Apollo Ship designs

"Ben H" <cataphractlance.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 9:32 pm, "Jeff Jewell" <jci....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> I'm sure it's already been discussed, but I just finished re-reading
>> At
>> All Costs and I'm in the middle of my re-read of Shadow of Saganami and I
>> am
>> wondering if an Edward Saganami-C Heavy Cruiser can use Key-hole 2?
>>
>> I'm not sure if the Key hole system is too large to mount in a CA, but if
>> it
>> could, I think that the Apollo Equipped CA could be an excellent way for
>> the
>> Manticore navy to hold down large areas of territory with ships that
>> could
>> be built quickly.
>>
>> I first had the idea for BC(P) but thought that if the Saganami-A CA
>> could
>> change it's broadsides from 20 missile tubes each to 16 missile tubes
>> with 2
>> FTL Apollo tubes per broadside, they should be able to launch 4 Apollo
>> clusters per salvo with the off-boar capacity. That should be enough to
>> cripple virtually any battle cruiser design out there and be able to
>> outrun/out sniper anything larger. I realized that even if they can only
>> launch two-stage missiles, as Honor Harrington showed at the battle for
>> Manticore, Apollo clusters can re-engage a 2nd stage and still be
>> effective
>> at hitting it's targets.
>>
>> Since the Edward Saganami-C is a current design, I would think it could
>> be
>> refitted/redesigned fairly easily and provide enough of a stand-off
>> weapon
>> cheaply to allow home fleet to build back up. Then again the costs of
>> just
>> putting Key-hole 2 on BC(P) and loading the new pods along with station
>> defense pods may be more economical for defense.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Just bear in mind, the Apollo missle on the SDs was already outsized,
> since it had to pack the multi-stage drive, the onboard electronics
> AND a grav com.
> The CAs aren't using full scale capital ship missiles either. The ship
> would have to sacrifice launchers for the Apollo type AND a tremendous
> amount of magazine capacity.

I mentioned all of that, which is why I speculated the reduction in the
broadsides from 20 to 16. I agree on the magazine space, but with the order
of magnitude of greater effectiveness that Apollo gives each salvo, I
thought that it would be an acceptable trade-off. Who knows?


>Not to mention that a CA isn't going to
> have the same kind of fire control an SD would. Plus, because the
> missiles aren't being fired in packets, the salvos would have to sync
> up with the Apollo birds before going off to the target, which could
> potentially eat into the offbore capability.

My understanding was that the massive amounts of fire control needed on an
SD was purely because of the massive missile swarms they needed to fire to
be effective against their enemies. Since my proposed CA can only throw
(maybe) 4 Apollo clusters at a time it semmes that they should be able to
handle it.

Regarding the birds syncing together, I remembered that Warner Caslet's CL
was able to puall a spin move so that the 9 missiles from the first
broadside would have a delayed ignition so that by the time the ship had
spun and launched it's 2nd broadside, the first would start up so they could
effectively double their broadside (I assume they were able to handle the
fire control for that many birds - and sync them together, otherwise why do
it)?


>Oh, one more thing.
> They're two stage birds. Honor had the element of surprise at the
> Battle of Manticore. None of the Republic's commanders considered the
> need to perform evasive action at that range. But now that they DO
> know, it wouldn't be too terribly difficult, in most circumstances, to
> maneuver well out outside the original vector that the missles were
> launched on. Even when the second stage comes online it'll have to
> burn most of its drive just reacquiring the targets, with little, if
> any left for terminal attack maneuvers.

I believe that the large areas of territory i mentioned that Manticorde will
have to hold is not at threat by the Peeps. It seems very obvious to me
that the next arc of stories will involve Mesa and the Sollies (or their
splinter groups) getting a little big for their britches with the two
biggest fighters against genetic slavery having just decimated their fleets.
Because of that I feel that the Satr Kingdom will be far more effective at
holding it's territory with highly effective small ships (which the Edward
Saganami class CA is designed to be already).

The surprise at the battle of Manticore was tied to the fact that the
missiles were under shipboard control from so far out. That is why none of
the commanders considered evasive maneuvers. Normally that tactic would
have been such a long shot that the missiles would have had to manage their
own fire control and been so marginally effective that it is not worth
shooting. Also any good Tactical officer is going to design a firing plan
around the capabilities of the missiles they are shooting and not take a
shot that will leave them without the ability effectively engage the enemy.
Plus it is almost impossibly difficult ot evade missiles that can accelerate
at thousands of gravities when a starship can only accel at several hundred.


