[ EPU Foyer ] [ Lab and Grill ] [ Bonus Theater!! ] [ Rhetorical Questions ] [ CSRANTronix ] [ GNDN ] [ Subterranean Vault ] [ Discussion Forum ] [ Gun of the Week ]

Eyrie Productions, Unlimited

Subject: "Two Questions." Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Undocumented Features General Topic #150
Reading Topic #150
bparanial
Charter Member
Oct-13-01, 08:17 PM (EST)
Click to EMail bparanial Click to send private message to bparanial Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"Two Questions."
 
   1. What is overtechnology?
2. Do B5 style Earthforce warships and fighters (Hyperion Heavy Crusiers,
Starfuries, etc) exist in the UF universe?


  Printer-friendly page | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-13-01 1
     RE: Two Questions. ejheckathorn Oct-13-01 2
         RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-13-01 3
             RE: Two Questions. Sinapus Oct-13-01 4
                 RE: Two Questions. Offsides Oct-13-01 5
                     RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 6
                         RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 8
                             RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 9
                                 RE: Two Questions. Sinapus Oct-14-01 10
                                     RE: Two Questions. Star Ranger4 Oct-14-01 11
                                         RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 14
                                             RE: Two Questions. jonathanlennox Oct-16-01 61
                                             RE: Two Questions. drakensisthered Oct-19-01 92
                                         RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 20
                                             RE: Two Questions. Nathan Oct-14-01 21
                                             RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 25
                                             RE: Two Questions. Wedge Oct-14-01 27
                                             RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 28
                                             RE: Two Questions. Wedge Oct-14-01 29
                                             RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 30
                                             RE: Two Questions. Astynax Oct-16-01 47
                                             RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 53
                                             RE: Two Questions. megazone Oct-20-01 97
                                             RE: Two Questions. Matrix Dragon Oct-14-01 31
                                             RE: Two Questions. zojojojo Oct-15-01 35
                                             RE: Two Questions. Nathan Oct-15-01 40
                                             No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Redneck Oct-15-01 44
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. ejheckathorn Oct-16-01 45
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. megazone Oct-16-01 49
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Redneck Oct-16-01 50
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 51
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Rod_H Oct-16-01 55
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. BobSchroeck Oct-16-01 56
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Redneck Oct-16-01 60
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. TRB Oct-18-01 79
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-18-01 80
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. TRB Oct-18-01 81
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 52
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. remandeteam Oct-16-01 57
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Redneck Oct-16-01 58
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Nathan Oct-16-01 63
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 64
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Nathan Oct-16-01 66
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 68
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Mister Fnord Oct-16-01 72
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 62
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Matrix Dragon Oct-16-01 71
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. drakensisthered Oct-16-01 69
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 70
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Star Ranger4 Oct-17-01 73
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-17-01 76
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Matrix Dragon Oct-17-01 77
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. remandeteam Oct-19-01 87
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Rod_H Oct-19-01 88
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Redneck Oct-19-01 90
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Verbena Oct-18-01 82
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-18-01 83
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Verbena Oct-19-01 89
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Astynax Oct-18-01 84
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Star Ranger4 Oct-19-01 85
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Astynax Oct-19-01 86
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Chris Redfield Oct-19-01 93
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. drakensisthered Oct-19-01 91
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-19-01 94
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. drakensisthered Oct-20-01 95
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-20-01 96
                                             RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal. Gryphonadmin Oct-16-01 54
                                     RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 19
                                 RE: Two Questions. Blob Oct-14-01 12
                                     RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-14-01 13
                                         RE: Two Questions. Polychrome Oct-14-01 15
                                         RE: Two Questions. Blob Oct-14-01 16
                                 RE: Two Questions. gamlain Oct-17-01 78
                     RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 7
                         RE: Two Questions. Offsides Oct-14-01 17
                             RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-14-01 18
                                 RE: Two Questions. Pangaro Oct-15-01 36
                                     RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-15-01 37
                                         RE: Two Questions. Gryphonadmin Oct-15-01 38
                                             RE: Two Questions. ejheckathorn Oct-15-01 39
                                             RE: Two Questions. Redneck Oct-15-01 42
                                             RE: Two Questions. Wedge Oct-15-01 43
                                             RE: Two Questions. Ebony Oct-16-01 59
                             RE: Two Questions. remandeteam Oct-14-01 24
                                 RE: Two Questions. Sinapus Oct-14-01 26
                                     RE: Two Questions. drakensisthered Oct-15-01 32
                                     RE: Two Questions. Star Ranger4 Oct-16-01 46
                                         RE: Two Questions. ejheckathorn Oct-16-01 48
                                             RE: Two Questions. Star Ranger4 Oct-16-01 65
                                             RE: Two Questions. ejheckathorn Oct-16-01 67
                                             RE: Two Questions. Star Ranger4 Oct-17-01 74
                                             RE: Two Questions. ejheckathorn Oct-17-01 75
                         RE: Two Questions. drakensisthered Oct-14-01 22
                             RE: Two Questions. Star Ranger4 Oct-14-01 23
                                 RE: Two Questions. drakensisthered Oct-15-01 33
                             RE: Two Questions. Blob Oct-15-01 34
                                 RE: Two Questions. drakensisthered Oct-15-01 41

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-13-01, 08:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #0
 
   >1. What is overtechnology?

The technological basis of much (originally all) of the Wedge Defense Force's equipment. It is not widely understood, as its secrets are very closely guarded by the WDF's equipment suppliers, Fahvergnugen Heavy Industries and British-AnimeTech, Limited. Though originally provided by Lord Wolfgang Amadeus von Fahrvergnugen, it may not have originated with him, but rather may be extradimensional in origin. As variable configuration is a recurring (though not universal) theme in overtechnological items, there may also be a link to the technological ecology of Cybertron. Commonly recognized pieces of overtechnological equipment include the Reflex Effect (an energy reaction which powers the WDF's Super Dimensional Fortresses and large installations, as well as providing the destructive power of the famed Reflex cannon and the Terminax Reflex Warhead missile system), veritechnology, and the Phase Barrier System.

>2. Do B5 style Earthforce warships and fighters (Hyperion Heavy
>Crusiers,
>Starfuries, etc) exist in the UF universe?

Sure; we've seen Starfuries already, in The Courtship of Princess Dessler. Given the relative scale of starship technology in UF, my guess would be that the Hyperion class would merely be a class of destroyers; as for the Agamemnon-type ships (which are some other class, but I can't remember the name offhand), no doubt they look a bit different. With artificial gravity a very-well-established technology, there's no need for them to have that silly 2010-style rotating bit.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-13-01, 09:35 PM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #1
 
   >merely be a class of destroyers; as for the Agamemnon-type
>ships (which are some other class, but I can't remember the name

Omega-class destroyers, developed after the Earth-Minbari War and based somewhat on the older Nova-class dreadnaught.

Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-13-01, 10:06 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #2
 
   >Omega-class destroyers, developed after the Earth-Minbari War
>and based somewhat on the older Nova-class dreadnaught.

Obviously, "destroyer" means something different to JMS... :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Sinapus
Charter Member
Oct-13-01, 11:26 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Sinapus Click to send private message to Sinapus Click to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #3
 
   >>Omega-class destroyers, developed after the Earth-Minbari War
>>and based somewhat on the older Nova-class dreadnaught.
>
>Obviously, "destroyer" means something different to JMS... :)

Yes, a 'destroyer' in B5 appears to be a heavy warship instead of the usual 'tin cans' that appear in other series.

Patrick Chester
"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Offsides
Charter Member
1220 posts
Oct-13-01, 11:44 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Offsides Click to send private message to Offsides Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #4
 
   >>>Omega-class destroyers, developed after the Earth-Minbari War
>>>and based somewhat on the older Nova-class dreadnaught.
>>
>>Obviously, "destroyer" means something different to JMS... :)
>
>Yes, a 'destroyer' in B5 appears to be a heavy warship instead of the
>usual 'tin cans' that appear in other series.
>
>Patrick Chester
>"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Yeah, but it's better than what has happened to the term "Frigate"...

(For those of you who don't understand, the USS Constitution was classified as a Frigate when she was built, and the closest modern equivalent would, IIRC, be a Battlecruiser...)

Offsides

#include <oldironsides.h>

#91;...#93; in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.
-- David Ben Gurion
EPU RCW #pi;
#include <stdsig.h>


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 00:47 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #5
 
   >(For those of you who don't understand, the USS Constitution was
>classified as a Frigate when she was built, and the closest modern
>equivalent would, IIRC, be a Battlecruiser...)

Back then, it all had to do with number of gun decks, number and type of guns, number of masts, type of rigging and whatnot - overall tonnage didn't really enter into it. That's an artifact of the ironclad age...

The distinctions in the UF universe are rather blurry, what with the different tech bases - they're based on a somewhat arbitrary assessment of overall combat capability which takes into account tonnage, shield and drive types, weapon type and load, crew complement, sensor capability, special systems... all manner of things. It's easier to give an example of each type than to try and spell out what those factors are (especially since they're arbitrary)...

In ascending order:

- Gunboat: Corellian light freighter rebuilt for combat, GENOM/Cygnus Lambda class with appropriate modifications; the line between gunboat and heavy starfighter is blurry at best

- Corvette: Corellian Engineering Corporation CR-90 class fitted for combat, such as the famed Wedge Defense Force Special Ops vessel Minuteman 9; WDF Predator class

- Destroyer: Klingon B'rel class (often mistaken for the WDF Predator of which it is a rather nicely executed copy, the B'rel class is in fact significantly larger), Earth Alliance Hyperion class

- Frigate: Starfleet/WDF Miranda class; also called a light cruiser

- Cruiser: Starfleet/WDF Constitution class, Klingon K't'inga class

- Battlecruiser: Starfleet/WDF Excelsior class

- Battleship: WDF Yamato class, EA Nova class, Starfleet Galaxy class

- Spacecraft Carrier: WDF Bengal class, Kilrathi Sivar class

- Dreadnaught: GENOM Victory class, Experts of Justice Sovereign class

- Super-Dreadnaught: GENOM Imperial class, WDF Confederation class

- Super Dimensional Fortress: WDF Megaroad class, GENOM Executioner class

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 00:52 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #6
 
   >The distinctions in the UF universe are rather blurry, what
>with the different tech bases - they're based on a somewhat arbitrary
>assessment of overall combat capability which takes into account
>tonnage, shield and drive types, weapon type and load, crew
>complement, sensor capability, special systems... all manner of
>things. It's easier to give an example of each type than to try and
>spell out what those factors are (especially since they're
>arbitrary)...

Damn, I spend a couple hours putting together a reply and you beat me to it. }:-{D

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 01:06 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #8
 
   >>The distinctions in the UF universe are rather blurry, what
>>with the different tech bases - they're based on a somewhat arbitrary
>>assessment of overall combat capability which takes into account
>>tonnage, shield and drive types, weapon type and load, crew
>>complement, sensor capability, special systems... all manner of
>>things. It's easier to give an example of each type than to try and
>>spell out what those factors are (especially since they're
>>arbitrary)...
>
>Damn, I spend a couple hours putting together a reply and you beat me
>to it. }:-{D

So the CFMF has different classifications than everybody else - that should come as no great surprise to anybody. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Sinapus
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 02:14 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Sinapus Click to send private message to Sinapus Click to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #9
 
   LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-01 AT 02:14 AM (EDT)

>>Damn, I spend a couple hours putting together a reply and you beat me
>>to it. }:-{D
>
>So the CFMF has different classifications than everybody else - that
>should come as no great surprise to anybody. :)

Hm. Wonder if any naval powers in UF would try using system defense boats, monitors and battle riders a la Traveller.

