Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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 Theemile   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:26 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3639
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

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.


ThinksMarkedly wrote: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.


Weird Harold wrote: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.


Adding to the above, outside of bashing skulls, the Avalon is a better design for a DD/CL. It has a similiar level of defenses as a Roland, it's DD/CL missiles outhit and outrange any other navy's DD/CL missiles, it has the crew size (and top line hardware) necessary to carry out every job in the DD/CL portfolio.

With the Wolfhound DD and the Roland, the RMN was attempting to go back to the "Presence" ship - before 1900, the RMN had 100s of little Frigates, which had the legs to be everywhere, but not enough defenses or firepower to do anything - their "Presence", and the threat that anything they saw would bring larger RMN ships, quelled many issues and protected many convoys. After the 1st war, the RMN (back under the pre-war buildup leadership) wanted to return to the presence concept, but had the technology to build such ships that had teeth now existed.

Out of that came 2 destroyer designs. The Roland was much more expensive (almost 2X), and as a peace time presence ship, didn't bring that much more than the Wolfhound, a ship 30% smaller with a similiar sized crew and a weapons fit that still was sufficient to make older CAs run in fear. The buck went further with the Wolfhound design and building a ship that carried BC scale weapons on a destroyer hull, just seemed provocative to the interwar isolationist government. The Roland design was shelved, and just prior to the 2nd war, 39 Wolfhounds were ordered, 20 at Manticore, 19 at Grendlesbane. The 19 at Grendlesbane were destroyed alone with the station.

Now at war, it was realized that the numbers had flipped, the Wolfhound, which while far cheaper to operate and procure, took 80% as long to produce as the Roland, which as mentioned, brought modern BC scale weapons to the party. So all further production shifted to the Roland.

And that gets us to today. The Roland is a Street Brawler - it packs a mean punch, and has the moves. The Wolfhound is that wiry kid that knows how to fight. The problem is neither of them would make a good cop - the role you need in peacetime. The better solution is the Wolfhound's CL consort - the Avalon, with a crew size capable to of taking on all the DD/CL Roles and sufficient defenses and weapons to easily handle most CAs without blinking (it's important to note, the one undamaged RMN ship at Monica was the only Avalon in the squadron)

The reason why the Roland is called a dead end is the same reason there is no Mk-16 light Cruiser. The minimum width capable of handling mk-16 tubes is the hull width of a Sag-C. The Mk-16 requires a extra, armored tube section where the reactor spins up prior to launch, which means the launch tubes take up more space in the hull. The Roland got around this limitation by grouping 6 mk-16 tubes in each hammerhead, sharing loading and other equipment between them and running the loading tubes down the spine for enough length. So to build a ship between the Roland and the Sag-C, your options are to make a 8 missile ring at each hammerhead, and accept the vulnerabilities like was done in the Roland, or build a stubby Sag-C at 300-350 tons, with no accel advantage over the Sag-C, and a design that displaces Sag-C designs in shipyards.

David has mentioned that the RMN, from wartime experience, will probably not build any future designs below 300 tons. So the FG, DD and CL roles will all be rolled into one in in RMN service. the "Notional" 300 Ton combatant, as it's been called, will probably carry mk-16 weapons, sufficient reloads to be viable, defenses similar to a pre-war BC, and a crew large enough to do all the traditional DD/CL roles.
Last edited by Theemile on Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
******
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 Theemile   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:34 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3639
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Dauntless wrote: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.


If you remember, I was trying to do a Dead Horses stickey post a few months back with a list of well discussed topics, David's reaction, and where the discussion (normally) ended. However, no one could agree on a list, and no one wanted to help out writing it. So - no danger list for newbies.
******
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 Dauntless   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:40 am

Dauntless
Commodore

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

it was a good idea too. I was and still am somewhat surprised that there wasn't more support for it.

getting every dead horse topic would have been hard but surely we could have agreed on at least a couple, giving us a basic list which could have been updated as time moved on.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:20 am

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Theemile wrote:Adding to the above, outside of bashing skulls, the Avalon is a better design for a DD/CL. It has a similiar level of defenses as a Roland, it's DD/CL missiles outhit and outrange any other navy's DD/CL missiles, it has the crew size (and top line hardware) necessary to carry out every job in the DD/CL portfolio.

