Possible new type of warship

So, a long while back, I think in In Enemy Hands or earlier, it was mentioned that Sonja Hemphill had talked about building capital ships with enormously powerful spinal mount energy weapons as an alternative to missile based combat, but the entire idea had been rejected because introducing a ship that had to cross its own T to use its main gun was suicidal. But, with the introduction of Bow-walls and sternwalls, it seems like a capital-grade ship with prow-based energy armament could be an important player. The ship would, at its core, basically be an upscaled Shrike-B, designed to engage the enemy head on, absolutely loaded with antimissile defense to let it close with MDM-armed SD(P)s before burning through their sidewalls(or bow-walls) without taking significant damage in the meantime. If it gave up on mounting any sort of shipkiller missiles and went for nothing but energy and point defense, it might be able to exchange fire with SD(P)s on a one-for-one basis.

I can certainly see Sonja working on destroyer or cruiser sized shrikes.

But how far would she really get. In the current age the shrikes are mainly anti-missile ships in engagements involving ships of the wall.

Even for system defence they seem to be more for clean up after the system defence pods have launched or patrols against pirates.

It's hard to think of them being used anywhere else. And really, would there be a need?

It's a fun idea though, putting SD class grasers on a destroyer

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Rawb wrote:So, a long while back, I think in In Enemy Hands or earlier, it was mentioned that Sonja Hemphill had talked about building capital ships with enormously powerful spinal mount energy weapons as an alternative to missile based combat, but the entire idea had been rejected because introducing a ship that had to cross its own T to use its main gun was suicidal. But, with the introduction of Bow-walls and sternwalls, it seems like a capital-grade ship with prow-based energy armament could be an important player. The ship would, at its core, basically be an upscaled Shrike-B, designed to engage the enemy head on, absolutely loaded with antimissile defense to let it close with MDM-armed SD(P)s before burning through their sidewalls(or bow-walls) without taking significant damage in the meantime. If it gave up on mounting any sort of shipkiller missiles and went for nothing but energy and point defense, it might be able to exchange fire with SD(P)s on a one-for-one basis.

I think that spinal mounts on larger ships was more the fears of the traditionalists than something Sonjia was seriously contemplating (but I'd guess I'd have to double check the text to be 100% sure)

OTOH even with bow / stern walls I see some major problems with you thought.
1) A buckler wall covers only a few degrees from dead ahead, they slightly reduce the risk from down the throat laserheads, but don't come close to eliminating it.

2) A full wall does provide full coverage, but you can only close one end of the wedge at a time. Also you can't accelerate with a full wall up

3) An SD(P) already eliminated all broadside missiles, and many energy mounts. (At least RMN and Havenite ones). So your no-missile design doesn't get much more room to mount defenses over an SD(P). You can drop the offensive firecontol links, downsize your Keyholes to a defense only design, and restore addition defenses to the aft hammerhead. But that's a small gain for giving up any ability to hurt enemie's beyond 400,000 km.

4) Even with a now wall and the largest spinal graser you can cram in you don't really have an immunity zone against the broadsides of an SD or SD(P). So even if you can close across lightminutes of missile fire then once you finally get your heavy spinal mount into range the enemy can smash back with every graser in their broadside.


Amusing as the idea of an juggernaut just brushing aside missiles until it's massive single energy mount gets into decisive range I just don't see it as possible, much less practical. Sorry.

Rawb wrote:So, a long while back, I think in In Enemy Hands or earlier, it was mentioned that Sonja Hemphill had talked about building capital ships with enormously powerful spinal mount energy weapons as an alternative to missile based combat, but the entire idea had been rejected because introducing a ship that had to cross its own T to use its main gun was suicidal. But, with the introduction of Bow-walls and sternwalls, it seems like a capital-grade ship with prow-based energy armament could be an important player. The ship would, at its core, basically be an upscaled Shrike-B, designed to engage the enemy head on, absolutely loaded with antimissile defense to let it close with MDM-armed SD(P)s before burning through their sidewalls(or bow-walls) without taking significant damage in the meantime. If it gave up on mounting any sort of shipkiller missiles and went for nothing but energy and point defense, it might be able to exchange fire with SD(P)s on a one-for-one basis.

