Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

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

system cruiser

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: system cruiser
Post by HungryKing   » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:30 pm

HungryKing
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 368
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 8:43 pm

The thing is that LACs evolved from corvettes, without getting very spoilerish, the size of a (16th century PD) corvette was dictated by the minimal spacing of impeller rings. But the kicker is that 'modern' LACs, even the ones used by the Havenites in the First War, were edging into corvette size brackets, so for all we know that 'corvette' retained that designation because it was old. And old generally means less effective per ton.

Jonathan_S wrote:
Uroboros wrote:I'd also like to mention, since most ships are bought not built, moving a ship from one system to another without a hyper drive would be an extreme pain in the ass.
Yep. Although we had a recent discussion about the (largely) historical ship class Corvette, which appeared (back in Travis Long's day) to be more or less a non-hyper capable frigate. (Also back when frigates were useful combatants)

The only semi-recent Corvette we've seen appears to have been due to political rules. Specifically Silesia essentially doesn't let planets (or companies) have their own armed hyper-capable ships; so Schiller has a (some?) Corvette(s) as their SDF's heaviest unit.


I guess even at Silesia's tech level a corvette might be more effective against pirates than a pair of LACs. At least it's big enough to mount a reasonable defensive suite; if the designers are willing to buck the tenancy to overgun ships for low end navies.


But it'd be a waste for some capable of building even Cimeterre-class equivalent LACs to build Corvettes or "system cruisers" over the equivalent cost in LACs. The LACs are quicker accelerating, stealthier, collectively more survivable, and mount sufficiently effective lasers and missiles to tangle with anything up to at least a CA or two. And if instead you can build Shrike-class equivalents...
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:36 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

HungryKing wrote:The thing is that LACs evolved from corvettes, without getting very spoilerish, the size of a (16th century PD) corvette was dictated by the minimal spacing of impeller rings. But the kicker is that 'modern' LACs, even the ones used by the Havenites in the First War, were edging into corvette size brackets, so for all we know that 'corvette' retained that designation because it was old. And old generally means less effective per ton.
True. Schiller was a semi-recent reference; but it's true that for all we know their Corvette was several hundred years old.

(For that matter, while we know it was their heaviest unit was a Corvette, we don't know how heavy a unit it was)
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Daryl   » Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:23 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3000
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Sharp Claw wrote:Instead of buildng or improving a shipyard to produce sub-light ships with cruiser level capabilities, it would be much cheaper to buy two or three generations out of date obsolescent warships form first rate navies like Haven or Manticore. You would get a fully hyper Capable warship, with more than enough firepower to deter pirates or even attacks from other single system navies. Thats about all you can expect from a single system navy for a star system that is not economically prosperous and heavily populated like Beowulf. If one of those first rate multi system navies goes after you, you will be toast anyway. You are not going to hold off that kind of attack no matter how many lacs or hacs you have. For a strategic system defense lots of missile pods would be a better solution.

Real world example was the Argentinean Belgrano. A WW2 vintage heavy cruiser they had bought that was excellent for projecting power in the third world, but took only one modern torpedo to destroy it.
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:52 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Daryl wrote:
Sharp Claw wrote:Instead of buildng or improving a shipyard to produce sub-light ships with cruiser level capabilities, it would be much cheaper to buy two or three generations out of date obsolescent warships form first rate navies like Haven or Manticore. You would get a fully hyper Capable warship, with more than enough firepower to deter pirates or even attacks from other single system navies. Thats about all you can expect from a single system navy for a star system that is not economically prosperous and heavily populated like Beowulf. If one of those first rate multi system navies goes after you, you will be toast anyway. You are not going to hold off that kind of attack no matter how many lacs or hacs you have. For a strategic system defense lots of missile pods would be a better solution.

Real world example was the Argentinean Belgrano. A WW2 vintage heavy cruiser they had bought that was excellent for projecting power in the third world, but took only one modern torpedo to destroy it.
Nitpicks - HMS Conqueror fired 3 torpedoes, and hit the ARA General Belgrano (ex USS Phoenix) with two of them.

And the torpedoes were the non-wire guided Mark VIII** a WWII revision of the 21" Mark VIII design originally place in service in 1927; the revision making some engine improvements and a slight upgrade to the warhead. But still I wouldn't really call it a modern design, even for 1982. (Contact detonation, not under keel; gyro aimed, not wire-guided or homing)

/end nitpicks :) :oops:
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Lord Skimper   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:04 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

Also an old school Highlander LAC is pretty big especially to a low tech world. Heck to Earth Us Now! A Highlander would be an Amazing Space ship.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Lord Skimper   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:16 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:49 pm
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

How about having a new Highlander 2nd generation LAC.

