?

2315 posts • Page 221 of 232 • 1 ... 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 ... 232

Re: ?
by Jonathan_S » Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:26 am
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8791 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	Captain Golding wrote:All this talk of CM's and rolling ships makes me wonder why laying a bunch of cold launched CM's would not work as a tactic. Seems like it could work in very specific circumstances; like you said. But at extended ranges your CM control is going to be worse; so using it to engage missiles further out is going to be a lower hit probability -- but if you've the CMs to spare you might not care about that. Trying to use it to thicken close in fire runs up against the issue that at least modern ships can already launch more CMs than they can control -- so within their normal CM range it doesn't help because they can't control the extras. Also missiles with their wedges down are going to be vulnerable to proximity kills -- so you're only going to be able to get away with this for a little while before the enemy starts plowing the road with nukes and wiping out your unactivated, coasting, CMs. Still, if you're accelerating away from the enemy and have a good idea of when an alpha strike might come you could cold fire some CMs behind you to help blunt that Alpha strike and further than usual range
Top

Re: ?

by Jonathan_S » Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:26 am

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

Captain Golding wrote:All this talk of CM's and rolling ships makes me wonder why laying a bunch of cold launched CM's would not work as a tactic.

Seems like it could work in very specific circumstances; like you said.

But at extended ranges your CM control is going to be worse; so using it to engage missiles further out is going to be a lower hit probability -- but if you've the CMs to spare you might not care about that.

Trying to use it to thicken close in fire runs up against the issue that at least modern ships can already launch more CMs than they can control -- so within their normal CM range it doesn't help because they can't control the extras.

Also missiles with their wedges down are going to be vulnerable to proximity kills -- so you're only going to be able to get away with this for a little while before the enemy starts plowing the road with nukes and wiping out your unactivated, coasting, CMs.

Still, if you're accelerating away from the enemy and have a good idea of when an alpha strike might come you could cold fire some CMs behind you to help blunt that Alpha strike and further than usual range

Top

Re: ?
by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:06 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1200 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	tlb wrote: penny wrote:Dropping the wedge will simply make the target “slightly harder” to see??? It will make it impossible to see; in time. The wedge is being tracked. Then it disappears as will the target to the targeting system in the midst of so many brighter icons. Simply knowing the vector isn't enough. It isn't even precise enough as it is. Targeting relies on the size of the wedge from the missile and the CM having difficulty missing each other. Targeting also relies on the accuracy of the PDLCs hitting -- or not being able to miss -- a huge target like the wedge. Whether it is impossible to see depends on whether the target is within effective range of targeting radar and other active systems. If the PDLC is hitting a wedge, then that is the same as a miss; because the laser beam will not penetrate the wedge. The laser beams from the PDLC are attempting to hit the missile body itself, a harder thing to find (hence targeting radar). It is only the counter missile that is effective when hitting the wedge. If the incoming wedge is down, then the CM will continue on after the incoming missile is destroyed. In one of the books the RMN and SLN were shooting missiles at each other from very distant range, such that the SLN missiles needed a ballistic phase. The RMN missiles were programmed to sweep though that ballistic group and wipe them out before continuing onward to attack the SLN fleet. Sorry it has taken so long for me to cycle back around to this. My recycle time is being challenged by the workload on my generators. Anyway, I am not certain about this notion, but let's see if it has any traction. When a missile is being tracked it is not being tracked by traditional radar. Its wedge is being tracked by gravitics. It is easy to track a very bright Sun. I can wake up in the morning from a deep sleep and track Sol with the naked eye. I don't think that a missile body can be tracked by radar through its wedge any more than a ship can be tracked through its wedge. A wedge's effect has a tendency to spread energy about itself. So any targeting radar would be scattered; the same effect the SR-71 Blackbird would create. I agree that after the wedge drops, targeting radar can track the missile body. If that entire process has enough time. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: ?

by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:06 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

tlb wrote:
penny wrote:Dropping the wedge will simply make the target “slightly harder” to see??? It will make it impossible to see; in time. The wedge is being tracked. Then it disappears as will the target to the targeting system in the midst of so many brighter icons. Simply knowing the vector isn't enough. It isn't even precise enough as it is. Targeting relies on the size of the wedge from the missile and the CM having difficulty missing each other. Targeting also relies on the accuracy of the PDLCs hitting -- or not being able to miss -- a huge target like the wedge.