SDB = light warship w/no FTL drive (jump drives in Traveller are pretty massive) to make room for stronger sublight engines and more weapons and defenses. Monitors are heavier versions.

Battle riders are essentially cruiser-sized sublight vessels carried into a system by a larger mother vessel called a battle tender (why, I have no idea.)

(Okay, in UF you don't have to go running to a local gas giant to refuel your fleet after each jump so the sublight ships mentioned above might not be so practical.)

Patrick Chester
"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-14-01, 02:22 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
11. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #10
 
   >LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-01 AT
>02:14AM (EDT)

>
>>>Damn, I spend a couple hours putting together a reply and you beat me
>>>to it. }:-{D
>>
>>So the CFMF has different classifications than everybody else - that
>>should come as no great surprise to anybody. :)
>
>Hm. Wonder if any naval powers in UF would try using system defense
>boats, monitors and battle riders a la Traveller.
>

Given the fact that ships as small as X-Wings and H-Valks can mount a Hyperdrive motivator, I dont see how the power demands are high enough that not mounting one would give you a significant power advantage. However, given the fact that, for example, the Star Kingdom of Manticore is out there, I'd expect that there IS a chance that at least some of the locals in her neighborhood still use LAC's.

I expect that If/when Gryph thinks about this one, he'll point out that the only navies who MIGHT build this sort of thing are the eqivalent of 3rd world worlds, who don't really have the umph to project power, just defend their own space... and or havent developed hyperdrive yet.


___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 04:32 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #11
 
   >I expect that If/when Gryph thinks about this one, he'll point out
>that the only navies who MIGHT build this sort of thing are the
>eqivalent of 3rd world worlds, who don't really have the umph to
>project power, just defend their own space... and or havent developed
>hyperdrive yet.

I suppose it would be possible for there to be a society that isn't interested in projecting power, and only wants to defend their own space. In such a case they wouldn't bother putting FTL drives on military vessels, because their military doctrines don't include scenarios in which they'd want to send their armed forces out of the system.

For the most part, though, owing to the cheapness and relatively low maintenance costs of hyperdrive, the only armed spacecraft without some form of FTL tend to lack sublight drives as well - they're stations, not ships.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jonathanlennox
Charter Member
232 posts
Oct-16-01, 03:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jonathanlennox Click to send private message to jonathanlennox Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
61. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #14
 
   >I suppose it would be possible for there to be a society that isn't
>interested in projecting power, and only wants to defend
>their own space. In such a case they wouldn't bother putting FTL
>drives on military vessels, because their military doctrines don't
>include scenarios in which they'd want to send their armed forces out
>of the system.

Even if you're only defending one system, it seems like some limited form of
FTL would be essential for a space navy if you're considering having to face enemies who have it. Unless you're going for pure picket-duty tactics (e.g. you have only a single planet that's worth defending), you're going to have to be able to close with the enemy.

And if you're going for this approach, it seems like fixed battlestations posted near/in orbit around the site you're defending would be more practical.

Of course, just because this might not be a good idea, that doesn't mean some planetary government trying to be stingy with their defense budgets wouldn't try it. And would probably end up in the situation where their fleet is stuck several light-hours away from home while an enemy razes the planet.

--
Jonathan Lennox
lennox@cs.columbia.edu


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-19-01, 07:14 PM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
92. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #61
 
   >>I suppose it would be possible for there to be a society that isn't
>>interested in projecting power, and only wants to defend
>>their own space. In such a case they wouldn't bother putting FTL
>>drives on military vessels, because their military doctrines don't
>>include scenarios in which they'd want to send their armed forces out
>>of the system.
>
>Even if you're only defending one system, it seems like some limited
>form of
>FTL would be essential for a space navy if you're considering having
>to face enemies who have it. Unless you're going for pure picket-duty
>tactics (e.g. you have only a single planet that's worth defending),
>you're going to have to be able to close with the enemy.
>
>And if you're going for this approach, it seems like fixed
>battlestations posted near/in orbit around the site you're defending
>would be more practical.
>
>Of course, just because this might not be a good idea, that
>doesn't mean some planetary government trying to be stingy with their
>defense budgets wouldn't try it. And would probably end up in the
>situation where their fleet is stuck several light-hours away from
>home while an enemy razes the planet.

Not to mention that the ability to go over and kick the shit out of your enemies military-industrial complex will seriously upgrade your defensibility... just for starters they'll need to keep some of their fleet at home to stop any such efforts. 50% reduction in attackers before a shot's fired? It's a winning move.


drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 02:53 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
20. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #11
 
   >>LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-01 AT
>>02:14AM (EDT)

>Given the fact that ships as small as X-Wings and H-Valks can mount a
>Hyperdrive motivator, I dont see how the power demands are high enough
>that not mounting one would give you a significant power advantage.
>However, given the fact that, for example, the Star Kingdom of
>Manticore is out there, I'd expect that there IS a chance that at
>least some of the locals in her neighborhood still use LAC's.

Nah. LACs are replaced in UF by either fighters or gunboats.

Also, in UF a kilometer-long ship is at least a battleship, and -not- a light cruiser as in the Harrington books.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Nathan
Charter Member
1324 posts
Oct-14-01, 06:33 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #20
 
   >>Given the fact that ships as small as X-Wings and H-Valks can mount a
>>Hyperdrive motivator, I dont see how the power demands are high enough
>>that not mounting one would give you a significant power advantage.
>>However, given the fact that, for example, the Star Kingdom of
>>Manticore is out there, I'd expect that there IS a chance that at
>>least some of the locals in her neighborhood still use LAC's.
>
>Nah. LACs are replaced in UF by either fighters or gunboats.

Which would make a Shrike the equivalent of a White Star?

>Also, in UF a kilometer-long ship is at least a battleship, and -not-
>a light cruiser as in the Harrington books.

*blinkblink* *checks his reference* Well, going by the table in the front of Ashes of Victory, yeah, you can make a case for a CL being a kilometer long, but I remember _Terrible_ being quoted as being four, so I'd call it a bit on the shy side of half that. <500m. Which is still really big, but a lot of the tech in that universe seems to be rather... bulky.

And, if it's allowed that a Manticoran superdreadnought like say, a Gryphon *blinks as he notices the name* or Medusa/Harrington class is, in fact, a little over four kilometers, a light cruiser one eighth the length and one one hundredth the mass doesn't seem _too_ out of line.

If this causes a discrepency with the rest of UF, then they can either be toned down a bit witht he excuse of UF's more compact tech, or, well, those Manticorans just build big ships, y'know?

Blessed be.
Nathan Baxter
(Who is too lazy to look up how long the SDF-23 is supposed to be.)

-----
Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 10:02 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #21
 
   >>>Given the fact that ships as small as X-Wings and H-Valks can mount a
>>>Hyperdrive motivator, I dont see how the power demands are high enough
>>>that not mounting one would give you a significant power advantage.
>>>However, given the fact that, for example, the Star Kingdom of
>>>Manticore is out there, I'd expect that there IS a chance that at
>>>least some of the locals in her neighborhood still use LAC's.
>>
>>Nah. LACs are replaced in UF by either fighters or gunboats.
>
>Which would make a Shrike the equivalent of a White Star?

No. IIRC a White Star is a full-size warship, not a fighter craft. A Shrike would be a gunboat, or perhaps a super-heavy fighter like a Crusader/B-Wing.

>>Also, in UF a kilometer-long ship is at least a battleship, and -not-
>>a light cruiser as in the Harrington books.
>
>*blinkblink* *checks his reference* Well, going by the table in the
>front of Ashes of Victory,

Pretty much.

>And, if it's allowed that a Manticoran superdreadnought like say, a
>Gryphon *blinks as he notices the name* or Medusa/Harrington class is,
>in fact, a little over four kilometers, a light cruiser one eighth the
>length and one one hundredth the mass doesn't seem _too_ out of line.

In that universe, not this. In UF, a ship of a kilometer's length is -damn- long and usually -goddamn- expensive.

In UF, a general range of scale would be 20 to 80 meters long for gunships, 50 to 150 for corvettes, destroyers and guncruisers, 120 to 250 meters for light cruisers, 200 to 400 meters for heavy cruisers, 300 to 900 meters for battlecruisers, and 500 meters and up for battleships or dreadnaughts.

The SDF Wayward Son was 1170 meters long, IIRC; the Wandering Child (SDF-23) which followed is, I -think-, 2460 meters. The GENOM Executioner and Dreadnaught were both Super-class Star Destroyers, 8000 meters long.

Redneck (CFA New Orleans, BTW, is a hair over 3000 meters- but it's not a warship)

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Wedge
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 10:31 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Wedge Click to send private message to Wedge Click to add this user to your buddy list  
27. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #25
 
   >The SDF Wayward Son was 1170 meters long, IIRC; the Wandering Child
>(SDF-23) which followed is, I -think-, 2460 meters. The GENOM
>Executioner and Dreadnaught were both Super-class Star Destroyers,
>8000 meters long.

This didn't sound right, so I checked (From UF4:Crossroads):


No, he corrected himself. It's not. It's too large, for one
thing. By the size of the other vessels around it, he judged the
vessel he was looking at to be over eight kilometers long. Much
larger than the Wayward Son, which had been only 3,800 meters stem to
stern. And its surface was different, marked with more small weapons
turrets and odd sensory bulges and things of function not readily and
intuitively apparent. And, he noticed, mounted on the rear of the
flying bridge, aft of the bridge windows proper, was the old Wedge,
looking like another sensor array among the many that dotted the huge
vessel's hull. Zoner's eyes slipped down its side, from the huge
impulse thrusters rearward, down the fighter carriers, to the tips of
the Tycho Naval Mass Drivers and out to the end of the foredeck, where
he could make out the words:

W.D.F. WANDERING CHILD SDF-23

Unless it gets Stalinized in the future, I'd assume this is canon. :)

------------------------
Chad Collier
Digital Bitch
J. Random VFX Company


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 10:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
28. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #27
 
   >Unless it gets Stalinized in the future, I'd assume this is canon. :)

Unit error - I meant "feet".

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Wedge
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 11:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Wedge Click to send private message to Wedge Click to add this user to your buddy list  
29. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #28
 
   >>Unless it gets Stalinized in the future, I'd assume this is canon. :)
>
>Unit error - I meant "feet".

So, uhhh, 8000 feet instead of 8 kilometers and 3800 feet instead 3800 meters? Certainly you didn't mean 8 miles, right, since that would be significantly longer than 8km...or something. I was happy with 'big' and 'bigger', to be honest. :)

------------------------
Chad Collier--...waaaaaa, I was an art student, make all the bad math things go away...
Digital Bitch
J. Random VFX Company


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 11:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
30. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #29
 
   >>>Unless it gets Stalinized in the future, I'd assume this is canon. :)
>>
>>Unit error - I meant "feet".
>
>So, uhhh, 8000 feet instead of 8 kilometers and 3800 feet instead 3800
>meters?

Right.

The SDF-17 is essentially the SDF-1, and the SDF-23 is based on the images of the (never-actually-seen, IIRC) SDF-2 that appear in Zoner's Macross Perfect Memory design album. There are conflicting reports as to just how big either of those ships actually is, though - as I'm sure the followups to this post will demonstrate - so I just said "the hell with it" at some point and selected arbitrarily.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Astynax
Charter Member
717 posts
Oct-16-01, 00:35 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Astynax Click to send private message to Astynax Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
47. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #30
 
  
>The SDF-17 is essentially the SDF-1, and the SDF-23 is based on the
>images of the (never-actually-seen, IIRC) SDF-2 that appear in Zoner's
>Macross Perfect Memory design album. There are conflicting
>reports as to just how big either of those ships actually is, though -
>as I'm sure the followups to this post will demonstrate - so I just
>said "the hell with it" at some point and selected arbitrarily.
>

For those who care...

