kzt wrote: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.
Yeah, I think past a certain point, magazine size is more of a strategic asset rather than a tactical one. Rolands are empty after one serious battle and become vulnerable until they rearm, whereas a Nike is intended to raid one system, then move onto another and another without dragging a missile collier around.
One issue I see is, tube-launching warships have to spend broadside surface area on launchers. This detracts from surface area available for everything else - fire control, point defense, countermissiles, sidewall generators, armour, etc.. Probably why the Nike has so "few" more missile launchers compared to the Sag-C.
So in the final analysis, a SD(P) is probably the more effective unit, especially if they keep beefing up defensive capabilities.