Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Escort Carrier Modification

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Maldorian   » Fri May 07, 2021 2:42 am

Maldorian
Commander

Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

And here we are again!

I repeat: My suggestion was to modify Podlaying BC´s to give them the option to carry LAC´s. It is proven impossible from you with better knowledge of shipsizes.

Building small carriers was proven a waste of resources, so, no specialized ships in that way.

And to commend your basic ship discussion: remember that the solarians could not build multi drive missles, yet, but their basic missle tecnology isn´t bad, maybe even better than the manticorian tec. So, if the manticorians analyse captured solarian missles, there is a chance, that they improve their capicator missle tec, what gives smaller missles more range and so make smaller ship designs effective again. Maybe with better capicators small dual drive missles with good range would be possible in the near future.
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Theemile   » Fri May 07, 2021 8:23 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4365
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Brigade XO wrote:My take on a BC/Escort CLAC is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't address what needs to be done and gives you the worst of both worlds.

Recall Harrington's Q-Ships. They had LACs but could only deploy and recover them through the CARGO doors. They were an adaptation to provide more firepower than the Q-ships were mounting with what was both available and practical with the design and they would be a very nasty surprise to what the Q-ships thought they would encounter....heck, they were a bad enough surprise to the Peep ships they did encounter.

The David Taylor FSV class works for what it is described as being designed for. That 8 LAC component is in a purpose built "stock" module and it appears to include what a CLAC supplies in miniature and scaled to the 8 LAC number. Remember, this module has 1) 8 LAC bays for the 8 LACs (and I believe one spare in "storage", 2) an engineering/armeror group for maintenance and repair of the LACs, 3) crew spacing/ environmental/berthing and C&C capability for the LACS and 4) it has a similar magazine and missile/cm feed system to EACH BAY just like a CLAC.
This gives RMN the "escort carrier" capacity to provide convoy defense since it can handle more speed than any normal merchant shipping. It is specifically NOT a full up warship though with it's integral missile/cm etc and tactical sensor and systems it might look like one to any ----lets say current level tech SLN DD that came after a convoy it was attached to and suddenly there is this "freighter" launching those dam RMN LACS and is lighting the DD up with sensors and pumping out serious missiles from way too far outside the SLN range. Suddenly the ship grows teeth and claws........big mistake to come hunting here guys.
But it is not designed for close work and for all it's size it's basically a fast freighter with some long claws and the systems to use them but not something you want to take into battle. It might drop it's LACs to slash and snarl but if a FSV starts fireing missiles it has better be already be running in the other direction and keeping the range open while it "degrades" the other side's capability and provides a chance for it's convoy mates to scatter what the marauder is otherwise occupied in trying to defend itself.


Actually the FSV had 8 LAC Bays as part of it's standard internal weapons complement on the forward section of the ship. There is also a 36 Bay LAC module available which we see in use in UH, when hidden LACs jump the SLN force guarding the wormhole from behind. We don't know if the module takes up 1 of the 4 bays or all of them - but if it only takes up one, then an FSV with 4 modules has a LAC capacity of 152 LACs - more than a Grayson Covington class CLAC, and more than 1 and 1/2 the capacity of the original Minotaur design.

Supposedly the Taylor FSVs also have a "CL" weapons complement, but who knows if that is LERM or Mk16 based.
******
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: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 07, 2021 9:38 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 7032
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

The BCs grew first because of the attempt to make them carry missile pods, then because they were not only firing MDMs internally but also capable of carrying and powering Keyholes. Similarly, the Rolands are as massive as they are so they can carry and fire DDMs. So those are somewhat explained. On the other hand, the Sag-C is a very effective fighter, so I don't see a reason for CAs to grow to the size of pre-war BCs. In fact, as I said above, I see BCs shrinking back a little, to the minimum viable size to keep carrying MDMs and Keyhole, but saving on matériel and build time.

That leaves the CL case. The most modern class we know of is the Avalon, which is actually smaller than a Roland. So this imbalance will need to be addressed.

