Troy class pod super cruiser

One could do an upgraded wolfhound with Roland size and Mk16 broadsided tubes. Retire the Mk36 LERM missile and have a DDL, CLL, CAL, BCL and SD(P). Smaller ships with dedicated pod towing tractors. Use your DN size CLAC with upgraded compensators and LAC. Add an Apollo tube to the 8 or so Mk 16/23/25 hammerhead mounted missiles.

Hood versus Bismarck.

Lord Skimper wrote: Major SNIPPING
Agamemnon scaling 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.

And yet is cheaper to field with less crew members.

Greater armaments offensive energy and defensive PD and similar CM.

Triple Aggy
= 4 pods x 3 = 12, but you want 8, go figure how you get 8. 8 will not fit out its arse. 6 will.
= 10G = 30 Grasers
= 30CM = 90CM
= 30PD = 90PD
5X armor, well, that is impossible to decipher as we have no idea how much armor an Aggy has in comparison to an SD, other than some handwavium number.

Invictus 6Pod, 18G, 84CM, 62PD

The handwavium 1800 pod number is for what purpose? Can already haul 600 pods externally and Invictus already carries around 1400 internally due to change in pod design and more efficient use of volume. So, our CURRENT Invictus can already tote around 2000 pods of either MK-23 or MK-16.

Lets not even bother to discuss the handwavium, "fewer" crew comment as it utterly nebulous and without any true meaning. It certainly will not be cheaper as it is a completely new design requiring an entire new inventory etc Command structure. Back to personnel, Personally I agree that ALL Honorverse ships military/civilian are WAY over manned, but MWW does so to increase death tolls and for larger "action" sequence ability.

Effectively you are going to have BuShips waste their time building a neutered more expensive new class of ship instead of just switching out the Invictus pod core of 1400 pods from MK-23 to MK-16.

Um, yea... Makes "perfect sense"

Congratulations Skimper, you just reinvented the Medusa-B class, only bad. This is particularly true as DW has said that the Medusa-B class is never going to see production other than the ones destroyed in Oyster Bay due to the development of things like Apollo leading to designs more focused on survivability than being able to throw humongous amounts of missiles.

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?

The Iowa may have been a little lightly armored for their displacement (IOW compared to what could do on that displacement in a shorter slower ship), but they were as heavily armored as any preceding class of US battleships. A far cry from the Invicible-class battlecruisers.

Now, how any US battleship would have faired 1-on-1 again a Yamato is an interesting question, but given their radar fire control and superheavy 16" shells any of the modernized US BBs likely had a fair chance.

House of steel says 1074 pods for the Invictus.

600 outside the wedge? I thought it was limited to 90+ with the donkey system.

5+ times internal space of Agamemnon leads to 360x5 + 1800 pods. If the pods are smaller now, and the Old pods had 360 in the Agamemnon then then they should be able to carry about and equal ratio more with the new pods. 2346 pods internal. 5 times the Agamemnon armour as it is 5 times as big as the Agamemnon. I presume that is less than the Invictus but nobody knows. It might be more. It will allow for the spacing to improve survivability as spacing seems to matter.

600 external pods if an Invictus can carry 600 so can a SC(P) same size. literally.

3000 pods vs 2000 pods. Add in the Mk16 bonus of 1.75 missiles per pod and the cheaper Troy class SC(P) carries 2.58 times as many missiles. About 93% more lasing rods.

Using a Keyhole I-B allows for more missile to be fired and controls. or If using Apollo and Keyhole II 47.3% more missiles and lasing rods.

2946+ pods 29 Grasers (BC) 84 CM and 84 PD (BC) plus whatever Keyhole II/I-B PD levels.
vs
2000 pods 18 Grasers (SD) 84 CM and 60+ PD (SD) plus Keyhole II PD.

500-1000 less crew.

Range on a three or four stage missile is only constant full powered range. DDM and MDM have the same unlimited range. Apollo does aim better, but once effective counter measure come up against it, numbers will matter again.

Jonathan_S wrote:

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?

The Iowa may have been a little lightly armored for their displacement (IOW compared to what could do on that displacement in a shorter slower ship), but they were as heavily armored as any preceding class of US battleships. A far cry from the Invicible-class battlecruisers.

Now, how any US battleship would have faired 1-on-1 again a Yamato is an interesting question, but given their radar fire control and superheavy 16" shells any of the modernized US BBs likely had a fair chance.

On the Iowa vs Yamato battleships most if not all the factors would go to the Iowa.

Speed Iowa +4 knots Iowa 33 kn Yamato 29 kn

FC Radar Iowa MK8 & Mk13 FCR could pick up individual shell splash's out to 40-42,000yds Yamato FCR max range 20,000yds and was mostly used as search radar.

Rate of Fire Iowa
Iowa ROF 2 RPM
Yamato ROF 35-45 second reload time
Iowa in 3 min would fire 6 broadsides, Yamato 4-5 broadsides

Shell weight Yamato
iowa 2700 lbs
Yamato 3200 lbs

Armor this is a some what nebulous factor. The Iowa had a better quality of armor but Yamato had thicker armor.

