Fall 1924 – RMN/GSN Tactical changes

Next class with an update: CLAC

If your Navy in 1924+ has LAC's as main missile defense operation then the CLAC should mirror this new role and be updated from its 1915 origin.

Assuming one can get a CM pod with extended range missiles, which the LAC's will be using, it would seem prudent for the new CLAC to carry ~100 pods of LRCM's or just CM pods. 1 for each LAC. Adds ??? 300,000 tons.

If your CLAC is going to be providing missile defense behind the main SD'P battle line, then why should they not have Keyhole just as all SD'P do since 1920? This makes no sense. + 100,000-->250,000

If your CLAC is going to be part of the TF, why not have it carry more RD's than other class types, offloading a larger portion of this responsibility from the SD'P as that goes hand in hand with LAC's other MAIN role, scouting, be stealthy etc? It is not like SD'P are swanning around by themselves here. DD's are proving this role and a consistent thread in most all of my posts is the need for an EVER INCREASING need for more RD's to not only act as scouts, but are utterly vital to FTL missile defense and also as keyhole light

If your CLAC is going to mostly be a defensive based ship, then carry a spare Keyhole or 2 or 4 to pass off to SD'P and to liekwise carry more Lorelie platforms than what SD'P normally carry(not that they would stop carrying them of course as there is a time compoenent that must be addressed which another ship cannot fulfill instantly.

If we are going to be adding ~500,000t boosting tonnage to ~7.5ish Mton, why not just add a few more LAC's etc, so both your CLAC's and SD'P can use a common base design consisting of Fusion power, compensator, Hypergenerator, Impellers, bow/stern wall generators, boat bay design etc etc etc.

So, SD'P/CLAC common platform of power systems, built out from the keel completely differently.

Theemile wrote:The “What Should be Built Next”

We discuss items like the extension cord, and lack of Marines in small ships as changing points in post war designs, or the notional minimum sized light combatant - but what other ideas are out there? One idea I would try to install in all tube designs, is “Sockets” for pods.

As for tactics, Relax mentioned a good one – making sure all ships are upgraded to fire the newest CMs and carrying vipers in some of the CM tubes. SNIP .....why are SDM CAs and BCs not carrying a couple salvos of LERMs?

Sockets/pods as in "clamps" so do not have to use tractor 100%. YES. Any new build should have pods as part of design from start.

All classes should have SD sidewalls as everyone is firing off SD grade laser warheads. There used to a major difference in missile laser head strengths. There is not anymore.

As for Why NO, to LERM. I see this missile as a complete failure of logistics in 1924 HV ship design when one has Vipers. Let me explain. What happens if you combine known dual drive tech with a Viper 75s single laser rod head missile?

Same diameter but 2X length so fits in ALL existing modern CM tubes. More than likely length is not a problem, but this should be fairly easy to address even if it was. So, meets that basic requirement for handling, maybe retrofit a couple CM tubes on a ship instead of ALL What range does this impart if one gives zero ballistic between drives? ~14.6M km from rest or nearly identical to LERM's ~16Mkm.

All that assumes one does not have ability to step down Vipers CM drive. If one made a modification to allow one to step down its drive equivalent to other HV missiles. Its 75s@130,000G endurance goes to 225s @65,000g or say the step drops it down to 55,000G its range becomes: 16.4Mkm and 13.9Mkm respectively.

If one purposefully added a LERM missile tube, why would you not add a MK-16 compatible missile tube and drop the LERM entirely.

OK, SD'P 1924 update:

Talked about it before

Instead of 2 Keyholes, carry 4 smaller ones(redundancy)

Instead of 1 pod door and pod storage that gets blocked due to damage, add 1 each on dorsal/ventral if not 2, one fore, one aft, giving 3, 5 exit points respectively. This will eat more volume.

Make provision to permanently carry limpetted CM or LRCM pods for QUICK use.

Why not MORE PDLC? Yea yea, I know, power, but why must one shove so much power through the impellers? In FTL MDM environment with range over +++100Mkm, acceleration as a key ability in an SD'P is frankly: Useless. Dump that fusion power into even tougher Sidewalls and MORE numerous PDLC.

