Troy class pod super cruiser

Taking the Agamemnon and scaling it up to the Invictus size, with triple Agamemnon armaments. 5 times the Agamemnon armour. Dual Keyhole IB.

The 360 pods layout of the Agamemnon enhanced to 1800 pods. 8 pod patterns. 170% pod depth of the Invictus plus 14 not 8 missiles mk16's per pod.

Same accelerations of the Invictus. Keyhole IB is basically a
Keyhole II sized Keyhole I. The extra space allows for greater missile control than the Invictus with Mk23 missiles using Apollo by using the much cheaper Mk16.

Why have the Super Cruiser Pod layer and not more Invictus. It can carry 67.6% more pods with 75% more missiles. And yet is cheaper to field with less crew members.

Less range than mk23 but more range than anything anyone else has. Greater armaments offensive energy and defensive PD and similar CM.

Upgrading to Mk23 missiles and Apollo just requires Apollo pods to be loaded and Keyhole II to replace the Keyhole IB. Everything else is there and with greater firepower and less crew.

Lord Skimper wrote:Taking the Agamemnon and scaling it up to the Invictus size, with triple Agamemnon armaments. 5 times the Agamemnon armour. Dual Keyhole IB.

The 360 pods layout of the Agamemnon enhanced to 1800 pods. 8 pod patterns. 170% pod depth of the Invictus plus 14 not 8 missiles mk16's per pod.

Same accelerations of the Invictus. Keyhole IB is basically a
Keyhole II sized Keyhole I. The extra space allows for greater missile control than the Invictus with Mk23 missiles using Apollo by using the much cheaper Mk16.

Why have the Super Cruiser Pod layer and not more Invictus. It can carry 67.6% more pods with 75% more missiles. And yet is cheaper to field with less crew members.

Less range than mk23 but more range than anything anyone else has. Greater armaments offensive energy and defensive PD and similar CM.

Upgrading to Mk23 missiles and Apollo just requires Apollo pods to be loaded and Keyhole II to replace the Keyhole IB. Everything else is there and with greater firepower and less crew.

Why build a large, fragile super-battlecruiser the size of an Invictus when you could just build an Invictus? WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT? What do you gain? What do you save? How would it improve your ability?

Rob

Do not reply to Skimper. It is never worth the increased blood pressure.

The Invictus is the Agamemnon scaled up to Invictus size, with two Keyhole IIs. Scaling up does not mean simply multiplying the numbers. It doesn't work that way. Not everything scales up the same way, so scaling a design up requires making changes to the design to accommodate.

You've been told this repeatedly, Skimper. It doesn't work that way. Stop wasting our time.

The reason the pod bay would be bigger is because everything is BC size/grade not SD size/grade. The Less crew, less life support, less size of energy weapons and CM and PD (battle cruiser Grade/size) The crew would be much less as the ship 5 times bigger doesn't need 5 command crews, just one. It would be bigger but not 5 times bigger. The Agamemnon has around 300 (old school Destroy crew levels) or there abouts and this would have around 1000. With only 3 times the broadside and associated crew and the pod bay being designed from a BC(P) -L not a SD(P) which may have more armour and bigger components. Does an Invictus have 5 times the Armour of the Agamemnon? Maybe maybe not.

Why do this?

1. Cost.
2. Crew, needs less crew about half.
3. Builds faster, not much faster, but faster.
4. Costs less to build and using a Keyhole I-B (same size as Keyhole II) only without the FTL control links in is easy to upgrade, cheaper and able to pack in more control links, with the same defensive arrays.

Keyhole II - FTL = Keyhole I-B with more non FLT control links.
Easy to upgrade at a later date. No yard time. Keyhole I-B with Mk16 Pods are better than anything anyone outside the GA has.

This Super Cruiser is as fast as the Invictus, has safe from a distance and has much more armour compared to the Agamemnon while carrying 67%+ more pods. which in turn carry 75% more missiles.

Able to control 600 missiles per Keyhole I-B per salvo. And stay in battle longer.

It is not as capable as the Invictus in an Energy range battle. But nobody fights those battles anymore. It is not weak like the BC(P) in battle nor does it have the Weaknesses common to the Agamemnon designs. However without the reinforcements of the Invictus the design has much larger cargo holds for many more pods. 67%+ more pods. Without having the as heavy armoured aft section it would be able to lay 33% to 50%+ more pods in the same time. Fire and control more missile. The Invictus with Apollo is limited to 400 with Apollo. This would be more Closer to 600 MK16's. With Keyhole II and Apollo it would have the same as Invictus Offensive missile capabilities.

1800 Mk16 Pods with 25200 Mk16 missiles vs 1074 pods with 8592 missiles. Albeit better missiles but vs the current and foes the Mk16 is still over kill.

