New Manty ship ideas.

waddles for desert wrote:For example, in an active system, there certainly is no need for a one-to-one correlation between emitters and detectors for each beam path. Assuming a continuous beam, an emitter can use mirrors, prisms or waveguides to illuminate multiple detectors. And, detectors can have multiple detecting surfaces to receive beams from multiple emitters.

Unfortunately, having each transmitter beam to multiple receivers only slightly reduces the total number of transmitters plus receivers necessary. The key factor in detecting ships with beams is that the beams must not leave any gaps very much larger than the diameter of the ships. So if you reduce the number of transmitters, you will have to increase the number of recievers to protect the spaces that would otherwise have been covered near transmitters. You can reduce the numbers somewhat, but it is still in the range of hundreds of millions to billions.

Each detector transmits to the nearest FTL relay. Adding FTL relays increases the cost and decrease the time lag of the report, and vice versa.

All the discussion so far has assumed that communication of a detection would be by FTL.

A cheaper system would be to use a glorified nano fiber spider web with flash bulbs. The cells of the spider web could be 100 m across. A wide angle detector would monitor for flashes and signal the FTL relay. A robot vehicle would keep the components on station.

Are you suggesting enclosing a 20 light-minute radius with a nanofiber web? That's quote audacious. It would certainly work, though I have difficulty imagining it being done even in the Honorverse. For your flash detector, you would have to balance the field-of-view versus time-lag. You would have to have the detector close enough to the web that you don't have too much time-lag in detecting the flashes.

All of this is expensive. But, compared to what was lost in OB, not so much. Not at all compared to what would be lost to a massive high fractional c strike.

Unfortunately, this system cannot really protect adequately against a high-fractional cee strike. It is designed to detect ship-sized objects. A cee-fractional strike would probably involve smaller objects. An enemy who sent only a few kinetic weapons through might be lucky and miss your detection network. Depending on how small the weapons were, they could get significantly better than 50% chance.

Duckk wrote:It's a fundamental principle of naval design that you try to design a ship to stand up to its own guns. You never assume that you will have the advantage in any sense, especially doctrinally or technologically.
....

The RMN learned the hard way to not assume superiority when Theisman rebuilt the RHN, and they're not keen on letting it happen again.

I mentioned this over at the bar last night, but while they really don't like it, I think the only first-line RMN warship that can stand up to its own guns right now is the Nike-class BC. I don't think an Invictus has defenses good enough to stand against an SD(P) with Apollo, a Sag-C would have serious problems facing another Mark 16-G-armed cruiser, and a Roland even more so. Though I suppose a Hydra's carrier wing could stand up to another's even if the individual LACs could not.

drothgery wrote:

Duckk wrote:It's a fundamental principle of naval design that you try to design a ship to stand up to its own guns. You never assume that you will have the advantage in any sense, especially doctrinally or technologically.
....

The RMN learned the hard way to not assume superiority when Theisman rebuilt the RHN, and they're not keen on letting it happen again.

I mentioned this over at the bar last night, but while they really don't like it, I think the only first-line RMN warship that can stand up to its own guns right now is the Nike-class BC. I don't think an Invictus has defenses good enough to stand against an SD(P) with Apollo, a Sag-C would have serious problems facing another Mark 16-G-armed cruiser, and a Roland even more so. Though I suppose a Hydra's carrier wing could stand up to another's even if the individual LACs could not.

Agreed, but to be fair, Mr. Weber has said that they are transitional designs, and only exist due to the huge technology advantage plus the press of war. The RMN has plenty of time to design the next generation ships while they are rebuilding the space stations. The next generation will all be much more survivable against equally armed forces.

Which is why we will never see an CLAC(p) or an SD(P/LAC) or what ever you want to call them. The only way to combine the two functions would be to make them so vulnerable to damage, they would be useless against someone who can fight back.

I still disagree. The Roland has the best active defense to offense ratio of all hyper capable units. Of course once those active defenses get breached once the end is near.

Though to be fair we really have no idea how good the sidewalls are on the Roland. For all we know they may be comparable to BBs of 20 years ago, not likely, but possible.

As far as the BC(L) goes like a good BC design it is a slug fest.

Enjoy,
T2M

drothgery wrote:I mentioned this over at the bar last night, but while they really don't like it, I think the only first-line RMN warship that can stand up to its own guns right now is the Nike-class BC. I don't think an Invictus has defenses good enough to stand against an SD(P) with Apollo, a Sag-C would have serious problems facing another Mark 16-G-armed cruiser, and a Roland even more so. Though I suppose a Hydra's carrier wing could stand up to another's even if the individual LACs could not.

crewdude48 wrote:Which is why we will never see an CLAC(p) or an SD(P/LAC) or what ever you want to call them. The only way to combine the two functions would be to make them so vulnerable to damage, they would be useless against someone who can fight back.

I 100% agree with this, FWIW (I'm neither proposing such ships nor agreeing they're a good idea). I'm just saying the RMN's current lineup is very offense-heavy (mostly due to the exigencies of war, granted; I suspect if Apollo had been rolled out in peacetime, it would have been with a new SD(P) class designed from scratch to stand against Apollo-level strikes).

drothgery wrote:I mentioned this over at the bar last night, but while they really don't like it, I think the only first-line RMN warship that can stand up to its own guns right now is the Nike-class BC. I don't think an Invictus has defenses good enough to stand against an SD(P) with Apollo, a Sag-C would have serious problems facing another Mark 16-G-armed cruiser, and a Roland even more so. Though I suppose a Hydra's carrier wing could stand up to another's even if the individual LACs could not.

