Keyhole Lite for smaller ships -- how?

Relax wrote:Aww, does logic repel you? I guess truth is a micro aggression in your world.

Logic works from premises. Seem to me the key premis when discussing controlling missile in a fictional universe is that missile control works like, and is subject to limitations, as the author says it does. Otherwise you're arguing about how it would work in come similar universe that works differently from the author's...

Weird Harold wrote:So, let us ignore Relax and design a KHL?

Anyway, yes, back to a keyhole lite. David's infodump on Future Ship Design mentions "The 300,000-ton notional ship they're looking at acquires a very large percentage of its total tonnage from additional defensive elements, including a scaled down version of the Keyhole One platform."
And somewhere I can't find at the moment I thought he'd talked about defensive only keyholes for lighter units.

Anyway a keyhole I does a variety of things (based on the infodumps)
A) offensive telemetry relay for DDMs/MDMs
B) defensive telemetry relay for CMs
C) off board sensors for sensor fusion w ship
D) self defense; PDLC, buckler walls, wedge, ECM
E) limited self-powering and self mobility (onboard power and wedge)

Scaling down from a Nike an obvious first step is to scale down the number of fire control links in proportion to the reduced throw weight if the smaller ship. But after that you need to start thinking of real compromises - for example:
- do you need a pair of them or could you somehow dock and use just one?
- does a CL or CA need to be able to fight while rolled; or if the missile threat is that high is it ok to go full defensive and run?
- do you need as much survivability for your keyhole; can you pull out some self-defensive measures? (Though that also weakens your ship defense)
- does it need to retain effectiveness if the parent ship can't tow and power it?
- do you need the sensor fusion, or can you rely on other ships or RDs to observe the enemy and make the keyhole blind?

Jonathan_S wrote:Anyway, yes, back to a keyhole lite. David's infodump on Future Ship Design mentions "The 300,000-ton notional ship they're looking at acquires a very large percentage of its total tonnage from additional defensive elements, including a scaled down version of the Keyhole One platform."

I'm unconvinced that 300 KTon is going to be a minimum size for future warships. The Avalon Class Light Cruisers are still being built and are serving well away from fleet battles.

House of Steel wrote:Avalon-class light cruiser
Mass: 146,750 tons
Dimensions: 461 × 48 × 37 m
Acceleration: 749.9 G (7.354 kps²)
80% Accel: 599.9 G (5.883 kps²)
Broadside: 10M, 4G, 8CM, 8PD

The Roland Class could use Keyhole and is 2/3 the size of the notional 300KTon Cruiser/Destroyer.

I think a KHL could be kept small enough for use on a ship somewhere between an Avalon and a Roland in size. Further advances in miniaturization portend smaller DDMs and smaller control links for an overall smaller KHL. I would figure on a 10%-15% reduction across the board before we start making cuts in capability.

Jonathan_S wrote:Anyway a keyhole I does a variety of things (based on the infodumps)
A) offensive telemetry relay for DDMs/MDMs
B) defensive telemetry relay for CMs
C) off board sensors for sensor fusion w ship
D) self defense; PDLC, buckler walls, wedge, ECM
E) limited self-powering and self mobility (onboard power and wedge)

The only thing on that list I would consider deleting would be E. A notional KHL wouldn't need on-board power and wedge. The on-board reactor is mostly required because of the amount of systems on KHI and KHII.

The sensors vs RD fusion question mostly depends on how much a FTL transceiver to talk to the drone would add to the unit and how much severely reducing on-board sensors would subtract. I think it would probably turn out a wash; either system would work. The RD option has more potential for expansion, but runs the risk of sensors being out of position when needed.

Light-speed links to RD sensors is a no-go, IMHO. They wouldn't be enough advantage over on-board sensors to be worth the trouble.

Jonathan_S wrote:Scaling down from a Nike an obvious first step is to scale down the number of fire control links in proportion to the reduced throw weight if the smaller ship. But after that you need to start thinking of real compromises - for example:

Wouldn't a first step be to reduce everything in proportion to the smaller ship's capabilities? Add or upgrade as necessary from that point.

Jonathan_S wrote:- do you need a pair of them or could you somehow dock and use just one?

For a smaller ship that is likely to be operating solo or division strength, there's not much point in juggling transmitters like KHII does. One unit will do the job, but having the redundancy of two would be nice. The second wouldn't need the ship-board support equipment if it purely a back-up unit that would take over the ship-board links if needed.

Jonathan_S wrote:- does a CL or CA need to be able to fight while rolled; or if the missile threat is that high is it ok to go full defensive and run?

