Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests

Hull number discrepancy

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:59 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3638
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

tlb wrote:
MAD-4A wrote: This is not an accurate comparison:
The DD-1000s are a completely new design, nearly everything about them were new cutting-edge design technology, even the placement of the missile tubes was new. You are lumping all of the costs of the new equipment development into the cost of 1 ship. The Type 23 has virtually nothing new included - it is completely off-the-shelf equipment and even the design is conventional - in-fact the forward section looks like a 60s Russian cruiser (Kara/Kresta) and the stern looks like an OHP FFG (or perhaps Udaloy) class, Are you guys Mi-6 still stealing old Russian ship designs and using them for your own ships? (lol) so the comparisons are the letteral definition of the apples-to-oranges analogy. The figures change when you lump on the original development costs of the equipment used on the Type-23 time inflation factors to the build cost.

Not me, the quote is from the article. Once all the ships in the class are built, then someone can spread a percentage of the development cost to get a per ship figure. I only put the numbers in to compare a frigate to a destroyer.


I think MAD-4A (MADCAT!!!!)'s point is the Zumwalt had huge development costs, as just about every point reinvented the wheel with bleeding edge tech. The Type 23s had low development costs - just the engineering design of existing systems into a new platform. There was far less cost to spread over many ships.

A better US example would have been comparing the Flight 3 Agleigh Burkes against the Type 23s, the new Burkes required lots of re-engineering to incorporate in the new tech, but no development costs (as it had been accomplished by other projects.
******
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: Hull number discrepancy
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:24 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Brigade XO wrote:
Look at the opening period of WW II and the needs of convoy protection in the Atlantic as well as other places. While the German capital ships were a signifcant menace, a lot of the other merchant shipping problems in other places was caused by Q-ships ...

I think you mean Armed Merchant Cruisers, Q-ships were specifically British anti-U-boat decoy ships
Brigade XO wrote:
but the commerce protection needs by the start of WW II demanded something to augment the overstreached Destroyers …

Actualy, they had more but the Admirals horded their Destroyers for fleet escort rather than release a reasonable number to civilian escort duty.
Brigade XO wrote:
The first answer was the Lend-Lease deal that traded 50 mothballed (and WW I era) US destroyers for base use etc. That essentialy provided England with funtional, if obsolete by the standards of the British in-commission destroyers…

Old perhaps but not obsolete, not for ASW work, they were actually better than the larger Tribal and K class with their longer hulls and poorer turning radius. The Wicks class were still very much capable ships, in-fact the first kill of WWII (actual global event) was a Wicks class USS Ward who sunk a Japanese sub at the mouth of Pearl Harbor before the airstrike hit. 4" round right through the conning tower - which takes me to the next point
Brigade XO wrote:
creating an English built class of Corvettes, based on whaleing ships of the same name that. NOT destroyers or destroyer escorts, these were not even frigates in the military sense but armed and configured to hang with convoys and try to kill U-boats. Lightly gunned, fast enough, cheap, carry a good load of depth charges and not built to stand up to much more than a sub.

Not really intended to "Kill" U-boats only to be capable of damaging them. One major advantage the escorts had was that they didn't need to actually kill a U-boat they only needed to be a threat to cause major damage to them, even if they were sunk in the process. If a flower class Cvt caught a U-boat on the surface and engaged with deck guns, the Cvt is sunk by the U-boats 105, but manages to put a 4" round into, say, the engine room wrecking one of the diesels and putting a huge hole in the pressure hull. the U-boat is out in the middle of the Atlantic crippled, with no easy base to go to and unable to dive, it's dead, if a DD doesn't find her aircraft will as she tries to limp back to Breast on the surface at half speed. So sunk Cvt won!
Brigade XO wrote:
Standing up to the North Atlantic was certainly enough of a stuggle in itself.

Also not necessarily, there were occasions when armed trawlers didn't make it all the way across. (HMS Campobello)
Brigade XO wrote:
The Lend Lease Destroyers were certainly something that otherwise could have been sold off to smaller nations if the US had been in the market for that…

The US sold off a lot of the DEs and older DDs after the war, and keeping with that tradition, apparently just sold off the rest of our OHPs to other counties (mainly Egypt and Turkey)
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:32 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. We are told that the garden variety pirate had been creeping up in size. See previous discussion on this thread. I'd put my money on a RMN FF against a pirate FF any day, especially if those FFs are travelling in division strength. But if pirates are getting their hands on destroyers, it starts making sense to use destroyers for projection and commerce protection. It might be cheaper to operate one destroyer than a pair of frigates, with better chances of surviving.

Actually I find it unlikely that the 'garden variety' pirate would even have a warship, they would be much more likely to have a small tramp freighter with missile or energy weapons added behind concealed plates. The warship equipped pirates would be the rarer state (planetary government) backed pirates using "lost" ships of their fleet, so whatever ships they are purchasing would be the types used. In the case of normal pirates a purpose-built warship of any size should be enough to cause an armed Tramp to find somewhere else to be.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:44 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Theemile wrote:First, a better MODERN comparison would be an attack sub - an enclosed space with life support required in a hostile environment, long patrols, long endurance on internal consumables. a surface ship has much more volume because it is designed with open decks and open volumes so it can have parts stick up above the water.
Actually it's the opposite, the enclosed equipment is due to water resistance, Honorverse ships do not have water resistance in space, they are specifically stated to have exterior equipment, such as radar, commlinks, video systems, Alfa/Beta nodes, etc. … all over the hull.
Theemile wrote:I can see a Manty FF with a crew between 150 and 250. - still large enough to take prizes, but small enough to see manpower savings over a huge fleet.
agreed.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:45 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3638
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

MAD-4A wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. We are told that the garden variety pirate had been creeping up in size. See previous discussion on this thread. I'd put my money on a RMN FF against a pirate FF any day, especially if those FFs are travelling in division strength. But if pirates are getting their hands on destroyers, it starts making sense to use destroyers for projection and commerce protection. It might be cheaper to operate one destroyer than a pair of frigates, with better chances of surviving.