Whether it is impossible to see depends on whether the target is within effective range of targeting radar and other active systems. If the PDLC is hitting a wedge, then that is the same as a miss; because the laser beam will not penetrate the wedge. The laser beams from the PDLC are attempting to hit the missile body itself, a harder thing to find (hence targeting radar).

It is only the counter missile that is effective when hitting the wedge. If the incoming wedge is down, then the CM will continue on after the incoming missile is destroyed.

In one of the books the RMN and SLN were shooting missiles at each other from very distant range, such that the SLN missiles needed a ballistic phase. The RMN missiles were programmed to sweep though that ballistic group and wipe them out before continuing onward to attack the SLN fleet.

Sorry it has taken so long for me to cycle back around to this. My recycle time is being challenged by the workload on my generators.

Anyway, I am not certain about this notion, but let's see if it has any traction. When a missile is being tracked it is not being tracked by traditional radar. Its wedge is being tracked by gravitics. It is easy to track a very bright Sun. I can wake up in the morning from a deep sleep and track Sol with the naked eye. I don't think that a missile body can be tracked by radar through its wedge any more than a ship can be tracked through its wedge. A wedge's effect has a tendency to spread energy about itself. So any targeting radar would be scattered; the same effect the SR-71 Blackbird would create. I agree that after the wedge drops, targeting radar can track the missile body. If that entire process has enough time.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: ?
by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:27 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1200 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	penny wrote:HAVE YOU EVER SHOT SKEET? SAME CONCEPT. Thinksmarkedly wrote:No, I have never shot skeet in a platoon formation with a battle net coordinating who shoots where. penny wrote:Plus, do consider that PDLC fire from the ships farther away on a target as small as a missile body that has shed its inert volume and has no wedge will be next to impossible to hit. Unless you have a country boy manning the PDLCs and he has experience shooting needles in a haystack. Thinksmarkedly wrote:They're already shooting up to 50,000 km away. Further ships don't add so much to that. And besides, the size of the spent sections of a true MDM won't reduce the target's volume considerably. More importantly, for the ship being targeted, the profile of the missile may not change practically at all. That depends on how much the missile itself must slew towards the ship before firing. The gravitic lens has some ability to fire off-centre, but it may not be by too wide an angle. So if the missile must be within (say) 15° of head-on to the ship it's targeting, the spent sections represent a minuscule fraction of the reduction in profile. True, but in accordance with my original theory the profile does change for many of the other ships that need a good look at the target to be of any help. IOW, the reduction in profile can help to reduce this engagement to a one-on-one confrontation. No more ganging up on one missile in the hood. Mano a Mano. Also, I will wager that the entire battle net will suffer a hiccup. Where did the target go? ... at least for a split second. The engagement will be over in a split second. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: ?

by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:27 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

penny wrote:HAVE YOU EVER SHOT SKEET? SAME CONCEPT.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:No, I have never shot skeet in a platoon formation with a battle net coordinating who shoots where.

penny wrote:Plus, do consider that PDLC fire from the ships farther away on a target as small as a missile body that has shed its inert volume and has no wedge will be next to impossible to hit. Unless you have a country boy manning the PDLCs and he has experience shooting needles in a haystack.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:They're already shooting up to 50,000 km away. Further ships don't add so much to that. And besides, the size of the spent sections of a true MDM won't reduce the target's volume considerably.

More importantly, for the ship being targeted, the profile of the missile may not change practically at all. That depends on how much the missile itself must slew towards the ship before firing. The gravitic lens has some ability to fire off-centre, but it may not be by too wide an angle. So if the missile must be within (say) 15° of head-on to the ship it's targeting, the spent sections represent a minuscule fraction of the reduction in profile.

True, but in accordance with my original theory the profile does change for many of the other ships that need a good look at the target to be of any help. IOW, the reduction in profile can help to reduce this engagement to a one-on-one confrontation. No more ganging up on one missile in the hood. Mano a Mano.