With the Wolfhound DD and the Roland, the RMN was attempting to go back to the "Presence" ship - before 1900, the RMN had 100s of little Frigates, which had the legs to be everywhere, but not enough defenses or firepower to do anything - their "Presence", and the threat that anything they saw would bring larger RMN ships, quelled many issues and protected many convoys. After the 1st war, the RMN (back under the pre-war buildup leadership) wanted to return to the presence concept, but had the technology to build such ships that had teeth now existed.

Out of that came 2 destroyer designs. The Roland was much more expensive (almost 2X), and as a peace time presence ship, didn't bring that much more than the Wolfhound, a ship 30% smaller with a similiar sized crew and a weapons fit that still was sufficient to make older CAs run in fear. The buck went further with the Wolfhound design and building a ship that carried BC scale weapons on a destroyer hull, just seemed provocative to the isolationist government. Just prior to the 2nd war, 39 Wolfhounds were ordered, 20 at Manticore, 19 at Grendlesbane. The 19 at Grendlesbane were destroyed alone with the station.

Now at war, it was realized that the numbers had flipped, the Wolfhound, which while far cheaper to operate and procure, took 80% as long to produce as the Roland, which as mentioned, brought BC scale weapons to the party. So all further production shifted to the Roland.

And that gets us to today. The Roland is a Street Brawler - it packs a mean punch, and has the moves. The Wolfhound is that wiry kid that knows how to fight. The problem is neither of them would make a good cop - the role you need in peacetime. The better solution is the Wolfhound's CL consort - the Avalon, with a crew size capable to of taking on all the DD/CL Roles and sufficient defenses and weapons to easily handle most CAs without blinking (it's importnat to note, the one undamaged RMN ship at Monica was the only Avalon in the squadron)

The reason why the Roland is called a dead end is the same reason there is no Mk-16 light Cruiser. The minimum width capable of handling mk-16 tubes is the hull width of a Sag-C. The Mk-16 requires a extra, armored tube section where the reactor spins up prior to launch, which means the launch tubes take up more space in the hull. The Roland got around this limitation by grouping 6 mk-16 tubes in each hammerhead, sharing loading and other equipment between them and running the loading tubes down the spine for enough length. So to build a ship between the Roland and the Sag-C, your options are to make a 8 missile ring at each hammerhead, and accept the vulnerabilities like was done in the Roland, or build a stubby Sag-C at 300-350 tons, with no accel advantage over the Sag-C, and a design that displaces Sag-C designs in shipyards.

David has mentioned that the RMN, from wartime experience, will probably not build any future designs below 300 tons. So the FG, DD and CL roles will all be rolled into one in in RMN service. the "Notional" 300 Ton combatant, as it's been called, will probably carry mk-16 weapons, sufficient reloads to be viable, defenses similiar to a pre-war BC, and a crew large enough to do all the traditional DD/CL roles.


Thanks for the summary. Much appreciated, I didn't come across that thread when I read roughly the last year's worth of posts before first posting. I did see the thread on Solly SD, though.

And indeed, it depends a lot on info RFC hasn't given us. He may also change his mind on the 300k-ton lower limit and have Sonja & Shannon further miniaturise the Mk16 such that smaller ships become viable again. We simply don't know.

If we stick to 300k lower limit, I'm no longer sure the extant yards in the TQ make sense. Maybe they should specialise in Marine and Army platforms.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:23 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10088
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Theemile wrote:Adding to the above, outside of bashing skulls, the Avalon is a better design for a DD/CL. It has a similiar level of defenses as a Roland, it's DD/CL missiles outhit and outrange any other navy's DD/CL missiles, it has the crew size (and top line hardware) necessary to carry out every job in the DD/CL portfolio.

With the Wolfhound DD and the Roland, the RMN was attempting to go back to the "Presence" ship - before 1900, the RMN had 100s of little Frigates, which had the legs to be everywhere, but not enough defenses or firepower to do anything - their "Presence", and the threat that anything they saw would bring larger RMN ships, quelled many issues and protected many convoys. After the 1st war, the RMN (back under the pre-war buildup leadership) wanted to return to the presence concept, but had the technology to build such ships that had teeth now existed.

