

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Duckk
Posts: 4201
|
Another update from David.
*** Okay, I'm going to try this one more time. The argument was that frigates make more sense than destroyers. Frigates do not make more sense than destroyers for any possible mission. Now, if the object is to discuss building some vessel other than a frigate for a specific mission, that's an entirely different proposition. It was not the question as originally posed, although, if you will notice, I suggested in my long post on this topic that building something on the order of an Orion — that is, a completely unarmed, small-manpower, hyper-capable vessel solely for reconnaissance purposes — might (and I emphasize might) be a reasonable proposition. If, however, that's what you're proposing, then it isn't a "frigate" at all. It's something else entirely, that would be a new departure, and saying that I don't understand the logic that makes a frigate desirable or even necessary is inaccurate, because you're talking about something else entirely. A frigate is a light warship capable of independent interstellar deployment; a pure recon platform would be, at best, a drone tender. It certainly would not be a warship. Having said that, I still don't see Manticore needing or building the type you're discussing. And the reason I don't see Manticore needing or building the type is that their vulnerabilities are clearly not what you seem to be thinking they are. Or, rather, the solution to the problem which you envision (note that I did not say "which you invented," although the temptation was there) is far in excess to the need and would require the diversion of lots and lots of badly needed resources from platforms which would be combat capable at need to platforms which would be completely non-combat capable. Before you point out (again) that I'm clearly missing the point because the type we're talking about (now) doesn't have to be armed at all to accomplish its mission, note that I said platforms which would be combat capable at need. In other words, platforms which would be capable of a somewhat more demanding mission than the one you've sketched out and (would therefore actually constitute a useful addition to the RMN's war-fighting ability, as well) in addition to running around like chickens with their heads cut off on recon missions. All right, first what exactly constitutes Manticore's recon requirements where spider-drive ships are concerned? The problem from Manticore's perspective with the original Oyster Bay attack wasn't that they failed to detect the Sharks arrival but that they failed to recognize what it was. They picked up the attack force's hyper footprint, but the fashion in which the attack force made its alpha translation was very carefully designed to disguise the footprint and make it look like a sensor ghost. The defenders had no reason to believe that it truly was an alpha translation, yet they treated it seriously and dispatched a response force to the location of what they believed was a false datum, where the response force proceeded — very diligently; they took their responsibility seriously even if the odds were overwhelmingly that it was a wild goose chase — to search anyway. Unfortunately, they didn't know (then) that anyone had a reactionless drive that didn't rely on an impeller wedge. It wasn't that they weren't looking; it wasn't that they didn't get there in time; it was that they were looking for the wrong thing because they didn't know the right thing existed. That's not a hardware failure, it's not a ship availability failure; it's arguably an intelligence failure, but I personally would disagree even with that. They did everything right; they simply didn't know about an entirely new threat no one else in the entire galaxy had ever seen. The significant delay element in getting the destroyers to the locus of the footprint was the time necessary for that footprint to reach the enormous passive sensors necessary to pick something like that up at extreme distances. It wouldn't have mattered whether they'd had frigates deployed instead of destroyers, the transit time would have been effectively identical. Nor, for that matter, would speed in getting there have been the critical factor if they'd known what they were looking for in the first place. Had they realized that someone could accelerate ships without using a reaction/fusion drive or an impeller wedge, the logical thing for them to do would have been to send a larger force (which would have been readily available out of on-call destroyers) to englobe the locus and then deploy remote platforms for all they were worth. The acceleration rates of the individual units are really pretty much immaterial, as is the number of individual hulls, as long as they can carry a large enough combined number of remote platforms. Initial detection depends upon the huge, passive arrays; once that detection has taken place — and been recognized — the Royal Manticoran Navy has all of the "rapid response" vessels that it needs in the form of destroyers. And the sensor suites available to your non-frigates are going to be sufficiently inferior to the passive arrays as to constitute no net increase in detection reach. Again, it's not a matter of numbers of platforms, but rather of their sensitivity, and the existing passive arrays are fully sensitive enough . . . if they know what to look for in the first place. And please note that I'm not talking about picking up the spider drive; I'm talking about picking up the hyper footprint. On the other hand, anyone arriving from an interstellar distance is still going to radiate a hyper footprint, the detection of which has to be any star system's first line of defense against spider drive-ships. If your thought is that they're going to smother the area outside the hyper limit with frigates — I'm sorry, with non-frigates — in order to significantly reduce response times and possibly even pick up spider drives coming in (somehow) without hyper footprints, then how many of them do you intend to build? How heavily do you intend to saturate the area outside the hyper limit, and how big a zone do you intend to saturate? Detection range against the spider drive is going to be very, very short. (I'm not going to tell you how short just yet, but it's safe to say that it will be substantially less than five light-minutes unless you already know essentially where the target is.) If you assume a hyper limit of 20 light-minutes and you further assume that you're going to cover a zone that extends merely another 20 light-minutes beyond the limit, you're looking at an area of 234,572 cubic light-minutes. Are you going to distribute one non-frigate for every ten cubic light-minutes? Fifteen? Twenty? If you call it 15 cubic light-minutes, you're going to need 