Attacking Darius:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

tlb wrote:I am fairly certain (but not absolutely positive) that to produce any sort of sidewall (including a spherical one) requires Beta nodes and all the interior equipment that it would take to also produce a wedge. Couple that with the Alpha nodes needed to create sails, it seems to me that any spider drive ship which can also produce sails for hyperspace travel and sidewalls for defense is effectively a hybrid ship capable of both a spider drive and a wedge drive. Does that seem correct?

It does. We're assuming it has capability to create bubblewalls, though.

However, that capability isn't the pressing need. The requirement to create Warshawski Sails and to mount Warshawskis to detect grav waves is. So they must have alpha nodes in the first place and they must have an impeller ring. So if they have that, they may as well mount betas. Unless, of course, the geometry of those impeller rings makes it possible to create sails but not wedges. RFC would have to tell us.

But it's possible they can create full wedges and sidewalls if they wanted to. They probably don't want to, though. Since they are too big for compensators to compensate (even assuming they have them, which they may not), they're still limited to the same 150 gravities. Bringing those nodes up is going to light a beacon on them a long time before the wedge forms and protects the ship from incoming fire, so it's of limited tactical use.

I am not disagreeing with you for lack of input for one. But it would still be acceptable if limited tactical use could be turned into a specific tactical use. For instance, if an LD finds itself in the path of a monstrous Alpha launch from way beyond the hyper limit. Since the cowards are too afraid to cross the limit.

If the LD has the time to bring up a wedge and sidewalls just to deal with an Alpha launch that caught it unawares, and then, if it can quickly drop the wedge and sidewalls and quickly bring up the spider drive and disappear. Remember a while back when I brought up the question of how fast the spider driver can be brought up as compared to the ~ 30 minutes or so it takes to bring up a wedge from a warm start?

But if an LD can somehow significantly decrease wedge start times to be tactically effective it could be a game changer. It could be part of the tricks and treats someone upstream mentioned that a Fort has. It seems like a fort would need to get online quickly.

BTW, my idea of an LD diving underwater isn't hypering out. It is activating the spider drive. "Now you see me. Now you don't."

If someone can target a spider from many light minutes out then they are pretty useless.

kzt wrote:If someone can target a spider from many light minutes out then they are pretty useless.

I certainly concur, but I wasn't suggesting it is possible. I was talking about one of those lucky desperation launches along the lines of shooting energy beams in the dark hoping for potluck. A lucky massive 20,000 missile launch spread out to cover a large area. And maybe the LD is effecting repairs and cannot move out of the way in time. But luckily, only the trailing edge of the launch is problematical.

That is why "diving" again will be effective.

cthia wrote:I am not disagreeing with you for lack of input for one. But it would still be acceptable if limited tactical use could be turned into a specific tactical use. For instance, if an LD finds itself in the path of a monstrous Alpha launch from way beyond the hyper limit. Since the cowards are too afraid to cross the limit.

Sure, there could be some limited tactical use. - WOWFWTANI - Use of Wedges for What They Are Not Intended.

But not this:

If the LD has the time to bring up a wedge and sidewalls just to deal with an Alpha launch that caught it unawares, and then, if it can quickly drop the wedge and sidewalls and quickly bring up the spider drive and disappear. Remember a while back when I brought up the question of how fast the spider driver can be brought up as compared to the ~ 30 minutes or so it takes to bring up a wedge from a warm start?

There's no missile launch that will take more than 15 minutes from launch to strike. That's 6 minutes of acceleration, a coasting phase for another 6, then 3 more minutes terminal mode. That covers 125 million km, or nearly 7 light-minutes. The effectiveness of even Apollo is severely compromised after that. But the wedges can't come up in 15 minutes -- it's going to be more like 45, from cold impellers.

And they can't have hot nodes because that betrays gravitic effects.

So the problem is finding a tactical use that calls one hour ahead to let it be known it's coming.

But if an LD can somehow significantly decrease wedge start times to be tactically effective it could be a game changer. It could be part of the tricks and treats someone upstream mentioned that a Fort has. It seems like a fort would need to get online quickly.

Yep, then it can fire the million-gravity missiles too and translate to alpha from inside the hyperlimit, with full bubblewall up.

