Insanity: Screening elements in the HV

Brigade XO wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:(And if you're talking about using the platforms being build with ex-SLN grasers for anti-missile defense then those only have 5-6 shots before maintenance; so you're not even getting to take many of your low probability shots against incoming missiles. Well, unless they've some low power mode that would let them eke out more shots before going offline pending servicing)

If you're going to use them as defensive weapons against opponents coming through the wormhole, given the range of the SLN grasers, they would be deployed between the forts and the exit points for each lane. They don't have to be actually fouling the lane(s) they can be just the path of the lane or even also just around and outside the parameter of the exit point so those could be taking shot on the stern of exiting ships. In general, it seems unlikely that a ship attacking though a wormhole would be firing missiles before it got at least minimal sensor info about where the defenders were at the time they come though so missile defense use would be low. Unlikely the same graders deployed on the lanes would be in useful range of missiles coming at the forts from any other direction.

Also consider what you are going to deploy the SLN grasers in. You take all the equipment needed to operate them along with power supply and gravity sense gear and it's not going to be small. You probably build a single graser platform more like a pod with attitude controls etc and be able to shift the fire vector of the graser to whatever you needed it to be to engage targets within range. It also gives you options as how you move them so shifting individual pods out of lane deployment for maintenance beyond servicing the graser power packs. Depends on how much movement capability you give them. If you decide you want to put any in any kind of ranged array outboard from the junction forts you can still do things like cover routes from the junction to various installations like wearhoused and repair stations. They will be relatively small and unless broadcasting potentially invisible to commercial shipping or anybody doing long range surveillance of the wormhole.

Interesting. I might add that originally we discussed how those platforms would be vulnerable to proximity kills. Any ability of the platforms to target missiles protects the platforms. They certainly shouldn't just sit there and be eaten by a massive launch, when the sea of platforms themselves should be more massive than any launch. And the platforms could also protect against an unexpected / unforeseen launch against ships or infrastructure at the junction. I'm sure ships exiting the junction would appreciate some antimissile defense at any level of effectiveness. Consider a Trojan Horse of a freighter suddenly dumping pods and they light off against targets exiting the WH. Incidentally, it appears to me that exiting the WH has always been a time where Honor or any top brass would be vulnerable.

Brigade XO wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:(And if you're talking about using the platforms being build with ex-SLN grasers for anti-missile defense then those only have 5-6 shots before maintenance; so you're not even getting to take many of your low probability shots against incoming missiles. Well, unless they've some low power mode that would let them eke out more shots before going offline pending servicing)

If you're going to use them as defensive weapons against opponents coming through the wormhole, given the range of the SLN grasers, they would be deployed between the forts and the exit points for each lane. They don't have to be actually fouling the lane(s) they can be just the path of the lane or even also just around and outside the parameter of the exit point so those could be taking shot on the stern of exiting ships. In general, it seems unlikely that a ship attacking though a wormhole would be firing missiles before it got at least minimal sensor info about where the defenders were at the time they come though so missile defense use would be low. Unlikely the same graders deployed on the lanes would be in useful range of missiles coming at the forts from any other direction.

I'd say more "impossible" than "unlikely".
My understanding is that a ship has to accelerate for several minutes down the exit lane before it's far enough from the Junction terminus that it can switch from sails to wedge.

During those minutes the same grav forces that require it to use sail would destroy anything it launched or anything under wedge. So a hostile transit has to survive several minutes of defensive fire where it can't use sidewalls to protect itself (unless equipped with a fort-style spherical bubble sidewall) and can't launch missiles, CMs, or decoys.

However that same grav effect is going to keep you from positioning graser platforms in the exit lane -- they're going to have to be off to the sides or out far enough down the lane that sails are no longer required. Fortunately the lane is narrow enough that even laserhead missiles and mines detonating outside it can hit ships within the lane, so a graser platform (which should have at least 5x the effective range of a laserhead) can do so quite easily.

