Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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 Jonathan_S   » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:19 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6776
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

TheMadPenguin wrote:Exploring a (probable) hostile WH:

Bolt/tractor two ships together at right angles.

One raises sails and enters/exits the WH. (tugs can help get there and get aligned for entry). The two ships then appear on the other end of the WH. The Sail ship will experience a time penalty before it can either raise wedges, or return through the WH on the anti-vector. That's why the second ship is tractored/bolted to the first.
The second ship has hot nodes configured for wedge, but wedge OFF. Upon arrival, the second ship enters hyperspace, taking the first ship with it.

If the entry into hyperspapace is an entry into a GravWave, the first ship is still under sail, and the second (tractored) ship does not have a wedge up, just the hyper engine jumping into the alpha band. If not in a wave, the fist ship can activate forward nodes and 1/2-speed wedge away from the WH until the two ships are separated and configured for wedge.

Weaponry (in case the LZ is hot): Each Graser is swapped out for EMI/Lorelei/Mistletoe/keyhole emitters. Each missile tube is loaded with counter-missile canisters. Both ships have tractored LACs configured for EMI/CM duty. Upon exit from WH, both ships drop LACS and FIRE EVERYTYHING. That should give time for the second ship to enter hyper. Now we know what's at the other end, and we've survived it. We can hyper a LY in some random direction, drop back to nspace, and figure out where we are.

If the LZ was in fact hot, we lost the LACs, but were going to lose them anyhow. If not, we go back and pick them up. Thes LACs could be robotic, like a Keyhole II is.

Now ... if the WH opens inside a star, or in close proximity to a star, we're still screwed.
Couple issues.
[edit - can't believe I forgot the biggest issue. The terminus has its own hyper limit and you CANNOT enter or leave hyper while you're within it]
One - IIRC RFC said powered up hyper generators interfere with each other. But even if I misremembered that it takes a couple minutes for a fully charged and ready hyper generator to actually transition into hyper from the moment you hit the 'go' button. So your pair of ships is sitting nearly unprotected for a couple of minutes exposed to all the defensive fire the enemy can muster up - that's barely any quicker than they could run down the exit lane to the point they could switch away from sails.

Also counter missile clusters (and CMs in general) are useless because CMs die the instant their wedge comes online. And if you try to coast them to the end of the grav interference first a) you're dead before they'd reach it and b) they'd be destroyed by the grav eddies before they made it that far anyway.

For that matter I'm not sure the sails on the first ship are enough to keep an attached ship safe - sails have to be placed in very specific locations relative to the ship's length and beam (causing the 'pinch' behind the hammerheads) in order to work. Having another entire ship hanging off of that is likely exposing it to grav eddies that the sails can do nothing about.

Tractored LACS have the same issue. They're probably not protected while attached and certainly wouldn't be if they detached to free up their PDLCs. Keyhole also can't survive the grav forces while deployed whether free flying or tractored mode (though at least it's protected from grav issues while in its semi-recessed docking bay)


The exit of a wormhole is basically a short grav wave in normal space. Nothing without at least one active sail can survive being there (and anything with a wedge is destroyed even faster) - even before you worry about enemy fire.

And posters here have spent ream of posts over the last 5 or so years trying to figure out a way to get a scout successful through a defended wormhole - all with no luck. (Couriers inside SD(P)s, mass transits of mostly unmanned units, etc. etc. RFC shot all of the mdown)
Last edited by Jonathan_S on Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Theemile   » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:41 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

kzt wrote:It takes minutes, not seconds. Assuming you know where the carefully surveyed exit lane is. I have no idea how long it takes to do that survey. In this case, my guess is it takes your entire lifetime.

And when the first ship activates it’s sail it will cut the other ship into three pieces, so I’m not thinking this is going to work out...


Once you exit the emergence lane, You also will need to clear the resonance zone around the wormhole before you jump into hyper. it's size varies from wormhole to wormhole, but I believe the Manticore junction is at least a light second across.

While David would have to say for certain, we've never seen a single ship towed through a wormhole. Every damaged ship has had to be repaired before it could do so.
******
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 ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:04 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Jonathan_S wrote:One - IIRC RFC said powered up hyper generators interfere with each other. But even if I misremembered ...


