BC(C) (Spoiler Within)

kzt wrote:

Theemile wrote:1) you still disrupt the core hull, the armored area at the center of a warship where the reactors and other essential components are housed.

I don't think BCs necessarily have the sort of core that a SD has. Which is why it was much easier to pull Nike's reactor through the bottom of the hull.

"Honor nodded in agreement. The R&D types' latest armor—a complex ceramic and metal alloy unbelievably light for its volume and toughness—was formed in place as part of the basic hull matrix, not added on later. That gave it vastly improved integrity against damage but meant there were no convenient sections to pull in the event of repairs. On the other hand, armor, however light, still used mass. No warship had that to waste, and since a warship's impeller wedge protected it against fire from above or below, BuShips' designers armored the inner areas of its top and bottom lightly or not at all in order to maximize protection elsewhere.

"Nike was no wall of battle ship, but leaving her top and bottom unarmored let her flanks carry twelve centimeters of side armor over more critical areas and as much as a meter over her vitals—like her fusion rooms. That much battle steel could stand up to a near-miss from a megaton-range nuke . . . and sneered at the best efforts of a standard laser cutter. Indeed, getting through it was a nightmare job even with chem-catalyst gear."

Check the In Fire Forged armor segment, even Star Knights had a core hull with armoring over it's vitals.

Theemile wrote:

kzt wrote:I don't think BCs necessarily have the sort of core that a SD has. Which is why it was much easier to pull Nike's reactor through the bottom of the hull.

"Honor nodded in agreement. The R&D types' latest armor—a complex ceramic and metal alloy unbelievably light for its volume and toughness—was formed in place as part of the basic hull matrix, not added on later. That gave it vastly improved integrity against damage but meant there were no convenient sections to pull in the event of repairs. On the other hand, armor, however light, still used mass. No warship had that to waste, and since a warship's impeller wedge protected it against fire from above or below, BuShips' designers armored the inner areas of its top and bottom lightly or not at all in order to maximize protection elsewhere.

"Nike was no wall of battle ship, but leaving her top and bottom unarmored let her flanks carry twelve centimeters of side armor over more critical areas and as much as a meter over her vitals—like her fusion rooms. That much battle steel could stand up to a near-miss from a megaton-range nuke . . . and sneered at the best efforts of a standard laser cutter. Indeed, getting through it was a nightmare job even with chem-catalyst gear."

Check the In Fire Forged armor segment, even Star Knights had a core hull with armoring over it's vitals.

Theemile: The Star Knight is the smallest RMN ship that's able to have a core hull. Edit: At least, at the time it was built. Newer ships that have "size-creep" going on may even have core hulls down to CL size. Not sure about that.

kzt: I wouldn't trust that textev too much, as it's been superceded. A Nike certainly has more than 12cm of hull armor - the current version of the Star Knight (that BuNine has worked out) has a hull thickness - at the centerline - of nearly 4 METERS, dwindling down to about 2.3 meters at the "corners". The hull is about 30cm thick on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Now, not all of that 4 meters is necessarily armor, in the sense of solid matter - some of it is reaction mass storage, water storage, etc., which can also be used as armor, or at least, a buffer.

The point is that a Nike (a BC), especially a new one with a new armor scheme (and the previous Nike as well), would likely have thicker armoring than a Star Knight (a CA), with it's pre-1900 armoring.

Recall that what we at BuNine are doing is using the Star Knight as a baseline for all other RMN warships - everything gets done on the SK first, and then we do it on the rest of the ships. We have sketches of the armoring scheme for the SK, and I have modeled some of it (needed to in order to figure out how to fit the weapons into it while still having the core hull - it hasn't been easy).

MaxxQ wrote:

Theemile wrote:
Check the In Fire Forged armor segment, even Star Knights had a core hull with armoring over it's vitals.

Theemile: The Star Knight is the smallest RMN ship that's able to have a core hull. Edit: At least, at the time it was built. Newer ships that have "size-creep" going on may even have core hulls down to CL size. Not sure about that.

kzt: I wouldn't trust that textev too much, as it's been superceded. A Nike certainly has more than 12cm of hull armor - the current version of the Star Knight (that BuNine has worked out) has a hull thickness - at the centerline - of nearly 4 METERS, dwindling down to about 2.3 meters at the "corners". The hull is about 30cm thick on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. Now, not all of that 4 meters is necessarily armor, in the sense of solid matter - some of it is reaction mass storage, water storage, etc., which can also be used as armor, or at least, a buffer.

The point is that a Nike (a BC), especially a new one with a new armor scheme (and the previous Nike as well), would likely have thicker armoring than a Star Knight (a CA), with it's pre-1900 armoring.

Recall that what we at BuNine are doing is using the Star Knight as a baseline for all other RMN warships - everything gets done on the SK first, and then we do it on the rest of the ships. We have sketches of the armoring scheme for the SK, and I have modeled some of it (needed to in order to figure out how to fit the weapons into it while still having the core hull - it hasn't been easy).