So graser platforms would only need to worry about proximity kills from enemy missiles once an hostile transit has survived several minutes of fire -- by which point the nearest graser platforms have probably shot themselves dry anyway. However, as the graser platforms presumably lack sidewalls they would be vulnerable to energy weapons counter-battery fire. Still, there's enough platforms that a hostile transit is going to take losses that are more than just painful exchanging energy fire with them. (Plus they only supplement the already strong defenses from sidewall protected forts and all the laserhead missiles and mines)


(Now proximity kills from an enemy pouncing on the Junction out of hyper is quite a different matter -- those ships can use sidewalls and launch missiles and decoys. They can prox kill graser platforms. OTOH they still have to survive all those forts throwing Apollo salvos down their throats)

tlb wrote:

Theemile wrote:Your quote shows how the RMN doctrine was evolving throughout that Darwinian war. However, were the shipborn graser mounts being updated was well? We can hope so, but I don't remember seeing any discussion of it - however, I did miss this. The Shrike Graser could have been used due to the LAC's smaller size and a LAC's inherent agility, and thus the ability to orient the graser onto the threat vector by aligning the entire craft. If shipborne graser mounts do not have good cross-field traverse capability, they would be less useful in the antimissile role - they simply can't do the careful tracking necessary to lock on and track fast moving targets, and aim far enough off access to target something not right in front of them. And if the RMN didn't plan on using those weapons in that fashion, they might not have spent the money on mounts with such tracking capability. Remember, Grasers were the Carronades in the Age of Sail analogy, and while "aimed", they were designed stick out a ship to hit another big ship a quarter mile away...when it was directly abreast of you.

Newer RMN construction may have the correct mounts to reflect shifting doctrine. The SLN fleets... probably did not...

It is my understanding that it is the gravity lensing that does the final aiming of the graser (or laser) beam, otherwise you would have to adjust the position of the ship (since the gun ports might be fixed or difficult to adjust). Here is Hexapuma "running" out her grasers in Shadow of Saganami:

Chapter 24 wrote:HMS Hexapuma's impeller wedge snapped abruptly to full power. Senior Chief Clary's joystick went hard over, and the heavy cruiser snarled around to starboard in a six-hundred-gravity, hundred-and-eighty-degree turn. Her sidewalls snapped into existence; tethered EW drones popped out to port and starboard; her energy weapons ran out, locking their gravity lenses to the edges of the sidewalls' "gun ports"; and radar and lidar lashed the two Havenite ships like savage whips.

Even being a grav lens in the sidewall, that's no guarantee that the lens and mount can track something moving so fast accurately, nor does it guarantee that each of the grasers has good cross field tracking ability - in fact, given that ships have multiple energy weapons (and sensors and missile tubes that also interact with the sidewalls), graser lenses with total cross field capability are almost an impossibility - the lenses would impede each other, and limit each one to a small area of the side wall, limiting each mount's cone of fire.

I'm not saying the Grasers can't track missiles, but if you don't initially design the system to be that accurate (or accept a lower accuracy because you don't need it for your doctrine), when your doctrine changes, current ships with older systems won't have that capability because of the limitations inherent in the hardware.

tlb wrote:It is my understanding that it is the gravity lensing that does the final aiming of the graser (or laser) beam, otherwise you would have to adjust the position of the ship (since the gun ports might be fixed or difficult to adjust).

Theemile wrote:Even being a grav lens in the sidewall, that's no guarantee that the lens and mount can track something moving so fast accurately, nor does it guarantee that each of the grasers has good cross field tracking ability - in fact, given that ships have multiple energy weapons (and sensors and missile tubes that also interact with the sidewalls), graser lenses with total cross field capability are almost an impossibility - the lenses would impede each other, and limit each one to a small area of the side wall, limiting each mount's cone of fire.

I'm not saying the Grasers can't track missiles, but if you don't initially design the system to be that accurate (or accept a lower accuracy because you don't need it for your doctrine), when your doctrine changes, current ships with older systems won't have that capability because of the limitations inherent in the hardware.

I accept that there could be a problem, but am not sure of the magnitude of the problem. Grasers were designed, after all, to hit ships in conflict. Ships that need not be moving at the firing ship. Missiles, despite their higher total velocity, still have most of that velocity approaching the ship that is firing.

In particular, when the RMN followed the lead of Grayson and went with a much heavier graser broadside, then they should have made whatever changes were necessary to more closely integrate those grasers into their anti-missile defense.

