Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests

SLN Ship improvement

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by Maldorian   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:14 am

Maldorian
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

It is possible to both upgrade existing SLN ships below the wall with more counter-missile and more/better energy weapons. It is also possible to deploy whichever variations of the Cataphracts in pods for the same ships.


No!

Missles and Counter Missles need reloading systems. You couldn´t add some tubes somewhere in the hull. You have to add a connection to the ammunition storage,too. In the end it would be so complicated that builing a new ship would be easier.

Laser Cluster are another thematic! They need only energy, so, if you have enough energy reserves there would be no problem to add some extra laser cluster.
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by pappilon   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:31 am

pappilon
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:29 pm

Maldorian wrote: Laser Cluster are another thematic! They need only energy, so, if you have enough energy reserves there would be no problem to add some extra laser cluster.


They require physical space IIRC they are powered by capacitors. and Aaren't SL SDs fairly under-powered with only 2 reactors while RMN ones have 3? They tend to produce large quantities of heat which needs dispersal. They might even need more sophisticated targeting and fire control.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The imagination has to be trained into foresight and empathy.
Ursula K. LeGuinn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by Dauntless   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:16 am

Dauntless
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:54 pm
Location: United Kingdom

as i recall we know very little about how many reactors larger ships have and most of that was learned early.

for example we know that CA fearless had 3 though that was seen excessive and overly cautious as she could move and fight on just one.

Nike (reliant class) had 3 and used the power from 2 of those to move and fight with the third as the backup.

aside from a discussion in EoV about how great the benefits of fission were for a LAC i don't believe the size/number of reactors a ship has ever come up again.
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:38 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8314
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

pappilon wrote:
Maldorian wrote: Laser Cluster are another thematic! They need only energy, so, if you have enough energy reserves there would be no problem to add some extra laser cluster.


They require physical space IIRC they are powered by capacitors. and Aaren't SL SDs fairly under-powered with only 2 reactors while RMN ones have 3? They tend to produce large quantities of heat which needs dispersal. They might even need more sophisticated targeting and fire control.

Not that I remember, and I seriously doubt it. The scientist-class SDs are beam heavy designs which is energy intensive and given that even some heavy cruiser is carry three reactors I can’t imagine that they would carry only two.
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by munroburton   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:32 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2368
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Jonathan_S wrote:Not that I remember, and I seriously doubt it. The scientist-class SDs are beam heavy designs which is energy intensive and given that even some heavy cruiser is carry three reactors I can’t imagine that they would carry only two.


Aren't the larger type of fusion reactors scalable?

That is, it should be possible to build a single reactor capable of meeting a whole ship's power requirements and it is also possible to build ten smaller reactors with the same overall power output.

I'm thinking of the USN's USS Enterprise - that was built with eight reactors and subsequently most CVNs went to two reactors.

The question of how many reactors to put in a honorverse warship may essentially be a matter of taste. Do you prefer to lean towards one extremely well protected reactor(reducing the risk of a golden BB also) or incorporate as many as five or ten reactors, whilst only needing two or three to operate?

The three-provided-two-required reactor scheme used on Honor's Nike is probably as optimal as it gets, although there are merits to a two-for-one scheme on a less armoured ship which can use emergency reactor ejection systems(ships without core hulls, in other words).
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by lyonheart   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:55 am

lyonheart
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:27 pm

Hi pappilion, Maldorian;

The problem with Laser PDC's is the very limited range of 70-80,000 km; which depending on the missile's incoming velocity has only 0.5 to 0.3 seconds total engagement time.

So its not something you want to load up your nominal defense LAC with.

Then there's the problem of being nearly inline with the target SD in order to engage them, ie a high probability of losing lots of LAC's to defend a lousy Scientist SD.

These defense LAC's are not going to have RMN automation, ie the crews will be much larger despite having half the tonnage or so with several times the GA's LAC crew size, for vastly higher casualties.

They are not going to be faster, especially if all the CM's and fire control are plugged in.