****** I would strip marine complement 100% off of SD'P. In fact, I would strip the naval personnel down to that of at minimum a CA, freeing up tonnage as SD'P are HARD up against tonnage limit and every spare m^3 of internal volume one can squeeze into offensive/defensive systems = SUPERIOR. Eliminates need for large boat bays which would impede increase Pod exit points on dorsal ventral portions of the Hull where there is no armor or need armoring.

Marines and their equipment etc is what the combined Kammerling/Taylor/Logistics bunkerage, missile colliers, etc are for. Lets stop pretending that is the job of an SD'P. Heck, If the BC class, which I have argued to be eliminated is NOT eliminated, then increase THEIR complement of Marines to fulfill this roll as they have the VOLUME in which to EXPAND, or put this marine complement on the CLAC's as where SD'P go, CLAC's go. In either case get 100% of ALL marines OFF SD'P who need that tonnage for OTHER more important systems.

Relax wrote:

Theemile wrote:The “What Should be Built Next”

We discuss items like the extension cord, and lack of Marines in small ships as changing points in post war designs, or the notional minimum sized light combatant - but what other ideas are out there? One idea I would try to install in all tube designs, is “Sockets” for pods.

As for tactics, Relax mentioned a good one – making sure all ships are upgraded to fire the newest CMs and carrying vipers in some of the CM tubes. SNIP .....why are SDM CAs and BCs not carrying a couple salvos of LERMs?

Sockets/pods as in "clamps" so do not have to use tractor 100%. YES. Any new build should have pods as part of design from start.

All classes should have SD sidewalls as everyone is firing off SD grade laser warheads. There used to a major difference in missile laser head strengths. There is not anymore.

As for Why NO, to LERM. I see this missile as a complete failure of logistics in 1924 HV ship design when one has Vipers. Let me explain. What happens if you combine known dual drive tech with a Viper 75s single laser rod head missile?

Same diameter but 2X length so fits in ALL existing modern CM tubes. More than likely length is not a problem, but this should be fairly easy to address even if it was. So, meets that basic requirement for handling, maybe retrofit a couple CM tubes on a ship instead of ALL What range does this impart if one gives zero ballistic between drives? ~14.6M km from rest or nearly identical to LERM's ~16Mkm.

All that assumes one does not have ability to step down Vipers CM drive. If one made a modification to allow one to step down its drive equivalent to other HV missiles. Its 75s@130,000G endurance goes to 225s @65,000g or say the step drops it down to 55,000G its range becomes: 16.4Mkm and 13.9Mkm respectively.

If one purposefully added a LERM missile tube, why would you not add a MK-16 compatible missile tube and drop the LERM entirely.

David created the point that the Mk16 required a longer, more complicated launcher, with a new portion with an armored compartment that spins up the reactor (ditto for mk 23), "Artifically" keeping the Mk 16 out of the hands of small combatants. (hence requiring the 188Kton Roland to have the same # of tubes as the 110 ton Wolfhound.

Theemile wrote:
David created the point that the Mk16 required a longer, more complicated launcher, with a new portion with an armored compartment that spins up the reactor (ditto for mk 23), "Artifically" keeping the Mk 16 out of the hands of small combatants. (hence requiring the 188Kton Roland to have the same # of tubes as the 110 ton Wolfhound.

Chase armament is available and permanently attached missile pods so I do not see the problem here. Other than the fact there are 200 fairly modern existing ships + 400 older ship types which use the LERM already... I see no reason to put that missile in new build when one has Vipers and Mk-16 available. Avalon is a dead ship the moment the DDM became viable. I'd rather have Cataphracts than LERM.

Relax wrote:I would like to posit a question as related to main original post from TheEmile: The CA/BC(L)/BC(P) debate.

Baseline: BC(L)/BC'P were both designed without the threat of FTL Apollo or equivalent missile threats with their main distinction ability to carry Keyhole.

Without ability to control FTL missiles, and in light of everyone having MDM Pods for system defense, How can one justify building BC class ships when they cost nearly what an SD'P costs without ability to either control or truly defend against them?

*** 1) Even Lower tier ships without Keyhole can now turn sideways to incoming fire yet maintain some CM fire control using RD's and this should be happening yesterday to anyone at BuShips in R&D. This allows lower tier ships to obtain the main #1 defensive benefit of Keyhole, yet not carry Keyhole using existing procurement, logistics chain.

I don't remember seeing recon drones used to allow lighter units to control CMs while rolled behind their wedge -- can you remind me where that occurred?