>
> BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so far
> exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe to toe
> with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be able to
> pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away if the
> enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the battleships
> available weren't up to the task of blowing them away. They could be
> used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket second tier
> systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they could have
> real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the fact they had
> so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could build
> individually capable units.

I like the idea of the battleship picket for the alliance. Are you
considering a pod design or teaming up a fire control BB that can accept
hand-offs from BC(P)s?
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

"Ben H" <cataphractlance DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

>
> BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so far
> exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe to toe
> with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be able to
> pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away if the
> enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the battleships
> available weren't up to the task of blowing them away. They could be
> used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket second tier
> systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they could have
> real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the fact they had
> so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could build
> individually capable units.
>

Something else to consider, BenH, is that by the latest book, AAC,
the newest class of Manticoran BC's is just somewhere around BB-sized.
I don't remember the name of this BC class, although I do believe that
there was another Nike in the class that was a part of one of HH's
TF's.

If BC's are increasing in size, but SD's are not (due to physics
limitations),
it will seem that BB's will get squeezed out of the mix ... not the Manties
were ever particularly interested in them in the first place.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 3, 11:24 pm, "Jeff Jewell" <jci....RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Ben H" <cataphractla....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 9:32 pm, "Jeff Jewell" <jci....RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >> I'm sure it's already been discussed, but I just finished re-reading
> >> At
> >> All Costs and I'm in the middle of my re-read of Shadow of Saganami and I
> >> am
> >> wondering if an Edward Saganami-C Heavy Cruiser can use Key-hole 2?
>
> >> I'm not sure if the Key hole system is too large to mount in a CA, but if
> >> it
> >> could, I think that the Apollo Equipped CA could be an excellent way for
> >> the
> >> Manticore navy to hold down large areas of territory with ships that
> >> could
> >> be built quickly.
>
> >> I first had the idea for BC(P) but thought that if the Saganami-A CA
> >> could
> >> change it's broadsides from 20 missile tubes each to 16 missile tubes
> >> with 2
> >> FTL Apollo tubes per broadside, they should be able to launch 4 Apollo
> >> clusters per salvo with the off-boar capacity. That should be enough to
> >> cripple virtually any battle cruiser design out there and be able to
> >> outrun/out sniper anything larger. I realized that even if they can only
> >> launch two-stage missiles, as Honor Harrington showed at the battle for
> >> Manticore, Apollo clusters can re-engage a 2nd stage and still be
> >> effective
> >> at hitting it's targets.
>
> >> Since the Edward Saganami-C is a current design, I would think it could
> >> be
> >> refitted/redesigned fairly easily and provide enough of a stand-off
> >> weapon
> >> cheaply to allow home fleet to build back up. Then again the costs of
> >> just
> >> putting Key-hole 2 on BC(P) and loading the new pods along with station
> >> defense pods may be more economical for defense.
>
> >> Any thoughts?
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > Just bear in mind, the Apollo missle on the SDs was already outsized,
> > since it had to pack the multi-stage drive, the onboard electronics
> > AND a grav com.
> > The CAs aren't using full scale capital ship missiles either. The ship
> > would have to sacrifice launchers for the Apollo type AND a tremendous
> > amount of magazine capacity.
>
> I mentioned all of that, which is why I speculated the reduction in the
> broadsides from 20 to 16. I agree on the magazine space, but with the order
> of magnitude of greater effectiveness that Apollo gives each salvo, I
> thought that it would be an acceptable trade-off. Who knows?
>
> >Not to mention that a CA isn't going to
> > have the same kind of fire control an SD would. Plus, because the
> > missiles aren't being fired in packets, the salvos would have to sync
> > up with the Apollo birds before going off to the target, which could
> > potentially eat into the offbore capability.
>
> My understanding was that the massive amounts of fire control needed on an
> SD was purely because of the massive missile swarms they needed to fire to
> be effective against their enemies. Since my proposed CA can only throw
> (maybe) 4 Apollo clusters at a time it semmes that they should be able to
> handle it.
>
> Regarding the birds syncing together, I remembered that Warner Caslet's CL
> was able to puall a spin move so that the 9 missiles from the first
> broadside would have a delayed ignition so that by the time the ship had
> spun and launched it's 2nd broadside, the first would start up so they could
> effectively double their broadside (I assume they were able to handle the
> fire control for that many birds - and sync them together, otherwise why do
> it)?
>

It's not so much a matter of getting a wave to fire synchronously, but
rather the need for the Apollo birds to link with the individual birds
in their flight. The SD(P)s just packed one flight in each pod, making
the sync convenient.

