[SPOILERS]Should have brought a BC(P) or three to the party.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:That was because at Monica, the "Hexapuma" was using an older version of the Mk-16 missile. In the later battles, the RMN warships (at least those who had Mk-16 missiles) were using the G variant which came with a substantially more powerful warhead and thus did much more damage. In fact, the scene in _Storm from the Shadows_ that you quoted goes in to some detail on what the difference the Mk-16G would had made at Monica.

Thanks for the reply. Actually, that was referring to an earlier post by RFC that I might have misinterpreted. In reply to the question of "how many Mod G's are there to retrofit", RFC wrote:

Sure. But are the Gs really available in that large a number? They are a late arriving upgrade. Does the RMN recall all their deployed ships so their missiles can be remanufactured and then loaded back on those ships when an upgrade is released? Or do they build new missiles that get loaded on new ships and put into the stockpile and the old deployed missiles get worked on when (say) their 6 or 10 year depot inspection and service interval comes around?

First, the standard Mk-16 can kill anything smaller than an SD out there with no sweat, It's already well over twice as powerful as the standard SLN cruiser-grade warhead. Since they are no longer fighting SLN SDs, that makes the question moot in a lot of ways. However, there are a lot more "G" warheads available for refitting to existing missiles than there are Mark-23s to waste on operations where they aren't needed in the first place. I think that's part of the point that's getting missed here. The "standard" Mark-16 is fully adequate for any mission the GA is likely to face short of, oh, an invasion of the Sol System or 11th Fleet arriving at Manticore. For those waller-vs-waller battles, the Mark-23 is clearly the weapon of choice and that's largely what they're being conserved to fight. For anything less than that, the Mark-16 works just fine, a given ship can carry more of them, and the GA has one heck of a lot more of them.

I guess it's interpretation of what a "standard" Mk-16 is. I took it to mean the pre-upgraded models, since the discussion was about "standard" models and retrofits.

tachnyrus wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:That was because at Monica, the "Hexapuma" was using an older version of the Mk-16 missile. In the later battles, the RMN warships (at least those who had Mk-16 missiles) were using the G variant which came with a substantially more powerful warhead and thus did much more damage. In fact, the scene in _Storm from the Shadows_ that you quoted goes in to some detail on what the difference the Mk-16G would had made at Monica.

Thanks for the reply. Actually, that was referring to an earlier post by RFC that I might have misinterpreted. In reply to the question of "how many Mod G's are there to retrofit", RFC wrote:

Sure. But are the Gs really available in that large a number? They are a late arriving upgrade. Does the RMN recall all their deployed ships so their missiles can be remanufactured and then loaded back on those ships when an upgrade is released? Or do they build new missiles that get loaded on new ships and put into the stockpile and the old deployed missiles get worked on when (say) their 6 or 10 year depot inspection and service interval comes around?

First, the standard Mk-16 can kill anything smaller than an SD out there with no sweat, It's already well over twice as powerful as the standard SLN cruiser-grade warhead. Since they are no longer fighting SLN SDs, that makes the question moot in a lot of ways. However, there are a lot more "G" warheads available for refitting to existing missiles than there are Mark-23s to waste on operations where they aren't needed in the first place. I think that's part of the point that's getting missed here. The "standard" Mark-16 is fully adequate for any mission the GA is likely to face short of, oh, an invasion of the Sol System or 11th Fleet arriving at Manticore. For those waller-vs-waller battles, the Mark-23 is clearly the weapon of choice and that's largely what they're being conserved to fight. For anything less than that, the Mark-16 works just fine, a given ship can carry more of them, and the GA has one heck of a lot more of them.

I guess it's interpretation of what a "standard" Mk-16 is. I took it to mean the pre-upgraded models, since the discussion was about "standard" models and retrofits.

Wait - I thought it was impossible to modify an early model Mk-16 to the G mod.

The early mods (up to -E) had 5m laserheads, and a 10Mton nuke, just like all the other cruiser missiles, like the Mk 13 on the Star Knight. The Mk-16E (or was it E-1) mod replaced the sensors, grav lensing, and grav pinch with upgraded systems to allow better hitting, upgrade the nuke by a factor of 4x or so with better grav pinch, and increase the grav lensing to aim more energy at the existing cruiser type 5m laser rods.

The G mod rearranged the entire missile to incorporate 10m capital laser rods in the place of the 5m rods, include an even larger nuke, and all the other upgrades on the E-1. The result was a missile with modern capital energy output levels, but only 6 capital laser rods, instead of the 10 in a proper capital missile, like the mk 23.