I too can't see spinal mount SD's as a viable alternatives. The buckler protects against ONE target, and SD's are usually fleet against fleet.


I can see a heavy spinal mount for light combatants.

How about a new destroyer. A single spinal mount SD power graser in each hammerhead.

Chase: 1 SD power graser, 12 PDLC, 12 CM tubes
Broadside: 4 each Mk-16 tubes, 12 PDLC, 2 BC grasers.

it will work by offsetting the tubes and PDLC, after all destroyers don't have internal armor.

|LC Missile tube|

darrell wrote:

Rawb wrote:So, a long while back, I think in In Enemy Hands or earlier, it was mentioned that Sonja Hemphill had talked about building capital ships with enormously powerful spinal mount energy weapons as an alternative to missile based combat, but the entire idea had been rejected because introducing a ship that had to cross its own T to use its main gun was suicidal. But, with the introduction of Bow-walls and sternwalls, it seems like a capital-grade ship with prow-based energy armament could be an important player. The ship would, at its core, basically be an upscaled Shrike-B, designed to engage the enemy head on, absolutely loaded with antimissile defense to let it close with MDM-armed SD(P)s before burning through their sidewalls(or bow-walls) without taking significant damage in the meantime. If it gave up on mounting any sort of shipkiller missiles and went for nothing but energy and point defense, it might be able to exchange fire with SD(P)s on a one-for-one basis.

I too can't see spinal mount SD's as a viable alternatives. The buckler protects against ONE target, and SD's are usually fleet against fleet.


I can see a heavy spinal mount for light combatants.

How about a new destroyer. A single spinal mount SD power graser in each hammerhead.

Chase: 1 SD power graser, 12 PDLC, 12 CM tubes
Broadside: 4 each Mk-16 tubes, 12 PDLC, 2 BC grasers.

it will work by offsetting the tubes and PDLC, after all destroyers don't have internal armor.

|LC Missile tube|

Eh, broadside Mk-16 tubes, assuming a conventional orientation, means you're starting at the size of a Sag-C or so.

Besides, energy range combat is likely going to be an increasingly rare occurrence outside of fluke circumstances.
While the bow wall/buckler technology does allow for a primary spinal energy weapon ship to be practical to make, the age of energy weapons being decisive has ended - it's the age of missiles being the primary weapon. The time when a practical spinal energy major combatant would have been useful is over.

Missiles just have such an advantage in range, and with their current striking power, even with old SDM ranges, they'd be critically decisive.
That is, even without ERM or MDM ranges, the Podnought concept would reign supreme.
Energy range against Sidewalls is a matter of just a few light seconds at best. Because we're looking at a super-massive spinal mount, let's say it can burn through sidewalls at 5 light seconds. Accuracy with an unguided, non-homing weapon at 5 ls is not going to be particularly good, and you need to get to 5 light seconds in the first place.

The only people a spinal energy weapon major combatant is useful against is maybe SLN tech and lower. If you're in an upper tier of naval tech - that is, if you have bow wall/buckler technology, then a spinal energy major combatant is not useful against a peer opponent.
Frankly, the spinal energy mount LAC isn't that useful against a peer opponent either.

Anything larger than a LAC is going to have trouble using a spinal only mount due to agility issues. LAC's are small enough they can still only take about a minute to use reaction thrusters to turn; the same sort of thrusters we use in space programs today. A dreadnought, such as the Bellerophon in Short Victorious War, might make the turn while on its wedge, but it'll take multiple minutes to get its throat or kilt turned away.

