Hybrid missile/Graser Torp

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Oops, I'd missed that point you'd been making.

I'd have to go look through the books for any examples where MDM combat started at less than 41 million km; I'd thought it was more commonly kicked off at around 50-55 (out of a powered range of 65). At that range L-L-L is better than H-H-H; though not as good as a "mixed" drive setting.

There is not a single battle before end of Lovat where Honor were limited by BCP's firing DDM Mk-16 which had a range greater than 40Mkm. Though one did happen "off screen" at Zanzibar at extreme range.

Text search for "million k" looking for MDM missile launch ranges.
Echoes of Honor
2nd Hancock - HMS Minotaur opens fire at 9 million km; first operational use of MDMs. But that's a 180 second burn time; so a 3-drive full power shot.

2nd Basilisk - White Haven's 8th fleet and the pods launched at 95,000 gees at 5 million km. While not explicitly called out as an MDM launch that has to be full power, and it'd take 2 drives to still be powered at intercept. Also that's a 47,500 gee half-power; not quite as good at the 48,000 gee missiles used in AoV at Elric and Barnett but way better than the Mk23's 42,000 gees.

Ashes of Victory
Barnett - White Haven's 8th fleet launches at about 15 million km, 96,000 gees - so again full power drives.

War of Honor
Maastricht - RHN launched at about 15 million km (and the Manticoran picket was planning to launch their towed pods [they were all pre-pod units, but included some SDs] at 13 million. However no acceleration or time of flight numbers were provided for the Haven launch or the Mantie counter-launch.

Grendlesbane - The Peeps wiped out the defending SD(P)s "from a range in excess of forty million kilometers" (but no acceleration or time of flight numbers were given - so can't tell the launch profile used)

Sidemore/Marsh - Honor against Tourville "more than two full light-minutes lay between TF 34 and Second Fleet and it would take almost seven minutes for even Manticore's missiles to cross that stupendous gulf of vacuum". (Over 35.9 million km is kind of vague - but this does seem like a low power shot as a high power plus ballistic could cover that range in 365 seconds or about 6 minutes. So this does look like a sub-optimal MDM launch profile.)

At All Costs
Alizon raid - Mantie defenders launched at low power at about 64 million km at "well over forty thousand gravities" (low power)

Zanzibar raid - outer system pods were launched at about 51 million km, at an approximate flight time of 8.4 minutes (low power)

Chantilly raid - Bellefeuille launched her hidden pods on Oversteegen an HMS Nike at 85.2 lightseconds (25.5 million km) with a flight time of 6.13 minutes. The Manties were moving away at a good clip, but should only extend that range by a 2-3 million km during the missile's flight time, so that looks more like a low power shot (30.4 million km from rest) than a high power one w/ a ~3 minute coast (34.9 million km). So again this does look like a sub-optimal MDM launch profile

OTOH this was the initial distraction launch so a slower flight time might have been seen as a plus to Jennifer Bellefeuille; but on the gripping hand after covering over 25 million km their closing speed was 173,000 KPS (0.58c) and I can't see how those numbers work - depending on actual full power acceleration number you might get to 0.56c at burnout; but 0.58 would require over 99,000 gees. But at half power you need at least 6.4 minutes and 33.4 million km to work up ot 0.58c.

Solon - Giscard launched on Honor at 30.45 million km, with a 7 minute flight time, and an accel of 416.75 KPS^2 (or 42,525 gee). Yet again this does look like a sub-optimal MDM launch profile


I ran out of time to dig through the later books (or anything past chapter 36 of AAC) but I'd clearly misremembered the common engagement ranges. You're right, we've already got a few examples of 2nd war fights happening closer than 40 million km yet using the low power setting; despite that taking longer to reach the target.

Theemile wrote:

cthia wrote:
A podlayer that has no tubes? Is there such a mythical beast in GA folklore?

Yes, they are called Agamemmons and Invicti. While Grayson included some shipkiller tubes in their 2nd gen podpaughts, Manticore did not, in favor of larger pod bays.

BTW, Havenite podnaughts have no shipkiller tubes, nor is there any reference of Andermani podnaughts carrying (or not carrying) missile tubes.

All of course, have CM tubes.

Thanks Theemile. I really didn't get the memo on that. And I'm gob smacked. A totally pod laying design in that manner would seriously limit the utility of a warship, wouldn't it?

There has got to be tactical downsides to having no tube launchers.

Cthia wrote:Thanks Theemile. I really didn't get the memo on that. And I'm gob smacked. A totally pod laying design in that manner would seriously limit the utility of a warship, wouldn't it?