15,638. So let's call it 30, which will reduce your numbers requirement to a "mere" 7,819. Assume you can get the crew all the way down to only ten trained personnel (trust me, you'd be looking at more than that if they were going to remain instantly deployable over any extended period), and you get damned near 80,000 personnel who will be sitting around in completely unarmed vessels serving no other useful function at all. Somehow I don't see the Admiralty viewing that as an efficient usage of manpower, building materials, or logistics, especially when the Admiralty already has a perfectly adequate quick response force now that it knows what to look for in the first place. The other side of that equation is that if they invest the money in something like a Roland, it will be able to carry out the quick response recon function you're talking about and, even if the non-frigate you're now talking about cost only 10% as much as a Roland, they'd have an additional 781.9 Mark 16-capable destroyers which could also be used for other duties at need. Building thousands of ships for "quick response" recon is one of the best examples of a solution in search of a problem I've seen in quite some time. It would constitute a panic reaction on the part of the RMN which would have a significant impact on the ability of the RMN to maintain a useful combat capability. If I were designing the RMN's "quick response" recon forces (which, by an odd coincidence, I am responsible for doing) they would be built around a small number of specifically tasked groups of destroyers and a single CLAC. They would be dispatched to the coordinates of any suspect datum, and once they reached those coordinates, they would be tasked to search a volume around them which would allow for a rate of advance by any incoming force which would be at least twice that of which I believe the attackers to actually be capable. They would deploy recon platforms in profusion and they would operate two shells of RDs: one working its way in from the outer perimeter of the sphere to be searched, and another working its way out from the center. The CLAC would remain a light-minute or so away from any anticipated danger, staying in contact via FTL com, and would be available to provide a massive launch of LACs if an opponent suitable for its engagement turned up. If, instead, an entire enemy Battle Fleet turned up, then Home Fleet would be on call to deal with it. And, in the meantime, I would not have invested billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping, and tens of thousands of personnel in a fleet of ships which had no other function but to run around, look for the enemy, and either run away very fast — or die — if they detect the enemy. Wasting resources on that mission when that mission can already be accomplished by existing combat types which can also serve other useful functions is logistically and economically insane. -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Cheopis
Posts: 1633
|
Lets assume I'm an aggressor with good intelligence capacity, like the MAN.
As soon as I see Manticore behaving in such a heavy-handed manner, I would immediately begin sending in many ships at extreme sensor ranges, then pulling them back out again, forcing the Manticore recon efforts to either pick and choose what you are going to respond to, or start penny packeting your recon forces. Once you start sending out sufficiently small recon groups, I start ambushing them. Doesn't matter what kind of ship you send, but CLACs and fat little destroyers are a lot more tempting targets than a tiny drone tender. If nothing larger than a drone tender comes out looking for me, the captain in that spider drive ship might just let it live and poke around for a while looking for a better target. Especially if they are overconfident about the spider drive's ability to hide from recon drones, and the drone tender just packs up and leaves after a while without giving any overt sign that it saw anything. ** Edit add the section between the **'s because the entire concept of making thousands of these ships is completely outside anything I ever suggested. There is no intent to "smother" all of the outer periphery with ships. You want a spherical shell of pickets that will allow reasonable response times. no more than a couple dozen pickets should be necessary to allow at least one or two of them to respond in a reasonable timeframe to a sendor ghost. ** I know without any possible doubt that the logic train that is being followed is flawed unless there's some handwavium happening that I'm not aware of, but it's not my universe to write in. I can only do my best to point out flaws. I'm done with this topic and won't bring it up again unless the argument changes substantially. Last edited by Cheopis on Mon May 23, 2011 3:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
|
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
robert132
Posts: 586
|
David is probably getting just a little annoyed over this fixation on frigates.
You and he are correct, for the amount of effort, expense and numbers required, to be able to "smother" a spherical area outside a hyper limit out to a distance approaching six light months with any kind of ship just isn't doable. Hundreds if not thousands of ships would be needed in order to keep sufficient numbers on station while about 60% are in some kind of upkeep, resupply or crew rest. For reconnisance a frigate isn't my first choice either for the same reasons you give, it isn't big enough to handle the numbers of recon drones needed and still ship any offensive armament. If you must have a dedicated reconnisance or scout ship you will probably need something around the size and mass of a light cruiser fitted to act as tender to a number of RD's and carry sufficient computer power to process the "take" properly. The ship would also need the FTL comms capability to properly utilize the RDs and (my thought) a top of the line stealth capability for her own protection and the ability to alter the parameters of her wedge, electronic signature and transponders to appear as something other than a threat, assume the guise of a merchantman for example. And also the "legs" necessary to run like hell if found out. Such a beast would be very expensive and not lightly placed in harm's way. Be well sir. ****
Just my opinion of course and probably not worth the paper it's not written on. |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
fester
Posts: 680
|
Someone, somewhere on the Internet is WRONG!!! I bet that is the thought that is going through Weber's head right now. |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Duckk
Posts: 4201
|
It's also an xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/386/ -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Mitchell, Esq.