Shrike-B's have taken all the advantages of the earlier Shrike-A's and improved on them in every single way short of turning into missile armed Ferrets or Katana's. Shrike-A's had tiny crews, BC strength grasers and their bow wall was also rated at around BC strength. Shrike-B's reduced the crews even farther, upgraded their main graser's grav focusing to SD strength, and their bow walls are upgraded which could put them in the SD strength range too.

When you consider the size of a LAC to the size of a destroyer, the LAC's wedge is still somewhere between one-quarter and one-half that of a destroyer, it's bow wall and buckler are considerably stronger, and it's also much more agile than the destroyer. And it's that speed, agility, and toughness which is what makes the beam armed LACs so devastating, any attempt to increase toughness is going to start negatively effecting speed or agility in some form of multiplicative manner. Doubling toughness won't just halve agility, or something in that manner.

Somtaaw wrote:Anything larger than a LAC is going to have trouble using a spinal only mount due to agility issues. LAC's are small enough they can still only take about a minute to use reaction thrusters to turn; the same sort of thrusters we use in space programs today. A dreadnought, such as the Bellerophon in Short Victorious War, might make the turn while on its wedge, but it'll take multiple minutes to get its throat or kilt turned away.

with the buckler wall and the wedge, the DD should be able to turn faster than a LAC with reaction thrusters.

Kytheros wrote:

darrell wrote:I too can't see spinal mount SD's as a viable alternatives. The buckler protects against ONE target, and SD's are usually fleet against fleet.


I can see a heavy spinal mount for light combatants.

How about a new destroyer. A single spinal mount SD power graser in each hammerhead.

Chase: 1 SD power graser, 12 PDLC, 12 CM tubes
Broadside: 4 each Mk-16 tubes, 12 PDLC, 2 BC grasers.

it will work by offsetting the tubes and PDLC, after all destroyers don't have internal armor.

|LC Missile tube|

Eh, broadside Mk-16 tubes, assuming a conventional orientation, means you're starting at the size of a Sag-C or so.

Besides, energy range combat is likely going to be an increasingly rare occurrence outside of fluke circumstances.
While the bow wall/buckler technology does allow for a primary spinal energy weapon ship to be practical to make, the age of energy weapons being decisive has ended - it's the age of missiles being the primary weapon. The time when a practical spinal energy major combatant would have been useful is over.

Missiles just have such an advantage in range, and with their current striking power, even with old SDM ranges, they'd be critically decisive.
That is, even without ERM or MDM ranges, the Podnought concept would reign supreme.
Energy range against Sidewalls is a matter of just a few light seconds at best. Because we're looking at a super-massive spinal mount, let's say it can burn through sidewalls at 5 light seconds. Accuracy with an unguided, non-homing weapon at 5 ls is not going to be particularly good, and you need to get to 5 light seconds in the first place.

The only people a spinal energy weapon major combatant is useful against is maybe SLN tech and lower. If you're in an upper tier of naval tech - that is, if you have bow wall/buckler technology, then a spinal energy major combatant is not useful against a peer opponent.
Frankly, the spinal energy mount LAC isn't that useful against a peer opponent either.

Which is the reason that I am saying that it would NOT REPEAT NOT be a conventional orientation.

conventional DD orientation
Laser resaL
Missi issiM
CMxxx xxxCM
Laser resaL
Missi issiM
CMxxx xxxCM
Laser resaL
Missi issiM
CMxxx xxxCM
Laser resaL
Missi issiM
CMxxx xxxCM
with 12 slots and 2 CM tubes and point defense at each CM station that is 4 lasers, 4 DD tubes, and 8 each CM tubes and PDLC's

New orientation: instead of pairing an energy weapon with an energy weapon and stopping in the centerline, the Graser and the Mk 16 tube go 2/3 of the total width of the hull. The Counter missiles and PDLC's are on the opposite side and only go 1/3 the width of the hull.
Graser LC

LC 16tube

16tube LC

CM Graser

LC 16tube

16tube CM

Graser CM

Same 12 offensive/defensive weapons mounts. Same number of missile tubes, but firing Mk 16 instead of LERM. Half as many energy weapons mounts, but each energy weapon is at least 4 times heavier.