In any case, a DD is not expected to fight bigger ships. The fact that a Roland can is only due to the huge tech disparity, but that won't last forever. A DD's role is to fight other DDs, screening fleets and providing extended horizons for the bigger elements, plus some picket duties. In that role, DDs still make sense.
The thing I could see pushing up the size of CAs is some kind of Keyhole lite/keyhole defensive. Even if it just provided PDLCs and control link relays for CMs (none of the bulkier offensive fire control links), that could easily double the survivability of such a CA over a Sag-C -- and that's no small thing in a universe where missile pods are proliferating. The ability to better weather an ambush like Monica might be worth some size and cost (plus it'll let them better perform the close anti-missile screening role for battle fleets)


So a bit bigger CA with defensive keyhole and room to carry somewhat larger peacetime patrol crews, or extra marines, (but still able to be operated effectively in wartime with a smaller crew) could well supplement and eventually replace Sag-Cs. But I don't know that it'd have to get all the way up to the size of a pre-war BC in order to do that.
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Fri May 07, 2021 9:55 am

ThinksMarkedly
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Maldorian wrote:And to commend your basic ship discussion: remember that the solarians could not build multi drive missles, yet, but their basic missle tecnology isn´t bad, maybe even better than the manticorian tec. So, if the manticorians analyse captured solarian missles, there is a chance, that they improve their capicator missle tec, what gives smaller missles more range and so make smaller ship designs effective again. Maybe with better capicators small dual drive missles with good range would be possible in the near future.


The fact that Solarian missiles are faster does not mean they are better.

Solarian missiles were bigger and faster. Maybe the correlation is not spurious: maybe they were faster because they were bigger. The bigger body may have allowed a larger power budget. In this scenario, those missiles are not better. A faster missile would only be possible if fired from a BC or larger...
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Theemile   » Fri May 07, 2021 12:01 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4365
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Jonathan_S wrote:
ThinksMarkedly wrote:Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

The BCs grew first because of the attempt to make them carry missile pods, then because they were not only firing MDMs internally but also capable of carrying and powering Keyholes. Similarly, the Rolands are as massive as they are so they can carry and fire DDMs. So those are somewhat explained. On the other hand, the Sag-C is a very effective fighter, so I don't see a reason for CAs to grow to the size of pre-war BCs. In fact, as I said above, I see BCs shrinking back a little, to the minimum viable size to keep carrying MDMs and Keyhole, but saving on matériel and build time.

That leaves the CL case. The most modern class we know of is the Avalon, which is actually smaller than a Roland. So this imbalance will need to be addressed.

In any case, a DD is not expected to fight bigger ships. The fact that a Roland can is only due to the huge tech disparity, but that won't last forever. A DD's role is to fight other DDs, screening fleets and providing extended horizons for the bigger elements, plus some picket duties. In that role, DDs still make sense.
The thing I could see pushing up the size of CAs is some kind of Keyhole lite/keyhole defensive. Even if it just provided PDLCs and control link relays for CMs (none of the bulkier offensive fire control links), that could easily double the survivability of such a CA over a Sag-C -- and that's no small thing in a universe where missile pods are proliferating. The ability to better weather an ambush like Monica might be worth some size and cost (plus it'll let them better perform the close anti-missile screening role for battle fleets)


So a bit bigger CA with defensive keyhole and room to carry somewhat larger peacetime patrol crews, or extra marines, (but still able to be operated effectively in wartime with a smaller crew) could well supplement and eventually replace Sag-Cs. But I don't know that it'd have to get all the way up to the size of a pre-war BC in order to do that.


The light speed limted Keyhole modules were ~50Ktons apiece plus the cost of the cradles and transmission hardware - FTL KHII was ~120 Ktons apiece, plus ~75Ktons of extra processing hardware.

Droppng KH I modules on a ship probably costs 120 Ktons total (an Apollo CL) - KHII ~325 Ktons (ie, > than a StarKnight) So something with a Sag-C's capability and KHI will mass >600 Ktons.
******
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: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by munroburton   » Fri May 07, 2021 12:31 pm

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Maldorian wrote:And to commend your basic ship discussion: remember that the solarians could not build multi drive missles, yet, but their basic missle tecnology isn´t bad, maybe even better than the manticorian tec. So, if the manticorians analyse captured solarian missles, there is a chance, that they improve their capicator missle tec, what gives smaller missles more range and so make smaller ship designs effective again. Maybe with better capicators small dual drive missles with good range would be possible in the near future.