Current SLN CM's are lousy, a maximum range of 1.5 M km in ~60 seconds.

Even if you double the CM mass and produce CM's of 25-30 tons that have a 20-25% longer burn time, you'll still have only one shot per launcher before the MDM penetrates the entire engagement range, making on-board CM magazines almost useless.

Switching the offensive box missile launcher that all LAC's notoriously carried for centuries to CM's, might help some especially if it carry 3-4 times as many CM's or 36-48 instead of 12-16.

But the fire-control problem rears its head, especially if the LDC [Light Defense Craft] can only control 12-16 CM's at a time and will only last 1-2 volleys if that, because nothing has been done to mitigate the GA/RMN ECM/ECCM advantages that reduce SLN CM's to pathetic uselessness.

If pressed, I wouldn't be too surprised if RMN MDM's couldn't home in on CM fire control emission links or broadcasts, picked up and passed along by the RD's.

Then there's the cost; a long time ago at the bar the ballpark figure of M$5000/ton was assigned for RMN hyper warships, somewhere between M$2500-5000 for LAC's IIRC, as M$100 M each seemed a bit high for the numbers being built, while RFC mentioned the RMN's SD's unit cost had dropped to ~M$31 B because so many had been produced in the first war; however SLN SD's were/are being built for around M$50 B due to all the graft built into the contracts etc.

I suspect the first SD's built in a core world's new shipyard will cost twice that given all the development costs.

If the LDC's cost M$50 million each for the same reasons, and 1000 per obsolete Scientist class SD are built, then the combined crews might outnumber the SD's by 9 or 10 to one, their total mass exceed the SD by 50%, and their cost would equal a far better brand new SD.

I suspect such figures would encourage another plan.

The defense effort Sigs is talking about will cost trillions, which will be far more than most core worlds will be willing to pay, given they didn't pay for the SLN, the protectorates and interstellar commerce did.

While the core worlds are considered rich by our and the rest of the galaxy's standard, their per capita average is a small fraction of the SKM's according to WoH etc, so the margin available to invest is much more limited and volatile.

The same counter argument goes for the defensive frigate and destroyer versions, ie they're just scaled up failures, which may last for a decade or two simply because they aren't tested against the GA, which for a democracy is a very long time, as George C. Marshall noted, 5-6 years is about the limit before they get frustrated if there's not enough improvement and shift to something else.

I don't think that will have changed much in 2000 years, given our own irrational recent national and world history, or even further back but this isn't intended as a political history rant, merely noting it as it pertains to the ex-SL members.

One would like to think prolong would mean people kept better track of what worked and what didn't politically, but being human we have no evidence of such rationality or any sign of any such wisdom developing.

There may be a Themistocles ~2000 years from now who weathers the political storms long enough to similarly accomplish his goals of building up the defenses of his star system, but he also might be dismissed and exiled much sooner and wind up working for the GA, as they recognize genius when they see it.

There's much more, but time to go.

L


pappilon wrote:
Maldorian wrote: Laser Cluster are another thematic! They need only energy, so, if you have enough energy reserves there would be no problem to add some extra laser cluster.


They require physical space IIRC they are powered by capacitors. and Aaren't SL SDs fairly under-powered with only 2 reactors while RMN ones have 3? They tend to produce large quantities of heat which needs dispersal. They might even need more sophisticated targeting and fire control.
Any snippet or post from RFC is good if not great!
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by quite possibly a cat   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:36 am

quite possibly a cat
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:51 am

Sigs wrote: Don't you think that Manticore might be a little suspicious if someone comes out of nowhere and seems to perfect. The League's collapse will create a lot of chaos, anyone who recovers too quickly, seems to be a little too prepared or ahead of the game will draw attention. When the GA knows very little about their enemy they will be hyper vigilant about anyone and everyone especially those who seem a bit too friendly.

