Wasn't the ERM enough? Why bother with the Mk 16?

RFC has always been quite keen on taking initial ideas through a logical progression. For example, Apollo-style FTL fire control is a logical progression of the original FTL comm seen as far back as HoQ. Similarly, it's logical that once the MDM was a proven tech, design teams would start looking at whether it was possible to apply the same principles to a smaller, cruiser-weight missile.

It wasn't practical at first because the size of capacitor required would make the missile too large for a cruiser to carry in large numbers. It took the development of the mini fusion reactors to make it feasible, along with the growth in size of cruisers and the use of automation freeing up space for larger magazines.

Carl wrote:@OP: Your forgetting a huge factor. Fusion Powered missiles have repeatedly been described as having "vastly greater" energy budgets. So their ability to penetrate terminal defenses goes way up as a result.

The Mk16 was probably at the time of development about as small a missile as you could build and squeeze in a micro-fusion plant. At that point the slight extra mass of a second drive doesn't look like a very bad idea since it would have minimal numbers impact.

At the same time the larger size probably allowed a few other similar low mass and volume cost improvements like much better sensors.

In addition i don;t recall any non-MDM/DDM missile being described with off boresight capabilities, and the text attributes that heavily to the vast velocity increases DDM/MDM makes possible, so i doubt ERM's would be capable of it, or they'd take a vastly greater penalty from it if they are.

Ok, I am getting caught up on this forum today. Thanks for all the comments.

FWIW, I didn't "forget" anything. For a non-mdm ship with off-bore capability, read the HOS entry on the Saganami-B, the Wolfhound DD or the Avalon class cruiser. Also, the Shrike, and Ferret class LACs.

I never said a fusion powered cruiser weight missile was undesirable. Or that its improvements were irrelevent. What I said was, that at the time of introduction it wasn't needed for the RMN to win the fights and battles that were described.

The lack of text regarding any action by ERM-equipped ships --aside from Gauntlet--means we, as readers, do not have background to appreciate exactly how much a combination of technologies served to advance the capabilities on display. The only peer (near-peer) to the Saganami-A was the Mars; there is no Sag-vs-Mars text. We get a bit of it with the Saganami vs Andi cruiser in WoH; but the text said the RMN vessel "was winning handily" when a golden bb took it out. Gauntlet took out four Solarian Guardians at Tiburion, but the author somehow forgot to include much data on the Guardians or the Gaunlet. He addressed Gauntlet's weapons fit in a post in the Pearls.

There was a fair discussion of the Hellebarde fight in some threads in 2011; nearly everyone claimed the Saganami was a Bravo; but no one had mentioned the Mk13ER anywhere until SoF, several books later. We don't actually know which class of ship was involved, other than "Saganami".

Specs on the Mars are in the GSN section, I think. 11 missiles, 12 lasers, lots of point defense. It would have a lot of difficulty with a Star Knight; a SagA beats it easily; and a SagB just takes its lunch money and charges a nickel for psychiatric assistance. A Sag C kills one easily at Nuncio.

There were several technologies introduced at the same time, ca 1912-14-- the fusion powered ghost rider drones for recon; off-bore capability (the Shrike could fire 120 degrees off bore); better and more numerous missile defense systems; fire control systems that included the ability to control larger salvos. In and of themselves, those are incremental changes; taken together, they tip the balance of conventional ships strongly in the RMN's favor. Whatever R&D was working on, in the HR government, and the Janacek admiralty, there weren't enough senior policymakers left in place to push expensive construction for new missiles and new ships. The obsolete nature of the pre-war ships was evident even before Buttercup, though, and most of the design features of the "design study" for the Saganami-B were already in use in other ships by 1914.

So, as a reader, it seems that the jump to fusion missiles came too fast. Applying the tech they already had in use in the avant garde Medusa and Ferret to their light warships would have significently improved their survivabilty and increased their firepower. But new ships were not introduced--from the 1899 Culverin until the 1919 Wolfhound? From the 1902 Valiant until the 1919 Avalon? The Navy only needs heavy cruisers now?

Frankly, that is what bothers me most. I think it may actually be that point that prompted my original post.

