First off, the Mk-16G is not equal to an unenhanced Mk-23, it is equal to anyone's capital missile of c1915, which really means the final first war designs, although both the RMN and the GSN were deploying Mk-41 MDMs (capacitor Ghost Rider shipkillers) armed vessels, I'm relatively sure that MDMs were not considered capital missiles in this connection.
We don't know the relatively strength of a Mk-41 and a Mk-23, on one hand, the RMN was able to squeeze Mk-41 grade technology into other missiles, suggesting that the warheads are not that much bigger than the previous generation (although if it was a complete gutting this might not hold true) and a large portion of the Mk-41's size growth, relative to SDM capital missile would have been capacitors for the drive, but on the other, we do know that it was equipped with a significantly stronger warhead than was used in a capital missile.
However, this does not really matter, at some point someone from BuNine, going from memory, noted that the real difference between a Mk-16G and a Mk-23, is that the Mk-23 has slightly longer rods, two more rods, and much 'bigger' rods. It is a lot more powerful weapon. The post mentioned, as I recall, that the Mk-16G's nuke is 'borrowed' from the Mk-23, and its grav focus system is just as strong as the Mk-23's, hence Helen's though as to whether the Mk-16G's improvements would scale when applied to the Mk-23, the question is would the Mk-23's rods be capable of handling any higher energy intensities, or does that particular intensity represent then maximum that the RMN's conversion material can handle?
Second, RFC, has mentioned that Honor, and probably other people, are pushing for a reconsideration of the priority of various systems on the Keyholes. Current Keyhole priority places the offensive links at relatively high priority, Honor wants the PDLCs, and the CM links placed before the offensive links. There is a lot of things that keyhole 1 could junk in order to save some mass ( fully self-sufficient fusion plant could be downsized, like Keyhole-2 ), but I have always though that the RMN would simply strip the offensive links altogether for CL Keyhole, allowing them to save a lot of space.
namelessfly wrote:Enhancing passive defenses is precisely what a Keyhole does for a ship.
The most effective passive defense in the Honorverse is the impeller wedge. Nothing can penetrate a ship's impeller wedge. The classic battle tactic of the Wall of Battle maintaining a tight formation is intended to enable the fleet to roll ship to interpose impeller wedges to incoming fire with minimum chinks in it's armor that incoming missiles might slip through to engage the sidewalls, throat or kilt.
Deploying a Keyhole platform enables a ship to interpose it's impentratable impeller wedge (Weber must love alliteration?) to incoming missiles without interfering with it's ability to control offensive missiles or defensive counter missiles and enabling it's PDLCs to effectively target incoming missiles just as they clear the impeller wedge. Given this capability, most "hits" on a ship will be stopped cold by the impeller wedge.
I recognize your point that it would be nice if a notional DD could reasonably expect to survive actually absorbing a few hits from Mk-16G. However; given the fact that Mk-16G seems to be
nearly equal in destructiveness to unenhanced Mk-23 which can ream SLN SDs with perhaps as few as 100 hits, there is no plausible prospect that anything smaller than a NIKE could satisfy your more stringent criteria for survivability.
Given this reality, a more reasonable criteria is to design a ship that can more effectively exploit it's impeller wedge to absorb incoming fire without sacrificing the effectiveness of it's passive defenses so that it can reasonable expect to survive at least a few salvos of an engagement against a similar ship.
Weber has provided us with a battle scene that reveals how effective the passive defenses of a Rolland are. However; given the specifications revealed in HoS and the fact that Hexapuma got reamed at Monica, I would not expect a Rolland's active defenses to be capable of stopping a salvo of 24 Mk-16 missiles. I think that it is this inadequacy, not physical armor or sidewalls which are really futile for any ship smaller than one million tons, which are the criteria that
Weber is considering when deeming a Rolland a glass cannon.
Scuffles wrote:I sort of get the impression that the reason the Roland is defensively inadequate isn't really that it can't stop a salvo of 20 missiles (which it may or may not be able to do), but rather because it can't afford to take so much as a single hit from an equivalent opponent.
That's because of having practically no armour and because the Mark 16s recently got a massive warhead upgrade to rival earlier capital ship missiles.
More defensive firepower is never bad, but I think finding a way to be able to absorb some hits (better sidewalls most likely) is more important than trying to invent mini-keyhole. You're always going to take hits at some point, you need to be able to wear them without dying to the first one.