MaxxQ, the ongoing discussion isn't necessarily about the old Nike, but about a hypothetical big-BC sized LAC carrier with asymmetric broadsides to allow the LAC bays to fit. One iteration mention above was to have the bays stacked so the top bays went to one broadside and the bottom went to the other. One of several concerns I brought up (and kzt was referring to) was the bays would need to inhabit the region of the core hull, displacing vitals like reactors closer to the unarmored skin.

There is already a mini-carrier. The text exemplar is the armed fleet auxiliary Charles Ward, which is a modular supply ship. It carries 8 LACs, which seem to be part of the permanent part of the ship, not one of the bolt-on modules.

This concept seems to make a great deal of sense for a smaller task force.

Theemile wrote:
MaxxQ, the ongoing discussion isn't necessarily about the old Nike, but about a hypothetical big-BC sized LAC carrier with asymmetric broadsides to allow the LAC bays to fit.

I understand that. What I wrote to you was just a clarification of what you said about the Star Knights having a core hull.

Theemile wrote:One iteration mention above was to have the bays stacked so the top bays went to one broadside and the bottom went to the other. One of several concerns I brought up (and kzt was referring to) was the bays would need to inhabit the region of the core hull, displacing vitals like reactors closer to the unarmored skin.

I understand that as well. However, kzt was using textev that was incorrect regarding the thickness of the ship armor. That was all I was pointing out. I agree that LACS in a BC-sized ship would displace the core hull - I've mentioned it myself before.

That said, I agree with kzt about one thing: that a BC would not have the same core hull as an SD. The armor would be somewhat thinner, just like the hull armor would be a bit thinner than that of an SD.

OTOH, being a "carrier", this proposed design would most likely ALSO have thinner armor than any other non-carrier warship of equivalent mass. As others have mentioned, carriers are usually kept away from the main force, and therefore, not as vulnerable to becoming a primary target.

MaxxQ wrote:OTOH, being a "carrier", this proposed design would most likely ALSO have thinner armor than any other non-carrier warship of equivalent mass. As others have mentioned, carriers are usually kept away from the main force, and therefore, not as vulnerable to becoming a primary target.

Well on the other other hand, this notional Battlecruiser/Battleship sized carrier, we're attempting to design as a fast attack carrier. Something to keep up with the cruiser fleets, such as Laocoon II task groups. As ship sizes go down, the odds of being able to keep away diminishes along with weapon ranges. The carrier would need to stay closer to the cruisers so they can throw DDM's at anything closing on it, or else stay completely beyond the hyper limit (in which case, a full DN/SD carrier serves just as well).


I'm almost starting to have thoughts of a second design on this concept, but more of a Forward Operating Base style ship. Somewhere between a cross of a freighter and a carrier, on the basis of the old submarine UNREP ships. If Honor's suggestion from First Hancock about tying fast minelayers (one each per squadron division, with a total of 2 with Reliant Nike's division), you could easily tie in one of these notional LAC UNREP "freighters" into defensive nets, and allow combat reloading of LACs on the go.

The only thing those would need is approximately 15 feet for the LAC to slide into just enough to hold it still, while the high-speed arms the Tamale T-001 had in WoH

War of Honor, Ch 55 wrote:Even if the Peeps had been able to match the extended range of the RMN's capital ship missiles, it would have taken them the better part of three hours to get into effective attack range of "the Tamale." That was plenty of time for the 1007 th to strip the standby packages off of its LACs and replace them with a load that made sense, especially since the high-speed magazine tubes were the one part of T-001's conversion which had always worked perfectly.

-snip-

"Override Group's ammunitioning instructions," she told Benedict flatly. The exec looked at her, and she shrugged. "We've got time if you get right on it," she said. "Use the squadron interlinks to the station magazine queue. I want a Lima-Roger-Two package loaded to all ships ASAP. Anybody in the station crew asks any questions, refer them to me."

-snip-

"Missile reload complete in approximately nine minutes, Ma'am," Benedict reported formally. "Time to launch now eleven-point-three minutes." He looked up from his displays. "It'll be tight, Skip," he said much more informally, "but we'll make it."

Something with a similar arm system, could almost combat reload LAC's on their missile and Viper loadouts, and since it wouldn't have the full size LAC docking bays, could also be far more heavily armored. It can also carry a considerably heavier counter-missile/Viper loadout because it could dip into the LAC stocks to aid in defending itself.

One or two of these, lets put them at around Nike BC(L) size, and essentially mobile LAC replenishment units could resupply an entire Havenite SD's worth of LACs on all their missiles, CMs and Vipers, and also be aiding in the cruiser defenses while the LACs are unrepping.

JohnRoth wrote:There is already a mini-carrier. The text exemplar is the armed fleet auxiliary Charles Ward, which is a modular supply ship. It carries 8 LACs, which seem to be part of the permanent part of the ship, not one of the bolt-on modules.

