pd 1924 - Shape of Beowulf's fleet

tlb wrote:Interesting, but it still means that for over a century space craft traveled with a zero-gee environment, even within wormholes or gravity waves.

Jonathan_S wrote:Didn't (most of?) those ships have rotational gravity?
I seem to recall the rotational hab sections having to get spun down and locked for combat.

If so, at least the crews of long haul freighters or long deployment warships wouldn't have been subjected to months of zero-g without a break. Many crew jobs would require working in the zero-g sections - but at minimum kitchens, mess rooms, and berthing should have been in spin gravity sections.

You are probably right, I do not know. I just unthinkingly repeated the text from "The Universe of Honor Harrington"'s section entitled "(1) Background (General)", which said "placing an accelerating vessel in a permanent state of internal zero-gee".

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:Interesting, but it still means that for over a century space craft traveled with a zero-gee environment, even within wormholes or gravity waves.

Jonathan_S wrote:Didn't (most of?) those ships have rotational gravity?
I seem to recall the rotational hab sections having to get spun down and locked for combat.

If so, at least the crews of long haul freighters or long deployment warships wouldn't have been subjected to months of zero-g without a break. Many crew jobs would require working in the zero-g sections - but at minimum kitchens, mess rooms, and berthing should have been in spin gravity sections.

You are probably right, I do not know. I just unthinkingly repeated the text from "The Universe of Honor Harrington"'s section entitled "(1) Background (General)", which said "placing an accelerating vessel in a permanent state of internal zero-gee".

That was written long before the Travis Long books - so it's hard to know if spin gravity is something RFC added later as he had to think more on the practicalities of these earlier ships or if it's something he'd always had in mind but omitted from this writeup as extraneous to its point.

Here's some of those later mentions

A Call to Duty wrote:He was pretty sure he would never really enjoy maneuvering in the zero-gee that held sway everywhere aboard Vanguard except the rotating spin section amidships

A Call to Duty wrote:the emergency-maneuver klaxon suddenly sounded in the wardroom.
By the time the spin section slowed to a halt two minutes later she’d finished her soup and was on her way up the lift to Axial Two and Vanguard’s bridge.

A Call to Duty wrote:“Here’s what we’ve got on the Packrat, Ma’am,” the rating at Tracking One murmured, his words accompanied by a set of simultaneous flickers as he sent the schematic to all the other stations. “Six hundred fifty meters long, about a million tons, one-gee toroidal spin section, six transfer shuttles. A little on the small side, but otherwise pretty straightforward freighter design.”

A Call to Duty wrote:The two larger warships were equally intriguing. The cruiser’s spin section, instead of the usual toroidal or cylindrical shape, was built more like a dumbbell, with a pair of wedge-shaped pieces turning around the amidships part of the main hull. Metzger had heard of such designs—the theory was that the dumbbell could be locked in place vertically during combat, working in conjunction with the pinched-side shape of the compensator field to squeeze out a few more gees of acceleration—but had never seen one in person. Hopefully, that was one of the ships for sale and she would be allowed aboard for a closer look.
The battlecruiser was even more interesting. Instead of a spin section, the amidships habitation area was compact and built close-in to the rest of the hull. Metzger had heard Haven was experimenting with a new grav-plate system for their hab sections. Apparently, that research had borne some fruit.

(Though it later goes on to explain that the dumbbell section was a dead-end/flawed idea. Having a couple more g wasn't worth having less spun volume)

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Quick note that the 1581 date has been retconned. The refit that HMS Casey CL-01 got in the late 1530s and early 1540s installed not only rail launchers for the missiles but grav plates. Casey, unlike all the other ships in the RMN at the time, had permanent up/down gravity. The grav technology was probably well-known at the time because Graf von Basaltberg remarked on the tactical use of the rail launchers for the missiles, but offered no comment on the grav plates. We know that SMS Friedrich der Grosse did not have them (yet). My guess is that he simply didn't see much of a tactical or strategic advantage to comment on something that wasn't that much of a novelty. I'm also sure there were detractors saying that having the core of the ship under zero gravity, where people could propel themselves fast with arms and legs, in 3D, was better than having people running around during battle.

The Retconn was the CURRENT grav Plate technology was developed in 1581, but an older, less efficient tech based on different principles was developed by Haven and used in the Casey in the 1530s.

