Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
I'd actually stick with the nuke power. IMO, it's the one thing that Defcon got right in his design.
|
Well if you're going nuke, and eating the huge costs to build a handful of BBs, then why not go all out & use railguns? They provide far more range (and velocity) potential than conventional "gas expansion" propulsion methods, and you don't have to deal with dangerous propellants.
I'm thinking a ship with two or three fixed, forward-pointing railguns running much of the ship's length, at an 'optimal' elevation.
Maybe aim to sling a few hundred to a thousand pound projectile out to 5-700nm or more.
It might even be relatively easy to support a range of projectile sizes for different targets, on the fly.
Running it the length of the ship would allow you to lower the absolute max G's and power output required.
One might argue that a fixed-forward mount means you'd have to point the ship at the target, but we're talking guided rounds here, so you really only have to point in the general direction. The ship could cruise in a racetrack pattern, a hundred or more miles offshore - slow towards the target for station keeping and sprinting back out when it got too close.
Given nuclear power, and relatively simple mechanical components, I imagine a twin-barreled railgun of this type could produce a rather high ROF. It'd be constrained by the cooling system and power transfer electronics.
Also, as a general question, if you have a ship who's primary weapons are 300+nm guns, then why bother heavily armoring it? With that range, it can stand off at considerable distances - near NavAir distances - and still deliver fires.