> >Oh, one more thing.
> > They're two stage birds. Honor had the element of surprise at the
> > Battle of Manticore. None of the Republic's commanders considered the
> > need to perform evasive action at that range. But now that they DO
> > know, it wouldn't be too terribly difficult, in most circumstances, to
> > maneuver well out outside the original vector that the missles were
> > launched on. Even when the second stage comes online it'll have to
> > burn most of its drive just reacquiring the targets, with little, if
> > any left for terminal attack maneuvers.
>
> I believe that the large areas of territory i mentioned that Manticorde will
> have to hold is not at threat by the Peeps. It seems very obvious to me
> that the next arc of stories will involve Mesa and the Sollies (or their
> splinter groups) getting a little big for their britches with the two
> biggest fighters against genetic slavery having just decimated their fleets.
> Because of that I feel that the Satr Kingdom will be far more effective at
> holding it's territory with highly effective small ships (which the Edward
> Saganami class CA is designed to be already).
>
I think its obvious to everyone at this point that Weber is
transitioning away from the Peeps(they're just not evil enough
anymore). Regardless, they still have to defend an enormous amount of
territory. Pre-cease fire Solly tech was just as good or better then
what the Peeps had. Bear in mind, the tech transfers the Peeps HAD
gotten came solely from those Sollies willing to subvert the weapons
ban. Bolthole was designed to use existing technology in novel ways to
combat the Manties supreme tech advantage. Things like the Tripple
Ripple and the donkeys.
There is no evidence at all that the Solarian League would be at any
greater a disadvantage compared to the Peeps. Oh sure, they may have
more old hardware in active use, as warships tend to last longer in
peace then in war, but any newline warships can be expected to be
roughly parrallely capable.

> The surprise at the battle of Manticore was tied to the fact that the
> missiles were under shipboard control from so far out. That is why none of
> the commanders considered evasive maneuvers. Normally that tactic would
> have been such a long shot that the missiles would have had to manage their
> own fire control and been so marginally effective that it is not worth
> shooting. Also any good Tactical officer is going to design a firing plan
> around the capabilities of the missiles they are shooting and not take a
> shot that will leave them without the ability effectively engage the enemy.
> Plus it is almost impossibly difficult ot evade missiles that can accelerate
> at thousands of gravities when a starship can only accel at several hundred.
>
>

You're missing the point. Let's say I'm 80 million kilometers from
you. You fire a two-stage drive, which accelerates across the first 10
million klicks to 400,000 klicks/second. All I have to do is navigate
far enough out of your attack window that your secondary drive can't
engage me when it comes online. Whereas a three-stage drive has enough
power for an initial accel run, a cruise, ignition of a second drive
to move in on a target, and then a third drive for attack maneuvers, a
two-stage drive at best can run up the accel and then move in on a
target, and will have precious few seconds to attack. That means no
flashy maneuvers, no dodging countermissles and lasers, just a brunt,
full on assault. Hits will be low.
The range of the missles has not increased, merely the EFFECTIVE
range.
>
> > BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> > presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> > biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> > wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so far
> > exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe to toe
> > with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be able to
> > pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away if the
> > enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the battleships
> > available weren't up to the task of blowing them away. They could be
> > used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket second tier
> > systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they could have
> > real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the fact they had
> > so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could build
> > individually capable units.
>
> I like the idea of the battleship picket for the alliance. Are you
> considering a pod design or teaming up a fire control BB that can accept
> hand-offs from BC(P)s?

