Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests

Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat May 28, 2022 1:49 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:If the wedges are always on then the sneak attack could plot ballistic courses through the unavoidable gaps between them.

You very well may be right about that. But my brain is still having reservations about accepting the ability face value. G-torps don't have wedges, so I suppose that would make them more maneverable since the g-torps don't have to overcome the acceleration of a wedge, but it seems like thrusters should be detectable. Also, the MA has very limited FTL ability and real-time contol of g-torps to be able to thread the needle don't seem written in stone. Unless it can get certain objects positioned deeply inside the hyper limit. Ahem!

As far as we know nothing about the Spider drive allows it to ignore base velocity -- so it still needs time for its acceleration to overcome its velocity. If it accelerated forward for 20 minutes then, as far as we know, it'd have to accelerate the other way for another 20 minutes to cancel that out and be back to its original velocity. (A ship or torpedo with it is likely to be at a lower velocity that a wedge powered one, due to its lower acceleration. But that same lower acceleration should mean it still needs just as long to

Now the one thing it may be able to do that a wedge can't is accelerate straight sideways without first having to point the nose in that direction -- OTOH doing that would seem to means it can't bring all its spider emitters into play and so while it could start crabbing sideways several seconds sooner than a wedge powered ship which has to turn first doing so probably means it's cutting its acceleration rate by about 2/3rds.

As for having "certain objects positioned deeply inside the hyper limit" that's what they did with the Ghosts, and "the communications platforms the Ghost-class scout ships had emplaced" [MoH] for OB - my understanding is those platforms are how the Cataphract pods and graser torps got their final targeting info. Those Ghosts loaded them with the very latest info and then slipped clear (because once those platforms started broadcasting they might be found and the MAlign definitely didn't want the Ghosts found -- better to use a disposable platform for that)

So if there's a static barricade of wedges around a target the scouting Ghost ships would have time to plot it out and pass that info back to the Sharks (or later Lenny Dets) launching the attack so they can adjust the ballistic course of their cataphract pods and/or progra their graser torps to avoid them.
Start far enough back and you'd only have to adjust by fractions of a degree to line up with the gaps between those block wedges.

Now the attackers problem could be complicated if the block ships were arranged in concentric shells, offset enough that there was no easy path straight through. Or if they were moving around such that the opening positions were hard to predict over time (though leaving room for them to maneuver relative their adjacent neighbors would likely require keeping a far loser formation)
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Maldorian   » Tue May 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Maldorian
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

Back to the Topic.

I haven´t read all pages here, so don´t know if someone has already post something simliar.

I think the most logic ships to build first at the rebuild space stations would be Saganami C heavy cruisers and Nike class Battlecruisers.

Why?

The designs are up to date and the surviving workers are familiar with the designs.

Roland Destroyers are a Wardesign, not really fit for peace time duties.

I don´t know how new the Avalon light cruiser design is. In the worst case they are an older design, what means lesser time in service.
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by kzt   » Tue May 31, 2022 2:59 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Why do they need monster BCs and CAs?

What's the mission?
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue May 31, 2022 4:30 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

kzt wrote:Why do they need monster BCs and CAs?

What's the mission?

Well for CAs -- while the SLN didn't doctrinally seem to use its Cataphract-As in its CA's tubes; they (like the RMN) design CAs and BCs to use the same missiles from the same tubes.

And they have to assume the League, and Technodyne, will offer those missiles for sale. So anybody with design built around the League's standard CA/BC missile can upgrade their CAs (and BCs) simply by buying different missiles for their magazines.

That's a far quicker emerging threat than SD(P)s which take much more massive investment, and far longer, to field. So they're shortly likely to be facing a situation where anything older than a Sag-C is at a major range disadvantage against peer cruisers. That seems reason enough to keep moving steadily on replacing the older Star Knight and Sag-A & -B designs. You don't need to replace them all immediately, but you don't want to wait around until many other navies have CAs that outrange you.


For BCs, it depends on what the RMN wants their BCs to do. If they change their role to simply fighting other BCs then you likely don't need a 2.5 million ton design. But if their role still involves some system raiding or otherwise potentially bumping into moderate sized pod based fire then yeah, you need to be looking for something with the defenses of a Nike. So that's a decision they might look at again -- but for now they wanted to keep their beloved BC raiding role and these days that required very substantial defenses.
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Theemile   » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:25 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5381
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Maldorian wrote:Back to the Topic.

I haven´t read all pages here, so don´t know if someone has already post something simliar.

I think the most logic ships to build first at the rebuild space stations would be Saganami C heavy cruisers and Nike class Battlecruisers.

Why?

The designs are up to date and the surviving workers are familiar with the designs.

Roland Destroyers are a Wardesign, not really fit for peace time duties.

I don´t know how new the Avalon light cruiser design is. In the worst case they are an older design, what means lesser time in service.