Also, I will wager that the entire battle net will suffer a hiccup. Where did the target go? ... at least for a split second. The engagement will be over in a split second.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: ?
by tlb » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:36 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4437 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	penny wrote:Anyway, I am not certain about this notion, but let's see if it has any traction. When a missile is being tracked it is not being tracked by traditional radar. Its wedge is being tracked by gravitics. It is easy to track a very bright Sun. I can wake up in the morning from a deep sleep and track Sol with the naked eye. I don't think that a missile body can be tracked by radar through its wedge any more than a ship can be tracked through its wedge. A wedge's effect has a tendency to spread energy about itself. So any targeting radar would be scattered; the same effect the SR-71 Blackbird would create. I agree that after the wedge drops, targeting radar can track the missile body. If that entire process has enough time. First: when the missile is heading toward the target, the wedge is NOT interposed. Second: do you have ANY textual evidence that there is NO return from the wedge?
Top

Re: ?

by tlb » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:36 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

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

penny wrote:Anyway, I am not certain about this notion, but let's see if it has any traction. When a missile is being tracked it is not being tracked by traditional radar. Its wedge is being tracked by gravitics. It is easy to track a very bright Sun. I can wake up in the morning from a deep sleep and track Sol with the naked eye. I don't think that a missile body can be tracked by radar through its wedge any more than a ship can be tracked through its wedge. A wedge's effect has a tendency to spread energy about itself. So any targeting radar would be scattered; the same effect the SR-71 Blackbird would create. I agree that after the wedge drops, targeting radar can track the missile body. If that entire process has enough time.

First: when the missile is heading toward the target, the wedge is NOT interposed. Second: do you have ANY textual evidence that there is NO return from the wedge?

Top

Re: ?
by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:47 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1200 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	Jonathan_S wrote: Brigade XO wrote:At this point, using the RMN/RHN modern LACs starting the attrition of incoming missiles well out between the enemy and their own ships (and just to the sides of the expected firing solutions for the missiles to try and keep LACs from drawing a shipkiller to target a LAC- had become probably the most effective way of handling the need for more interception. You could put a CM canister (perhaps even multiple canisters)on shipkillers but your going to need the Apollo system out there functioning to provide the targeting data for the CMs. Of course you could also continue to use the now warheadless shipkiller as a giant CM as it continues to interpenetrate the incoming missiles such was done with MDM in using them in barricades. It's called evolution of tactics and weapons, Of course one of the issues with LACs for anti-missile defense is their lack of magazine depth. In a prolonged engagement they'll run out of CMs. RFC had said the Manties were studying more survivable CLACs that would stay with the wall, to allow LACs to cycle back to be quickly rearmed (since their current CLACs normally drop their brood and escape into hyper until summoned back). We also know from TEIF that Bolthole is also experimenting with 2-drive CMs. Since we know that the 3.5 million km range of the Mk31 actually exceeds really effective shipboard fire control (over 11 seconds of lightspeed lag each way isn't run) they might be planning to use LAC as forward fire controllers; providing final guidance for extra long ranged 2-drive CMs launched from the formation's ship. Or they might be looking at a automated fire control relay drone with FTL links back to the ship. (Or maybe they've just decided to accept far worse hit percentages as the trade-off for a deeper defensive basket -- if they come out we'll have to see how they integrate into the rest of the formation missile defense) Also the 2-drive CMs are presumably going to be too large to launch from the existing CM tubes. So they might go pod launched initially (maybe load up some BC(P)s as anti-missile support ships with heavy ERCM pod loads), or adapt them to be fired from ship's main missile tubes. Later on we'll have to see if all CM tubes on new builds get enlarged to handle these, or if ships go with a mix of tubes and mix of extended- and normal-range CMs, or what. What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: ?

by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 7:47 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

Jonathan_S wrote:
Brigade XO wrote:At this point, using the RMN/RHN modern LACs starting the attrition of incoming missiles well out between the enemy and their own ships (and just to the sides of the expected firing solutions for the missiles to try and keep LACs from drawing a shipkiller to target a LAC- had become probably the most effective way of handling the need for more interception. You could put a CM canister
(perhaps even multiple canisters)on shipkillers but your going to need the Apollo system out there functioning to provide the targeting data for the CMs. Of course you could also continue to use the now warheadless shipkiller as a giant CM as it continues to interpenetrate the incoming missiles such was done with MDM in using them in barricades.

