Retrofitting the RMN: A Saganami Island Assignment

Jonathan_S wrote:So basically the BC(L) has, in my understanding, a far far tougher defense than a simple comparison of the numbers would show.

That's not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are cost effective. But a single Nike appears to be significantly more survivable than a pair of Sag-Cs.

Add to the fact that the Keyhole can also control the offensive missiles. That means the Nike can turn its wedge floor (or roof) towards the incoming enemy missiles, which massively increases the survivability, without losing either the CM capability or needing to cut the control to the outgoing missiles. And because it has so many more control links, it can control the missiles from the older generation ships in company, so they can too pitch up or down, turning their wedges towards the missiles. That's what happened at Hypatia.

This is only valid until enemies start targetting the Keyhole platforms themselves. They have to be more vulnerable than the ship itself, as they are outside the wedge. But they're also far smaller. Either way, this usually allows the Keyhole-wielding ship to survive a massive Alpha launch.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote: NIKE is actually a lousy ship compared to 2 CA's. They have more defense and more firepower while being able to be in 2 places at the same time.

I think you're overlooking how much of a defensive step change Keyhole provides. Yes the pair of modern Sag-Cs mount more PDLCs and CMs than the one Nike (48 vs 30 PLDC per broadside, 80 vs 64 CM tubes total) - but remember how many extra salvos of CMs a Keyhole equipped SD(P) could pump out; a keyhole equipped BC(L) would be the same.

The Sag-Cs don't have the telemetry to control all of both broadside's CMs at once, and can probably control only 3 or 4 salvos of CMs; whereas Nike should be able to control 8 salvos from both broadsides. Plus the PDLCs it carries are equivilent to those on SD(P)s, so more emitters than carried by CAs - so higher average shot/second from each PDLC. Oh and it carrier much heavier sidewall generators than the CA.

Nike alone should have little problem dealing with the entire surprise pod launch at Monica but it doesn't seem swapping, say, Warlock for another Sag-C would have let that squadron easily weather that missile storm.

That's not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are cost effective. But a single Nike appears to be significantly more survivable than a pair of Sag-Cs.

David already essentially got around the Keyhole issue for CA's by using RD's etc and demonstrated it several times in UH. NIT: 2CA has same number of PDLC emmitters when take into initial number and number of rods per PDLC.

I have not read through Hypatia for a long while will do sometime here. Not sure when.

As for offensive control links, both Haven/RMN already solved that problem without Keyhole. Leaves only the defensive ability and here we have the rubber meeting the road. As previously noted, RFC somewhat already addressed this. Through the books, the ships always go into "rapid fire" which would indicate maximum fire rate at full length of missile engagement window. For the Viper, this would indicate 75s/10s/salvo ~8 salvos. Same as Nike with Keyhole.

TO play devils advocate, how many CM's 3d positional targeting data can be compressed into a standard Video feed which is freely available it would appear on every single ship of the RMN and every other ship, even lowly pirates... It should indicate the built in ability by the RMN to send FTL to its drones and then retrans to CM's as they fly past. But I digres...

ThinksMarkedly wrote:This is only valid until enemies start targetting the Keyhole platforms themselves. They have to be more vulnerable than the ship itself, as they are outside the wedge. But they're also far smaller.

They are the size of a Destroyer... Came out of the, AAC discussions where initially the Keyhole was "size of a LAC" which then led me and many others to say... HOLD ON!, if only the size of a LAC, why the Heck would you not put one on a CA? After all the CA tonnage just went from 350,000 to 480,000tons, but another 20,000 tons is impossible? Heck, remove the PDLC's, ECM from it if you have to. This made an enormous amount of sense, so the size along with associated systems had to MASSIVELY increase. Massively increase to the point DW has said 60k tons for BC(L)/BC(P) sized and 120,000 tons for the SD(p) versions.