So we should be saddled with some old missiles upgraded to be really nasty cruiser killers, and then modern missiles which can beat on capital ships.

Theemile wrote:

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:That was because at Monica, the "Hexapuma" was using an older version of the Mk-16 missile. In the later battles, the RMN warships (at least those who had Mk-16 missiles) were using the G variant which came with a substantially more powerful warhead and thus did much more damage. In fact, the scene in _Storm from the Shadows_ that you quoted goes in to some detail on what the difference the Mk-16G would had made at Monica.

tachnyrus wrote:Thanks for the reply. Actually, that was referring to an earlier post by RFC that I might have misinterpreted. In reply to the question of "how many Mod G's are there to retrofit", RFC wrote:

Sure. But are the Gs really available in that large a number? They are a late arriving upgrade. Does the RMN recall all their deployed ships so their missiles can be remanufactured and then loaded back on those ships when an upgrade is released? Or do they build new missiles that get loaded on new ships and put into the stockpile and the old deployed missiles get worked on when (say) their 6 or 10 year depot inspection and service interval comes around?

First, the standard Mk-16 can kill anything smaller than an SD out there with no sweat, It's already well over twice as powerful as the standard SLN cruiser-grade warhead. Since they are no longer fighting SLN SDs, that makes the question moot in a lot of ways. However, there are a lot more "G" warheads available for refitting to existing missiles than there are Mark-23s to waste on operations where they aren't needed in the first place. I think that's part of the point that's getting missed here. The "standard" Mark-16 is fully adequate for any mission the GA is likely to face short of, oh, an invasion of the Sol System or 11th Fleet arriving at Manticore. For those waller-vs-waller battles, the Mark-23 is clearly the weapon of choice and that's largely what they're being conserved to fight. For anything less than that, the Mark-16 works just fine, a given ship can carry more of them, and the GA has one heck of a lot more of them.

I guess it's interpretation of what a "standard" Mk-16 is. I took it to mean the pre-upgraded models, since the discussion was about "standard" models and retrofits.

Theemile wrote:Wait - I thought it was impossible to modify an early model Mk-16 to the G mod.

The early mods (up to -E) had 5m laserheads, and a 10Mton nuke, just like all the other cruiser missiles, like the Mk 13 on the Star Knight. The Mk-16E (or was it E-1) mod replaced the sensors, grav lensing, and grav pinch with upgraded systems to allow better hitting, upgrade the nuke by a factor of 4x or so with better grav pinch, and increase the grav lensing to aim more energy at the existing cruiser type 5m laser rods.

The G mod rearranged the entire missile to incorporate 10m capital laser rods in the place of the 5m rods, include an even larger nuke, and all the other upgrades on the E-1. The result was a missile with modern capital energy output levels, but only 6 capital laser rods, instead of the 10 in a proper capital missile, like the mk 23.


So we should be saddled with some old missiles upgraded to be really nasty cruiser killers, and then modern missiles which can beat on capital ships.

No, all that was really redesigned was the "front end" (the same "end" swapped out to turn strike weapons into EW platforms) to incorporate the new focusing fields, the more powerful nuke, and the larger fusing rods (I believe the number of rods was downsized, but I don't recall for certain without diving into notes I can't access at the moment. But the nuke didn't have to be physically larger to give a bigger "boom," and the Mark 16 --- like all RMN missiles --- was always designed so the same drive and power plant could be mated to different payloads. This is why in the books there is repeated mention of "x percent of the incoming salvo carried nothing but penetration aides." These are the same missile; different business end.

So for all intents and purposes, the "standard" Mark-16 is simply mated with a new terminal "bus" of approximately the same dimensions, so there's no problem refitting older Mark 16s to take the G laserhead.

Theemile wrote:Wait - I thought it was impossible to modify an early model Mk-16 to the G mod.

The early mods (up to -E) had 5m laserheads, and a 10Mton nuke, just like all the other cruiser missiles, like the Mk 13 on the Star Knight. The Mk-16E (or was it E-1) mod replaced the sensors, grav lensing, and grav pinch with upgraded systems to allow better hitting, upgrade the nuke by a factor of 4x or so with better grav pinch, and increase the grav lensing to aim more energy at the existing cruiser type 5m laser rods.

The G mod rearranged the entire missile to incorporate 10m capital laser rods in the place of the 5m rods, include an even larger nuke, and all the other upgrades on the E-1. The result was a missile with modern capital energy output levels, but only 6 capital laser rods, instead of the 10 in a proper capital missile, like the mk 23.

