Hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P)

Ok, as I recall RFC has said that the two primary advantages of the Nike class BC compared to the Agamemnon BC(P) class are that: 1. The Nike class is far more durable and resistant to damage compared to the Agamemnon class and 2. The Nike class has much greater magazine capacity.

Fair enough: Himself has spoken, the RMN prefers the Nike class, and it is his world. So I'm not trying to restart the Agamemnon vs Nike debate. However, I would like to point out that the Nike class masses 2.5M tons while the Agamemnon class only masses 1.75M tons.

Shouldn't it be possible to build a 2.5M ton BC(P) that is also both tougher and has greater magazine capacity than an Agamemnon? Particularly if the RMN was to devote the majority of the extra 750K tons to active and passive defenses? How do you think this hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P) would compare to a Nike class BC?

Henry Brown wrote:Shouldn't it be possible to build a 2.5M ton BC(P) that is also both tougher and has greater magazine capacity than an Agamemnon? Particularly if the RMN was to devote the majority of the extra 750K tons to active and passive defenses? How do you think this hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P) would compare to a Nike class BC?

Not much better, unfortunately. The basic problems with BC(P)s are that they can shoot themselves dry far too quickly and that the size constraints mean that they can't mount much in the way of armor over the missile core and can't carry the most advanced forms of missile defence (aka Keyhole 2) without severely compromising their main armor.

The BC(P), as a concept, only made sense when the RMN and GSN were the only ones with podlayers. During that very short period, BC(P)s were seen as an adequate weapons system to get more pods out into the field. The second war against Haven, however, showed the weaknesses of the class: They did not have the magazine space to act in support of the Wall, they were easily mission-killed (if not outright destroyed), and unlike previous RMN BC classes, they did not have the endurance for the sort of independent deployments the RMN traditionally uses BCs for. These are fundamental issues that even an extra quarter of a million tons of mass to play with can't really fix. At the end of the day, the BC(P) just is not a good fit for the RMN BC doctrine; I would not expect to see new members of the class after the shipyards have been rebuilt.

That isn't to say that other navies would be unable to find a use for the concept, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what RFC has to say about that.

Henry Brown wrote:Ok, as I recall RFC has said that the two primary advantages of the Nike class BC compared to the Agamemnon BC(P) class are that: 1. The Nike class is far more durable and resistant to damage compared to the Agamemnon class and 2. The Nike class has much greater magazine capacity.

Fair enough: Himself has spoken, the RMN prefers the Nike class, and it is his world. So I'm not trying to restart the Agamemnon vs Nike debate. However, I would like to point out that the Nike class masses 2.5M tons while the Agamemnon class only masses 1.75M tons.

Shouldn't it be possible to build a 2.5M ton BC(P) that is also both tougher and has greater magazine capacity than an Agamemnon? Particularly if the RMN was to devote the majority of the extra 750K tons to active and passive defenses? How do you think this hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P) would compare to a Nike class BC?

Because pods have the box launchers, tractros, etc. you can store more missiles in the same volume of internal magazines than you can with rails.

Because of it's nature, pod designs are not as strong as standard designs.

Therefore, a 2.5M ton pod BC will not be as strong nor carry as many missiles as the Nike BCL

darrell wrote:Because pods have the box launchers, tractros, etc. you can store more missiles in the same volume of internal magazines than you can with rails.

That doesn't seem to be true though.

Consider this:
Saganami-C. 487 kt of mass. 1200 missiles.
Nike. 2.5 Mt of mass. 6000 missiles.
Agamemnon. 1.75 Mt, carries 330 pods with 14 missiles each, for a combined total of 4620 missiles.

If we apply linear scaling based on the Sag-C and Nike, we find that the Agamemnon, at 3.5 times the mass of the Sag-C, should carry 4200 missiles. If we scale the Agamemnon up by a factor of 1.42 (to get to 2.5 Mt), we arrive at a completely theoretical missile capacity of 6560. That tells me that Podlayers, even factoring in the higher amount of infrastructure per missile, are able to match or exceed the missile load of a traditionally built ship.

The E wrote:

Henry Brown wrote:Shouldn't it be possible to build a 2.5M ton BC(P) that is also both tougher and has greater magazine capacity than an Agamemnon? Particularly if the RMN was to devote the majority of the extra 750K tons to active and passive defenses? How do you think this hypothetical 2.5M ton BC(P) would compare to a Nike class BC?

