How powerful are energy batteries?

Daryl wrote:There was reference to a SD's energy armament being able to destroy a small moon. Not sure where, sorry.

Which without more specifics doesn't say much, there are some very small moons the destruction of which is not terribly impressive.

Dafmeister wrote:

Rocket88 wrote:Would a DN's energy batteries be on par w/ an SD's? I think so. How powerful are energy batteries? VERY.

I can't recall where, but I believe it's been stated that the difference in weaponry between a dreadnaught and a superdreadnaught is in the number of mounts - the weapons themselves are identical (within a given generation of ship - a newer DN may have more powerful weapons than an older SD).

The (semi-cannonical) Jayen's books seem to support that idea. They don't give graser power levels, but they do give their emitter diameters. (But only cover some pre-war designs)

The RMN King William-class SP is said to have:
12 Mk85 305 cm Lasers
8 Mk52 410 cm Grasers
38 Mk10 295 cm Lasers
42 Mk91 360 cm Grasers

The RMN Majestic-class DN in contrast has:
12 Mk85 305 cm Lasers
8 Mk52 410 cm Grasers
36 Mk10 295 cm Lasers
40 Mk91 360 cm Grasers

While the RMN Reliant-class BC has:
2 Mk49 127cm Lasers
4 Mk15 140 cm Grasers
16 Mk73 105cm Lasers
12 Mk15 140 cm Grasers


The PSN Duquesne-class SD has: (I assume the number after the backslash is the diameter in cm)
8 L/300 Lasers
12 G/398 Grasers
24 L/280 Lasers
24 G/357 Grasers

The PSN Nouveau Paris-class DN has:
8 L/325 Lasers
8 G/410 Grasers
20 L/300 Lasers
20 G/375 Grasers
(The fact that this older, smaller, DN, mounts individually heavier energy batteries appears to be due to a change towards missile combat in the newer, larger, SD)


So you can see, at least on the RMN ships, that they mount the exact same energy mounts for SD and DN, just vary the number slightly.

Grashtel wrote:

Daryl wrote:There was reference to a SD's energy armament being able to destroy a small moon. Not sure where, sorry.

Which without more specifics doesn't say much, there are some very small moons the destruction of which is not terribly impressive.

I remember reading in one of the general StarWars vs StarTrek threads on reddit once. They did some estimates of the beam weapon power in Star Wars based on their ability to destroy/vaporize asteroids. Ah, found the source. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html

These are people with too much time on their hands, but... it does give us a good estimate. The output of the weapons would have to be measured as between hundreds of thousands of TW to millions of TW.

Grashtel wrote:

Daryl wrote:There was reference to a SD's energy armament being able to destroy a small moon. Not sure where, sorry.

Which without more specifics doesn't say much, there are some very small moons the destruction of which is not terribly impressive.

MadAmos wrote:I remember reading in one of the general StarWars vs StarTrek threads on reddit once. They did some estimates of the beam weapon power in Star Wars based on their ability to destroy/vaporize asteroids. Ah, found the source. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html

These are people with too much time on their hands, but... it does give us a good estimate. The output of the weapons would have to be measured as between hundreds of thousands of TW to millions of TW.

Nice link.

Does textev give maximum duration of fire?

MadAmos wrote:I remember reading in one of the general StarWars vs StarTrek threads on reddit once. They did some estimates of the beam weapon power in Star Wars based on their ability to destroy/vaporize asteroids. Ah, found the source. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... Beam2.html

These are people with too much time on their hands, but... it does give us a good estimate. The output of the weapons would have to be measured as between hundreds of thousands of TW to millions of TW.

cthia wrote:Nice link.

Does textev give maximum duration of fire?

http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Graser_torpedo

So far the best reference to pulse duration I've found. It implies the normal pulse duration of a beam is 5ms.

5ms duration does sound about right, have to re-read the actual strike again to double check outside the wiki (apparently it's wrong sometimes?)


And cycle times seem to vary quite a bit too. I don't think we've actually seen any evidence of cycle rate on grasers, only on PDLC's, even though grasers/lasers are also used in point defense against missiles. No more than 30 seconds I believe, to fire that 5 ms pulse for any sized graser sounds roughly correct.

Somtaaw wrote:5ms duration does sound about right, have to re-read the actual strike again to double check outside the wiki (apparently it's wrong sometimes?)


And cycle times seem to vary quite a bit too. I don't think we've actually seen any evidence of cycle rate on grasers, only on PDLC's, even though grasers/lasers are also used in point defense against missiles. No more than 30 seconds I believe, to fire that 5 ms pulse for any sized graser sounds roughly correct.

I believe anti-ship lasers fire quicker than grasers as well, which was another reason capitol lasers were retained so long, in addition to their smaller physical size.

Theemile wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:5ms duration does sound about right, have to re-read the actual strike again to double check outside the wiki (apparently it's wrong sometimes?)


And cycle times seem to vary quite a bit too. I don't think we've actually seen any evidence of cycle rate on grasers, only on PDLC's, even though grasers/lasers are also used in point defense against missiles. No more than 30 seconds I believe, to fire that 5 ms pulse for any sized graser sounds roughly correct.

I believe anti-ship lasers fire quicker than grasers as well, which was another reason capitol lasers were retained so long, in addition to their smaller physical size.

30 second recycle rates seem impossibly long for graser fire to be effective. At the rate of engagements, 30 seconds would only afford a couple shots -- at best.

Which is why I proposed long ago that Bolthole should work on increasing rate of fire and time on target (duration).

Dafmeister wrote:

Rocket88 wrote:
**snip**

Would a DN's energy batteries be on par w/ an SD's? I think so. How powerful are energy batteries? VERY.

I can't recall where, but I believe it's been stated that the difference in weaponry between a dreadnaught and a superdreadnaught is in the number of mounts - the weapons themselves are identical (within a given generation of ship - a newer DN may have more powerful weapons than an older SD).

According to House of Steel, The Bellerophon-Class DN had a broadside of 15 Lasers and 18 Grazers and chase armament of 2 lasers and 3 grazers. The Sphinx SD has 21 Lasers and 19 Grazers, with a chase of 4 Lasers and 5 Grasers, while the Gryphon SD had 19 lasers/22Grasers with a chase the same as the Sphinx.

So about 30% more lasers and up to 20% more grazers on comparible (non-pod) ships.

On the Invictus SD(P). they have gone to an all-Graser armament, with 18 in the broadside, and 10 fore and 10 aft.

Didn't the short story The Service of the Sword have some detailed information on energy weapons and what happens when they fire?