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

I have been spending a few weeks mostly browsing older posts, and the subject of ships, missiles, classes, building priorities, and many more happy diversions. In order to get some WOG on these, I have been searching for posts by RFC to find the most relevant available information.

What I haven't seen so far though, is an answer to this question: why bother to even introduce the Mk 16 cruiser-weight DDM? There is no real reason why the extended range Mk 14 or Mk-36 couldn't have been used to accomplish the same thing. The only battles where range was the most relevant factor, were fought using Mk-23s from pods. But if a Flight IV Reliant was equipped with both the same off-bore capability and FC channels of the Saganami-C, or if the Saganami-B got a major fire-control upgrade after the battle of Tiburion, then you get exactly the same tactical outcome. I base that on the fact that the number of missile launchers on the Sag-B would lay a 40 missile salvo if using both broadsides and one chase-mount set; and that the Mk-14 launch cycle ought to be roughly what the cycle is for the Mk 36 (used by Aegis at Monica), or 8 seconds. Even if you couldn't stack the salvos, you have an overwhelming advantage in the number of missiles per salvo, and in rate of fire.... . . so why did the author introduce a light ship missile that was so very superior to any opposition that it makes any confrontation too boring to write (as he didn't write the actual combat scenes with Filareta)?

Saltash would have been the same if Zavala had had Wolfhounds, especially if he brought along a supply ship to issue some pod-based missiles after arrival. The Mk 36/Mk 14 missiles have two to three times the range of Sollie missiles, and the rate of fire for the Solarian vessels was, at best, 36 seconds per launch. That is enough time for a Wolfhound, Avalon, or Saganami-B to launch 4 double salvos, or 2 stacked double-salvos.

They wouldn't have had as great an advantage in range over the much larger Havenite missiles, but their smaller size viz-a-viz the Havenite missiles gives them advantages in magazine stowage and in rate of fire. While the Frigate-class CL wasn't bad for a successor to the Conqueror-class, it really isn't in the same league as the Avalons. One of the initial reasons for the construction of the Rolands was to serve as flagships; we really haven't seen that at all yet.

In the sense of overwhelming an opponent with superior tech, the Mk 16 was as much a god-weapon for the lighter ships as the Apollo is to the SDP. But it isn't required to defeat pirates, Frontier Fleet, or even Haven. So perhaps the "Janacek Plan" to replace all of the remaining pre-war destroyers wasn't bad planning at all. A Wolfhound's off-bore capability, and the Mk 36' range, make it a killer escort and replacement for anything lighter than a Valiant.

In HOS the description of the Roland says the RMN reversed its projected build numbers based on the Roland's performance, and it is quite fast for its size. But 240 Mk 16s comprise only 1/8th the total mass; the Sag-C uses about 1/4th; the Apollo and the pre-war wallers use just under 1/6th. So the Roland, in terms of its tonnage, is using its mass for something other than offense-- I suspect it must devote nearly as much tonnage to drones as it does to SKM, but for the escort /raider role, the ERM equipped ships ought to be just as good.

And, the ERM ships might be enough of a step down from the bleeding tech edge, that Haven could be the principle supplier for a couple of years, without compromising the more sensitive technologies. Tech-wise, they are a step up for anyone else, but they are not the latest gen of Manticoran tech.

My take on the Marksman class (Maya/Erewhon) is that while it may be based largely on the Star Knight design, it actually resembles the Valiant class more closely (except for the Mk-17e). The size difference is mostly the need for the magazine space for the missiles, but the unaltered Marksman's 8 missiles, 5 Grasers is a lot like the Valiant's 8 Missiles, 3 Gr. and 5 Lasers. The resemblance to the Star Knight is more the fact that it had a flag bridge than the specifics of the broadside. Also, it was from Adm. Roszak's POV, and Erewhon might not have bought any of the Valiants for him to look at.

YMMV.

Rob

BuShips and BuWeaps were one of the few bureaus Janacek left well enough alone. Neither bureau was crazy enough to buy into Janacek's view that no one else would ever develop extended range capability. So while the Mk-14 currently outranges Haven's missiles, no one would rely on it remaining the case. Single drive ranges were constantly trending upwards during the first war, so it's well within projections that Haven could develop a competitor design to the Mk-14. There's nothing particularly esoteric to the engineering - a fact proven by the Andies fielding a similar design in 1918-1919. The Mk-16, on the other hand, is viable only because the Manticorans developed a microfusion plant small enough to be stuffed into a missile. The Mk-16 ensures the continued range dominance of Alliance light and medium combatants even if someone managed to deploy an extended range missile.

