Light bulb Captured Solly fleet

saber964 wrote:"stewart" "fallsfromtrees"]"kzt"]

The minor detail that those LACs have an 18 month reactor life with 36 months to a new reactor, plus no replacement nodes or any other spare part is a kind of a big problem that David is handwaving away.

I don't know where you got the 18 month reactor life. From Echoes of Honor, chapter three

Our present estimate is that a Shrike's original power core should be good for about eighteen T-years, which means the only practical limitation on the class's endurance will be her life support."

That's years, not months.[/quote]


---------------------

18 years is realistic as well (no-handwavium involved)
Enterprise (CVN-65) had 20yr cores in her 132MW Pressurized Water Reactors.

-- Stewart[/quote]

More than that IIRC the early Nimitz class carriers reactors cores had a life span of 25 years and the last ones 30-35 years and the Ford class having a projected lifespan of up to 50 years.[/quote]

----------

CVN-65 Core 1/1a and 2 were alloy cores, Core 3 and 4 were (tum te tum) designed for 15 years operational, 20 years calendar.
CVN-68 (Nimitz) were initially 20 year cores.
Do not know the projected core-life (EFPH) of the Ford's. That probably falls into either speculation or Tum-te-tum-tum.

It's amazing what 50-plus years of technical development will do.

-- Stewart

SWM wrote:

kzt wrote:Um, Kzt, aren't you suggesting sending 300 SDs out with 600,000 crew?

Nope. I'm giving them the ships. it's up to them to get and crew them. Or not.

I might be convinced to arrange for delivery, if it's not to difficult and I have the tugs available or can hire enough people who know how to run the damn things. That is a bit of a pain as I need to then escort them with an actual warship, which I'm kind of short of right now. But it isn't impossible.

Somtaaw wrote:-- to address everyone hopping on the bandwagon of shooting down the evac design, please enlighten me as to how YOU have a better idea, instead of just jumping the bandwagon of bashing on a n00b too stupid to touch this obviously well beaten horse.

At least this n00b took the time to think both short-term, and long-term utilization, and took economic plans into mind. Yes, there's a bit of handwavium involved, but please enlighten me as to how there's never been any handwavium ever in Honor-verse at any time.

Here's the problem: You are assuming that the only way to address this perceived need for an evac force can only be served by using the captured SLN equipment. You're right, those ships can be used that way, but doing so means putting a lot of work into them compared to using already existing ship classes that the people using them would be familiar with already. That's the crucial point you, and others who have proposed uses for the SLN ships, seem to miss all the time.

For those talking about 18 months versus 18 years for the reactor lives. I thought I would look up where it came from.

Fairly simple. Use Pearls of Weber. Thank you Joe Buckley.

[edit]http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/series/Harrington/

Insert "18" into the search engine. 10th entry is:
Fission/fusion power reactors [ Added December 14, 2002 ]
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/145/1

David Weber wrote:(a) There is a typo in the section addressing the longevity of the Shrikes' fuel cores. It should have read 18 months of active operations, not simply 18 years. I have not figured out where the change came from. It was not in my original draft; it did appear in the ms I actually submitted to Baen, and I missed it in the proofreading. The only thing I can think of is that in a moment of sleep-deprived, late-night dementia, I myself made the change on disk, although why I would have "corrected" it to such a clear contradiction of my own tech bible evades me. Sigh.

Please start snipping out older quotes. Most of this topic I am unable without a lot of effort sort out who is saying what. It also saves scroll wheels. Which is one reason for limiting the number quotes.

Thank you,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:For those talking about 18 months versus 18 years for the reactor lives. I thought I would look up where it came from.

Fairly simple. Use Pearls of Weber. Thank you Joe Buckley.

[edit]http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/series/Harrington/

Insert "18" into the search engine. 10th entry is:
Fission/fusion power reactors [ Added December 14, 2002 ]
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/145/1

David Weber wrote:(a) There is a typo in the section addressing the longevity of the Shrikes' fuel cores. It should have read 18 months of active operations, not simply 18 years. I have not figured out where the change came from. It was not in my original draft; it did appear in the ms I actually submitted to Baen, and I missed it in the proofreading. The only thing I can think of is that in a moment of sleep-deprived, late-night dementia, I myself made the change on disk, although why I would have "corrected" it to such a clear contradiction of my own tech bible evades me. Sigh.

Please start snipping out older quotes. Most of this topic I am unable without a lot of effort sort out who is saying what. It also saves scroll wheels. Which is one reason for limiting the number quotes.

Thank you,
T2M

Plus the 18 month "fuel problem" is likely not a big issue in terms of battlefield "life". Whatever shape they are in a LAC fission core, (supposed to be light years past whatever else the Honorverse had "prior", let alone us pre-Diaspora types), I'd imagine that refueling a LAC is probably a time minimal, fully or nearly automated operation, enough that all of a CLACs "wings" could be refurbed as needed while the CLAC and LAC offensive/defensive measures are reloaded and brought up to "current tech spec".

kzt wrote:

n7axw wrote:I wonder if I am graduating to "old sweat" status around here. These light bulb ideas for using the captured SDs are looking dimmer all the time.