Macross class SDF- 1210m in length

Both the SDF-1 and SDF-2 were Macross class, hence they'd be the same size.

The biggest human utilized SDF in anything robotech related I could dig up was the Izumo class, measuring 1400+m

<info from http://www.3dgamedev.com/robotech/ >

-={(Astynax)}=-
"Doesn't really matter, since half the later Robotech universe ships never showed up in UF, but people like these sorts of tidbits;)"


-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:01 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
53. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #47
 
   >Both the SDF-1 and SDF-2 were Macross class, hence they'd be
>the same size.

I don't have Zoner's Perfect Memory handy, so I can't give the exact figures, but I remember enough to know that this is way wrong. The SDF-2 was going to be much bigger than the SDF-1. That was, if memory serves, the whole point in building it as far as the UN Space Force was concerned.

Never, ever trust any technical information related to Macross with the words "Robotech" or "game" on it. If both appear, run.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
megazone
Charter Member
Oct-20-01, 11:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail megazone Click to send private message to megazone Click to add this user to your buddy list  
97. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #53
 
   >>Both the SDF-1 and SDF-2 were Macross class, hence they'd be
>>the same size.
>
>I don't have Zoner's Perfect Memory handy, so I can't give the
>exact figures, but I remember enough to know that this is way
>wrong.

I think that's on one of the shelves in downstairs if you want to check it.


-MegaZone, megazone@megazone.org
Personal Homepage http://www.megazone.org/
Eyrie Productions FanFic http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
See what I'm selling on eBay


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1731 posts
Oct-14-01, 11:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
31. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #29
 
   >So, uhhh, 8000 feet instead of 8 kilometers and 3800 feet instead 3800 meters?
>Certainly you didn't mean 8 miles, right, since that would be significantly
>longer than 8km...or something. I was happy with 'big' and 'bigger', to be
>honest. :)

It's not how big it is, it's how you use it.

>...waaaaaa, I was an art student, make all the bad math things go away...

I'm doing maths classes, and my head's hurting from all this.

Matrix Dragon

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter


  Printer-friendly page | Top
zojojojo
Charter Member
610 posts
Oct-15-01, 09:54 AM (EST)
Click to EMail zojojojo Click to send private message to zojojojo Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
35. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #25
 
   >>>>Given the fact that ships as small as X-Wings and H-Valks can mount a
>>>>Hyperdrive motivator, I dont see how the power demands are high enough
>>>>that not mounting one would give you a significant power advantage.
>>>>However, given the fact that, for example, the Star Kingdom of
>>>>Manticore is out there, I'd expect that there IS a chance that at
>>>>least some of the locals in her neighborhood still use LAC's.
>>>
>>>Nah. LACs are replaced in UF by either fighters or gunboats.
>>
>>Which would make a Shrike the equivalent of a White Star?
>
>No. IIRC a White Star is a full-size warship, not a fighter craft. A

Depends on your definition of 'full-size'. The White Stars always seemed to me to be about the size of a fast-attack light cruiser with a small crew. Certainly much smaller than a battleship, but definitely larger than a fighter. Maybe half again the size of the Millenium Falcon? Of course, as with anything else that's been borrowed for UF YMMV.

-Z

---
We are Dyslexic of Borg. Your ass will be laminated.

-Z


---
Remember kids: guns make you stupid, duct tape makes you smart.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Nathan
Charter Member
1324 posts
Oct-15-01, 06:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
40. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #25
 
   >>Which would make a Shrike the equivalent of a White Star?
>
>No. IIRC a White Star is a full-size warship, not a fighter craft. A
>Shrike would be a gunboat, or perhaps a super-heavy fighter like a
>Crusader/B-Wing.

Hmmm... I'd be more inclined to think of both as a rough equivalent of a PT boat, but you're the writer dude. (and, on a slightly less metaphorical level, both were revolutionarily nasty due to unprecedented power-generation capabilities)

>>*blinkblink* *checks his reference* Well, going by the table in the
>>front of Ashes of Victory,
>
>Pretty much.

Only if you take the 3,200m scale to indicate -half- of the bar thingie.

>>And, if it's allowed that a Manticoran superdreadnought like say, a
>>Gryphon *blinks as he notices the name* or Medusa/Harrington class is,
>>in fact, a little over four kilometers, a light cruiser one eighth the
>>length and one one hundredth the mass doesn't seem _too_ out of line.
>
>In that universe, not this. In UF, a ship of a kilometer's length is
>-damn- long and usually -goddamn- expensive.

So? Manticore's rich.

More seriously, it need not be taken that they have very -many- of them... Manticore, even if you're writing it as a small multi-system polity, still has very little ground to cover. A few almost unbeatable ships would make more sense for them than, say, Salusia.

Or, one could just be arbitrary and divide the given HH sizes by four. Regardless, I want to see a Medusa.

Blessed be.
Nathan Baxter
(I think this's been asked before, but am too lazy to check. What replaces the Manticoran Wormhole Junction? Nexus of trade routes? Metaspace gate? Nothing, they're just good at building stuff? Nothing, it's still there? A three million ton flounder? Other?)

-----
Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 11:36 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
44. "No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #40
 
  
>Or, one could just be arbitrary and divide the given HH sizes by four.
>Regardless, I want to see a Medusa.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you won't.

Here's why.

(1) The Harrington novels' hyperluminal technology is an order of -magnitude- slower than the -slowest- hyperluminal technology in UF.

(2) Ships can come out of FTL -much- closer to a gravity well in UF than in the Harrington novels.

(3) Missile electronics don't last against enemy ECM longer than 30 seconds in UF. Ship-to-ship combat is at close range. No 'missile pods,' because missiles are not the main armament of UF ships.

(4) Harrington-novel ships are unrealistically large for any tech level. The sheer amount of -refined- metal in one Harrington-class super-dreadnaught exceeds the total raw iron content in a Belt-type asteroid of a 10-mile diameter. The ships of similar size in UF are owned by huge multi-system polities or fleets like the CFMF which are heavily subsidized by said polities. A four-planet independency like Manticore -might- build -one- such ship. Building fifty or more of them... no. Uh-uh. Not a chance in Hell.

The Manticoran fleet in UF is sizeable, but not outsized ship-for-ship to the other forces in UF. Their ships will be technologically advanced compared to most other nations of its size, and they will perform credibly. However, the tech, maneuvering, weapons load, etc. etc. etc. of Manticore's navy will be completely different from its origins, because those origins are just -not- compatible with UF.

Live with it.

>(I think this's been asked before, but am too lazy to check. What
>replaces the Manticoran Wormhole Junction? Nexus of trade routes?
>Metaspace gate? Nothing, they're just good at building stuff? Nothing,
>it's still there? A three million ton flounder? Other?)

Manticore sits on a natural break in the navigational hazards of Enigma Sector which was not discovered until Earth-humans settled it. Three new hyperspace routes later, Manticore became a new center of commerce in the widdershins part of Enigma Sector. Manticore was one of the first enthusiastic adopters of metaspace jump-gate technology and maintains a very large beacon network around its two gate points. It has also become a major industrial and research center.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-16-01, 00:28 AM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
45. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #44
 
   >(3) Missile electronics don't last against enemy ECM longer than 30
>seconds in UF. Ship-to-ship combat is at close range. No 'missile
>pods,' because missiles are not the main armament of UF ships.


So, does this mean that you can use missiles, but only fast ones at very close range so as not to give shipborne ECM time to counter?

Oh, and while we're on the subject, what is the difference (in UF) between a missile, a photon torpedo, and a proton torpedo?

Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
megazone
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 01:36 AM (EST)
Click to EMail megazone Click to send private message to megazone Click to add this user to your buddy list  
49. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #45
 
   >>(3) Missile electronics don't last against enemy ECM longer than 30
>>seconds in UF. Ship-to-ship combat is at close range. No 'missile
>>pods,' because missiles are not the main armament of UF ships.
>So, does this mean that you can use missiles, but only fast
>ones at very close range so as not to give shipborne ECM time to
>counter?

Personally I'm not keen on the "missiles can't deal with ECM" stuff - it has never rung true for me. I don't see why they wouldn't be just as effective as today's missiles - which are, frankly, still not as whizzy as the press makes them out to be. That's why there is active development in radar and IR jammers, decoys, etc - they all *work* to some degree in defeating missiles. Neither the missiles, nor the countermeasures, are 100% reliable. Neither one is a silver bullet. I can't picture a situation where countermeasure tech has so far outstripped weapons tech.

Now, missiles are somewhat obsolete in the world of long range energy weapons. You can't compete with the speed of light, of the instantaneous tracking and targetting you get with lasers, phasers, particle beams, etc. And I would expect the UF versions of Harpoon vs CIWS would be tilted in favor of the CIWS because 1) in space there is usually no surface clutter to hug to avoid detection and 2) see above about beam weapons and response time. See it, zot it. Of course, the way to go there is the 'swarm o' missiles' approach.

But dogfight missiles - the equal of the Sidewinder, ASRAAM, etc - should be just as useful in close combat.

-MegaZone, megazone@megazone.org
Personal Homepage http://www.megazone.org/
Eyrie Productions FanFic http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
See what I'm selling on eBay


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 01:52 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
50. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #45
 
   >>(3) Missile electronics don't last against enemy ECM longer than 30
>>seconds in UF. Ship-to-ship combat is at close range. No 'missile
>>pods,' because missiles are not the main armament of UF ships.

>So, does this mean that you can use missiles, but only fast
>ones at very close range so as not to give shipborne ECM time to
>counter?

Yes. Ten kilometers is about the maximum range for any non-dumb missile/torpedo.

>Oh, and while we're on the subject, what is the difference (in UF)
>between a missile, a photon torpedo, and a proton torpedo?

There are a -lot- of missiles and torpedoes in UF, so let me go over the five missile types most likely to pop up in UF.

First, there's the missiles Valkyries carry. I forget their actual name, but 'Robotech missile' will do. These are very short-range, light-yield IFF weapons, designed for maximum storage on a battle platform. Since Valk combat usually takes place at point-blank range, these are effective for overwhelming an opponent's ability to evade.

Second is the concussion missile. This is a higher-yield IFF weapon with a much longer burn time- long enough for ECM to eventually jam its circuits. It is the fastest missile- but not the fastest projectile at all- type available to starfighters, and is usually carried on fixed-platform interceptors or space superiority fighters.

Third is the proton torpedo. This is the heaviest IFF missile a starfighter usually carries. Compared to the concussion missile, it is slow, but it has nearly five times the explosive power of the concussion missile. A starfighter kill with a proton torpedo is rare; it is usually deployed against small capital ships. Old capital ships and pirate ships also mount these, but by 2388 the main line fleets have moved up to photon torpedoes.

Photon torpedoes are dumb missiles (except when specially modified, which is rare). Thus, in theory they can fly indefinitely. Their lifespan, however, is limited due to their explosive content; antimatter, contained by a short-lived battery-powered magnetic field. Thus, the weapon rapidly loses punch with distance, until it eventually self-detonates. It's a close-range weapon, and at close range within line of sight it is -devastating.- Photon torpedoes are too dangerous- and too large- to mount anywhere except full-size starships.

Finally, you have the drum bomb, which is not technically a missile; it is a momentum-only munition carried by specially modified fightercraft. It cannot be jammed, cannot be diverted, can only be destroyed short of target. They strike with a force comparable to photon torpedoes and usually spell the end of any engagement- because you have to be winning already to insure the drumb bomb hits its target.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 03:51 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
51. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #50
 
   >Photon torpedoes are dumb missiles (except when specially modified,
>which is rare).

