Git your pencils out and design me a ship!

munroburton wrote:The magic of Keyhole is deceptively simple - its job is to maintain a line of sight to both its mothership and the enemy target or incoming missiles. It's essentially one of those fancy curved cameras special forces use to peek around corners without exposing themselves to direct fire. All the keyhole has to do is point its bow or stern at the mothership and then it can roll to keep its broadside arrays focused upon the target. The mothership's tractors will keep it in formation, though obviously the Keyhole is capable of independent maneuvering to some extent.

Keyhole classification is a mess. As far as I can make out, Keyhole-I was only for anti-missile defense(possibly only fitted on SD(P)s), then Keyhole-II added telemetry relays for missiles.

There are at least two Keyhole-II platforms, a smaller version used for Nike(with six telemetry arrays) and a larger version on the Invictus(with eight arrays). The larger one is Apollo capable, the smaller is not.

Therefore, I'd say making the CL-X's keyholes defensive only is a retrograde step. Perhaps sacrifice the second platform for full capabilities on the first, tucked into the dorsal or ventral side?

While At All Costs primarily talked about the CM control links of the Mark 20 "Keyhole" platform - because the ships were trying to weather massive system defense pod swarms, so offensive fire control wasn't plot relivant at the time .

However a few of D'Orville's older (non Apollo capable) Home Fleet ships had Keyhole and part of her plan for the Battle of Manticore included "And set up your firing sequences to have the older ships deploy their pods first. We'll try to hold the internal pods as long as we can. I want the Keyhole ships to manage as many of the other units' pods as possible in the opening salvos." - which does confirm what I believe David said elsewhere, that the original Keyhole platforms had full offensive and defensive fire control links.


As for the CL-X, I agree that stripping the offensive fire control from it's keyholes is a significant reduction in capability. But if a 2.5 mton Nike class had to give up so much to mount a pair of full Keyhole's there's no way you'd squeeze even one into a < 0.5 mton ship - something has to go. (And of course RFC did talk about the possibility of a defensive only keyhole-lite platform; which is where I got the idea)
Still it's possible that even for that you have to give up too much to be worth it, and that you'd be better off with a Roland-style CL rather than a stripped down Sag-C. (OTOH if you went with Sag-C inspired I couldn't see the justification for calling it a CL unless something to a chunk of it's firepower away; otherwise it's just another CA)


And for Skimper's post that slipping in while I was writing this, I've only time now to note that a for similar missile densities a defensive only Keyhole is going to be noticably smaller than an offensive only one; because CM control links are smaller (being shorter ranged).

CM links are just main sensors tracking up close. You don't just track up close. If you do a ballistic DDM is going to surprise and kill you.

What is the role of your CL?

Instead of Keyhole why not just use a flanking of Ghost Rider platforms dedicated to CM firecontrol. The only reason you have keyhole is offensive and all the PD it carries.

Jonathan, a couple notes..

While I'm I'm fairly certain it was a mental slip, a slight correction from above - the Avalon design uses the mk36 LERM, not the mk14 ERM as stated; a much smaller, destroyer/CL weight missile.

On Keyhole: Keyhole has evolved through many iterations off screen to get to where it is currently. The original design was a 20 K-ton offensive link only version with only LS fire control links. The current 60 (KH1) and 120 (KH2) K-ton modules currently add PDLCs, free flight, self power, and the ability to act as a retransmit and receive point for all of a warship's external communications an sensors. All Keyholes were at their hart offensive minded - KH2 added Apollo to the mix. The Battlecruisers still carry KH1 modules, with no Apollo capability.

Including PDLCs may require an onboard reactor to power them - increasing the size of each Keyhole. Beyond that, if a module can be built to control 45 salvos of 400+ ship killers in a salvo out to ~90 MKM on a 20 K-ton platform, I don't see why you can't squeeze the capacity to control ~30 CM x11 salvos out to 4 MKM, in a slightly smaller design, giving the possibility of some PDLCs in the same mass.

Originally I thought you should have some ship killer fire control in the KH, but the more I thought about it, if a CL with 28 Mk16s is in a position where it has to stay with it's wedge towards the enemy, it needs to get out of dodge as quickly as possible, and offensive systems are secondary to defensives.