If, as some of the posts RFC made in other topics suggest, the Mk 16 and MK 23 actually share a majority of components, then it makes sense to bring them in together. And there is enough of an interval for the drone power plants and mdm nodes to make the missiles feasible. And I don't have any quarrel with capital ships as of 1919 with the fusion birds. But I would have thought the Mk16 would have been largely limited to the Aggie; didn't the first Aggies commission in 1917 or so?

But my original point was that ERM equipped ships would have done just fine against Havenite ships at the time, and that I don't see from the text of the follow on books since WoH why he developed pushed the DDM into the CA so soon. By 1921, yes. But there are too many built by April 2021. But there is no way the majority of ships in service could have shifted so fast.

As an aside, Erewhon's exit from the Alliance and the treaty they made with Haven were only a month before Operation Thunderbolt kicked off. Not exactly enough time for any tech transfer to mean anything at all for a year or so.

And RFC made the point in several posts that Erewhon didn't have as much tech as people thought. And anyone saying only a Mk16 equipped ship is survivalble is ignoring the Aegis, its Mk36 armament, and the fact that it is sufficiently capable that the RMN did NOT build a light cruiser version of a Roland, even though it would have been more capable. Instead, they built around 200 of these light cruisers without any DDM.

All part of the same fleet, and not obsolete for what they are needed for.

As usual, too long. Sigh.

Regards,

Rob

wastedfly wrote:Mk-14 was created when MDM was just coming on line at end of 1st Haven war. An evolutionary step. MDM was a revolutionary step. It doesn't take a hyper scientist to project MDM capability for system defense. At this point, any light attack force equipped with MK-14, just became obsolete and useless as a raiding squadron/task force.

Light combatants needed a revolutionary missile to become relevant again.

Several years of R&D later(fusion) with MK-16, light combatants became relevant for their respective roles once again. If Fusion power for missiles was not invented, there would not have been a DDM missile for BC/CA etc. The whole rationale behind the MK-16 was that only for "slightly" more mass than an MK-14(94verses 72) much greater capabilities ensued. Without this missile, BC's, CA's, would have vanished as ship types. With this new missile they can now fulfill their previous roles. Namely raiding, defending against superior foe and scedadeling. Can medium combatants go toe-to-toe with a major defensive system of pods? No. But neither could they with SDM forts/pods either.

Now with the advent of tractored Capital pods, upgrade in MK-16G laser head throughput, invented after the MK-16 and its initial ship types were designed, can someone argue that medium combatants just became irrelevant/obsolete again? I would argue that tractored pods makes the BCL irrelevant for its cost. Not irrelevant as a ship type. Rather irrelevant for its cost(effectively meaning obsolete). Effectively it is a capital ship without the firepower or defensive capabilities, but with a capital ships costs for procurement and lifetime personnel and maintenance costs.

In some ways, I agree. But ships are not being designed for competing outside their core missions.

What is relevent for a weapons fit depends on the mission.

I am unaware of any RMN attacks on any major system with MDM defenses by either DDs or CLs. Now that the SL is playing catch-up, non-alliance systems may have that capability. Someday.

Not in 1915-1918, the inter-war years. And you seem to forget Aegis, and the entire Avalon class, which are apparently still being built.

Regards,

Rob

SWM wrote:Most people are responding in terms of Manticore's perspective, and the technological development. The original poster was asking from the literary perspective--why did David Weber introduce DDMs to the story at that time, rather than just the ERMs?

I believe the answer is that he knew he was also about to introduce the Cataphract, and other new foreign weapons developments, and that Manticore would no longer have a monopoly on advanced tech.

Thanks!! Exactly.
Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:But my original point was that ERM equipped ships would have done just fine against Havenite ships at the time, and that I don't see from the text of the follow on books since WoH why he developed pushed the DDM into the CA so soon. By 1921, yes. But there are too many built by April 2021. But there is no way the majority of ships in service could have shifted so fast.
[snip]

And RFC made the point in several posts that Erewhon didn't have as much tech as people thought. And anyone saying only a Mk16 equipped ship is survivalble is ignoring the Aegis, its Mk36 armament, and the fact that it is sufficiently capable that the RMN did NOT build a light cruiser version of a Roland, even though it would have been more capable. Instead, they built around 200 of these light cruisers without any DDM.

