Medusa-C (The end of the SDP?)

Lets us see lots to clear up. First a bigger missile tube can fire any similar powered smaller missile. Second Pod swarms fired with Apollo only control FTL about 200 missiles not 200 Apollo. So firing Apollo missiles fore and aft and Stacked broadsides of Mk 23 missile would allow a triple stacked double broadside of 33/34 missiles and 6 fore and aft Apollo missiles would be about the same as a standard pod swarm of controlled missiles. with current reload recycle times around 15 seconds you take just over 30 seconds to fire the first wave of 200 missiles and 45 seconds for each additional wave. Pods can fire 200 missiles every 15 seconds. 2 - 3 times the fire rate. Assuming you don't just dump a bunch of missiles into space. Donkey lets you carry about 100 pods per ship anyway. But SDP can do that too. Still an Advanced SD can fire 11 swarms of missiles using donkey under full control every 15 seconds. Has any modern battle lasted more than 11 Salvo's? 40 Advanced SD (ASD)? could pull Mk23 pods or system pods in a donkey tractor beam system and fire using a Keyhole II. 320,000 poded mk23 missiles plus 2640/2720 missile tubes.

The Nike carries mk16 missiles but lots and lots of them. Around 3000 missiles. Given that a SD is four times the size of a Nike, one could figure 3-6000 mk23's could be carried. Say 4000 or twenty triple stacked Salvo's.

Cost. If Missile Cost is a problem, then ASD are the answer.

Non Wartime use, SDP might be useable as heavy armed Transports. Pack the necessary goods in Pods and it can deliver anything anywhere guaranteed. Pirates in Battle cruisers, who cares.

Realistically one might just say that an Improved Nike might be the best Answer. 10% Larger. Same number of tubes, with fore aft Apollo tubes, Mk23 side tubes and Keyhole II. Add in Donkey Pod tractor beam options for 50-100 pods if need be.

One could convert the Agamemnon into Escort CLAC. Carrying 30 Advanced LAC. They don't work as Pod layers. Stagger dock the LAC on an angle.

Bigger Battle cruisers keep cost down, can be used in peace time as escorts and patrol ships, crews are already pretty small.

Line of Battle of Roland, Saganami C, Nike (improved) and Agamemnon CLAC Escorts, with SDP and full size CLAC in military reserve. Plus various LAC. Nat Turners for Export. Given that most Kingdom Star systems are going to have Full system defense pods a smaller number of Escort ships may be all that is needed.

As for attacking the Vast number of Planets, you never need a vast number of ships, just a good fleet of well stocked ships. One at a time no system could stop you. Leaving a system defense pod system behind no one could take it when you move on.

Lord Skimper wrote:Lets us see lots to clear up. First a bigger missile tube can fire any similar powered smaller missile. Second Pod swarms fired with Apollo only control FTL about 200 missiles not 200 Apollo. So firing Apollo missiles fore and aft and Stacked broadsides of Mk 23 missile would allow a triple stacked double broadside of 33/34 missiles and 6 fore and aft Apollo missiles would be about the same as a standard pod swarm of controlled missiles. with current reload recycle times around 15 seconds you take just over 30 seconds to fire the first wave of 200 missiles and 45 seconds for each additional wave. Pods can fire 200 missiles every 15 seconds. 2 - 3 times the fire rate. Assuming you don't just dump a bunch of missiles into space. Donkey lets you carry about 100 pods per ship anyway. But SDP can do that too. Still an Advanced SD can fire 11 swarms of missiles using donkey under full control every 15 seconds. Has any modern battle lasted more than 11 Salvo's? 40 Advanced SD (ASD)? could pull Mk23 pods or system pods in a donkey tractor beam system and fire using a Keyhole II. 320,000 poded mk23 missiles plus 2640/2720 missile tubes.

The Nike carries mk16 missiles but lots and lots of them. Around 3000 missiles. Given that a SD is four times the size of a Nike, one could figure 3-6000 mk23's could be carried. Say 4000 or twenty triple stacked Salvo's.

Cost. If Missile Cost is a problem, then ASD are the answer.