Why would the Alliance bother with a fire control BB ship? They can
build in enough control links they don't have to worry about that sort
of thing, unlike the Peeps. Not to mention that Apollo cuts down on
the number of control links needed anyways, even if they are mass
intensive grav coms. Pod design, of course.
The only problem with the BB is that while a capital ship, Weber has
repeatedly iterated that it just isn't big enough to stand in the
wall of battle. It CAN handle capital ship missles, and by extension,
capital ship pods. Because the kind of swarm that was once needed is
no longer necessary, you don't need all the launchers an SD carries.
That does NOT mean I feel that a CA would be an effective weapon
against capital ships. Even against Apollo, an SD should have enough
point defense to overwhelm anything a cruiser could send against it.
Manticore and Grayson were having enough problems picketing Alliance
systems like Zanzibar and Alizon, the addition of the entire Talbott
cluster screams for more ships. While the actions of the Hexapuma were
noteworthy, it must be remembered that most of the BCs were new
construction, without trained crews. Hexapuma would not have fared as
well against a crew familiar with the operation of their ship. The
Talbott cluster needs a slew of BCs at minimum, BBs would be better.
Once again, a flotilla of BBs with Apollo should be able to handle
anything up to, and potentially including SDs.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 5, 9:36 pm, "Fred Burton" <fbur....RemoveThis@biteme2.com> wrote:
> "Ben H" <cataphractla....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> > presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> > biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> > wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so far
> > exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe to toe
> > with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be able to
> > pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away if the
> > enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the battleships
> > available weren't up to the task of blowing them away. They could be
> > used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket second tier
> > systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they could have
> > real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the fact they had
> > so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could build
> > individually capable units.
>
> Something else to consider, BenH, is that by the latest book, AAC,
> the newest class of Manticoran BC's is just somewhere around BB-sized.
> I don't remember the name of this BC class, although I do believe that
> there was another Nike in the class that was a part of one of HH's
> TF's.
>
> If BC's are increasing in size, but SD's are not (due to physics
> limitations),
> it will seem that BB's will get squeezed out of the mix ... not the Manties
> were ever particularly interested in them in the first place.

It was approaching BB size, not actually as large, IRC. At some point
the BC becomes large enough that it IS a BB. The BC's advantage always
was that it could handle CAs, but could flee from the wall of battle.
If you build a BC too large, it'll be large, ponderous, without the
advantages of a capital ship, and unable to escape new build SDs.
I really feel that Manticore could use a smaller capital ship. As was
demonstrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer(I think) there isn't
significant savings building DNs versus SDs. BBs however should be
able to save the Exchequer a significant amount of money since what
Manticore is really hurting for right now are picket forces.
Enough to make anyone conducting raids on the orbitals a second pause,
between the cost/benefit ratios of going toe to toe with Apollo MDMs
and the risk of violating the Erdiani act. Even if a splinter nation
were to go to war with the Star Kingdom, it would be very careful to
avoid the ire of nations like Beowulf, that aside from having a strong
relationship with the Star Kingdom also is a very strong support of
the act.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @biteme2.com> wrote in
news:fgojug$11ob$1@pyrite.mv.net:

>
> "Ben H" <cataphractlance DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
>> presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
>> biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
>> wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so
>> far exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe
>> to toe with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be
>> able to pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away
>> if the enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the
>> battleships available weren't up to the task of blowing them away.
>> They could be used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket
>> second tier systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they
>> could have real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the
>> fact they had so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could
>> build individually capable units.
>>
>
> Something else to consider, BenH, is that by the latest book, AAC,
> the newest class of Manticoran BC's is just somewhere around BB-sized.
> I don't remember the name of this BC class, although I do believe that
> there was another Nike in the class that was a part of one of HH's
> TF's.
>
> If BC's are increasing in size, but SD's are not (due to physics
> limitations),
> it will seem that BB's will get squeezed out of the mix ... not the
> Manties were ever particularly interested in them in the first place.

And modern-day destroyers are oftentimes bigger than heavy cruisers from
the 1940s. Possible that the terminology is simply adapting to the
biases of whoever is naming the ships. The Manties know that BCs are
swift, versatile, and highly effective skirmishing warships, while BBs
are the type of clumsy ineffective warship the Peeps would use.
Nevermind that a modern Mantie BC basically IS a battleship, only fast
and modern, as opposed to the slow pre-war BBs used by the Havenites.