I'm sure the LDs have more aces up their sleeves. But right now, we have no indication of what that is, and breaking the currently-known laws doesn't seem to be in the cards. Wedge technology is VERY well known everywhere, so it were possible to bring it up in a third or a fourth of the time, the GA would know it first.

BTW, my idea of an LD diving underwater isn't hypering out. It is activating the spider drive. "Now you see me. Now you don't."

Sure. Do something that it needs to but betrays the position, like launching pods, then go into stealth again. If there's no one nearby, after an amount of time, its position becomes to uncertain to be of immediate value.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But if it's spherical, it wouldn't connect to a wedge, would it? In that case, there would be no need to have a wedge in the first place.

We're given to understand that a bubblewall is extremely tough, as they're used in forts and in the Volsungs' space station that Travis and Basaltberg attacked in ACTV. However, wedges are tougher. And if forts don't need to accelerate, they could block the kilt and throat too with fore- and aftwalls. So why don't they?

On the other hand, in Galton, their forts did use wedges.

What are we missing?

tlb wrote:Yes, a spherical sidewall does not connect to the wedge; I am not sure that you can raise a wedge with the bubble-wall in place. So presumably you could have regular sidewalls up without a wedge; but there would be no point in doing that (except possibly in a spider), because the wedge is a much stronger defense. My guess is that the connection to the Alpha wall is what makes the wedge so much stronger than any kind of sidewall.

Jonathan_S wrote:Actually we're told a few times that normal sidewalls must tie into the wedge in order to form; that they cannot work without it.
Bubble (aka spherical) sidewalls do work without a wedge (and I assume cannot work with a wedge).

tlb wrote:And if forts don't need to accelerate, they could block the kilt and throat too with fore- and aftwalls. So why don't they?

WRONG attribution, I did not say that. See the Thinksmarkedly quote above.

Jonathan_S wrote:Because they can't. Yes, you can close off either the bow or the stern aspect with a wall; as long as you don't want to accelerate. But to quote AoV " the Ferret's "sternwall" closed off the rear of the wedge. Power requirements and the physics of the wedge meant only one aspect, bow or stern, could be closed at any given moment"

So if a fort doesn't want to maneuver it'd be better of switching back to its powerful bubble sidewall, which does provide all aspect coverage, rather than going wedge, sidewalls, and only covering the throat or kilt of the wedge. (Though you might be able to use a full bow wall plus a buckler sternwall; or vice versa -- but a buckler wall only protects from fire within a couple of degrees of dead ahead/astern; so it leave large arcs unprotected from inbound laserhead fire)

Plus a fort is designed far more spherically, and to engage enemies coming from any aspect. So without the wedge in the way additional CM tubes and PDLC mounts on its dorsal and ventral aspects should be able to come into play. (Another reason they'd prefer to fight from within their bubble sidewall except when it's strictly necessary to tactically maneuver during an engagement)

I agree that sidewalls have to connect to the wedge to be most effective, But I think you are overstating the case when saying "normal sidewalls must tie into the wedge in order to form". We have the counter example of the Buckler, which is a partial fore or aft-wall (a type of sidewall) and definitely does NOT tie into the wedge; since that would stop maneuverability.

Another point: if "the physics of the wedge meant only one aspect, bow or stern, could be closed at any given moment" is true, then why does the quote also mention "power requirements"? If it is physically impossible, then the mention of power requirements is unnecessary. So is it possibly saying that there is insufficient power in a Ferret to meet the physical requirements?

tlb wrote:Another point: if "the physics of the wedge meant only one aspect, bow or stern, could be closed at any given moment" is true, then why does the quote also mention "power requirements"? If it is physically impossible, then the mention of power requirements is unnecessary. So is it possibly saying that there is insufficient power in a Ferret to meet the physical requirements?

What I understood is that the physics do allow both aspects to be closed, but that cuts acceleration. You can close one aspect and use a non-closing buckler wall on the other and still retain acceleration capability.