Same size as the old one but with the new tech. It could mount twin six missile Mk36 cells per broadside. CA level Lasers like a Shrike Graser only a laser instead, and ferret level Viper CM tubes. Longer duration with shrike compensator and sidewalls bucklers and the like. Might even use the fission piles.

Won't be carried in a standard CLAC but as a System LAC you don't need that.

Mk36 means you can reach out and touch so much more than any other LAC.

For the cost of a CA system Cruiser. You could have dozens of these modernized LAC's.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by SWM   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:19 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Lord Skimper wrote:How about having a new Highlander 2nd generation LAC.

Same size as the old one but with the new tech. It could mount twin six missile Mk36 cells per broadside. CA level Lasers like a Shrike Graser only a laser instead, and ferret level Viper CM tubes. Longer duration with shrike compensator and sidewalls bucklers and the like. Might even use the fission piles.

Won't be carried in a standard CLAC but as a System LAC you don't need that.

Mk36 means you can reach out and touch so much more than any other LAC.

For the cost of a CA system Cruiser. You could have dozens of these modernized LAC's.

So, you are suggesting a "modern" LAC that is half the size of the Shrike?

The problem is that the Shrike was the smallest that ship that Manticoran R&D could fit all that stuff into. The Highlander is too small to carry the fission pile, or the beta-squared nodes. That means it won't have the acceleration of a Shrike, and it won't have the bow or stern sidewall. The Highlander is also too small to carry counter-missiles, not even Vipers. It is too small to carry any missiles internally. So basically all you are doing is using this tiny ship to carry a couple missile pods on the hull.

None of the modern LAC equipment will fit in a Highlander. What exactly do you think you can upgrade?
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:30 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6233
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

SWM wrote:So, you are suggesting a "modern" LAC that is half the size of the Shrike?

The problem is that the Shrike was the smallest that ship that Manticoran R&D could fit all that stuff into.
Not that I think Skimper's crazy Mk16 LAC makes any sense (For one thing the Mk16 missiles he wants to put in the broadside are longer than the LAC is wide :roll:) but, while the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander, it's physically smaller.

Highlander-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 11,250 tons
Dimensions: 138 × 23 × 21 m
Acceleration: 409.3 G (4.014 kps²)

Shrike-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 20,250 tons
Dimensions: 71 × 20 × 20 m
Acceleration: 636 G (6.237 kps²)
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by SWM   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:04 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Jonathan_S wrote:
SWM wrote:So, you are suggesting a "modern" LAC that is half the size of the Shrike?

The problem is that the Shrike was the smallest that ship that Manticoran R&D could fit all that stuff into.
Not that I think Skimper's crazy Mk16 LAC makes any sense (For one thing the Mk16 missiles he wants to put in the broadside are longer than the LAC is wide :roll:) but, while the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander, it's physically smaller.

Highlander-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 11,250 tons
Dimensions: 138 × 23 × 21 m
Acceleration: 409.3 G (4.014 kps²)

Shrike-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 20,250 tons
Dimensions: 71 × 20 × 20 m
Acceleration: 636 G (6.237 kps²)

Hm. Good point. Skimper, are you talking about a new LAC that is half the mass of the Shrike, or twice the length of the Shrike? Half the mass doesn't work. Twice the length could be modernized, but are you just trying to make another variation of HAC? How much will this ship mass?
--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top
Re: system cruiser
Post by Theemile   » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:54 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3823
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Toledo, OH

SWM wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:Not that I think Skimper's crazy Mk16 LAC makes any sense (For one thing the Mk16 missiles he wants to put in the broadside are longer than the LAC is wide :roll:) but, while the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander, it's physically smaller.

Highlander-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 11,250 tons
Dimensions: 138 × 23 × 21 m
Acceleration: 409.3 G (4.014 kps²)

Shrike-class Light Attack Craft
Mass: 20,250 tons
Dimensions: 71 × 20 × 20 m
Acceleration: 636 G (6.237 kps²)

Hm. Good point. Skimper, are you talking about a new LAC that is half the mass of the Shrike, or twice the length of the Shrike? Half the mass doesn't work. Twice the length could be modernized, but are you just trying to make another variation of HAC? How much will this ship mass?


I think he talking about the LERM not the Mk16 in his design. that makes everything different.
******
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