They aren't quite purely dumb, in that they can do more than fly in a straight line from their launcher - they don't have sensors, but they do have rudimentary guidance systems and can thus be guided remotely or sent along a preprogrammed course, as long as that course isn't too complicated. (Rather like the blaster bomb in X-COM: Enemy Unknown.)

Starship gunnery officers generally don't bother, and just compute an intercept firing solution and let fly, but the torpedoes can actually do a little more than that.

>Thus, the weapon rapidly loses punch with distance, until it
>eventually self-detonates.

Um... no. They do eventually explode as the containment fails, that's true, but it's not as if antimatter gets stale. They explode just as violently at the end of their run as they can when freshly armed.

As of 2404, there's also a new wrinkle in photorp technology, a next-generation starship missile called the quantum torpedo. It uses <violent hand-waving motions here> to achieve a significantly greater range and explosive yield than a standard photorp; the tradeoff is that the launching mechanism is much larger, heavier and hungrier for power, effectively limiting the QT's installation to Reflex-powered ships and warpships with the very highest-rated power cores. The first ship to carry them operationally is the International Police Organization's flagship, EJS Challenger.

Rumor has it the IPO starship design team are working with a Corellian firm on a somewhat smaller starship class requiring a much smaller crew, to beef up the Experts fleet without making the demands on the IPO's manpower that staffing another Sovereign-class vessel would require. Rumor further has it that the new ship will carry a QT launcher. As of yet, the IPO isn't admitting to anything, but the most reliable word on the street is that the prototype will be ready for testing in the summer of 2406.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Rod_H
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 07:35 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Rod_H Click to send private message to Rod_H Click to add this user to your buddy list  
55. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #51
 
   >(Rather like the blaster bomb in X-COM: Enemy Unknown.)

A lovely weapon when teamed with flying armour. Make a hole in a wall/roof and then send a sweeper team in.

>Rumor has it the IPO starship design team are working with a Corellian
>firm on a somewhat smaller starship class requiring a much smaller
>crew, to beef up the Experts fleet without making the demands on the
>IPO's manpower that staffing another Sovereign-class vessel
>would require. Rumor further has it that the new ship will carry a QT
>launcher. As of yet, the IPO isn't admitting to anything, but the
>most reliable word on the street is that the prototype will be ready
>for testing in the summer of 2406.

My guess is that it would be either the Prometheus class without that fwerid multi-vector assault mode, the Defiant-class, or the Nova-class (aka USS Equinox).

The Steamrunner, Norway and Saber classes to me don't seem to fit the IPOs design brief or the general UF warp propelled starship design scheme.

--Rod.H
"Oooh...Sectoid." *click...Boom* "Dead Sectoid."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
BobSchroeck
Charter Member
2192 posts
Oct-16-01, 08:17 AM (EST)
Click to EMail BobSchroeck Click to send private message to BobSchroeck Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
56. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #51
 
   >As of 2404, there's also a new wrinkle in photorp technology, a
>next-generation starship missile called the quantum torpedo. It uses
><violent hand-waving motions here> to achieve a significantly
>greater range and explosive yield than a standard photorp

Wow. I can just see the techs opening up one of these to change settings or reconfigure something, and having to dodge all those violently-waving hands... And then sitting on the access panel trying to close it back up without chopping off any fingers...

-- Bob <grinning, ducking, and running>
---------------
Please to remember
Eleven September --
Hijack, destruction and plot.
Our outraged reaction
To terrorist action
Should never be forgot.

-- Bob
-------------------
My race is pacifist and does not believe in war. We kill only out of personal spite.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 01:05 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
60. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #51
 
   >>Thus, the weapon rapidly loses punch with distance, until it
>>eventually self-detonates.
>
>Um... no. They do eventually explode as the containment fails, that's
>true, but it's not as if antimatter gets stale. They explode just as
>violently at the end of their run as they can when freshly armed.

*shrug* My bad, was going by Star Fleet Battles/Starfleet Command rules and technobabbling from there (leakage from containment gradually destroys the missile from within, hence the brilliant glow from a -black- missile).

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
TRB
Charter Member
Oct-18-01, 04:24 AM (EST)
Click to EMail TRB Click to send private message to TRB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
79. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #51
 
   After First Contact came out I was interested enough to look it up. In Trekkie, it has something to do with Quantum Filaments, whose technobabbly explanation I don't remember much of, and teh fact that they tend to unhinge massive amounts of energy , explosively, for technobabbly reasons.

Well, that was enlightening. Not.

TRB

"Preparing! Preparing! You're always preparing! Just go!"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-18-01, 04:28 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
80. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #79
 
   >After First Contact came out I was interested enough to look it up. In
>Trekkie, it has something to do with Quantum Filaments, whose
>technobabbly explanation I don't remember much of, and teh fact that
>they tend to unhinge massive amounts of energy , explosively, for
>technobabbly reasons.
>
>Well, that was enlightening. Not.

Indeed. Especially since, thanks to the lack of quoted content from whichever post you were replying to, it's utterly without context and thus largely incomprehensible.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
TRB
Charter Member
Oct-18-01, 05:07 AM (EST)
Click to EMail TRB Click to send private message to TRB Click to add this user to your buddy list  
81. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #80
 
   Ahh crap. If it had landed in the thread where I'd meant it to, it wouldn't have needed it, but it got pushed down to the bottom of the sub-thread. It was in reply to your post about the Challenger having Quantum Torps. Since I posted anyway -after- realizing I had forgotten most of the already totally inadequate explanation of the Quantum Torp I had read way back whenever, it was mostly a weak attempt at wry humor. Bad thing to try at 5 AM after working all day. Sorry.

TRB

"I wish I was reaper, culling lost souls. I wish I could cast them into deep and lonely holes."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 03:55 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
52. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #45
 
   >So, does this mean that you can use missiles, but only fast
>ones at very close range so as not to give shipborne ECM time to
>counter?

As MegaZone pointed out, it's not so much ECM as projected-energy AAA. A ship with a lot of small close-range blaster emplacements - like, say, a Star Destroyer or Yamato-class battleship - is going to be pretty much impervious to missile fire just because it can intercept any missile big enough to do it any damage. You could probably score a few hits with an Alpha-load of those little Robotech missiles, but so what? You wouldn't do any more damage than you would with a handful of gravel.

This is why, when engaging Star Destroyers, the wise captain of a Trek-style vessel keeps his phasers hot, relies on his superior maneuverability and shielding (Star Destroyers have notorious shield-gap problems), and doesn't waste power arming photon torpedoes.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
remandeteam
Member since Jul-31-07
78 posts
Oct-16-01, 08:53 AM (EST)
Click to EMail remande Click to send private message to remande Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
57. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #52
 
   >As MegaZone pointed out, it's not so much ECM as projected-energy AAA.
> A ship with a lot of small close-range blaster emplacements - like,
>say, a Star Destroyer or Yamato-class battleship - is going to
>be pretty much impervious to missile fire just because it can
>intercept any missile big enough to do it any damage. You could
>probably score a few hits with an Alpha-load of those little Robotech
>missiles, but so what? You wouldn't do any more damage than you would
>with a handful of gravel.

>--G.

Sure, one Alpha-load of General Hosement missiles won't do jack against a Star Destroyer, but send several squadrons of them and see what happens. The Alpha is an attack vessel, after all, and a pack animal. It's built to bring down the big game.

--rR

--rR


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 01:03 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
58. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #57
 
   >>As MegaZone pointed out, it's not so much ECM as projected-energy AAA.
>> A ship with a lot of small close-range blaster emplacements - like,
>>say, a Star Destroyer or Yamato-class battleship - is going to
>>be pretty much impervious to missile fire just because it can
>>intercept any missile big enough to do it any damage. You could
>>probably score a few hits with an Alpha-load of those little Robotech
>>missiles, but so what? You wouldn't do any more damage than you would
>>with a handful of gravel.

>Sure, one Alpha-load of General Hosement missiles won't do
>jack against a Star Destroyer, but send several squadrons of
>them and see what happens. The Alpha is an attack vessel, after all,
>and a pack animal. It's built to bring down the big game.

Yeah. In the Harrington-verse, the entire strategy of battle is based around who can throw enough missiles at who to overwhelm ack-ack and other point-defense systems. Mounted energy weapons almost never get used, because the ships involved don't survive the missile bombardment at ultra-long range.

That's why I prefer the super-ECM excuse; it's not susceptible to mass assaults, and thus allows the close-in fleet actions of space opera.

Redneck


Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Nathan
Charter Member
1324 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
63. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #58
 
   >The Manticoran fleet in UF is sizeable, but not outsized ship-for-ship to the
>other forces in UF. Their ships will be technologically advanced compared to
>most other nations of its size, and they will perform credibly. However, the
>tech, maneuvering, weapons load, etc. etc. etc. of Manticore's navy will be
>completely different from its origins, because those origins are just -not-
>compatible with UF.

I'm certainly not arguing for the existence of impeller wedges and weapons grade real lasers (I'm sorry, but something where you can see a MOVING BOLT OF LIGHT is NOT a laser.) and all the other things built into the HH techbase. I'd just like to see their UF doppelgangers operate in a similar style. If I'm arguing a little hard on this, say so and I'll shut up.

>>Sure, one Alpha-load of General Hosement missiles won't do
>>jack against a Star Destroyer, but send several squadrons of
>>them and see what happens. The Alpha is an attack vessel, after all,
>>and a pack animal. It's built to bring down the big game.
>
>Yeah. In the Harrington-verse, the entire strategy of battle is based
>around who can throw enough missiles at who to overwhelm ack-ack and
>other point-defense systems. Mounted energy weapons almost never get
>used, because the ships involved don't survive the missile bombardment
>at ultra-long range.

Well, maybe at the end of the series, yeah. But take, say, Fourth Grayson. Or, better yet, Nightingale. At the first, the Peeps got slaughtered because they were duped into energy range of the Grayson SDs. At Nightingale, White Haven essentially scurries off with his tail between his legs to avoid a similar fate.

Heck, I think it's even said straight out that missiles can cause critical damage to capital ships only in truly absurd numbers. And that didn't become possible until the Medusas showed up.

>That's why I prefer the super-ECM excuse; it's not susceptible to mass
>assaults, and thus allows the close-in fleet actions of space opera.

HH is space opera. Still, point taken. Close range combat looks better, ya? And it'd be unbalancing to have people opening fire at umpty bazillion miles away while the other side has to slog its way through the hurricane to reach range.

But. I haven't really seen anything to preclude building a cap ship around Alpha-style General Hosement.

Blessed be.
Nathan Baxter
(SD ImpStar flies through space, helpfully labeled to prevent confusion with a Charlemagne class.

It's met by a (also SD) hammerheaded log a little under two-thirds its length.

They start blasting away, eventually ending up broadside to broadside, 'cause the log is smaller and a bit more agile.

Log dumps some little brick things out the patootie.

ImpStar tries to shoot them, but too late: they launch an @$$load of, say, capital ship concussion missles.

ImpStar goes "Owie!" and keeps shooting.

Lather, rinse, repeat.)

-----
Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
64. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #63
 
   >I'm certainly not arguing for the existence of impeller wedges and
>weapons grade real lasers (I'm sorry, but something where you can see
>a MOVING BOLT OF LIGHT is NOT a laser.) and all the other things built
>into the HH techbase. I'd just like to see their UF doppelgangers
>operate in a similar style.

You missed post 54, didn't you.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Nathan
Charter Member
1324 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:40 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Nathan Click to send private message to Nathan Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
66. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #64
 
   >>I'm certainly not arguing for the existence of impeller wedges and
>>weapons grade real lasers (I'm sorry, but something where you can see
>>a MOVING BOLT OF LIGHT is NOT a laser.) and all the other things built
>>into the HH techbase. I'd just like to see their UF doppelgangers
>>operate in a similar style.
>
>You missed post 54, didn't you.

