The roof and belly of a ship is naked... here's a fix.

MAD-4A wrote:

Duckk wrote:The dorsal and ventral aspects are already jam packed with stuff that you can't stick an appreciable amount of firepower on them. It's not worth the engineering headaches of finding a place to the turrets while still maintaining the necessary open aspects for sensors, comms, etc, nor figuring out how to best armor and feed those weapons. The weapons are in the broadsides for a very good reason.

With missiles perhaps but with energy weapons: Not really. Lets look at an SD: lets say a ship has 4 grazers in her broadside & 2 each in her chase mounts. That’s 12 grazers carried. Now if you mounted 1 turret each on the upper & lower bow & stern. That’s only 4 turrets with only 4 guns but with the same broadside, and the same chase battery (that’s why modern ships use them). But you would free up all the space on the hull side & ends where the grazers were (more than enough for the sensors removed from the top & bottom of the hull). In addition you would free up a lot of internal space where these mounts were and pod-noughts would be able to have aft chase batteries without interfering with the launch doors.

Using your figures those numbers would add up. Unfortunately, your figures are wildly inaccurate. For example, an Invictus-class SD(P) (optimised for missile, not energ, combat) carries, IIRC, 18 grazers per broadside and 10 chasers per hammerhead. That means you'd need five twin turrets able to bear forward and another five able to bear aft, you simply don't have the beam available to mount that many turrets.

You need at least 18 turreted mounts to match the broadside, or 9 if they are all doubles. In practice you will need more because whether the turret is top or bottom of the ship, the ship itself will occlude some of the side angle a traditional broadside weapon can fire into. So to maintain a broadside fire of 18 you will need turrets top and bottom and enough to compensate for the occlusion. (18 is already the smallest Capital ship energy broadside seen in the current era; the previous class had an energy broadside of 28)

Myself, I think the point already made about the need for gunports in the sidewall to fire through is an even bigger problem

At the risk of inciting more "you can't do that, it defies the laws of physics and it's just more handwavium"-style comments, there's another reason why it's difficult, if not impossible, to do turrets.

Plasma.

The capacitors so often mentioned in the books are plasma capacitors, fed directly from the reactors. These caps store and convert the plasma into useable energy for the lasers, grasers, and missile tubes to use. The problem is that plasma doesn't like to turn once it's moving in a given direction. It can be done, but it's difficult, and the turns are pretty wide. We at BuNine have, in a *very* general and loose way, figured it out, and it's fairly space-intensive.

The capacitor rings for each mount are visible, and very obvious, in my renders, but the plasma feeds *to* the caps from the reactors aren't there... yet.

Given that, to have turrets, unless they're lined up directly above or below the reactors (which would work for only four turrets at best), you're going to have at a minimum, two turns in the plasma lines. Not to mention, somewhere you're going to need a rotating joint that can contain the plasma stream. That's a definite weakness.

Lastly, energy weapons mounted in turrets are going to be more vulnerable to incoming fire than buried behind all that broadside armor. Not to mention that by having paired weapons, you end up definitely losing two weapons to a hit, as opposed to only a *possibility* of losing more than a single weapon to a broadside hit. There's *lots* of armor cofferdaming and compartmentilization in broadside weapons emplacements that wouldn't be present in turrets, unless you made them grossly oversized.

Randomiser wrote:You need at least 18 turreted mounts to match the broadside, or 9 if they are all doubles. In practice you will need more because whether the turret is top or bottom of the ship, the ship itself will occlude some of the side angle a traditional broadside weapon can fire into. So to maintain a broadside fire of 18 you will need turrets top and bottom and enough to compensate for the occlusion. (18 is already the smallest Capital ship energy broadside seen in the current era; the previous class had an energy broadside of 28)

I’m afraid your math is muddy. You need fewer guns with turrets. For an 18 gun broadside you need as you say 18 single or 9 twin (or 6 triple) turrets – but you still only need 18 guns! For the same firepower, with broadside mounts, you need at least 36 guns (18 each side) + any you want in the chase mounts (which the turrets provide at no added cost!). Say 8 each – that’s 52 guns total carried by the hull instead of only 18 total with turrets for the same broadside & a greater chase. Even single turrets are vastly more efficient than broadside mounts. With the wedges up, you don’t actually need ventral and dorsal mounts (no up or down fire) but it’s favorable to split them that way for firing arc purposes. The guns can be depressed as well as elevated & the hulls are cylindrical.