It's kinda like the statement that Benz developed the automobile in 1885, even though steam tractors and and carriages had been in use for ~50 years, and Divinci drew sketches of a similiar powered conveyance ~400 years earlier. Benz just pulled together the technologies at a point where his product in 1885 had all the basic items we've identified with the automobile since.

But yeah... still probably a retconn.

I Think Beowulf should invest in CLACs and LACs. Since the MBS and its navy will always be a hop, skip and a jump away, why invest huge sums of money and time into such a large fleet? Sure, it would certainly mean more strategic options for the Alliance as a whole if Beowulf grew a sizeable fleet, but other than that, why?

Since your mandate for this thread is to include ships that do not exist, why not big-ass LACs? The RMN grew a lot of its ships big. Big-ass battleships is a theme in the HV. Why not big ass LACs? A LAC weighs in between 11,000 to 22,000 tons according to the drunken wiki. A dispatch boat tops out at about 40,000. Can a hyper capable LAC be built which tops out at about 30,000 tons? Consider that I have always wondered what wrinkle the MAN might give to any LACs it might produce.

A streak boat has a streak drive. How difficult should it be to develop a hyper capable LAC? Perhaps a little larger, but still small enough to be considered a LAC. Hyper capable LACs would rewrite strategic deployment in the HV. Modern LAC squadrons are usually large even compared to the fleet as a whole. But if there were LAC bases around the galaxy, a formidable size force could redeploy to knock heads. Especially if they are hyper capable. Forward deployed LAC bases would feature a much higher concentration of LACs.

Would gaining 10,000 tons make the LAC that much less survivable? Especially if some of that “weight gain” includes modifications to make it harder to see.

penny wrote:I Think Beowulf should invest in CLACs and LACs. Since the MBS and its navy will always be a hop, skip and a jump away, why invest huge sums of money and time into such a large fleet? Sure, it would certainly mean more strategic options for the Alliance as a whole if Beowulf grew a sizeable fleet, but other than that, why?

Since your mandate for this thread is to include ships that do not exist, why not big-ass LACs? The RMN grew a lot of its ships big. Big-ass battleships is a theme in the HV. Why not big ass LACs? A LAC weighs in between 11,000 to 22,000 tons according to the drunken wiki. A dispatch boat tops out at about 40,000. Can a hyper capable LAC be built which tops out at about 30,000 tons? Consider that I have always wondered what wrinkle the MAN might give to any LACs it might produce.

A streak boat has a streak drive. How difficult should it be to develop a hyper capable LAC? Perhaps a little larger, but still small enough to be considered a LAC. Hyper capable LACs would rewrite strategic deployment in the HV. Modern LAC squadrons are usually large even compared to the fleet as a whole. But if there were LAC bases around the galaxy, a formidable size force could redeploy to knock heads. Especially if they are hyper capable. Forward deployed LAC bases would feature a much higher concentration of LACs.

Would gaining 10,000 tons make the LAC that much less survivable? Especially if some of that “weight gain” includes modifications to make it harder to see.

But, isn't a hyper-capable LAC just a frigate, which the author has insisted was something no major navy would consider?

tlb wrote:But, isn't a hyper-capable LAC just a frigate, which the author has insisted was something no major navy would consider?

Yep. And Torch has a handful of modern LAC-based frigates -- IIRC basically the chase armorment of two Shrikes, swap the fission pile for a fusion plant, add some alpha nodes and a hyper generator and you've got something slower than the LACs it's loosely based on, and really only fit for anti-piracy/anti-slaver work (on the assumption that they won't have modern ships of their own)

penny wrote:A streak boat has a streak drive. How difficult should it be to develop a hyper capable LAC?

A sure a streak boat has a streak drive; and manages it by being a bit bigger than a dispatch boat while still being basically only a hull wrapped around the drive system; with no room for especially fancy sensor suits and definitely no room for weapons.

We don't know for sure how much bigger a streak boat is (beyond a) it being externally noticeable; and b) not so large it can't be passed off as a DB-based yacht), but since a DB (basically the minimum viable hyper-capable hull) falls around 38,000 tons and a frigate falls around 53,000 tons; I'd guestimate a streak boat at about 42,000 tons? Now to turn that into any kind of warship add thousands and thousands of tons of weapons, defenses, sensor, fire control, and space for the extra crew to use and maintain all those extra systems.