The fact that Solarian missiles are faster does not mean they are better.

Solarian missiles were bigger and faster. Maybe the correlation is not spurious: maybe they were faster because they were bigger. The bigger body may have allowed a larger power budget. In this scenario, those missiles are not better. A faster missile would only be possible if fired from a BC or larger...


Remember how White Haven freaked out when he found out how much larger his new missiles were going to be? It took awkward sexual chemistry and exaggerated reports of death to shake him out of it completely. That's how naval traditionalists react and the SLN had more than its fair share of those.

The Scientist class SD is so old that many still have autocannon. That means Solarian SD missiles may well have been frozen in external dimensions for... 150 years?

All those decades, their R&D engineers have been permitted to upgrade the interior of those dimensions all they like, but some Battle Fleet flag officer comes downstairs and freaks out like White Haven did if any of them ever suggests increasing the missile size in any way.

Mind you, there's a valid reason for that attitude. The moment Battle Fleet - or any Navy, I suppose - switches up, it renders all existing launchers functionally obsolete. Manticore tried to replace them on Gryphons and that didn't go well. Battle Fleet's 8000 reserve SDs would have over half a million launchers to retain with the logistical headaches that entails, or replace with the logistical headaches that entails too.
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 07, 2021 1:22 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 7032
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Theemile wrote:
Jonathan_S wrote:The thing I could see pushing up the size of CAs is some kind of Keyhole lite/keyhole defensive. Even if it just provided PDLCs and control link relays for CMs (none of the bulkier offensive fire control links), that could easily double the survivability of such a CA over a Sag-C -- and that's no small thing in a universe where missile pods are proliferating. The ability to better weather an ambush like Monica might be worth some size and cost (plus it'll let them better perform the close anti-missile screening role for battle fleets)


So a bit bigger CA with defensive keyhole and room to carry somewhat larger peacetime patrol crews, or extra marines, (but still able to be operated effectively in wartime with a smaller crew) could well supplement and eventually replace Sag-Cs. But I don't know that it'd have to get all the way up to the size of a pre-war BC in order to do that.


The light speed limted Keyhole modules were ~50Ktons apiece plus the cost of the cradles and transmission hardware - FTL KHII was ~120 Ktons apiece, plus ~75Ktons of extra processing hardware.

Droppng KH I modules on a ship probably costs 120 Ktons total (an Apollo CL) - KHII ~325 Ktons (ie, > than a StarKnight) So something with a Sag-C's capability and KHI will mass >600 Ktons.
Hence why I wasn't suggesting they try to fit a full up keyhole I like the BC(P)s, (L)s, and early SD(P)s carried. As you note, it's too massive for a reasonable sized CA.

But those light speed limited Keyhole I platforms had hundreds of long ranged offensive missile fire control links; allowing the ships that deployed them to manage their full DDM/MDM missile armament while fully rolled behind their wedge. Those links are bigger and more complex than the shorter ranged CM links - and must have takes up quite a bit of the size of a Keyhole I.

But if you stripped those offensive links out entirely and just kept an appropriate number of the shorter ranged CM control links [1] and some of the PDLCs you should be able to make a significantly smaller remote platform which only assists with defense.

The ship carrying such a platform would still need to expose a broadside (or hammerhead) to control its Mk16s - but under heavy missile fire could roll behind its wedge and use the defensive keyhole relays to control more salvos of CMs than it could on it own - the same kind of advantage that let 8th fleet's SD(P)s launch 11 CM salvos instead of (IIRC) 3.

[1] Even a big CA carries less CM tubes than a BC(P)/(L) or SD(P); so you need fewer CM control links to handle its CM salvos
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by Jonathan_S   » Fri May 07, 2021 1:36 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 7032
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

munroburton wrote:
Remember how White Haven freaked out when he found out how much larger his new missiles were going to be? It took awkward sexual chemistry and exaggerated reports of death to shake him out of it completely. That's how naval traditionalists react and the SLN had more than its fair share of those.