Some textev to clarify the details"

Storm From the Shadows
Chapter Thirty wrote:But now, thanks primarily to fallout from the Star Kingdom's ongoing emphasis on improving its grav-pulse FTL communications capability, BuWeaps had completed field testing and begun production of a new generation of substantially more powerful gravity generators for the cruiser-weight Mark 16. In fact, they'd almost doubled the grav lens amplification factor, and while they were at it, they'd increased the yield of the missile warhead, as well, which had actually required at least as much ingenuity as the new amplification generators, given the way warheads scaled. They'd had to shift quite a few of the original Mark 16's components around to find a way to shoehorn all of that in, which had included shifting several weapons bus components aft, but Helen didn't expect anyone to complain about the final result. With its fifteen megaton warhead, the Mark 16 had been capable of dealing with heavy cruiser or battlecruiser armor, although punching through to the interior of a battlecruiser had pushed it almost to the limit. Now, with the new Mod G's forty megaton warhead and improved grav lensing, the Mark 16 had very nearly as much punch as an all-up capital missile from as recently as five or six T-years ago.

Producing the Mod G had required what amounted to a complete redesign of the older Mark 16 weapons buses, however, and BuWeaps had decided that it neither wanted to discard all of the existing weapons nor forgo the improvements, so Admiral Hemphill's minions had come up with a kit to convert the previous Mod E to the Mod E-1. (Exactly what had become of the Mod F designation was more than Helen was prepared to guess. It was well known to every tactical officer that BuWeaps nomenclature worked in mysterious ways.) The Mod E-1 was basically the existing Mod E with its original gravity generators replaced by the new, improved model. That was the only change, which had required no adjustments to buses or shifting of internal components, and the new warheads could be fused seamlessly into the existing Mark 16 weapons queues and attack profiles. Of course, with its weaker, original warhead it would remain less effective than the Mod G, since its destructiveness was "only" doubled . . . while the Mod G laser heads' throughput had increased by a factor of over five.

tl;dr The "existing Mk16 was the Mod E with a fifteen Mton warhead. A kit (presubably) for field modification to Mod E-1 doubled throughput with the same warhead. the Mod G upgraded to a forty Mton warhead to get quintuple the throughput of a Mod E.

Mod E = 1x
Mod E-1= 2x
Mod G = 5x

I can't be the only one that finds all of these folks wanting to argue with the author about his own creation amusing.

Except for Himself, who probably finds it irritating at times.

Ya'll do realize that he can't be wrong, don't you?

He's the author. He literally just makes stuff up and it becomes canon.

jtg452 wrote:I can't be the only one that finds all of these folks wanting to argue with the author about his own creation amusing.

Except for Himself, who probably finds it irritating at times.

Ya'll do realize that he can't be wrong, don't you?

He's the author. He literally just makes stuff up and it becomes canon.

Although there will always be people who want to argue with the author about what is written; I think in most cases they are happy to receive an explanation or clarification on a subject, where they have reservations about something in the text.
But in every case, you are right to say the author is the authority.

tlb wrote:

jtg452 wrote:I can't be the only one that finds all of these folks wanting to argue with the author about his own creation amusing.

Except for Himself, who probably finds it irritating at times.

Ya'll do realize that he can't be wrong, don't you?

He's the author. He literally just makes stuff up and it becomes canon.

Although there will always be people who want to argue with the author about what is written; I think in most cases they are happy to receive an explanation or clarification on a subject, where they have reservations about something in the text.
But in every case, you are right to say the author is the authority.

I think it is more about consistency and worldbuilding beleivability. Of course, that second one--given that we all need to suspend some level of disbelief just to get into the story--will differ from person to person. Still, there's always going to be someone who argues there are disconnects in there. And there always will be--Even if Mr. Weber is the smartest person in the world, or even to ever exist, I am sure he can't create an entirely internally consistent world on this scale. I think he does a pretty good job.

My personal biggest issue with the Weber novels are actually the smaller things--various occasions where one page will have "7 ships engaged" and then proceeds to detail 2 destroyed, 1 breaks in half, then another 2 destroyed, and the remaining 3 functional ships engage again...Where the math makes my head break. Knocks me out of the story for a while. I try to console myself with all the various real battles in history where the numbers don't add up either, and remember it is just a story.

Granted, if I had written...how many millions of words now? I am sure I would have things like that in there too.

Mostly I browse these forums to see Mr. Weber's comments and replys and marvel at how well thought out it is overall.