Whups!

Ouch.

I'll shut up now.

Blessed be.
Nathan Baxter
(Mildly curious as to _why_ G doesn't like HH, but not to the point of provoking a rant.)

-----
Iä! Iä! Moe fthagn!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 05:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
68. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #66
 
   >(Mildly curious as to _why_ G doesn't like HH, but not to the point of
>provoking a rant.)

I didn't say I don't. I said I'm not a fan. I haven't read any of them, and I don't particularly plan to. Everything I've been told about them by the friends I have who have read them has indicated to me that I needn't bother. Stylistically, it strikes me as the sort of thing that wouldn't be my cup of tea. A heroic captain struggling against a command structure consisting largely of pinheaded aristocrats was fine in the Horatio Hornblower books, but I've already read them...

Anyway, I tend not to read much SF - no, really, it's true. The only major exceptions are the works of Sir Arthur C. Clarke and the occasional Star Trek book (which are generally trash, but sometimes they're amusing trash. God help me, I've actually quite enjoyed Odyssey, the collected version of William Shatner's "return of Kirk" series).

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Mister Fnord
Charter Member
291 posts
Oct-16-01, 09:57 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Mister%20Fnord Click to send private message to Mister%20Fnord Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
72. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #68
 
  
>Anyway, I tend not to read much SF - no, really, it's true. The only
>major exceptions are the works of Sir Arthur C. Clarke and the
>occasional Star Trek book (which are generally trash, but
>sometimes they're amusing trash. God help me, I've actually quite
>enjoyed Odyssey, the collected version of William Shatner's
>"return of Kirk" series).

Yeah, I know the feeling. Read through Odyssey and the second trilogy (Mirror Universe-Kirk vs. Superhero Kirk) and thought "This is actually entertaining. What's wrong with me?"

Like him or not, Shatner always manages to find good ghostwriters.

Mr. Fnord, what, you thought he wrote those himself?

--
Mr. Fnord


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:08 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
62. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #57
 
   >Sure, one Alpha-load of General Hosement missiles won't do
>jack against a Star Destroyer, but send several squadrons of
>them and see what happens. The Alpha is an attack vessel, after all,
>and a pack animal. It's built to bring down the big game.

One missile that isn't powerful enough to penetrate the armor; a thousand missiles that aren't powerful enought to penetrate the armor; the result is the same. It's like trying to make a hole in a car hood with sandpaper.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1731 posts
Oct-16-01, 09:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
71. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #57
 
   >Sure, one Alpha-load of General Hosement missiles won't do jack
>against a Star Destroyer, but send several squadrons of them and
>see what happens. The Alpha is an attack vessel, after all, and
>a pack animal. It's built to bring down the big game.

A few squadrons of Alphas would be able to destroy a Star Destroyers gun turrets and such, but that's about it. The target is simply too big. The Alphas were designed to combat large numbers of fighters and mecha, which is why they were given fuckloads of small missiles.

That's why they designed the Beta veritech. When combined with an Alpha. It makes for a small but suprisingly effective bomber, especially when using Anti-Christs. Even then, it'd still take a fair few to do any real damage against a larger ship. The Thundergod's unique in its design, abilities and appearance(Thank Skuld for that).

Matrix Dragon

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 06:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
69. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #52
 
   >This is why, when engaging Star Destroyers, the wise captain of a
>Trek-style vessel keeps his phasers hot, relies on his superior
>maneuverability and shielding (Star Destroyers have notorious
>shield-gap problems), and doesn't waste power arming photon torpedoes.
>
And when engaging a Robotech-style ships stands off and sniggers, phasers having a range 6 times that of a reflex cannon and photon torpedos ten times the range of a phaser. And should he get creative with their flight profiles then even a single launcher could generate a converging (robotech-missile salvo-style) swarm. They have the computing power.

It'd reduce many a storyline to cinders - and thus they won't - but the tech allows it. Remember (not you Mr. Gryphon, Sir) that the story is more important than the finicky technical details.

drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 07:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
70. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #69
 
   >And when engaging a Robotech-style ships stands off and sniggers,
>phasers having a range 6 times that of a reflex cannon

Reflex weaponry has a considerably longer range than you give it credit for, I think; but trying to hit a Starfleet ship in heavy maneuver with one is akin to trying to squash a housefly with the opposite end of a telephone pole. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-17-01, 00:01 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
73. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #70
 
   >>And when engaging a Robotech-style ships stands off and sniggers,
>>phasers having a range 6 times that of a reflex cannon
>
>Reflex weaponry has a considerably longer range than you give it
>credit for, I think; but trying to hit a Starfleet ship in heavy
>maneuver with one is akin to trying to squash a housefly with the
>opposite end of a telephone pole. :)
>

Heh. Actually, I see something else too, Gryph. When a Robotech vessel is engaged with a starfleet vessel, it deploys its fighters. Between its secondary guns and its fighter cover, that starfleet vessel is going to find itself very roughly handled, even if they manage to keep out of the way of its Reflex cannon. And Starfleet style shields tend to be alabative to a great degree, making them vulerable to Legios missile swarms. ^_^


___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-17-01, 01:37 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
76. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #73
 
   >Heh. Actually, I see something else too, Gryph. When a Robotech
>vessel is engaged with a starfleet vessel, it deploys its fighters.
>Between its secondary guns and its fighter cover, that starfleet
>vessel is going to find itself very roughly handled

Perhaps, but I haven't seen a starfighter yet whose shielding could stand up to a hit from a naval phaser, and once again the effectiveness of the missiles carried by the Legios line has been grotesquely overestimated. They're pipsqueak munitions by starship standards. Negligible. Like throwing a handful of gravel at a tank. I doubt an Alpha's missile payload could substantially damage a Constitution-class starship with its shields down. Tritanium is strong stuff.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Matrix Dragon
Charter Member
1731 posts
Oct-17-01, 03:30 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Matrix%20Dragon Click to send private message to Matrix%20Dragon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
77. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #76
 
   >Perhaps, but I haven't seen a starfighter yet whose shielding could
>stand up to a hit from a naval phaser, and once again the
>effectiveness of the missiles carried by the Legios line has been
>grotesquely overestimated. They're pipsqueak munitions by starship
>standards. Negligible. Like throwing a handful of gravel at a tank. I
>doubt an Alpha's missile payload could substantially damage a
>Constitution-class starship with its shields down. Tritanium is strong
>stuff.

Actually Gryph, I think it's closer to throwing dust at a tank.

Like I said earlier, Alphas were designed for fighting _other fighters and mecha._ That's what their goal in life is. They don't have the weapons to combat a starship.

If you want to argue, take a look at the universes where the Alpha originated, Mospeada and Robotech. The enemy there, be it Zentraedi or Invid, consisted of large numbers of mecha with light armour and weaponry that normally attacked in waves. The Alphas were designed to launch large missile salvos to destroy as many enemy mecha as possible before it got down to close combat.

I think we can assume that they were built for the WDF with the same purpose in mind.

Matrix Dragon, aircraft freak.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter


  Printer-friendly page | Top
remandeteam
Member since Jul-31-07
78 posts
Oct-19-01, 01:56 AM (EST)
Click to EMail remande Click to send private message to remande Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
87. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #76
 
  
>Perhaps, but I haven't seen a starfighter yet whose shielding could
>stand up to a hit from a naval phaser, and once again the
>effectiveness of the missiles carried by the Legios line has been
>grotesquely overestimated. They're pipsqueak munitions by starship
>standards. Negligible. Like throwing a handful of gravel at a tank.
>I doubt an Alpha's missile payload could substantially damage a
>Constitution-class starship with its shields down.
>Tritanium is strong stuff.
>--G.

No starfighter can stand up to a naval phaser. I'm not sure how well phasers can track little buggers, though. If they track well, this explains why we don't see fightercraft in Star Trek.

As far as the Alpha goes, you're right; those munitions are pipsqueak by aircraft standards. If the Alpha could carry fewer, bigger munitions, however, it could do damage. After all, we build aircraft munitions today that make US naval jets more than capable of sinking ships.

The description for the mini-gat (.22 caliber gatling gun) from either Shadowrun or CP2020 (I forget which) says it correctly: "Great. Now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."

--rR

--rR


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Rod_H
Charter Member
Oct-19-01, 08:43 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Rod_H Click to send private message to Rod_H Click to add this user to your buddy list  
88. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #87
 
   >No starfighter can stand up to a naval phaser. I'm not sure how well
>phasers can track little buggers, though. If they track well, this
>explains why we don't see fightercraft in Star Trek.

There is fightercraft in Star Trek, its...well, they've only turned up in DS9 in two classes: medium(short range warp capability, needs support carriers: Akira-class) and derivatives of the vessel the Maquis had at the start of Voyager.

Naval phaser tracking abillity, eh? Isn't that dependant on the computer power avaliable for interpeting the sensors and whatnot? Not to mention the operator reaction time.

>As far as the Alpha goes, you're right; those munitions are
>pipsqueak by aircraft standards. If the Alpha could carry fewer,
>bigger munitions, however, it could do damage. After all, we build
>aircraft munitions today that make US naval jets more than capable of
>sinking ships.

UF: Photon torps, Anti-Christ, Drum bomb.
Here: Harpoon, Penguin, Tomahawk, Exocet. Maverick? Paveway equiped bombs?

So, how about a Drum bomb with some form of propulsion attached to it. It might however need an Alpha setup like a B1 or a resurrection of the Thundergod to use them.

--Rod.H
"Something far worse than the Shadows: reporters."- Sheridan. B5


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-19-01, 02:05 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
90. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #88
 
  
>>As far as the Alpha goes, you're right; those munitions are
>>pipsqueak by aircraft standards. If the Alpha could carry fewer,
>>bigger munitions, however, it could do damage. After all, we build
>>aircraft munitions today that make US naval jets more than capable of
>>sinking ships.
>
>UF: Photon torps, Anti-Christ, Drum bomb.
>Here: Harpoon, Penguin, Tomahawk, Exocet. Maverick? Paveway equiped
>bombs?

The munitions listed in this topic are only -samples- of the vast variety of armaments available to UF services. There are all sorts of missiles and torpedoes which we haven't named because they are less common- and less likely to be used by the WDF or its allies- than those we did name.

Proton torpedoes are made -primarily- for sinking warships from starfighters, and represent a compromise between yield and on-board storage. A T-65-C's standard load of six torpedoes will sink a corvette or destroyer if said torpedoes are not intercepted; two X-Wings can combine their missile loads to drop a Star Destroyer's shields, with precise targeting.

Concussion missiles can also do damage to smaller warships, although the shields of a large ship- like a Star Destroyer, or even a heavy cruiser- can soak up the damage and regenerate with little or no loss of protection.

And there are so many other similar weapons from four hundred years of UF history used by other services- Zardon, Salusia, Kilrah, Romulus, etc. etc. etc. - that it just plain doesn't do to list them all here.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Verbena
Charter Member
771 posts
Oct-18-01, 02:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Verbena Click to send private message to Verbena Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
82. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #70
 
   >>And when engaging a Robotech-style ships stands off and sniggers,
>>phasers having a range 6 times that of a reflex cannon
>
>Reflex weaponry has a considerably longer range than you give it
>credit for, I think; but trying to hit a Starfleet ship in heavy
>maneuver with one is akin to trying to squash a housefly with the
>opposite end of a telephone pole. :)

I have the sneaking hunch Gryphon is right in both counts on this...going by the Robotech and Macross RPG books (which, admittedly, are based on Macek and therefore arbitrary, but the numbers make -sense- and are the most detailed writeup on these ships I've seen), the Reflex Cannon beam of the SDF-1 and 3 is 1 mile high, 2 miles wide, and 60,000 miles long. Them's some ridiculous numbers, sure, but even if they're totally wrong, the -scale- would still make sense...ie, the ratio of width to height to length. That kind of range still beats photorp range all to heck, particularly given the course-correction-maneuverings-only nature of photorps mentioned earlier in the thread. Also, of course, the practical range isn't nearly so long, since anything but the largest attacks are bound to see the SDF-? charging up and immediately dive for their very existence. That goes back to the exciting nature of close space combat, of course, and why I'm all for keeping the effective range on these things down.

