Why are wallers stumpy and destroyers svelte?

JeffEngel wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Right. And the armor helps explain the smaller difference in length:beam ratios, while offering no help for the larger difference in length:draught ratios.

A greater or smaller number of decks (assuming you keep the internal orientation fixed - the use of the inside by humans may disincline architects to get too creative there) would account for more or less total draught. But as far as that goes, it's just re-describing the question rather than answering it. Perhaps as you get a longer ship, you want more internal volume but you can't practically make it longer still, so you increase draught instead. (And assuming there that there's also a practical limitation on beam increases that's already being pushed.)

Just what those practical limits are, I don't know.

Well, and you do start running into things that restrict the minimum practical beam.

You need enough beam to get missile launchers into both broadsides[1] (with feed tubes for them) without bumping into each other. (I believe missile hardware length starts affecting you before laser/graser length; but that could potentially play a factor as well).

You want enough beam to support boat bays that allow pinnaces and shuttles to dock perpendicular to the ship's long axis; for efficient parking. (And of course given where the boat bays are located this drives the beam of the lowest deck; not just the hull's max beam)

And those are just two examples off the top of my head.
----
[size=85}[1] Unless you go the Roland route and stick the missiles in as spinal mounts[/size]

Jonathan_S wrote:True enough. But that alone doesn't necessarily explain why the smaller ships have a different hull shape, rather than just a smaller diameter of the same basic hull length-to-beam (to-depth) ratio.

Smaller ships still have to be wide enough to mount broadside armament and have room to manage missile transport from magazine to launcher.

Jonathan_S wrote:Well, and you do start running into things that restrict the minimum practical beam.

You need enough beam to get missile launchers into both broadsides[1] (with feed tubes for them) without bumping into each other. (I believe missile hardware length starts affecting you before laser/graser length; but that could potentially play a factor as well).

Pretty much this. There's a point where you just *can't* make the beam much smaller, unless you're willing to go with smaller (and much more limited) missiles or beam weapons.

Jonathan_S wrote:You want enough beam to support boat bays that allow pinnaces and shuttles to dock perpendicular to the ship's long axis; for efficient parking. (And of course given where the boat bays are located this drives the beam of the lowest deck; not just the hull's max beam)

Yes and no. On the smaller ships, at least for the RMN, the boat bays are set up for parallel parking: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -471274947
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/C ... -471275447

Even a larger destroyer, such as the Roland, has the small craft docked parallel to the ship centerline: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/R ... -471275665

This holds true with all CL's and up through some CA's. I believe the Star Knight class is the smallest size you can go for having the small craft dock perpendicular to the ship centerline. Although this only holds true for the RMN - other navies may have smaller parasite craft that allow perpendicular parking on their smaller warships.

Jonathan_S wrote:Well, and you do start running into things that restrict the minimum practical beam.

You need enough beam to get missile launchers into both broadsides[1] (with feed tubes for them) without bumping into each other. (I believe missile hardware length starts affecting you before laser/graser length; but that could potentially play a factor as well).

I'm not sure how you are laying out your missiles launchers? are you laying them out so that Port A launcher and feed tube is directly opposite Starboard A launcher and feed tube, with a small access corridor between them, or are you laying them out in the pattern (moving aft) Port A, Starboard A, Port B, Starboard B, etc. This pattern will cut the beam requirement almost in half, because the launcher and feed tube will cover virtually the entire beam.

MaxxQ wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Well, and you do start running into things that restrict the minimum practical beam.

You need enough beam to get missile launchers into both broadsides[1] (with feed tubes for them) without bumping into each other. (I believe missile hardware length starts affecting you before laser/graser length; but that could potentially play a factor as well).

Pretty much this. There's a point where you just *can't* make the beam much smaller, unless you're willing to go with smaller (and much more limited) missiles or beam weapons.

So - let me see if this represents a consensus:

Impeller mechanics dictate a more-or-less cigar shape for a warship and (something practically like a) minimum length for hypercapable ones at least.

Weaponry tends to create minimum practical beam, and small craft carriage may make some difference there too.

So, on the small end, minimum tonnage tends to mean tightening up the draught dimension more than the other two.

