Courvosier II broadside tubes

IIRC, the RMN's BC(P) were not designed around Mk23s, they were designed around an earlier model missile who's designation I forget. I doubt the GSN would have designed their ships around a missile that they not only could not build but did not officially know existed.

Some more details. They might not be relevant:

The Minotaurs were the very first ships to be built from the keel out to fire the new (at the time) Mk41 capacitor-driven multi-drive missile, though they carry them in too few numbers to be more than a minor deterrent against anything larger than a heavy cruiser.

and

Starting in 1920 PD, the Flight II Hydras have had their launch tubes and magazines configured to fire the Mk23 fusion-powered MDM rather than the much larger Mk41;

Do we have a new contender - MK41 launchers on the Courvosier-IIs?

munroburton wrote:Some more details. They might not be relevant:

The Minotaurs were the very first ships to be built from the keel out to fire the new (at the time) Mk41 capacitor-driven multi-drive missile, though they carry them in too few numbers to be more than a minor deterrent against anything larger than a heavy cruiser.

and

Starting in 1920 PD, the Flight II Hydras have had their launch tubes and magazines configured to fire the Mk23 fusion-powered MDM rather than the much larger Mk41;

Do we have a new contender - MK41 launchers on the Courvosier-IIs?

Yes

munroburton wrote:Some more details. They might not be relevant:

Starting in 1920 PD, the Flight II Hydras have had their launch tubes and magazines configured to fire the Mk23 fusion-powered MDM rather than the much larger Mk41;

Do we have a new contender - MK41 launchers on the Courvosier-IIs?

The Mk41 being much larger because it was capacitor powered and enough capacitors to run the missile for 9 minutes takes up way more space than the Mk23s microfusion power plant and enough fuel for that same time.

(Not sure if Mk41 was the designation for the original Buttercup era missiles or if there was more than one generation of MDMs before Mk23.

Well the celerynthief has posted a few times since I put this thread up and he still has not answered the question.

cthia wrote:Internal tubes are always going to be more flexible and convenient though, right?

Nope. Internal tubes are limited to ONE type of missile -- with whatever payload packages are available for that type of missile.

Pods are somewhat limited by what is preloaded into the pod, so it would not be as easy to increase pen-aids and ECM except for large salvos where eight, ten, or fourteen GR birds aren't overkill for pen-aids. But as long as a missile can be fit into a flat-pack pod's dimensions -- or a pod that will fit on the launch rails for flat-pack pods -- a Pod-naught is (nearly) infinitely up-gradable.

With internal tubes you do have the option of selecting payload type and programming for each missile, but if you've got pre-war missile tubes, you're limited to pre-war missiles and ECM.

Grayson probably considered both viewpoints and opted for some internal tubes for the most advanced missiles available at the time of construction to get the tactical flexibility of internal tubes and the strategic firepower of a pod-naught. Unfortunately, the BC(p) concept in general was a relative failure because of limited magazine capacity and less-than good armor possibilities.

Weird Harold wrote: Unfortunately, the BC(p) concept in general was a relative failure because of limited magazine capacity and less-than good armor possibilities.

I will point out that we don't actually have a single example of a BC(P) shooting itself dry.

The examples shown have them all getting blown up (with mostly full magazines) by SD(P) 3 stage missiles while the BC(P) are loaded with 2 drive missiles that can't effectively attack SDs.

kzt wrote:I will point out that we don't actually have a single example of a BC(P) shooting itself dry.

The examples shown have them all getting blown up (with mostly full magazines) by SD(P) 3 stage missiles while the BC(P) are loaded with 2 drive missiles that can't effectively attack SDs.

Blown up when used against significantly heavier and numerous opposition. When used as for operations they were designed for, they were fine.

The responses are inspiring me to speculate that perhaps the internal launchers are not designed for either the Mk-23 whose design specs were not yet available or the Mk-41 which was to honking huge to be anything except a bow chaser.

Perhaps the GSN retained internal tubes to fire the same missile carried by the Courvosier I BC?

BTW, I believe that the RMN and GSN would be designing new missiles with more advanced technology to fit the tubes on existing ships. However; this would not work with massively upsized MDMs or fusion powered missiles that require new support equipment.

Potato wrote:

kzt wrote:I will point out that we don't actually have a single example of a BC(P) shooting itself dry.

The examples shown have them all getting blown up (with mostly full magazines) by SD(P) 3 stage missiles while the BC(P) are loaded with 2 drive missiles that can't effectively attack SDs.

Blown up when used against significantly heavier and numerous opposition. When used as for operations they were designed for, they were fine.

But also not shooting themselves dry.
However we've never seen BC(P) vs BC(P) combat. Nor really any BC(P) vs peer BC combat.

Certainly the RMN based on what combat experience they've gotten with BC(P)s (usually in sub optimal roles) and simulations, seem to feel the BC(L) is a better option going forward; but we've really seen little to no objective evidence that they're right.