Size wise, I think you are a bit large. A design like this will probably cut the Sag-Cs 1200 missiles roughly in half - a CL usually carries fewer missiles per launcher than a CA, and 600 missiles (and the magazines) masses around 60 Ktons. A similar savings on CMs will probably net ~20Ktons. Slicing the decks and the launchers and emitters, will probably get you into the 380-400 Kton range, assuming ~20 Kton Keyhole module

Duckk wrote:Keyhole I has always provided offensive control links. KH2 simply upgrades those to FTL. Also, KH1 has been fitted to Agamemnons and Nikes, not just SD(P)s.

Got it now. Well, I did say it was a mess! The main confusion is from the SDs and BCs both getting "MK20 platforms" whilst the lineart shows they're different.

Jonathan_S wrote:While At All Costs primarily talked about the CM control links of the Mark 20 "Keyhole" platform - because the ships were trying to weather massive system defense pod swarms, so offensive fire control wasn't plot relivant at the time .

However a few of D'Orville's older (non Apollo capable) Home Fleet ships had Keyhole and part of her plan for the Battle of Manticore included "And set up your firing sequences to have the older ships deploy their pods first. We'll try to hold the internal pods as long as we can. I want the Keyhole ships to manage as many of the other units' pods as possible in the opening salvos." - which does confirm what I believe David said elsewhere, that the original Keyhole platforms had full offensive and defensive fire control links.


As for the CL-X, I agree that stripping the offensive fire control from it's keyholes is a significant reduction in capability. But if a 2.5 mton Nike class had to give up so much to mount a pair of full Keyhole's there's no way you'd squeeze even one into a < 0.5 mton ship - something has to go. (And of course RFC did talk about the possibility of a defensive only keyhole-lite platform; which is where I got the idea)
Still it's possible that even for that you have to give up too much to be worth it, and that you'd be better off with a Roland-style CL rather than a stripped down Sag-C. (OTOH if you went with Sag-C inspired I couldn't see the justification for calling it a CL unless something to a chunk of it's firepower away; otherwise it's just another CA)

I missed that RFC hint, which is why I suggested a single keyhole platform per ship. It's the other obvious concession to make and even has a small bonus in that it only compromises the armour scheme in one place.

From the sounds and size of your Defensive Keyhole you would do better carrying two Katana, with no offensive fire control the Katana can keep you alive longer and can take complete control of your defenses. Leaving your ship to act as some kind of offensive ship.

How about making a CL Roland With Two Katana in Keyhole D side docks. 50% Larger than a Regular DD Roland with Marines and greater Missile reloads. Plus additional Prize crew if your Marines are not cross trained. Mount minimal CM and PD on the Roland CL keep the five lasers on the broadside and have a crew of 85 plus 50 Marines plus 10-20 Katana Crew.

Lord Skimper wrote:I pick lasers and many small because I want to add range to missile defense PDLC. And maintain offensive punch. Grasers are a useless weapon system that is not going to be anymore. Grasers just take up space 99% of the time. And on that 1% 99% of that time many smaller lasers will just be as good.

Wrong, just plain wrong. a destroyer laser will virtually never penetrate a battlecruiser's sidewalls unless you're at point blank range. Meanwhile the battlecruiser has been shooting the crap out of you from 500,000 km to 1,000,000 km away with HIS grasers. Many, many small lasers = bad, less but bigger grasers = good. If you really need the point defense, that's what adding more PDLC's are for, they fire faster because they have more lasing rods, and they're designed for stopping missiles. Broadside beams only join in for missile defense because you're looking at too many missiles that PDLC and CM's alone cannot possibly stop enough.

Lord Skimper wrote:Given that crew levels were, but are not anymore, the problem with the number of ships. The Nike becomes the new everything cruiser. The only ship small enough for every role yet large enough to operate in MDM environments. Give it MDM and you are golden.

Not everything requires a hammer, something you seem to have issues understanding. Smaller = faster to build = you have more in your fleet.

And Manticore NEEDS lots and lots of SMALL ships, to protect all its merchants. It doesn't need "Jesus level" warships, that have in-built "I win" features that you want to build.

Lord Skimper wrote:Honors CL crew size was hard pressed on Basilisk Station. You want to do the same thing with less crew. On Basilisk Station bigger guns make no difference. You need more crew to fulfill the mission. In current times that is a bigger ship.

