It's 1924, how would you change the new Nike?

You can simply install a vastly better and completely proven missile, the Mk23, instead. Yes it makes it a full BB equivalent, but the entire strategy the RMN has come up with for their BCs has never actually worked worth a damn because they keep running into ships out of their weight class. So to hell with that.

Wonder if it's worth trying to poach the idea of Halo. Apparently the hardware of the many tethered ECM platforms was significantly better than the software the League had to use it.

Though Manticore has pretty damn good free flying drones - the latest being Lorelei. So maybe instead of adding semi-recessed docking spots for (relatively) small tethered ECM drones you increase the ventral boat bays a bit to increase the RD and ECM/decoy drone capacity of the BC(L).


Hardly a new design, but might be worth a flight II tweak to the classic Nike.

Jonathan_S wrote:Wouldn't be much (if any) change to the ship, but I've always wonders why ERM drive tech (25%+ extended drive time) hadn't been combined with DDM/MDM tech. Okay, pre-Apollo the MDMs could already reach further than they could reasonably be controlled; so no reason to bother.

ERM/LERM missiles are capacitor powered, Mk16 and Mk23 are fusion powered. As I understand it, the extended ranges are accomplished by increasing capacitor density without increasing capacitor size.

Jonathan_S wrote:Would you have to install a larger fuel tank for the microfusion reactor?

That would be a way to extend Mk16/23 powered ranges, but that would mean a larger missile. Apollo is already limited to pod deployment, and increasing missile size would cause a whole daisy chain of other changes required.

There has to be a reason that they went with four drives instead of more fuel (or in addition to) for the system defense variant of Apollo.

A more productive change would be to apply the "Mod-G" grav lensing/warhead to the ERM/LERM missiles. Helen Zilwiki even mentions that when she muses that the Mk-16G was up to what most Navies would consider a capital-grade missile.

Weird Harold wrote:ERM/LERM missiles are capacitor powered, Mk16 and Mk23 are fusion powered. As I understand it, the extended ranges are accomplished by increasing capacitor density without increasing capacitor size.

That was part of it, but the bigger engineering challange was designing a drive node that could run at that power setting for more than 60 seconds (full power, 180 seconds at half) before burning out. Adding capacitors doesn't help if the drive burns out on you.

That's what give Vipers and the new Mk31 CMs so much longer a range, unlike previous CMs their drives last 75 seconds rather than 60.

For for some reason you can put thos longer endurance nodes on a DDM then it doesn't mater how long the reactor can run for.

That would be a way to extend Mk16/23 powered ranges, but that would mean a larger missile. Apollo is already limited to pod deployment, and increasing missile size would cause a whole daisy chain of other changes required.

There has to be a reason that they went with four drives instead of more fuel (or in addition to) for the system defense variant of Apollo.

A more productive change would be to apply the "Mod-G" grav lensing/warhead to the ERM/LERM missiles. Helen Zilwiki even mentions that when she muses that the Mk-16G was up to what most Navies would consider a capital-grade missile.

Well that and they were looking for max delta-v on the final stage; which is why they went with a CM derived drive. Can't get that higher final accel if you just increased the endurance of the original 3 drives.

But it's not clear how much larger a Mk16 would have to be to carry ERM nodes and fuel. Obviously if it becomes the size of a Mk23 then it's an utterly counterproductive upgrade.

We do know the Mk14 ERMs for CAs (Sag-B) were too large to be fired from older launchers. But how much of that was the ERM nodes and how much was having to cram in extra capacitor volume isn't known.

I would also reconsider the locations of the keyhole cradles. Whilst I understand that some of the wireless power relays and communications equipment for the keyhole may be mounted in the cradle, I don't see why they can't leave those modules on the broadside surface whilst moving the cradles to the ventral and dorsal surfaces.

