Medusa-C (The end of the SDP?)

kzt wrote:

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.

Especially after Colossus finds Guardian and the two of them are connected and become 1 entity.

Jonathan_S wrote:

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)

HoS (and hopefully the later compendiums) Really needs a page with all the notes we put together explaining the data within. Without a simple note that the data does not represent construction accepted after May 1921, or that accelerations are based on design dates, the details do not make sense with the latest books. You have to have a tally date, and you have to have some reporting standard for each data. But when it is in flux, can be easily misinterpreted, or not complete in some way, there should be something defining each of the pieces of data.

Theemile wrote:

kzt wrote: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.

Especially after Colossus finds Guardian and the two of them are connected and become 1 entity.

One galaxy spanning system to keep humans safe! It totally renders the whole SL vs GA war to a minor sideshow.

darrell wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:It's also possible that the compensator field stretches far enough out in front for bow fired missiles to remain I it until they can light their drive. While within the same compensation field as the ship they are a equivalent of zero g with respect to it. Don't want matter that the ship is pulling over 500 g; until the missile clears the field it continues moving away at th same rate it was launched at. Ships accel (or not) is irrelevant.

Although the zone you could light the drive in is pretty constrained if the sidewalls are up. The missile wedge is 10km wide and the sidewalls are only a hair over 20km apart; and extend to the forward edge of the wedge which can be up to 150km ahead of the ship. Fortunately you've got quite a bit more room vertically.

the compensator field doesn't extend very far beyond the ship skin. the smaller the field is, the more efficient the compensation is and the faster the ship.

The ship is not in the center of the wedge but toward the back. Example on a 300KM wedge, there will be 200-250KM of wedge in front of the ship, only 50-100KM behind the ship.

Can you point me towards something that mentions that rearward placement of a ship in the wedge? I had the impression from the few diagrams and descriptions we have; for example from this infodump. and the Jayne's books, that the ship was pretty much centered not just vertically but horizontally.

And while I agree a smaller compensator volume is more efficient, we also know that larger shisp can tow pods within their wedge where they're within the compensator field and therefore do not degrade their acceleration.
So it seems that maybe the field is bigger that we suppose - though I agree that doesn't fit all that well with the descriptions of it from the Manticore ascendant series where the possession you stopped the rotation centrifugal gravity section affected your acceleration...

When your fleet leaves a system, you don't leave the system. You have and hold it with a system pod defense. The fleet moves to the next target and the System pods keep anyone else from taking it away from you.

Numbers come from the Nike having 4 times the number of missiles of the Saganami C which has three times the number of the Roland which has 240. Now sure I didn't work out the per tube. Which would be 20 per Roland, And 60 per tube Saganami C and 240 per tube for the Nike which at 25 per broadside 50 times 240 equal 12,000 mk16's. but still a Mk23 is bigger than a Mk16 so 4000 is reasonable. An apollo will control up to 12 mk23's, but is used as 8 to offer redundancy plus keep pod sizes under control. 10% larger to offer room for 6 apollo tubes per Hammerhead. This will help with extra spacing between the armour and fitting Keyhole II.

Lord Skimper wrote:When your fleet leaves a system, you don't leave the system. You have and hold it with a system pod defense. The fleet moves to the next target and the System pods keep anyone else from taking it away from you.

There are 4 (main) problems with a pod defense.

1) Who (or what) controls the pods?

Pods can work in a sys-def mode where only basic firecontrol is needed - or in a controlled mode where there is greater accuracy. Ideally, you want the 2nd - which means a fort or controlling ship. Which means that if you want accuracy, you need to leave ships or build an immovable strategic asset there. Or else, you are just throwing gobs of missiles downrange, and hoping some of them hit.

2) How many Gobs of missiles are you putting there, anyway?

Remember, 1/2 the cost of a 1905 SD was the cost of the missiles, and just how many missiles are you going to install there? Just dropping pods off isn't a cheap solution. If you are lobbing missiles at every threat, you are going to go through missiles like mad. A smart opponent will sacrifice some units and drain your pods, making you vulnerable, because your only possible response to every problem is to hammer it. So how many pods do you place there and can you really afford to place SDs worth of missiles in every system?

3) Sys-def pods need maintenance.

The standard Flatpack pod in sys-def mode needs serviced every 30 days to rebuild and refuel the high tech reactor. The purpose built Sys-def pods probably last longer, but they still need serviced by a high tech repair facility - who is going to do that?