Actually I find it unlikely that the 'garden variety' pirate would even have a warship, they would be much more likely to have a small tramp freighter with missile or energy weapons added behind concealed plates. The warship equipped pirates would be the rarer state (planetary government) backed pirates using "lost" ships of their fleet, so whatever ships they are purchasing would be the types used. In the case of normal pirates a purpose-built warship of any size should be enough to cause an armed Tramp to find somewhere else to be.


In the SITS Situation book 2, it says that almost every system in Silesia has at least 1 shipyard capable of building Frigates. Most built a Frigate even if there is no order for it because either 1) someone will buy it or 2) the government (Planetary or National) will buy it so someone else won't have a chance. It kept the shipyard going and people employed.

Unfortunately, no one needs that many frigates, so a fair # of them (or the ships they replaced in system defense forces) "disappeared" only to reappear later as a pirate, when someone greased the right # of hands.

Now Silesia is a unique example of corruption, weak central govenment, and a modern society with plenty of cash.Outside of the Silesian bubble, piracy is different. David once said Piracy in the Honorverse outside Silesia was more of the rowboat in the dark kind of Piracy. So modded freighter and couriers are probably the main there.
******
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: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:46 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3638
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

MAD-4A wrote:
Theemile wrote:First, a better MODERN comparison would be an attack sub - an enclosed space with life support required in a hostile environment, long patrols, long endurance on internal consumables. a surface ship has much more volume because it is designed with open decks and open volumes so it can have parts stick up above the water.
Actually it's the opposite, the enclosed equipment is due to water resistance, Honorverse ships do not have water resistance in space, they are specifically stated to have exterior equipment, such as radar, commlinks, video systems, Alfa/Beta nodes, etc. … all over the hull.
Theemile wrote:I can see a Manty FF with a crew between 150 and 250. - still large enough to take prizes, but small enough to see manpower savings over a huge fleet.
agreed.


I meant the enclosure of crew spaces, and open spaces, not necessarily hardware.
******
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: Hull number discrepancy
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:49 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:48 pm
Location: Texas

Theemile wrote:I think MAD-4A (MADCAT!!!!)'s point is the Zumwalt had huge development costs, as just about every point reinvented the wheel with bleeding edge tech. The Type 23s had low development costs - just the engineering design of existing systems into a new platform. There was far less cost to spread over many ships.

A better US example would have been comparing the Flight 3 Agleigh Burkes against the Type 23s, the new Burkes required lots of re-engineering to incorporate in the new tech, but no development costs (as it had been accomplished by other projects.

Right (and not MadCat - it's Marauder II - original 3025 variant - my favorite!)
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by Theemile   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:06 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3638
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Troy, Mi

MAD-4A wrote:
Theemile wrote:I think MAD-4A (MADCAT!!!!)'s point is the Zumwalt had huge development costs, as just about every point reinvented the wheel with bleeding edge tech. The Type 23s had low development costs - just the engineering design of existing systems into a new platform. There was far less cost to spread over many ships.

A better US example would have been comparing the Flight 3 Agleigh Burkes against the Type 23s, the new Burkes required lots of re-engineering to incorporate in the new tech, but no development costs (as it had been accomplished by other projects.

Right (and not MadCat - it's Marauder II - original 3025 variant - my favorite!)


Sorry, it's been so long - I actually bought the anniversary boxset - but they didn't include any of the forbidden designs :(
******
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: Hull number discrepancy
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 5:51 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:39 am

Theemile wrote:Now Silesia is a unique example of corruption, weak central govenment, and a modern society with plenty of cash.Outside of the Silesian bubble, piracy is different. David once said Piracy in the Honorverse outside Silesia was more of the rowboat in the dark kind of Piracy. So modded freighter and couriers are probably the main there.


Did we get a description of piracy in Talbott that the Rembrandt Trade Union had to fight off? We know the Hexapuma was there to do some of the job, but ended up finding StateSec renegades, which is hardly your garden variety pirate.
Top
Re: Hull number discrepancy
Post by tlb   » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:00 pm

tlb
Rear Admiral

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

Theemile wrote:Now Silesia is a unique example of corruption, weak central govenment, and a modern society with plenty of cash.Outside of the Silesian bubble, piracy is different. David once said Piracy in the Honorverse outside Silesia was more of the rowboat in the dark kind of Piracy. So modded freighter and couriers are probably the main there.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Did we get a description of piracy in Talbott that the Rembrandt Trade Union had to fight off? We know the Hexapuma was there to do some of the job, but ended up finding StateSec renegades, which is hardly your garden variety pirate.

Also the pirates at Tiberian, but in both cases those were forces supported by Malign to build a deniable navy to attack Torch; those were not the normal type of pirate.
Top

Return to Honorverse