What about DN(P)s for the GA?

Theemile wrote:At this point relax and wasted fly are looking at the bigger picture.

Really? Then what happens if the enemy you just thought you alphastriked to oblivion were decoys and your ships is out of ammo in a big fight?
What happens if your ships need to fight 4 or 5 battles between being able to resupply?

Theemile wrote:1) If a DN and SD of the same technology can throw the same overwhelming salvo, which is truely more economical?

SD by far because the main limiting factor is getting crews.

Theemile wrote:2) If fights only last 10-20 minutes of sustained combat is it necessary to add anouther 2 hours of ammo, "just in case?"

Unless you want to make it a requirement to keep supply ships nearby ALL the time?
YES. Maybe not "2 hours", but if the ammo you have is enough for a single fight?

You´re SO screwed in the long run.

Theemile wrote:3) if 500 million tons of DN(p)s and 500 tons of SD(p)s of the same technology spare off - who is the winner?

SDs. Because larger ships means pure random chance will make it less likely that critical systems are hit. Like i said, even if you have the exact same level of armouring, the bigger the ship, the more worth the armour becomes because it gets increasingly more "chances" to come into effect.

And of course, it wouldn´t be 500Mt each if you went by either construction effort or cost nor maintenance and crewing cost.

Theemile wrote:All of these presuppose that the DN has relatively the same # of control links AND relatively the same defenses as the SD.

Which is questionable. Because the difference between an SD and DN is not going to be just ammo load.

Theemile wrote:Since there is less surface area on the DN, one would suppose that it's active defenses would be fewer, and have fewer control links - but a Keyhole 2 drone will alleviate most of that on the offensive side and some on the defensive side.

And an SD can spare the tonnage to deploy extra drones, and can certainly have replacement drones for any that are destroyed.
Can the DN manage that enough?

Theemile wrote:And, just before Apollo, combat had stagnated again, with both sides fighting each other to the point of emptying magazines. Post-apollo - will this happen again?

Yes.

Theemile wrote:I do not believe a DN has the same depth of defenses as an SD

They certainly do not.

Theemile wrote:But they do bring valid arguments, which overall must be considered.

Must be considered, yes. Valid? Mostly no.

As I said I don't agree with them on several counts, but they do have points to consider. If you consider things from an attrition model, you want the minimal platform that can be expended (read - Lost) under the basic concept that you will be losing platforms. This is flawed, because you should be attempting to engineer in survival, but given the parameters where you are bleeding ships - the least with the most is the winner.

Ammo for just 1 alpha strike is pointless, but BoMa showed that husbanding ammo is just as much so.

As for fighting 4-5 battles - we're seeing ships firing off 50% of their internal loadout in one blast now. Ammo ships are a necessity for prolonged campaigns. When you are facing high attrition #s you shouldn't be planning for those formations to be fighting 5 battles in a row.

If you ignore the manpower issue and the cost differential and the construction timing (Yes, that is alot of ignorance), and look at designing a DN(p) that can alpha strike an SD(p) almost all the time (call it a 90% chance of mutual anniliation), The DN(p) is more economical because you are losing less, and one could surmise you are constructing more DN(p)s for your dollar.

However all that bing said, I see a DN(p) having 60-80% of the active defenses as a SD and requiring 60-80% of the number of hits to kill, allowing them to be alpha striked by far fewer missiles than an SD would take. They would still require ~90% of the manpower per ship as the SD, and would use the same expensive components as the SD, so they would cost 90-95% of the larger ship.

As for 500 tons on 500 tons, more platforms may be able to throw more missiles, but I doubt they will have sufficient defenses to take what is coming at them. Even if it was total anniliation on both sides, the SDs will win on economics and lost manpower.

If you were to build it right, you could build an expendable unit that could kill SD(p)s - but that is an expensive unit to be considered expendable. So I'm definitely not in the DN(p) camp.

Tenshinai wrote:

Theemile wrote:At this point relax and wasted fly are looking at the bigger picture.

Really? Then what happens if the enemy you just thought you alphastriked to oblivion were decoys and your ships is out of ammo in a big fight?
What happens if your ships need to fight 4 or 5 battles between being able to resupply?

Theemile wrote:1) If a DN and SD of the same technology can throw the same overwhelming salvo, which is truely more economical?

SD by far because the main limiting factor is getting crews.

Theemile wrote:2) If fights only last 10-20 minutes of sustained combat is it necessary to add anouther 2 hours of ammo, "just in case?"

Unless you want to make it a requirement to keep supply ships nearby ALL the time?
YES. Maybe not "2 hours", but if the ammo you have is enough for a single fight?

You´re SO screwed in the long run.

Theemile wrote:3) if 500 million tons of DN(p)s and 500 tons of SD(p)s of the same technology spare off - who is the winner?