As an interesting side-note, Robotech-style mini-missiles, no matter what warhead they have, all have a 1-mile range. Again, this is from the books, but with a max lock-on range in Star Wars of 2.5 km (vs starfighters), it sounds accurate. The effective range is of course far shorter, since they're not traveling in a straight line...I wouldn't release such missiles myself until 3/4 miles or so to allow for a second pass if they're avoided initially.

Oh, while I'm on the subject, one more thing: My personal wish-list for UF technology. In Twilight, I don't recall exactly what the GENOM ace (was Rayna Tangril her name?) was flying, but I think it was an Advanced, maybe? If not, that's definitely the next step for the GENOM Navy, aside from the workhorse Assault Gunboat. Much as I drool over the TIE Defender, that's definitely a choice for a later time. And, if there's any starfighter types I'd like to see included, the ones from FreeSpace and FreeSpace II rock. Nothing like the godawfully powerful Erinyes or Ares, but a Hercules I or a Ulysses just has an immense amount of style. Especially the Herc. =P

--"I invoke the rites of fiery Muspelheim, and give thy soul up to the inferno's embrace..."

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-18-01, 04:14 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
83. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #82
 
   > Oh, while I'm on the subject, one more thing: My personal
>wish-list for UF technology. In Twilight, I don't recall exactly what
>the GENOM ace (was Rayna Tangril her name?) was flying, but I think it
>was an Advanced, maybe?

It was a prototype - Advanced x1, similar to the special TIE Darth Vader used in A New Hope. Rayna was just starting to develop the Advanced at the time (2390). I would expect that by the time of the Symphony (currently 2405) the completed design has been in full production for some time, and Rayna and her team are working on the next rev. (In addition to being one of their top combat pilots, Rayna is also the driving force behind the design and construction of the TIE series - her conversation with her wingmates in Twilight alludes to that.)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Verbena
Charter Member
771 posts
Oct-19-01, 09:36 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Verbena Click to send private message to Verbena Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
89. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #83
 
   >> Oh, while I'm on the subject, one more thing: My personal
>>wish-list for UF technology. In Twilight, I don't recall exactly what
>>the GENOM ace (was Rayna Tangril her name?) was flying, but I think it
>>was an Advanced, maybe?
>
>It was a prototype - Advanced x1, similar to the special TIE Darth
>Vader used in A New Hope. Rayna was just starting to develop
>the Advanced at the time (2390). I would expect that by the time of
>the Symphony (currently 2405) the completed design has been in
>full production for some time, and Rayna and her team are working on
>the next rev. (In addition to being one of their top combat pilots,
>Rayna is also the driving force behind the design and construction of
>the TIE series - her conversation with her wingmates in
>Twilight alludes to that.)

Aaaaah, okay. And they're clear in TIE Fighter that the Advanced was a refinement of the ship Vader flew. In that case, the Advanced is, indeed, the next ship to come out. Concussion missiles still eat them for breakfast, unfortunately (One Adv. Concussion Missile blows away their shields and knocks them to something like 16% hull strength), but at least now, they perform like A-wings with four guns rather than Z-95's with no shields. >_<

As for Rayna Tangril, I remembered everything about her but the name itself...I coulda sworn I saw her in a book or the old Star Wars RPG Empire Sourcebook or somesuch. In any case, I look forward to seeing the Advanced. The later TIEs rock, though the Missile Boat just made combat too danged easy. No dogfighting...just tagging and bagging, particularly after the stronger tractor beam came out.


--"I invoke the rites of fiery Muspelheim, and give thy soul up to the inferno's embrace..."

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Astynax
Charter Member
717 posts
Oct-18-01, 11:27 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Astynax Click to send private message to Astynax Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
84. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #82
 
   > I have the sneaking hunch Gryphon is right in both counts on
>this...going by the Robotech and Macross RPG books (which, admittedly,
>are based on Macek and therefore arbitrary, but the numbers make
>-sense- and are the most detailed writeup on these ships I've seen),
>the Reflex Cannon beam of the SDF-1 and 3 is 1 mile high, 2 miles
>wide, and 60,000 miles long. Them's some ridiculous numbers, sure, but
>even if they're totally wrong, the -scale- would still make
>sense...

Well, I recall from a Robotech novelization I read once upon a time warp that the 'main gun' <what they refered to the reflex cannon as> activated and fired on the Zentraedi<sp?> fleet as soon as said fleet folded into the Sol system <someplace out by Neptune or Pluto> and destroyed 2 of the Zentraedi ships. That would give an SDF-1 reflex bolt an effective range spanning at least half a system.

-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"


-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-19-01, 00:11 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
85. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #84
 
   >Well, I recall from a Robotech novelization I read once upon a time
>warp that the 'main gun' <what they refered to the reflex cannon as>
>activated and fired on the Zentraedi<sp?> fleet as soon as said fleet
>folded into the Sol system <someplace out by Neptune or Pluto> and
>destroyed 2 of the Zentraedi ships. That would give an SDF-1 reflex
>bolt an effective range spanning at least half a system.
>

Sorry, but you're not correct. Those ships folded in on the far side of the moon, then Breetai dispatches two ships to scout ahead. Apparently, the auto systems of the SDF-1 detects them somewhere between mid and low earth orbit and blasts the two.

___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Astynax
Charter Member
717 posts
Oct-19-01, 01:28 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Astynax Click to send private message to Astynax Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
86. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #85
 
   >
>Sorry, but you're not correct. Those ships folded in on the far side
>of the moon, then Breetai dispatches two ships to scout ahead.
>Apparently, the auto systems of the SDF-1 detects them somewhere
>between mid and low earth orbit and blasts the two.
>

Hmm, I could've sworn it was further than that <I recall a mention that no Earth systems detected their presence, and I -think- they would've spotted them by the moon> but it's been a while.

-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"


-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Chris Redfield
Charter Member
255 posts
Oct-19-01, 07:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Chris%20Redfield Click to send private message to Chris%20Redfield Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via ICQ  
93. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #86
 
   >Hmm, I could've sworn it was further than that <I recall a mention
>that no Earth systems detected their presence, and I -think- they
>would've spotted them by the moon> but it's been a while.

I wouldn't take anything from those novelizations too seriously. They were almost as bad as the Resident Evil novels.

--------------------------------------
God Bless America
Chicken Biscuit $.99
--McDonald's sign in Raleigh, NC

-------------------------------------
Chris can't handle chemicals


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-19-01, 07:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
91. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #82
 
   >>>And when engaging a Robotech-style ships stands off and sniggers,
>>>phasers having a range 6 times that of a reflex cannon
>>
>>Reflex weaponry has a considerably longer range than you give it
>>credit for, I think; but trying to hit a Starfleet ship in heavy
>>maneuver with one is akin to trying to squash a housefly with the
>>opposite end of a telephone pole. :)
>
> I have the sneaking hunch Gryphon is right in both counts on
>this...going by the Robotech and Macross RPG books (which, admittedly,
>are based on Macek and therefore arbitrary, but the numbers make
>-sense- and are the most detailed writeup on these ships I've seen),
>the Reflex Cannon beam of the SDF-1 and 3 is 1 mile high, 2 miles
>wide, and 60,000 miles long. Them's some ridiculous numbers, sure, but
>even if they're totally wrong, the -scale- would still make
>sense...ie, the ratio of width to height to length. That kind of range
>still beats photorp range all to heck, particularly given the
>course-correction-maneuverings-only nature of photorps mentioned
>earlier in the thread.

The 'offical' range of a photon torpedo in Star Trek is up to 3,500,000 km. Probes built on the same chassis can travel 120 light years at warp 9 - although I seriously doubt if they could be aimed at anything smaller than a planet even if a warhead was fitted.

drakensisthered

"Range 60,000 miles? That isn't close quarters? That's Nukes at ten paces!" J.Random military officer.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-19-01, 07:38 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
94. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #91
 
   >The 'offical' range of a photon torpedo in Star Trek is up to
>3,500,000 km.

Hee hee. Despite the fact that we've never seen them employed successfully at a range greater than about 800 feet. :)

But then, my favorite Star Trek space battle is still Khan's ambush of the Enterprise in Star Trek II, and that was fought at a range of about eight feet. So I'm certainly not complaining.

I try not to get too hung up on the numbers in UF. It's not meant to be anything like hard SF, after all.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-20-01, 06:42 AM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
95. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #94
 
   >I try not to get too hung up on the numbers in UF. It's not
>meant to be anything like hard SF, after all.

No big deal, I did read the thread on Starfuries and I generally assume that things can do whatever is dramatically appropriate - I just figured that the relative ranges on the sources were differnet enough from what was said that it needed debunking.

Let's face it, in ST the weapons have way too much range for ships to need to get in visual range (like in Shiva Option by Steve White & David Weber where you get a good line on the theme of 'What do you mean ninety KILOMETERS!?'. But that just doesn't look cool.

drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-20-01, 07:26 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
96. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #95
 
   >Let's face it, in ST the weapons have way too much range for ships to
>need to get in visual range (like in Shiva Option by Steve White &
>David Weber where you get a good line on the theme of 'What do you
>mean ninety KILOMETERS!?'. But that just doesn't look cool.

Indeed. I remember back in '91 or '92, when I was still hanging around WPI, the original Wing Commander was still a fresh game, the top of the line in space battle games. A friend of mine had this other game called Operation Mantis or some such. It was basically a space fighter game which had a physics model and scenario engine as realistic as they could be made. It billed itself as the first "true" space combat simulator.

Which basically meant that it was incredibly hard to play and boring at the same time.

Realism isn't always, or even usually, entertaining when it comes to space travel. Look at 2001: A Space Odyssey, if you can stay awake through the spacewalk scene.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:03 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
54. "RE: No Harrington-novel Tech. Deal."
In response to message #44
 
   >>Or, one could just be arbitrary and divide the given HH sizes by four.
>>Regardless, I want to see a Medusa.
>
>Well, not to put too fine a point on it, you won't.
>
>Here's why.

Gryphon isn't an Honor Harrington fan.

There. Wasn't that simple?

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 02:51 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #10
 
   >LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-01 AT
>02:14AM (EDT)

>
>SDB = light warship w/no FTL drive (jump drives in Traveller are
>pretty massive) to make room for stronger sublight engines and more
>weapons and defenses. Monitors are heavier versions.

Patrol boats would be roughly equivalent to corvettes, such as one of the two Zardon ships captured early on by the CFMF in 'Quagmire Project.'

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Blob
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 04:06 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Blob Click to send private message to Blob Click to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #9
 
   I wonder if any military force in UF uses Battletech jumpschips.
*imagines a McKenna or Texas-class battleship with UF technology and an omega-class weapon*

----------------
And the winner is... THE HYPNOTOAD! ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-14-01, 04:30 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #12
 
   >I wonder if any military force in UF uses Battletech jumpschips.

Kearney-Fuchida drive? Why bother? It combines all the disadvantages of fold drive with all the disadvantages of hyperdrive plus requiring careful calculations of your jumping-off point. No percentage in it.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Polychrome
Charter Member
476 posts
Oct-14-01, 06:12 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Polychrome Click to send private message to Polychrome Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #13
 
   >>I wonder if any military force in UF uses Battletech jumpschips.
>
>Kearney-Fuchida drive? Why bother? It combines all the disadvantages
>of fold drive with all the disadvantages of hyperdrive plus
>requiring careful calculations of your jumping-off point. No
>percentage in it.