As long as the Manties know that BCs are better than BBs, they'll keep
building BCs, even if their BCs are BBs. Yaknow?
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Jeffrey MacHott <Ragulea... DeleteThis @netzero.net> wrote:
> "Fred Burton" <fbur... DeleteThis @biteme2.com> wrote innews:fgojug$11ob$1@pyrite.mv.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ben H" <cataphractla... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> >> presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> >> biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> >> wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so
> >> far exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe
> >> to toe with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be
> >> able to pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away
> >> if the enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the
> >> battleships available weren't up to the task of blowing them away.
> >> They could be used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket
> >> second tier systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they
> >> could have real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the
> >> fact they had so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could
> >> build individually capable units.
>
> > Something else to consider, BenH, is that by the latest book, AAC,
> > the newest class of Manticoran BC's is just somewhere around BB-sized.
> > I don't remember the name of this BC class, although I do believe that
> > there was another Nike in the class that was a part of one of HH's
> > TF's.
>
> > If BC's are increasing in size, but SD's are not (due to physics
> > limitations),
> > it will seem that BB's will get squeezed out of the mix ... not the
> > Manties were ever particularly interested in them in the first place.
>
> And modern-day destroyers are oftentimes bigger than heavy cruisers from
> the 1940s. Possible that the terminology is simply adapting to the
> biases of whoever is naming the ships. The Manties know that BCs are
> swift, versatile, and highly effective skirmishing warships, while BBs
> are the type of clumsy ineffective warship the Peeps would use.
> Nevermind that a modern Mantie BC basically IS a battleship, only fast
> and modern, as opposed to the slow pre-war BBs used by the Havenites.
>
> As long as the Manties know that BCs are better than BBs, they'll keep
> building BCs, even if their BCs are BBs. Yaknow?

The only problem with that logic is that the distinction between a BC
and a BB was that a BC was the pinnacle of the cruiser style warship.
Fast enough to flee from anything larger, strong enough to take on
anything weaker.
A BB however was a CAPITAL ship. It mounted full sized missles, and a
capital ship grade chase armament.
The Manties have made their BCs so big in order to fit in all the new
toys they've been playing with like pods, grav coms and such. They
have not given them the extra armor plating, full sized pod launchers,
and the other stuff that distinguished the class. So even if they are
as big as the old BBs, they still are NOT BBs.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:56:02 GMT, Jeffrey MacHott
<Raguleader DeleteThis @netzero.net> wrote:

>And modern-day destroyers are oftentimes bigger than heavy cruisers from
>the 1940s. Possible that the terminology is simply adapting to the
>biases of whoever is naming the ships. The Manties know that BCs are
>swift, versatile, and highly effective skirmishing warships, while BBs
>are the type of clumsy ineffective warship the Peeps would use.
>Nevermind that a modern Mantie BC basically IS a battleship, only fast
>and modern, as opposed to the slow pre-war BBs used by the Havenites.
>
>As long as the Manties know that BCs are better than BBs, they'll keep
>building BCs, even if their BCs are BBs. Yaknow?

I think what's going on is ship classes are named for the roles they
play, not for their size.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:43:40 -0000, Ben H <cataphractlance RemoveThis @gmail.com>
wrote:


>> And modern-day destroyers are oftentimes bigger than heavy cruisers from
>> the 1940s. Possible that the terminology is simply adapting to the
>> biases of whoever is naming the ships. The Manties know that BCs are
>> swift, versatile, and highly effective skirmishing warships, while BBs
>> are the type of clumsy ineffective warship the Peeps would use.
>> Nevermind that a modern Mantie BC basically IS a battleship, only fast
>> and modern, as opposed to the slow pre-war BBs used by the Havenites.
>>
>> As long as the Manties know that BCs are better than BBs, they'll keep
>> building BCs, even if their BCs are BBs. Yaknow?
>
>The only problem with that logic is that the distinction between a BC
>and a BB was that a BC was the pinnacle of the cruiser style warship.
>Fast enough to flee from anything larger, strong enough to take on
>anything weaker.
>A BB however was a CAPITAL ship. It mounted full sized missles, and a
>capital ship grade chase armament.
>The Manties have made their BCs so big in order to fit in all the new
>toys they've been playing with like pods, grav coms and such. They
>have not given them the extra armor plating, full sized pod launchers,
>and the other stuff that distinguished the class. So even if they are
>as big as the old BBs, they still are NOT BBs.