SDs. Because larger ships means pure random chance will make it less likely that critical systems are hit. Like i said, even if you have the exact same level of armouring, the bigger the ship, the more worth the armour becomes because it gets increasingly more "chances" to come into effect.

And of course, it wouldn´t be 500Mt each if you went by either construction effort or cost nor maintenance and crewing cost.

Theemile wrote:All of these presuppose that the DN has relatively the same # of control links AND relatively the same defenses as the SD.

Which is questionable. Because the difference between an SD and DN is not going to be just ammo load.

Theemile wrote:Since there is less surface area on the DN, one would suppose that it's active defenses would be fewer, and have fewer control links - but a Keyhole 2 drone will alleviate most of that on the offensive side and some on the defensive side.

And an SD can spare the tonnage to deploy extra drones, and can certainly have replacement drones for any that are destroyed.
Can the DN manage that enough?

Theemile wrote:And, just before Apollo, combat had stagnated again, with both sides fighting each other to the point of emptying magazines. Post-apollo - will this happen again?

Yes.

Theemile wrote:I do not believe a DN has the same depth of defenses as an SD

They certainly do not.

Theemile wrote:But they do bring valid arguments, which overall must be considered.

Must be considered, yes. Valid? Mostly no.

If you cannot actually solve the survival issue, the right force mix will be the smallest pod layer you can produce with FTL control links and the largest possible numbers, plus all the LACs you can possibly deploy. Possibly even going to a fleet structure based on squadron flagships with the FTL links leading ships that are not pod layers but instead optimized for missile defense that carry externally loaded pods with power cords.

Essentially you go from 8 ships massing 32MT per squadron to the same offensive firepower in well under 10 MT, but lot more squadrons and deploying a lot more anti-missile systems. Each individual vessel is a lot more fragile, but more survivable as a combat force and can deliver a lot more firepower.

It's the squadron of F22s against 600 mediocre Chinese stealth aircraft.

There would not be any difference in the defensive schemes be it active, or passive between this new class of "DN" and an SD with much larger offensive ammo reserves. Now maybe you/I could argue that what I have just proposed is not a true DN at all, but rather just a small SD.

That being said: 60-80% less active defenses?

Are you trying to create a strawman or what? Lets be honest here. Nah, that would get in the way of your crusade ideology.

Keyhole for a DN is the same Keyhole for an SD. Same number of control links. This is the limiting factor for active defenses.

There is no other consideration. The percentage of hull area used by CM tubes, PDLC's is miniscule in comparison to the area used by a Keyhole, let alone the rest of the hull area.

Look at the bloody Invictus drawing?! Talk about close spacing. If the "designers" were so worried about separation between CM/PDLC tubes, they sure as hell would not have dumped them effectively ALL onto a single deck! Yea yea there are 10 CM top/bottom around the Keyhole bay. Woo Hoo!

If the "designers" were worried about spacing, there would have been 4 decks of 21 CM tubes, not 2 decks and a token. Same goes for the PDLC's. They really are relegated to same deck. Not only will one hit take out your CM's but will also destroy your PDLC's as well. Talk about...

Hull length is immaterial for total number of CM tubes unless stacked cheek to jowel where one literally runs out of internal space. There is GOBS of area/decks available for more CM tubes/PDLC's on an Invictus. Now one could argue from a damage perspective that further spacing equates to better damage tolerance. I would agree with your very valid point 100%. However, it would appear the author and Bu9 do not. Clearly this is not the case in the Invictus design as they are all crammed into a tiny portion of the hull.

Heck, the Graysons even added more in their Harrington II design with an additional 24 tubes of much larger normal capital missile tubes, and additional broadside Grasers on top of the Invictus design!

Previous SD designs did not have this. They were widely spaced. See Gryphon/Bellerphon and even Havenite captured ships.

What is that spacing change? Going from an SD to DN?

NONE:

Did anyone even contemplate the reason I even posted the dimension ratio's of different ship types in my previous posts? Of course not.

If you had, you would note that the ratio for hull length to diameter is IMMATERIAL to the discussion in regards to central section and CM tube spacing. Currently, SDP hull ratio is 6.9. LAC's on the other hand are 3.5. CLAC's are 6. Therefore decrease taper section, keep central section if you wish to keep everything equal between said notional SD/DN new class.

Look how much larger the central section of a CLAC is compared to an Invictus. Why all capital ships are not designed like the CLAC drawing in HoS is a true head scratcher honestly. Its as if SD/DN's do not need nor want this extra area for sensors etc. Wait, I thought HV ships were struggling for sensor area... Oh wait, guess not. Otherwise they would look more like CLAC's than SD's. Ditto goes for CM tube spacing. Ditto goes for PDLC spacing.

Is it about time to check this fleabag for a pulse?
----------------
Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects!

