Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

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

New Manty ship ideas.

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Lord Skimper   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:49 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

This forum was up in 2004?
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by kzt   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:50 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Lord Skimper wrote:This forum was up in 2004?

No, but the bar was.
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/176/0
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Relax   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:57 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Duckk wrote:They may not have anticipated the Mk-16G at the start of the design phase, but the design was conceived after the MDM and the missile pod had proven its worth. When surveying the threat environment at the time, they had to take into account that one of the most likely threats would be a 3-stage capital MDM fired from either a BC(P) or towed by traditional designs. The description in HoS bears this out, as its armor and hull are noted to be much tougher compared to previous BC classes.


I will admit I had forgotten that its Sidewalls are SD strength. Was thinking too much inline with its Keyhole keeping it alive at Chantilly.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by solbergb   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:22 am

solbergb
Admiral

Posts: 2846
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:24 pm

That's those beta-squared nodes, the same tech that gives a Shrike cruiser-level sidewalls, scaled up to something that is approaching a battleship in tonnage.

Not surprised at all it came out at least at DN strength, although I think DN/SD is roughly the same in sidewall strength, the wedge power used to move a 6 million ton ship seems comparable to an 8.5 million ton ship, and sidewalls seem to scale somehow with the wedge strength. It may be there are diminishing returns at some point, or that they put better sidewall generators on DNs to get to similar strength as SDs (as both are expected to survive the same threat environment)
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by WilliamHall   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:34 pm

WilliamHall
Ensign

Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 10:54 am

So David has said that there will be some change to the way an SDP deploys pods and that CLACs will be in two distinct classes.

What are the general ideas on changes to the SDP? Adding a new system to deploy pods in a different place? (along the sides, in the front)

I think, unless I have misinterpreted what I read, that the CLAC intended to be used at the edge of a system will be more along the lines of the standard or old designs. But that does leave the possibility that the one intended for in system use to be significantly different. Are we looking at CLACS with the equivalent of wet navy flight deck that goes the entire length of the ship? Could the introduction of bow/stern walls suggest that fundamental a change?
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Brigade XO   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:31 pm

Brigade XO
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3179
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: KY

The "thru-deck" CLAC is a catastrophy waiting to happen.
As it is now, a CLAC has 100 (or more) docking bays in the outside skin of the ship connected to various parts including several magazines. Then you have personel access, enviornment, power, data etc. You launch the LACs from each bay and recover them to seperate bays with tractors and individual thrusters.

In the thru-deck model, you would be "landing" the LACs in a very large bay that may run the length of the ship. The alternative would be the large hanger type fro Galactica- which lends itself to having LACs crashing into the forward wall of the hanger or explosions from the LACs going off inside the core of the body of the CLAC. Something you really don't want to happen. You are also going to have challanges landing LACs either through the center of the Alpha and Beta Node rings at the stern or ports on either side (but aligned with the bow and stern of the ship) when the ship is going anywhere. Then there is the question of how you "launch" the LACs? Now they can be pushed out by the tractor/pressor equipment in the bay. Do you rig some sort of multiple launch sets around the hanger/deck to throw them out the front or do you (like Galactica) put them in many launch tubes and fire them out? At present you can crash/launch all the LACs from their positions on the exterior of the ship at one time.
Taking the LACs into the core of the ship, for landing and possible take-off, means you have to put your reactors, magazines and everyting elce around the landing hanger….really bad idea if you have a damaged or just one that looses control blowing up in the hanger.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by WilliamHall   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:48 pm

WilliamHall
Ensign

Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 10:54 am

Those are really good points. The question I have is then with the fundamental weakness of having so much open space devoted to LAC bays how do you upgrade the CLAC toughness to match a 2nd gen SDP? David has hinted that Manticore has followed some sub-optimal design patterns in recent ship design. I was wondering where that might lead.

If putting the LAC's on the outside is best then is it possible that SDP's would be moving towards a more CLAC general design?
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by namelessfly   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:18 pm

namelessfly

WilliamHall wrote:Those are really good points. The question I have is then with the fundamental weakness of having so much open space devoted to LAC bays how do you upgrade the CLAC toughness to match a 2nd gen SDP? David has hinted that Manticore has followed some sub-optimal design patterns in recent ship design. I was wondering where that might lead.

If putting the LAC's on the outside is best then is it possible that SDP's would be moving towards a more CLAC general design?



I think that a fleet CLAC able to operate in system with the SD(P)s and BCs would make some changes.

First, they would loose the internal bow missile launchers and magazines that the MINOTAUR has.

Second, theynwould upsize the design toe equal in mass to an SD but without increasing the number of LACs. The extra tonnage would be used for tougher sidewalls, more CM launchers, more PDLCs, and Keyhole 1 platforms.

Third, Weber has said little about armor for CLACs but I would imagine that the early designs were not very tough. Perhaps the RMN attempted to armor the outer hull and hatches in the hope of surviving damage? It would be worse than the much maligned BC(P). If I was designing a CLAC I would have almost all systems except the LAC bays inside a heavily armored inner core hull. I would have moderately armored bulkheads between the LAC bays. However; I would have minimal armor on the outer hull surrounding the LAC bays on the "all or nothing" principle. A CLAC that gets damaged in battle can easily afford to sacrifice LAC bays which are probably empty to preserve it's core systems.
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by Jonathan_S   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:25 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8759
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

WilliamHall wrote:Those are really good points. The question I have is then with the fundamental weakness of having so much open space devoted to LAC bays how do you upgrade the CLAC toughness to match a 2nd gen SDP? David has hinted that Manticore has followed some sub-optimal design patterns in recent ship design. I was wondering where that might lead.

If putting the LAC's on the outside is best then is it possible that SDP's would be moving towards a more CLAC general design?
It's probably pushing too far into single purpose design, but I wonder if the 'assault CLAC' design might be better off as a LAC tender without the ability to fully dock and service LACs.

That does mean it would always have to operate in concert with one or more more conventional CLACs. But one way to eliminate the defensive weakness of the huge broadside LAC bays is to eliminate them entirely.


Instead I'm thinking you could go with rows of semi-recessed docking points (kind of similar to a smaller version of a keyhole bay) where LACs could nose in to replenish missiles/CMs. And those shouldn't be harder to armor than the current Keyhole mounts are; much easier than a huge LAC bay.

As I understand it the main purpose of the better defended design is to allow LACs to rearm during combat (or at least between waves of combat) so they can provide more prolonged missile defense / anti-LAC screening operations.

In that limited timeframe there's not really time to repair damaged LACs, or pull maintenance, and they shouldn't be running out of consumables other than missiles in the course of a day or so. (Well maybe fuel for the reaction thrusters if they've been making bow-wall up attack runs) So do you really need the ability to fully dock them?
Top
Re: New Manty ship ideas.
Post by WilliamHall   » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:04 pm

WilliamHall
Ensign

Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 10:54 am

I thought I read somewhere about more modular LAC designs in the works. If this was the case then making LAC bays that only allow crews to board them and only allows switching out modules might be less vulnerable. But I also think I read something that indicated that rearming was not that big an issue. Maybe the changes are not going to be very large at all. Just tying LACs into some sort of FLT defensive firing net might improve the defensive basket enough.
Top

Return to Honorverse