Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

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

Revisiting a Gryphon refit.

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Revisiting a Gryphon refit.
Post by ripsql   » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:48 am

Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:05 am

Lord Skimper wrote:I'm just trying to follow the"rule" of using presented tech without reinventing something new.

Capacitor missiles are needed in these tubed ships. It's a rule..

I think you are totally misunderstanding here. It is a rule due to the fact the ships was designed to use a certain type of capacitor missiles. It is like saying battleships with 18inch guns is a rule. Why not design them with 20inch guns even though you only have 18inch ammo For the chance that you will have 20inch ammo in the future. Who does that.

Missiles can't be changed in the SEM but they can in the league, without making them bigger. One seems to be unable to make a LERM or DDM or MDM that will fit a gryphon tube, why? It's a rule..

The LERM, DDM, MDM was designed for the roles they play and not designed to be used on older ships. I would think this makes sense since shoehorning them for a certain tube size can certainly lower effectiveness. Design the best missile and make the ships using them with the right tubes.

Why are tube SD useless?.

This was true with the use of pods. My understanding is that this will be the most effective design going forward just like the nike. Pod layers is a transitional design at this point.

Why is a building slip needed for refit of the internals of a Gryphon? It's a rule..

You do realize that these are military ships and not some civilian freighter or a building. Why don't we ask the navies in the world why they spend so much time and money on refiting military ships compared to civilian ships. Also, why couldn't the US main battle tanks be refitted out in the line instead of in a factory. It's just a rule right.

How many missiles can an Invictus control? No comment.

Why would a tube CA be good but a tube SD be bad?

Why are pods good?

With new off bore and stacked tubes one can fire 200-300 missiles per ship. With capacitor missiles these can be fired faster. .

Pods vs tubes. As stated transitional design so we may be seeing tube sds in the future. Capacitors are weaker than the mini fusion missiles so I don't know why anyone would want them.
You want to gut ECM in a bad way. Also, the main now is the weight of fire and not reload speed of fire so kinda pointless.

Why can't the internals of a SD be refitted "in the field"?
Is must be a bureaucratic thing. A ship floating in space is not a car driving down a road. Changing the internals of a SD in space can be done with a refit freighter parked next / connected to it. Or even just with the parts on the inside.

That a SD can be flown across a galaxy but can't have an automation system installed while floating in space or flying across space is just hilarious.

Having actually installed a shear line with overhead crane, steel hoppers, metal rebar cutting machines, shimming leveling and hammer drilling everything into the concrete pad we laid a month previously. The feed mechanisms for the 5000 tons of steel we went through every week, when I was a steel worker. Cutting hauling loading and unloading bending etc... All computerised but moving steel is a people directed process.

I don't see why the same kind of thing couldn't be installed in a moving SD. The missiles themselves would be installed or removed through their standard loading systems. But the hardware to automate everything isn't that big of a deal. Cutting through bulkheads, no problems. Fitting internals and reshaping what is there doesn't need a yard. It has to be done properly. But it doesn't need a yard slip to do it..

Military vs civilian. Wow hello mr houseman. There is a difference in working on armored bulkheads compare to unarmored and needing to keep cohesion of the amor. You don't want some little patches here there without amor now do you. Also, you don't worry about compartmentalizations in a building on a planet compared to outer space where you are going to be shot at as well. Very big difference in requirements.

As for making tubes bigger, why not make the missiles smaller? But even if the tubes need be larger, using the same nanotech should be able to grow through the armour very easily. It may take time but it could be done last, if at all.

I would love to see you put a new server room into an existing building. The Honorverse way starts by knocking down a wall. It takes as long as building a new building. Ends up with the same building and the whole inside redesigned but it has all the same offices and hallways, same lights and doors now 3 inches wider, the computer server core was built off site and brought in whole. New AC system required the floor to be dug up so that a vent can go to the server from the AC unit.

In reality, we put a raised server floor in, add the AC, and build the server in the shop / server room. No need to knock walls down.

I'd hate to see you take a roof off to move a pool table.

Why spend r&d on a new missile design to be used on an older class of ships? That is the main problem with many of the things you are saying. You want to spend resources that is better spent on the current design to make Gryphons useable.

You are taking experience on modifying ground based civilian buildings and using the exact same thought process to update a military vessel that operates in space. You disregard armor, operating in a vacuum, compartmentalizations with armor, armor around all those electronics which needs to removed or at least redesigned to fit the components depending on the refit.

Why do you need a gryphon anyways?
Currently, ga has plenty of ships to handle what they need to do now. They are building more from haven and rmn is rebuilding shipyards. What need are you addressing that the current ships are unable to handle? I just don't see it.
Re: Revisiting a Gryphon refit.
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:03 pm

Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Lord Skimper wrote:But even if the tubes need be larger, using the same nanotech should be able to grow through the armour very easily. It may take time but it could be done last, if at all.
I'd like to touch on one point beyond what ripsql did.

If it was possible to use Honorverse nanotech that way why did Hancock Station spend so much effort cutting a passage to Fearless's fusion reactor from the top?

Why not just use the nanotech to remove the armor for the more direct broadside access (which had less control runs to cut and repair). For that matter with nanotech why not simply molecularity repair the cracked reactor casing in place?

Apparently the answer is that their nanotech is much to limited to be used that way. Yes the armor is "grown" in place, but I'm guessing (admittedly based on negative evidence) that that growing is a non-reversible process. That whatever nanotech used to form the armor in the correct placement and quality is assisting a one-way transformation and it can't be used to remove or destroy the armor. And is also limited enough it can't be used to grow more complicated items like control runs, computers, or missiles; a very special purpose nanotech...
Re: Revisiting a Gryphon refit.
Post by kzt   » Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:40 pm

Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11359
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Basically nano-tech is a buzzword used for "advanced manufacturing techniques".

Return to Honorverse