Heck, traditionally in navies, CA's, erm frigates(sail era) were roughly 3 or 4 times smaller than their Battleship compatriots. So, if you wish to be technical, the NIKE(L) class is actually an Aromored Cruiser and traditionally the BC in honorverse are more like, hrmm light cruisers and CA in the Honorverse are actually DD's.

Judging by size creep.... maybe DW meant to do this as the tonnage ratios are coming VERY close to the WWI/WWII wet navy equivalents.

Kh1 is a lot smaller than kh2

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:I think you're overlooking how much of a defensive step change Keyhole provides. Yes the pair of modern Sag-Cs mount more PDLCs and CMs than the one Nike (48 vs 30 PLDC per broadside, 80 vs 64 CM tubes total) - but remember how many extra salvos of CMs a Keyhole equipped SD(P) could pump out; a keyhole equipped BC(L) would be the same.

The Sag-Cs don't have the telemetry to control all of both broadside's CMs at once, and can probably control only 3 or 4 salvos of CMs; whereas Nike should be able to control 8 salvos from both broadsides. Plus the PDLCs it carries are equivilent to those on SD(P)s, so more emitters than carried by CAs - so higher average shot/second from each PDLC. Oh and it carrier much heavier sidewall generators than the CA.

Nike alone should have little problem dealing with the entire surprise pod launch at Monica but it doesn't seem swapping, say, Warlock for another Sag-C would have let that squadron easily weather that missile storm.

That's not necessarily the same thing as saying that they are cost effective. But a single Nike appears to be significantly more survivable than a pair of Sag-Cs.

David already essentially got around the Keyhole issue for CA's by using RD's etc and demonstrated it several times in UH. NIT: 2CA has same number of PDLC emmitters when take into initial number and number of rods per PDLC.

I have not read through Hypatia for a long while will do sometime here. Not sure when.

As for offensive control links, both Haven/RMN already solved that problem without Keyhole. Leaves only the defensive ability and here we have the rubber meeting the road. As previously noted, RFC somewhat already addressed this. Through the books, the ships always go into "rapid fire" which would indicate maximum fire rate at full length of missile engagement window. For the Viper, this would indicate 75s/10s/salvo ~8 salvos. Same as Nike with Keyhole.

TO play devils advocate, how many CM's 3d positional targeting data can be compressed into a standard Video feed which is freely available it would appear on every single ship of the RMN and every other ship, even lowly pirates... It should indicate the built in ability by the RMN to send FTL to its drones and then retrans to CM's as they fly past. But I digres...

UH also mentioned that production Sag-Cs had 12 emittor PDCLs in the place of Hexapuma's 8 emittor units. So most Sag-Cs have 50% more PDCL capacity than the early models.

Theemile wrote:UH also mentioned that production Sag-Cs had 12 emittor PDCLs in the place of Hexapuma's 8 emittor units. So most Sag-Cs have 50% more PDCL capacity than the early models.

Nike has 14 emitters per PDLC right?

Relax wrote:TO play devils advocate, how many CM's 3d positional targeting data can be compressed into a standard Video feed which is freely available it would appear on every single ship of the RMN and every other ship, even lowly pirates... It should indicate the built in ability by the RMN to send FTL to its drones and then retrans to CM's as they fly past. But I digres...

Yeah, it's not clear why you need something the size of a keyhole to provide fire control relaying. Especially not over the piddling 2-3 million KM range that's the max even the newest CM can cover.

If you could control the CMs via smaller free flying drones then you wouldn't need the massive keyhole relays to retain line of site to all your CMs despite the later launch's wedges blocking the view from the ship. But since, for whatever reason, you can't you do need keyhole to support that level of controlled CM density. And so Nike with keyhole can control noticeably more simultaneous CMs than a pair of Sag-Cs.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:TO play devils advocate, how many CM's 3d positional targeting data can be compressed into a standard Video feed which is freely available it would appear on every single ship of the RMN and every other ship, even lowly pirates... It should indicate the built in ability by the RMN to send FTL to its drones and then retrans to CM's as they fly past. But I digres...