The Roland DD, Wolfhound DD, Avalon CL, and Kammerling CL are all contemporaries of the Sag-C design. The Kammerling, Avalon, and Wolfhound all use the DD/CL weight Mk 36 (Lightweight Extended Range Missile - AKA LERM), giving them the range of the Mk 14/15 CA ERM missile in the Sag-B, without the punch. However, recent improvements in Grav focusing tech that improved the other missile warheads have probably reached the LERM as well, but we have no details on such. The Wolfhound was stopped after 39 hulls, with 20 destroyed at Grendlesbane, and the Kammerling was stopped mid-war at iirc 48 hulls, with focus moving to the Sag-C and Avalon.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:45 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 9105
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:The Roland DD, Wolfhound DD, Avalon CL, and Kammerling CL are all contemporaries of the Sag-C design. The Kammerling, Avalon, and Wolfhound all use the DD/CL weight Mk 36 (Lightweight Extended Range Missile - AKA LERM), giving them the range of the Mk 14/15 CA ERM missile in the Sag-B, without the punch. However, recent improvements in Grav focusing tech that improved the other missile warheads have probably reached the LERM as well, but we have no details on such. The Wolfhound was stopped after 39 hulls, with 20 destroyed at Grendlesbane, and the Kammerling was stopped mid-war at iirc 48 hulls, with focus moving to the Sag-C and Avalon.

Yep, 48 hulls. House of Steel has that in their info block and ends their entry with "Only forty-eight have been built and no more are planned until at least 1923. Nearly all of
those have been assigned to Silesia."

But remember HoS's information predates Oyster Bay - so that 1923 date almost certainly got pushed off further into the future.

Besides the Kamerling is very much a special purpose unit; you wouldn't build those to fill general purpose cruiser roles. You'd only build them for Marine support -- otherwise an Avalon is smaller (53% the size), cheaper, better armed (2 extra tubes per broadside), and nearly as well defended.

The Kamerling's extra size (and cost) go mostly into carrying its 3 companies of Marines with support equipment and a massively outsized complement of pinnaces and assault shuttles (enough to drop all 3 companies in a single flight)
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Maldorian   » Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:31 am

Maldorian
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

Well, my last post was in a hurry and as you can see, I lack information.

My point is:

We need an up to date ship class, that was already buil, no new blueprint that was never build before, like a new destroyer they maybe have come up in the meantime.

If Wolfhound and Avalon are current designs, then they are surley the better fit for the first builds, because shorter building times. Makes it easier to find errors in the new shipyards.
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by SharkHunter   » Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:43 pm

SharkHunter
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1608
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Late to the game as I haven't been on the forums in a while but... throwing my thought hat into the ring....

But I really like the David Taylor class of CSV's. (combat support vehicles). Even though how the whole "barricade" thing really doesn't seem all that realistic, it was fun seeing how the combination of Ginger Lewis and Scotty Tremaine managed to fox the SLN in their battle, how the defense of the Prime Ajay bridge with "Brownie" was another. A single CSV at the battle of Hypatia would have allowed the HMS Phantom to go toe-to-toe with the entire invading force from outside the range of the SLN for long enough to "win" that one much more easily.

Thing is, they are big and take a while to build. Thoughts?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by Relax   » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:22 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

SharkHunter wrote:
But I really like the David Taylor class of CSV's.

Thing is, they are big and take a while to build. Thoughts?

Shouldn't take long to build. Structurally there is nothing there but 4 giant voids for the different CUMLV packages which insert into said giant voids and minimum girders to separate the 2 impeller rings. True, it has military compensator/hypergenerator, but not much else.

Think of it like a modern TEU cargo ship. They are engines with a giant void forward where said void is only divided by a single layer of movable steel to keep most of the water out. Its not sealed or anything below. More cargo is carried above this dividing layer than below. Any seal is provided by the TEU's themselves.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Fall 1924: What will the Admiralty build next
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Sun Jun 05, 2022 3:37 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4712
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

SharkHunter wrote:Thing is, they are big and take a while to build. Thoughts?


The problem is that they are combat support vehicles, they shouldn't be in combat at all. They're slow to accelerate, slow to translate, and nowhere as heavily armoured as a proper warship of that size, not even a CLAC. It's great to support the other ships that are doing the actual combat, but it must skedaddle before the shooting begins and can't easily return until it stops. So it can help its side win the battle, but the other ships there need to be able to win in the first place.

I'm not sure a CSV would have helped in the Battle of Hypatia. It might have provided some LACs and those would have aided in the defence, but not in the attack. And there's no way the RMN could withstand that many missiles fired at them, without much more defensive power than a wing or two of LACs could provide. The CSV would also have poorer stealth, so it would have had to stay much further back to avoid giving the Phantom task force away too soon, so it couldn't resupply -- not that they needed resupply at all. Phantom died with missiles in the magazines.
Top

Return to Honorverse