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

kzt wrote:

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?

MaxxQ wrote: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.

MaxxQ wrote:

Ok, if you don't like that equivalency, consider a surface warship in which you run gasoline pipes to every compartment, and then keep them filled with 500 PSI gasoline in combat.

Of course this is an unfair comparison. Gasoline, unlike billion degree plasma pulled out of the core of an artificial star, can actually be contained by a pipe. And if it leaks you at least have some small possibility of it not destroying everything around it, with a chain reaction as the plasma eats the piping system back to the reactor....

Yeah, I can see how this is so much better then using superconducting electrical lines.

kzt wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:

Ok, if you don't like that equivalency, consider a surface warship in which you run gasoline pipes to every compartment, and then keep them filled with 500 PSI gasoline in combat.

Of course this is an unfair comparison. Gasoline, unlike billion degree plasma pulled out of the core of an artificial star, can actually be contained by a pipe. And if it leaks you at least have some small possibility of it not destroying everything around it, with a chain reaction as the plasma eats the piping system back to the reactor....

Yeah, I can see how this is so much better then using superconducting electrical lines.

My eyeroll had nothing to do with equivalency.

It had everything to do with my being proved right that someone would complain about it, and that someone would ignore the idea that there just might possibly be a way to contain that sort of thing in the Honorverse, which bears only a passing resemblance to The Real World™.

Just call it handwavium, like a lot of us do for almost everything else that RFC writes in the books.

MaxxQ wrote:
It had everything to do with my being proved right that someone would complain about it, and that someone would ignore the idea that there just might possibly be a way to contain that sort of thing in the Honorverse, which bears only a passing resemblance to The Real World™.

Sure, until it gets damaged. Not that this would ever happen to warships. You might notice that there are no mentions of leaking plasma pipes, or plasma pipes at all, in any of the actual books. The books talk about capacitors, which are devices that hold electrical energy and are charged by putting electricity into them. So why introduce something both new and crazy?

Before this continues, may I direct everyone to read the Isaac Asimov story "Superiority".

Done?
Good.

The problem with new ways of looking at things is that unless you are very careful, you miss a small fact that dooms your plans to fail or you misunderstand a basic fact.

A few decades ago, an interesting invention was made. It the time, non-rigid samples (such as from livers etc) were encased in wax to hold them solid enough to be sliced for examination. The wax was melted, poured on and then chilled to provide the required structural support.
One company released a mirrored dish. The idea was that you could put a pile of ice cubes in the center and the curvature would focus the cold onto where it was needed, thus making the wax freeze quicker without needing large freezers.

You can probably see the failed starting point.
Moral of the story?
If you have a great idea, make certain that it doesn't conflict with reality.
aka check all the facts first.
Or in this case, The Pearls of Weber FAQs.

Michael Everett wrote:Before this continues, may I direct everyone to read the Isaac Asimov story "Superiority".

Done?
Good.

I haven't read Asimov's, but I've read Arthur C. Clarke's

MaxxQ wrote:…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…"turning" a plasma stream, but I wouldn't be surprised if Gravitics has something to do with it. the equipment will be pretty bulky, which would affect how it fits into a turret.

As I pointed out, there’s no way the plasma is going directly into the gun itself, at some point (like coal in a coal train) it has to be converted into usable energy – that converter system can easily be placed directly under the turret traverse mechanism. With super conductors transferring the energy from there to the gun mount.

MaxxQ wrote:…The capacitors are positioned as close to the device/equipment as possible because it keeps everything together under the armor…

The position directly under the turret would be armored & the mount crew wouldn’t have to fight with 1000+ deg. plasma pipes directly under their butt.

MaxxQ wrote:..and they're only vulnerable to shots from certain angles…

and makes them less effective in combat. If I can't aim at you then you can't aim at me.

MaxxQ wrote: …gunports…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… 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

and “…as I *also* stated in my earlier post on this…”even if they are “fixed” the “ports” would still work like the Confederate Ironclads. The CSS Albemarle had 1 gun out each chase and 2 guns per broadside. But she only carried 2 gun mounts total! The had 3 gun ports per gun, 1 on each side and 1 on the citadel end the gun was mounted in. that’s Gun tonnage sipped /3 not to mention effective gun production x3!