Hi KZT,

The definition of the capitol ship has changed over time from BC's to BB's to DN's to SD's as the present class was overwhelmed by the various technological improvements.

The general size inflation across all classes and the general consensus of all honorverse observers that indicates it will continue for the obvious reason its the most effective choice available, seems to imply where RFC is taking us.

The Lennard Detweilers are to mass close to 20 MT IIRC, in part to survive the missile storms the Haven Sector created, evidently depending more on passive defenses such as lots of armor since the assumed sidewalls can't be locked onto the wedges.

We have yet to see the full development of the RMN's anti-missile storm defenses, which RFC has promised is rather extensive, and would take greater advantage of the volume SD's offer over DN's, including the needs of more engine space for the streak drive etc, so the Keyhole platforms and their space requirements may be dwarfed by other new systems.

Given the SLN's technical obsolescence, the RMN and the alliance should have plenty of time to perfect [if they haven't already] and install or incorporate into their post-OB new construction.

Given the shortage of shipyards and building slips the RMN will continue to experience for at least the next five years [though RFC has posted they'll have rebuilt a substantial portion by that time] means getting the most value out of each ship they can build, so the margin of only a 3-4 month's at best for DN's reduces their relative merit even more, or the likelihood of their ever being considered etc even further.

L

kzt wrote:If you cannot actually solve the survival issue, the right force mix will be the smallest pod layer you can produce with FTL control links and the largest possible numbers, plus all the LACs you can possibly deploy. Possibly even going to a fleet structure based on squadron flagships with the FTL links leading ships that are not pod layers but instead optimized for missile defense that carry externally loaded pods with power cords.

Essentially you go from 8 ships massing 32MT per squadron to the same offensive firepower in well under 10 MT, but lot more squadrons and deploying a lot more anti-missile systems. Each individual vessel is a lot more fragile, but more survivable as a combat force and can deliver a lot more firepower.

It's the squadron of F22s against 600 mediocre Chinese stealth aircraft.

Let's not forget crews!

Even before Oyster Bay, Manticore was having trouble crewing all the ships they were building. The automation they're using mostly eliminates the low level jobs, while the HIGH level jobs that require the most skill and training were virtually untouched.

Every ship needs a captain, an XO, a chief engineer and other supporting officers. Larger ships need larger crews of course, but because of Mantie automation, crew sizes don't go up as fast as the ship sizes do. A DN(P) could very well have nearly the same crew size as an SD(P) because everyone on both ships are doing pretty much the same job with automation eliminating much of the extra crew positions that larger ships would have required. It's a common complaint that modern Mantie ships just don't have all that many extra people they can spare from their current duties.

So, if you build more DN(P)s instead of a smaller number of SD(P)s, you're pretty much guaranteed to require more people to fully crew the former than the latter. Which means all those DN(P)s are just going to make Manticore's manpower shortages even worse than they already are.

And it didn't help that Oyster Bay killed oodles of highly trained personnel.

lyonheart wrote:The Lennard Detweilers are to mass close to 20 MT IIRC, in part to survive the missile storms the Haven Sector created, evidently depending more on passive defenses such as lots of armor since the assumed sidewalls can't be locked onto the wedges.

What evidence do you have for that? We have no textev for the size of the Leonard Detweiler class, except that it is "much larger" than the Sharks.

SWM wrote:What evidence do you have for that? We have no textev for the size of the Leonard Detweiler class, except that it is "much larger" than the Sharks.

There seems to be a very widely-held view that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range. So far as I can see, that view is based on nothing other than people saying that the Detweilers will be in the 16-20 Mt range.

wastedfly wrote:If you had, you would note that the ratio for hull length to diameter is IMMATERIAL to the discussion in regards to central section and CM tube spacing. Currently, SDP hull ratio is 6.9. LAC's on the other hand are 3.5. CLAC's are 6. Therefore decrease taper section, keep central section if you wish to keep everything equal between said notional SD/DN new class.

Look how much larger the central section of a CLAC is compared to an Invictus. Why all capital ships are not designed like the CLAC drawing in HoS is a true head scratcher honestly. Its as if SD/DN's do not need nor want this extra area for sensors etc. Wait, I thought HV ships were struggling for sensor area... Oh wait, guess not. Otherwise they would look more like CLAC's than SD's. Ditto goes for CM tube spacing. Ditto goes for PDLC spacing.

<Random thought>
According to HoS CLACs also accelerate much slower that (same year) SD(P)s.

I'd assumed that was just a editing slip-up, someone used the wrong compensator formula (since CLACs fit the pre-Grayson compensator curve perfectly); but maybe the fatter hull body does cost them accel compared to the 'normal' 6.9 length to beam ratio. (by requiring a non-optimal compensator field shape)

If true (and it's a big if), that might explain why DNs don't get fatter bodies than SDs.