Because last I remembered Keyhole was still a massive boost to your active defenses - allowing control of 8 salvos from every CM tube the parent ship mounted. That should far exceed the CMs/ton you could get out of something without keyhole. (Not to mention the extra PDLCs on the 2 keyhole platforms adding to your defensive envelope; especially when you're rolled behind your wedge and so your own PDLCs can't engage until a missile clears the rim of your wedge.

And even if a lighter unit can get part of that capability by relaying fire control through RDs (which, again, I can't remember ever seeing) they're not going to get the full defensive benefit of a keyhole. (And they'd presumably also lack the offensive benefit of keyhole -- meaning that they'd be unable to control any return fire they might want to launch while rolled defensively behind their wedge)

As for blunting an FTL Alpha strike -- how are SD(P)s any better? They've got more CM tubes; but no fundamentally different technology to blunt Apollo. Sure, an Invictus mounts 160 CM tubes, or 1 per 54,870 tons; while an Nike mounts just 64, but that's 1 per 39,371 tons -- so it's better defended on a ton by ton basis.

Yes BC(L) and BC(P) are expensive -- but even relative savings in build cost add up when you're trying to build at many hulls as you feel needed to cover all your far flung duties. And their lower crewing also reduced their total cost of ownership because that's fewer people you need to train, pay, provide medical to, retirement, etc. Personnel costs are often major parts of the lifetime TCO of a weapons system or vehicle. Plus there are some situations where you want the option, for diplomatic reasons, to send a BC instead of a CA or SD(P).

I think the RMN's R&D does need to work out a defense against their own Apollo and then once they see what kind of ship it takes to mount that then they can worry about optimizing their future builds around surviving Apollo-style strikes from SD(P)s, forts, or system defense pods.

---
On, and sidenote, the BD(P) wasn't designed with its "main distinction ability to carry Keyhole" because keyhole slightly postdated the first BC(P)s and the first tranche of Agamemnons had to be refitted after commissioning to squeeze it in. The BC(P) was designed with its main distinction being able to carry long range missiles (because they were designed back when the options were SDM, ERM, or capacitor powered MDMs. The microfusion powered MDMs and DDMs also came later; and the RMN never, as far as we know, designed a capacitor powered DDM for the BC(P)s)

Relax wrote:As for Why NO, to LERM. I see this missile as a complete failure of logistics in 1924 HV ship design when one has Vipers. Let me explain. What happens if you combine known dual drive tech with a Viper 75s single laser rod head missile?

Same diameter but 2X length so fits in ALL existing modern CM tubes. More than likely length is not a problem, but this should be fairly easy to address even if it was. So, meets that basic requirement for handling, maybe retrofit a couple CM tubes on a ship instead of ALL What range does this impart if one gives zero ballistic between drives? ~14.6M km from rest or nearly identical to LERM's ~16Mkm.

All that assumes one does not have ability to step down Vipers CM drive. If one made a modification to allow one to step down its drive equivalent to other HV missiles. Its 75s@130,000G endurance goes to 225s @65,000g or say the step drops it down to 55,000G its range becomes: 16.4Mkm and 13.9Mkm respectively.

If one purposefully added a LERM missile tube, why would you not add a MK-16 compatible missile tube and drop the LERM entirely.

I've asked RFC about stepping down CM drives before. He said that won't be possible because part of the trade-off for getting their extra acceleration requires ditching that flexibility.

You can build a 2 drive CM, but you can't step down its acceleration, so it's be 160 seconds @ 130,000 gees.

Note however that the laserhead on a Viper is far weaker than the one on a LERM. The Viper has a single lasing rod and a warhead yield designed to kill LACs, not CLs. A Mk36 had a bigger yield and channels that into at least 4 lasing rods -- so replacing LERMs with Dualvipers will result in a potential reduction in damage by probably up to 8-fold.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:As for Why NO, to LERM. I see this missile as a complete failure
If one purposefully added a LERM missile tube, why would you not add a MK-16 compatible missile tube and drop the LERM entirely.

I've asked RFC about stepping down CM drives before. He said that won't be possible because part of the trade-off for getting their extra acceleration requires ditching that flexibility.

You can build a 2 drive CM, but you can't step down its acceleration, so it's be 160 seconds @ 130,000 gees.