I agree that no given graser is likely able to sweep a full semi-sphere of space, but missiles are more clumped than that. If the lasers that were formerly part of the broadside could assist the PDLC groups, then I expect that the grasers can also.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:It is my understanding that it is the gravity lensing that does the final aiming of the graser (or laser) beam, otherwise you would have to adjust the position of the ship (since the gun ports might be fixed or difficult to adjust).

Theemile wrote:Even being a grav lens in the sidewall, that's no guarantee that the lens and mount can track something moving so fast accurately, nor does it guarantee that each of the grasers has good cross field tracking ability - in fact, given that ships have multiple energy weapons (and sensors and missile tubes that also interact with the sidewalls), graser lenses with total cross field capability are almost an impossibility - the lenses would impede each other, and limit each one to a small area of the side wall, limiting each mount's cone of fire.



I'm not saying the Grasers can't track missiles, but if you don't initially design the system to be that accurate (or accept a lower accuracy because you don't need it for your doctrine), when your doctrine changes, current ships with older systems won't have that capability because of the limitations inherent in the hardware.

I accept that there could be a problem, but am not sure of the magnitude of the problem. Grasers were designed, after all, to hit ships in conflict. Ships that need not be moving at the firing ship. Missiles, despite their higher total velocity, still have most of that velocity approaching the ship that is firing.

In particular, when the RMN followed the lead of Grayson and went with a much heavier graser broadside, then they should have made whatever changes were necessary to more closely integrate those grasers into their anti-missile defense.

I agree that no given graser is likely able to sweep a full semi-sphere of space, but missiles are more clumped than that. If the lasers that were formerly part of the broadside could assist the PDLC groups, then I expect that the grasers can also.

I certainly agree with tlb. Actually I find it difficult to believe that the capability wasn't used from the outset of warfare. If the possibility exists then why not utilize it from the beginning. Even if just several missiles are destroyed, the fact that LACs are used to piss on a raging fire implies that grasers pissing on a raging fire would also be acceptable. In the beginning of warfare, a few missiles destroyed by graser fire would have been a lot!

The Havenites have shown that the doctrine is possible. And since this project is Sonja's baby, she might take it under advisement. Perhaps simply a software tweak might bridge the gap somewhat. I am not expecting miracles from a software tweak, but something. If LACs can target missiles with grasers when both the LAC and the missile is moving, then surely a stationary platform should be able to kill a few missiles. If the doctrine had been used from the outset, there is no telling how advanced it may have become by now.

In fact, I posited some time ago that the MAN's 3-second firing graser technology might be stepped down to achieve rapid fire shots. I am willing to allow for killer grasers affixed to the LDs that are more than capable of taking out stray ships OR missiles.

penny wrote:

tlb wrote:I accept that there could be a problem, but am not sure of the magnitude of the problem. Grasers were designed, after all, to hit ships in conflict. Ships that need not be moving at the firing ship. Missiles, despite their higher total velocity, still have most of that velocity approaching the ship that is firing.

In particular, when the RMN followed the lead of Grayson and went with a much heavier graser broadside, then they should have made whatever changes were necessary to more closely integrate those grasers into their anti-missile defense.

I agree that no given graser is likely able to sweep a full semi-sphere of space, but missiles are more clumped than that. If the lasers that were formerly part of the broadside could assist the PDLC groups, then I expect that the grasers can also.

I certainly agree with tlb. Actually I find it difficult to believe that the capability wasn't used from the outset of warfare. If the possibility exists then why not utilize it from the beginning. Even if just several missiles are destroyed, the fact that LACs are used to piss on a raging fire implies that grasers pissing on a raging fire would also be acceptable. In the beginning of warfare, a few missiles destroyed by graser fire would have been a lot!

The Havenites have shown that the doctrine is possible. And since this project is Sonja's baby, she might take it under advisement. Perhaps simply a software tweak might bridge the gap somewhat. I am not expecting miracles from a software tweak, but something. If LACs can target missiles with grasers when both the LAC and the missile is moving, then surely a stationary platform should be able to kill a few missiles. If the doctrine had been used from the outset, there is no telling how advanced it may have become by now.

In fact, I posited some time ago that the MAN's 3-second firing graser technology might be stepped down to achieve rapid fire shots. I am willing to allow for killer grasers affixed to the LDs that are more than capable of taking out stray ships OR missiles.

