One of the virtues of hyper capable warships is that you can quickly redeploy them to another star system if you think you might need them there. One of the vices of hyper capable warships is that some commander might take them gallivanting off on some wild goose chase leaving a system undefended. See First Hancock in SVW. The vices of "fixed defenses" that are not hyper capable is that they can not be redeployed to another system if the local cammander feels a need to. One of the Virtues of fixed defenses is that they aren't hyper capable which ensures that a local cammander will not be able to redeploy them thus leaving the system that those defenses are supposed to protect unprotected.
We have seen light warships employing missile pods from arsenal ships extremely effectively. The battle of Spindle is THE classic example.
However; we have also seen light warships employing missile pods from arsenal ships get reamed because the arsenal ships are vulnerable. The battle of Torch is THE classic example.
Given the Cataphract missiles deployed by Mesan backed Stae Sec rejects at Torch and supplied by the Mesans to the SLNfor Adm Fillarta's attack on Manticore, the GA better cease assuming that they will always beable to engage the SLN and everyone else from beyond the opponent's effective missile range.
What I see a need for is a "fixed defense" system that is cheaper than the equivalent capability in a hyper capable combatant, can be quickly deployed by heavy lift large freighter, that can engage targets out to the hyper limit from it's established, "fixed" position, and is far less vulnerable than a freighter or an arsenal ship. Something with the ammunition capacity comparable to a BC(P) or Nike but is NOT hyper cable, has bubble sidewalls and armor that give it the damage tolerance of a Nike, and CM and point defense capability comparable to or somewhat better than a Nike. Such a system might be a pod design but Skimper is right that a system with missile tubes carries more missiles per ton and cost less than a comparable number of missiles in missile pods. It would be nice if such a system could launch and manage somewhat larger salvos than a Nike.
While one can argue that Apollo or even Mk-23s are a more cost effective solution than Mk-16s, Weber has made it rather clear that Apollo is to be reserved for SD(P)s and defenses for MAJOR systems such as Manticore and Grayson. Given a ballistic phase, the range of a Mk-16 is equal to a Mk-23. Given the Mk-16G upgrade it is effective against anything (similar to the high velocity, high elevation, 12" guns on the Alaskas). Given recon drones or LACs to provide tactical data via FTL and minor modifications to the Mk-16s and minor modifications to the recon
drones and/or LACs to enable relaying FTL comm control to the Mk-16s, you have very nearly Apollo performance without the extreme cost of disposable Apollo control missiles.
n7axw wrote:I am going to weigh in on this very briefly.
First, I did read the whole thread and thought the argument against battleships was pretty decisive. But then some of you turned right around and started designing your own ship types when existing types would do the job. Want to defend an unimportant planet out in verge? Send in a squadron of Rolands or perhaps Sag Cs with freighter stuffed with appropiate sized pods. Appropriate might vary from situation to situation. Also some lacs with freighter to serve as tender. Best forjob would probably be ferrets. You can argue with force mix, but the thing is, at this moment in time, 30 million km is about all the range u need against current SLN capabilities. Also number of missle tubes aren't nearly as important as control links. Both Sag Cs and Rolands have those aplenty. Witness Spindle where Terokov's Sag C squadron destroyed enough SLN SDs (48, as I recall) to force the surrender of the rest.
You can argue that SLN will improve as war goes on. To be sure, providing SL holds together long enough for r and d to kick in and hardware to be produced. The way RFC is telling the story, that is doubtful. But still, if it does happen that original mix is insufficient, you make adjustments.
There are really only two reasons to develop new ship designs. The first is that what you have on hand won't do the job. That simply doesn't seem to be the case here. The second is the introduction of new tech that constitutes a force multiplier that renders current designs obsolete. That could be coming up. Wanna be a fly on the wall when Shannon Foraker and Sonja Hemple get their heads together? I bet we see the streak drive and possibly the spider with Herlander Simoe's assistance. Lots to look forward to in the sequel to ART.
Don