Note however that the laserhead on a Viper is far weaker than the one on a LERM. The Viper has a single lasing rod and a warhead yield designed to kill LACs, not CLs. A Mk36 had a bigger yield and channels that into at least 4 lasing rods -- so replacing LERMs with Dualvipers will result in a potential reduction in damage by probably up to 8-fold.

Got a customer. Whole point about the LERM is that it was pointless in a DDM MK-16 environment with everyone sprouting pods attached to their hulls since WoH unless we are going to pretend the only people you will contact with your ships are pirates.
Yes, oh I agree about the CM step down, but clearly the LERM is exactly a longer running ~45kgs-->50Kg's missile for its 16.4Mkm. So clearly there is wiggle room when trading run time verses acceleration as shown by Cataphracts, Vipers, and LERM. Of course we have 3ish numbers 12.4Mkm ~45kG's@240s AKA 80s multiplier and 45Kg's@270s AKA 90s multiplier for 16.4Mkm We also have a number of ~10.1Mkm or 70s multiplier there abouts depending on user and different books.

As for throughput of MK36/Viper I thought the only difference was number of laser rods? It could be a larger warhead is used though I do not believe we have any information on the MK36 other than in passing regarding its range from Torch of Freedom.
I also thought the number of laser rods was never stated though we have old cruiser grade missiles and the MK16 which all have 6 I believe?

As to why I would want a DDM Viper I thought the discussion was not about the MAIN armament of said ship, but rather as an addition to say a DDM or MDM armed ship? Did not think discussion was still about CL/DD from different thread? I also thought in SoSag, they said the LERM could not be fired out of old Cruiser grade tubes so literally the only ships which can fire it would be the Avalons/Wolfhounds and nobody else. I just found this odd. Why would BuShips spend so much R&D on a missile they KNEW would not fit in old tubes when they have a DDM in the wings with vastly superior laser head strength and ECM? From reality: Bureaucratic inertia(Been there and utterly flabbergasted at why the eggs and braid from the airforce kept handing us money to even finish when we had already demonstrated a vastly superior solution that was more reliable, cheaper to manufacture, Fit existing systems unlike the stand alone system, and lasted longer in storage. <<Cough>> I have to wonder how many Odd ball systems have been dumped on Ukraine as part of their "aid" package. I am sure they are saying... Gee... uh "thanks"

Doh hit wrong button...

Jonathan_S wrote:I don't remember seeing recon drones used to allow lighter units to control CMs while rolled behind their wedge -- can you remind me where that occurred?

Because last I remembered Keyhole was still a massive boost to your active defenses - allowing control of 8 salvos from every CM tube the parent ship mounted. That should far exceed the CMs/ton you could get out of something without keyhole. (Not to mention the extra PDLCs on the 2 keyhole platforms adding to your defensive envelope; especially when you're rolled behind your wedge and so your own PDLCs can't engage until a missile clears the rim of your wedge.

And even if a lighter unit can get part of that capability by relaying fire control through RDs (which, again, I can't remember ever seeing) they're not going to get the full defensive benefit of a keyhole. (And they'd presumably also lack the offensive benefit of keyhole -- meaning that they'd be unable to control any return fire they might want to launch while rolled defensively behind their wedge)

As for blunting an FTL Alpha strike -- how are SD(P)s any better? They've got more CM tubes; but no fundamentally different technology to blunt Apollo. Sure, an Invictus mounts 160 CM tubes, or 1 per 54,870 tons; while an Nike mounts just 64, but that's 1 per 39,371 tons -- so it's better defended on a ton by ton basis.

Yes BC(L) and BC(P) are expensive -- but even relative savings in build cost add up when you're trying to build at many hulls as you feel needed to cover all your far flung duties. And their lower crewing also reduced their total cost of ownership because that's fewer people you need to train, pay, provide medical to, retirement, etc. Personnel costs are often major parts of the lifetime TCO of a weapons system or vehicle. Plus there are some situations where you want the option, for diplomatic reasons, to send a BC instead of a CA or SD(P).

I think the RMN's R&D does need to work out a defense against their own Apollo and then once they see what kind of ship it takes to mount that then they can worry about optimizing their future builds around surviving Apollo-style strikes from SD(P)s, forts, or system defense pods.

