Re: MEKO Ships -Reply

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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
else
> can be moduled or slabbed to the outer hull.
> Therefore, this should work slightly better.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
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