Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Jonathan_S and 61 guests

Do we actually need SD(P)s?

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:27 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

tlb wrote:
kzt wrote:Hey, they have about 80% of the firepower of a Navy Warship. Well, a little crappy ship anyhow, which pretends to be a warship on TV. You know that in order to use the one almost serious weapon they have to send out sailors to go take down the safety lines around the bow? Hope you can carefully schedule your combats to only occur in daylight in nice low seas.

If you are talking about the PT boat
He's not. Kzt's talking about the LCS, Littoral Combat Ship; the USN's fairly new low intensity (but bizarrely high speed) combatant.
"little crappy ship" = LCS is the hint that that's the topic.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by tlb   » Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:52 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

kzt wrote:Hey, they have about 80% of the firepower of a Navy Warship. Well, a little crappy ship anyhow, which pretends to be a warship on TV. You know that in order to use the one almost serious weapon they have to send out sailors to go take down the safety lines around the bow? Hope you can carefully schedule your combats to only occur in daylight in nice low seas.
tlb wrote:If you are talking about the PT boat
Jonathan_S wrote:He's not. Kzt's talking about the LCS, Littoral Combat Ship; the USN's fairly new low intensity (but bizarrely high speed) combatant.
"little crappy ship" = LCS is the hint that that's the topic.

Oh, so sorry; I did not recall seeing them on TV that much; whereas there have been many WW2 Pacific war shows.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by kzt   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:13 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

tlb wrote:Oh, so sorry; I did not recall seeing them on TV that much; whereas there have been many WW2 Pacific war shows.


This what a brand new $700 million modern naval warship looks like. Isn’t it impressive how well maintained it looks, particularly given it spent pretty much all its time tied up at a dock?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xQQ5pe5iZWE/ ... PFUWEQ.jpg

Or this one?
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/46/9a/e2/469a ... f78368.jpg

At least is isn’t a rustbucket like https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3 ... OPXIL4.jpg. Doesn’t that say volumes about the modern USN, given this was taken on a port call in Turkey iirc.

But that’s because its made of aluminum. Oh, and they forgot the anodes to avoid the hull melting in seawater.
Builder Blames Navy as Brand-New Warship Disintegrates
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by tlb   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:03 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:Oh, so sorry; I did not recall seeing them on TV that much; whereas there have been many WW2 Pacific war shows.

kzt wrote:This what a brand new $700 million modern naval warship looks like. Isn’t it impressive how well maintained it looks, particularly given it spent pretty much all its time tied up at a dock?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xQQ5pe5iZWE/ ... PFUWEQ.jpg

Or this one?
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/46/9a/e2/469a ... f78368.jpg

At least is isn’t a rustbucket like https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3 ... OPXIL4.jpg. Doesn’t that say volumes about the modern USN, given this was taken on a port call in Turkey iirc.

But that’s because its made of aluminum. Oh, and they forgot the anodes to avoid the hull melting in seawater.
Builder Blames Navy as Brand-New Warship Disintegrates

I wanted to read that last article, but Wired requires that I be a member.

Did the Navy ever give a good reason why it needed to take combat to the littoral regions? Don't combat aircraft have that capability? If not, then shouldn't the Marines have a version of the A-10 Thunderbolt?
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Captain Golding   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 10:52 am

Captain Golding
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:55 am

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Read Uncompromising Honor. A Rolland DD launched large numbers of counter missiles with delayed command activation and targeting.


Which raises the question why not deploy a salvo of CM's ballistically between you and an incoming long range missile burst. I am sure there are limits in Guidance ranges - a recon drone is an easier target - but if the salvo fires and can hit the incoming ASMs before their penitration aids/ ECM etc. is due to activate.....

Any hits are a gain but if the result is to double the CM engagement depth or only to cause the otherside to have to initiate their ECM earlier this should give the ship longer to identify real missiles or recover from blinding flash - dazzler. If their ECM budget runs out before they reach PDLC range then that again would be a big win.

If you are decellerating for a 0/0 or running for your life these would give the defender options. Sure not suitable for all geometries.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by ThinksMarkedly   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:01 pm

ThinksMarkedly
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4512
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:39 am

Captain Golding wrote:
TFLYTSNBN wrote:Read Uncompromising Honor. A Rolland DD launched large numbers of counter missiles with delayed command activation and targeting.


Which raises the question why not deploy a salvo of CM's ballistically between you and an incoming long range missile burst. I am sure there are limits in Guidance ranges - a recon drone is an easier target - but if the salvo fires and can hit the incoming ASMs before their penitration aids/ ECM etc. is due to activate.....

Any hits are a gain but if the result is to double the CM engagement depth or only to cause the otherside to have to initiate their ECM earlier this should give the ship longer to identify real missiles or recover from blinding flash - dazzler. If their ECM budget runs out before they reach PDLC range then that again would be a big win.

If you are decellerating for a 0/0 or running for your life these would give the defender options. Sure not suitable for all geometries.


Might also be new technology. Either a new batch of CMs or some technology specific to Rolands before fleet-wide deployment. Either way, combined with not working in all geometries, it's possible we haven't heard about it more because skippers aren't yet used to it.

As for the geometry, the interesting thing is that you can actually choose to have it. No modern CO is going to be caught at short distances, so they can choose to flip and begin decelerating for a few minutes even if they are far from the target so the CM clouds are in the right position.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by kzt   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:29 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

tlb wrote:I wanted to read that last article, but Wired requires that I be a member.

Did the Navy ever give a good reason why it needed to take combat to the littoral regions? Don't combat aircraft have that capability? If not, then shouldn't the Marines have a version of the A-10 Thunderbolt?

Sorry, I’m not a member and i can see it.