Rolling for Keyhole equipped ships is more about clearing the KH units' sensors and line of sight. It is about putting more sensors on the target rather than a defensive move. That would actually be an argument for needing two KHLs with onboard sensors.

For a ship like a Roland, a KHL could provide the sensor capability it lacks in its Chase sensors and Fire Control. Such a configuration wouldn't roll ship but still gain a lot of benefit from keyhole.

Jonathan_S wrote:- do you need as much survivability for your keyhole; can you pull out some self-defensive measures? (Though that also weakens your ship defense)

After you reduce defenses proportional to the ship, add back what you have room for up to your target mass. If the ship might be tasked with fleet defense, add a bit more.

Jonathan_S wrote:- does it need to retain effectiveness if the parent ship can't tow and power it?

No, not really. That capability is frosting if you have a bit of extra room in your design target.

Jonathan_S wrote:- do you need the sensor fusion, or can you rely on other ships or RDs to observe the enemy and make the keyhole blind?

Sensors are probably the least necessary feature of Keyhole. As long as the datalink to the ship is intact, the Keyhole sees what the ship sees. On the other hand, sensors mounted on the Keyhole make up for the loss of sensors that would have occupied the Keyhole bay.

I kind of lean toward a dedicated RD FTL channel in place of on-board sensors; even if that is just a way of shifting some tonnage to the RD and lightening the KHL.

Weird Harold wrote:I'm unconvinced that 300 KTon is going to be a minimum size for future warships. The Avalon Class Light Cruisers are still being built and are serving well away from fleet battles.

Harold, the last time looked nothing was being built, unless Manticore managed to get one of their Grayson style yards working, and it was set up to build Avalons.

George J. Smith wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:I'm unconvinced that 300 KTon is going to be a minimum size for future warships. The Avalon Class Light Cruisers are still being built and are serving well away from fleet battles.

Harold, the last time looked nothing was being built, unless Manticore managed to get one of their Grayson style yards working, and it was set up to build Avalons.

OK

...was being built and will continue being built when yards are restored -- There are no other light cruiser designs ready for building so they'll be built until a new light cruiser design is drawn and accepted.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:Aww, does logic repel you? I guess truth is a micro aggression in your world.

Logic works from premises. Seem to me the key premis when discussing controlling missile in a fictional universe is that missile control works like, and is subject to limitations, as the author says it does. Otherwise you're arguing about how it would work in come similar universe that works differently from the author's...

Weird Harold wrote:So, let us ignore Relax and design a KHL?

The reasons, which I thought both of you should have already known, and which you have both described before, for why you cannot design a keyhole lite, is that we have zero information regarding tonnage breakdown of systems. We are told keyholes are huge... We are told they have these nifty capabilities, but we have zero knowledge of what quantity to tonnage ratios. We do not even have an inkling. That and in the SAG-C BCL thread debate where I was beating the drum for incorporating a single KH into a SAG-C @(LAC tonnage) 20,000 tons giving most of the defensive capability of the BCL/KH combo and therefore an unbeatable combination at a fraction of the ship cost. It would appear, that at 20,000 tons, or ~~LAC equivalent tonnage as described in AAC, RFC agreed with the logic, but wished his universe to have a firm place for the BCL and therefore, quickly made KH, gigantic by tripling the KH1 size and sextupling the KH2 size.

If it was me? Strip everything off of it other than control links and self motivation.

Then you have to delineate what a control link(systems) is and how many a CL should have. Then you have to compare this to the Keyholes which already exist. A comparatively small number. Which cannot be done as once again we have effectively zero information. The closest one can come to a comparison is to use the Markham class cruisers built by Erewhon where they designate, once again, some nebulous tonnage to "control links". (TOF)

So, as I said upthread: "why bother?" Unknown cannon KH which tripled/sextupled in size, divided by a known requirement still equals 100% unknown.

Therefore why the only avenue that can be argued is to use the existing com infrastructure. RD's. Which is relevant in the CL's case, not due to "reality", but due to the fact that a CL carries a lot of RD's and a CL requires very few "control links". One could theoretically even do a 1 RD to 1 "control link" ratio if one wished to be overly simplistic.

Ghost Rider killed this. So did the Shrike / Katana LAC.

Single Keyhole 'lite' can be towed like so many pods. Small ships don't carry internal or docked keyhole 'lite' because they are too small but they do tow lots of pods. Toss in a Keyhole 'lite' and it will fit nicely. Don't bother screwing with a ships missing space.