The RF doesn't sound like its going to be that well prepared or ahead of the game. They aren't like the Maya sector where they are actively running major deceptions and laying the ground work for breaking away. I don't think every RF member even has a real SDF. I don't think any of the RF has actually started the secession process like Beowulf or some of its nearby systems. Plus the goal of the RF factor is to draw other systems into their orbit so a lot of the RF factor will be totally unprepared.

The RF isn't going to be perfect. They probably won't be too friendly either. Pragmatic maybe, open-minded maybe, but probably a heck of a lot less friendly than Maya, Beowulf or systems near to Beowulf.

Even if Manticore is hyper-vigilant they'll just get a bunch of false positives and they'll tick off anyone who could be an actual friend. (Such as Maya.)
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:48 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8314
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

lyonheart wrote:If the LDC's cost M$50 million each for the same reasons, and 1000 per obsolete Scientist class SD are built, then the combined crews might outnumber the SD's by 9 or 10 to one, their total mass exceed the SD by 50%, and their cost would equal a far better brand new SD.

I suspect such figures would encourage another plan.

The defense effort Sigs is talking about will cost trillions, which will be far more than most core worlds will be willing to pay, given they didn't pay for the SLN, the protectorates and interstellar commerce did.
If we assume the notional SDF LAC has the same approximate crew and tonnage as the RMN's old Highlander-class the crew numbers aren't quite as bad, but the tonnage is slightly worse.

Highlander-class LAC
Mass 11,250 tons
Crew 25

Scientist-class SD
Mass 6,800,000 tons
Crew 6000+

So 1000 Highlanders would mass 65% more than the Scientist, while carrying a bit over 4 times the crew.
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by Weird Harold   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:18 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

lyonheart wrote:The problem with Laser PDC's is the very limited range of 70-80,000 km; which depending on the missile's incoming velocity has only 0.5 to 0.3 seconds total engagement time.

So its not something you want to load up your nominal defense LAC with.


Given and adequate power budget, a pure PDLC anti-missile LAC would be the best option for old-style LAC drive/compensator tech. A LAC can't load enough CMs (of any quality)for more than two or three salvos. PDLCs can fire six to ten times per cluster in that 0.3-0.5 seconds -- depending on how many rods are in each cluster.

The sticking point is the available power -- old-style LACs don't have big enough fusion reactors to drive many PDLCs of even LAC size (anti-missile LACs are going to need at least cruiser sized PDLCs if not SD size.) Thus a notional anti-missile LAC is going to need either huge capacitors or bigger fusion plants, or both.

I think it is going to take a fair bit of time to develop a workable anti-missile LAC and it's going to wind up as big as a dispatch boat or frigate by the time you're done. As a temporary external upgrade to Scientist or Vega class SD missile defense, it's a boondoggle waiting to happen. Doesn't mean somebody isn't going to try it. :roll:
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: SLN Ship improvement
Post by kzt   » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:10 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11353
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Weird Harold wrote:The sticking point is the available power -- old-style LACs don't have big enough fusion reactors to drive many PDLCs of even LAC size (anti-missile LACs are going to need at least cruiser sized PDLCs if not SD size.) Thus a notional anti-missile LAC is going to need either huge capacitors or bigger fusion plants, or both.

I think it is going to take a fair bit of time to develop a workable anti-missile LAC and it's going to wind up as big as a dispatch boat or frigate by the time you're done. As a temporary external upgrade to Scientist or Vega class SD missile defense, it's a boondoggle waiting to happen. Doesn't mean somebody isn't going to try it. :roll:

No, the vague hand waving argument we got was that the LACs needed more power than a small craft laser fusion reactor and hence had to go to the next size up, which was the grav destroyer sized reactor. So they have a LOT of power for their size (with a reactor that can run a >60,000 ton DD), what David said was their operating duration was very limited. Which makes no sense (200 liters of hydrogen has more energy in it that 20,000 tons of plutonium) but whatever, the limiting issue for old lacs was fuel and space. And terrible node design, not sure why.
Top

Return to Honorverse