There has got to be tactical downsides to having no tube launchers.

for a lighter combatant? yes

but RFC mentioned early in the series that ships in the wall of battle struggled to see past missile impeller wedges, he liked it to gunsmoke of a Napoleonic ship, which was one reason some navies didn't think SDs needed super fast reload times.

This along with the extra fragility and other in universe reasons that RFC has never gone into (or that i have seen anyway), explain why the RMN likes the Nike BC design more then Agamemnon BC(P) despite the massive weight of fire from a pod design.

cthia wrote:
hanks Theemile. I really didn't get the memo on that. And I'm gob smacked. A totally pod laying design in that manner would seriously limit the utility of a warship, wouldn't it?

There has got to be tactical downsides to having no tube launchers.

Yeah, you can't fire a warning shot or undersized salvo, and when the pods are gone, your long range fire is kaput.

Grayson specifically uses the tubes to thicken ECM in each launch and tailor it to the launch. Pods, obviously, have a set # of shipkillers, dazzlers, and dragons Teeth in them. Yes, you could have pods with different load-outs (more or less shipkillers, more dragons teeth, more Dazzlers, etc), but that specific pod will always have that specific loadout. Using the shipborn tubes allows targeted ECM tailoring of each salvo - this launch can be dazzler heavy or dazzler light, depending on what will work best in a specific tactical situation. Obviously tube launched missiles will not be under ACM control, so you still want SOME ECM in the pods, but this allows more flexibility for evolving tactical situations.

While those are the upsides, there are also downsides - the tubes and their armored hatches are weaknesses in the armor scheme, they take up surface area that could be used by more sensors, control systems, and defensive countermeasure systems. Internally the tubes and magazines take up volume which could be used by more CM launchers and magazines, or larger pod magazines. An Invictus will carry a few more pods and have a handful more CM launchers than a Harrington II, on a similar mass and similar dimensions, while a Harrington II can throw an extra 60 or so missiles a salvo.

Also, the obvious downsides (now) are the tubes cannot fire Apollo control missiles, nor can the tube launched missiles be under ACM control, making their fire inferior to the pod based weapons. Also, you are limited to the type of missiles you can fire from the tubes, in this case, the Mk 23 or compatable missiles. Next year's mk-XXIIV, with all the chrome and fins and the new "Feather-Flite" transmission, just won't fit.

Dauntless wrote:

Cthia wrote:Thanks Theemile. I really didn't get the memo on that. And I'm gob smacked. A totally pod laying design in that manner would seriously limit the utility of a warship, wouldn't it?

There has got to be tactical downsides to having no tube launchers.

for a lighter combatant? yes

but RFC mentioned early in the series that ships in the wall of battle struggled to see past missile impeller wedges, he liked it to gunsmoke of a Napoleonic ship, which was one reason some navies didn't think SDs needed super fast reload times.

This along with the extra fragility and other in universe reasons that RFC has never gone into (or that i have seen anyway), explain why the RMN likes the Nike BC design more then Agamemnon BC(P) despite the massive weight of fire from a pod design.

Sadly, I think if you scaled the Agamemnon design up 40% to the size of a Nike, the Glass jaw argument would go away. Keep the same pod bay, add more armor, CMs, PDLCs, and sidewall emitters, while replacing the Keyhole 1s with Keyhole 2s. As sits, the design can roast any 1900 SD in a 1:1 battle, not that it should be used in a BC on SD fight - after it should be closer to Nike protection levels and concerns.

The armor might still be thin over the pod bay, but the upsized version will be that much thicker. As an alternate solution, as part of the re-design, make the ships "fat" for their mass, like the CLACs are. With more beam and more draught, there is more volume for an advanced armor solution, with the downside of a sub-optimal compensated volume and top acceleration.

Lots of things to post about.

First, while the graser torp can get to stupendous velocities with the few hundred gravities of accel, their maneuverability would suck. At high speeds, graser torps are straight line weapons only suitable for 'stationary' targets, orbital infrastructure would qualify as stationary as it moves in a predictable manor whether orbiting a planet or star. So for attacking a maneuvering target, it must keep a lower velocity, so that the low accel can change course. You would think, although it might not be mentioned, that warships would change course periodically like WWII ships vs subs. You won't stop all attacks, but make it much harder for graser torps to attack.

Second, the above leads me to believe that the Lenny D's will use stand off attacks vs more conventional navies. The pods can be dropped on a particular heading, long range graser torps maneuver to a particular spot. You use one to flush the targets to the other weapon. Since the graser torps are maneuverable, you fire them off-axis to mislead as to where the LDs are at. Especially if you use different waves of graser torps to attack from different angles.