Crew quality depends on the time of the war.

saber964 wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The Iowa may have been a little lightly armored for their displacement (IOW compared to what could do on that displacement in a shorter slower ship), but they were as heavily armored as any preceding class of US battleships. A far cry from the Invicible-class battlecruisers.

Now, how any US battleship would have faired 1-on-1 again a Yamato is an interesting question, but given their radar fire control and superheavy 16" shells any of the modernized US BBs likely had a fair chance.

On the Iowa vs Yamato battleships most if not all the factors would go to the Iowa.

Speed Iowa +4 knots Iowa 33 kn Yamato 29 kn

FC Radar Iowa MK8 & Mk13 FCR could pick up individual shell splash's out to 40-42,000yds Yamato FCR max range 20,000yds and was mostly used as search radar.

Rate of Fire Iowa
Iowa ROF 2 RPM
Yamato ROF 35-45 second reload time
Iowa in 3 min would fire 6 broadsides, Yamato 4-5 broadsides

Shell weight Yamato
iowa 2700 lbs
Yamato 3200 lbs

Armor this is a some what nebulous factor. The Iowa had a better quality of armor but Yamato had thicker armor.

Crew quality depends on the time of the war.

I recall discussions in the wargaming world years ago that it was unlikely that Yamato could even sustain that rate with full charge synchronized salvos, not because they couldn't reload fast enough, but because she would not re-stabilize sufficiently that quickly between 9-gun salvos.

dreamrider

dreamrider wrote:

saber964 wrote:
On the Iowa vs Yamato battleships most if not all the factors would go to the Iowa.

Speed Iowa +4 knots Iowa 33 kn Yamato 29 kn

FC Radar Iowa MK8 & Mk13 FCR could pick up individual shell splash's out to 40-42,000yds Yamato FCR max range 20,000yds and was mostly used as search radar.

Rate of Fire Iowa
Iowa ROF 2 RPM
Yamato ROF 35-45 second reload time
Iowa in 3 min would fire 6 broadsides, Yamato 4-5 broadsides

Shell weight Yamato
iowa 2700 lbs
Yamato 3200 lbs

Armor this is a some what nebulous factor. The Iowa had a better quality of armor but Yamato had thicker armor.

Crew quality depends on the time of the war.

I recall discussions in the wargaming world years ago that it was unlikely that Yamato could even sustain that rate with full charge synchronized salvos, not because they couldn't reload fast enough, but because she would not re-stabilize sufficiently that quickly between 9-gun salvos.

dreamrider

Of course this is purely academic, built from post-war documentation, I always found this website informative. From the Academics, both the South Dakotas and the Iowas probably would have beat the Yamamotos 1:1 if given the chance:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

If an Invictus can tow 600 pods why would anyone need anything more than a Nike BCL with Keyhole II?

500 crew 5-600 pods and an addition 8-12,000 Mk16's. Give it a Keyhole II in place of its Keyhole I and you don't need a SD(P).

If it needs to be redesigned to fit the Keyhole II give it a 50% broadside 50% rest of Hull ratio in place of the Current 33% broad side 66% rest of hull that it has. Bump it up to Mk23 tubes, with Mk16 option. Same ratio as the SD, broadside to Hull. keep it's speed up and you get a better ship. for the same crew you could have 4 Nike II (to denote Keyhole II) in place of 1 Invictus. And have boarding marine space. etc...

Fit 1 in 4 Keyhole II as a Keyhole I-B (defensive fire Keyhole) to maximize survivability. Gives you a non time of war ship and a Pod hauling ship of the wall. faster better etc...

3 ship classes and a CLAC.

Roland II 280,000 Tons 8 Mk23/16 Tubes per broadside. Energy Chase with Grasers, Kammerling Performance, PD and CM. Could have a Chase Apollo tube at each end, for greater MK23 range.

Saganami D 750,000 Tons 24 MK23/16 Tubes per broadside. 3 Apollo tubes per chase. Some Grasers and PD CM.

Nike II 2,500,000 Tons 32 MK23/16 Tubes per broadside, 4 Apollo tubes per chase and same as Nike other armaments, a few more CM and PD (for extended Broadside and Keyhole I-B/II.

CLAC 6,500,000 Tons. Mk23/16 tubes 16 and 2 Apollo per chase. Graser and PD and CM plus LAC ports.

Each ship could carry a combination of Mk23 and Mk16 missiles. More 23's when deployed in the Wall. 16's during peace time with a few 23's. Apollo during offensive operation Viper Nests for policing operations. Four ship types with the same interchangeable parts missile tubes missiles etc....

The CLAC could borrow the ideas of the Homer Class BC and use a strong Sidewall weaker Armour. Give it a better Compensator and it too will be a bit better at taking care of it self. Still more a drop and run ship but with better hyper space and drop and run surprise attack capabilities.

Shrike and Ferret LAC 5,000 Tons

Maximize ship building and Minimize crew and keep the BCL Nike II as a boarding and or Policing force.