It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

24 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3

It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Theemile » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:46 pm
Theemile Fleet Admiral Posts: 5241 Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH	That's Right, it's 1924 and you're been promoted to be the new project director of the Nike BC relaunch project. You have all the designs and capability to build a Nike-A from 1922, but it's been hinted that it would further your career if the design were "tweaked" for the better. Given the details we know of 1922 Honorverse Combat and where tech is going, how would you modify the Nike-B? (Oh -a better Compensator and the Streak drive are already to be included ) ****** RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top

by Theemile » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:46 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

That's Right, it's 1924 and you're been promoted to be the new project director of the Nike BC relaunch project. You have all the designs and capability to build a Nike-A from 1922, but it's been hinted that it would further your career if the design were "tweaked" for the better.

Given the details we know of 1922 Honorverse Combat and where tech is going, how would you modify the Nike-B?

(Oh -a better Compensator and the Streak drive are already to be included :mrgreen:

)

******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Imaginos1892 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:32 pm
Imaginos1892 Rear Admiral Posts: 1332 Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm Location: San Diego, California, USA	The Nike-A is already about as good as it gets without putting in features that would push it up to an overweight battleship, or a scrawny dreadnought. The only thing I can think of that would expand its combat capability and still keep it as a functional battlecruiser would be hangars for 4 to 12 LAC's. They couldn't be full-function transverse launch bays like on a CLAC, but more like boat bays designed to dock, carry and service one or two LAC's each. Possibly located in the tapered sections. A small LAC contingent would offer a lot of flexibility on detached solo missions. How many times have we heard a captain lament that her ship could only be in one place at a time? ——————————— What’s more dangerous than a polar bear? A bipolar bear!
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Imaginos1892 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:32 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

The Nike-A is already about as good as it gets without putting in features that would push it up to an overweight battleship, or a scrawny dreadnought.

The only thing I can think of that would expand its combat capability and still keep it as a functional battlecruiser would be hangars for 4 to 12 LAC's.

They couldn't be full-function transverse launch bays like on a CLAC, but more like boat bays designed to dock, carry and service one or two LAC's each. Possibly located in the tapered sections.

A small LAC contingent would offer a lot of flexibility on detached solo missions. How many times have we heard a captain lament that her ship could only be in one place at a time?
———————————
What’s more dangerous than a polar bear? A bipolar bear!

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Jonathan_S » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:50 pm
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8792 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	I don't think that BuShips would go for it, but IIRC the early design studies on the Mk-23E Apollo FTL control missile said that it wasn't possible to squeeze the FTL transceiver into a normal Mk23 without giving up one of the drives. How much would you have to give up to take Nike from a Keyhole I w/ Mk16 DDMs to a Keyhole II with tubes of Mk23 derived FTL controlled DDMs? Without the 23E you wouldn't get the 8x control link multiplication - but you'd have the same reach as the Mk16 with an even bigger nastier warhead plus FTL fire control... Still that would probably cost you another 2/3 - 3/4 million tons. And even with the reduced powered range it encourages BC(L)s to try to stand against SD(P)s. So like I said, can't see BuShips approving this. Though on a related note I wonder how much extra size/mass it would take to add, say, just 1 FTL tranceiver to each Keyhole. That would let a Nike towing Apollo pods have a 16 missile FTL 'sniper' shot. Not so impressive on its own, but an 4 or 8 ship formation would then have a not insignificant ability to whittle down a near-peer opponent at very long range before having to finish the fight with their on-board Mk16s.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Jonathan_S » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:50 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

I don't think that BuShips would go for it, but IIRC the early design studies on the Mk-23E Apollo FTL control missile said that it wasn't possible to squeeze the FTL transceiver into a normal Mk23 without giving up one of the drives.

How much would you have to give up to take Nike from a Keyhole I w/ Mk16 DDMs to a Keyhole II with tubes of Mk23 derived FTL controlled DDMs?

Without the 23E you wouldn't get the 8x control link multiplication - but you'd have the same reach as the Mk16 with an even bigger nastier warhead plus FTL fire control...

Still that would probably cost you another 2/3 - 3/4 million tons. And even with the reduced powered range it encourages BC(L)s to try to stand against SD(P)s. So like I said, can't see BuShips approving this.

