Reserve destruction

Relax wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:We do have stats.

Appendix of SftS

Nevada
broadside
28M, 12G, 12CM 16PD
Chase
6M, 4g, 6CM, 8pd

Reliant
Broadside:
22M, 8L, 6G, 2ET, 10CM, 10PD
Chase:
4M, 1L, 2G, 6CM, 6PD

T2M

Yes, I remember reading those specs on the SLN Nevada BC class and thinking, Holy Cow, that is certainly NOT an obsolete design. In fact, neither was the Indefatigueable BC class. With minor tweaking, it is a downright scary design and in fact superior to the Reliant/Sultan. The "only" thing wrong with it is its software, and firing rate. Both easily fixable.

At the time, and to this day, it certainly did/does not jive with the text describing the SL being a backward obsolescent navy when one could argue that the Indefatigueable/Nevada classes with a minor tweak are much superior to anything Haven/Manticore had till the advent of the BC'P/BCL! If the SLN was truly as DESCRIBED IN THE BOOKS was back assward and obsolescent I would have expected far more Lasers/Grasers with fewer missile tubes and fewer counter missile tubes/PDLC(ok we do not know the # of emitters).

Supposedly, the SLN designs do not track the fact that the missile is the predominant force in modern warfare. In fact, the SLN Indefatiguable class showed a predominant flare for missile warfare outside of being let down by its firing rate which to make itself relevant SHOULD only require a missile tube replacement!

If anything, these BC SLN classes should have resembled the HOMER/Redoubtable class BC, not superior to the Reliant/Sultan in terms of missile tubes/Cm/PDLC per broadside. On top of this, Nevadas are VERY big ships. Yet another HUH??? moment. If SLN is all about Small ships, they do not even have an SD class, those Nevadas should have been more the Homer class size in terms of tonnage.

Honestly, I have no clue for the Nevada/Indefatiguable class justifications compared to what is written in the books.

Perhaps you mean jibe with?

cthia wrote:Perhaps you mean jibe with?

Jive refers to dance with coming out of the Jazz scene, while the Jibe is a nautical sailing term to go turn the sail which does not make sense.

Thus, JIVE, is the correct usage, whereas Jibe, does not make sense

Relax wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps you mean jibe with?

Jive refers to dance with coming out of the Jazz scene, while the Jibe is a nautical sailing term to go turn the sail which does not make sense.

Thus, JIVE, is the correct usage, whereas Jibe, does not make sense

Sure it does.

Yes, jibe is a sailing term. I sail a lot...

1: to shift suddenly and forcibly from one side to the other —used of a fore-and-aft sail . 2: to change a vessel's course ...

There are two sides of a conversation (unless more). Of which side does one's sentiment agree, later to jibe (swing) the other way.

Upon research it does seem to be one of those words that has no standard. Accepted colloquially in either form in certain areas. Though one must be more correct. Perhaps my thoughts were in error.

Here is what says one dictionary that I offer up as a witness...

• JIBE (verb)
Sense 1 jibe [BACK TO TOP]
Meaning:
Be compatible, similar or consistent; coincide in their characteristics

Classified under:
Verbs of being, having, spatial relations
Synonyms:
correspond; gibe; jibe; match; tally; agree; fit; check
Context examples:
The two stories don't agree in many details / The handwriting checks with the signature on the check / The suspect's fingerprints don't match those on the gun
Hypernyms (to "jibe" is one way to...):
be; equal (be identical or equivalent to)
Troponyms (each of the following is one way to "jibe"):
adhere (be compatible or in accordance with)
pattern (form a pattern)
accord; agree; concord; consort; fit in; harmonise; harmonize (go together)
befit; beseem; suit (accord or comport with)
homologize (be homologous)
conform to; fit; meet (satisfy a condition or restriction)
resemble (appear like; be similar or bear a likeness to)
bear out; corroborate; support; underpin (support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm)
square (be compatible with)

Here's an internet site's headline usage of...
Candidate's defense of wife does not jibe with records
http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/l ... /12106947/

And of course...
http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersid ... d-Jibe.htm

Note: I am not a grammarphobe or police. Never have been, never will be. Yet, in this case I wasn't sure if you meant something totally different (which is why I asked, didn't want to miss your sentiment or a new way to use a word). I like playing with words. As language was never meant to be a static entity. Language relearns itself.