All part of the same fleet, and not obsolete for what they are needed for.

As usual, too long. Sigh.

Regards,

Rob

With that I tend to agree. In hindsight the RMN didn't need the Mk16 equipped ships as early as they got them.

Of course that's been true for a significant number of real world weapons systems. In hindsight the US Navy would have been fine without the Iowa-class BBs or the Alaska-class CBs, the UK didn't need HMS Vanguard, etc. I guess RFC could have delayed them for plot reasons until just before the RMN needed them, but in some ways its more realistic for them to start becoming avalible in limited numbers as soon as the navy had the technical ability to build them.

Because I guarantee a Navy (or Army, or Air Force) prefers having a given weapon "too soon" rather than only just in time. It's too easy for "just in time" to get delayed into "a little too late".



Of course being too early can screw you if what you get in less capable than what you'd have by waiting. The Luftwaffe was about a half generation ahead of the Allies for most of their aircraft when the war started; but that meant that by the time large numbers were rolling off lines in the US the outnumbered Luftwaffe planes were mostly a half generation behind and consequently didn't have performance on par with the Allied designs. (With the obvious exception of the few jet fighters they had).

Oddly, while I'm off on this tangent, the German Army's tanks were the opposite. They rolled into Poland and then France individually less capable than the British and French tanks they faced - they won on numbers and tactics. Then by the time a lot of Shermans got into the war (which would have dominated the '39 - '40 German tanks) the Germans had undergone a new acquisition cycle and had quite a few upgrade Panzer IV and Panther tanks (and a few resource hogging Tigers) which outmatched the half-generation behind Shermans. (Which to a somewhat distressing degree won on numbers; with the help of supporting air and artillery)

Ok been busy with a lot of threads here and elsewhere on the net so sorry for not getting back here sooner.


1. Shrikes are a whole diffrent ball game. The reason off bore is never done prior to DDM/MDM missiles is repeatedly stated to be the low closing velocity. LAC's don't care about that too much because they can add a lot of velocity via their closure rate with the enemy. The nature of LAC attacks obliviate's this.

So yes the ERM's probably could be fired off bore in theory, (in fact every missile we've seen so far could be fired off bore in theory), but it's my contention they would have been ineffective outside of a mutual head on closing engagement. In which case i'd say off bore would have always been better even without ERM, it's just not something that ever happened normally, so no one's considered the implications sufficiently to realize they could do that. In short the RMN may have decided a a matter of doctrine to mark them as capable of off-bore firing now. But that doesn't mean they'd be effective in that mode.

2. We've seen the Havenites again and again having no issues intercepting a significant percentage of incoming single drive missiles. Whilst their tech at the time of the ceasefire may well be better than anyone really gives them credit for, i doubt they had any kind of decisive edge over the SLN. Fusion powered ECM, has shown itself to be able to render solly PD systems nigh helpless. The extra closing velocity certainly helps of course by giving them less reaction time, but from how thoroughly their PD is driven back in confusion i doubt it would make any difference. They still only have 13 seconds from them hitting intercept range to hitting contact range, (never mind stand off laserhead range, they'd do that about 0.75 seconds earlier). The last ditch laser clusters might get some more hits in, but that's still hopelessly bad compared to fully effective PD fire.

Right there and then the MK16 without any better sensors, extra drive, or better warhead has made up the difference in ammo capacity between them and ERM's and given my starting point vis a vis Havenite tech vs sollie this would have obviously applied to the havenite's as well. Throw on all the extra goodies it does actually have and it has unequivocally proved itself the better option.

In addition Mr Weber has shown himself to try not to have the plot require unusually out of character actions for a person or group thereof. He works within that framework, not against it. So unless complete idiots where in charge they'd have been operating under the following basic assumptions IMO:

1. Unless dealing with an opponent far larger in size than anything they expect to face they are always going to be able to commit both a modest percentage of their waller force to offensive operations.