Though on a related note I wonder how much extra size/mass it would take to add, say, just 1 FTL tranceiver to each Keyhole. That would let a Nike towing Apollo pods have a 16 missile FTL 'sniper' shot. Not so impressive on its own, but an 4 or 8 ship formation would then have a not insignificant ability to whittle down a near-peer opponent at very long range before having to finish the fight with their on-board Mk16s.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by feyhunde » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:05 pm
feyhunde Lieutenant Commander Posts: 144 Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:30 am	Grav Lances for everyone! But really I'd cut energy weapons to the minimum. I'm not in favor of removing all grasers, but I'd halve or more the 28 grazers to maybe a dozen. We still need energy weapons for specific engagements, especially for the sort of traditional jobs BCs do. The biggest question is what to do with the additional space. I like the David Taylor multi-mission ability. I wonder if modular compartments could be used here for differing roles. However I think being a light LAC carrier like the David Taylor is silly. The David Taylor class are already designed to be BC size, and able to hang with BC's but with added repair refit space. We could also throw on more pods, but that's best against big fleets, not small fleets/small actions BC's are best for. I'd probably add a mixture of more throw weight and proportionally more arsenal space with the reduction of grazer mounts. Eg. add more missile tubes and increase the storage. It seems like a good all around compromise compared to a BCP which will shoot itself dry and can't hang. BC's shouldn't be doing SDPs jobs.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by feyhunde » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:05 pm

feyhunde
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:30 am

Grav Lances for everyone!

But really I'd cut energy weapons to the minimum. I'm not in favor of removing all grasers, but I'd halve or more the 28 grazers to maybe a dozen. We still need energy weapons for specific engagements, especially for the sort of traditional jobs BCs do.

The biggest question is what to do with the additional space. I like the David Taylor multi-mission ability. I wonder if modular compartments could be used here for differing roles. However I think being a light LAC carrier like the David Taylor is silly. The David Taylor class are already designed to be BC size, and able to hang with BC's but with added repair refit space. We could also throw on more pods, but that's best against big fleets, not small fleets/small actions BC's are best for.

I'd probably add a mixture of more throw weight and proportionally more arsenal space with the reduction of grazer mounts. Eg. add more missile tubes and increase the storage. It seems like a good all around compromise compared to a BCP which will shoot itself dry and can't hang. BC's shouldn't be doing SDPs jobs.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Imaginos1892 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:16 pm
Imaginos1892 Rear Admiral Posts: 1332 Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm Location: San Diego, California, USA	feyhunde wrote:Grav Lances for everyone! They already have them. The only thing 'new' about HMS Fearless, CL-56, was putting one on such a small ship. I think even the Rolands have grav-lances, useless as they are. ——————————— When you're young, spend your money chasing women. You can still drink when you're old.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Imaginos1892 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:16 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

feyhunde wrote:Grav Lances for everyone!

They already have them. The only thing 'new' about HMS Fearless, CL-56, was putting one on such a small ship. I think even the Rolands have grav-lances, useless as they are.
———————————
When you're young, spend your money chasing women. You can still drink when you're old.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Grashtel » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:30 pm
Grashtel Captain of the List Posts: 449 Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:59 am	Imaginos1892 wrote: feyhunde wrote:Grav Lances for everyone! They already have them. The only thing 'new' about HMS Fearless, CL-56, was putting one on such a small ship. I think even the Rolands have grav-lances, useless as they are. ——————————— When you're young, spend your money chasing women. You can still drink when you're old. I am quite certain that BuShips have dropped Grav Lances from the more recent designs with the new focus on missile range combat making them even less useful than when energy range fights were expected to be the norm. This is especially true for the smaller designs, ~20 kilotons is a lot of mass to spend on a weapon system of decidedly limited utility even in energy combat given how tight they are on space.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Grashtel » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:30 pm

Grashtel
Captain of the List

Posts: 449
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:59 am

Imaginos1892 wrote:
feyhunde wrote:Grav Lances for everyone!

They already have them. The only thing 'new' about HMS Fearless, CL-56, was putting one on such a small ship. I think even the Rolands have grav-lances, useless as they are.
———————————
When you're young, spend your money chasing women. You can still drink when you're old.

