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

Jonathan_S wrote:

nrellis wrote:Inclusion of LACS into something the size of a Nike simply isn't possible.

According to House of Steel the Shrike is 71m long, and the Nike is 129m across; so the hanger would extend more than half way through the hull.

This either introduces a critical weakness to the core hull, or necessitates placing the hangers 'outside' the ship (which may in turn, compromise the design constraint the Alpha/Beta nodes place on starship design)

We don't have the physical dimensions of the Charles Ward (slightly larger than the Nike with removable 'cargo-pods'), but I think only large quantities of handwavium allow for it's construction.

Even the Minotaur/Hydra classes are suspect: approx 190m across with hangers on both sides means the core hull is only about 50m across, which has to include the magazines for the LACs, magazines for the ship's own weapons, engine rooms, machine shops and crew accommodations.

Pretty sure the Charles Ward carries her LACs oriented fore and aft, rather than nose in, so the hangers probably only need to be 25-30 meters deep. But that makes their hatch a much larger weak point in the side armor, and cuts more heavily into the space you could otherwise mount missiles, point defense, or sensor. (Not such a big issue on an armed repair ship than on a true warship)

I would upgrade differently. I would work to make it easier to upgrade as new weapons and systems come in. More modularization, more ways to get into key systems easily for replacements.

Over the past twenty years there have been lots of big changes and almost certainly without mentioning it much a host of little ones. Allowing easy upgrades would simply improve performance easily on a regular basis.

nrellis wrote:Inclusion of LACS into something the size of a Nike simply isn't possible.

It is quite easy to include LAC's into a BC if you think for 2s instead of type. The real question is why and what do they displace? What do you gain that isn't doable without them?

Bigger sensor reach? NO, RD's

Better defense? Not really in terms of defensive CM's throw weight tonnage that couldn't be better used as extra CM tubes, as the Keyhole has enormous excess capacity for CM control links compared to the single BC. I'd rather have 20k tons of CM's and extra tubes. Its not like LAC's are much faster than BC's and able to get out in front by 4Mkm and whittle the incoming alpha strike down significantly as they only have ~750g or so and the BC almost 700g so the delta is miniscule. Even if we assume the delta is 100g, it requires the LAC's to be advanced on the correct track 45 minutes in advance... And off hand 20k tons of CM/s and tubes is better firepower than a LAC.

Likewise the BC's have Keyhole which would leave the LAC's bare ass naked in comparison as they get to turn their wedge while the LAC's cannot, unless of course you could throw the LAC's CM's through the Keyhole, and if this is the case why bother?

For interdiction? Pinnaces/Shuttles are superior as you can go planetside.

Super long range? Add a Single Apollo tube fore and aft instead of a Graser and have them use the same FTL bandwidth that is used for Hermes Buoy's allowing video transmission bandwidth 200Mkm away. Honor already did so in AAC. No reason you can't do that on BC's as well. Oh boo hoo, "only" 80% FTL Apollo.

Modular and easier to access core components means far less energy is required to dissemble it. Like easier to dissemble when a 20mt equivalent weapon detonates in the launcher. Or when someone gets a solid hit on it.

Multi meter thick single piece composite armor is extremely tough. If you replace that with sections bolted together for easy access you have replaced an ultra-strong 500 cm thick plate with that of a couple of 20 cm bolts. Even really, really high quality bolts are just not going to nearly that strong. (Ok, This is a bit of an exaggeration, but not totally.)

If you think that mudularity and easy upgrades are essential you need to accept reduced survivability, since the things that make the ship able to take damage are exactly what makes it so difficult to upgrade.

kzt wrote:Modular and easier to access core components means far less energy is required to dissemble it. Like easier to dissemble when a 20mt equivalent weapon detonates in the launcher. Or when someone gets a solid hit on it.

Multi meter thick single piece composite armor is extremely tough. If you replace that with sections bolted together for easy access you have replaced an ultra-strong 500 cm thick plate with that of a couple of 20 cm bolts. Even really, really high quality bolts are just not going to nearly that strong. (Ok, This is a bit of an exaggeration, but not totally.)

If you think that mudularity and easy upgrades are essential you need to accept reduced survivability, since the things that make the ship able to take damage are exactly what makes it so difficult to upgrade.

Agreed. That's why planning ahead is good. If internal systems can be broken down into smaller parts it would be easy to bring them in and out of a ship.

It is precisely because it is so difficult to deal with armor that I made the suggestion. We know there will be many changes in ships. That's why some things should be able to work around the armor.

And finding ways to get through it armor and then repairing it to the degree that it is still safe would be a very good upgrade.