Non Wartime use, SDP might be useable as heavy armed Transports. Pack the necessary goods in Pods and it can deliver anything anywhere guaranteed. Pirates in Battle cruisers, who cares.

Realistically one might just say that an Improved Nike might be the best Answer. 10% Larger. Same number of tubes, with fore aft Apollo tubes, Mk23 side tubes and Keyhole II. Add in Donkey Pod tractor beam options for 50-100 pods if need be.

One could convert the Agamemnon into Escort CLAC. Carrying 30 Advanced LAC. They don't work as Pod layers. Stagger dock the LAC on an angle.

Bigger Battle cruisers keep cost down, can be used in peace time as escorts and patrol ships, crews are already pretty small.

Line of Battle of Roland, Saganami C, Nike (improved) and Agamemnon CLAC Escorts, with SDP and full size CLAC in military reserve. Plus various LAC. Nat Turners for Export. Given that most Kingdom Star systems are going to have Full system defense pods a smaller number of Escort ships may be all that is needed.

As for attacking the Vast number of Planets, you never need a vast number of ships, just a good fleet of well stocked ships. One at a time no system could stop you. Leaving a system defense pod system behind no one could take it when you move on.

I have no idea where you get your numbers from. Refrencing House of Steel:

1. The gryphon SD (8.3M tons) has 37 missile tubes broadside and 9 chase missile tubes. (total 92)
A. Make that a double broadside of 9+1 Apollo missiles and 72 attack missiles every 18 seconds and that is more than 30 Apollo missiles and 240 attack missiles every minute. (stacked 3 = 27/216 in 54 seconds) (Stacked 4 = 36/288 in 72 seconds)

2. The invictus SDP can roll 6 pods every 12 seconds. With apollo that would be 30 apollo missiles and 240 attack missiles every minute.

with just delayed activation and off bore firing, but no new technology, a SD can have the same firing rate of a SDP, but will be stronger and carry more missiles.

3. A Nike BCL has 50 tubes, 18 second firing rate, "and her magazines allow for over forty minutes of maximum rate fire." 50*(60/18)*40 = AT LEAST 6,667 missiles. 7,000 missiles would be 42 minutes of "maximum rate fire"

4. A SD has a higher percentage of it's total tonnage in weapons systems, and 30,000 missiles for a standard SD would not be uncommon.

5. Who mans the system defense pods when manticore moves on? you have to either keep a picket force at the system, leave the system defenseless, or risk letting the system defense pods fall into unfriendly hands. (and anyone that doesn't think the alignment will have it's spies out is a fool.)

darrell wrote:5. Who mans the system defense pods when manticore moves on? you have to either keep a picket force at the system, leave the system defenseless, or risk letting the system defense pods fall into unfriendly hands. (and anyone that doesn't think the alignment will have it's spies out is a fool.)

I understand the Forbin Corporation has developed this automated System Defense C&C tech they call Skynet. Due to time constraints testing has been limited, but it is expected that the large scale RMN deployment of it that starts next month will absolutely revolutionize the situation vs the RMN threats scenarios.

kzt wrote:

darrell wrote:5. Who mans the system defense pods when manticore moves on? you have to either keep a picket force at the system, leave the system defenseless, or risk letting the system defense pods fall into unfriendly hands. (and anyone that doesn't think the alignment will have it's spies out is a fool.)

I understand the Forbin Corporation has developed this automated System Defense C&C tech they call Skynet. Due to time constraints testing has been limited, but it is expected that the large scale RMN deployment of it that starts next month will absolutely revolutionize the situation vs the RMN threats scenarios.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lord skimper wrote:As for attacking the Vast number of Planets, you never need a vast number of ships, just a good fleet of well stocked ships. One at a time no system could stop you. Leaving a system defense pod system behind no one could take it when you move on.

#5 was in direct response to the last paragraph of Lord Skimper.

leave a defense pod system behind when you leave . . .

So are you proposing that manticore leaves a skynet system at every SL system they capture, and then leave, letting the locals run skynet? ? ?

I was wondering how long it would take for Skimper to come up with silly ideas again...

Lord Skimper wrote:Lets us see lots to clear up. First a bigger missile tube can fire any similar powered smaller missile.