Out of that came 2 destroyer designs. The Roland was much more expensive (almost 2X), and as a peace time presence ship, didn't bring that much more than the Wolfhound, a ship 30% smaller with a similiar sized crew and a weapons fit that still was sufficient to make older CAs run in fear. The buck went further with the Wolfhound design and building a ship that carried BC scale weapons on a destroyer hull, just seemed provocative to the isolationist government. Just prior to the 2nd war, 39 Wolfhounds were ordered, 20 at Manticore, 19 at Grendlesbane. The 19 at Grendlesbane were destroyed alone with the station.

Now at war, it was realized that the numbers had flipped, the Wolfhound, which while far cheaper to operate and procure, took 80% as long to produce as the Roland, which as mentioned, brought BC scale weapons to the party. So all further production shifted to the Roland.

And that gets us to today. The Roland is a Street Brawler - it packs a mean punch, and has the moves. The Wolfhound is that wiry kid that knows how to fight. The problem is neither of them would make a good cop - the role you need in peacetime. The better solution is the Wolfhound's CL consort - the Avalon, with a crew size capable to of taking on all the DD/CL Roles and sufficient defenses and weapons to easily handle most CAs without blinking (it's importnat to note, the one undamaged RMN ship at Monica was the only Avalon in the squadron)

The reason why the Roland is called a dead end is the same reason there is no Mk-16 light Cruiser. The minimum width capable of handling mk-16 tubes is the hull width of a Sag-C. The Mk-16 requires a extra, armored tube section where the reactor spins up prior to launch, which means the launch tubes take up more space in the hull. The Roland got around this limitation by grouping 6 mk-16 tubes in each hammerhead, sharing loading and other equipment between them and running the loading tubes down the spine for enough length. So to build a ship between the Roland and the Sag-C, your options are to make a 8 missile ring at each hammerhead, and accept the vulnerabilities like was done in the Roland, or build a stubby Sag-C at 300-350 tons, with no accel advantage over the Sag-C, and a design that displaces Sag-C designs in shipyards.

David has mentioned that the RMN, from wartime experience, will probably not build any future designs below 300 tons. So the FG, DD and CL roles will all be rolled into one in in RMN service. the "Notional" 300 Ton combatant, as it's been called, will probably carry mk-16 weapons, sufficient reloads to be viable, defenses similiar to a pre-war BC, and a crew large enough to do all the traditional DD/CL roles.


Thats a really good explanation. I had to check the writer to see it wasn’t duckk or David.
Edited to remove broken quote
Last edited by kzt on Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Galactic Sapper   » Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:53 pm

Galactic Sapper
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:11 pm

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And indeed, it depends a lot on info RFC hasn't given us. He may also change his mind on the 300k-ton lower limit and have Sonja & Shannon further miniaturise the Mk16 such that smaller ships become viable again. We simply don't know.

Several possibilities exist beyond that. One less-than-ideal solution would be to combine the armored ignition box with a box launcher mounted directly into the broadside similar to old-style LACs.

Another would to be to somehow load a standard launcher from the side, such that the missile is spun up in the armored feed tube parallel to the launcher then loaded horizontally.

A third, perhaps more practical means would be to offset the broadsides top and bottom, such that the port side launchers and feed tubes reach nearly to the starboard hull on one deck, then the sides reversed on the next deck down. Spacing for such might mean the two broadsides would have to be fed from different magazines, since to switch between them the missiles would have to be turned end-for-end. Fitting energy weapons into such a f'ed up mess of a deck design would be a bit of a challenge, though.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Theemile   » Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:23 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3639
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

Galactic Sapper wrote:
A third, perhaps more practical means would be to offset the broadsides top and bottom, such that the port side launchers and feed tubes reach nearly to the starboard hull on one deck, then the sides reversed on the next deck down. Spacing for such might mean the two broadsides would have to be fed from different magazines, since to switch between them the missiles would have to be turned end-for-end. Fitting energy weapons into such a f'ed up mess of a deck design would be a bit of a challenge, though.