Not only that, the Mk-16 brings more benefits than just range. The payloads are heavier, the fusion plant allows for a higher EW budget, and it ensures that a unit can still retaliate if all-up MDM pods aren't brought along or were expended.

In HOS the description of the Roland says the RMN reversed its projected build numbers based on the Roland's performance, and it is quite fast for its size. But 240 Mk 16s comprise only 1/8th the total mass; the Sag-C uses about 1/4th; the Apollo and the pre-war wallers use just under 1/6th. So the Roland, in terms of its tonnage, is using its mass for something other than offense-- I suspect it must devote nearly as much tonnage to drones as it does to SKM, but for the escort /raider role, the ERM equipped ships ought to be just as good.

I wouldn't read much into that. Prewar wallers were optimized for energy combat, plus the heavier emphasis on survivability features like armor and compartmentalization, so the proportion of missiles they carry is going to be lower. The Mk-16 designs are optimized for missile combat, so the proportion dedicated missiles will of course be higher.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:What I haven't seen so far though, is an answer to this question: why bother to even introduce the Mk 16 cruiser-weight DDM?

Because it IS a DDM and not a single drive missile. The ability to insert a ballistic phase into the flight profile gives a dual drive missile effectively unlimited range and/or much greater tactical flexibility.

ERMs are still single drive missiles with range and acceleration set once and locked in.

Duckk wrote:

In HOS the description of the Roland says the RMN reversed its projected build numbers based on the Roland's performance, and it is quite fast for its size. But 240 Mk 16s comprise only 1/8th the total mass; the Sag-C uses about 1/4th; the Apollo and the pre-war wallers use just under 1/6th. So the Roland, in terms of its tonnage, is using its mass for something other than offense-- I suspect it must devote nearly as much tonnage to drones as it does to SKM, but for the escort /raider role, the ERM equipped ships ought to be just as good.

I wouldn't read much into that. Prewar wallers were optimized for energy combat, plus the heavier emphasis on survivability features like armor and compartmentalization, so the proportion of missiles they carry is going to be lower. The Mk-16 designs are optimized for missile combat, so the proportion dedicated missiles will of course be higher.

thanks for the response. As an initiate into the Order of the Nine, you have access to the actual data. I am just speculating, but there is a slim thread of causality (very slim) to the speculation. And it is irrelevant except in regard to the ships that are obsolete and never became part of the main story, anyway.

Added the bolding to your comment. Yes, the automation etc. frees up mass, and it is used by newer ships to carry more ammo. Except for the Roland. If the Roland was using circa 25 percent of its tonnage for shipkillers, it would have 500 Mk-16s. My point in bringing up that in the first place was that the Roland is likely primarily intended for extended service (15 plus years)in an intel/recon patrol/ role using the large ghost rider drones that are so much bigger than the ones the older light ships carried. Rolands will continue to be useful in that role even after they get superceded as a direct combat vessel.

I will give you some of the reasoning behind the numbers I used. And I'm not actually just trying to yank your chain.

The number of missiles of the Apollo was 20/tube; divide an Apollo's total mass by 6, then by 70 tons, and you get 21/tube. This isn't a wargame, and this isn't how I expect BuNine to have made any calculations or estimates. But it is fairly close, and just slightly high.

The number of missiles on the SD's after the King William were set to exactly 120/tube. The famous two-for-one rule. Divide the total mass by 6, then by 120 tons (given only for the Mk27c) and you get really really close to 120 missiles. It isn't exact, but useful for assessing relative combat power of similar generation ships.

The actual percentage of tonnage devoted to missiles differs for each ship; the total is usually in the 15.5 to 16.6 % range of the overall tonnage though, for the wallers, including DN. It is a bit less for Sphinx, a bit more for Gryphon, and it is only a rough guide, not a precise calculation, but it seems consistant enough to get a decent guess at missile loadout. NONE of the wallers used more than 1/6th of their tonnage, so I am using that as the upper limit.

I also realize there is no way at all to estimate the loadout of the earlier ships of the wall; and the **only** lighter ship with a loadout given is the Apollo. And even that was in the GSN ship descriptions for the David class. This is where the speculation is very thin--the Apollo was the only non-waller any data was given for, and it may not be typical. But it also falls into the 15-16% range, which is roughly one sixth of the tonnage.

One sixth is 16 2/3%, which is usually a bit over what the actual loadout needed. But it provides a chalkline for assessing what the loadout might be. The Apollo loadout was in the GSN David class description. The 2 for 1 rule is good for the King William, Victory, Sphinx, Gryphon, and the Majestic and Bellerophon. It is not applicable to the Samothrace, Royal Winton, or Gladiator, for which no data was published. The Anduril is a bit of an anomolly, dropping to somewhere around 14%, due to the reduced broadside and increased armor.

