Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests

Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster Bay

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Galactic Sapper   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:39 am

Galactic Sapper
Commander

Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:11 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:1) I'm sure someone will come up with exact details, but the entire TQ only has ONE shipyard, plus another in the system that declined entry(?). They are capable of building light cruisers and smaller, it relatively modern transports.


Given an existing shipyard that can build light cruisers, it doesn't seem beneficial to "upgrade" it to outdated DD designs. If the RMN gives the blueprints, that shipyard is probably already capable. And given what RFC told us of how manufacturing works, it might be able to build a Roland given the blueprints.

My guess is that the TQ government would expand that shipyard to have more capacity for DDs, CLs and maybe a CA line or two. Not in a hurry, but steadily. I see the need for heavy units currently well satisfied in the RMN (in fact, too many, see the end of UH), so the TQ can contribute with lighter units for anti-piracy both at home and in the Verge newly freed from OFS and SLN.

They might be able to pull off what Bolthole is doing for SDs: build the basic hull and sent it to Beowulf to have the ultra-high-tech bells and whistles installed.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Theemile   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:29 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3613
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Weird Harold wrote:
Theemile wrote:...And while the RMN would prefer 10 new Rolands, someone tell me they wouldn't accept 10 new Chansons, crewed by Talbott crews, to bolster their numbers.

But - this will not be the RMN doing this - it will be the Talbott Quadrant Govt, attempting to contribute in a positive manner.


1) I'm sure someone will come up with exact details, but the entire TQ only has ONE shipyard, plus another in the system that declined entry(?). They are capable of building light cruisers and smaller, it relatively modern transports.


If memory serves, it is 4 shipyards - Rembrandt, San Miguel, and Dresden have yards - New Tuscany HAD a yard - the destruction of their primary station may have removed that from the equation.

2) The TQ is fielding LAC squadrons and 4DMs as fast as they can be organized. They will double as remedial trainers and front-line SDF. They will train with CLAC and Charles Ward class fleet-support ships for training and operations.

3) The SEM/TQ has explicitly stated that the TQ will NOT be 'second-class citizens' or field second-class ships.


That's correct. My mentioning of Talbott crews was in line with the Talbott Guards army units - Talbott's member nations already fielded Army units. They took their existing formations, re-outfitted them with the best hardware Talbott could offer (with some pilfered SLN Marine equipment added in, I hope), gave them the Royal Army field manual, trained them up, then shipped them out.
What if the existing Talbott navy crews, who are busy training on RMN level tech, come back one day to find a shiny new RMN tech DD or CL replacing their ship. Yes it might not be the newest RMN type, but it will be the same level tech as some RMN crews.

Right now the Crew of a Rembrant DD is still patrolling daily in that Rembrant DD - even if their navy are taking turns in LAC simulators and running exercises against LACs. Giving them a new Chanson to replace it isn't creating a 2nd navy tier, it's removing it. When the RMN does fold all the SDFs into their formations, it will get crews and ships that are their standards.

4) The MMM has a surplus of ships in the short-term. Expanding the Rembrandt yards to build transports and possibly more Charles Ward-class FSVs is definitely possible. Rembrandt has the plans and tooling for Dromedary-class freighters. They should has plans for LACs, LAC Bases, 4DMs and Pods. The plans and tooling for CLACs and FSVs are mostly inherent in the LAC base specs and/or Dromedary designs.


MDMs and 4DMs have proved tricky even for systems with advanced manufacturing capabilities, and the RMN's focus on getting the Beowulf lines up is a sign of how difficult it really is. The RMN built a missile line for Apollo, packed it up, and sent to the Andermani in a freighter or 2 - it wasn't delivered on a flashdrive for nanobots to fabricate - there is more to it than that.

5) Proving LAC/4DM coverage of the TQ frees up mobile assets for offensive action. The TQ Guard contributes occupation forces. As TQ personnel get qualified, the will get integrated into the RMN or RMA.


If not DD/CLs, domestic LAC lines would be a good defensive solution - once again, new ships for existing Talbott crews, and you are right, they would free existing Hyper warships, achieving the same end result as low level new warship construction. However, Shrikes and Katannas are much more advanced than Chansons (beta squared nodes, bow walls, off-bore firing, etc) which might not be allowed/capable to be produced.


-------

Once again, right now all that has been mentioned is the Army units and the construction of it's transports. Anything else (including using RMN transport designs) is speculative. But it does lean towards SOME organic growth in the shipbuilding sector in the TQ outside of the RMN's main rebuilding plans, and suggests more will come.
******
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: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:00 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6065
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Given an existing shipyard that can build light cruisers, it doesn't seem beneficial to "upgrade" it to outdated DD designs. If the RMN gives the blueprints, that shipyard is probably already capable. And given what RFC told us of how manufacturing works, it might be able to build a Roland given the blueprints.

My guess is that the TQ government would expand that shipyard to have more capacity for DDs, CLs and maybe a CA line or two. Not in a hurry, but steadily. I see the need for heavy units currently well satisfied in the RMN (in fact, too many, see the end of UH), so the TQ can contribute with lighter units for anti-piracy both at home and in the Verge newly freed from OFS and SLN.

It's not at all clear that they'd be able to build a CL even as capable as the late pre-war designs. For example they probably don't have the grown in place armor that so complicated the fusion bottle replacement on Honor's HMS Nike.

And that's just one of the dozens of things that differentiation a older first rate CL from the typical 6th or 7th rate CL that's the best most verge yards can produce.

You probably need a lot of tech transfer to get an existing Talbott yard up to even what the RMN was building around 1900 PD (almost a quarter century, and a couple major ship design revolutions, ago).