Well there is a dichotomy in the SLN. First you have Frontier Fleet and then you have Battle Fleet. To start.

Then, in short the SLN is setup more like a over gunned pirate than a balanced design(which might have something to do with the FF mission).

It is important to note even in Monica they only stopped (or caused to miss) around 1/2 of there own rate of fire in destroyer and Crusier missiles. At First Hancock the RMN stopped somewhere around 1 for 1 in capital missiles.

If you think rate of fire is easily fixable. I would have to disagree. Throwing around objects that weigh ~100 tons is not that easily changed. Especially when we are talking about 4+ times as fast. Especially in tight confined spaces. Took the RMN 20 or so years to double the Star Knight's.

It is important to note that even a 10 reliable second increase in rate of fire is seen as a great thing by the SLN ships commanders. Tim Allen's Benford 6000 rule would seem to apply if it were easy.

relax is much better at math than I am so I leave him to it. But their really isn't all that much wiggle room to change things in a ship. Especially a peacetime design compared to a wartime design. Just walk the interior of a WW2 era CA and 90's CG. Or the hue and cry that went up over the Spruance DD design in the '70s.

Why does that Reliant only have 22 tubes think some of that space that became "empty" have something to do with the things needed to make all that happen.

For that matter why does the Reliant flight III and IV have only 10% more offensive misssile but 80% more active missile defenses. In a design that is only 6% more massive.

The other whole issue--not related to rof--is measuring the intangibles.

ECM, ECCM. How much hull surface and volume do they take up? It is significant as moving stuff off the ship made room for weapons in the newer designs.

How much is taken up with the improved armor or stronger sidewalls. We don't even know if the SLN uses the RMN theory of more sidewall less armor. Or the PRN theory of less sidewall more armor. And how effective either are. RFC has said both are far inferior.

That CM that powered range is twice as far. That Ghost rider drone that gets you data twice as fast.

How long does a SLN CM fly for? We have no idea. Which along with CM RoF may account for the RMN firing multiple waves of CMs and SLN, not. I tried to figure this out for back for OBS near as I figured RMN CMs were powered for less than 45 seconds, more like 30, IIRC, to get a 1,000,000 range.

How many missiles does each class carry?

In the end. It is RFCs world that he shares with us. For the most part and he stays consistent I can forgive a lot for that consistency even if it doesn't seem to make sense sometimes.

Even number oriented, anal retentive me doesn't want him to waste more of his time trying to explain it.

Again for what little it is actually worth. I really do suck at communicating all the thoughts that run around inside the vacuum I call a head.

Have fun,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:If you think rate of fire is easily fixable. I would have to disagree. Throwing around objects that weigh ~100 tons is not that easily changed. Especially when we are talking about 4+ times as fast. Especially in tight confined spaces. Took the RMN 20 or so years to double the Star Knight's.

It is important to note that even a 10 reliable second increase in rate of fire is seen as a great thing by the SLN ships commanders. Tim Allen's Benford 6000 rule would seem to apply if it were easy.

It may be that the SLN BC's have a remarkably large number of missile launchers and a remarkably low fire rate for them as a matter of design policy. They build launchers that trade off being smaller and more numerous for a lower fire rate. (In which case, switching them out for launchers that are as numerous/small but fire much more often isn't likely to be easy engineering.) Maybe the feed systems are centralized and spread efforts over several launchers, so they have to wait while others are loaded; maybe the systems aren't large, powerful, and rugged enough to fling the missiles from magazine to tube in a hurry.

If the idea is to overwhelm defenses in single volleys, without being in a rush to fling out follow-on ones, that'd make sense: reload speed would be insignificant but volley size would be crucial.

For anyone, below the wall, the energy range duel til one is dead and the other is victorious hasn't been an ideal, so we shouldn't expect the SLN's BC's and smaller to be built for energy range slugfests the way SD's are.

Problem is not moving the objects around quickly. That is a matter of throwing an extra countergrav collar on each missile as was seen way back in OBS. The problem is the launchers itself as explained in SoSag,where the launchers would literally freeze up if one tried to fire them too quickly. Hrmm, maybe it was SFTS or ToF.

