From: CLL@L...
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 14:39:52 +0000
Subject: Re: MEKO Ships -Reply
> [quoted text omitted] Armor should be integral to the ship structure also. I don't see how a module with armor in it would be help protect the ship in most instances. IAS > "Robertson, Brendan" wrote: > The basic idea is sound, but what can actually be changed isn't. Hull, > MD & FTL are all integral to the structure of the ship. Everything <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Given that we don't have to look at atmospheric effects, streamlining etc. I can see no reason why it should not be possible to add an equivalent mass of armour to critical points within the ships structure or on the ship's hull. The ship's performance will not be degraded, since it is the mass that will affect the thrust,* and assuming that the mass added is balanced around any thrust axis, is no different to adding any other system, though given the above you could argue that added armour in this way is less effective than integral armour. (Shades of SFB - general reinforcement vs specific reinforcement). * Whilst adding this comment it occured to me that this could be a way to get around the MD difference. Your Main Drive could be more efficient if the mass of your modules was a significant part of the ship's mass. To take Mike Looney's example:- The ship is built on a destroyer or bigger size hull, but is only armed with the patrol boat modules, lots of empty space - less mass. The MD is reduced for the fully outfitted vessel, since it has greater mass, needs more fuel etc. The possibility of 'strap on' drives could also be considered, especially if this was designed into the vessel at construction - stress loadings etc - represented by a reinforced hull whilst in 'patrol boat' status perhaps. To use use wet navy examples - most of the cost of building a warship is in the systems it uses the hull is relatively cheap. The US 'Spruance' class DDs were designed along these lines, and a number (4?) of vessels were designed to be exported - to Iran under the Shah's regime IIRC, but were taken into USN service after certain local political changes. The Ticoderaga vessels are on the same hull, and I believe the Arleigh Burke class use a similar hull. OK, this is because a wet navy vessel needs hull form for things like speed and weather performance which a vacuum hull doesn't require, and thus the economic cost savings may be less relevant. However one of the major savings is that larger hulls can be refitted more easily, as they can absorb larger systems, or could be relegated to second line (transport) duties with more efficiency. Some of these factors could still apply to starship design. Anyone got any thoughts on other basic bits of combat starship design to add? Krass