Asymmetrical broadsides is something mentioned here a lot, but David doesn't like the idea. Most importantly, the launchers would pierce the core hull, which is where the main armoring is on lighter ships. It is described in In Fire Forged, where an "All or Nothing" armor scheme covers the ship's vitals in the core, with a light hull armor.

A box is no more than a pod, bolted to a ship's hull. There is a Silesian class of CLs who did that, but they only had 24 missiles on each broadside. After 48 shots, they were dry. The ship was a case of expediency, a fast heavy courier design was modified with a light laser outfit, and the box launchers.

As for the "horizontal feed", I've wondered that myself, but could only come to the conclusion that it made the launchers too wide to mount with any economy of space.
******
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 tlb   » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:38 am

tlb
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

Galactic Sapper wrote:Another would to be to somehow load a standard launcher from the side, such that the missile is spun up in the armored feed tube parallel to the launcher then loaded horizontally.
...
Spacing for such might mean the two broadsides would have to be fed from different magazines, since to switch between them the missiles would have to be turned end-for-end.

Isn't it always the case that for the two broadsides to share a common magazine, then the missiles have to do some rotation when moving to the tube? Perhaps it would speed things, if there were separate ready magazines fed from the main magazine (each holding at least one reload for each tube on a side, probably more).

If the tubes are not loaded from the side, then the minimum width of the ship is more than twice the length of its specified missile even with offset tubes (more than 3 times the missile length, if not offset). However you definitely want them to spin up in the launch tube, so less can go wrong and there is less delay between spin up and launch.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Galactic Sapper   » Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:10 pm

Galactic Sapper
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:11 pm

Theemile wrote:
Galactic Sapper wrote:
A third, perhaps more practical means would be to offset the broadsides top and bottom, such that the port side launchers and feed tubes reach nearly to the starboard hull on one deck, then the sides reversed on the next deck down. Spacing for such might mean the two broadsides would have to be fed from different magazines, since to switch between them the missiles would have to be turned end-for-end. Fitting energy weapons into such a f'ed up mess of a deck design would be a bit of a challenge, though.


Asymmetrical broadsides is something mentioned here a lot, but David doesn't like the idea. Most importantly, the launchers would pierce the core hull, which is where the main armoring is on lighter ships. It is described in In Fire Forged, where an "All or Nothing" armor scheme covers the ship's vitals in the core, with a light hull armor.


My understanding is that such light combatants don't have "core hull" style armoring, since the dimensions of the hull cannot possibly allow for such a thing. With only ~50 meters of beam to play with (less as the hull rounds off top and bottom), even launchers for single drive missiles would extend far enough inboard such that a "core hull" consisting of more than a few meters simply isn't possible. In the ship listings in HoS nothing smaller than a battlecruiser has anything like a core hull armoring scheme, and then that battlecruiser is the Nike design. Even Sanganami C class cruisers don't have a real core hull design.

A box is no more than a pod, bolted to a ship's hull. There is a Silesian class of CLs who did that, but they only had 24 missiles on each broadside. After 48 shots, they were dry. The ship was a case of expediency, a fast heavy courier design was modified with a light laser outfit, and the box launchers.


That's pretty much the intent of this design. It takes the trade off of more mass and volume per missile to account for the box launcher in exchange for less complexity in terms of mounting feed tubes and internal magazines and freedom as to where that mass and volume can be distributed. As an estimate a ship the size of a Roland could probably mount 80 boxes per side, limiting it to 2/3rds the ammo capacity of a Roland but also eliminating the single point failure chance the Roland's missile feed tubes represent.

As for the "horizontal feed", I've wondered that myself, but could only come to the conclusion that it made the launchers too wide to mount with any economy of space.
[/quote]
Could be. Or that the walls of the launcher need to be rigid enough that a side breach the length of the tube wouldn't allow for a functional launcher.

It could well be that the 300k ton ship is the minimum necessary to be survivable in the 1920s. Odd that the new "smallest ship that meets demands" is the size of a Star Knight class heavy cruiser, though.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:05 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10088
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

A perfectly logical solution is to a radiation hardened pod and install a power cable on the hull.
Top

Return to Honorverse