Third, so the GA doesn't need to have as many recon drones to the rear as to the front and sides, especially since even SDs have double to triple the graser torp accel. It will be much harder for graser torps to catch a fleet from behind since their accel is so low.

Fourth, the Sharks were in the 4M ton range IIRC and they carried the graser torps externally. The LDs will carry them internally. Since the LDs were under construction at the time of Oyster Bay, they would have been expected to carry the graser torps without being miniaturized. Even if the plan was to make them smaller with the micro-fusion plants, I highly doubt that they would get as small as an RD. Remember that the Shrike is built around the BC graser, so a large graser can only get so small. Yes, the Condor Assault Shuttle has a graser IIRC, but it is only a few cm. Not the tens of cm of the cruiser grasers.

Fifth, I believe that attacks were done without a ballistic phase, unless that was required, even though a ballistic phase might be faster. The target will move in the ballistic phase and without FTL control, you are likely to get very poor hits if you do. The missiles before Apollo had much less onboard AI power, so a change in target location would have been much harder on them. By being under power then whole time, the missiles could adjust to the targets motion. While ballistic, they can't. At the end of the runs, when the final sprint would be there, is when the missiles are cut loose. So to me, that would make sense for a less optimal drive plan that allows for full power the whole trip.

Sixth, neither Manticore nor Haven went with CM warheads as it was sub-optimal. You get a lighter warhead. As noted with the cataphratic, BCs get DD warheads, SDs get BC warheads and capital warheads are only on system missiles. With true DDM and MDM, why give up hitting power.

Seven, some of y'all noted the baffles between drives, which is why multiple drives were not possible before. Since making the cataphratic, it is evidently not easy to engineer right away.

Theemile wrote:Sadly, I think if you scaled the Agamemnon design up 40% to the size of a Nike, the Glass jaw argument would go away. Keep the same pod bay, add more armor, CMs, PDLCs, and sidewall emitters, while replacing the Keyhole 1s with Keyhole 2s. As sits, the design can roast any 1900 SD in a 1:1 battle, not that it should be used in a BC on SD fight - after it should be closer to Nike protection levels and concerns.

Get rid of Keyhole. It is obsolete as it is not a distributed redundant network. Add more FTL RD's, Loreli platforms. The problem is defensive capability, not offensive. Already get FTL with RD's and their big brother which can also be used for defense. KISS

*** With Apollo or a control missile without FTL *** EVERY ship just multiplied its OFFENSIVE capability by 8X + superior penetration capability at extreme range so offensive firepower on a per ship basis just increased by an order of magnitude. This easily makes DD's able to destroy SD's.

As for armor; Increase Sidewall generator strength. THIS is your main armor, not actual physical armor. Frankly from my engineering perspective, and historical perspective, the only things that truly need armor are the power plants, CIC, and Sick Bay. Crew quarters? No. in fact, crew quarters should be used as "armor" as the crew will all be at battle stations. Oh wait, that is how all wet navy ships/battleships were designed.

Relax wrote:

Theemile wrote:Sadly, I think if you scaled the Agamemnon design up 40% to the size of a Nike, the Glass jaw argument would go away. Keep the same pod bay, add more armor, CMs, PDLCs, and sidewall emitters, while replacing the Keyhole 1s with Keyhole 2s. As sits, the design can roast any 1900 SD in a 1:1 battle, not that it should be used in a BC on SD fight - after it should be closer to Nike protection levels and concerns.

Get rid of Keyhole. It is obsolete as it is not a distributed redundant network. Add more FTL RD's, Loreli platforms. The problem is defensive capability, not offensive. Already get FTL with RD's and their big brother which can also be used for defense. KISS

*** With Apollo or a control missile without FTL *** EVERY ship just multiplied its OFFENSIVE capability by 8X + superior penetration capability at extreme range so offensive firepower on a per ship basis just increased by an order of magnitude. This easily makes DD's able to destroy SD's.

As for armor; Increase Sidewall generator strength. THIS is your main armor, not actual physical armor. Frankly from my engineering perspective, and historical perspective, the only things that truly need armor are the power plants, CIC, and Sick Bay. Crew quarters? No. in fact, crew quarters should be used as "armor" as the crew will all be at battle stations. Oh wait, that is how all wet navy ships/battleships were designed.

But the Keyhole IS defensive - it allows the ship to roll wedge while still controlling it's CMs and missiles - AND each Keyhole has it's own PDLCs and defensive buckler.