You're not mis-remembering. That's exactly how Travis crashed the nodes of RHNS Saintonge at the Secour Ship Sale.

Theemile wrote:Once you exit the emergence lane, You also will need to clear the resonance zone around the wormhole before you jump into hyper. it's size varies from wormhole to wormhole, but I believe the Manticore junction is at least a light second across.


The RZ is described as a cone with a tip the wormhole and a base the radius of the hyperlimit of the primary star the WH is associated with. RFC didn't get to the details of whether the point of the cone is an actual point (zero dimensions) or if the cone is cut at a specific height. I'd venture it's the latter and the top is a circle with the radius of the WH itself, which is usually about a light-second wide. That means one side of the WH is inside the RZ. We don't know if the exit lanes are aligned with the RZ or not, but if they are randomly distributed, there's a 50-50% chance the ship exits pointed in the "wrong" direction and can't translate into hyper.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:41 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6776
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:Once you exit the emergence lane, You also will need to clear the resonance zone around the wormhole before you jump into hyper. it's size varies from wormhole to wormhole, but I believe the Manticore junction is at least a light second across.
It may be a bumpy ride to jump out from within the RZ but the actually dangerous thing is jumping into an RZ.

However you remind me that, in addition to the RZ stretching from the termini towards the system's star, wormhole termini also have hyper limits. OBS chapter 5 says "Both wormholes and stars had hyper limits, within which no ship could enter or leave hyper. For junctions, the limit was, less than a million kilometers" (so less than around 3.4 lightseconds). Inside that boundary the only place you can jump is down the wormhole.

Now a single terminus is going to be less powerful than the junction so probably as a smaller hyperlimit. But the hyperlimit caused by the gravity effects of the terminus and its exit lane pretty much have to extend further than the exit lane itself. So you're right that you can't jump from within the lane or even just after you clear it. You've got to cover some additional unknown distance before you can successfully jump out.



Hmm, can ships directly detect the hyper limit? (from within n-space; I know they can't from in hyper). Or could they calculate the hyperlimit size of an unsurveyed terminus on the fly in near realtime?
Or would they instead have to assume a worst case and go out at least as far as the largest known termini associated hyper limit?
(Because while it apparently doesn't damage the hyper generator to try to jump into hyper from within the limit you would fruitlessly discharge your capacitors and require 10+ minutes to recharge them before you could try again. That's likely to be a fatal mistake if attempting to flee under fire)
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Loren Pechtel   » Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:12 am

Loren Pechtel
Commodore

Posts: 956
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:24 pm

kzt wrote:
Loren Pechtel wrote:Space dust is very thin. The plasma cloud of a vaporized missile packs an energy that makes even a contact nuke look like a wet firecracker.


Perhaps not as thin as you might think.

David Weber wrote: As far as the effectiveness of a "down-the-throat" attack on a major combatant, the particle shielding definitely would present difficulties. I'd have to run the numbers, but the particle shielding is basically designed to handle collisions with solid objects massing up to about two metric tons at velocities of up to 60% of light-speed. More massive objects can be dealt with it lower velocities, and as the velocity rises above .6c, the size of the object the system can handle goes down. There is, however, a reason warships mount massively redundant point defense to cover the bow-aspect of their wedges, and a reason besides the need to engage an enemy vessel for mounting the most powerful chase weapons possible and mounting them in multiple numbers, instead of simply settling for the biggest, nastiest spinal mount weapon you can cram in. When an object too large for the particle shielding to deal with turns up, it is automatically engaged by the ship's point defense and -- if the ship has been cleared for action -- its chase energy weapons, as well. And the fire control on those systems is designed to engage targets coming in at better than 80% of light-speed. and they're also designed to begin engaging them at ranges in excess of 200,000 kilometers. So, I doubt that you'd be able to get your warhead close enough to score a hit before detonating, even if the slug were massive enough to punch through the particle shielding in the first place. Obviously, you'd have a better shot at scoring a hit with an "up-the-kilt" shot, where the particle shielding wouldn't be a factor… except for the minor point that the after end of the ship is designed to be the forward end of the ship when the vessel is decelerating. Which means -- you guessed it -- that the stern hammerhead is equipped with exactly the same sort of massively redundant, space debris-killing energy weapons and particle shielding as the bow. So, if this sort of weapon was known to be out there, the Skipper would simply be sure that he had his particle shielding up at both ends of his wedge, and his debris-zapping armament would do the rest.


