What about DN(P)s for the GA?

Dafmeister wrote:Why do you assume that a given tonnage of SD(P)s has fewer CM tubes and PD clusters than the same tonnage of DN(P)s would?

I give up.

Either you refuse to read, or can't.

If you wish to discuss what I was actually proposing, I will welcome it. If you wish to discuss whatever you want to, then don't reply to my post.

clancy688 wrote:There was something about this in the pearls:

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/290/1

An 8,500,000-ton SD(P) takes 23 months to build and work up, using a Manticoran-style "hard" shipyard.

An "old-style" 6,000,000-ton DN would take 20.1 months using the same yard.

A 1,750,000-ton BC(P) takes 16.95 months using the same yard.

A 2,000,000-ton BC(L) takes 20.1 months using the same yard.

So, allowing for the same sort of construction rates, I'd guesstimate an off-the-cuff "fly away" time requirement for a 4,000,000-ton BB(P) to come in somewhere around 19 months (you'd save a little time over a standard BB or a Nike-class BC(L) because of the hollow missile core), at which point you recognize a time-saving over an all-up SD(P) of perhaps four months. If you're turning them out in a production-line fashion, with new construction slotting into the queue as soon as building space becomes available, a four-month savings isn't really very significant on the scale at which these people are operating.

Bottom line: If an SD(P) only needs ~20% longer to complete than a BB(P), an DN(P) would only be marginally quicker to build than a true SD(P). Probably a few weeks.

So no, they can't build DN(P)'s faster than SD(P)'s, at least not that much faster that it would matter. And that's even without covering the little problems of having no DN(P) designs at the ready AND having no experience with DN(P)'s at all.

And to return to the (P) problem.

Given that a greater proportion of the volume of a DN has to be devoted to survival and defensive systems of a ship that must lie in the wall of battle (and that is assuming that drives and power ARE purely proportional and not subject to economies of scale), how much less pod payload can be squeezed into the pod core of a DN(P), for only a slight savings in build time and expense?

Also, though you are using a smaller spaceframe, is it really possible to make the shipboard portion of Apollo and Keyhole much smaller? I was under the impression that both were imperatively shrunk as much as possible when they were fitting them to SDs. If those systems do not scale with a spaceframe reduction, then that is even less room for payload (or even for broadside weapons.)

Further, remember that one of the appeals of DNs vs SDs back 15 to 100 years ago was the savings in MANPOWER. That is not nearly as big a factor now.

Pod ships of the wall smaller than SDs simply make no resource sense, and are tactically weaker/less flexible, in several ways.

dreamrider

wastedfly wrote:
Sweet, then why is Manticore not shoving hyperdrives up their 16Mt forts rears instead? Who cares about acceleration in an MDM environment. Acceleration is inconsequential. Still obtain around 100g's.

SD is already an attrition unit compared to Forts.

Comes down to $$$/effective unit price tag.

If we assume that a Gryphon SD was balanced offensively/defensively a simple step in time displays current designs heavily favor offensive improvement capabilities while only modest corresponding correlating defensive capabilities. (Keyhole being the main contributor in the defensive additions)

Something has to give. Obtaining balance has been one of MWW's mantras for his universe.

Either a new SD class is created with massive amounts of extra armor+defensive systems(effectively a Lynx junction fort), or a new DN'P class is created that curbs offensive endurance, saving $$$/ship while increasing total defensive systems(CM tubes/PDLC) through the addition of more numerous hulls.

Something has to give.

Of course that "something" could be some new defensive tech RFC hasn't unveiled yet. He usually doesn't have BuShips act like idiots, and he's been talking up the 4th gen SD(P) designs - those postdate Apollo - so maybe BuShips knows something we done.

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing.

Dafmeister wrote:Why do you assume that a given tonnage of SD(P)s has fewer CM tubes and PD clusters than the same tonnage of DN(P)s would? I don't have HoS with me at the moment, so I can't quote figures, but it seems to me wildly unlikely that a 6Mt ship will have the same defensive firepower as an 8Mt ship. We already know that DNs carried fewer offensive weapons than SDs, why should defensive weapons be different? The additional Keyhole platforms will have an effect, but the Keyhole bays will take up proportionately more broadside hull space on a DN(P) than on an SD(P), so even fewer weapons can be placed on the DN(P)'s hull. I also wonder if there will be any improvement in offensive firepower. We know an Agamemnon-class BC(P) only has four pod rails, which is the main reason for giving them Mk16 pods instead of Mk23s - the same number of pods per launch gives a great salvo density. Should we assume that a DN(P) will have six pod rails? It may only be possible to carry five without exacting too great a cost in hull strength, which is already less than for an SD(P).