2. Any force that is not totally outclassed by MDM's is not going to be threatened by the vastly weaker capabilities, (particularly ECM), of ERM's because the ECCM and high closing velocity sskp rates required to handle MDM's would make ERM's sitting duck's. By the same token this inversely means anything threatened by ERM's is going to get rolled flat by MDM equipped capital ships.


Simply put even if the Mk 16 had represented a combat power loss for lighter unit's, against anything it would matter against, the sheer superiority of MDM equipped wallers is going to make it hilariously irreverent.

The only reason it's remotely an issue now is the sheer size of the SLN. They're so big that even with fully functional production lines their painfully short of hull to actually carry missiles.

Obviously tractor equipped pods have also radically changed the assumptions on which the above where built. Light units can now tow large numbers of capital class missiles along easily. They'll still be limited by fire control and the need to launch them all before the enemies rounds arrive in how many they can chuck, (at least against MDM armed enemies), but it does give lighter units a really killer initial punch and if they had the production would be downright brutal vs the painfully short legged SLN. But all of this was either unknown, or at least not confirmed to be workable when they came up with the Mk16, hell for all we know the tractor was one of Sonja's brainstorms. It's just crazy enough to be so.

Weapons development is not linear. It's not Step 1, followed by Step 2, etc. It's a vast, interconnected web with lots of tangents and dead ends. Development of both the Mk-14 and Mk-16 can and probably was occurring in parallel. The Mk-14 came out first because that's what reached the finish line first, and was the best solution to the problem at the time. Developments in the area of microfusion plants and MDM technology made that decision quickly obsolete. Those advancements just as easily could not have worked out, or hit significant R&D delays, in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sometimes things work out better than planned, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Thanks, Carl, but I disagree.

Carl wrote:Ok been busy with a lot of threads here and elsewhere on the net so sorry for not getting back here sooner.


1. Shrikes are a whole diffrent ball game. The reason off bore is never done prior to DDM/MDM missiles is repeatedly stated to be the low closing velocity. LAC's don't care about that too much because they can add a lot of velocity via their closure rate with the enemy. The nature of LAC attacks obliviate's this.

So yes the ERM's probably could be fired off bore in theory, (in fact every missile we've seen so far could be fired off bore in theory), but it's my contention they would have been ineffective outside of a mutual head on closing engagement. In which case i'd say off bore would have always been better even without ERM, it's just not something that ever happened normally, so no one's considered the implications sufficiently to realize they could do that. In short the RMN may have decided a a matter of doctrine to mark them as capable of off-bore firing now. But that doesn't mean they'd be effective in that mode.

Either you missed my earlier post, or you are refusing to actually read the HOS entries on Saganami-B, and Avalon. Both of those ships had off-bore capable missiles. And I think I have read all of RFC's comments about missiles, both here and on Joe Buckley's site; I have never seen "low closing velocity" even mentioned that I recall.

2. We've seen the Havenites again and again having no issues intercepting a significant percentage of incoming single drive missiles. Whilst their tech at the time of the ceasefire may well be better than anyone really gives them credit for, i doubt they had any kind of decisive edge over the SLN. Fusion powered ECM, has shown itself to be able to render solly PD systems nigh helpless. The extra closing velocity certainly helps of course by giving them less reaction time, but from how thoroughly their PD is driven back in confusion i doubt it would make any difference. They still only have 13 seconds from them hitting intercept range to hitting contact range, (never mind stand off laserhead range, they'd do that about 0.75 seconds earlier). The last ditch laser clusters might get some more hits in, but that's still hopelessly bad compared to fully effective PD fire.

Actually, even the sollies got some counter missile and pd hits in. And you are taking at least some of the argument out of context. It isn't an argument over systems' superiority; it is a question of sequencing and timing for the development of this superiority. It is a question about PLOT. Not military necessity, military R&D, or whether or not a particular development is logical. Dukk posted in on that question.
[snipped for brevity]

In addition Mr Weber has shown himself to try not to have the plot require unusually out of character actions for a person or group thereof. He works within that framework, not against it. So unless complete idiots where in charge they'd have been operating under the following basic assumptions IMO:

snipped instead of arguing

Simply put even if the Mk 16 had represented a combat power loss for lighter unit's, against anything it would matter against, the sheer superiority of MDM equipped wallers is going to make it hilariously irreverent.