the size matters less than the missions that drive the designers. so
long as the star kingdom's navy remembers that they are BC not BB all
will be well. the day they forget that distinction they will long rue
indeed.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pmo4j3l3sgt0danmd7thdbjkris12aik8b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:43:40 -0000, Ben H <cataphractlance RemoveThis @gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> And modern-day destroyers are oftentimes bigger than heavy cruisers from
>>> the 1940s. Possible that the terminology is simply adapting to the
>>> biases of whoever is naming the ships. The Manties know that BCs are
>>> swift, versatile, and highly effective skirmishing warships, while BBs
>>> are the type of clumsy ineffective warship the Peeps would use.
>>> Nevermind that a modern Mantie BC basically IS a battleship, only fast
>>> and modern, as opposed to the slow pre-war BBs used by the Havenites.
>>>
>>> As long as the Manties know that BCs are better than BBs, they'll keep
>>> building BCs, even if their BCs are BBs. Yaknow?
>>
>>The only problem with that logic is that the distinction between a BC
>>and a BB was that a BC was the pinnacle of the cruiser style warship.
>>Fast enough to flee from anything larger, strong enough to take on
>>anything weaker.
>>A BB however was a CAPITAL ship. It mounted full sized missles, and a
>>capital ship grade chase armament.
>>The Manties have made their BCs so big in order to fit in all the new
>>toys they've been playing with like pods, grav coms and such. They
>>have not given them the extra armor plating, full sized pod launchers,
>>and the other stuff that distinguished the class. So even if they are
>>as big as the old BBs, they still are NOT BBs.
>
>
> the size matters less than the missions that drive the designers. so
> long as the star kingdom's navy remembers that they are BC not BB all
> will be well. the day they forget that distinction they will long rue
> indeed.

Well, given that there have been no BB's in the RMN for the duration of
the series, and that there's an immense gap between the capabilities of
BC's and SD's, I doubt that the RMN will have any problem remembering
that BC's are BC's.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 5, 10:11 pm, Ben H <cataphractla....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 9:36 pm, "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@biteme2.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ben H" <cataphractla....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1194011729.369675.248400@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > BC(P)s would be more economical, though I personally think Keyhole
> > > presents an oppurtunity for the return of the Battleship type. The
> > > biggest problem with them was they lacked the ability to stand in the
> > > wall of battle. If the effective range of the targeting systems so far
> > > exceeds the range of the opponent, then the inability to go toe to toe
> > > with massive salvos is less punishing. Battleships would be able to
> > > pack in better fire in control, full size MDMs and run away if the
> > > enemy decided to dispatch a task force of SDs, if the battleships
> > > available weren't up to the task of blowing them away. They could be
> > > used as the Peeps used theirs in the past, to picket second tier
> > > systems that didn't merit committing SDs, except now they could have
> > > real teeth to them. Where the Peeps merely relied on the fact they had
> > > so damn many of them left around, the Alliance could build
> > > individually capable units.
>
> > Something else to consider, BenH, is that by the latest book, AAC,
> > the newest class of Manticoran BC's is just somewhere around BB-sized.
> > I don't remember the name of this BC class, although I do believe that
> > there was another Nike in the class that was a part of one of HH's
> > TF's.
>
> > If BC's are increasing in size, but SD's are not (due to physics
> > limitations),
> > it will seem that BB's will get squeezed out of the mix ... not the Manties
> > were ever particularly interested in them in the first place.
>
> It was approaching BB size, not actually as large, IRC. At some point
> the BC becomes large enough that it IS a BB. The BC's advantage always
> was that it could handle CAs, but could flee from the wall of battle.
> If you build a BC too large, it'll be large, ponderous, without the
> advantages of a capital ship, and unable to escape new build SDs.
> I really feel that Manticore could use a smaller capital ship. As was
> demonstrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer(I think) there isn't
> significant savings building DNs versus SDs. BBs however should be
> able to save the Exchequer a significant amount of money since what
> Manticore is really hurting for right now are picket forces.
> Enough to make anyone conducting raids on the orbitals a second pause,
> between the cost/benefit ratios of going toe to toe with Apollo MDMs
> and the risk of violating the Erdiani act. Even if a splinter nation
> were to go to war with the Star Kingdom, it would be very careful to
> avoid the ire of nations like Beowulf, that aside from having a strong
> relationship with the Star Kingdom also is a very strong support of
> the act.