Overall, to me, it looks like replacing SD(P)s with the same tonnage of DN(P)s will have little effect on the total offensive or defensive firepower of the fleet, but it will definitely have the effect of placing that firepower in less durable platforms. Bad exchange.

I think you misunderstood what wastedfly was saying. He wasn't claiming that a 6MT DN had the same number of defensive emplacements as an 8MT SD.

Rather he was saying consider two different 48MT units of wallers. Because 6MT DNs carry more than 75% the defensive emplacements of 8MT SDs, the 8 DNs in their 48MT wall of battle will have more CM tubes and PDLCs than the 6 SDs in their 48MT wall of battle.


Which is true, as far as it goes.
But since costs don't scale that way, and ships aren't normally allocated to systems by mass, it seems (to me) a largely pointless bit of comparison. The 8 DNs will take longer and cost more to build, then cost more to man and maintain than the 6 SDs.

Jonathan_S wrote:Rather he was saying consider two different 48MT units of wallers. Because 6MT DNs carry more than 75% the defensive emplacements of 8MT SDs, the 8 DNs in their 48MT wall of battle will have more CM tubes and PDLCs than the 6 SDs in their 48MT wall of battle.

But Wastedfly doesn't carry that computation out to the number of CM tubes and PDLCs 48MT of LACs provide -- especially if the come up with a LAC optimized for the anti-missile role.

Or 48MT of anything except DN(P)s -- Yet he cites "greater number of hulls" as an argument for DN(P)s.

You want to increase the surface area available for defenses and reinforce the armor system at the same time? Simple, put the KH in the pod bay and put as many of the displaced pods on external pods with power cords. Yes, that will cost you some ammo capacity, but that doesn't matter. Neither you nor your opponents will still be operational after 20 minutes of combat, if combat actually runs that long.

This will likely require some redesign of the KH, which should be trivial based on the Mycroft insanity.

Kizarvexis wrote:-----THIRD-----
Why hamstring your fleet commanders that way by having the wall of battle carry around ammo ships everywhere you go? Let's say you armored up the ammo ship to have it travel along with the squadron wall of battle. So each wall could be 6 DNs and 2 Ammo ships per squadron to keep the 6 wallers per squadron scenario that the RMN has now. If out of those 8 ships, one is down for mobility from damage or engineering casualty or required maintenance, that would not be an unlikely scenario for warships. If it is one of your two Ammo ships, you lose half of your ammo for the whole squadron AND the 6 DNs are stuck to the Ammo ship like a hungry baby to mama. With 6 SD(P)s, having one down means losing 1/6 the ammo for the whole squadron and you can still break up the other 5 with other wallers or by themselves as needed. Even with out mobility issues, if you want to breakup your DN squadron, you would have to send 3 DNs and one Ammo ship out at a time, so you would be able break up your quadron in two, where the SD(P)s can be broken up into as many as 6 units. You can go with more ammo ships per squadron, but then you are adding to crews needed and more ships you have to build.

And along with this, why have a squadron of wallers that can be rendered into nothing more than targets by taking out only 1/4 of the wallers in said squadron? Are you secretly yearning for the Weapon That Can Not Be Named? Because if you had DNs and ammo ships, this would be the perfect reason to bring it back to the detriment of CL captains everywhere. Take out the Ammo ships and the other six DNs are targets.

Something occurred to me as I was reading this.

We've seen several times now that when faced with unknown ship classes, Manticoran and Havenite COs will target the LARGEST ships on the other side just on the general principle that largest = most dangerous.

Which means that if you're fielding squadron of the wall that consists of 6 DN(P)s accompanied by much larger ammo ships, then the ammo ships are going to be targeted first and KILLED first even if the other side has no idea what they are. The ammo ships' very size is a huge "SHOOT ME!" sign.

evilauthor wrote: The ammo ships' very size is a huge "SHOOT ME!" sign.