The concept of a cheap, heavily armed shallow draft vessel tou could produce in large numbers wasn’t insane. But the US navy has sunk $23 billion into producing 3000 ton ships whose core attribute is they go really fast. You know what goes even faster? Bullets and aircraft. And you don’t need a fleet of huge tankers to get a jet to fly across the Atlantic.

So they put this huge ‘mission bay’ in the middle of the ship to accommodate ‘mission modules’, which on powerpoint can be swapped out in hours. Then they decided since the LCS can do the mission they don’t need minesweepers. Oh,it turns out it takes weeks, not hours to swap out. And 15 years after the first ship was produced there are no modules that work.

And the ship needs far more crew than they planned for, or can accommodate. So now they have two full crews for each of these $700 million ships that have less weapons that a PT boat, and operation requires a huge contractor team to be available on-shore to do maintenance.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by tlb   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 12:54 pm

tlb
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4437
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am

tlb wrote:I wanted to read that last article, but Wired requires that I be a member.

kzt wrote:Sorry, I’m not a member and i can see it.

I think that Wired has a limit on the number of free articles that someone can read. If it is on a month by month basis, then I will try again in March.
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Theemile   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Jonathan_S wrote:
Theemile wrote:If we are discussing a mil-spec missile collier of a first rate navy, I would expect it to carry a defensive suite of a CL or CA, depending on the thinking of the navy fielding it. Somehow, with it's active tempo and forward posture, I would expect more defenses on an RMN ship than other fleets.
The defensive systems of even a CL aren’t cheap, and take space and crew to operate. So building your missile colliers with significant self defense capability means you have to give something up to pay for that - not just in the year they’re build, or when they use their defenses but every year in maintenance cost and sailor direct and indirect expenses.

That’s fewer missile colliers, or fewer warships, or some other corner getting cut to stick defenses on every missile collier you have. And that’s not a patch on the cost of something like the CW. Can’t you more than buy and crew a Nike-class BC(L) for what a CW fast support vesicle will run you in acquisition and operating costs?

You want to know was the USN’s Supply-class fast combat support ships are armed with? Several .50 (caliber hard aimed) machine guns; and assorted small arms. Barely enough to drive off a speedboat of AK wielding yahoos. Nothing that’d protect from an air, missile, or submarine threat. (Well you might be able to operate an anti-sub chopper off their helipad; but no built in defenses). Because the USN knows those ships are already so expensive they can’t have many of them, and giving them worthwhile defenses means you can afford less than the 2 they have active. (Because you’d never convince Congress to fund one instead of a DDG; but worthwhile defenses would cost a fair fraction of a DDG)
Better to give them a DDG escort when needed, abut be able to deploy those defensive assets elsewhere when the supply ship is in a safe area.


The stuff we have now isn't intended to survive in an active warzone, we live in the longest era of naval peace in modern history. To do the best comparison, we would probably need to look at the defenses on WWII supply ships vs active warships of the era. Not that I know what those are.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Do we actually need SD(P)s?
Post by Theemile   » Wed Feb 19, 2020 3:36 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Jonathan_S wrote:The defensive systems of even a CL aren’t cheap, and take space and crew to operate. So building your missile colliers with significant self defense capability means you have to give something up to pay for that - not just in the year they’re build, or when they use their defenses but every year in maintenance cost and sailor direct and indirect expenses.

That’s fewer missile colliers, or fewer warships, or some other corner getting cut to stick defenses on every missile collier you have. And that’s not a patch on the cost of something like the CW. Can’t you more than buy and crew a Nike-class BC(L) for what a CW fast support vesicle will run you in acquisition and operating costs?

You want to know was the USN’s Supply-class fast combat support ships are armed with? Several .50 (caliber hard aimed) machine guns; and assorted small arms. Barely enough to drive off a speedboat of AK wielding yahoos. Nothing that’d protect from an air, missile, or submarine threat. (Well you might be able to operate an anti-sub chopper off their helipad; but no built in defenses). Because the USN knows those ships are already so expensive they can’t have many of them, and giving them worthwhile defenses means you can afford less than the 2 they have active. (Because you’d never convince Congress to fund one instead of a DDG; but worthwhile defenses would cost a fair fraction of a DDG)
Better to give them a DDG escort when needed, abut be able to deploy those defensive assets elsewhere when the supply ship is in a safe area.


looking to Honorverse sources, the only details we have on auxiliaries are the ships Bachfitch are using and The PRN Roughneck fast attack transport.

Bachfitch's ships are refurbished IAN Missile Colliers that had been put out to auction - the Pirate Bane specifically had had a compensator casuality. It came unarmed, but was armed easily; Bachfitch said, he just had to "get the Guns". The tac section and power runs were probably intact, as were the weapons bays existant, so rearming was probably easy. Even if the entire system was pulled, space and conduits for the computers, radars, etc existed, and common replacements could be easily sourced and installed.
Bachfitch felt, and proved, that he could take a 1st rate DD in combat, even though he took damage. So his defenses probably were in the CL category.

The Armament of the Roughneck, a marine 4.5 mton assault transport, is best summed up in the Doctrinal Notes of its errata in Jaynes:
The Roughnecks have no offensive weaponry at all, and have the sidewalls and defensive suite of a heavy cruiser or older battlecruiser, in spite of massing as much as a battleship. Operationally the People's Navy does it's level best to ensure the Roughnecks never see combat in space; the aim is to send Roughnecks in to planets after the People's Navy has swatted aside any space based defenders.


Which pretty much matches my assumption of a purpose built auxiliary's armament in a first class honorverse navy, and your assumption of the expected operating conditions of such a ship.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top

Return to Honorverse