MaxxQ wrote:…because David wants to keep the Age of Sail analog.

I believe that went out the airlock with “Aircraft Carriers” so as I said, maybe your arguments are why they aren’t used but the lack of aft chase position on pod carriers creates a “need” to rethink and develop the tech.

MaxxQ wrote:His universe, his rules

True enough, but he is a great writer & listens to his fans (or, I believe, Honor would be dead already).

MaxxQ wrote:…a crap-ton of stuff on the dorsal and ventral surfaces anyway…

Much of which, as I said, will have room available on the ends and broadsides when the side mounts are removed. The boat bays would be near the center (like the Arizona – boat deck amidships with turrets on the ends.).

Anyway in a 40-41st century gravitic society, super conductor tech would be more “old tech” than copper wire is to us. They should have developed ultra conductors (0 ohm/room temp). There would be no need to use something as volatile as plasma conduits to transfer the energy. The “conduits” wouldn’t be (as you know) a length of PVC pipe. It would be a large cleared tube shaped area surrounded by containment fields (either magnetic or gravitic). The problem is that these “tubes” would have to be continually active. Which would drain a lot of power (the ultra conductors would not need). Any break in power (even a brief one in a small section) would release the plasma, which would destroy that section of the “conduit” and the adjacent conduits releasing that, as well, in a chain reaction. Even a minor fluctuation in the power grid (even from a hit in a minor aux. system) would release ALL the plasma and gut the ship. In addition: a reactor doesn’t “create” plasma. So if the weapons use plasma directly from the reactors, they would have a very limited supply and that would mean very limited combat endurance. If it’s also used for other things (like impeller power) then the ships would have very limited endurance as well. A very poor system when other (less limited and less volatile) systems are readily available.

Also: I realize the initial genre was intended as “wooden sail” but it seams more like Victorian/late 1800 Ironclad/pre-dreadnought era – with main deck Sponsons.

Yeah... okay. I can see where this is going, so I'll just stay away from this thread from now on.

I'll just reiterate my own personal opinion, which is that whether they're fed through plasma conduits or not, there *won't* ever be energy weapons (or missile) turrets on Honorverse warships.

MAD-4A wrote:I believe that went out the airlock with “Aircraft Carriers” so as I said, maybe your arguments are why they aren’t used but the lack of aft chase position on pod carriers creates a “need” to rethink and develop the tech.

Umm, no. Not really. If you're in a situation where you are in a podlayer and need to use your aft chase batteries, the situation is probably sufficiently fucked that those additional weapons wouldn't help anyway.

True enough, but he is a great writer & listens to his fans (or, I believe, Honor would be dead already).

There's "listening to fans", and there's "using fan ideas". The latter is something RFC explicitly does not do, as it would open him up to all sorts of hairy liability issues.

Here's a question for you though, MAD-4A: If turret mounts are possible, and have all the advantages you cite, why is noone using them? That's the big issue with this and similar "simple, common sense" proposals that pop up here ever so often; they never try to account for the reasons why noone in-universe has tried to make them work already, they always assume that the rules do allow it and it's just the author's insistence on specific modes of combat that is holding it back (which is a quite nonsensical mixture of in-universe and meta reasoning).

The E wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:I believe that went out the airlock with “Aircraft Carriers” so as I said, maybe your arguments are why they aren’t used but the lack of aft chase position on pod carriers creates a “need” to rethink and develop the tech.

Umm, no. Not really. If you're in a situation where you are in a podlayer and need to use your aft chase batteries, the situation is probably sufficiently fucked that those additional weapons wouldn't help anyway.

The podlayer's rear chase armament is six missile pod tubes. That's the equivalent of a 60 missile broadside(more if those are MK16 pods or MK23s without apollo). The rear battery's maximum range is well above 60 million kilometres and is able to fire off-bore.

That means if the podnought's butt is threatened, it can simply turn away and continue to lay pods to deal with the threat.

Most COs make the effort to keep their throat/kilt away from the enemy, though this isn't as essential with bow/stern sidewalls and their buckler versions.