Not much better, unfortunately. The basic problems with BC(P)s are that they can shoot themselves dry far too quickly and that the size constraints mean that they can't mount much in the way of armor over the missile core and can't carry the most advanced forms of missile defence (aka Keyhole 2) without severely compromising their main armor. SNIP

The reason it doesn't work is not from an engineering point of view. There are many work arounds.

It is a problem from an authorial point of view. The "problem" effectively became mute with the advent of tractored pods. When a BC can carry 80 pods without covering sensors, then who knows how many they can carry when covering sensors. An old SD can carry 600 with 4X surface area should place a BCL at 150, or HALF what a current BCP can tote around without tractored. Yea yea, this means a BCP equivalent should then have ~450 pods. Do I believe that most missiles in a BCL will never be fired and that his total missile number in modern Honorverse warfare is a complete no show? Yes. What battle could possibly need 100 salvos if a BCL went against a BCL both with tractored pods? None. He needs to justify in the minds of readers the missile #'s position to blow away hordes of obsolete SLN BC's that will soon be raiding.....

Multiple pod exit points effectively eliminates the pod core issue. BCL's have the exact same issues with broadside Keyhole bays as that of BC'Ps. Once the multiple points of pod exits is added to the equation and therefore the pods/rails do not have to traverse all in a single direction where one hit eliminates 1/4 or more of your total missiles. Difference is, the BCL ship has an extra 750,000 tons of armor/sidewalls to deal with the issue. Follow on RMN BC'P added a load of armor at the Keyhole position. This also destroys the problem where all of the fusion rooms have to be in one end of the BCP.

I still find the Grayson BC'P design superior. Unless one can fire a pod and only fire a single missile or two from it and then "reel" it back in.

Personally, I would go with a mix of the two designs. Based more on the Grayson concept, but minus the single pod exit point. Would go with 4 myself. 2 forward and 2 aft. Dorsal/ventral. 160 or 240 Pods. Equals 2 or 3 waves of 80 pods that do not block sensors that can be tractored to the hull. With 14 broadside tubes as each pod has 14 MK-16s.

Since salvo size is more important than duration in modern combat this would mean, every 36s one would send 12 pods full and 2 double broadsides down range(224). Or if only 2 exit points for pod core, 140. Compared to the BCL's 100 and the BCP's 168.

PS> IF all pods now have the tractor, a BCP should continuously have at least 1/4-1/2 of its pod load attached via physical hooks on the surface of the ship. Why BCP and not BCL? Because when one goes into a grav wave or through a junction said pods are now exposed as there is no wedge/sidewall to interdict radiation for long periods of time at the very high relativistic velocities they travel and since pods die to EMP...

You could design and build a BC(P) the same size as a Nike BC(L). It would be tougher than an Agamemnon BC(P). It would still not be as tough as a Nike BC(L). It would still not have the ammo capacity to hang with SD(P)s.

Pod bays take up a lot of internal volume, and a BC(P) is just barely large enough for the Pod Bay and other internal components to squeeze in.


BC(P)s don't have the ammo capacity for extended or multiple engagements without reloading. A BC(L) has the ammo capacity for multiple extended engagements without reloading. That's the real issue with the ammo constraints. If your BC doctrine is such where extended deployments with limited ammunition support is common or expected, you want BC(L)s, not BC(P)s. If your BC doctrine is such where they don't stray far from their support, then the limitations of BC(P)s don't affect you as much.
RMN doctrine uses BCs much more freely, and sends them on long deployments.


The SLN/successor states might well go for BC(P)s while they're working towards SD(P)s.

The E wrote:Not much better, unfortunately. The basic problems with BC(P)s are that they can shoot themselves dry far too quickly and that the size constraints mean that they can't mount much in the way of armor over the missile core and can't carry the most advanced forms of missile defence (aka Keyhole 2) without severely compromising their main armor.