(FWIW a frigate seems to run about 15,000 tons more than a DB; though a modern one might shave that down some with automation -- but you're still looking at closer to triple the tonnage of a Shrike to get a streak capable one; and still well over double if you just want a normal hyper generator and alpha nodes)

Hardly a strategic game changer

Jonathan_S wrote:

tlb wrote:But, isn't a hyper-capable LAC just a frigate, which the author has insisted was something no major navy would consider?

Yep. And Torch has a handful of modern LAC-based frigates -- IIRC basically the chase armorment of two Shrikes, swap the fission pile for a fusion plant, add some alpha nodes and a hyper generator and you've got something slower than the LACs it's loosely based on, and really only fit for anti-piracy/anti-slaver work (on the assumption that they won't have modern ships of their own)

penny wrote:A streak boat has a streak drive. How difficult should it be to develop a hyper capable LAC?

A sure a streak boat has a streak drive; and manages it by being a bit bigger than a dispatch boat while still being basically only a hull wrapped around the drive system; with no room for especially fancy sensor suits and definitely no room for weapons.

We don't know for sure how much bigger a streak boat is (beyond a) it being externally noticeable; and b) not so large it can't be passed off as a DB-based yacht), but since a DB (basically the minimum viable hyper-capable hull) falls around 38,000 tons and a frigate falls around 53,000 tons; I'd guestimate a streak boat at about 42,000 tons? Now to turn that into any kind of warship add thousands and thousands of tons of weapons, defenses, sensor, fire control, and space for the extra crew to use and maintain all those extra systems.

(FWIW a frigate seems to run about 15,000 tons more than a DB; though a modern one might shave that down some with automation -- but you're still looking at closer to triple the tonnage of a Shrike to get a streak capable one; and still well over double if you just want a normal hyper generator and alpha nodes)

Hardly a strategic game changer

Yeah, in addition, what really have killed the Frigate is the munition reliant weapons systems that modern warfare has become centered on. When a Contact Nuke had a snowball's chance in hell of damaging an opponent, Energy based weapons made the frigate make sense - now, a frigate can't carry enough CMs to fight off more than a salvo or 2.

Where LACS make sense is you deploy them in 6-12 ship groups at all times, and they can reload while another 6-12 ship group takes their place. Endurance, both in combat loads, reactor fuel and snack bars requires mass, and LACS are optimized so they don't need to carry more than a few days's fuel (human and thruster) and a single medium engagement's weapons loadout. In addition, craming all that stuff into a LAC sized hull came at the price of a ship that cannot maintain itself; it carries no spares, doesn't have all the specialists onboard, and all the access panels are on the outside of the ship. So any LAC based Frigate will have issues supporting itself away from it's base.

Even if you made Frigates in massive #s and intend them to travel (and fight) in squadrons, someone is going to split them up and get them into situation they cannot handle on their own, just because they are independently deployable. And the solution for that situation has been known for 30 years - don't build and deploy ships that can't handle themselves in the majority of situations - so no Frigates.

LACs are also attritional assets - The loss of one is similar in headcount to the loss of the crew of a weapons blister, while giving the short termed capability of a DD or CL. LACS are also incredibly small with insane ECM and sidewalls, making them incredibly survival. Making a larger ship would decrease that survivability, increase the crew, and make each loss more damaging...

By the way, a larger LAC is called a HAC (Heavy assault Craft) or a Corvette. Both the Frigate and Corvette/HAC are mentioned in the Dead Horses....

Theemile wrote:LACs are also attritional assets - The loss of one is similar in headcount to the loss of the crew of a weapons blister, while giving the short termed capability of a DD or CL. LACS are also incredibly small with insane ECM and sidewalls, making them incredibly survival. Making a larger ship would decrease that survivability, increase the crew, and make each loss more damaging...

And there seem to be a couple reasons (beyond simply automation) that LACs can have such small crew sizes.

As you noted for modern LACs much of the maintenance and repair can only be done externally; and so in practice is done aboard the CLAC or LAC base. That lets the LACs operate more like shuttle (or airplanes) where maintenance crew isn't routines aboard but instead is back at base where they'll work on whatever vessel needs work at the time. That centralization probably lowers the total number of maintenance staff a squadron needs; but the main benefits are the LACs can be smaller and less crew is risked when the LAC goes into combat.

The other is that thanks to their intended short missions modern LACs don't seem to be staffed for 24/7 operation. Instead of carrying 3 shifts worth of crew (or even 2 full shifts that have to work 12 and 12) they seem to basically carry 1 shift and would be running very short handed on the rare occasions they had to pull a multi-day mission.