It just suddenly occurred to me that the Star Kingdom now has the
ability to engage enemies close to the hyper barrier while RMN ships
are still close enough to a planet that any attempt to fire on an RMN
ship could be construed as a violation of the Eridani Act. I can't
imagine the Manties actually doing it, but you know, as a last ditch
maneuver, it might work out okay. If nothing else, the enemy's Tac
officer is going to be alot more conservative when drawing up
targeting solutions.
Has the Wizard made any mention of this?
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

Ben H wrote:
> It just suddenly occurred to me that the Star Kingdom now has the
> ability to engage enemies close to the hyper barrier while RMN ships
> are still close enough to a planet that any attempt to fire on an RMN
> ship could be construed as a violation of the Eridani Act. I can't
> imagine the Manties actually doing it, but you know, as a last ditch
> maneuver, it might work out okay. If nothing else, the enemy's Tac
> officer is going to be alot more conservative when drawing up
> targeting solutions.
> Has the Wizard made any mention of this?
>
That's going to annoy the people on the planet.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 8, 9:04 am, Offbreed <offbreed_....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ben H wrote:
> > It just suddenly occurred to me that the Star Kingdom now has the
> > ability to engage enemies close to the hyper barrier while RMN ships
> > are still close enough to a planet that any attempt to fire on an RMN
> > ship could be construed as a violation of the Eridani Act. I can't
> > imagine the Manties actually doing it, but you know, as a last ditch
> > maneuver, it might work out okay. If nothing else, the enemy's Tac
> > officer is going to be alot more conservative when drawing up
> > targeting solutions.
> > Has the Wizard made any mention of this?
>
> That's going to annoy the people on the planet.

It doesn't seem to be the thing to do around Alliance planets, but if
say the Manties were to capture the starsystem of Some Foreign Power,
the Foreign Power Space Navy could be given pause if the Manties took
up a position in the high orbital. What could the FPSN do at that
point? Unless of course they were Frontier Security...
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs 

On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Ben H <cataphractla....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:04 am, Offbreed <offbreed_....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ben H wrote:
> > > It just suddenly occurred to me that the Star Kingdom now has the
> > > ability to engage enemies close to the hyper barrier while RMN ships
> > > are still close enough to a planet that any attempt to fire on an RMN
> > > ship could be construed as a violation of the Eridani Act. I can't
> > > imagine the Manties actually doing it, but you know, as a last ditch
> > > maneuver, it might work out okay. If nothing else, the enemy's Tac
> > > officer is going to be alot more conservative when drawing up
> > > targeting solutions.
> > > Has the Wizard made any mention of this?
>
> > That's going to annoy the people on the planet.
>
> It doesn't seem to be the thing to do around Alliance planets, but if
> say the Manties were to capture the starsystem of Some Foreign Power,
> the Foreign Power Space Navy could be given pause if the Manties took
> up a position in the high orbital. What could the FPSN do at that
> point? Unless of course they were Frontier Security...


The RMN would be wise not give an enemy fleet such a bad set of
alternatives. There is the terrible possibilty of the fleet commander
deciding to be hung as a ram, instead of a sheep. Formidable as the
defences of Manticore Home System are, they are hopelessly inadequite
to defend the system against an attacker hellbent on violating the
Eridani Edict. A single cruiser coming out of hyper and unloading its
magazines of single drive missiles on ballistic courses to Manticore,
Sphinx, and Gryphon will lay waste to vast tracts of the planets.
Without the grav signature of the impeller, or emissions from the
seeker, missiles are virtually undetectable at interplanetary
distance, so stopping any of them will be a problem. They will be
going at at 90+% of lightspeed, and only lightspeed sensors can detect
them.

The unstated reasoning behind the edict is that there is no way to
prevent the ploughing under of a complete biosphere by relativistic
missiles, so the Eridani Edict is in place to keep the M in MAD.
 >> Stay informed about: Apollo Ship designs