Guys, there are any number of uses to which these ships could be put. But for any idea to be truly useable, you have to ask yourself whether or not meeting a need in the advocated manner is truly the best, most cost effective way of achieving the desired end. No one really can afford to do it any other way. In Manticore's case, that was true even before OB. It's even more true now.

Using the captured SLN ships cannot be regarded as a goal that is worthwhile in and of itself.

Don

I want to provide 100 generally friendly systems with a minimally effective defense, if they are wiling to exert themselves, against an attack on the inhabited planets by pirates up to a SLN BC squadron scale threat. I do not want to provide them with current military gear that could be reverse engineered or used to attack me. I want to do this in the next 6 months. I propose offering them 3 SLN SDs each. You would accomplish this with what?

The problem here is threefold. One, which has been noted many times, is that the SDs are personnel heavy which means many of the systems you are proposing to give the SDs to would be unable to man them. Secondly, without adequate support structure, they revert to museum status fairly quickly. Finally they are not useful against pirates. Too slow.

If I were a government from whom naval protection had been removed, I would be looking to start smaller. What Manticore could do is provide training for people from the systems you mentioned for both support and shipboard requirments.

Then light warships from BC status down becomes realistic. And they wouldn't have to be Solarian. Older ships such as Star Knights, Warlords, Sultans, Homers, and almost anyone's destroyers could be used.

That could provide actual protection against pirates. As for dealing with other threats, they would have to have a longer term buildup. In the meantime enter into a defensive treaty with the GA and have a dispatch boat ready to run for help available.

Don

kzt wrote:... who are not allied to you, ...

If they're not at least signatories to a mutual defense treaty, I ain't sending them as much as an antique powder burning shotgun -- without ammo.

kzt wrote:

SWM wrote:Um, Kzt, aren't you suggesting sending 300 SDs out with 600,000 crew?

Nope. I'm giving them the ships. it's up to them to get and crew them. Or not.

I might be convinced to arrange for delivery, if it's not to difficult and I have the tugs available or can hire enough people who know how to run the damn things. That is a bit of a pain as I need to then escort them with an actual warship, which I'm kind of short of right now. But it isn't impossible.

I see. So you are giving the ships, but you aren't offering any training and you aren't delivering them.

You won't get any takers for that. None of the systems you want to give these ships to have the crews to move them, or the training to use a superdreadnought.

SWM wrote:I see. So you are giving the ships, but you aren't offering any training and you aren't delivering them.

You won't get any takers for that. None of the systems you want to give these ships to have the crews to move them, or the training to use a superdreadnought.

Yup. I don't HAVE anyone who can train people in how to run a SLN SD. I certainly have better things to do with my people than spend two years training them in how to run and then start to train people in how to run an obsolete ship.

They can spend that time on it. They can have all the embedded training simulations and courses for that, and given that the SD design is several hundred years old the engineering systems should be a lot like that of a commercial freighter. If they want to hire people to train them or crew them that is fine too.

If they want to rely on prayer instead, well, I wish them luck. They can also drop by and talk about a more formal and permanent relationship instead, but that will have real costs to them, in both coin and freedom to choose sides.

thinkstoomuch wrote:For those talking about 18 months versus 18 years for the reactor lives. I thought I would look up where it came from.

Fairly simple. Use Pearls of Weber. Thank you Joe Buckley.

[edit]http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/series/Harrington/

Insert "18" into the search engine. 10th entry is:
Fission/fusion power reactors [ Added December 14, 2002 ]
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/145/1

David Weber wrote:(a) There is a typo in the section addressing the longevity of the Shrikes' fuel cores. It should have read 18 months of active operations, not simply 18 years. I have not figured out where the change came from. It was not in my original draft; it did appear in the ms I actually submitted to Baen, and I missed it in the proofreading. The only thing I can think of is that in a moment of sleep-deprived, late-night dementia, I myself made the change on disk, although why I would have "corrected" it to such a clear contradiction of my own tech bible evades me. Sigh.

Please start snipping out older quotes. Most of this topic I am unable without a lot of effort sort out who is saying what. It also saves scroll wheels. Which is one reason for limiting the number quotes.

Thank you,
T2M

From the same exact Pearls.

The more I thought about that 18-month endurance, though, the more I've come to wonder if perhaps I made the change from the value stipulated in the tech bible deliberately, and I was simply so tired when I did it that I don't now remember doing so. Given the endurance on present-day the fission reactors, 18 years really isn't particularly out of the question for technology as advanced as this. I don't think I've indicated the shorter endurance (the 18-month value, that is) anywhere else in the series, so I'm inclining towards allowing the 18-year endurance to stand. I haven't totally made up my mind in that direction, but I think it's likely that I will.

I would say that until it is confirmed absolutely that it is in fact 18 months and not years, using the original text would probably be wise. There's been a couple of books since 2004, and none of them have contradicted the original 18-year endurance specified.