Posts: 806
|
Frigates remind me of people carrying a .32ACP pocket pistol without a spare magazine.
Sure, you are armed... But you don't have a very powerful weapon, a very long ranged weapon, a weapon with a decent capacity to prosecute the fight or one with sights capible of making use of what pathetic bullets you do have. Can you make a .32ACP effective? Sure...you use better ammo, engage at extremely close range using all the skill you can muster... But when all is said and done, if the .32ACP costs you $289 and a S&W 5 shot J-Frame in .38 Special is $325...and said S&W fires a much more potent bullet, has better sights, grip and can make shots at 25 yards with some skill... It may be a bit bigger and heavier, and cost a little more... But which would you rather have? |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
runsforcelery
Posts: 2425
|
Fine. That is your opinion, and obviously nothing I can do in the entire universe is going to change your mind. My only possible defense is that (a) I devised the technology; (b) I know the limits of the technology; (c) I know the detection limts of the systems; (d) I know the lift capability of the ships; (e) I know how much money the Admiralty has to play with, how much manpower it has, and what its strategic priorities are; (f) I've studied military and naval history for the last 45 years; and (g) I am concerned about the navy's ability to do its primary job -- which is fighting an expletive-deleted war for survival while striking an effective balance between combat power and sensor capability. I could continue to discuss your responses on a point-by-point bais, but since you are now (apparently) positing a sufficiently inexhaustible supply of enemy starships to do unlimited in-and-outs which, obviously the Manties are going to be too stupid to recognize and do a single expletive-deleted thing to cope with, there doesn't seem to be much point. However,let me try this one last time. (1) The Manties have a finite supply of money, manpower, and logistics. (2) The Manties are not and never have been interested in building single-purpose ships which are incapable of contributing to their net combat power unless it is the only possible way to get that single capability. (3) The RMN is fully capable of performing the mission you are describing using ships which are also combat-effective and is not interested in deliberately building death traps/noncombatants simply to guarantee that no one can possibly use the ships for some other useful function. (4) The smaller the ship the less capable it becomes, not simply in combat but also in other venues, including its inability to carry worthwhile numbers of the remote and unmanned (and hence expendable) platforms which will do the actual scouting in the high-risk zone. (5) Ergo, with all due respect for your belief that the Admiralty must be staffed by idiots if they choose not to pursue your forward-looking, insightful policy, they are not interested in buying any significant number (defined, in this instance, as more than one) of vessels which are unarmed resource and manpower sinks for the sole purpose of performing a mission they already can and (and already are) performing. I will add only that I resent (a) being informed that I obviously do not understand my own technology (this from someone who seems to believe that frgiates can go higher in the hyper bands than anyone else) and (b) being informed that I am resorting to "handwavium" when I have given specific supporting logic for each of the points I have made. I appreciate the interest in the books and the technology. I welcome questions and debate and, yes, on at least two occasions I can think of I have picked up on logical implications of my own tech which had not occured to me before the discussion. This is not one of those instances. Before you lecture me on the best mix for the RMN in light of its fiscal and manpower restraints and the nature of the mission it actually faces,it would be a good dea for you to know what those limitations and that mission actually are. "Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as Piglet came back from the dead. |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Michael Everett
Posts: 2621
|
The Wizard hath spoken, and his words are firm.
Only a fool would challenge this. Awaiting the next posting of said fool. ~~~~~~
I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork. (Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC! ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995 |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
Donnachaidh
Posts: 1018
|
As am I. I have to admit to actually laughing out loud when I saw Duckk post this topic...got some strange looks for people to haha.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
Top |
Re: David Weber on Frigates, Part 3 | |
---|---|
![]() |
|
johnboy
Posts: 16
|
I did at first start off thinking that frigates would have utility at about 100,000 tonnes, but the key igure surely is that at 70 to 80% of costs for a Roland they are not cost effective. If it was 50% well that's another matter. They are not that effective as system pickets either, less effective in combat and seemingly, from what has been written, can not be produced any much by yards that do not normally do military construction.
Does that leave them any utility? Seemingly little in the current environment. Of course situations change. The only way that I could see them being used effectively(enabling other ships being reassigned to other roles) was to perhaps have a few built as training platforms to utilise modern weapons training.However, with the plethora of older DD's in reserve it would probably be easier to refit and refurbish these ships for these roles.I had also wondered if ships like the Nat Turner class were being built in private shipyards(like for Torch)that are not large enough to produce larger ships: if Manticore would order these as a stopgap until their normal production facilities are restored(on the something is better than nothing case)? This might be some sort of logic but my understanding is that there are many older DD's and CL's still in reserve, although these would be much more manpower intensive,which is also a problem. As far as situations changing, roles that are not present now but could always develop are: 1) Would make good platforms for "deniable" "pirate" attacks 2) In a situation awash with "old style" pirates they would have some utility Neither of these situations exist now. |
Top |