most serious potential threats to a system (squadrons of the wall).
[Yes, we know a Mk16g, in sufficient numbers, can kill SLN wallers. But Mk23s are much much better at it]

It won't fit, Skimper. The dorsal and ventral sides of a superdreadnought are not empty. They are packed full of sensors, comm gear, fire control, ports, and docking bays. If you put weapons on those sides, you have no place to put all the stuff you displace. It won't fit.

Although not a SD there are Maxx-Q's excellent drawings showing the BC Fearless that will show how packed the dorsal and ventral surfaces of a Honorverse ship are see http://www.flickr.com/photos/98864503@N05/. There even is his video of docking http://youtu.be/uEiGEeq8SiI! Worth the trip to help visualize the ships.

Poker

SWM wrote:It won't fit, Skimper. The dorsal and ventral sides of a superdreadnought are not empty. They are packed full of sensors, comm gear, fire control, ports, and docking bays. If you put weapons on those sides, you have no place to put all the stuff you displace. It won't fit.