The New GA Capital Ships

I would suggest that the pause in building SD(P)s is partially intended to provide time to reevaluate the basic concept.

Pod warfare was premised on the need to lauch more missiles in a salvo than can be launched from internal tubes. (Pesky little issues such as conservation of momentum caused the concept to be suspect to me, but what the heck) The mass of the missile pod could be better utilized to carry more missiles. Witness the fact that the BC(P) carries about 3,600 missiles while Nike carries 6,000 missiles plus a feces load of CMs. The capacity to delay drive activation demonstrated by Niki, Saganami C and Rolland class ships raises doubts about the future of podnaughts.

The RMN and GSN are likely to develop a new generation of capitol ships that are to an SD(P) what a Nike is to a BC(P). Think Apollo missiles and their broods launched from internal tubes with delayed drive activation to enable stacked salvos. (I am still operating on the assumption that Weber employed a trick in the Battle of Manticore in AAC to enable Honor to multiply her FTL control links beyond normal. The trick would be exploiting Hermes buoys and Recon Drones as FTL control links.) Imagine a SD with 100 missile tubes and a dozen Apollo tubes launching a dozen patterns for a stacked salvo of 1,200 missiles. Mimagine this SD carrying enough missiles internally to launch perhaps 20 such salvos.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The RMN and GSN are likely to develop a new generation of capitol ships that are to an SD(P) what a Nike is to a BC(P).

The flaw in that train of thought is size/acceleration. There is an upper limit on ship size/displacement that can be accelerated by a wedge; SD(p)s are already pushing that limit.

A Nike BC(L) is somewhere around 50% bigger than a BC(p); a corresponding increase over a current generation SD(P) is going to encounter that upper size limit and have severely reduced acceleration under impeller drive.

Also, podnaughts have the advantage of being more versatile than tubelaunchers; upgrading to newer missiles (or down-grading to older/smaller missiles) is a matter of loading different pods. Upgrading fire control/tactical systems is the same for both types, but as long as there is a "legacy control" option, such as Apollo has, the missiles can be pretty much anything that will fit in a flat-pack pod.

Weird Harold wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The RMN and GSN are likely to develop a new generation of capitol ships that are to an SD(P) what a Nike is to a BC(P).

The flaw in that train of thought is size/acceleration. There is an upper limit on ship size/displacement that can be accelerated by a wedge; SD(p)s are already pushing that limit.

A Nike BC(L) is somewhere around 50% bigger than a BC(p); a corresponding increase over a current generation SD(P) is going to encounter that upper size limit and have severely reduced acceleration under impeller drive.

Also, podnaughts have the advantage of being more versatile than tubelaunchers; upgrading to newer missiles (or down-grading to older/smaller missiles) is a matter of loading different pods. Upgrading fire control/tactical systems is the same for both types, but as long as there is a "legacy control" option, such as Apollo has, the missiles can be pretty much anything that will fit in a flat-pack pod.

You pretty much covered what I was going to say.

Weird Harold wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The RMN and GSN are likely to develop a new generation of capitol ships that are to an SD(P) what a Nike is to a BC(P).

The flaw in that train of thought is size/acceleration. There is an upper limit on ship size/displacement that can be accelerated by a wedge; SD(p)s are already pushing that limit.

A Nike BC(L) is somewhere around 50% bigger than a BC(p); a corresponding increase over a current generation SD(P) is going to encounter that upper size limit and have severely reduced acceleration under impeller drive.

Also, podnaughts have the advantage of being more versatile than tubelaunchers; upgrading to newer missiles (or down-grading to older/smaller missiles) is a matter of loading different pods. Upgrading fire control/tactical systems is the same for both types, but as long as there is a "legacy control" option, such as Apollo has, the missiles can be pretty much anything that will fit in a flat-pack pod.

It's a valid point. To account for the tonnage difference: The BC(P) has 1 missile per 486 tons. The BC(L) has 1 per 419 tons, an improvement of roughly 15%.

The real question is whether a tube SD can be designed which has enough launcher capacity to match pod deployment rates - can it attain that ~15% magazine increase without severely compromising other combat capabilities?

munroburton wrote:The real question is whether a tube SD can be designed which has enough launcher capacity to match pod deployment rates - can it attain that ~15% magazine increase without severely compromising other combat capabilities?

It should be theoretically possible to simply roll individual missiles instead of pods. Lots of niggling fiddly bits to work out to program and power-up missiles without the support systems in tubes or pods, but it could theoretically be done.

munroburton wrote:
It's a valid point. To account for the tonnage difference: The BC(P) has 1 missile per 486 tons. The BC(L) has 1 per 419 tons, an improvement of roughly 15%.

The real question is whether a tube SD can be designed which has enough launcher capacity to match pod deployment rates - can it attain that ~15% magazine increase without severely compromising other combat capabilities?

I still feel it’s totally crazy to compromise on anything else to produce deeper magazines. With BCs and above, they don’t run out of ammo. They blow up well before that in an extended fight. Survivability is far more of an issue than magazine size. As is fire control capability. The BC(p) had some absurdly low capability.

There are also the issues of salvo density and wedge interaction.

The Nike's are a bit less than triple the mass of a flight II reliant, but add only three missiles in a broadside. Missiles aside, its firepower advantage comes from being able to fire off-bore and stack salvos. That worked for BCs against a navy with similar tech.