Sorry, but this supports my position. The particle shield can't come anywhere near dealing with an MDM. Of course the point defense engages--but modern combat is basically hitting a ship with with more than it can shoot down. Against missiles near the end of their run point defense gets one shot per emitter and nowhere near all of those hit. Chase armament would fare no better.

The countermissiles get in their licks (if the defenders can beat Apollo EW), the point defense gets in it's licks, even one round that's left and aimed accurately enough will kill the ship.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:17 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Well, a 2m diameter nickle-iron meteoroid masses somewhere about 30 tons. This is probably more than the wreckage of an MDM is going to be. When you hit them with a PD (which you will - laser heads are used because missiles can't survive to reach burn or especially boom range) you are going to either crack the reactor or the plasma capacitor, so what it going to hit the particle screen is essentially plasma.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Theemile   » Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:09 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Jonathan_S wrote:
Theemile wrote:Once you exit the emergence lane, You also will need to clear the resonance zone around the wormhole before you jump into hyper. it's size varies from wormhole to wormhole, but I believe the Manticore junction is at least a light second across.
It may be a bumpy ride to jump out from within the RZ but the actually dangerous thing is jumping into an RZ.

However you remind me that, in addition to the RZ stretching from the termini towards the system's star, wormhole termini also have hyper limits. OBS chapter 5 says "Both wormholes and stars had hyper limits, within which no ship could enter or leave hyper. For junctions, the limit was, less than a million kilometers" (so less than around 3.4 lightseconds). Inside that boundary the only place you can jump is down the wormhole.

Now a single terminus is going to be less powerful than the junction so probably as a smaller hyperlimit. But the hyperlimit caused by the gravity effects of the terminus and its exit lane pretty much have to extend further than the exit lane itself. So you're right that you can't jump from within the lane or even just after you clear it. You've got to cover some additional unknown distance before you can successfully jump out.



Hmm, can ships directly detect the hyper limit? (from within n-space; I know they can't from in hyper). Or could they calculate the hyperlimit size of an unsurveyed terminus on the fly in near realtime?
Or would they instead have to assume a worst case and go out at least as far as the largest known termini associated hyper limit?
(Because while it apparently doesn't damage the hyper generator to try to jump into hyper from within the limit you would fruitlessly discharge your capacitors and require 10+ minutes to recharge them before you could try again. That's likely to be a fatal mistake if attempting to flee under fire)


Pardon me, I misspoke - I meant hyper limit, not the resonance zone. Your above is correct.
******
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 Galactic Sapper   » Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:01 pm

Galactic Sapper
Captain of the List

Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:11 pm

kzt wrote:Well, a 2m diameter nickle-iron meteoroid masses somewhere about 30 tons. This is probably more than the wreckage of an MDM is going to be. When you hit them with a PD (which you will - laser heads are used because missiles can't survive to reach burn or especially boom range) you are going to either crack the reactor or the plasma capacitor, so what it going to hit the particle screen is essentially plasma.

One should question whether that is still true in the age of pod-format missile launches. If you're throwing so many missiles at an enemy that you're literally overwhelming their ability to physically stop them all, some of those missiles would get into burn range if not boom range - limited more by their own wedges than enemy defenses. I mean, the whole point of the laser head standoff range is that the target's point defenses would pick the warheads off before they could get in burn range, right? Now they're throwing so many missiles that the point defense simply does not have enough time to shoot down all the missiles, even if every single defensive shot hits its target. Getting a single proximity nuke warhead just ahead of the throat of the wedge would be mathematically certain in a 100k missile launch. Odds are you'd get multiple warheads that close on every single launch, especially if you went to a MIRV-style multiple warhead bus instead of all the laser rods and targeting equipment. If they separated just outside of point defense range, each missile could get 3 or 4 warheads that close rather than just one.