Also, the 1/6th tonnage guesstimate just a rough guide in any case-- deciding what went where, and how big or heavy anything is, and all that isn't something anyone could estimate without access to the author's notes. I only offered it as a rough guide, and it only works for pre-automation ships; and because you can use it to totally justify the criticism of the Star Knight as not devoting enough tonnage to offense. Even though it had a 50 percent increase in both missile AND beam weapons on both the broadside AND the chase mounts. If you use the 1/6th tonnage as an estimate, then the Star Knight has around 600 missiles--20/tube. The Prince Consort would have fewer missiles (around 500) but 25 or 26 salvos. The Warrior and Truncheon could have accommodated 30 missiles per tube. So, in terms of combat endurance, the Star Knight got the short end of the stick. To get 30 missiles per tube with the same percentage of tonnage devoted to missiles, the SK would have needed to be around 360K tons. And the Saganami increases the broadside by 2 tubes, and comes in at ::393K tons. And that was WITH the automation.

The Saganami and its successors' automation and tech changes alter the available space for missiles. But in the only ships where the loadouts are given (Hexapuma-1200 standard, Nike--over 6000) it is MORE than 22%. The 1320 missiles carried by Nasty Kitty at Monica push it even higher. But the Roland drops that to around 12%. While the space internal to the ship had to be drastically altered for the launchers, the fact is that it only carries 240 missiles. A lot for an older destroyer, but they weren't as large a vessel. To me, that means that there is a lot of tonnage devoted to something else. Of course, part of that tonnage is certainly its flag deck. But a similar-sized light cruiser would have had a second fusion plant, which would have chewed up some tonnage, also.

Of course, you could have avoided all this rampant useless, and foolish speculation by including missile loadouts in HoS, assuming there would have been space.

Sorry for the long post.


Rob

Duckk wrote:BuShips and BuWeaps were one of the few bureaus Janacek left well enough alone. Neither bureau was crazy enough to buy into Janacek's view that no one else would ever develop extended range capability. So while the Mk-14 currently outranges Haven's missiles, no one would rely on it remaining the case. Single drive ranges were constantly trending upwards during the first war, so it's well within projections that Haven could develop a competitor design to the Mk-14. There's nothing particularly esoteric to the engineering - a fact proven by the Andies fielding a similar design in 1918-1919. The Mk-16, on the other hand, is viable only because the Manticorans developed a microfusion plant small enough to be stuffed into a missile. The Mk-16 ensures the continued range dominance of Alliance light and medium combatants even if someone managed to deploy an extended range missile.

Not only that, the Mk-16 brings more benefits than just range. The payloads are heavier, the fusion plant allows for a higher EW budget, and it ensures that a unit can still retaliate if all-up MDM pods aren't brought along or were expended.

All true; but the missiles the Andies used were at 12m km, I think; the range I would have expected from the Mk13 ER, mentioned in passing in SoF. An increase based on improved capacitors and a somewhat higher accel. There is a post I read earlier in which RFC stated that the Mk 14's capability came from the Ghost Rider and MDM developments, and for lighter ships, the range for ERMs just seems sufficient. The RMN never revealed the existence of the pod layers, Shrikes, or CLACs until they were ready to use them for a shock and awe campaign; so why push the DDM into use before the opposition has something that can match the older systems?

While I expect Haven achieved parity with an extended range Mk13 by the close of the first round of war, it looks like the Mk 14 gets very nearly a light minute in range; at least 50% more range than the 12M km the Andies fired at. My point is that this range increase, unlike the Havenite or Andie achievements, was accompanied by an improvement in fire control and sensors to take advantage of the extra range; that isn't as sexy as fusion-based missiles, but if the RMN could use their better sensors(and FTL drones) and fire control to score hits at that range when their opponents were having to struggle a lot harder with the light speed lag. The RMN thus had a big advantage in missile combat already, even over Haven.

I guess my point is, the RMN could have held the Mk 16 in reserve until the Havenites or whoever actually started to gain some parity before they dropped the DDM on them. They would have been perfect in the Aggies, against the Mars and the Warlords. Against Sollies, it is such overkill that combat is far too one-sided, at least right now.

Rob

Weird Harold wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:What I haven't seen so far though, is an answer to this question: why bother to even introduce the Mk 16 cruiser-weight DDM?

Because it IS a DDM and not a single drive missile. The ability to insert a ballistic phase into the flight profile gives a dual drive missile effectively unlimited range and/or much greater tactical flexibility.