So, one could say the power conduits are not large enough and would require major rework I suppose.

ECM/CNTRL LINKS are easily fixable. Modify the software and viola no more problems. Oh wait, that is reality.... Uh this is the illogical Honorverse where each missile needs identical information even though they are all attacking the same ship aspect... or CM's who only need a vector update information which supposedly somehow each requires its own transmitter etc to send this "giant" amount of data... Can send more data via VLF in water to submarines than Honorverse ships 2000 years from now can send in the clear of space... um.... don't have a fix for stupid.

The only real part of the ship design that is hard to fix is the lousy missiles in the Tubes themselves. For all we know, THIS is the limiting factor for their fire rate. The capacitors themselves cannot be charged fast enough.

My biggest problem with the Nevada is that the ship class itself is still well north of 900,000 tons when the SL is running around with micro 60,000ton DD's and CA's smaller than Star Knights.

that last one is totally explainable.

SLN BCs are the SDs of Frontier fleet. I.e. More prestigious, glamorous, awe inspiring etc.

sure FF are better then BF but they are still Sollies with everything that entails, stupid rank inflation, arrogant etc.

don't forget that FF spends most of its tend sitting in orbit of a fringe planet ready to drop a KEW or two on request.

its not like they need the ships to catch pirate or slavers or anything that is in the job description of a RM DD/CL/CA

the last solly ships to get into a real fight were Rozak detachment at Torch and even using manty lite tech from erewhon and up sizing his ships by about 50%, he struggled with what it was like when the fecal matter hit the fan.

part of that was the MAlign missiles but it reinforces yet again the relative inexperience compared to average many or peep crew.

Relax wrote:Problem is not moving the objects around quickly. That is a matter of throwing an extra countergrav collar on each missile as was seen way back in OBS. The problem is the launchers itself as explained in SoSag,where the launchers would literally freeze up if one tried to fire them too quickly. Hrmm, maybe it was SFTS or ToF.

So, one could say the power conduits are not large enough and would require major rework I suppose.

...snip only thing I am going to address here...

First paragraph is a little bogus. There is that little thing called kinetic energy. Anti grav does nothing with inertia or mass.

As the bosuns mate can explain. Or Harkness for that matter. I can remove all the gravity affects I want on my motorcycle and the only things it affects are how it does up and down hills. Not how fast I accelerate or decelerate. Leaving aside drive mechanism.

Have fun,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Relax wrote:Problem is not moving the objects around quickly. That is a matter of throwing an extra countergrav collar on each missile as was seen way back in OBS. The problem is the launchers itself as explained in SoSag,where the launchers would literally freeze up if one tried to fire them too quickly. Hrmm, maybe it was SFTS or ToF.

So, one could say the power conduits are not large enough and would require major rework I suppose.

...snip only thing I am going to address here...

First paragraph is a little bogus. There is that little thing called kinetic energy. Anti grav does nothing with inertia or mass.

As the bosuns mate can explain. Or Harkness for that matter. I can remove all the gravity affects I want on my motorcycle and the only things it affects are how it does up and down hills. Not how fast I accelerate or decelerate. Leaving aside drive mechanism.

Have fun,
T2M

I look at the magazine issue this way: At worst you lose a single missile per tube as you now need larger HV equivalent motors to move the object quicker. Of course this is not true either as one could choose instead to move the entire magazine and therefore max rate commences or any rate below that as the missile simply detaches and drops into the back end of the missile tube and shoved forward and waits till launched. Assumes not stacking round in round but rather square. Multiple ways around the issue.

Power available on the other hand at each launcher is a fixed rate determined by the power cables available and they need a bazillion watts. Doubling the amount of power and having to double dissipating heat problems, on the other hand a complete overhaul strip job. Not hard problems, just a complete redo.

Relax wrote:The only real part of the ship design that is hard to fix is the lousy missiles in the Tubes themselves. For all we know, THIS is the limiting factor for their fire rate. The capacitors themselves cannot be charged fast enough.

No, in the Honorverse they charge the capacitors in the magazines. It's perfectly safe to have a missile with a few zettawatts of charged capacitors being moved around vs those horribly dangerous reactors in the Mk16 and 23...