But the Shrike couldn't close both aspects even if going ballistically was acceptable, because it didn't have sufficient power production for that. Wasn't it also that they could use the buckler OR charge their graser?

tlb wrote:I agree that sidewalls have to connect to the wedge to be most effective, But I think you are overstating the case when saying "normal sidewalls must tie into the wedge in order to form". We have the counter example of the Buckler, which is a partial fore or aft-wall (a type of sidewall) and definitely does NOT tie into the wedge; since that would stop maneuverability.

Buckler are new and seem to be a special case. But for normal sidewalls here's some relevant detail:

Short Victorious War: Naval Design and Doctrine wrote:also deprives the warship of the protection of its wedge against fire from "above" or "below." Indeed, it deprives a ship even of its sidewalls, for there are no roof and floor for the sidewall to stitch together.

That certainly sounds like you can't have a normal sidewall without a wedge.
OTOH bucklers certainly don't reach all the way to the wedge; however, despite a lot of speculation about how they work and what their limitations might be, I haven't seen RFC say anything that confirms whether they can function in the absence of an active wedge.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:What I understood is that the physics do allow both aspects to be closed, but that cuts acceleration. You can close one aspect and use a non-closing buckler wall on the other and still retain acceleration capability.

But the Shrike couldn't close both aspects even if going ballistically was acceptable, because it didn't have sufficient power production for that. Wasn't it also that they could use the buckler OR charge their graser?

We can argue about why the "power requirements" statement was included. But the books seem very clear that fully closing either aspect cuts the ship's acceleration. It even talks about the Shrikes having to use reaction thrusters to change heading after they bring up their bow wall in preparation for energy range attack.

Echoes of Honor wrote:Reaction thrusters flared, pushing LAC Wing One's bows sideways with old-fashioned brute power. It was slow and ponderous compared to maneuvering on impellers, but it let them maintain their powerful bow sidewalls as they simultaneously turned and rolled to present the bellies of their wedges to the enemy.

Echoes of Honor wrote:there was something very peculiar about these particular LACs. Not only did their acceleration fall to zero whenever they fired their grasers, but even the accel for their lateral maneuvers dropped enormously, almost to what she would have expected out of old-fashioned reaction thrusters.

So I'm reading that closing just the front aspect of the wedge cuts the wedge's acceleration to zero -- hence the Shrikes ceasing to acceleration and turning only under reaction thrusters. As I understand it if you want a bow wall and also to acceleration you need to use the newer buckler wall -- with it's far more limited coverage arc.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But not this:

cthia wrote:If the LD has the time to bring up a wedge and sidewalls just to deal with an Alpha launch that caught it unawares, and then, if it can quickly drop the wedge and sidewalls and quickly bring up the spider drive and disappear. Remember a while back when I brought up the question of how fast the spider driver can be brought up as compared to the ~ 30 minutes or so it takes to bring up a wedge from a warm start?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:There's no missile launch that will take more than 15 minutes from launch to strike. That's 6 minutes of acceleration, a coasting phase for another 6, then 3 more minutes terminal mode. That covers 125 million km, or nearly 7 light-minutes. The effectiveness of even Apollo is severely compromised after that. But the wedges can't come up in 15 minutes -- it's going to be more like 45, from cold impellers.

And they can't have hot nodes because that betrays gravitic effects.

So the problem is finding a tactical use that calls one hour ahead to let it be known it's coming.

I know how everybody feel about wedge starts in less than 15 minutes. We went through this in the venerable "?" thread.

Part of my reasons for suggesting some of the insane breakthroughs are based on a willingness of the MA to endanger their crew in the long run. And even risk dangerous incidents in the short run. Not unlike what the Russians historically, allegedly, did with their submarines. Namely the Kursk. And their nuclear power plants in general?

Who, besides the author, is to say that many a GA breakthrough was NOT thwarted because it would require dangerous design implementations. Isn't the mini fusion reactor made possible by very limited shielding?

cthia wrote:But if an LD can somehow significantly decrease wedge start times to be tactically effective it could be a game changer. It could be part of the tricks and treats someone upstream mentioned that a Fort has. It seems like a fort would need to get online quickly.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Yep, then it can fire the million-gravity missiles too and translate to alpha from inside the hyperlimit, with full bubblewall up.