As you get larger, practicality of various sorts (impeller mechanics, working inside the thing) tends to limit maximum length. Beam relative to length is limited by impeller mechanics. So filling out from there goes to draught until it's similar to beam, and then you fill out more or less proportionately, insofar as you can and remain up to SD acceleration.

Jonathan_S wrote:Well, and you do start running into things that restrict the minimum practical beam.

You need enough beam to get missile launchers into both broadsides[1] (with feed tubes for them) without bumping into each other. (I believe missile hardware length starts affecting you before laser/graser length; but that could potentially play a factor as well).

MaxxQ wrote:
Pretty much this. There's a point where you just *can't* make the beam much smaller, unless you're willing to go with smaller (and much more limited) missiles or beam weapons.

JeffEngel wrote:
So - let me see if this represents a consensus:

Impeller mechanics dictate a more-or-less cigar shape for a warship and (something practically like a) minimum length for hypercapable ones at least.

Weaponry tends to create minimum practical beam, and small craft carriage may make some difference there too.

So, on the small end, minimum tonnage tends to mean tightening up the draught dimension more than the other two.

As you get larger, practicality of various sorts (impeller mechanics, working inside the thing) tends to limit maximum length. Beam relative to length is limited by impeller mechanics. So filling out from there goes to draught until it's similar to beam, and then you fill out more or less proportionately, insofar as you can and remain up to SD acceleration.

I can agree with this interpretation - the real question is how to RFC and BuNine feel about it?

Also there is need for two big bridges on capital ships and much better computer support so it add a lot of or beam or length. Amount of weapons which is mounted on any capital ship takes a lot of space and if there are big gaps between mounts we could mire much more quicker. Similar solution was used by Charis when they run into issues with crowded gun decks and I believe that crowded gun deck is answer here. Any naval designer/officer could comment that?

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:True enough. But that alone doesn't necessarily explain why the smaller ships have a different hull shape, rather than just a smaller diameter of the same basic hull length-to-beam (to-depth) ratio.

Smaller ships still have to be wide enough to mount broadside armament and have room to manage missile transport from magazine to launcher.

Borrowing your quote to reply about the width, one more item to look at, the picture here: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Missile with the caveat from the picture that the missiles are "pre-Great Resizing", so the dimensions would change slightjy.

Ship shape wise, now compare two decks of those monsters, plus multiple salvo loads, using the 2nd missile from the top vs. 1 deck of the smaller missiles towards the bottom of the image.

SharkHunter wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Smaller ships still have to be wide enough to mount broadside armament and have room to manage missile transport from magazine to launcher.

Borrowing your quote to reply about the width, one more item to look at, the picture here: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Missile with the caveat from the picture that the missiles are "pre-Great Resizing", so the dimensions would change slightjy.

Ship shape wise, now compare two decks of those monsters, plus multiple salvo loads, using the 2nd missile from the top vs. 1 deck of the smaller missiles towards the bottom of the image.

Don't bother using that diagram. As you say, that was pre-Great-Resizing. Missile sizes changed a lot more in the Resizing than you think, and that diagram is quite useless for comparison. Instead, just listen to MaxxQ (who posted above), the BuNine guy who has actually tried to fit missiles into three-dimensional ship models.

--snipping--

SWM wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:Borrowing your quote to reply about the width, one more item to look at, the picture here: http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Missile with the caveat from the picture that the missiles are "pre-Great Resizing", so the dimensions would change slightjy.

Ship shape wise, now compare two decks of those monsters, plus multiple salvo loads, using the 2nd missile from the top vs. 1 deck of the smaller missiles towards the bottom of the image.

Don't bother using that diagram. As you say, that was pre-Great-Resizing. Missile sizes changed a lot more in the Resizing than you think, and that diagram is quite useless for comparison. Instead, just listen to MaxxQ (who posted above), the BuNine guy who has actually tried to fit missiles into three-dimensional ship models.

Very cool. I found the link that shows relative missile sizes:
http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -465723413

Granted, it doesn't show the size of the pre-MDM missile designs, however, given that the warhead size for the original MDM's was based on a prior missile, I think it's a good relative comparison, e.g., the Mark 23 as an SD class capital ship missile, and the Mark 16 as a cruiser-weight shipkiller.