Mk-16G DDM's and the future of light warships

Carl wrote:So basically what i said with the unstated but assumed known caveat that extra sidewall generators boost it .


Interesting reading that pearl but shows a fairly major blind spot on Mr Weber's part. A peacetime navy will still have to carry out steady upgrades and especially replace ships as hulls wear out. As such construction costs really do matter

I've also never really understood why the BC (P), (for it's tonnage anyway), is considered so poor in comparison to the BC(L).

Sure the pods add a small percentage to the ammo volume but volume for volume the storage for ammo should still be 80% as big as that of a same size BC(L) and the fire efficiency of the larger salvo sizes against most things will more than make up for that, (a BC(L) can match the salvo sizes in theory but once the Mk 16 apollo form comes in it could never dump it's fire control limit out fast enough to be useful, a BC(P) can).

And sure i suspect just because of cofferdam interleaving that the combination of pods and space around pods is not as good at buffering hits to the core hull behind as the magazines of normal launchers would be, but it's not a night and day level difference. Or it shouldn't be anyway.

Pods are quite large in comparison to the missiles inside them as they have to contain individual grav launchers, power supply for the launchers (ie capacitor banks or a fusion reactor), maneuvering thrusters, and in recent designs a tractor emitter. MaxxQ is a member of Bu9 who does Weber sanctioned 3d models of Honorverse stuff, including one of several pod designs http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/Pod-Family-Portrait-001-465723504, from which I'm eyeballing the volume percentage of pods vs bare missiles at more like 50-60%.

MaxxQ has also done models of Agamemnon class BC(P)s, in particular this one http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/AgamemnonClassBC-SS005-486663893 which shows just how little volume is left over from the pod bay, its less the pod bay doesn't protect the core hull than there isn't room for a core hull over two thirds of the length of the ship because of the pod bay, and there isn't much room for armor on the outside of the pod bay either.

Carl wrote:I've also never really understood why the BC (P), (for it's tonnage anyway), is considered so poor in comparison to the BC(L).
...
... (a BC(L) can match the salvo sizes in theory but once the Mk 16 apollo form comes in it could never dump it's fire control limit out fast enough to be useful, a BC(P) can).

Others have covered the reasons, but first and foremost, the BC(P) isn't considered survivable against a peer opponent. The pod-core doesn't provide sufficient internal armoring or bracing for it to take the damage expected of a BC design.

Secondly, the BC(P) doesn't carry enough pods for a sustained engagement or sustained mission. That is probably partly due to the inability to fire less than 14 Mk-16s or 10 Mk23 missiles if the situation requires a warning shot or similar. It is strictly a "go big, or go bigger" warship.

@Grashtel: i was basing my 80% estimate on those pictures. Remember that missiles in a magazine are going to need at least holding clamps tr some kind of frame around each missile. You can't realistically store them loose or like in a gun magazine. The volume around each of those missiles in the pod isn't that huge so unless the pod is a lot longer than a missiles there shouldn't be as big a difference as your assuming.

Also i've seen MaxQ's BC(P) design and as i started to say to him in his thread months ago and then never got round to finishing due to IRL issues, it's a poor design from an engineering standpoint.

By arranging the pods so that their length axis is across the width of the BC(P) hull and their width axis so it's across height axis it makes the pod bay much taller and much wider than it has to be. preventing the core hull from running the full length of the ship.

Rotate them so that their longest axis, (i.e. length), is aligned with the length of the ship and then align the other axis based on weather it's alongside or above/below the copre hull and run both the core hull and magazines the full length of the ship bow to stern with the missiles wrapped around the core hull. Instead of separating the two as that design does.

Like i said the pod bay probably won't provide quite the same coffer damming to the core hull as a genuine missile magazine and you'll see fewer missiles on the same tonnage. But you should still get something like 80% the missiles and 80% the hull strength on the same tonnage as a BC (L), but the BC(L)'s smaller practical salvo sizes means that due to a higher percentage of total fired being intercepted it will probably only have 80% the actual killing power of the BC (P).

@Harold: I'm contemplating a BC(P) on the Nike scale, thats a good 50% bigger than the current manticorian BC(P)'s. That changes the endurance and survival figures quite a bit.


Just to add to that i went back to textev and worked out that ton for ton the Nike actually carries 80% the missiles of an agamemnon, and only 25% more in actuality, (4000 vs 5000, though a theoretical Mk16 apollo would cut that down to about even ton for ton, (3360 rounds), but Nike couldn't use that so it's a wash anyway).

Carl wrote:Like i said the pod bay probably won't provide quite the same coffer damming to the core hull as a genuine missile magazine and you'll see fewer missiles on the same tonnage. But you should still get something like 80% the missiles and 80% the hull strength on the same tonnage as a BC (L), but the BC(L)'s smaller practical salvo sizes means that due to a higher percentage of total fired being intercepted it will probably only have 80% the actual killing power of the BC (P).