---
On, and sidenote, the BD(P) wasn't designed with its "main distinction ability to carry Keyhole" because keyhole slightly postdated the first BC(P)s and the first tranche of Agamemnons had to be refitted after commissioning to squeeze it in. The BC(P) was designed with its main distinction being able to carry long range missiles (because they were designed back when the options were SDM, ERM, or capacitor powered MDMs. The microfusion powered MDMs and DDMs also came later; and the RMN never, as far as we know, designed a capacitor powered DDM for the BC(P)s)

As I typed, Keyhole has both passive and active defenses and as I posted, you can achieve the passive ones via RD's. RFC showed this in Uncompromising Honor I do believe. No one is disagreeing with the active components. If you have to fight on your side... You have to run and you clearly screwed up and should have sent SDP.

Ton for Ton basis, CA's win over BC's, LAC's win overall so not exactly a good argument. How many hits can each of those ship types take before being obliterated? Lets take your tonnage numbers/CM right? Never mind you said 160... 9Mt/204CM for SDP, 2.5Mton/64 CM for BCL = Ratio of 1.12 SDP/BCL... I think you screwed up an used 160... and got 1.5X in BC(L) favor right? SDP per ton wins. In terms of sustained hits it is 2X or more in favor of SD'P and SD'P can achieve stronger sidewalls easier. As for anti FTL, SD'P can carry more Lorelie. BCL per tonnage actually has slightly more PDLC/ton than SDP. SD'P has built in FTL Keyhole so should a FTL CM system become more fully functional instead of jury rigged through RD's, it would intergrate instantly without any jury rigging. My main argument was from an overall production, R&D, procurement, sustainment perspective especially as BC(L) take a building slip in time of war when you need SD'P. If you recall, I also said SD'P also need to have 95% of their personnel removed in the SD'P changes required.

Anyways, a bit rambling sorry, got to actually do work.

Relax wrote:Lets take your tonnage numbers/CM right? Never mind you said 160... 9Mt/204CM for SDP, 2.5Mton/64 CM for BCL = Ratio of 1.12 SDP/BCL... I think you screwed up an used 160... and got 1.5X in BC(L) favor right? SDP per ton wins. In terms of sustained hits it is 2X or more in favor of SD'P and SD'P can achieve stronger sidewalls easier.

I screwed up in a slightly interesting way. I said Invictus but was using the column on my quick reference spreadsheet for the GSN's Harrington II. (I guess because of its 24 MDM tubes per broadside it's a lot more lightly defended than the Invictus)

Harrington II has a broadside of 64 CMs + 16 fore and 16 aft; for the aforementioned total of 160 CM.
Invictus has a broadside of 84 + 24 fore and 14 aft; for a total of 206.

I'd done CM per ton (so larger number is better), but if you want the numbers the other way round, let's do kiloton/CM to keep the sizes reasonable.

So for kilotons per CM (lower is better) we'd get:
77.23 kton/CM | 6,179 kton/80 CM | Minotaur CLAC
74.34 kton/CM | 6,244 kton/84 CM | Covington CLAC
64.02 kton/CM | 6,146 kton/96 CM | Hydra CLAC
54.87 kton/CM | 8,779 kton/160 CM | Harrington II SD(P)
45.03 kton/CM | 8,555 kton/190 CM | Medusa SD(P)
43.58 kton/CM | 8,629 kton/198 CM | Harrington SD(P)
42.57 kton/CM | 8,769 kton/206 CM | Invictus SD(P)
39.37 kton/CM | 2,520 kton/64 CM | Nike BC(L)
33.91 kton/CM | 1,764 kton/52 CM | Courvosier II BC(P)
29.18 kton/CM | 1,751 kton/60 CM | Agamemnon BC(P)
12.08 kton/CM | __483 kton/40 CM | Saganami-C CA

While you're right that the numbers get silly as you go smaller, and it's unfair in some ways to include the non-keyhole ships as their CMs can't be as fully utilized (plus the keyhole ones get unfairly penalized because they spend mass and surface area on keyholes which cut down on the number of tubes they can mount; in order to get that higher utilization tradeoff

But even with these numbers a Nike requires 7.5% fewer tons per CM than an Invictus; so it's still got more defenses relative to its size. And the Aggies, which can't take a hit anywhere near as well, partially compensate by needing 31.4% fewer tons per CM than the Invictus