It's called evolution of tactics and weapons,
Of course one of the issues with LACs for anti-missile defense is their lack of magazine depth. In a prolonged engagement they'll run out of CMs.

RFC had said the Manties were studying more survivable CLACs that would stay with the wall, to allow LACs to cycle back to be quickly rearmed (since their current CLACs normally drop their brood and escape into hyper until summoned back). We also know
from TEIF that Bolthole is also experimenting with 2-drive CMs. Since we know that the 3.5 million km range of the Mk31 actually exceeds really effective shipboard fire control (over 11 seconds of lightspeed lag each way isn't run) they might be planning to use LAC as forward fire controllers; providing final guidance for extra long ranged 2-drive CMs launched from the formation's ship. Or they might be looking at a automated fire control relay drone with FTL links back to the ship. (Or maybe they've just decided to accept far worse hit percentages as the trade-off for a deeper defensive basket -- if they come out we'll have to see how they integrate into the rest of the formation missile defense)

Also the 2-drive CMs are presumably going to be too large to launch from the existing CM tubes. So they might go pod launched initially (maybe load up some BC(P)s as anti-missile support ships with heavy ERCM pod loads), or adapt them to be fired from ship's main missile tubes. Later on we'll have to see if all CM tubes on new builds get enlarged to handle these, or if ships go with a mix of tubes and mix of extended- and normal-range CMs, or what.

What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: ?
by tlb » Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:12 am
tlb Fleet Admiral Posts: 4437 Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:34 am	penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods. ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's.
Top

Re: ?

by tlb » Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:12 am

tlb
Fleet Admiral

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

penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.

ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's.

Top

Re: ?
by Captain Golding » Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:39 am
Captain Golding Lieutenant (Senior Grade) Posts: 59 Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:55 am	The LAC's are effective because their small size means each is a low value target while having a large impact on an incoming alpha strike. Also their small size means they can make higher accelerations than the fleet so being able to move out of the way or into it as needed. A Deadicated CM Ship has little advantage over an equivilently sized ship but no offensive capability. It is therefore a Single Purpose vessel, just in terms of people it is probably a waste of resources. Now a CM Pod that can be towed by a LAC would be an asset. I recall it being stated somewhere that RFC has said no CM Pod's so will consider that a dead duck. Also I don't think the original class of RMN CLAC was expected to withdraw from the fleet - it would not have had the long range missiles in the first place or the auto loading for the LAC's if combat reloading was not part of the concept. Keeping the CLAC's behind the wall makes sense, being smaller than the SD(P)'s means that the have enough extra manouverability to move round the wall according to the tactical situation to make sure they are downrange from the defenses but close enough to support combat re-arm operations. tlb wrote: penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods. ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's.
Top

Re: ?

by Captain Golding » Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:39 am

Captain Golding
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

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

The LAC's are effective because their small size means each is a low value target while having a large impact on an incoming alpha strike. Also their small size means they can make higher accelerations than the fleet so being able to move out of the way or into it as needed.

A Deadicated CM Ship has little advantage over an equivilently sized ship but no offensive capability. It is therefore a Single Purpose vessel, just in terms of people it is probably a waste of resources.

Now a CM Pod that can be towed by a LAC would be an asset. I recall it being stated somewhere that RFC has said no CM Pod's so will consider that a dead duck.

Also I don't think the original class of RMN CLAC was expected to withdraw from the fleet - it would not have had the long range missiles in the first place or the auto loading for the LAC's if combat reloading was not part of the concept. Keeping the CLAC's behind the wall makes sense, being smaller than the SD(P)'s means that the have enough extra manouverability to move round the wall according to the tactical situation to make sure they are downrange from the defenses but close enough to support combat re-arm operations.

tlb wrote:
penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.
ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's.