I'm not saying it's not worth doing, just saying that all CL capable yards are very far from equal; and the Talbott ones probably need a lot of help.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:38 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Jonathan_S wrote:It's not at all clear that they'd be able to build a CL even as capable as the late pre-war designs. For example they probably don't have the grown in place armor that so complicated the fusion bottle replacement on Honor's HMS Nike.

And that's just one of the dozens of things that differentiation a older first rate CL from the typical 6th or 7th rate CL that's the best most verge yards can produce.

You probably need a lot of tech transfer to get an existing Talbott yard up to even what the RMN was building around 1900 PD (almost a quarter century, and a couple major ship design revolutions, ago).


I'm not saying it's not worth doing, just saying that all CL capable yards are very far from equal; and the Talbott ones probably need a lot of help.


Baby Steps!

The TQ might not be able to build CLs right now, but DD, LACs, and freighters don't have armor. It isn't as if the TQ has to build a navy from scratch or without plans; the only things needed are tooling and training. They don't even need that much to build Dromedary class freighters.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 8:22 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Theemile wrote:What if the existing Talbott navy crews, who are busy training on RMN level tech, come back one day to find a shiny new RMN tech DD or CL replacing their ship. Yes it might not be the newest RMN type, but it will be the same level tech as some RMN crews.

Right now the Crew of a Rembrant DD is still patrolling daily in that Rembrant DD - even if their navy are taking turns in LAC simulators and running exercises against LACs. Giving them a new Chanson to replace it isn't creating a 2nd navy tier, it's removing it. When the RMN does fold all the SDFs into their formations, it will get crews and ships that are their standards.


I think it's important to remember that the RMN hasn't had RMN-level tech for so long. On one hand, you're right that there are probably lots of obsolete lighter units around that can be effectively used in the Quadrant. On the other, they leap from a Chanson to a Roland is probably not that difficult, so I don't see why you'd need to start with the older ones. And those are manpower-intensive models, so not suited for a navy in training.

I think the biggest question is what everyone else has. Can we expect a surplus of SLN Frontier Fleet DD falling into petty warlords' hands? Can a Chanson hold up on its own against a Solarian Rampart-class DD? The Admiralty will have to make a decision on how many of those to scrap, how many to modernise (if it's cost-effective) and where to deploy those that remain in commission.

We know that Manticoran DD have held their own against Silesian ones for centuries. So it might be that most of those ships get deployed to the Manticoran Silesia, while Talbott gets Rolands.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Weird Harold   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:28 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

ThinksMarkedly wrote:We know that Manticoran DD have held their own against Silesian ones for centuries. So it might be that most of those ships get deployed to the Manticoran Silesia, while Talbott gets Rolands.


The Rolands are a dead-end design. There's been a lot of discussion on what will replace them and whether anything smaller than a CL can use MK16s.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:45 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10045
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
I think it's important to remember that the RMN hasn't had RMN-level tech for so long. On one hand, you're right that there are probably lots of obsolete lighter units around that can be effectively used in the Quadrant. On the other, they leap from a Chanson to a Roland is probably not that difficult, so I don't see why you'd need to start with the older ones. And those are manpower-intensive models, so not suited for a navy in training.

Manpower intensive is exactly what you want. You have a limited number of senior people. You have lots of inexperienced people. So do you assign the inexperienced people to be in charge of the inexperienced people? Because that's what you get with ships with a small crew.

The USN experience is that you need very highly trained crews to man ships with a small crew, because they ll have to be able to do multiple jobs. Note also that if you look up training ship on google you see a lot of pictures of sailing ships in multiple navies. Why is that?
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:29 am

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Weird Harold wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:We know that Manticoran DD have held their own against Silesian ones for centuries. So it might be that most of those ships get deployed to the Manticoran Silesia, while Talbott gets Rolands.


The Rolands are a dead-end design. There's been a lot of discussion on what will replace them and whether anything smaller than a CL can use MK16s.


Wait, what? Why? And what are the Rolands firing now, if not Mk16? Sure, they are the size of anyone else's CLs, but what matters is the role they fit into, not the mass.

And they seem to be holding on their own just fine against Solarian BCs. See the Battle of Saltash (5 Rolands against 4 Indefatigables) and the concluding action at Hypatia.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:13 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:The Rolands are a dead-end design. There's been a lot of discussion on what will replace them and whether anything smaller than a CL can use MK16s.


Wait, what? Why? And what are the Rolands firing now, if not Mk16? Sure, they are the size of anyone else's CLs, but what matters is the role they fit into, not the mass.

And they seem to be holding on their own just fine against Solarian BCs. See the Battle of Saltash (5 Rolands against 4 Indefatigables) and the concluding action at Hypatia.


The Rolands are great war fighters, but they don't have the range or magazine capacity needed for any mission other than war fighting.

The Mk16s are bunched fore and aft where they are vulnerable to loss of three launchers with one hit.

That's just one flaw in the design -- there have been a couple of threads about the deficiencies and possible ways the next generation of DDs might be addressed.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Dauntless   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:21 am

Dauntless
Commodore

Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:54 am
Location: United Kingdom

more then a couple of threads.

I think after the endless "what will Matnicore do with all of solly SD" threads that cluttered up the board right up until UH came out; an informal rule of "lets try not to have the same topic discussed every month in different threads" was agreed on.

I would have another go at the discussion but there is no new info from RFC to justify it, without that new info we are just repeating ourselves and repeating the cycle with people who normally love to take part in these discussions getting more and more annoyed and the amount of time for the thread to go off the rails gets shorter and shorter each time.
Top

Return to Honorverse