30 light-years instantaneously is nothing to sneeze at, given fold tech is not widely available.
If you can make them reasonably cheap they would work for hauling on established trade routes, especially ones with time critical cargo. It becomes evenbetter if you can get around the power generation bottleneck.
Of course, if it costs as much as a fold drive then you're wasting your time.

Polychrome


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Blob
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 06:23 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Blob Click to send private message to Blob Click to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #13
 
   >>I wonder if any military force in UF uses Battletech jumpschips.
>
>Kearney-Fuchida drive? Why bother? It combines all the disadvantages
>of fold drive with all the disadvantages of hyperdrive plus
>requiring careful calculations of your jumping-off point. No
>percentage in it.

Okay, but a McKenna upgraded to UF tech would make a good flagship to show-off.
And Potemkins would make for good troopships.

----------------
And the winner is... THE HYPNOTOAD! ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
gamlain
Member since Jun-8-15
4 posts
Oct-17-01, 11:52 AM (EST)
Click to EMail gamlain Click to send private message to gamlain Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
78. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #9
 
   >>Damn, I spend a couple hours putting together a reply and you beat me
>>to it. }:-{D
>
>So the CFMF has different classifications than everybody else - that
>should come as no great surprise to anybody. :)
>
>--G.
>-><-
>Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
>Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

Indeed. Find me two navies who Whole heartedly agree on ship classes and I'll beleive it when I see it. ^^
The General nameing convention for ship classes represents a compromise between various world navies, most of whom started out with their own individual nameing conventions. The compromise starts ariseing when those navies started being allies, and no supprise should be present at all if this follows into space.
Let Ye navy who foots the bill, name the ship class, and all that rot.

Gamlain
Bishouju Senshi Sailor V Otaku, Hero For Rent
"I never cry."

Not lost, just touring


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 00:49 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #5
 
   >>>>Omega-class destroyers, developed after the Earth-Minbari War
>>>>and based somewhat on the older Nova-class dreadnaught.
>>>
>>>Obviously, "destroyer" means something different to JMS... :)
>>
>>Yes, a 'destroyer' in B5 appears to be a heavy warship instead of the
>>usual 'tin cans' that appear in other series.
>>
>>Patrick Chester
>>"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"
>
>Yeah, but it's better than what has happened to the term "Frigate"...
>
>(For those of you who don't understand, the USS Constitution was
>classified as a Frigate when she was built, and the closest modern
>equivalent would, IIRC, be a Battlecruiser...)

More accurate than you might know, actually.

In the British Navy, 'sloops' and 'frigates' roughly corresponded to light and heavy cruisers, where ships of the line were the battleships of the age. The American-constructed frigates, however, carried substantially more guns that a British frigate of similar tonnage, giving the American ship a decided throw-weight advantage.

As a suggested division of warship class designations for UF (considering there's a -lot- of overlap):

Starfighter (ex. X-Wing, VF-1A)
Gunboat (ex. Centurion, YT-1300 modified)
Corvette (ex. CR-90, Broadway)
Destroyer (ex. CEC Gunship, Plymouth-III)
*Guncruiser (ex. Liberator, Plymouth-V)
Light cruiser (ex. Miranda, Lancer)
*Frigate (ex. Nebulon B)
Heavy cruiser (ex. Constitution)
Battlecruiser (ex. Plymouth-IV)
Battleship (ex. Iowa, Galaxy, Katana)
Dreadnaught (ex. Star Destroyer)
*Star Fortress (SDF-17, SDF-23)
Battlestation (any orbital fixed military station, also AT&T)

* = designation is rare or unique to one particular ship class

The differences between classes is determined by a combination of ship's size, armor, shields, engine power, weapons load, and crew compliment. The largest determinant, however, seems to be what the ship's designers -say- it is, and ship architects' visions often diverge radically from reality- as any experienced ship's engineer will tell you. }:-{D

Finally, dedicated starfighter carriers are generally separate from this list, ranked as 'pocket' (4 squadrons or fewer), 'carrier,' (4-8 squadrons), and 'heavy' (more than 8 squadrons).

All of this should demonstrate just how damn confusing the subject actually -is.- }:-{D

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Offsides
Charter Member
1220 posts
Oct-14-01, 10:08 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Offsides Click to send private message to Offsides Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #7
 
   >>(For those of you who don't understand, the USS Constitution was
>>classified as a Frigate when she was built, and the closest modern
>>equivalent would, IIRC, be a Battlecruiser...)
>
>More accurate than you might know, actually.
>
I knew it was somewhere in there, I just couldn't remember where in the Cruiser<->Battleship range she was...

>In the British Navy, 'sloops' and 'frigates' roughly corresponded to
>light and heavy cruisers, where ships of the line were the battleships
>of the age. The American-constructed frigates, however, carried
>substantially more guns that a British frigate of similar tonnage,
>giving the American ship a decided throw-weight advantage.
>
IIRC, 'frigates' were also generally faster than most other warships of their size, hence the term 'fast frigates'. And we always did tend to build 'em bigger on this side of the pond :)

(No, I'm not British, I just use their terms on occasion :)

>As a suggested division of warship class designations for UF
>(considering there's a -lot- of overlap):
<snip>

As long as you're not using modern US Navy designations... Frigates are now small, and some Destroyers are bigger (size and weight) than most Cruisers... *sigh*

Offsides

#include <ships.h>

#91;...#93; in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.
-- David Ben Gurion
EPU RCW #pi;
#include <stdsig.h>


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 02:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #17
 
   >As long as you're not using modern US Navy designations... Frigates
>are now small, and some Destroyers are bigger (size and weight) than
>most Cruisers... *sigh*

That's because the modern US Navy has two -practical- designations for their ships: 'carriers' and 'not carriers.' The not-carriers' sole purpose is to protect the carriers. Anything beyond that is unimportant detail.

No, wait, I lie; carriers, not-carriers, and submarines.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Pangaro
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 04:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Pangaro Click to send private message to Pangaro Click to add this user to your buddy list  
36. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #18
 
   >That's because the modern US Navy has two -practical- designations for
>their ships: 'carriers' and 'not carriers.' The not-carriers' sole
>purpose is to protect the carriers. Anything beyond that is
>unimportant detail.
>
>No, wait, I lie; carriers, not-carriers, and submarines.

I guess then that the use of submarines is to destroy enemy carriers...

Pangaro, or other submarines...
Member of the Narn Bat Squad


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 06:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
37. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #36
 
  
>I guess then that the use of submarines is to destroy enemy
>carriers...

Their purpose is Not to be Seen. They can be used to attack other ships or, more spectacularly, to launch missile attacks upon ground targets.

Redneck

Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Oct-15-01, 06:31 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
38. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #37
 
   >>I guess then that the use of submarines is to destroy enemy
>>carriers...
>
>Their purpose is Not to be Seen. They can be used to attack other
>ships or, more spectacularly, to launch missile attacks upon ground
>targets.

Or deliver commandos, or rescue downed airmen, or monitor a surface fleet's radio communications, or track test missiles, or locate things on the ocean bottom, or tap undersea communications cables...

(For those of you who don't make a hobby of reading about submarines, all of these things are uses to which subs have actually been put, not theoretical situations.)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-15-01, 06:39 PM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
39. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #38
 
   >Or deliver commandos, or rescue downed airmen, or monitor a surface
>fleet's radio communications, or track test missiles, or locate things
>on the ocean bottom, or tap undersea communications cables...

Or even radar picket duty (before the advent of AEW & AWACS planes). Our resident submarine in Pittsburgh, U.S.S. Requin, was a radar picket at one point in her career.

http://www.geocities.com/uss_requin/index.html

Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Redneck
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 10:57 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Redneck Click to send private message to Redneck Click to add this user to your buddy list  
42. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #38
 
   >>>I guess then that the use of submarines is to destroy enemy
>>>carriers...
>>
>>Their purpose is Not to be Seen. They can be used to attack other
>>ships or, more spectacularly, to launch missile attacks upon ground
>>targets.
>
>Or deliver commandos, or rescue downed airmen, or monitor a surface
>fleet's radio communications, or track test missiles, or locate things
>on the ocean bottom, or tap undersea communications cables...
>
>(For those of you who don't make a hobby of reading about submarines,
>all of these things are uses to which subs have actually been put, not
>theoretical situations.)

All very true, although I regard those as secondary mission profiles compared to the two points I mentioned, especially since several of those missions are also fulfilled by the other types.

Redneck (although tapping an undersea cable isn't something you want to do in a missile destroyer)


Red wizard needs money badly...
www.wlpcomics.com
White Lightning Productions - don't tell the Pope


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Wedge
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 11:10 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Wedge Click to send private message to Wedge Click to add this user to your buddy list  
43. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #42
 
   >Redneck (although tapping an undersea cable isn't something you want
>to do in a missile destroyer)

That sure would have messed with the Soviet's heads, though.

------------------------
Chad Collier--"Comrade Captain! I am picking up something very strange on sonar..."
Digital Bitch
J. Random VFX Company


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Ebony
Charter Member
Oct-16-01, 01:03 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Ebony Click to send private message to Ebony Click to add this user to your buddy list  
59. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #38
 
   LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-01 AT 01:05 PM (EDT)

LAST EDITED ON Oct-16-01 AT 01:04PM (EDT)

>>>I guess then that the use of submarines is to destroy enemy
>>>carriers...
>>
>>Their purpose is Not to be Seen. They can be used to attack other
>>ships or, more spectacularly, to launch missile attacks upon ground
>>targets.
>
>Or deliver commandos, or rescue downed airmen, or monitor a surface
>fleet's radio communications, or track test missiles, or locate things
>on the ocean bottom, or tap undersea communications cables...
>
>(For those of you who don't make a hobby of reading about submarines,
>all of these things are uses to which subs have actually been put, not
>theoretical situations.)

You forgot exploring underneath the polar icecap. That one's been tricky.

Ebony the Black Dragon
aka Draco Draconis Ebenium
known to the Silent Service as Aaron F. Johnson,
Senior Editor, Living Room Games
http://www.lrgames.com

(who's guessing that Gryphon has read Blind Man's Bluff too)


  Printer-friendly page | Top
remandeteam
Member since Jul-31-07
78 posts
Oct-14-01, 08:56 PM (EST)
Click to EMail remande Click to send private message to remande Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #17
 
  
>As long as you're not using modern US Navy designations... Frigates
>are now small, and some Destroyers are bigger (size and weight) than
>most Cruisers... *sigh*

Destroyers were never meant to be a size designation, but a mission designation. The original name was "submarine destroyer", as it was a dedicated ASW platform. They were small because they needed to be maneuverable, and didn't need the stability a huge ship gives you (since they mounted depth charges rather than ship-rocking guns). However, there has been some creeping missionism in the past few decades.

--rR

--rR


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Sinapus
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 10:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Sinapus Click to send private message to Sinapus Click to add this user to your buddy list  
26. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #24
 
   >Destroyers were never meant to be a size designation, but a mission
>designation. The original name was "submarine destroyer", as it was a
>dedicated ASW platform.

Odd, I thought it was originally "PT boat destroyer"...

Patrick Chester
"...could you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 02:45 AM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #26
 
   >>Destroyers were never meant to be a size designation, but a mission
>>designation. The original name was "submarine destroyer", as it was a
>>dedicated ASW platform.
>
>Odd, I thought it was originally "PT boat destroyer"...
>
More likely. Destroyers were around years before submarines were taken to be a serious threat. Most early destroyers were a cross betweeen a PT boat and light cruiser. During WWI their function in naval battles (as opposed to convoy work) was that of PT boats.


drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-16-01, 00:32 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
46. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #26
 
   >>Destroyers were never meant to be a size designation, but a mission
>>designation. The original name was "submarine destroyer", as it was a
>>dedicated ASW platform.
>
>Odd, I thought it was originally "PT boat destroyer"...