The BC(P), as a concept, only made sense when the RMN and GSN were the only ones with podlayers. During that very short period, BC(P)s were seen as an adequate weapons system to get more pods out into the field. The second war against Haven, however, showed the weaknesses of the class: They did not have the magazine space to act in support of the Wall, they were easily mission-killed (if not outright destroyed), and unlike previous RMN BC classes, they did not have the endurance for the sort of independent deployments the RMN traditionally uses BCs for. These are fundamental issues that even an extra quarter of a million tons of mass to play with can't really fix. At the end of the day, the BC(P) just is not a good fit for the RMN BC doctrine; I would not expect to see new members of the class after the shipyards have been rebuilt.

That isn't to say that other navies would be unable to find a use for the concept, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see what RFC has to say about that.

It is not an extra quarter million tons of mass. It is 750,000 additional tons. *3* quarters of a million tons of extra mass. Which works out to a 43% increase in mass. You don't think that big an increase in tonnage would make a difference in toughness? Particularly if the increase in mass was concentrated in defensive measures such as increased armor or more powerful sidewall generators?

And as far as the shoot themselves dry argument, I'd point out that according to House of Steel an Agamemnon BC(P) carries 360 pods. If the number of pods carried increases on a linear scale with the increase in mass than a 2.5M ton BC(P) would carry 514.8 pods (360x1.43). Not too shabby, considering that a Medusa SD(P)carries only 492 pods.

BCL 6000 missiles
BCP 360x14 = 5040 missiles...

Effectively there is no difference between the two in terms of missile endurance. Only main difference is the BCP can flush them +50% quicker.

PS. Medusa's Carry more than 500 pods. Pods have massively shrunk. They should total around 700-1000 now.

PPS. If a 2.5M ton BCP still has only a single exit point for its entire offensive capability, then all of RFC's numerous pearls on the subject BCL vrs BCP over at thefifthimperium.com are 100% valid.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/242/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/285/1
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/283/1
Armor: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/71/1

The E wrote:

darrell wrote:Because pods have the box launchers, tractros, etc. you can store more missiles in the same volume of internal magazines than you can with rails.

That doesn't seem to be true though.

Consider this:
Saganami-C. 487 kt of mass. 1200 missiles.
Nike. 2.5 Mt of mass. 6000 missiles.
Agamemnon. 1.75 Mt, carries 330 pods with 14 missiles each, for a combined total of 4620 missiles.

If we apply linear scaling based on the Sag-C and Nike, we find that the Agamemnon, at 3.5 times the mass of the Sag-C, should carry 4200 missiles. If we scale the Agamemnon up by a factor of 1.42 (to get to 2.5 Mt), we arrive at a completely theoretical missile capacity of 6560. That tells me that Podlayers, even factoring in the higher amount of infrastructure per missile, are able to match or exceed the missile load of a traditionally built ship.

First armor and other things don't scale lineally. A destroyer is about 15% offensive weapons, a SD is about 45%

Second the saganimi C has 8 grasers in it's broadside. To scale literally the argamenmon would need 28 and instead it has 10.

in addition the nike has 7,000 missiles in storage, not 6000, and it has """oodles""" more armor than the argamemnon has, so a higher percentage of the hull is armor and with that a lower percentage is weapons.

Relax wrote:BCL 6000 missiles
BCP 360x14 = 5040 missiles...

Effectively there is no difference between the two in terms of missile endurance. Only main difference is the BCP can flush them 33% quicker.

Capacity, not endurance. Capacity is indeed very similar.

But at max rate, the BC(L) will still be shooting when the BC(P) is dry.


The point is, a BC(P) is a high-intensity, low endurance warfighting specialist design, whereas the BC(L) is more of a lower intensity, greater endurance generalist design.
The BC(P) is a sprinter, and the BC(L) does cross-country.


And, let's be clear, the BC(L) really works because of fusion powered DDMs. Without the Mark 16, or an equivalent, the BC(P)'s ability to carry MDMs in its pod load is clearly the better option.
Manticore can build BC(L)s because they have the Mark 16 DDM. Without the Mark 16, they'd've kept building BC(P)s that could carry MDM pods.

BC(P)s are also better when you're expecting/planning/hoping for superior missiles of divergent designs. A BC(P) can easily upgrade to radically new missiles, it just requires a pod for them, whereas a BC(L) is much more restricted in upgrading its missile load - new missiles need to fit the physical constraints of the existing missile bays and tubes set by the old missiles, unless you intend to rip them out and replace them.