light ships number and type

Don't forget the AWACS version frigate. The Keyhole I frigate, which can operate with any other ship can hyper in or out operate with the majority of keyhole I operations and multiply missile command offensive and defensive operations. Kind of like the Homeworld 2 game command Corvette Little bit different but not that far off either.

Such a Frigate wouldn't even need be in direct communications with the other ships.

HungryKing wrote: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.

I believe that it was recently said that Mk16 and Mk23s use the same rods, the Mk23 just has more.

HungryKing wrote: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?

Hate to do this, but your memory regarding the differences between the -16G and the -23 is wrong. The Mk16 and Mk23 share the same laserheads, which contain the same lasing rods. The Mk16 has six laserheads, and the Mk23 has ten laserheads.

OTOH, the Mk16G has an improved grav-focusing array to concentrate more x-rays on the laserheads. I don't recall if we've scaled that up to the Mk23 or not.

While I'm here, I think I'll take the opportunity to correct some terminology that I've seen people use for awhile. People most often seem to confuse the lasing rod with the laserhead. One is part of the other, but the two are *not* the same.

Lasing rod = the actual lasing material contained inside the laserhead.

Laserhead = The entire lasing assembly, that contains the lasing rod, sensors, RCS, and fuel for RCS.

Warhead = The nuclear device contained inside the main missile body that generates the x-rays needed by the lasing rod create an x-ray laser.

Edit: kzt ninja

Lord Skimper wrote:Don't forget the AWACS version frigate. The Keyhole I frigate, which can operate with any other ship can hyper in or out operate with the majority of keyhole I operations and multiply missile command offensive and defensive operations.

How are you going to fit a useful amount of offensive fire-control in a frigate? You do plan to include some life-support for the crew, don't you?

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/123/0

Offensive control links are maximized to control offensive missiles at extreme ranges. They are large, complex, and expensive in terms of both mass and volume. Counter-missile control links are maximized to control the maximum number of relatively short-range missiles with a maximum powered flight endurance of no more than a minute. They are for short ranged use only, they are relatively small, less sophisticated, and available in much larger numbers because they cost less both financially and in terms of mass and volume.

Weird Harold wrote:How are you going to fit a useful amount of offensive fire-control in a frigate? You do plan to include some life-support for the crew, don't you?

That is one of the advantages to using a freighter chassis for your slapped-together pod warships. Lots of available space and mass.

kzt wrote:That is one of the advantages to using a freighter chassis for your slapped-together pod warships. Lots of available space and mass.

I think Wayfarer pretty conclusively demonstrate why civilian designs aren't suited to serious warfare. Doesn't matter how many missiles or firecontrol channels you stuff into them, they aren't survivable.

Weird Harold wrote:

kzt wrote:That is one of the advantages to using a freighter chassis for your slapped-together pod warships. Lots of available space and mass.

I think Wayfarer pretty conclusively demonstrate why civilian designs aren't suited to serious warfare. Doesn't matter how many missiles or firecontrol channels you stuff into them, they aren't survivable.

I think that BoM conclusively demonstrated that military designs aren't suited to serious warfare. Doesn't matter how many missiles or fire control channels you stuff into them, they still aren't survivable.

Everything is a glass cannon. It is analogous to the post WW-2 era when naval designers were contemplating nuclear anti-ship weapons being used without inhibition.

Just found it. Yep, that is what you said. As for the focusing array, all I've found is that the 16G's array is much stronger than the 16E's, but it is also bigger (one can assume that if it was actually stronger than the Mk-23's SFtS would have mentioned it). As for scaling the Mk-16G up, it has not been mentioned in the books (other than the issue of whether the tech could scale successfully), on the other hand as far as I know Helen did not know about the mk-25 [that is the real name for the 23's system defense brother isn't it?] (the mk-23H might turn out to be a reduced laserhead count shoehorned -25 system).

MaxxQ wrote:

HungryKing wrote: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?

Hate to do this, but your memory regarding the differences between the -16G and the -23 is wrong. The Mk16 and Mk23 share the same laserheads, which contain the same lasing rods. The Mk16 has six laserheads, and the Mk23 has ten laserheads.

OTOH, the Mk16G has an improved grav-focusing array to concentrate more x-rays on the laserheads. I don't recall if we've scaled that up to the Mk23 or not.

While I'm here, I think I'll take the opportunity to correct some terminology that I've seen people use for awhile. People most often seem to confuse the lasing rod with the laserhead. One is part of the other, but the two are *not* the same.

Lasing rod = the actual lasing material contained inside the laserhead.

Laserhead = The entire lasing assembly, that contains the lasing rod, sensors, RCS, and fuel for RCS.

Warhead = The nuclear device contained inside the main missile body that generates the x-rays needed by the lasing rod create an x-ray laser.

Edit: kzt ninja

Weird Harold wrote:

kzt wrote:That is one of the advantages to using a freighter chassis for your slapped-together pod warships. Lots of available space and mass.

I think Wayfarer pretty conclusively demonstrate why civilian designs aren't suited to serious warfare. Doesn't matter how many missiles or firecontrol channels you stuff into them, they aren't survivable.

Neither are SDs. What would the survival rate of Home Fleet been decreased if it was all composed of wayfarer equivalents?

namelessfly wrote:I think that BoM conclusively demonstrated that military designs aren't suited to serious warfare. Doesn't matter how many missiles or fire control channels you stuff into them, they still aren't survivable.

Warships are far more survivable than civilian freighter designs.

Every ship ever designed can be destroyed; some take less than a dozen missiles or a pinnace sized laser; others take a couple of hundred missiles and fifty or more hits from laser-heads or SD scale grasers.

kzt wrote:Neither are SDs. What would the survival rate of Home Fleet been decreased if it was all composed of wayfarer equivalents?

It wouldn't have taken the entire RHN Second Fleet to destroy Home Fleet; a couple of RHN SDs would have done the job if they were civilian freighter designs.