The second question is whether any of the above matters. Boom or burn warheads aren't particularly efficient at killing ships - and if the ship is turned wedge-on to the salvo the way new Manty ships are, Boom or Burn warheads have almost no effectiveness against a ship with its wedge up. The main purpose of those warheads were to weaken the defenses of the ship so later missiles or energy fire could finish it - NOT generally to kill the ships themselves. Why would you use weapons designed to weaken the enemy's defenses when the same number of missiles could destroy him outright?
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by kzt   » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:57 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 10593
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Galactic Sapper wrote:
The second question is whether any of the above matters. Boom or burn warheads aren't particularly efficient at killing ships - and if the ship is turned wedge-on to the salvo the way new Manty ships are, Boom or Burn warheads have almost no effectiveness against a ship with its wedge up. The main purpose of those warheads were to weaken the defenses of the ship so later missiles or energy fire could finish it - NOT generally to kill the ships themselves. Why would you use weapons designed to weaken the enemy's defenses when the same number of missiles could destroy him outright?

Evidence from HotQ is that a successful boom attack is vastly more destructive than a laser head from that scale weapon.
Top
Re: Would Dispersing Shipyards Blunt or Stop a Second Oyster
Post by Theemile   » Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:07 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Galactic Sapper wrote:
kzt wrote:Well, a 2m diameter nickle-iron meteoroid masses somewhere about 30 tons. This is probably more than the wreckage of an MDM is going to be. When you hit them with a PD (which you will - laser heads are used because missiles can't survive to reach burn or especially boom range) you are going to either crack the reactor or the plasma capacitor, so what it going to hit the particle screen is essentially plasma.

One should question whether that is still true in the age of pod-format missile launches. If you're throwing so many missiles at an enemy that you're literally overwhelming their ability to physically stop them all, some of those missiles would get into burn range if not boom range - limited more by their own wedges than enemy defenses. I mean, the whole point of the laser head standoff range is that the target's point defenses would pick the warheads off before they could get in burn range, right? Now they're throwing so many missiles that the point defense simply does not have enough time to shoot down all the missiles, even if every single defensive shot hits its target. Getting a single proximity nuke warhead just ahead of the throat of the wedge would be mathematically certain in a 100k missile launch. Odds are you'd get multiple warheads that close on every single launch, especially if you went to a MIRV-style multiple warhead bus instead of all the laser rods and targeting equipment. If they separated just outside of point defense range, each missile could get 3 or 4 warheads that close rather than just one.

The second question is whether any of the above matters. Boom or burn warheads aren't particularly efficient at killing ships - and if the ship is turned wedge-on to the salvo the way new Manty ships are, Boom or Burn warheads have almost no effectiveness against a ship with its wedge up. The main purpose of those warheads were to weaken the defenses of the ship so later missiles or energy fire could finish it - NOT generally to kill the ships themselves. Why would you use weapons designed to weaken the enemy's defenses when the same number of missiles could destroy him outright?


At the end of reign of burn/boom missiles, the most advanced "burn" had a stand-off range of about 10,000 km. With it's advanced grav lensing, Manty warheads could probably do better if they applied the new tech to the "Burn", but we've never seen it in text. And Boom still means it needs skin contact to be effective.

(They probably already have the advanced tech - all Manty laserheads have all 3 settings - they need to be programmed before launch as to their function. However, Manty laserhead warheads's nukes are considerably smaller than a specialized nuke warhead - the laserheads take up most of the space in the missile that otherwise would be nuke.)

Advanced laserheads have a stand-off range of ~50,000 km, so the pdlc (with a range of 100-120,000 km) has 50-70,000 km to hit them. The Original, older laserheads have a stand-off range of 20,000 km, meaning they need to travel 1/2 again as far through the pdlc envelope as advanced laserheads, increasing the intercept time of the clusters by %50. Missiles using the Boom setting have to get even closer, increasing the opportunities for multiple cluster hits to take them out.

I would think that the clusters will re-prioritize warheads passing the laserhead threshold to intercept them - which might allow a straggling laserhead to enter range instead.

Remember, even if it a Burn warhead goes off - modern sidewalls are strong enough that they many times can shake off burn attempts - and heavy units have multiple overlapping sidewalls to spread the load of such an attack, and cover if a generator is overwhelmed. The overlapping sidewalls also make it more difficult for a Boom warhead to harmonize through the sidewall to attack. AS you mentioned in your last paragraph, This is the reason Missiles were falling out of Fashion in the 1800s - Heavy units took too many hits to swamp each layer of their defenses.
******
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

Return to Honorverse