Neither of those would really be workable for a LAC-based frigate. Any mission that includes a hyper transit puts you too far from your base, for too long, to effectively get away without maintenance crew aboard and the ability to operate effectively 24/7. So adding the crew (and associated quarters, extra life support, messing area, stores, etc.) to rectify that on a hyper-capable warship drives up the size, costs, and makes for an inherently less attritional unit. Another reason a LAC-based hyper-capable combatant is going to be a lot bigger than the LAC you started with.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:LACs are also attritional assets - The loss of one is similar in headcount to the loss of the crew of a weapons blister, while giving the short termed capability of a DD or CL. LACS are also incredibly small with insane ECM and sidewalls, making them incredibly survival. Making a larger ship would decrease that survivability, increase the crew, and make each loss more damaging...

And there seem to be a couple reasons (beyond simply automation) that LACs can have such small crew sizes.

As you noted for modern LACs much of the maintenance and repair can only be done externally; and so in practice is done aboard the CLAC or LAC base. That lets the LACs operate more like shuttle (or airplanes) where maintenance crew isn't routines aboard but instead is back at base where they'll work on whatever vessel needs work at the time. That centralization probably lowers the total number of maintenance staff a squadron needs; but the main benefits are the LACs can be smaller and less crew is risked when the LAC goes into combat.

The other is that thanks to their intended short missions modern LACs don't seem to be staffed for 24/7 operation. Instead of carrying 3 shifts worth of crew (or even 2 full shifts that have to work 12 and 12) they seem to basically carry 1 shift and would be running very short handed on the rare occasions they had to pull a multi-day mission.

Neither of those would really be workable for a LAC-based frigate. Any mission that includes a hyper transit puts you too far from your base, for too long, to effectively get away without maintenance crew aboard and the ability to operate effectively 24/7. So adding the crew (and associated quarters, extra life support, messing area, stores, etc.) to rectify that on a hyper-capable warship drives up the size, costs, and makes for an inherently less attritional unit. Another reason a LAC-based hyper-capable combatant is going to be a lot bigger than the LAC you started with.

Exactly, All of which doesn't mean you can't take some of the LAC technologies and build a Frigate (Which Hauptman did), but many of the specific advantages of the LAC disappear by definition in the transition to a viable Frigate design.

Unfortunately, in the end, you still get a design without the ability to stand up against any modern peer opponent in a fight and have a viable chance of survival.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:LACs are also attritional assets - The loss of one is similar in headcount to the loss of the crew of a weapons blister, while giving the short termed capability of a DD or CL. LACS are also incredibly small with insane ECM and sidewalls, making them incredibly survival. Making a larger ship would decrease that survivability, increase the crew, and make each loss more damaging...

And there seem to be a couple reasons (beyond simply automation) that LACs can have such small crew sizes.

As you noted for modern LACs much of the maintenance and repair can only be done externally; and so in practice is done aboard the CLAC or LAC base. That lets the LACs operate more like shuttle (or airplanes) where maintenance crew isn't routines aboard but instead is back at base where they'll work on whatever vessel needs work at the time. That centralization probably lowers the total number of maintenance staff a squadron needs; but the main benefits are the LACs can be smaller and less crew is risked when the LAC goes into combat.

The other is that thanks to their intended short missions modern LACs don't seem to be staffed for 24/7 operation. Instead of carrying 3 shifts worth of crew (or even 2 full shifts that have to work 12 and 12) they seem to basically carry 1 shift and would be running very short handed on the rare occasions they had to pull a multi-day mission.

Neither of those would really be workable for a LAC-based frigate. Any mission that includes a hyper transit puts you too far from your base, for too long, to effectively get away without maintenance crew aboard and the ability to operate effectively 24/7. So adding the crew (and associated quarters, extra life support, messing area, stores, etc.) to rectify that on a hyper-capable warship drives up the size, costs, and makes for an inherently less attritional unit. Another reason a LAC-based hyper-capable combatant is going to be a lot bigger than the LAC you started with.

Theemile wrote:Exactly, All of which doesn't mean you can't take some of the LAC technologies and build a Frigate (Which Hauptman did), but many of the specific advantages of the LAC disappear by definition in the transition to a viable Frigate design.

Unfortunately, in the end, you still get a design without the ability to stand up against any modern peer opponent in a fight and have a viable chance of survival.

Thanks for all of the info. I still expect or wish the MAN to introduce an entirely new LAC.