Top

Re: ?
by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:28 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1200 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	tlb wrote: penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods. ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's. Chicken before the egg. If the enemy can still manage to knock out a specific ship after thickening the CM coverage this much, then the problem is in the tactic and it pretty much becomes a moot point. Major fleet engagements are over with several salvos. Eating the enemies' alpha launch for lunch using these ships to thicken the CM envelope immensely will seal the deal. The fleet's own Alpha launch won't give the enemy time to do much else. Again, it is called evolution of weapons and tactics. I know you have a hard time with this like White Haven initially had with Apollo. And the concept will probably have the crew biting their nails during the initial deployment of the tactic. But if you consider that thickening the CM envelope this much is what is sought after, I think, just like with Apollo, the results will turn out to be even better than expected. And do explain to me how LACs are going to have time to fly back to CLACs and rearm and get back out front to do any good? How much time and how many salvos do you think there are? Sounds like the CLACs will be trying to recreate the same logistics nightmare and mistake the Japanese carriers made by being caught trying to change out ordnance in the middle of an engagement. If the CLACs implement the SL forward deploy system, that would be a marked improvement. But the LACs would still be out of place and useless. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: ?

by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:28 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

tlb wrote:
penny wrote:What, exactly, is different in a CLAC from a purpose-built CM ship that has also been designed to take a pounding and keep up with the fleet? Minus the LACs that can only carry a few CMs at a time? A purpose-built CM warship can eject pods at an alarming rate and never run out. An SD(CM-P). A Superdreadnaught Countermissile pod layer. It can also tow pods.
ThinksMarkedly has already pointed out the biggest problem with this concept: once knocked out the fleet loses most of its anti-missile capabilities, whereas knocking out a CLAC does not immediately eliminate the utility of its LAC's.

Chicken before the egg. If the enemy can still manage to knock out a specific ship after thickening the CM coverage this much, then the problem is in the tactic and it pretty much becomes a moot point.

Major fleet engagements are over with several salvos. Eating the enemies' alpha launch for lunch using these ships to thicken the CM envelope immensely will seal the deal. The fleet's own Alpha launch won't give the enemy time to do much else.

Again, it is called evolution of weapons and tactics. I know you have a hard time with this like White Haven initially had with Apollo. And the concept will probably have the crew biting their nails during the initial deployment of the tactic. But if you consider that thickening the CM envelope this much is what is sought after, I think, just like with Apollo, the results will turn out to be even better than expected.

And do explain to me how LACs are going to have time to fly back to CLACs and rearm and get back out front to do any good? How much time and how many salvos do you think there are? Sounds like the CLACs will be trying to recreate the same logistics nightmare and mistake the Japanese carriers made by being caught trying to change out ordnance in the middle of an engagement. If the CLACs implement the SL forward deploy system, that would be a marked improvement. But the LACs would still be out of place and useless.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

Re: ?
by Theemile » Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:36 am
Theemile Fleet Admiral Posts: 5241 Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH	David on CM centric chips and CM pods https://web.archive.org/web/20220702104051/https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/163/0/ ****** 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: ?

by Theemile » Thu Sep 26, 2024 9:36 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

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

David on CM centric chips and CM pods

https://web.archive.org/web/20220702104051/https://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/163/0/

******
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: ?
by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:38 am
penny Rear Admiral Posts: 1200 Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am	I wish the link wasn't broken. Nimitz walked into a bar. <I'll take several stalks of celery please.> “This is a bar. We don't sell celery.” <Well give me several celery martinis and hold the martinis.> Translation? Give me a purpose-built warship and hold the missiles. . . . The artist formerly known as cthia. Now I can talk in the third person.
Top

Re: ?

by penny » Thu Sep 26, 2024 10:38 am

penny
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2023 11:55 am

I wish the link wasn't broken.

Nimitz walked into a bar.

<I'll take several stalks of celery please.>

“This is a bar. We don't sell celery.”

<Well give me several celery martinis and hold the martinis.>

Translation? Give me a purpose-built warship and hold the missiles.

.
.
.

The artist formerly known as cthia.

Now I can talk in the third person.

Top

2315 posts • Page 221 of 232 • 1 ... 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 ... 232

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

?