Honor's ship in OBS was doing the work of an entire flotilla alone, she should have had at least another 2 or 3 ships helping out, but Janacek downsized the picket to just TWO ships, and Fearless was one. And then Young stabbed her in the back, and used slick paperwork to pull the heavy cruiser Warlock out, leaving Fearless to do it all alone.... and you seem to have memory issues because Fearless did it just fine solo. Which means a slightly larger ship with only a small crew increase, can do the same job anywhere else.

You send a destroyer where you need a destroyer, you don't send a battlecruiser or superdreadnought to do a destroyer's job.

Lord Skimper wrote:1.5-2.5Mtons. Think bigger, then see what you can do. Remember DDM missiles are a stop gap. They are here now but in 20 years they are your Achilles heel. MDM upgrade or full option now is your answer.

CL have no place in the MDM future. Much like Grasers, useless tech that will never be used.

No, just no... you have no comprehension at all of how missile defence works. There's a reason every single battlecruiser squadron has assigned heavy cruisers, which themselves have LIGHT cruisers attached to them. It's called assisted point defense. All the ships help defend one another, but if you only have super big ships, you have weaker defenses than a proper fleet that's well blended assuming both sides have roughly equal technology.

munroburton wrote:I missed that RFC hint, which is why I suggested a single keyhole platform per ship. It's the other obvious concession to make and even has a small bonus in that it only compromises the armour scheme in one place.

I've though about single keyhole designs, but most hull area is already in heavy use. You could go asymetric broadsides, with the keyhole only on the, say, port side. That would be the least disruptive. But there are usually good reasons not to unbalance a ship like that; and you certainly wouldn't want either side carrying less defenses - and arguably in the era of off-bore missiles retaining balanced energy mounts is more important than balanced missile mounts (plus they probably take up a little less broadside real estate). So maybe you can have a design where one broadside gives up 4 - 6 tubes to squeeze in a single keyhole...

Another option would be to put it on the ventral side. A little more annoying to deploy, and the beamed power and data link ports couldn't be integrated into the dock (because the wedge would block them). But most of the available space down there is hanger bays. I guess you could go to a less efficient broadside mounting for the hangers - but now they're more vulnerable to damage.


In a pod layer the pod hatch might be big enough to dock a keyhole nose in without blocking the aft sensors and point defense; though that would marginally slow your ability to roll pods when surprised. (And remember you need those sensors and PDLCs for safe flight, as they're used to deal with anything too big for the particle and rad screens to shrug aside. Relativistic micrometeorites will ruin your whole day. (And since you're going backwards about as often as you're going forwards you can't pick either end to permanently block. (Though I guess with a single keyhole you could potentially, at the risk of complicating your manouvers, do a shell game if you could clamp it on to either end. Just have it undock and fly around to the other end when you perform turnover. I guess you'd really only need both ends' point defense during missile combat - at which time the keyhole would be deployed well away from the ship anyway. But adding a docking ring, even a non-recessed one, would have to still have some impact on the hammerhead's hardware.

Jonathan_S wrote:(And remember you need those sensors and PDLCs for safe flight, as they're used to deal with anything too big for the particle and rad screens to shrug aside. Relativistic micrometeorites will ruin your whole day. (And since you're going backwards about as often as you're going forwards you can't pick either end to permanently block. (

?? You are never going backwards. That's why the ships flip, they only accelerate and only forward.

kzt wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:(And remember you need those sensors and PDLCs for safe flight, as they're used to deal with anything too big for the particle and rad screens to shrug aside. Relativistic micrometeorites will ruin your whole day. (And since you're going backwards about as often as you're going forwards you can't pick either end to permanently block. (

?? You are never going backwards. That's why the ships flip, they only accelerate and only forward.

Should have probably used better phrasing. The ship only accelerates forwards; which as you say is why it flips ship.

But after flipping it's flying 'backwards', aft first, applying an acceleration vector away from its destination to kill it's velocity. So it needs the aft point defense to handle any micrometeorites it might be about to run over.

Jonathan_S wrote:But after flipping it's flying 'backwards', aft first, applying an acceleration vector away from its destination to kill it's velocity. So it needs the aft point defense to handle any micrometeorites it might be about to run over.

OK. But there really isn't any reason why you need or should have them docked at that point. Other than when you have the sails deployed you can have them KH deployed.

And they shouldn't block anything if they are properly designed anyhow.