It's not as if the keyholes would collide with the impeller wedge before the ship could spin to clear its wedge, use its tractor beams to shove them sideways, the keyholes could use their onboard reaction thrusters... or some combination of those options.

kzt wrote:You can simply install a vastly better and completely proven missile, the Mk23, instead. Yes it makes it a full BB equivalent, but the entire strategy the RMN has come up with for their BCs has never actually worked worth a damn because they keep running into ships out of their weight class. So to hell with that.

And, per what we see in the books, defeating most of them or being able to damage them and escape. Anything of equivelnt class (so far) they can kill. Historicaly the concept of a Battle Crusier has been essentily over gunned for its weight/defensive schemes and fast with good endurance. You cruise. You can commerce protect (and RAID as needed). Dam fine ship to Show The Flag. Usualy be the toughest, fastest, most lethal thing in the neighborhood unless there are capital ships around- which you can typicaly outrun or at least avoid engaging depending on need.
With the size creep due to newer weapons, control (Apollo etc) complexity of equipment, cm requirements and other defensive components, the BC may move into the current BB size range. So it becomes a "big assed BC".
BCs may or may not choose to engage a single much larger ship but even with a relative lack of defenses they can still do considerable harm to said larger ship while staying at the edge of the othe ships engagement range. Of course the RMN or RHN BCs have such a massive engagement range (and cm range/depth-volume of fire with adequite control) advantage against any other navy's capital ships (possible excption to the Lenny Dets) that a RMN BC could savage a SLN SD while staying out of it's engagement range and then -if needed- withdraw (or take their surrender)

I don’t believe that anything under a SD in the RHN has anything other than SDMs.

Inclusion of LACS into something the size of a Nike simply isn't possible.

According to House of Steel the Shrike is 71m long, and the Nike is 129m across; so the hanger would extend more than half way through the hull.

This either introduces a critical weakness to the core hull, or necessitates placing the hangers 'outside' the ship (which may in turn, compromise the design constraint the Alpha/Beta nodes place on starship design)

We don't have the physical dimensions of the Charles Ward (slightly larger than the Nike with removable 'cargo-pods'), but I think only large quantities of handwavium allow for it's construction.

Even the Minotaur/Hydra classes are suspect: approx 190m across with hangers on both sides means the core hull is only about 50m across, which has to include the magazines for the LACs, magazines for the ship's own weapons, engine rooms, machine shops and crew accommodations.

nrellis wrote:Inclusion of LACS into something the size of a Nike simply isn't possible.

Try reading my entire post instead of just going off on the first line.

A Shrike is 20 meters wide, 20 meters high. Not such a big bite out of a battlecruiser, IF someone were to exercise more than ten brain cells and realize that it would be aligned with the ship's axis.

No, they can't be launched from the broadsides while the Nike is in battle. They would be carried and released from specialized boat bays located in the taper sections just fore and aft of the ship's main body.

AS I SAID IN MY POST.

nrellis wrote:Inclusion of LACS into something the size of a Nike simply isn't possible.

According to House of Steel the Shrike is 71m long, and the Nike is 129m across; so the hanger would extend more than half way through the hull.

This either introduces a critical weakness to the core hull, or necessitates placing the hangers 'outside' the ship (which may in turn, compromise the design constraint the Alpha/Beta nodes place on starship design)

We don't have the physical dimensions of the Charles Ward (slightly larger than the Nike with removable 'cargo-pods'), but I think only large quantities of handwavium allow for it's construction.

Even the Minotaur/Hydra classes are suspect: approx 190m across with hangers on both sides means the core hull is only about 50m across, which has to include the magazines for the LACs, magazines for the ship's own weapons, engine rooms, machine shops and crew accommodations.

Pretty sure the Charles Ward carries her LACs oriented fore and aft, rather than nose in, so the hangers probably only need to be 25-30 meters deep. But that makes their hatch a much larger weak point in the side armor, and cuts more heavily into the space you could otherwise mount missiles, point defense, or sensor. (Not such a big issue on an armed repair ship than on a true warship)