I am quite certain that BuShips have dropped Grav Lances from the more recent designs with the new focus on missile range combat making them even less useful than when energy range fights were expected to be the norm. This is especially true for the smaller designs, ~20 kilotons is a lot of mass to spend on a weapon system of decidedly limited utility even in energy combat given how tight they are on space.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Relax » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:50 pm
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Add: Outlets for pod endurance(shocker ultimate high tech) More CM tubes. Its defensive capability is still far lower than its offensive capability. Or wave your wand and decrease the time between salvos. Or... Gasp!(NO!), carry a pod or two of nothing but CM's to allow them to meet alpha strikes from planetary pod deployment, otherwise, one of the BC's main roles(raiding) is essentially dead in the modern environment. Pods are dirt cheap compared to Hypercapable ships. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Relax » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:50 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Add:
Outlets for pod endurance(shocker ultimate high tech)
More CM tubes. Its defensive capability is still far lower than its offensive capability. Or wave your wand and decrease the time between salvos. Or... Gasp!(NO!), carry a pod or two of nothing but CM's to allow them to meet alpha strikes from planetary pod deployment, otherwise, one of the BC's main roles(raiding) is essentially dead in the modern environment. Pods are dirt cheap compared to Hypercapable ships.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by munroburton » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:57 pm
munroburton Admiral Posts: 2375 Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am Location: Scotland	Jonathan_S wrote:I don't think that BuShips would go for it, but IIRC the early design studies on the Mk-23E Apollo FTL control missile said that it wasn't possible to squeeze the FTL transceiver into a normal Mk23 without giving up one of the drives. How much would you have to give up to take Nike from a Keyhole I w/ Mk16 DDMs to a Keyhole II with tubes of Mk23 derived FTL controlled DDMs? Without the 23E you wouldn't get the 8x control link multiplication - but you'd have the same reach as the Mk16 with an even bigger nastier warhead plus FTL fire control... Still that would probably cost you another 2/3 - 3/4 million tons. And even with the reduced powered range it encourages BC(L)s to try to stand against SD(P)s. So like I said, can't see BuShips approving this. Though on a related note I wonder how much extra size/mass it would take to add, say, just 1 FTL tranceiver to each Keyhole. That would let a Nike towing Apollo pods have a 16 missile FTL 'sniper' shot. Not so impressive on its own, but an 4 or 8 ship formation would then have a not insignificant ability to whittle down a near-peer opponent at very long range before having to finish the fight with their on-board Mk16s. I was thinking a similar concept to this. The only tweak would be to squeeze Apollo-sized launchers into the hammerheads. One in each would be acceptable, although I'd prefer two.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by munroburton » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:57 pm

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Jonathan_S wrote:I don't think that BuShips would go for it, but IIRC the early design studies on the Mk-23E Apollo FTL control missile said that it wasn't possible to squeeze the FTL transceiver into a normal Mk23 without giving up one of the drives.

How much would you have to give up to take Nike from a Keyhole I w/ Mk16 DDMs to a Keyhole II with tubes of Mk23 derived FTL controlled DDMs?

Without the 23E you wouldn't get the 8x control link multiplication - but you'd have the same reach as the Mk16 with an even bigger nastier warhead plus FTL fire control...

Still that would probably cost you another 2/3 - 3/4 million tons. And even with the reduced powered range it encourages BC(L)s to try to stand against SD(P)s. So like I said, can't see BuShips approving this.

Though on a related note I wonder how much extra size/mass it would take to add, say, just 1 FTL tranceiver to each Keyhole. That would let a Nike towing Apollo pods have a 16 missile FTL 'sniper' shot. Not so impressive on its own, but an 4 or 8 ship formation would then have a not insignificant ability to whittle down a near-peer opponent at very long range before having to finish the fight with their on-board Mk16s.

I was thinking a similar concept to this. The only tweak would be to squeeze Apollo-sized launchers into the hammerheads. One in each would be acceptable, although I'd prefer two.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by drothgery » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:25 pm
drothgery Admiral Posts: 2025 Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:07 pm Location: San Diego, CA, USA	I'd pretty much go along with the idea that the Nike is the closest thing to a future-proof design in the current RMN inventory. The only obvious scale-up (to Mark 23/Apollo capability) would push the ship from the fringe of BB-sized to well into it.
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by drothgery » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:25 pm

drothgery
Admiral

Posts: 2025
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

I'd pretty much go along with the idea that the Nike is the closest thing to a future-proof design in the current RMN inventory. The only obvious scale-up (to Mark 23/Apollo capability) would push the ship from the fringe of BB-sized to well into it.

Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?
by Jonathan_S » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:51 pm
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8792 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	Wouldn't be much (if any) change to the ship, but I've always wonders why ERM drive tech (25%+ extended drive time) hadn't been combined with DDM/MDM tech. Okay, pre-Apollo the MDMs could already reach further than they could reasonably be controlled; so no reason to bother. But if you could give each of the drives of a Mk16 25% longer endurance you'd up its terminal velocity by 25% and its continuously powered range by 56% (to just over 45 million km) Would you have to install a larger fuel tank for the microfusion reactor? Are the ERM/LERM drive nodes larger than the normal endurance ones? Something's been keeping them from combining these two capabilities...
Top

Re: It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

by Jonathan_S » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:51 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Wouldn't be much (if any) change to the ship, but I've always wonders why ERM drive tech (25%+ extended drive time) hadn't been combined with DDM/MDM tech. Okay, pre-Apollo the MDMs could already reach further than they could reasonably be controlled; so no reason to bother.

But if you could give each of the drives of a Mk16 25% longer endurance you'd up its terminal velocity by 25% and its continuously powered range by 56% (to just over 45 million km)

Would you have to install a larger fuel tank for the microfusion reactor? Are the ERM/LERM drive nodes larger than the normal endurance ones? Something's been keeping them from combining these two capabilities...

Top

24 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?