From 40-60 million Km the SC(P) would fire more missiles than an Invictus. Less accuracy with the same level of defense and be able to continue firing longer. Same wedge as the Invictus same sidewalls etc... Same performance. The only difference would be up close energy engagements and with 29 BC Grasers per broad side with would not be a weakling. That is a 1 in a million event and the Invictus is more likely to find itself in such a circumstance just because it has 67% less pods.

Anything that can Catch the SC(P) would be outmatched by the SC(P). Except perhaps an Invictus but luckily they are on our side.

The SC(P) is larger 5+ times than the Agamemnon it has a big empty hollow hull. Much like a freighter only with pod bays. Smaller weapons and only 2.9 times as many, smaller crew numbers about half and smaller energy weapons and PD BC Size/Grade. Same kind and number of CM. Same SD PD on the Keyhole I-B as the Keyhole II.

Even the laser head on ship would be more with the SC(P). Using MK16 missiles. 3600 per 600 missile salvo. vs 3200 per 400 Apollo salvo.

Apollo missiles and keyhole are expensive. Really really expensive. the MK16 pods are cheap.

Now assuming that the enemy can intercept missiles, the Apollo Mk23 missiles when intercepted cost 33% more laser heads for each interception and their are less of them. Eliminate 150 Mk23's vs 200 Mk16's and you are left with 2000 MK23 laser rods vs 2400 MK16 laser rods. At a 50% miss rate and you hit your targets with 1000 rods vs 1200. A full 20% more. or 200 on 6 ships instead of 5. This assumes you only use Apollo as EW.

Why have a SC(P)

cheaper

Less crew

Less expensive payload

faster to make

as effective and with 67% large weapons load.

launching said pods 50% faster

with a 99% as effective as an Invictus Capability.

Lord Skimper wrote:The reason the pod bay would be bigger is because everything is BC size/grade not SD size/grade. The Less crew, less life support, less size of energy weapons and CM and PD (battle cruiser Grade/size) The crew would be much less as the ship 5 times bigger doesn't need 5 command crews, just one. It would be bigger but not 5 times bigger. The Agamemnon has around 300 (old school Destroy crew levels) or there abouts and this would have around 1000. With only 3 times the broadside and associated crew and the pod bay being designed from a BC(P) -L not a SD(P) which may have more armour and bigger components. Does an Invictus have 5 times the Armour of the Agamemnon? Maybe maybe not.

Why do this?

1. Cost.
2. Crew, needs less crew about half.
3. Builds faster, not much faster, but faster.
4. Costs less to build and using a Keyhole I-B (same size as Keyhole II) only without the FTL control links in is easy to upgrade, cheaper and able to pack in more control links, with the same defensive arrays.

Keyhole II - FTL = Keyhole I-B with more non FLT control links.
Easy to upgrade at a later date. No yard time. Keyhole I-B with Mk16 Pods are better than anything anyone outside the GA has.

This Super Cruiser is as fast as the Invictus, has safe from a distance and has much more armour compared to the Agamemnon while carrying 67%+ more pods. which in turn carry 75% more missiles.

Able to control 600 missiles per Keyhole I-B per salvo. And stay in battle longer.

It is not as capable as the Invictus in an Energy range battle. But nobody fights those battles anymore. It is not weak like the BC(P) in battle nor does it have the Weaknesses common to the Agamemnon designs. However without the reinforcements of the Invictus the design has much larger cargo holds for many more pods. 67%+ more pods. Without having the as heavy armoured aft section it would be able to lay 33% to 50%+ more pods in the same time. Fire and control more missile. The Invictus with Apollo is limited to 400 with Apollo. This would be more Closer to 600 MK16's. With Keyhole II and Apollo it would have the same as Invictus Offensive missile capabilities.

1800 Mk16 Pods with 25200 Mk16 missiles vs 1074 pods with 8592 missiles. Albeit better missiles but vs the current and foes the Mk16 is still over kill.

From 40-60 million Km the SC(P) would fire more missiles than an Invictus. Less accuracy with the same level of defense and be able to continue firing longer. Same wedge as the Invictus same sidewalls etc... Same performance. The only difference would be up close energy engagements and with 29 BC Grasers per broad side with would not be a weakling. That is a 1 in a million event and the Invictus is more likely to find itself in such a circumstance just because it has 67% less pods.

Anything that can Catch the SC(P) would be outmatched by the SC(P). Except perhaps an Invictus but luckily they are on our side.

The SC(P) is larger 5+ times than the Agamemnon it has a big empty hollow hull. Much like a freighter only with pod bays. Smaller weapons and only 2.9 times as many, smaller crew numbers about half and smaller energy weapons and PD BC Size/Grade. Same kind and number of CM. Same SD PD on the Keyhole I-B as the Keyhole II.