The Scientist class SD is so old that many still have autocannon. That means Solarian SD missiles may well have been frozen in external dimensions for... 150 years?

Well Cataphract seem to have showed that the linear external dimension wasn't firmly capped. I can't see how even a Cataphract-B, with its CA weight warhead, would be as short as a capital-weight SDM -- as it's basically that SD's SDM with the warhead and bus removed and a CM drive powered upper stage, with somewhat smaller warhead, bolted in its place.
So it seems quite likely that the magazines, ammo handling equipment, and launchers had a bit of flexibility in the overall length of the missiles being stored, moved, and launched.

If so then in theory if you needed more stored power you could simply lengthen the missile body a bit to squeeze more capacitors in; while keeping it's diameter unchanged.


Still, while we're told pretty clearly that running a missile's wedge for longer (say the 25% longer runtimes of at least the early ERMs) requires more power and thus more capacitors; it's less clear that a drive that provides more acceleration for the same time requires any significant different in power. (Because wedges cheat the laws of thermodynamics by siphoning most of the power necessary to propel the ship from the hyperwall rather than internal power)


But what we do know is that even before Cataphract came onto the scene the SLN's standard SDMs had better acceleration over their 60/180 second endurance than any RMN or RHN missile. And by the end of UH whoever was making improvements to the booster stage of the League's Cataphracts had massively increased that single drive performance lead (but apparently without going to ERM improved endurance). And, however they did it, those even quicker Cataphract still seemed to fit in the launchers of SLN ships as well (or as poorly; if you like) as they ever did; despite something like a at 70% improvement in acceleration over the initial Cataphracts that had used the standard League missiles as their booster stage.
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by munroburton   » Fri May 07, 2021 3:17 pm

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2181
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Jonathan_S wrote:Well Cataphract seem to have showed that the linear external dimension wasn't firmly capped. I can't see how even a Cataphract-B, with its CA weight warhead, would be as short as a capital-weight SDM -- as it's basically that SD's SDM with the warhead and bus removed and a CM drive powered upper stage, with somewhat smaller warhead, bolted in its place.
So it seems quite likely that the magazines, ammo handling equipment, and launchers had a bit of flexibility in the overall length of the missiles being stored, moved, and launched.


Probably because Frontier Fleet wasn't as lazy or rigid. I'm always surprised by how modern the Nevada class seemed to be, better than Manticoran BCs in 1905-1915 were.

Their R&D was probably allowed to upsize on battlecruisers and below over time while Battle Fleet speculatively refused to. This would have squeezed the gap between SLN SD and BC weight missiles to the point where the Cataphracts became viable.

A similar squeeze between the BC/DD missile sizes may have taken place if the BC-missile upscaling hit a limit just shy of provoking Battle Fleet's objections.
Top
Re: Escort Carrier Modification
Post by drothgery   » Fri May 07, 2021 6:16 pm

drothgery
Admiral

Posts: 2015
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
drothgery wrote:I'd go farther than that and say the RMN should not build DDs anymore (barring another disruptive tech imbalance). It's just not possible to make one that's survivable against a peer navy. RFC has suggested that the 300Kton "notional destroyer" he's toyed with may not be workable, and the bottom end for hyper-capable ships in the long run may pretty much be a Sag-C.

Which, despite having enough firepower to destroy most BCs and even obsolete (aka SLN) SDs, being the twice the size of a first war CA, and being a nominal CA, I think is pretty much effectively a CL. It can't really do peacetime CA jobs well; its crew complement is too small. So I'd postulate a roughly Sag-C-sized "CL" and a 1-1.5 Mton "CA" in the next stack of GA designs.


Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

Yeah, but you have to get a lot bigger than a Roland to handle DDMs in a traditional broadside layout ... and the hammerhead-mounted DDM blocks of the Rolands are a major weak point in the design. Though I guess it's possible future DDMs may be smaller than a Mark 16 or the RMN could develop a "lightweight" DDM for anything smaller than a Sag-C
Top

Return to Honorverse