Yes, please do. Put me out of my misery replying to such dull analysis.

Pods have tractors. Ships fill up in Hyperspace or in N-space after exiting hyperspace outside the hyperlimit.

Hell, maybe RMN invents a thing called a POWER cord and the ships ammo up with tractored pods before they leave orbit.

Gee what a thought.

kzt wrote:Neither you nor your opponents will still be operational after 20 minutes of combat, if combat actually runs that long.

You really don't believe that the GA will develop a new defensive tech to go into their next gen ships, do you? It seems to me that all of your ideas are based around BuWeaps sitting on their hands about defense during the rebuilding period. In my opinion, they probably started working on a new and better missile storm defense before Apollo was ever fielded. And considering all of the research and researchers aboard the Gryphon station (Waylend?) survived, I suspect it will be ready to install on the new construction.

I think folks are getting hung up on term DN'P. The correct term should simply be capital waller.

Currently defensive systems are far behind their offensive counterparts. I think everyone agrees on this point?

What to do about it is the question.

In Summation, since many can't seem to read my previous posts which initially stirred this brew-ha-ha and wish to make up their own beliefs about what is being discussed in at least my portion of this thread; The 5-6MT number, depending on calculated assumptions IS, I repeat, IS, for all of you fumblefingers who can't read at least 3 different posts, an INVICTUS minus a pod core. A true, DN'P would obviously be larger than this figure. One still needs SOME, protected pod core. How much has been my DRIVING question in comparison to its defensive suites.

If you guys want to keep moving the goalposts by stating a DN will have fewer active defenses than an SD as I setforth in my initial post regarding #CM tubes/PDLC's in this new design compared to a true SD'P, then go ahead. Go shadow box with your own shadow. Enjoy.

*****************************************

Something that I assume most realize(it has been alluded to in ART), but then again, I bet most have not even thought of: One of the driving factors determining new ship design is wedge fratricide. So, for those who have not thought about it:

MDM/CM's supposedly have roughly 10km wide wedges. Per Pearl. Old pearl. Though even changing this to 1km, one still has massive issues. Anyways: Invictus has roughly 200 tubes presently firing every 8s(100 per aspect in crude terms). An observant reader might have picked up on the VERY simple fact that an SD is all of 1.4km long?

Hmm which is larger, 10km times 100 missiles or 1.4km... 1 guess, no take-backs now .

Initial velocity is what again? 100*wedgewidth/v0*8 = spacing. Those CM's are nose to ass even under the most optimistic assumptions in an Invictus design. There is effectively NO room for expansion of CM tubes.

For those who can do preschool math(I quite often cannot, so do not feel too bad), it does not take a genius to figure out that a ship, can only fire off 'X' number of missiles before they run into each other.

This 'X' number will set the UPPER limit for possible active defenses PER ship, no matter which class. At this point it becomes rather simplistic, to even dumbos like me, that further increasing a ships offensive capabilities without increasing a ships defensive capabilities is rather stupid and ineffective.

Currently a ships offensive capabilities are enormous while their defensive capabilities rather parsimonious. MWW has stated rather emphatically, that his universe will not build ships that are imbalanced and historically, steadfastly, shot down any defensive only, offensive only, ships. Don't know about you, but we have essentially already breached those universe rules as FTL APOLLO TRACTORED POD SDP is effectively nearly a 100% offensive unit while LAC's have turned effectively into dedicated defensive units.

So, looking for wiggle room to get back to balanced ships in MWW universe. Also, note CM pods are a gigantic no go zone as well. Where does that leave us second rate, over the hill, whining arm chair admirals? Dare I say, more numerous, smaller capital ships? Bigger is not always better?

crewdude48 wrote:You really don't believe that the GA will develop a new defensive tech to go into their next gen ships, do you? It seems to me that all of your ideas are based around BuWeaps sitting on their hands

We have tons of information in MWW's universe. You have a brain crewdude48; use it. Propose this new and improved system that balances offensive tractored Apollo pod alpha strikes. Stating in thread after thread; NOT INVENTED HERE is not a valid argument.