Randomiser wrote:Myself, I think the point already made about the need for gunports in the sidewall to fire through is an even bigger problem

The “ports” are just areas of the side-wall that can flicker on & off (like a strobe light) & is designed to flicker off when particular guns are firing in a given direction. They can be opened anywhere along the side-wall. It should be easy to equip the system computers to flicker the “port” open at any point along the side-wall controlled by the FCS to open the area directly in front of the weapon firing. But even if the “gun port” tech hasn’t been developed that far yet (maybe a future tech to be rolled out in later books?), to have fixed “ports” in set directions to each side and fore or aft of each given turret (like the gun ports on Confederate ironclads) would still allow for the weight savings and the same firing arcs the fixed mounts would’ve had.

MaxxQ wrote:… if not impossible, to do turrets…Plasma…The capacitors so often mentioned in the books are plasma capacitors, fed directly from the reactors. These caps store and convert the plasma into useable energy for the lasers, grasers, and missile tubes to use. The problem is that plasma doesn't like to turn once it's moving in a given direction. It can be done, but it's difficult, and the turns are pretty wide. We at BuNine have, in a *very* general and loose way, figured it out, and it's fairly space-intensive.

The capacitor rings for each mount are visible, and very obvious, in my renders, but the plasma feeds *to* the caps from the reactors aren't there... yet...

Not sure where your getting the “plasma” tech – haven’t seen it anywhere but:

MaxxQ wrote:…The problem is that plasma doesn't like to turn once it's moving in a given direction…Given that, to have turrets, unless they're lined up directly above or below the reactors (which would work for only four turrets at best), you're going to have at a minimum, two turns in the plasma lines…

If this is so (I presume your going with 2 reactors) then you could only have 2 broadside mounts & 1 chase (directly lined up with the reactor) any other would need at least 1 90deg turn from the central conduit coming out of the reactor (presumably down the ships core) turning out to the mount itself. (how else dose the Grazer 1/2 way between the 2 reators get it's feed?) & Pod layers couldn’t have that, as the core is reserved for the pod bay. Anyway if they can produce artificial gravity fields strong enough to drag 8mil tons along @ 400+ Gs & others small (& harmless to the user) enough to be used in a had gun, then using gav fields to force plasma to turn 90deg should be old tech.

MaxxQ wrote:…Not to mention, somewhere you're going to need a rotating joint that can contain the plasma stream. That's a definite weakness.

Point – but they're not using plasma weapons. You don’t need plasma in the weapon itself. If its being used as an energy transfer medium, then you would need to convert it to usable energy (something that wont fry the components on the first test shot) before it’s transferred to the gun mount. This converter would be “under“ the turret (where the ready service mag. is on gun turrets) and just the transfer cables would need to go into the turret itself.

MaxxQ wrote: Lastly, energy weapons mounted in turrets are going to be more vulnerable to incoming fire than buried behind all that broadside armor

Not so. Unless you mounted the guns completely internal. ‘course then the only thing you could shoot would be your own armor. The guns themselves have to be exposed in order to shoot. Plus the turrets take up very little surface area compared to the whole side of a ship. In armored warships (PD threw WWII) generally the most heavily armored part of a ship were the turrets. The Yamato had 41cm belt armor but the turrets had 65cm armor on the face. Also there is the center-of-mass aspect. When missiles are fired at these ships there looking just to hit the ship. Its not like a sniper trying to hit a specific button on a guys shirt. Its hard enough just to get a hit in. As such most of the hits will be inflicted (as a matter of statistical probability) on the ships broadside (its largest area to hit). With the turrets mounted on the far top & bottom they would actually be safer “out of the way” & relatively out of the line of fire. (Assuming regular exchange damage & not one of those Manty – 200-missiles-getting-threw-on-each-target – salvoes, then it’s a moot point, as even if the turrets don’t get hit, they can’t do much without a hull connecting them to each other!)

MaxxQ wrote: Not to mention that by having paired weapons, you end up definitely losing two weapons to a hit, as opposed to only a *possibility* of losing more than a single weapon to a broadside hit. There's *lots* of armor cofferdaming and compartmentilization in broadside weapons emplacements that wouldn't be present in turrets, unless you made them grossly oversized.

True – but this is mitigated by the fact that the multi-turrets would constitute less space on the overall hull than the single mounts, spread all over the place, and the turrets being in relatively “out of the way” locations. (Not much worth aiming at even if you could, as the missile tubes are still in the broadside). So while an actual hit on a turret (& penetrating the turrets armor) may cause 2-3 times as much loss in capacity. The probability of that is less than 1/2-1/3 as much as a hit on a broadside mount so the net loss over an exchange will likely (but not always) be less. In other words, lets say you have 16 single mounts & I have 8 twin turrets & with all else being equal I hit 1 of your spread out mounts for every 10 shots I take & you hit 1 of my concentrated turrets for every 30 shots you take. After 90 shots I’ve hit 9 of your mounts while you’ve hit 3 of my turrets (assuming no collateral damage – which has been mentioned in some of the engagements). I now have 5 turrets with 10 guns while you have only 7 single gun mounts working. Of course actual probabilities would depend on the specific ship designs.
Maybe that will be a new design feature that will develop in future novels?