Weird Harold wrote:
tl;dr The "existing Mk16 was the Mod E with a fifteen Mton warhead. A kit (presubably) for field modification to Mod E-1 doubled throughput with the same warhead. the Mod G upgraded to a forty Mton warhead to get quintuple the throughput of a Mod E.

Mod E = 1x
Mod E-1= 2x
Mod G = 5x

That makes a lot of sense - forgot about the Mod E-1 in my other post. Thanks for clearing this up! And to RFC for his replies as well.

jtg452 wrote:I can't be the only one that finds all of these folks wanting to argue with the author about his own creation amusing.


My personal biggest issue with the Weber novels are actually the smaller things--various occasions where one page will have "7 ships engaged" and then proceeds to detail 2 destroyed, 1 breaks in half, then another 2 destroyed, and the remaining 3 functional ships engage again...Where the math makes my head break. Knocks me out of the story for a while. I try to console myself with all the various real battles in history where the numbers don't add up either, and remember it is just a story.

Hmm, I think that depends on how you read it - or a comma was missed from the proof.
Try reading it this way :-

2 Destroyed (one of which Broke in Half)
2 More Destroyed.
Leaving 3 Functional ships.

Makes 7 and the maths works. Though why the detail on how one ship was destroyed out of the 4 is left to the reader :->

Sorry for replying to this fairly old post - I'm still catching up on the forum after finally getting a chance to read Uncompromising Honor.

runsforcelery wrote:For that matter, the individual birds' seekers are just as capable as the Mark 23's. What they lack is the data sharing and FTL telemetry node of the Mark 23-E, which limits what they can do with what their seekers and sensors can see.

Huh, I'd have assumed the Mk16's seekers were marginally less capable just because it's a smaller missile with less area for the sensor to go.

The Mk16 appears to be smaller in diameter (which is how you can fit 14 in the same cross section that holds just 10 Mk23s); I'd guesstimate it's maybe 85% the diameter of the Mk23. I'd have thought the smaller diameter would force a smaller sensor - which in turn would translate to a reduced capability. (Analogous to a smaller radar dish having less sensitivity - all else being equal)

How did Manticore end up with the same seeker performance when the Mk23's got probably 40% or more cm^2 frontal area available for its sensor?

runsforcelery wrote:(Oh, and by the by, the Demonic Duo at Bolthole are busy figuring out how to build the capability to launch Mark 23-Es in coordination with Mark 16 salvos to provide them with the same long-range telemetry and fire control capability. They already figured out how to put the data sharing node technology into the Mark 16; they just can't find a way to squeeze an FTL transceiver into a missile body that small. At the moment, they are looking at building one Mark 23-capable tube into each broadside of a Nike and/or fitting what amounts to a permanently attached external launcher with, maybe, a dozen cells apiece, each loaded with a Mark 23-E. If they can pull that off (which, I have to say, seems likely to me) then the Mark 16 will be just as accurate at extreme range as the Mark 23. I hope nobody who's read the earc for Uncompromising Honor missed the discussion that Honor had about Foraker and Hemphill's pairing Ghost Rider platforms and Hermes buoys as a sort of improvised Mark 23-E.)

While I agree with the snipped bits of your post I'd include the caveat that if the BC(P)s were carrying Apollo pods, not just Mk23s, then they get the control link multiplier effect of the 23-E. That would let them control much heavier salvos of Apollo than they can of Mk16. But of course they'd have had to pre-roll a lot of pods to generate those massive Apollo salvos. Also right now Apollo pods should be even scarcer than old Mk23s - and IMHO not to be wasted on ships that can't use the FTL fire control link.


Also while 23-E w/ Mk16 would be an interesting stop gap since nothing smaller than an SD(P) can currently carry the Keyhole II needed to take advantage of the 23-E's FTL capabilities wouldn't it make more sense in the medium term to develop a smaller control missile equivalent for the Mk16; a 16-E in effect?

To coordinate Mk16s you only need 2 drives, and you don't need the FTL control link transceiver - but you do need to node to node coordination and sensor sharing, the control link multiplier, and the improved "AI" expert systems (and probably more than 8 control links for attack missiles). A dedicated missile with, say, 10 to 12 control links so you could build a pod of 10 to 12 Mk16s + a Mk16-E would make BC(P)s much more dangerous without having to figure out how to stick the mismatched and overkill Mk23-E into the salvo.

(Of course if you do that now we've back to wondering if BC(L)s should start getting build with oversized missile tubes so they can launch the control missile; of if BC(P)s get to monopolize extremely long range BC lethality )