The Invictus is a second generation design, conceived and laid down prior to the ceasefire. It was simply aimed at analyzing the practical knowledge they gained operating Medusas and applying the lessons learned about podnought based combat to the next generation. It's not fair to knock the Invictuses for not being able to defend against Apollo since it wasn't a consideration at that point. The fourth generation design David hinted at is likely going to show further refinements aimed at offsetting Apollo.

drothgery wrote:

Duckk wrote:It's a fundamental principle of naval design that you try to design a ship to stand up to its own guns. You never assume that you will have the advantage in any sense, especially doctrinally or technologically.
....

The RMN learned the hard way to not assume superiority when Theisman rebuilt the RHN, and they're not keen on letting it happen again.

I mentioned this over at the bar last night, but while they really don't like it, I think the only first-line RMN warship that can stand up to its own guns right now is the Nike-class BC. I don't think an Invictus has defenses good enough to stand against an SD(P) with Apollo, a Sag-C would have serious problems facing another Mark 16-G-armed cruiser, and a Roland even more so. Though I suppose a Hydra's carrier wing could stand up to another's even if the individual LACs could not.

That's true, the RMN in particular ended up too far over towards offense due (at the various ship sizes) to the ability to either newly introduced FTL firecontrol or the ability to deeply stack pods / missiles; and the new breakthroughs in grav lensing haven't helped. (The last are somewhat analogous to designing the South Dakota and New Jersey class BBs against 16" guns and then introducing the 2700 lbs super-heave shell which unbalanced them towards offense; or the decision to up-gun the North Carolina class from 14" to 16" guns without changing the armor designed to resist the original 14" guns).

A Roland probably had the best active and EMC defenses of any CL sized ship in space; but it can also stack enough Mk-16 DDMs to still have an excellent chance of swamping the defensive abilities of a targeted Roland.


Although, to my mind, the correct response to that is to increase defense on future designs; not to follow Lord Skimper's plans which would result in significantly more fragile ships. [G]


Manticore has apparently started thinking about this, but the only really new thing we've seen (post Apollo) is the (apparently vastly improved) Lorelei decoys. They don't seem that impressive a start (but to be fair we haven't seen them in a sustain podnaught combat; much less one with Apollo level firecontrol on both sides)

I'm pretty sure the nano wire is not for the entire length of the detection range but rather km around nano wire detection dishes. These would detect the various beams or lack there of. Continous beams reflected around the network and on many angles and detector ranges over the depth of the detection field. Say a detection field inside the hyper limit say 10 light minutes deep. Each node would project to each detector dish within 3 light minutes or up to 5 light minutes. Even something at .99c will if detected cause all ships to wedge up and all stations to bubble up. Further any ship able to impose its wedge to a fast moving object would destroy it.

Planets can be protected with a few dozen overlapping wedge ships, a SD sized ship has a wedge 100's of km wide. The Earth is about 13500 km across at a 500 g acceleration a single ship could intercept and destroy anything travelling at .99c with a 1-3 minute direction detected lead. 48 ships could blanket an area that will block almost anything.

This would also be a good use for any non pod SD ships. With added cm and pd plus upgraded graser and telemetry links with standard missile tubes able to fire MK23 missiles make ideal system defense vessels. They also are better in close, of course automation would need to be applied to reduce crew levels but with the space they have would make great system defense vessels. They might even make long duration super "LAC" not actually being light in anyway perhaps SHC (super heavy craft) or CSD (Command System Defense). Having hyperjump capabilities would allow them to move about. Like Fortes without having to build any. captured Sollie ship could be upgraded and mothballed SD's could also be used until fortes are build to replace them. SD(P) and CLAC ships can then be used offensively while SHC and CSD patrol home systems with LAC fleets and system pods.

Detection grids will help find hidden ships, not all but something is better than nothing. Off course some like to point out why it wouldn't work, without offering anything that would.

Like standing in a mine, with hidden dangers around some light candles others setup mirrors and laser pointers. While not ideal it would help, but no they would rather have us close our eyes, turn off the laser pointers, blow out the candles and wander about.

Lord Skimper wrote:I'm pretty sure the nano wire is not for the entire length of the detection range but rather km around nano wire detection dishes. These would detect the various beams or lack there of. Continous beams reflected around the network and on many angles and detector ranges over the depth of the detection field. Say a detection field inside the hyper limit say 10 light minutes deep. Each node would project to each detector dish within 3 light minutes or up to 5 light minutes. Even something at .99c will if detected cause all ships to wedge up and all stations to bubble up. Further any ship able to impose its wedge to a fast moving object would destroy it.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this further. I can't understand what you are saying here at all. What on earth do you mean by "nano wire detection dishes"?

Detection grids will help find hidden ships, not all but something is better than nothing. Off course some like to point out why it wouldn't work, without offering anything that would.

I did offer something that would work--it's just like your idea, except using a hundred billion detectors, instead of a hundred thousand.

There are several other possible detection methods, of course. We thrashed it out pretty thoroughly a year or two ago. The most interesting proposal was to try to develop some kind of gravitic equivalent of sonar, but there is no evidence that this is possible. Watching for objects occulting stars was eliminated for much the same reason as a beam-interruption grid--it requires a ridiculous number of detectors to have any likelihood of spotting a ship. Another method supported by the text is one which looks for the narrow-beam heat emission which is necessary for cooling the stealthed ship. But this would again require a huge number of detectors, or a smaller number concentrated in a specific area believed to contain a stealthed ship. Basically, any detection method is going to require very large numbers of detection platforms or new technology. New technology can be (and has been) proposed, of course, but there is little to discuss about new tech except whether it breaks known Honorverse physics.

I love reading all these solutions presented.
I seem to have missed out on the problems that they are meant to solve, though...