Saganami-C-class heavy cruiser width 74m which means that the Mk16 tube is a maximum of 37M long.

If it takes up 2/3 of the width of the ship instead of 1/2, the ship width only needs to be 55.5 meters. Therefore, by offsetting missile tubes with CM's and PDLC's, instead of 483K tons for the minimum warship size for Mk-16 tubes, we have 143,111 tons for a Mk-16 armed destroyer, and since the Roland is 188K tons it is well within rhe realm of possibility.

Energy mounts as meaningful weapons went the way of the dodo with the development of the MDM. I don't care if your spinal mount can insta-kill a SD through it's wedge, it's still not worth building.

Loren Pechtel wrote:Energy mounts as meaningful weapons went the way of the dodo with the development of the MDM. I don't care if your spinal mount can insta-kill a SD through it's wedge, it's still not worth building.

In one of the early books it went through energy weapons combat in detail. A BC graser will be effective against a BC at 400K range. The range is longer against smaller ships, shorter against heavier ships.

Although I don't believe that actual ranges were given, a BC graser might be effective against a DD at 600kKM-700kKM and a SD graset at 1MKM So the advantage of the SD graser in a light warship would be the ability to attack with energy weapons beyond your opponents energy weapons range.

One SD graser should be about the same total tonnage as the current two BC chase grasers the roland has, but with at least twice the punch, therefore the one SD graser dosen't harm anything when ship size and tonnage is concerned. I suppose you can do the same thing broadside, with One SD graser extending the entire width of the ship instead of 2/3 the width like a BC graser does.

darrell wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:Anything larger than a LAC is going to have trouble using a spinal only mount due to agility issues. LAC's are small enough they can still only take about a minute to use reaction thrusters to turn; the same sort of thrusters we use in space programs today. A dreadnought, such as the Bellerophon in Short Victorious War, might make the turn while on its wedge, but it'll take multiple minutes to get its throat or kilt turned away.

with the buckler wall and the wedge, the DD should be able to turn faster than a LAC with reaction thrusters.

the problem with using a buckler, is that it doesn't cover all the points, and presumably it's also a weaker 'side'wall because it's not able to tie into the wedge itself. The full on buckler seems to be stronger, and either ship has to keep at the very least the full strength bow wall up until they hit centre of their target, then a full strength stern wall to protect the kilt until they can reaction thruster slew and roll ship to bring the roof/floor to bear to prevent incoming fire.

That's a minimum turn of between 15 and 45 degrees, every attack run, that absolutely has to be performed using only reaction thrusters, assuming you use only the buckler to allow you to commence your attack run faster. But you lose speed after the run, so you really don't want to use a stern buckler when the enemy you just finished shooting can shoot back.

darrell wrote:Same 12 offensive/defensive weapons mounts. Same number of missile tubes, but firing Mk 16 instead of LERM. Half as many energy weapons mounts, but each energy weapon is at least 4 times heavier.

Saganami-C-class heavy cruiser width 74m which means that the Mk16 tube is a maximum of 37M long.

If it takes up 2/3 of the width of the ship instead of 1/2, the ship width only needs to be 55.5 meters. Therefore, by offsetting missile tubes with CM's and PDLC's, instead of 483K tons for the minimum warship size for Mk-16 tubes, we have 143,111 tons for a Mk-16 armed destroyer, and since the Roland is 188K tons it is well within rhe realm of possibility.

Problem with offsetting, you 100% lose the Axial-One core of the ship. Isn't Axial-One also more or less where I believe podlayers have their pod rails and it's a known structural weakness. So in favor of a very minor ship width reduction, you're now making the cruisers very similar to the fragile BCP's for minimal (if any) combat enhancement. Doesn't sound like a really good trade-off, gaining a very big negative (weak back) for a very minor tonnage reduction.