Hybrid missile/Graser Torp

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Well there's relaying at all; and then relaying with sufficient bandwidth.

Recon drones can't even act as a single-channel Hermes buoy

Hermes buoy, RD, and Keyholes are all transceivers with 'x' amount of FTL bandwidth. HOW you choose to divy up said bandwidth and use it is up to you. They all do the exact same thing.

Hauling around another dedicated FTL transceiver platform violates the KISS principle. Violates the simple fact that every single ship from DD to BC and SD wants this system and all have built in FTL transceivers themselves. Making a common system out of pre-existing available multi redundant platforms is just plain ol' common sense.

Now at some point, too much redundancy becomes ridiculous wasting tonnage in propulsion drive mass and why a more densely packed FTL bandwidth platform should exist. Hermes buoy vrs RD. Keyhole vrs Hermes Buoy.

Kizarvexis wrote:
In the books, the RD can not be used a FC. They can not be used as a Hermes bouy. Those were the things that Jonathan S was talking about.

Theemile wrote:

Kizarvexis wrote:
In the books, the RD can not be used a FC. They can not be used as a Hermes bouy. Those were the things that Jonathan S was talking about.

It's been shown in the text that RD and Hermes lashups CAN be used as a ghetto FTL fire control (Mike at the battle of Solon after her BC(p) had been gutted). It's been argued on the forum by several members that such technology should be matured, especially for lighter units. I, for one, was arguing for stripped down keyholes to be carried by a CLAC or support ship and passed out to lighter ship just before a battle or patrol. Essentially, the dock would be a LAC bay or a dock in a module in an FSV, the light warships would only have to have the required connectors and controllers. It was mentioned that the original Keyhole was ~20 Ktons before all the defensive goodies and redundancy of extra systems was added – a mass about the size of a LAC – so it should be able to build one capable of being carried in a LAC bay.

Seeing that a deployed Keyhole 1 is in the 60 ton range for each module, the volume and mass of 2 of them would allow many standard RDs to be carried in their place. The argument has been that it should be possible to build RDs with ACM fire control built in – essentially allowing an FTL forward control node to be emplaced outside the sidewall as a repeater and others down steam to herd the missile storms. Given their size, a DD or CL could carry enough for its own fire control with some spare capability to assist other units, while a BC or CA could carry clouds of them, and easily replace any combat losses.

When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

Theemile wrote:When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

Relax wrote:

Theemile wrote:When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

It should be noted that you start with SD's with thousands of missiles and channels required and then work down. Of course it should also be pointed out that RD's have also been working UP in bandwidth.

Of course we have not added Apollo or other light speed control missiles which now increase by factor of 8 throw weight, or another way of saying bandwidth required drops by a factor of 8 if you go with dumb transmission and not compressed. This should free up an IMMENSE amount of FTL bandwidth to talk to Hermes buoy's/RD's for CM defense. In fact we ~saw this in UH.

Kizarvexis wrote:

Theemile wrote:
It's been shown in the text that RD and Hermes lashups CAN be used as a ghetto FTL fire control (Mike at the battle of Solon after her BC(p) had been gutted). It's been argued on the forum by several members that such technology should be matured, especially for lighter units. I, for one, was arguing for stripped down keyholes to be carried by a CLAC or support ship and passed out to lighter ship just before a battle or patrol. Essentially, the dock would be a LAC bay or a dock in a module in an FSV, the light warships would only have to have the required connectors and controllers. It was mentioned that the original Keyhole was ~20 Ktons before all the defensive goodies and redundancy of extra systems was added – a mass about the size of a LAC – so it should be able to build one capable of being carried in a LAC bay.

Seeing that a deployed Keyhole 1 is in the 60 ton range for each module, the volume and mass of 2 of them would allow many standard RDs to be carried in their place. The argument has been that it should be possible to build RDs with ACM fire control built in – essentially allowing an FTL forward control node to be emplaced outside the sidewall as a repeater and others down steam to herd the missile storms. Given their size, a DD or CL could carry enough for its own fire control with some spare capability to assist other units, while a BC or CA could carry clouds of them, and easily replace any combat losses.

When asked about this approach, RFC said something to the effect of “Low Deli and her teams built Keyholes because this is what worked, why would they have gone this route if there was another option?” Which is not saying it won’t work, but the RMN isn’t doing it this way now.

RDs have been used to get info, but the data is passed to the missiles by the dedicated FC. I know that RL, you could make RDs more effective, but in the books for many years, the RDs could not direct missiles. RDs also don't have the bandwidth of Hermes bouys in the books either.

Kizarvexis wrote:

Relax wrote:It should be noted that you start with SD's with thousands of missiles and channels required and then work down. Of course it should also be pointed out that RD's have also been working UP in bandwidth.

Of course we have not added Apollo or other light speed control missiles which now increase by factor of 8 throw weight, or another way of saying bandwidth required drops by a factor of 8 if you go with dumb transmission and not compressed. This should free up an IMMENSE amount of FTL bandwidth to talk to Hermes buoy's/RD's for CM defense. In fact we ~saw this in UH.

There are no CMs with FTL receivers. Lots of fan speculation that CM will get that ability at some point, but nothing now.

Hermes buoys can do video because of the bandwidth they have. RDs currently can NOT do video because lack of bandwidth.

Theemile wrote:

Kizarvexis wrote:RDs have been used to get info, but the data is passed to the missiles by the dedicated FC. I know that RL, you could make RDs more effective, but in the books for many years, the RDs could not direct missiles. RDs also don't have the bandwidth of Hermes bouys in the books either.

We're not talking about using a current RD design - but modfiying an RD chassis with stuff from the Hermes and Apollo parts kits to become a forward fire control unit or firecontrol repeater. We're not taklking about a single unit controlling hundreds of missiles, but 8 or so channels. If you need to control more, you send out more control nodes. They form a mesh network and if one is lost, the others take up the slack until a replacement can be vectored to replace it.

Primitave use of the existing hardware hurridly lashed together has worked in the books - poorly. But a custom kit bashed solution should be possible in the RMN to form a poor man's distributed firecontrol repeater solution for a moderate sized salvo.

Theemile wrote:

Kizarvexis wrote:There are no CMs with FTL receivers. Lots of fan speculation that CM will get that ability at some point, but nothing now.

Hermes buoys can do video because of the bandwidth they have. RDs currently can NOT do video because lack of bandwidth.

You are right, but the concept discussed here would have FTL on a "CM fire control drone", which would send firecontrol updates the CMs in the outer defense zone.

Relax wrote: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.

Theemile 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.

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.