4) Pods are vulnerable.

If you know they are there, you are not going to drive into their teeth. The smart opponent will use sneak attacks to neutralize the shoals of pods - say a normal looking merchant that the last minute turns and wades through the pod field sweeping with it's wedge or just tossing nukes out the back.

In short, pods are not cheap, and need to be protected and controlled by assets to be used effectively.

Well, you deploy Skynet as a minimal system along with the automated mining systems and self-replicating factories to build missiles and other components. In just a few months you'll have thousands of pods providing the fully automated Skynet system total control of the area inside the hyperlimit.

What could possibly go wrong?

kzt wrote:Well, you deploy Skynet as a minimal system along with the automated mining systems and self-replicating factories to build missiles and other components. In just a few months you'll have thousands of pods providing the fully automated Skynet system total control of the area inside the hyperlimit.

What could possibly go wrong?

The AI personality turns out to have been based on that of the Honorable Reginald Houseman.

Hi First dip into a tread by a newbie.

It seems to me that more pods and more alpha strike capability represents 'old tech' that has pretty much reached the limit where one is dancing around the edges.

Ships are big, currently an alpha strike can and will take down the biggest ships in your fleet.

There comes a point where big hulls stop being optimal. Better perhaps to have 50 light cruisers rather than one SDP throw weight is the same but loss of one unit is signifivsntly less of a game changer.

IF DW is running an analogy of WW1&2 at this point, we have the CLAC battle group becoming queen of the battlefield… but we also have those spider drive stealthers…effectively a U-boat.

So I predict that there will be two big tech advantages coming up… a vast improvement in defense... we have a bow-shield now… might there be a way to project a wedge-shield in any direction possibly as an add on to the EW pods. Second prediction…stealth missiles - rather than have a huge ship with vast ammo expenditure, have a small ship with a very small number of nearly undetectable torpedoes. Instead of relying on overwhelming a defence, put your money on a one shot, one kill, ultra stealthy ordnance.

For a big battle this looks closer to jutland where a lot of the fleet manuevers were for fear of uboat ambush or of torpedo boat and TB-destroyers duking it out between the big gun fleets

topaz172 wrote:Hi First dip into a tread by a newbie.

It seems to me that more pods and more alpha strike capability represents 'old tech' that has pretty much reached the limit where one is dancing around the edges.

Ships are big, currently an alpha strike can and will take down the biggest ships in your fleet.

There comes a point where big hulls stop being optimal. Better perhaps to have 50 light cruisers rather than one SDP throw weight is the same but loss of one unit is signifivsntly less of a game changer.

IF DW is running an analogy of WW1&2 at this point, we have the CLAC battle group becoming queen of the battlefield… but we also have those spider drive stealthers…effectively a U-boat.

So I predict that there will be two big tech advantages coming up… a vast improvement in defense... we have a bow-shield now… might there be a way to project a wedge-shield in any direction possibly as an add on to the EW pods. Second prediction…stealth missiles - rather than have a huge ship with vast ammo expenditure, have a small ship with a very small number of nearly undetectable torpedoes. Instead of relying on overwhelming a defence, put your money on a one shot, one kill, ultra stealthy ordnance.

For a big battle this looks closer to jutland where a lot of the fleet manuevers were for fear of uboat ambush or of torpedo boat and TB-destroyers duking it out between the big gun fleets

years ago I actuall proposed something similar, but there is three things that make your proposal impractical.
1. economies of scale.
2. the cube square law.
3. crew and manning needs.

50 CL's at 160K tons would have the same tunnage as one SD. Between them they would need 100 fusion plants and 50 hyper generators. One SD would need only 12-16 fusion plants and one hyper generator. In other words, 50 CL cost more to build and can devote about half the tonnage to weapons.

The SD has 50 times the volume, but only 13 times the surface area. That means that the CL needs 4 times the volume for particle and ray shielding. With an equal percentage of the ship being used, the SD would have 4 times heaver sidewalls, armor, etc.

Lastly there is crew. The invictus SD has 1,000 crew, with 100 officers. Each CL would have 100 crew, with 20 officers. That means that for your 50 CL's you would need 5 times the enlisted crew and 10 times the officers.

Although good in theory, in practice it won't work.

don't let the fact that this idea won't work keep you from posting new ones in the future, though.