The RMN did (and presumably does) use broadside energy mounts to take shots of opportunity at incoming missiles. They didn't didn't specifically optimize their mounts for that role.

Haven did, but nothing is free and we don't know what trade-off Haven had to accept to get somewhat better anti-missile performance out of their main energy mounts.
- Maybe they had to accept a lighter mount so each does less damage in ship to ship combat.
- Maybe they had to accept higher maintenance requirements
- Maybe they had to accept lower reliability
- Maybe they had to accept higher cost
- etc.

But there has to be some tradeoff that you give up in exchange for building a mounting that's optimized towards anti-missile work. (And it's still nowhere near as good at that as simply adding an extra PDLC would be)

And, whatever that trade-off is, the RMN designers didn't think it was worth it. They'd clearly rather have an energy mount that's better (in some way) at its primary role of destroying enemy ships at the expense of being somewhat worse at its secondary role of shooting at missiles.

(This might be vaguely analogous to how in WWII Japan designed and deployed anti-aircraft shells for its battleship main guns and the US didn't. Those shells made the main guns more effective at anti-aircraft work; but didn't make them effective.
Instead they went from almost completely incapable of AA work to largely ineffective at AA work -- not a major win. And to get that very limited capability they had to carry fewer shells for anti-ship or shore bombardment and the AA shells eroded the limited barrel life faster than other shells.

Even if someone had offered the US that tech the US would have turn it down as the trade-offs don't seem worth the marginal increase in defensive firepower)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:[quote="Jonathan_S"]
Though you don't normally reconfigure a given train car for a given cargo type, you'd instead reconfgure the train with the types of cars needed to handle what was being shipped today (reefer car, tank car, vehicle transporter, intermodal container car, etc. etc.) -- and in some cases I think there are rules against mixing certain types of cars or materials within the same train.

Ships, at least today, also tend to be a case of pick the ship type based on what you want to transport; rather than reconfiguring cargo holds to go from containers to bulk material to liquids to gases.

You need to ship petrolium, you contract a tanker; natural gas an LNG carrier, iron ore a oreboat, etc.


I guess we haven't seen enough commercial shipping in the Honorverse to know whether they usually go for specialized freighters for different good type or go for specialized containers within a standard freighter (or a mix of both depending on volume being shipped)
We do know of a few specialized commercial ships like passenger liners or repair ships; and there are a very scattered few mentions of military and civilian tankers (in context seeming to carry gases or possibly liquified gasses; in one case from a gas giant's cloud scoop platform to a processing center, and in a couple others fuel [presumably hydrogen] for the fleet]
And at least fleet trains include medical / hospital ships; but probably aren't non-governmental versions of those.

Liquid carriers - They are called Colliers (Like the old coal carriers for navies in the last 1800s early 1900s). Bachfitch's ships were formerly Andi Colliers. They carry Hydrogen fuel for the fleets.

In the real world, as the US Navy switched to oil pre-WWI, and their Colliers were swapped for purpose built Tankers. The last US Navy Colliers were used to ship strategic bulk goods in WWI as the merchant marine was winnowed by sub warfare. The Cyclops was such a ship and was lost in the Bermuda triangle with a shipment of Potash IIRC. It's sister, the Jupiter, was converted to the USS Langley and became the US's first experimental carrier.

We've seen bulk cargo being shipped, but you would want any ore or grain in sealed containers of some kind - Even iron dust is combustible in standard oxygen , and no/low grav situations (like in cargo transfer) can be dangerous.

When we were seeing palletized cargo in OBS, we may have been inside a shirt sleeve cargo container, looking at individual breakbulk items in the container, or a special small goods hold.

Some items are probably too large to ship via container. We've seen Corvettes and LACs shipped via freighter; in addition to modular Forts and LAC bases, SITS discusses modular space stations, and collapsable mobile dry docks are seen at the Volsung base in "A Call Vengence". Oversized cargo is a thriving business in the Honorverse.

FWIW RFC seems to call fleet fuel carriers "tankers", and seems to reserve "collier" for missile colliers -- hauling the fleet's ammunition.