I don't think it'd scale the same way for an SD. The Agamemnon class is almost double the mass of a flight II Reliant, and the Nike closer to three, but an Invictus is barely 430k-tons heavier than the Gryphon. Even dialing back the number of energy mounts, that makes it a question of how many launchers can you pack in while still 1) not packing them so close the missiles kill each other with their wedges, and 2) not blinding the grav-pulse link with the Keyhole II.

Toss in the need for some of those launchers to be apollo-command tubes and useless for standard offensive missiles (but I suppose could be used for CM canisters). And such an arrangement would lose the ability to a) go on rolling pods for other ships even if it loses keyholeII/fire control, and b) the ability to stack pods into huge (per ship) salvos.

Kael Posavatz wrote:There are also the issues of salvo density and wedge interaction.

The Nike's are a bit less than triple the mass of a flight II reliant, but add only three missiles in a broadside. Missiles aside, its firepower advantage comes from being able to fire off-bore and stack salvos. That worked for BCs against a navy with similar tech.

I don't think it'd scale the same way for an SD. The Agamemnon class is almost double the mass of a flight II Reliant, and the Nike closer to three, but an Invictus is barely 430k-tons heavier than the Gryphon. Even dialing back the number of energy mounts, that makes it a question of how many launchers can you pack in while still 1) not packing them so close the missiles kill each other with their wedges, and 2) not blinding the grav-pulse link with the Keyhole II.

Toss in the need for some of those launchers to be apollo-command tubes and useless for standard offensive missiles (but I suppose could be used for CM canisters). And such an arrangement would lose the ability to a) go on rolling pods for other ships even if it loses keyholeII/fire control, and b) the ability to stack pods into huge (per ship) salvos.

There are a lot of other factors not mentioned yet. Nike's are far tougher than the podlayers. Also, they are far more versatile. The podtossers are good in major battles. But remember that the Hexapumas were the ones who smashed up Crandall's fleet.

How big, how many missiles are going to be needed right away? The Sollies have a lot of ships but they can't really beat the top GA ships. The GA looks like the nations are getting closer, friendlier.

The Nikes might be the best ships to send around for a while. Work with them until there are some really useful upgrades that call for bigger models.

ldwechsler wrote:

Kael Posavatz wrote:There are also the issues of salvo density and wedge interaction.

The Nike's are a bit less than triple the mass of a flight II reliant, but add only three missiles in a broadside. Missiles aside, its firepower advantage comes from being able to fire off-bore and stack salvos. That worked for BCs against a navy with similar tech.

I don't think it'd scale the same way for an SD. The Agamemnon class is almost double the mass of a flight II Reliant, and the Nike closer to three, but an Invictus is barely 430k-tons heavier than the Gryphon. Even dialing back the number of energy mounts, that makes it a question of how many launchers can you pack in while still 1) not packing them so close the missiles kill each other with their wedges, and 2) not blinding the grav-pulse link with the Keyhole II.

Toss in the need for some of those launchers to be apollo-command tubes and useless for standard offensive missiles (but I suppose could be used for CM canisters). And such an arrangement would lose the ability to a) go on rolling pods for other ships even if it loses keyholeII/fire control, and b) the ability to stack pods into huge (per ship) salvos.

There are a lot of other factors not mentioned yet. Nike's are far tougher than the podlayers. Also, they are far more versatile. The podtossers are good in major battles. But remember that the Hexapumas were the ones who smashed up Crandall's fleet.

How big, how many missiles are going to be needed right away? The Sollies have a lot of ships but they can't really beat the top GA ships. The GA looks like the nations are getting closer, friendlier.

The Nikes might be the best ships to send around for a while. Work with them until there are some really useful upgrades that call for bigger models.

It will be some while before a new iteration of any class of ships roll out. Sonja and Shannon have reams of data to sift through from Ganymede PLUS the Streak and the Spider drives. Not to mention the sheer headaches of combining their respective staffsa nd bringing Haven's people up to Manrticore's speed.

And there is battle data from Beowulf to analyze which will spur improvements in sensors. Until that python lump is digested, whichmay take several years, it is pointless to design newer ships since there is no way to predict what changes to current designs would be needed.

Weird Harold wrote:

munroburton wrote:The real question is whether a tube SD can be designed which has enough launcher capacity to match pod deployment rates - can it attain that ~15% magazine increase without severely compromising other combat capabilities?

It should be theoretically possible to simply roll individual missiles instead of pods. Lots of niggling fiddly bits to work out to program and power-up missiles without the support systems in tubes or pods, but it could theoretically be done.

It has been done. That's exactly what's happening when they fire off-bore, double-stacked salvoes. They're pushing the missiles out, but delaying ignition while changing their attitudes. Extending that delay has to be trivial; if it's not just a setting in the software, then a bigger battery or whatever.

If a ship is under power, just push missiles out the stern** tubes, phut-phut-phut. They don't even need to be pushed hard -- just enough to get them clear of the compensator's field, after which they fall out the bottom of the ship's wedge at x gees.


** Now bow tubes ... I'm not sure how those work. They've got to throw missiles forward fast enough that they can start their wedges before they get run over by the ship. Which seems like a lot.