MAD-4A wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:… if not impossible, to do turrets…Plasma…The capacitors so often mentioned in the books are plasma capacitors, fed directly from the reactors. These caps store and convert the plasma into useable energy for the lasers, grasers, and missile tubes to use. The problem is that plasma doesn't like to turn once it's moving in a given direction. It can be done, but it's difficult, and the turns are pretty wide. We at BuNine have, in a *very* general and loose way, figured it out, and it's fairly space-intensive.

The capacitor rings for each mount are visible, and very obvious, in my renders, but the plasma feeds *to* the caps from the reactors aren't there... yet...

Not sure where your getting the “plasma” tech – haven’t seen it anywhere but:

Ummm... BuNine. It's there under my name. That's part of our job for David - coming up with ideas and reasons for why things are the way they are in the Honorverse. This is our current explanation for how plasma tech works. As always, it's subject to change, but so far RFC hasn't pooh-poohed the idea, so...

MAD-4A wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:…The problem is that plasma doesn't like to turn once it's moving in a given direction…Given that, to have turrets, unless they're lined up directly above or below the reactors (which would work for only four turrets at best), you're going to have at a minimum, two turns in the plasma lines…

If this is so (I presume your going with 2 reactors) then you could only have 2 broadside mounts & 1 chase (directly lined up with the reactor) any other would need at least 1 90deg turn from the central conduit coming out of the reactor (presumably down the ships core) turning out to the mount itself. (how else dose the Grazer 1/2 way between the 2 reators get it's feed?) & Pod layers couldn’t have that, as the core is reserved for the pod bay. Anyway if they can produce artificial gravity fields strong enough to drag 8mil tons along @ 400+ Gs & others small (& harmless to the user) enough to be used in a had gun, then using gav fields to force plasma to turn 90deg should be old tech.

Reread what I wrote. I was specifically talking about turrets, but I will agree that for broadside mounts that yes, there would have to be a minimum of one turn. I never said that there wouldn't be, and in fact, that is taken into account for my renders, although it's not modeled yet. Turrets would require a minimum of two turns, as well as rotating joints - at least one if there's no elevation for the turret, and two if there is.

I'm not exactly sure yet what the other guys in BuNine have come up with as the mechanism for "turning" a plasma stream, but I wouldn't be surprised if Gravitics has something to do with it. But as I *also* stated in my earlier post on this, the equipment will be pretty bulky, which would affect how it fits into a turret. Some of the preliminary sketches I've seen have some fairly massive "black boxes" at the turns. Oh, and I think we've also decided that there are no 90° turns in the plasma feed lines. At most, there are 45° turns, which, of course means that to make a 90° turn, you'll need two 45's.

Which takes up more room.

MAD-4A wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:…Not to mention, somewhere you're going to need a rotating joint that can contain the plasma stream. That's a definite weakness.

Point – but they're not using plasma weapons. You don’t need plasma in the weapon itself. If its being used as an energy transfer medium, then you would need to convert it to usable energy (something that wont fry the components on the first test shot) before it’s transferred to the gun mount. This converter would be “under“ the turret (where the ready service mag. is on gun turrets) and just the transfer cables would need to go into the turret itself.

Again, reread what I wrote. The capacitors are what "converts" the plasma into the energy required to operate the weapons (or whatever equipment they are associated with - impeller rooms have crap-tons of capacitors as well). The capacitors are positioned as close to the device/equipment as possible because it keeps everything together under the armor, with only the plasma feed line from the reactor(s) going through the armored portion of the weapons mount. That's not to say the plasma feed lines aren't armored, but *something* has to go through an armored weapons mount.

MAD-4A wrote:

MaxxQ wrote: Lastly, energy weapons mounted in turrets are going to be more vulnerable to incoming fire than buried behind all that broadside armor

Not so. Unless you mounted the guns completely internal. ‘course then the only thing you could shoot would be your own armor. The guns themselves have to be exposed in order to shoot.

True. Textev has them "run out", just like wooden ship cannon. But it's not like they stick out all that far, and they're only vulnerable to shots from certain angles, whereas turrets, by their nature, are exposed a hell of a lot more.

One thing that was mentioned upthread but not commented on much, if at all, was the gunports in the sidewalls. I don't know for sure, but I always figured them to be fixed, and of course, only being opened when a weapon is fired, either energy or missile. I seem to recall a mention that they are fixed, but whether it was from a Pearl or just speculation here, I can't recall.