This concept seems to make a great deal of sense for a smaller task force.

At 20% bigger than a Nike-class BC(L) I'm not sure how 'mini' a 3mton David Taylor-class FSV is But you have a good point - I'd forgotten those weren't from a bolt-on LAC bay module.

Though all the other functions of the fast combat support vessel do mean it only carries a handful of LACs (8) despite massing half as much as a DN sized CLAC that can carry north of a hundred.


And with, presumably, just 4 on each flank they might even be docked parallel to the ship, rather than nose in, to save hull depth.

Somtaaw wrote:I'm almost starting to have thoughts of a second design on this concept, but more of a Forward Operating Base style ship. Somewhere between a cross of a freighter and a carrier, on the basis of the old submarine UNREP ships. If Honor's suggestion from First Hancock about tying fast minelayers (one each per squadron division, with a total of 2 with Reliant Nike's division), you could easily tie in one of these notional LAC UNREP "freighters" into defensive nets, and allow combat reloading of LACs on the go.

The only thing those would need is approximately 15 feet for the LAC to slide into just enough to hold it still, while the high-speed arms the Tamale T-001 had in WoH

[snip]
Something with a similar arm system, could almost combat reload LAC's on their missile and Viper loadouts, and since it wouldn't have the full size LAC docking bays, could also be far more heavily armored. It can also carry a considerably heavier counter-missile/Viper loadout because it could dip into the LAC stocks to aid in defending itself.

One or two of these, lets put them at around Nike BC(L) size, and essentially mobile LAC replenishment units could resupply an entire Havenite SD's worth of LACs on all their missiles, CMs and Vipers, and also be aiding in the cruiser defenses while the LACs are unrepping.

RFC has talked about Manticore's BuShips looking into a more heavily defended CLAC to stick with the fleet, in-system, to rearm LACs.

Though the thought I had is that based on how compensator fields have been explained your design might suffer acceleration loss while you've got a load of LACs nosed in - extending the maximum beam out (temporarily) by about 133 meters (each LAC would stick out 71-4.5 = 66.5 meters if nosed in just 15 feet). If based on a BC(L) sized hull that would make the combination 30% wider than an SD(P). Distorting the compensation field that much is going to make you more sluggish than an SD(P) while the LACs are reloading...

(Depending on the tactical situation, and how much compensator advantage the RMN is enjoying that day, that may or may not be a significant problem)

Something I have never really understood about LAC designs is why their weapon loadouts are not modular. Manticore already has exceptional missile pod technology that can limpet to the outside hull of warships.

Reloading LACs in the heat of combat is rather faster if all they have to do is jettison a weapons module and receive a replacement. No docking required. Rather than design a whole new class of ship for tactical LAC resupply Manticore could simply revamped BC(P) designs, modified to handle LAC weapon modules instead of antiship missile pods.

Your LACS could even perform in multiple roles in the same battle. If the enemy alpha strike is going to be huge, then the first LAC loadout could be a Katana antimissile module. Then, after the enemy alpha strike is spent, LACs drop their katana modules and pick up anti-ship modules.

This also allows LACs to be smaller in cross section, since their weapons modules wouldn't be attached when docked.

Jonathan_S wrote:RFC has talked about Manticore's BuShips looking into a more heavily defended CLAC to stick with the fleet, in-system, to rearm LACs.

Though the thought I had is that based on how compensator fields have been explained your design might suffer acceleration loss while you've got a load of LACs nosed in - extending the maximum beam out (temporarily) by about 133 meters (each LAC would stick out 71-4.5 = 66.5 meters if nosed in just 15 feet). If based on a BC(L) sized hull that would make the combination 30% wider than an SD(P). Distorting the compensation field that much is going to make you more sluggish than an SD(P) while the LACs are reloading...

(Depending on the tactical situation, and how much compensator advantage the RMN is enjoying that day, that may or may not be a significant problem)

Well that notional LAC FOB ship could be designed with an oversized compensator, and just building the ship small; would that work? As long as it can dock a reasonable* amount of LAC's at one time for re-arming which in WoH was a 9 minute timeframe for a converted station.

If the oversized compensator, undersized ship works, than even an FOB Saganami-C would work, LAC's could 'dock' just long enough for the arms to slide new missiles into their nose mounted rotary launchers and more CMs/Vipers, and undock again from within an SD compensator field.

*Reasonable to me would be at least squadron quantity, which was 10 LACs per squadron iirc in Ashes, although I'll have to double check to be certain what Rear Admiral Truman was organizing like. At ~9 minutes per squadron of 10, and almost 10 squadrons per RMN CLAC, you're still looking at slightly under 2 hours expended, if you include time spent docking/undocking.

Still a large chunk of time, but since you wouldn't need to spend 2 or 3 hours just to rendezvous with the real CLAC and then 2-3 hours back to the fighting force it's also a considerable saving in time.