The only reason it's remotely an issue now is the sheer size of the SLN. They're so big that even with fully functional production lines their painfully short of hull to actually carry missiles.

MDM equipped wallers can't be everywhere at once. That is why you build DD and CL forces to begin with. Now that LACs are taking over much of the Fleet Defense/recon role, light warships are being freed up for the dual role of commerce protection and commerce raiding. Which Weber has apparently devolved on to: the Avalon CL. With the off-bore capable Mk36.

And while I can't peer into a crystal ball, I suspect that the capabilities of the ERM ships will strain current Havenite shipyard capabilities. So the next intermediate generation of ships--meaning Manti-designed or inspired ships--may well be improved light ships with ERM produced in quantity. A Reliant IV/Warlord crossbreed, not a Haven-built Nike. A 16 tube Mars with off-bore Mk14/Mk17 missiles.

Meanwhile, they still have to figure out the engineering on the Streak drive (Simöes not being an engineer), find the MA (if they can), help the local systems re-organize the clusterfuck that is the current league. . . . . .

I actually think that could take the 10 to 15 years for that to happen, putting Weber back on his original schedule. Of course, he'll retire, and his only response for info will be that "tum te tum" thing he does.

Thanks, all, for the interest.

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Thanks, Carl, but I disagree.

Carl wrote:Ok been busy with a lot of threads here and elsewhere on the net so sorry for not getting back here sooner.


1. Shrikes are a whole diffrent ball game. The reason off bore is never done prior to DDM/MDM missiles is repeatedly stated to be the low closing velocity. LAC's don't care about that too much because they can add a lot of velocity via their closure rate with the enemy. The nature of LAC attacks obliviate's this.

So yes the ERM's probably could be fired off bore in theory, (in fact every missile we've seen so far could be fired off bore in theory), but it's my contention they would have been ineffective outside of a mutual head on closing engagement. In which case i'd say off bore would have always been better even without ERM, it's just not something that ever happened normally, so no one's considered the implications sufficiently to realize they could do that. In short the RMN may have decided a a matter of doctrine to mark them as capable of off-bore firing now. But that doesn't mean they'd be effective in that mode.

Either you missed my earlier post, or you are refusing to actually read the HOS entries on Saganami-B, and Avalon. Both of those ships had off-bore capable missiles. And I think I have read all of RFC's comments about missiles, both here and on Joe Buckley's site; I have never seen "low closing velocity" even mentioned that I recall.

He didn't explicitly say "low closing velocity", but his infodump on Off-bore missile targetting" does credit "The improvements in missile drives -- in acceleration, endurance, numbers of drives, etc." as one of the changes that permits the kind of off-bore fire first presented to us in Shadows of Saganami.

And I believe there was another post (that I'm not finding right now) that was more explicit that earlier ships wouldn't have wanted for fire off-bore partly because it sacrifices the initial velocity imparted by the missile tube grav drivers and forces the missiles to build a totally different side vector. (Something that DDM/MDM endurance makes trivial)

(IIRC that was in response to speculation that off-bore firing actually used something like dedicated shipboard tractors to whip the missile around onto its new trajectory as it cleared the grav driver; thus not wasting their initial velocity. We were told that wasn't the case, and wasn't necessary due to increased missile acceleration and endurance)

Um I don't think parallel is the right word.
Mk-14 appears to be an application of the goodies of Ghost Rider capacitor birds, with some drive time improvement. It was probably specified, though not finished, before the Mk-16 left the white paper, oh now that we have BC-Ps and are looking at fusion MDMs it might be a good idea to produce cruiser weight misiles for our cruisers.

Duckk wrote:Weapons development is not linear. It's not Step 1, followed by Step 2, etc. It's a vast, interconnected web with lots of tangents and dead ends. Development of both the Mk-14 and Mk-16 can and probably was occurring in parallel. The Mk-14 came out first because that's what reached the finish line first, and was the best solution to the problem at the time. Developments in the area of microfusion plants and MDM technology made that decision quickly obsolete. Those advancements just as easily could not have worked out, or hit significant R&D delays, in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sometimes things work out better than planned, and there's nothing wrong with that.