Either way, if they *are* fixed, then turrets are out the airlock anyway, unless they're only used to fire out the throat and kilt. Oh, but that's what chasers are for.

Even if they're *not* fixed, I don't see turrets being introduced in the Honorverse, at least not for warships. There's already textev for them being used on assault shuttles and such, but not warships. Don't ask me for specific reasons, but speculating, I would say that it might be because David wants to keep the Age of Sail analog. His universe, his rules. I've seen no indication that turrets will be trending in the Honorverse, and feel pretty confident in saying that we never will see them.

Edit: And has already been mentioned, there's already a crap-ton of stuff on the dorsal and ventral surfaces anyway, especially the ventral having all those pesky boat bays taking up *so* much room.

MAD-4A wrote:<<SNIP>>

Randomiser wrote:Myself, I think the point already made about the need for gunports in the sidewall to fire through is an even bigger problem

The “ports” are just areas of the side-wall that can flicker on & off (like a strobe light) & is designed to flicker off when particular guns are firing in a given direction. They can be opened anywhere along the side-wall. It should be easy to equip the system computers to flicker the “port” open at any point along the side-wall controlled by the FCS to open the area directly in front of the weapon firing. But even if the “gun port” tech hasn’t been developed that far yet (maybe a future tech to be rolled out in later books?), to have fixed “ports” in set directions to each side and fore or aft of each given turret (like the gun ports on Confederate ironclads) would still allow for the weight savings and the same firing arcs the fixed mounts would’ve had.

Actually, the "gun ports" are not areas of the sidewall that flicker on and off. A sidewall is one continuous sheet of gravity generated by specific pieces of equipment designed to put out a single gravity field , carefully aligned to match up with and meld into adjacent fields. The "gun port" is a secondary sidewall generator that projects a cylindrical sidewall down the "barrel" of a laser or graser from the ship to the actual sidewall and melds with the ship's sidewall to create an opening. It also contains the "lens" that focuses that particular energy weapon. Which is another piece of equipment to account for. IIRC, this is discussed in SotS, the short story as well as one or two other places.

MAD-4A wrote:

Randomiser wrote:Myself, I think the point already made about the need for gunports in the sidewall to fire through is an even bigger problem

The “ports” are just areas of the side-wall that can flicker on & off (like a strobe light) & is designed to flicker off when particular guns are firing in a given direction. They can be opened anywhere along the side-wall. It should be easy to equip the system computers to flicker the “port” open at any point along the side-wall controlled by the FCS to open the area directly in front of the weapon firing. But even if the “gun port” tech hasn’t been developed that far yet (maybe a future tech to be rolled out in later books?), to have fixed “ports” in set directions to each side and fore or aft of each given turret (like the gun ports on Confederate ironclads) would still allow for the weight savings and the same firing arcs the fixed mounts would’ve had.

I got the impression that the hardware that opens each port is grav generators located around each mount; in other words the mount projects the forces needed to open the hole in the sidewall through which the mount's missile or beam will fly.

You probably could reproduce that in a turret; but it's more equipment added around the trainable 'barrel' of the weapon...

MAD-4A wrote:Not sure where your getting the “plasma” tech – haven’t seen it anywhere but:

That info comes from a couple of posts the David Weber made here (and are captures on the infodump's site)
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/287/0
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/297/0

And since MaxxQ is involved in 3D modeling ships (currently the CA HMS Fearless) for BuNine (David's volunteer background/technical consultants) he's probably got a better handle on how the ship's power systems are laid than anyone on this board short of RFC (David Weber) himself.

Jonathan_S wrote:And since MaxxQ is involved in 3D modeling ships (currently the CA HMS Fearless) for BuNine (David's volunteer background/technical consultants) he's probably got a better handle on how the ship's power systems are laid than anyone on this board short of RFC (David Weber) himself.

I'd say that Tom Pope, Bill Edwards, Thomas Marrone, and Andrew Presby are probably a bit more informed than I. I just turn their sketches into 3D models. That said, I *do* try to keep that sort of stuff in mind when I "build" something, since for the most part, we still don't have much in the way of a plasma/power grid laid out yet.

MaxxQ wrote:I'd say that Tom Pope, Bill Edwards, Thomas Marrone, and Andrew Presby are probably a bit more informed than I. I just turn their sketches into 3D models. That said, I *do* try to keep that sort of stuff in mind when I "build" something, since for the most part, we still don't have much in the way of a plasma/power grid laid out yet.

Nothing against you, but the entire idea seems absurd. It's like powering the ship via exawatt grasers located in engineering and sent into all compartments via "light pipes". What could possibly go wrong?