Destroyers were always built as fast screening units for fleet action. Initially, while subs were still primarily oxygen breathers, their main function was to scout and screen the fleet. In addition, the totaly unrealistic rules of engagement placed upon submarines effectively emasculated them. Prior to this time, Destroyers would scout, and/or occasionally lay smoke screens to shield their fleet, along with the 'occasional' suicide charge to fire torpedos en mass at an enemy formation. It should be noted that this last function was rarely used, and when it was, it was normally used in flotilla strength (12 ships or more)

It wasn't until the German's moved to unrestricted submarine warfare that the Sub came into its own as a weapon, and at that time, a destroyer's additional duties were changed from sinking PT boats menacing the fleet to sinking subs menacing convoys.

In both times, Frigates were often smaller and lighter guned destroyers who's primary job was convoy escort, as compared to fleet escort. This is still true today. With the advent of effective SAM's, counter missiles have been added to the mix, but still frigates like the Arliegh Burke class have a single rail launcher and one 5" gun (often mounted aft). Destroyers, on the other hand, often have a Double rail launcher for SM2's, a 5" gun, PLUS a separate, dedicated SubRoc launcher in addition to its torpedo tubes.

Its the Cruisers who have seen the most change over the years since the demise of the battleship. Oringally, they were intended to be all-purpose ships, who would often cruise areas showing the flag or otherwise assist operations. In the Nuc age, Cruisers have become primarily specialized for the AA role with the deployment of the Ageis class cruisers, although they still retain some ASW capabilities.

Carriers have only changed marginally in order to meet the new threats, its main weapon always has been its embarked aircraft. The aircraft defend the fleet, and the fleet defends the carrier. It is NOT fair to claim that there are only Carriers, non carriers and Subs... A carrier without her escorts is actually quite vulerable, with very limited self defense if someone gets past her aircraft. And for a sub, there is only two types of ships... Targets, and Non-targets.

And that doesnt even touch the subject of Special Boat Units, operations in the Littoral reagions, or landing marines ashore.

___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-16-01, 00:44 AM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
48. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #46
 
   >In both times, Frigates were often smaller and lighter guned
>destroyers who's primary job was convoy escort, as compared to fleet
>escort. This is still true today. With the advent of effective
>SAM's, counter missiles have been added to the mix, but still frigates
>like the Arliegh Burke class have a single rail launcher and one 5"
>gun (often mounted aft). Destroyers, on the other hand, often have a
>Double rail launcher for SM2's, a 5" gun, PLUS a separate, dedicated
>SubRoc launcher in addition to its torpedo tubes.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's wrong.

See

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/surface.htm#dd

and

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/usa/surface.htm#ffg

for a quick course in the bar.

:)

Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-16-01, 04:36 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
65. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #48
 
   >>In both times, Frigates were often smaller and lighter guned
>>destroyers who's primary job was convoy escort, as compared to fleet
>>escort. This is still true today. With the advent of effective
>>SAM's, counter missiles have been added to the mix, but still frigates
>>like the Arliegh Burke class have a single rail launcher and one 5"
>>gun (often mounted aft). Destroyers, on the other hand, often have a
>>Double rail launcher for SM2's, a 5" gun, PLUS a separate, dedicated
>>SubRoc launcher in addition to its torpedo tubes.
>
>I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's wrong.
>

The only Oops I made was that my memory failed me, confusing the Perry class with the Arleigh Burke. The rest of my statement stands... And I got my info the hard way... service with the fleet, aboard one of those now decomissioned CGN's mentioned in his article.

DON'T get me started about the STUPIDITY of that move!!!!


___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-16-01, 05:03 PM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
67. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #65
 
   >The only Oops I made was that my memory failed me, confusing the Perry
>class with the Arleigh Burke. The rest of my statement stands... And
>I got my info the hard way... service with the fleet, aboard one of
>those now decomissioned CGN's mentioned in his article.

Perhaps I should have said "out of date".

The only ships that still have twin-arm Mk-26 launchers are the first five Ticonderoga-class cruisers - all others have Mk-41 VLS.

All the dedicated ASROC launchers are gone. Those Spruance-class destroyers that have not had them replaced with Mk-41s have been decommissioned.

All the older classes of destroyers and frigates - Kidd, Knox, etc., have been decommissioned.

>DON'T get me started about the STUPIDITY of that move!!!!

Wouldn't dream of it. :)

Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-17-01, 00:17 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
74. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #67
 
   >>The only Oops I made was that my memory failed me, confusing the Perry
>>class with the Arleigh Burke. The rest of my statement stands... And
>>I got my info the hard way... service with the fleet, aboard one of
>>those now decomissioned CGN's mentioned in his article.
>
>Perhaps I should have said "out of date".
>
>The only ships that still have twin-arm Mk-26 launchers are the first
>five Ticonderoga-class cruisers - all others have Mk-41 VLS.
>
>All the dedicated ASROC launchers are gone. Those
>Spruance-class destroyers that have not had them replaced with
>Mk-41s have been decommissioned.

I'll conceed my info is out of date then... I wasn't aware that the Burkes had totaly replaced the Spruances already.

>>Must fight urge.... Loosing....<<

You know, given all the screwing around ol' Billy boy did while in the White House, decomissioning the CGN's was about the worst. He de-comissioned the one GOOD thing that was ever assoicated with his state, IMO.


___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
ejheckathorn
Member since Aug-9-13
33 posts
Oct-17-01, 00:42 AM (EST)
Click to EMail ejheckathorn Click to send private message to ejheckathorn Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
75. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #74
 
  
>>All the dedicated ASROC launchers are gone. Those
>>Spruance-class destroyers that have not had them replaced with
>>Mk-41s have been decommissioned.
>
>I'll conceed my info is out of date then... I wasn't aware that the
>Burkes had totaly replaced the Spruances already.

They haven't, actually. Seven have been decommissioned, and all the ones remaining in service have had their ASROC launchers replaced with a 61-cell Mk-41 VLS.


Eric J. Heckathorn
ericjh@stargate.net

Eric J. Heckathorn


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-14-01, 06:40 PM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #7
 
   >>Yeah, but it's better than what has happened to the term "Frigate"...
>>
>>(For those of you who don't understand, the USS Constitution was
>>classified as a Frigate when she was built, and the closest modern
>>equivalent would, IIRC, be a Battlecruiser...)
>
>More accurate than you might know, actually.
>
>In the British Navy, 'sloops' and 'frigates' roughly corresponded to
>light and heavy cruisers, where ships of the line were the battleships
>of the age. The American-constructed frigates, however, carried
>substantially more guns that a British frigate of similar tonnage,
>giving the American ship a decided throw-weight advantage.
>
The British actuially built some similarly sized frigates (the HMS Unicorn is still anchored in Dundee - fascinating ship) but concentrated on sixth rater frigates because they were handier, while any ship-of-the-line (battleship) could reduce the heaviest American frigate to kindling.

However, the main tasks for frigates and sloops were recon, convoy escorts and commerce raiding. When the term frigate (also sloop and corvette) were revived in WWII, they were intended as anti-submarine platforms for convoys crossing the atlantic (the old convoy escort role) while commerce raiding becanme primarily a submarine task and recon was handed over to aircraft. So even if the scale has changed, the modern frigate is still filling it's traditional role.

The heavier frigates where the first step in the trend towards smaller ships of the line, with fewer but bigger guns. But they were still frigates because they were filling the same role.

And frigates were not faster than larger ships - because they had smaller sails they were usually somewhat slower. However, they could sail closer to the wind, handle shallower water and were generally more manouverable.

Okay, rant over.

drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Star Ranger4
Charter Member
2208 posts
Oct-14-01, 07:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Star%20Ranger4 Click to send private message to Star%20Ranger4 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list Click to send message via AOL IM  
23. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #22
 
   >The British actuially built some similarly sized frigates (the HMS
>Unicorn is still anchored in Dundee - fascinating ship) but
>concentrated on sixth rater frigates because they were handier, while
>any ship-of-the-line (battleship) could reduce the heaviest American
>frigate to kindling.
>
>However, the main tasks for frigates and sloops were recon, convoy
>escorts and commerce raiding. When the term frigate (also sloop and
>corvette) were revived in WWII, they were intended as anti-submarine
>platforms for convoys crossing the atlantic (the old convoy escort
>role) while commerce raiding becanme primarily a submarine task and
>recon was handed over to aircraft. So even if the scale has changed,
>the modern frigate is still filling it's traditional role.
>
>The heavier frigates where the first step in the trend towards smaller
>ships of the line, with fewer but bigger guns. But they were still
>frigates because they were filling the same role.
>
>And frigates were not faster than larger ships - because they had
>smaller sails they were usually somewhat slower. However, they could
>sail closer to the wind, handle shallower water and were generally
>more manouverable.
>

However, the US, since it couldnt' out-build the brittish, took a different tack. The Constitution class frigates design philosopy was similar to that of Battle Cruisers in the Honor Harrington universe: Heavily armed to take anything smaller than they, while still fast enough to run away from ships of the line.

___________________

Vaughn doesn't know I exist. I guess this explains why the rest of reality keeps ignoring me as well. >_<


Of COURSE you wernt expecting it!
No One expects the FANNISH INQUISITION!
RCW# 86


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 02:49 AM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
33. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #23
 
   >However, the US, since it couldnt' out-build the brittish, took a
>different tack. The Constitution class frigates design philosopy was
>similar to that of Battle Cruisers in the Honor Harrington universe:
>Heavily armed to take anything smaller than they, while still fast
>enough to run away from ships of the line.

I'll take your word for it, I have no idea what they were thinking. As I understand it the early US Navy's only hope against the Royal Navy was a few raids and asking the French to do the serious fighting for them - not unreasonably, a fleet of ships of the line took a long time to build and I don't think they caught up with the European Navies in numbers until the late nineteenth century.

They were the first with a true ironclad (Monitor) though, various iron-hulled sailing ships aside.


drakensisthered

So I simply said one of the great trite truths: "There is generally more than one side to a story." - Corwin, Roger Zelazny's 'Courts of Chaos'


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Blob
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 05:35 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Blob Click to send private message to Blob Click to add this user to your buddy list  
34. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #22
 
   >When the term frigate (also sloop and
>corvette) were revived in WWII, they were intended as anti-submarine
>platforms for convoys crossing the atlantic (the old convoy escort
>role) while commerce raiding becanme primarily a submarine task

Really? I'm no WWII expert, but the German navy used AFAIK Panzerschiffe for commerce raiding in the south Atlantic.

----------------
And the winner is... THE HYPNOTOAD! ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
drakensisthered
Charter Member
Oct-15-01, 07:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail drakensisthered Click to send private message to drakensisthered Click to add this user to your buddy list  
41. "RE: Two Questions."
In response to message #34
 
   >Really? I'm no WWII expert, but the German navy used AFAIK
>Panzerschiffe for commerce raiding in the south Atlantic.

'commerce raiding became PRIMARILY a submarine task'

400+ unterseebooten vs. how many 'armoured ships'?

Admittedly, a submarine could only reach the south atlantic if it was resupplied while down there due to the tech limitations of the day. But even so, some were deployed down there with supply ships. The balance was fairly one sided.


drakensisthered


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

[ YUM ] [ BIG ] [ ??!? ] [ RANT ] [ GNDN ] [ STORE ] [ FORUM ] GOTW ] [ VAULT ]

version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
Benjamin D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)