ERMs are still single drive missiles with range and acceleration set once and locked in.

Yes, well beyond the range at which any opponent can respond. But the current opponents don't have the ability to respond to the ERM, either. Haven did; the Andies were coming along; but it is the ability to USE the range for EFFECTIVE fire that matters. I don't know the exact Mk14 range, but from the comments in ToF regarding the Mk17e, I expect it is at or approaching a full light minute --18m K. It is long enough to deal with existing Havenite tech EXCEPT for the MDMs, used only by SDPs. So for ship to ship combat below the wall, the ERM is not obsolete. No one else can get a useful number of hits at that range.

YMMV.

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:I guess my point is, the RMN could have held the Mk 16 in reserve until the Havenites or whoever actually started to gain some parity before they dropped the DDM on them. They would have been perfect in the Aggies, against the Mars and the Warlords. Against Sollies, it is such overkill that combat is far too one-sided, at least right now.

And when you find you do need it, what happens then? It is fine to just swap out the pods on a BC(P), but it does you no good when you want to build something smaller than a battlecruiser. Since you did not build any of them when you had the chance, you now have to pray that you can out build your opponent. That flies in the face of military convention. You build the most capable platforms you can, so you have them available when they are needed.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Against Sollies, it is such overkill that combat is far too one-sided, at least right now.

Well, from the point of view of the RMN planners, it's their *job* to generate as lopsided of a combat advantage as they possibly can. The more one-sided the fights, the fewer of your people die, and the bigger of a margin you have against the unexpected. It might cause some narrative issues, but in-universe it's not an unreasonable choice.

In this particular case, it's also good for allowing things like Rolands to punch *way* above their weight - not necessarily just in terms of range, but in terms of destructiveness. It was the MK16-G's waller-level warhead, the way that the insane closing speed DDMs can generate baffles missile defense systems, and the MK-16s onboard-fusion-plant-powered EW systems that let Zavala's Rolands casually obliterate the solly battlecruisers at Saltash, for example. Keep in mind what happened not *that* long beforehand in Monica, when Terekhov's squadron was forced to engage solly-built BCs with normal cruiser/destroyer weight missiles. They still won, but not without allowing the enemy into range since they couldn't just wipe them out with single salvoes.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:All true; but the missiles the Andies used were at 12m km, I think; the range I would have expected from the Mk13 ER, mentioned in passing in SoF. An increase based on improved capacitors and a somewhat higher accel. There is a post I read earlier in which RFC stated that the Mk 14's capability came from the Ghost Rider and MDM developments, and for lighter ships, the range for ERMs just seems sufficient. The RMN never revealed the existence of the pod layers, Shrikes, or CLACs until they were ready to use them for a shock and awe campaign; so why push the DDM into use before the opposition has something that can match the older systems?

While I expect Haven achieved parity with an extended range Mk13 by the close of the first round of war, it looks like the Mk 14 gets very nearly a light minute in range; at least 50% more range than the 12M km the Andies fired at. My point is that this range increase, unlike the Havenite or Andie achievements, was accompanied by an improvement in fire control and sensors to take advantage of the extra range; that isn't as sexy as fusion-based missiles, but if the RMN could use their better sensors(and FTL drones) and fire control to score hits at that range when their opponents were having to struggle a lot harder with the light speed lag. The RMN thus had a big advantage in missile combat already, even over Haven.

I guess my point is, the RMN could have held the Mk 16 in reserve until the Havenites or whoever actually started to gain some parity before they dropped the DDM on them. They would have been perfect in the Aggies, against the Mars and the Warlords. Against Sollies, it is such overkill that combat is far too one-sided, at least right now.

Rob

The introduction of the Mk16 might make more sense to you if you look at it primarily as a way of increasing the number of missile the BC(P)s carried (and encouraging people to avoid taking them up against wallers) without a massive reduction in their missile range and ECM capabilities. It then drifted down into smaller units, Sag-C and Roland.

From that angle it makes a bit more sense to deploy it as soon as practical (because and Agamemnon carrying Mk23s carried alarmingly few missiles. The extra 40% per pod with Mk16 must have been a welcome boost.) And BC(P)s planned to be used in system raids, where they often need to worry about exchanging fire with defenses that control full up 3-drive MDMs, not just other BCs or lighter ships that could only mount SDM or even ERMs. So they wouldn't want to give up their long range powered fire to switch to an all ERM loadout.


But once they had the missile designed its hard to resist building other units around it; and those units are futureproof against Haven matching the Mk14 / Mk36 ERM capabilities.