Please cite textev to that effect.

The Nike carries mk16 missiles but lots and lots of them. Around 3000 missiles. Given that a SD is four times the size of a Nike, one could figure 3-6000 mk23's could be carried. Say 4000 or twenty triple stacked Salvo's.

Skimper. Square cube law. An SD is about 4 times the mass of a Nike; it is not 4 times the size.

Cost. If Missile Cost is a problem, then ASD are the answer.

The cost of the munitions aboard an SD exceeded the cost of the hull back in the first war already. Missile cost will always be a "problem", but the only way to reduce it is to reduce missile storage, which is a stupid idea.

Non Wartime use, SDP might be useable as heavy armed Transports. Pack the necessary goods in Pods and it can deliver anything anywhere guaranteed. Pirates in Battle cruisers, who cares.

Because having a good portion of your wall out running deliveries is such a great idea, and economical too!

Hint: It's neither. Noone's going to pay the overhead of running freight on an SD when they can get a few Destroyers or Cruisers as escorts for regular merchies instead for a much lower price.

Realistically one might just say that an Improved Nike might be the best Answer. 10% Larger. Same number of tubes, with fore aft Apollo tubes, Mk23 side tubes and Keyhole II. Add in Donkey Pod tractor beam options for 50-100 pods if need be.

A 10% increase in tonnage is probably not enough for that neither is a 10% increase in size. Upgrading all launchers to the Mk 23 takes way more than that.

One could convert the Agamemnon into Escort CLAC. Carrying 30 Advanced LAC. They don't work as Pod layers. Stagger dock the LAC on an angle.

One could. but one would be hilariously stupid to do so. There's a niche for a trade escort CLAC, but the Agamemnon is not going to fill it.

The E wrote:I was wondering how long it would take for Skimper to come up with silly ideas again...

Lord Skimper wrote:Lets us see lots to clear up. First a bigger missile tube can fire any similar powered smaller missile.

Please cite textev to that effect.

... clipped ...

One could convert the Agamemnon into Escort CLAC. Carrying 30 Advanced LAC. They don't work as Pod layers. Stagger dock the LAC on an angle.

One could. but one would be hilariously stupid to do so. There's a niche for a trade escort CLAC, but the Agamemnon is not going to fill it.

There is textov that a missile tube will fire a smaller missile, as I don't remember the exact wording I wasn't able to find the exact quote on a quick search.

32 LAC's (4 squadrons) would sacrifice all the conventional weaponry for a ship the size of the Agamemnon. Next, there is too much engineering required to remove weapons to add LAC bays. the cost would be more than the cost of a brand new ship of the same mass. Add in the fact that on a small ship a LAC bay will stretch more than half way across the beam. A third factor is you won't need very many LAC's on a convoy escort.

Personally, I don't think they will be built because there is better options out there, but here are three designs that work tonnage wise.

1. 650K ship with 8 LAC's and no conventional weaponry.
2. 800K ship with 8 LAC's and a rolands conventional weaponry.
3. 1.1M ship with 8 LAC's and hexapuma's conventional weaponry.

darrell wrote:There is textov that a missile tube will fire a smaller missile, as I don't remember the exact wording I wasn't able to find the exact quote on a quick search.

There's this statement by MaxxQ, which I was misremembering:

MaxxQ wrote:Won't work. Clearance for missiles between the missile body and the inner wall of the missile tube is only a centimeter or two. Otherwise, one could fire smaller missiles from larger tubes, and that doesn't happen - missile tubes are designed to fit closely around the missile they are designed to launch, with tight tolerances.

I have some older art with a missile that is a few cm smaller in diameter than another. They both use the same tube because there's a sleeve attached to the smaller diameter missile to bring at least the center section *up* to the same size as the other missile.

So yeah, a launcher can fire smaller missiles if those missiles are fitted with sabots.

darrell wrote:

There is textov that a missile tube will fire a smaller missile, as I don't remember the exact wording I wasn't able to find the exact quote on a quick search.