@Harold: I'm contemplating a BC(P) on the Nike scale, thats a good 50% bigger than the current manticorian BC(P)'s. That changes the endurance and survival figures quite a bit.


Just to add to that i went back to textev and worked out that ton for ton the Nike actually carries 80% the missiles of an agamemnon, and only 25% more in actuality, (4000 vs 5000, though a theoretical Mk16 apollo would cut that down to about even ton for ton, (3360 rounds), but Nike couldn't use that so it's a wash anyway).

And something else to be said for designs with more firepower: survivability is perfectly satisfied by dead enemies. They're not dangerous anymore. If you've got the firepower (counting range and accuracy there) to minimize the enemy's time able to fire on you, you have that much less need for direct defense, particularly the ablative varieties.

Also, for design lifetimes, a podlayer able to be reconfigured with relative ease to carry different pods will remain usefully in service far longer than a broadside missile launcher unit that becomes obsolescent whenever you need to fire larger or otherwise differently-dimensioned missiles due to the march of technology.

And lastly - Warships are relying less on immediate, integral resources than on parasites: recon drones, decoys, Keyhole platforms, missile pods, and (in a way) even missiles themselves. (LAC's and CLAC's are another instance of the same sort of trend.) Podlayers work with that: they're effectively as-defensible-as-practical platforms for the carriage and delivery of parasite units, the pods. (Which are themselves vehicles for the missiles, which are vehicles for the laserheads, which are vehicles for the nukes and lasing rods....) That central core is available, if need be, for carrying other parasites or different ones, like a boat bay, recon drone bay, and/or decoy bay that opens out into it, or similar units that take the place of pods more directly. It's a lot more flexible in the direction that future warfare seems to be leading, giving it a wider potential role and a longer potential useful career.

Jeff Engle wrote:
And something else to be said for designs with more firepower: survivability is perfectly satisfied by dead enemies. They're not dangerous anymore. If you've got the firepower (counting range and accuracy there) to minimize the enemy's time able to fire on you, you have that much less need for direct defense, particularly the ablative varieties

This was Jackie Fisher's rationale for the battle cruiser. A heavily armed, but relatively fast ship, able to out shoot anything she couldn't out run, and out run anything she could't out shoot.

So far, the RMN has used their BC's in that role, and recognized that they don't have any business trying to lie in the wall. Unlike Beatty at Jutland, and Holland at the Denmark Straits.

Fox2! wrote:

Jeff Engle wrote:
And something else to be said for designs with more firepower: survivability is perfectly satisfied by dead enemies. They're not dangerous anymore. If you've got the firepower (counting range and accuracy there) to minimize the enemy's time able to fire on you, you have that much less need for direct defense, particularly the ablative varieties

This was Jackie Fisher's rationale for the battle cruiser. A heavily armed, but relatively fast ship, able to out shoot anything she couldn't out run, and out run anything she could't out shoot.

So far, the RMN has used their BC's in that role, and recognized that they don't have any business trying to lie in the wall. Unlike Beatty at Jutland, and Holland at the Denmark Straits.

Partially. But Jackie Fisher's BCs were also a reaction to a couple factors.
1) The increasing size & cost of armored cruiser (and the Royal Navy having to keep them scattered around the world to repel any warships preying on UK shipping.
2) The ability of cables (and slightly later wireless) to provide timely sighting reports of enemy activity, and to allow central dispatch and management of units.

Combine that with a ship capable of long range, fairly high cruise speed, and the weapons and armor to crush any ship that would plausibly be engaged in anti-shipping roles and you get the Invincible-class BC. (Which did basically serve that function at the battle of the Falklands against German armored cruisers).

They were actually an attempt to reduce the cost of commerce protection, because while each BCs was more expensive (and took more personnel) than other cruisers you needed so many less that overall they were cheaper that maintaining powerful flotillas of cruisers in the four corners of the world.


Of course this plan fell apart when the German navy started building BCs of their own; and then a BC building race ensued with them evolving primarily to fight other BCs, rather than to perform the centrally dispatched anti-raider role for which the first class was originally envisioned. (It didn't help that to get the endurance and speed Fisher wanted the ship had to be bigger than a contemporary BB, unlike the Honorverse BCs)


Anyway, enough naval history rambling.

Based on what I saw of plans at the end of Rising Thunder, the RMCN is going to have to focus on the light combatants with their superior technology to match the numbers of BC with inferior technology of Solarian league with their planning to build to commerce raiding and small strikes. Smaller ships with less time and resources to build against the resource of the larger league.

Means we might get a lot of great short stories of war skirmishes to go with the larger major plot stories. This also gives platforms to test new sensors and scouts in other areas as they develop things to detect and counter spider drives (and thus area for more stories).