I'm sure the LDs have more aces up their sleeves. But right now, we have no indication of what that is, and breaking the currently-known laws doesn't seem to be in the cards. Wedge technology is VERY well known everywhere, so it were possible to bring it up in a third or a fourth of the time, the GA would know it first.

From the same thread, I am also aware of your thoughts about a missile with an insane flight profile compared to present GA technology. Surely your vehement objection can't be because the missile would require too much handwavium that would enable it to break the laws of physics. That ship, err missile, has already sailed.

At any rate, you really do hate the idea of a missile that can shoot its wad at close range, preventing it from dying with so much range left on its drives, don't you. No handwavium for the enemy?

BTW, the Kursk had top secret ultra high speed torpedoes on board, Shkval. The Squall. The sub is believed to have sunk because of an explosion caused by using high test peroxide (HTP) for the torpedo's engine. A chemical that everyone else knows is dangerous to the crew.

Perhaps the MA don't mind using HTP instead of handwavium.

At any rate, I'll just skulk away with my head down fidgeting with my toes in the sand. So no need to continue to belabor the point.

cthia wrote:BTW, my idea of an LD diving underwater isn't hypering out. It is activating the spider drive. "Now you see me. Now you don't."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Sure. Do something that it needs to but betrays the position, like launching pods, then go into stealth again. If there's no one nearby, after an amount of time, its position becomes to uncertain to be of immediate value.

And... we are back! To assuming the Spider has to decloak to use its weapons like the Klingon Bird of Prey?

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:I agree that sidewalls have to connect to the wedge to be most effective, But I think you are overstating the case when saying "normal sidewalls must tie into the wedge in order to form". We have the counter example of the Buckler, which is a partial fore or aft-wall (a type of sidewall) and definitely does NOT tie into the wedge; since that would stop maneuverability.

Buckler are new and seem to be a special case. But for normal sidewalls here's some relevant detail:

Short Victorious War: Naval Design and Doctrine wrote:also deprives the warship of the protection of its wedge against fire from "above" or "below." Indeed, it deprives a ship even of its sidewalls, for there are no roof and floor for the sidewall to stitch together.

That certainly sounds like you can't have a normal sidewall without a wedge.
OTOH bucklers certainly don't reach all the way to the wedge; however, despite a lot of speculation about how they work and what their limitations might be, I haven't seen RFC say anything that confirms whether they can function in the absence of an active wedge.

Again I think that could simply be read as saying "you can't have a 'effective' sidewall without a wedge"; because then a buckler is not inexplicable. Note that in this section of SVW, it also says "the bow or stern of a ship, which could not be protected by a sidewall, represented its most vulnerable aspect"; which we latter learn is not because of physical impossibility. It is obvious that in most every case, that bringing up any sidewall (other than the spherical bubble-wall) without a wedge is an exercise in stupidity; since the wedge is the strongest defense.

Jonathan_S wrote:We can argue about why the "power requirements" statement was included. But the books seem very clear that fully closing either aspect cuts the ship's acceleration. It even talks about the Shrikes having to use reaction thrusters to change heading after they bring up their bow wall in preparation for energy range attack.

Echoes of Honor wrote:Reaction thrusters flared, pushing LAC Wing One's bows sideways with old-fashioned brute power. It was slow and ponderous compared to maneuvering on impellers, but it let them maintain their powerful bow sidewalls as they simultaneously turned and rolled to present the bellies of their wedges to the enemy.

Echoes of Honor wrote:there was something very peculiar about these particular LACs. Not only did their acceleration fall to zero whenever they fired their grasers, but even the accel for their lateral maneuvers dropped enormously, almost to what she would have expected out of old-fashioned reaction thrusters.

So I'm reading that closing just the front aspect of the wedge cuts the wedge's acceleration to zero -- hence the Shrikes ceasing to acceleration and turning only under reaction thrusters. As I understand it if you want a bow wall and also to acceleration you need to use the newer buckler wall -- with it's far more limited coverage arc.

Are you sure it's "either aspect" that cuts acceleration, not both?

Yes, LACs cut acceleration down to zero when bringing their bow walls and making their firing passes... but what was the state of the stern wall at that same time? Like I said, memory tells me it was when both walls were up, so the sternwall would have already been up before the firing pass.

But memory can play tricks on you.