Agreed on Sidewall - As proven on the Homer Class of BCs Sidewalls can be updated over the life of a class as new technologies come out, armor cannot. But with the extra mass, rearrange things to get rid of the glass jaw complaint.

Battleship armor - Odd you mentioned that - I just toured the USS Massachusetts at Fall river back in March, they highlighted the damage from the 8" shells which hit at Casablanca (?), and yes, it tore up a berthing compartment - which lie outside the armor belt. Using the Navada "All or nothing" armor scheme, the outer hull was supposed to knock the armor penetrating cap of the heavy AP shells and deflect them so they couldn't penetrate the main armor.

The 8" hole and damage to the berthing compartment looked like incredibly light damage - until you realize that the damaged areas are 1-4" of steel. I would not have wanted to be in that small berthing compartment when the shell hit, but the damage from a Heavy Cruiser caliber weapon didn't compromise the ship at all.

Theemile wrote:

Relax wrote:Get rid of Keyhole. It is obsolete as it is not a distributed redundant network. Add more FTL RD's, Loreli platforms. The problem is defensive capability, not offensive. Already get FTL with RD's and their big brother which can also be used for defense. KISS

*** With Apollo or a control missile without FTL *** EVERY ship just multiplied its OFFENSIVE capability by 8X + superior penetration capability at extreme range so offensive firepower on a per ship basis just increased by an order of magnitude. This easily makes DD's able to destroy SD's.

As for armor; Increase Sidewall generator strength. THIS is your main armor, not actual physical armor. Frankly from my engineering perspective, and historical perspective, the only things that truly need armor are the power plants, CIC, and Sick Bay. Crew quarters? No. in fact, crew quarters should be used as "armor" as the crew will all be at battle stations. Oh wait, that is how all wet navy ships/battleships were designed.

But the Keyhole IS defensive - it allows the ship to roll wedge while still controlling it's CMs and missiles - AND each Keyhole has it's own PDLCs and defensive buckler.

Agreed on Sidewall - As proven on the Homer Class of BCs Sidewalls can be updated over the life of a class as new technologies come out, armor cannot. But with the extra mass, rearrange things to get rid of the glass jaw complaint.

Battleship armor - Odd you mentioned that - I just toured the USS Massachusetts at Fall river back in March, they highlighted the damage from the 8" shells which hit at Casablanca (?), and yes, it tore up a berthing compartment - which lie outside the armor belt. Using the Navada "All or nothing" armor scheme, the outer hull was supposed to knock the armor penetrating cap of the heavy AP shells and deflect them so they couldn't penetrate the main armor.

The 8" hole and damage to the berthing compartment looked like incredibly light damage - until you realize that the damaged areas are 1-4" of steel. I would not have wanted to be in that small berthing compartment when the shell hit, but the damage from a Heavy Cruiser caliber weapon didn't compromise the ship at all.

Theemile has a point in that the wedge is the main defense of a ship. So being able to attack while rolled is a big deal.

Theemile wrote:

Relax wrote:Get rid of Keyhole. It is obsolete as it is not a distributed redundant network. Add more FTL RD's, Loreli platforms. The problem is defensive capability, not offensive. Already get FTL with RD's and their big brother which can also be used for defense. KISS

But the Keyhole IS defensive - it allows the ship to roll wedge while still controlling it's CMs and missiles - AND each Keyhole has it's own PDLCs and defensive buckler.

Let me highlight the definitive words.
The PDLC/Buckler is frankly utter waste of mass as it is trying to put lipstick on the pig. The pig are the highlighted words.

The FTL bandwidth already exists in NUMEROUS small platforms which have to exist for CA's, CL's, DD's. Now on an SD? Keyhole makes sense as they fight in a "WALL" of battle and NOT individually. BC's work in ~divisions or smaller often. Squadrons of BC's is rare. SD's NEVER go anywhere other than in squadron strength. Most often in TASK force strength. Redundancy and distributed network in this case IS the keyhole as a greater mass efficiency is required to concentrate the FTL channels.

A NIKE BC on the other hand has only 84 CM tubes firing in the latest book back to 10s intervals instead of 8s which means with even the best Cm they have, they only have to control 6-->7 salvos instead of 11 as in AAC.

Now here is the next ***** IF you have an FTL component in your distributed network for CM manipulation targeting, then number of salvos you control simultaneously goes DOWN as the majority are just getting to 'x' destination for majority of their lifespan before getting new data. IF using lightspeed C&C, because you are time lagged, you must update MUCH more often as your data is so much older, timeliness of said data is imperative, but with FTL, all those intermediate updates are not required, or at least FAR fewer.