But you've got a point out the OBS scene; and why you'd likely want bulk materials containerized in a space setting.

And yes, there is clearly some specialty oversized cargo business out there. Though I suspect that most freighters have cargo hatches big enough to fit multiple containers at once; so some only slightly oversized loads might be able to fit into an oversized container the size of several normal ones (like the Wraith's the MAlign squeezed into a double length container).

But anything truly oversized probably requires a non-standard freighter -- or at least a freighter were you've had the time to make over the cargo bay(s) to handle non-standard loads.



----------
Oh, and poking around I rediscovered that TEIF has this gem
"The Interstellar Shipping Container was the standardized base unit of interstellar commerce."

And that a roughly 400 ISCs of cargo came (in at least this one instance) to about 600,000 tons. So an average of 150 tons per container (which is only about 5x the maximum allowed tonnage of a fully loaded 40 foot container of today -- though the particular containers may be well below the maximum mass allowed per ICU in the Honorverse.

And UH has the MAlign Wraith drones fitting into "what looks like a pair of standard Rhino-class heavy-lift cargo containers glued together end-to-end." So, since they're talking about fitting in the final Wraith at about 71m x 11.5 meters, those Rhino-class containers (which may or may not be 1 ICU) would seemingly have to be at least 36m x 12m x 12m. (Vs today's 40ft, 2 TEU, containers at 12.19m x 2.44m wide x 2.59m tall)[/quote]


SeaBarge containers / lighters are 1,000 tons gross weight. I can't remember what the capacity was. Somewhere around 800 tons but it's been awhile since I worked on one.



Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN did (and presumably does) use broadside energy mounts to take shots of opportunity at incoming missiles. They didn't didn't specifically optimize their mounts for that role.

Haven did, but nothing is free and we don't know what trade-off Haven had to accept to get somewhat better anti-missile performance out of their main energy mounts.
- Maybe they had to accept a lighter mount so each does less damage in ship to ship combat.
- Maybe they had to accept higher maintenance requirements
- Maybe they had to accept lower reliability
- Maybe they had to accept higher cost
- etc.

But there has to be some tradeoff that you give up in exchange for building a mounting that's optimized towards anti-missile work. (And it's still nowhere near as good at that as simply adding an extra PDLC would be)

I do not know why you think there has to be such a disastrous trade-off for having a gravity lens that can efficiently engage both ships and missiles (and I think that is the only part of the graser affected). However, since I can not yet find evidence in any direction, I will have say I can neither accept nor refute your position.

tlb wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The RMN did (and presumably does) use broadside energy mounts to take shots of opportunity at incoming missiles. They didn't didn't specifically optimize their mounts for that role.

Haven did, but nothing is free and we don't know what trade-off Haven had to accept to get somewhat better anti-missile performance out of their main energy mounts.
- Maybe they had to accept a lighter mount so each does less damage in ship to ship combat.
- Maybe they had to accept higher maintenance requirements
- Maybe they had to accept lower reliability
- Maybe they had to accept higher cost
- etc.

But there has to be some tradeoff that you give up in exchange for building a mounting that's optimized towards anti-missile work. (And it's still nowhere near as good at that as simply adding an extra PDLC would be)

I do not know why you think there has to be such a disastrous trade-off for having a gravity lens that can efficiently engage both ships and missiles (and I think that is the only part of the graser affected). However, since I can not yet find evidence in any direction, I will have say I can neither accept nor refute your position.

I don't know that there is a disastrous trade-off.

All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

But I strongly doubt extensive optimization come without trade-offs. And clearly the RMN (despite using their broadside mounts against missiles when the opportunity presented itself) didn't feel that those trade-offs, whatever they were, were worth it for them (else they'd also have made such extensive optimizations)

The RMN might have been mistaken, but based on some combination of doctrine and cost/benefit analysis, decided that such optimizations weren't worth it for their ships.
And I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in that.

Jonathan_S wrote:All we're really going off is is that Jaynes says Haven "extensively optimized" their energy mounts for anti-missile work; and Manticore didn't.

What is the time period for these books? The Fan Wiki suggests that the intelligence reports are dated 1905 or 1906 PD. which is only up to Field of Dishonor and well before either Grayson or Manticore went to removing lasers from the broadside.