Even the laser head on ship would be more with the SC(P). Using MK16 missiles. 3600 per 600 missile salvo. vs 3200 per 400 Apollo salvo.

Apollo missiles and keyhole are expensive. Really really expensive. the MK16 pods are cheap.

Now assuming that the enemy can intercept missiles, the Apollo Mk23 missiles when intercepted cost 33% more laser heads for each interception and their are less of them. Eliminate 150 Mk23's vs 200 Mk16's and you are left with 2000 MK23 laser rods vs 2400 MK16 laser rods. At a 50% miss rate and you hit your targets with 1000 rods vs 1200. A full 20% more. or 200 on 6 ships instead of 5. This assumes you only use Apollo as EW.

Why have a SC(P)

cheaper

Less crew

Less expensive payload

faster to make

as effective and with 67% large weapons load.

launching said pods 50% faster

with a 99% as effective as an Invictus Capability.

This is much like the DN(P) idea IMO. Only useful against an enemy who lacks MDM or equivalent range missiles. And now that the SLN knows it is possible to develop missiles with the range of MDMs it is inevitable that it or some of the League successor states develop such missiles.

Once that happens your SCP becomes little more then a large target, with poor defenses for its mass, and given the time it would take to design and construct such a vessel its useful window would be practically non-existent. These ships take months, if not years, to design and even longer to build.

Why build this when you can build several BC(P)s in hat time frame allowing greater tactical flexibility and not having as narrow a window of useful service.

I have to wonder why anyone still responds to threads Skimper makes. It ought to have become blindingly obvious by now that he's not interested in actually listening to anything anyone outside his own little la-la land says. Just let these threads die a natural death and fall off the front page with 0 replies. Saying anything to him just gives him an excuse to go off on another rambling tangent and keeps his maunderings visible longer.

The battle cruisers will always lose. Ask the British. You get what you sow. Sometimes a bigger weaker ship is not as good as a bigger stronger ship. World war two in the Pacific as an example. The USN Iowa class battleship.

The navy got what they wanted and kinda needed but the resulting 4 fast battleships tied up resources better spent elsewhere. They were fast, but weak against other potential battleships. We are lucky they never met the Yamato?

We will never know. Ancient history now. Future history 2000 years from now? Probably the same. History seems to paint that only a equally sized, armed and armored ship stands a chance against another equal ship. All other things equal.

But...What perhaps the GA should be considering is who they are most likely going to fight now and in the future and build specific platforms for the actual need? Smaller, quicker, more lethal, cheaper and most certainly not equal.

Go with cheaper smaller ships still able to shoot off Mark 23's? Leave a few big boys for the big stuff? You might still need them. But prepare for the next war, not the last. Build smaller, not bigger?

Just me. Rather disjointed post. One of those days. Hee hee. HB of CJ (old coot) Cm. I love this forum but spend too much time on the computer fur sures.

What!?
ANOTHER one of these threads?

Sheesh.

dr

HB of CJ wrote:The battle cruisers will always lose. Ask the British. You get what you sow. Sometimes a bigger weaker ship is not as good as a bigger stronger ship. World war two in the Pacific as an example. The USN Iowa class battleship.

The navy got what they wanted and kinda needed but the resulting 4 fast battleships tied up resources better spent elsewhere. They were fast, but weak against other potential battleships. We are lucky they never met the Yamato?

We will never know. Ancient history now. Future history 2000 years from now? Probably the same. History seems to paint that only a equally sized, armed and armored ship stands a chance against another equal ship. All other things equal.

But...What perhaps the GA should be considering is who they are most likely going to fight now and in the future and build specific platforms for the actual need? Smaller, quicker, more lethal, cheaper and most certainly not equal.

Go with cheaper smaller ships still able to shoot off Mark 23's? Leave a few big boys for the big stuff? You might still need them. But prepare for the next war, not the last. Build smaller, not bigger?

Just me. Rather disjointed post. One of those days. Hee hee. HB of CJ (old coot) Cm. I love this forum but spend too much time on the computer fur sures.

So what you are suggesting would be an upscaled mk23 Apollo Roland and Saganami? Kamerling scale Roland Mk23 & a Homer Scale Saganami D? Build keyhole II control abilities into them add a pair of Apollo tubes or so per 8 Mk23 tubes. Move the Apollo to the hammerheads, Mk23 to the broadsides.

Could still allow for nested Apollo missiles. Presumably mk16's can be fired out of mk23 tubes. Might want to put mk25 tubes instead. With the missile feeds built for Mk16/23/25's. Thus future missiles can be up to mk25 size and still fit. Not so useful against SD(P) but that's why your going to have SD(P).

Add Nike to take the place of Kamerling with similar uprated tubes mk16/23/25 with hammerhead Apollo and bigger shuttle bays.