32 LAC's (4 squadrons) would sacrifice all the conventional weaponry for a ship the size of the Agamemnon. Next, there is too much engineering required to remove weapons to add LAC bays. the cost would be more than the cost of a brand new ship of the same mass. Add in the fact that on a small ship a LAC bay will stretch more than half way across the beam. A third factor is you won't need very many LAC's on a convoy escort.

Personally, I don't think they will be built because there is better options out there, but here are three designs that work tonnage wise.

1. 650K ship with 8 LAC's and no conventional weaponry.
2. 800K ship with 8 LAC's and a rolands conventional weaponry.
3. 1.1M ship with 8 LAC's and hexapuma's conventional weaponry.

David once said a LAC and LAC bay masses ~32 Ktons. So 32 LACS will mass a little over 1 million tons, or 60% of an Aggie. Your 8 LAC example will mass 256 Tons alone - or roughly the size of a Prince Consort (which makes your numbers sound about right, mass wise).

However, we need to take into account the physical dimensions as well - The Closest ship we have reference to for your 650 KTon design - The SCN Silensia BC, has a Mass of 613 Ktons, and a beam of 80 M. A 72m Shrike on a 45 degree angle will be 64 meters deep (accounting for it's 20M width). So unless you have a staggered broadside and no core hull, your LACs will need to be docked laterally on the skin, blocking about 2/3s of each broadside.

Looking at your 1.1 Mton design, the closest design we have is the Reliant Flt 3/4, at 934,250 Tons. extrapolating to your tonnage, it should be ~750m long, ~95m beam, and ~85m draught, or about 115m longer than your 650Kton design, and still not enough to dock a Shrike other than laterally on the skin.

Unfortunately, the Agamemnon, with a beam of 118M is still too thin to dock Shrikes other than Laterally, though it may be able to get some in the Pod bay, though I doubt you could get more than 16-20 LACs on an Aggie. - and at that we're discussing ripping off the outer armor of most of both broadsides and most sensors and defensive system there, as well as gutting the Podbay. This isn't a refit - it's a new design that may use some of the same drive parts.

The Smallest ship with true LAC bays (whether angles or straight (since angling only saves you ~6 m) without asymmetry would be in the 3.5 to 4.5 Mton range. Looking at the 3.9 Mton Ad Astra DN, it has a beam of 154m, just enough to fit in the 2 LACS, a meter or so of armored doors, and a 12 meter core hull.

It's been mentioned that the Minotaur, Covington, and Hydra are "fat" compared to other ships. The Minotaur and Hydra seem to be 5% to wider than normal, while the Covington is closer to 4%. There has been speculation on whether this represents fully taking advantage of the existing Compensator field, or whether the LAC carriers use a slightly de-tuned field, allowing for more width at the cost of a slightly lower top acceleration. But to the best of my knowledge, neither has ever been proven or verified.

darrell wrote:So are you proposing that manticore leaves a skynet system at every SL system they capture, and then leave, letting the locals run skynet? ? ?

Leave Skynet behind everywhere, yes. Let's them run it not so much. You also have it covering your planets that don't have actual fixed defenses. The Forbin Project will ensure total control of the system is maintained by Skynet.

Theemile wrote:It's been mentioned that the Minotaur, Covington, and Hydra are "fat" compared to other ships. The Minotaur and Hydra seem to be 5% to wider than normal, while the Covington is closer to 4%. There has been speculation on whether this represents fully taking advantage of the existing Compensator field, or whether the LAC carriers use a slightly de-tuned field, allowing for more width at the cost of a slightly lower top acceleration. But to the best of my knowledge, neither has ever been proven or verified.

I briefly talked to Tom Pope (BuNine) about this at Honorcon a couple years ago - specifically noting the low accelerations for CLACs given their year of introduction and asking if it was primarily because they were "fat".

If I recall correctly (and it's been a while so I might not be) he indicated that being "fat" should make them a little slower, but most of the reduced accel compared to their year-mates was because of either:
a) the design was finalized several years before the decision to actually build them [and HoS accel numbers are design numbers; not "current refit" or even "as built". -or-
b) another error in HoS that slipped through the fact-checked and editorial process. (But he wasn't sure offhand and would have had to check his notes)

(Ideally if things like acceleration are being quoted at original design time HoS would have included both design year and introduced year. Ah well)