Yeah, it's not clear why you need something the size of a keyhole to provide fire control relaying. Especially not over the piddling 2-3 million KM range that's the max even the newest CM can cover.

If you could control the CMs via smaller free flying drones then you wouldn't need the massive keyhole relays to retain line of site to all your CMs despite the later launch's wedges blocking the view from the ship. But since, for whatever reason, you can't you do need keyhole to support that level of controlled CM density. And so Nike with keyhole can control noticeably more simultaneous CMs than a pair of Sag-Cs.

Do you sometimes hear that booming voice saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" too?

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:TO play devils advocate, how many CM's 3d positional targeting data can be compressed into a standard Video feed which is freely available it would appear on every single ship of the RMN and every other ship, even lowly pirates... It should indicate the built in ability by the RMN to send FTL to its drones and then retrans to CM's as they fly past. But I digres...

Yeah, it's not clear why you need something the size of a keyhole to provide fire control relaying. Especially not over the piddling 2-3 million KM range that's the max even the newest CM can cover.

If you could control the CMs via smaller free flying drones then you wouldn't need the massive keyhole relays to retain line of site to all your CMs despite the later launch's wedges blocking the view from the ship. But since, for whatever reason, you can't you do need keyhole to support that level of controlled CM density. And so Nike with keyhole can control noticeably more simultaneous CMs than a pair of Sag-Cs.

I think that's because Hemphill "built all the bells and whistles" into Keyhole. After all, they simultaneously had the ability to relay fire control to both offensive attack missiles, defensive CM, and then stuff it full of ridiculous amounts of PDLC's for their tonnage. And overall the first generation keyhole (pre-gravpulse) weren't that large, so they were clearly intending on applying standard Manticoran doctrine and working on miniaturizing everything while simultaneously improving performance in later iterations.


If they'd been forced to rush deployment of Keyhole, they'd probably be something even Roland Destroyers could possibly deploy. Because they were designed first and foremost to aid with fire control, not aiding in defense except in the sense of CM help.


Keyhole mark 3 will probably be focused almost exclusively around miniaturizing the mark 2 back down to the original mark 1 size with minimal, if any, increase to performance. Keyhole Mark 4 will likely be the true start of improvements again, with Sonja and Shannon continuing to increase bandwidth even further, and increasing the gravpulse pulse-rate (for Apollo); while continuing to miniaturize everything even further.

The Mark 4, possibly mark 5 would almost certainly be able to start being deployed by smaller units, such as the Sag-C concept units. Although it may permanently be too large for any iteration of Keyhole to ever be utilized by the Roland concept destroyers.

How fun! Just returning to my own fun topic -- and saw the posts about using freighters as temporary LAC transports and tenders. So picture this --> keeping in mind that the whole topic started with a premise that we're WAY after Nemesis etc. so this is a student assignment for a grade, Keep in mind that our student's test case is early enough in the process that folks have an idea that the RMMN freighters are becoming scarcer, but Laccoon II hasn't been heard of "around these parts" of the League. A student turns in a plan for a "Laccoon II wormhole takeover" using your ideas, and proposes something like this:

So these "thought to be returning home" freighters make their last "scheduled stop"... but they are actually outbound from the GA. Freighter number One and Two and two are exactly as expected, there doing true cargo delivery. However, #3 is our temporary LAC carrier; #4 is downright nasty: what it's got in the holds, AKA a SAG-C and two Rolands. Needless to say, while the first two are doing 'the business', #3 and #4 are parked way out there in the system boondocks... aka dropping off cargo of a different kind, malice aforethought.

The freighters come, freighters go... A few days later, --ba da-boom!-- no visible wormhole transition or hyperspace arrival and a sunny dispositioned force commander says "we're sorry, your wormhole is now closed..." Why that idea makes me feel almost like putting on my evil galactic overlord badge just to watch the local OFS administrator and relatively insignificant SDF or minor-league FF forces go "holy s---!"

Thoughts on our sneaky student's plan?