SML Absorbers

[quoted original message omitted]

On 12-Aug-99 at 23:51, Voivode Shrike (a.k.a. Ryan)
(voivode@voyager.net) wrote: >

> Protect the Carrier IS the modern Naval surface mission from what

Well, speaking from having been there (I was a twidget also, Data Systems
Tech) protect the carrier is absolutely true, although the carriers mission
was "get the planes in the air". Once the planes were launched we were pretty
expendable. An intelligence group ran through what was expected for us after
the planes were gone, the Russians were going
to send so many Tac-Nukes at us that many wouldn't get through because
of the blast of the one that mission killed the ship and almost everyone on
board. Of course, those that didn't die right away were dead in a few days
anyway.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
> I don't like the SML absorber technique for small ships. In the

Ryan replied:

This makes sense, but reality makes it untrue. This is exactly what escorts
are for in the U.S. Navy. Specifically, Fast Frigates are designed to emulate
an aircraft carrier to enemy electronics and take hits for them, even though a
single hit is likely to destroy (mission kill at least) them.
They have a very short life expectancy (30-60 seconds or something
crazy like that) and (comparatively) crappy electronics. At best they are
supposed to fire a couple of missiles at the enemy then die taking a hit for
the carrier. This from my buddy who was stationed on one of these floating
"targets."

Protect the Carrier IS the modern Naval surface mission from what I
understand (I am ex-U.S. Navy, but I am nuclear waste (didn't finish
nuclear
field training, a GOOD thing)) and an ex-twidget (Electronics
Technician), so I can't speak with true authority (never set foot on a ship
until AFTER I was medically discharged). I can only relay what I have been
told, read
and/or understand.

Tom comments: I have no doubt this is the case. However note that this seems
to have been a safe career so far. If we got in a shooting war, you'd see
enthusiasm for these postings drop DRAMATICALLY. And the war dept. would have
to work damn hard to find some kind of ejectable decoy that could draw off
enemy missiles that didn't kill people. It isn't that this can't be used as a
strategy, but it just sucks from a trained manpower point of view. I could
almost see an ESU fleet using it... but never a NAC fleet.

AI's I can buy, but again, the only place you'd see these is in a hot war.
Note that in RL specialized ships such as these tend to evolve where there is
a need (ah Darwin!) such as in a war where line ships
are going down from SMLs. In normal relatively-peaceful time
operations, they'd be pretty non-useful, and so would eventually
become decomissioned or mothballed. So it is a case where the nature of the
universe you have should define the nature of the fleets. FB fleets (not
optimized) seem very consistent with peace time roles. Whereas SMR
monstrosities or shrapnel SML absorbers seem like "hot war" creations. I think
they are viable in wartime, but in peacetime your economics take them out of
the fleet.

> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> AI's I can buy, but again, the only place you'd see these is in a hot

i'd point out that granaatscherven-type ships would have a multitude of
other uses, as couriers (no other FTL comms, remember), scouts (likewise, not
FTL sensors), customs, police and fleet security work (stopping civilians and
spies at bay rather than enemy fleet units) and general runabouts (need to get
a vaccine to a colony planet before the plague strikes? you could do a star
trek and send your biggest battleship, or you could stash it in the fridge in
a granaatscherven and send that instead).

in the wet navy, they are also useful for fishery protection, but i'm guessing
this is less important in space. however, they could be useful for policing
belt mining areas, etc: i can see a fleet dropping in system o show the flag,
with the battleship occupying the main planet's orbit
whilst the little ships do the real work - cruisers visiting the main
stations and rocks in the system and shrapnel swarming over the asteroid belt,
outer moons, interplanet traffic, etc.

all in all, i'd say navies would get more peacetime bang per buck for
granaatscherven than for heavies.

tom

> Roger Books wrote:

> > Now that I finnaly picked up the fleet book, I got to look at my

I am reminded of the French Naval Vessel "Foudre" at the turn of the
century. (19th-20th that is). She carried a number of VERY small
steam-driven torpedoboats. These boats had no "boilers" as such, only
canisters which were filled with highly compressed superheated steam from the
mothership's boilers.

Later on, she was converted to a Seaplane carrier, with much the same mission.

> On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Tom Anderson wrote:

> i'd point out that granaatscherven-type ships would have a multitude

This is all right on.

The Russians have a big example of this. They have a large littoral force of
small combatants that operate close to shore and deal with those various kinds
of issues, fisheries law enforcement, border patrol, etc. Most other nations
have some sorts of gunboats for that very purpose. ie

the coast guard in the case of the US.

Now that I finnaly picked up the fleet book, I got to look at my concept

for a Torpedo Boat/Patrol craft for system defense.

Mass 8 Hull weak 1 Thrust 6 2 Plasma Torp 4 PDS 1

A variant is to remove the Torpedo and add two MT type missiles. A third
variant is to remove the PDS and add streamlining. Otherwise
crank it up to 10 mass and keep the same speed/PDS and add streamlining.

A Tender to go along with it also make sense.

Based off the Inflexible Fleet carrier model with very reduced flight deck and
more bay space allocated to the PT boats.

Mass 130 Weak Hull
Thrust 4 +FTL
7 Armour 2 PDS bay for 4 10 mass craft 1 fighter bay Fire con Class 1 Batt

plus various sundry bits

> On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Roger Books wrote:

> I don't think I'd bother with the PDS, you aren't going to do

I was thinking the class would have to have some Self Defense capability

to it. Much like the spartan PDS (two twin 50s and a 20mm) on a MTB of yore.
Enough punch aside from the torpedos to deal with light stuff, but

not much beyond that...

> I considered this ship at one point (All submunitions instead

They aren't meant to get close, just stand back and make runs on the Red

force rears/flanks. Go ahead, waste a Class three beam on it...I'd
rather you shoot at that than my BC thats slowly dissasembling your BDN...

> Ryan M Gill wrote:
ie
> the coast guard in the case of the US.

I don't think I'd bother with the PDS, you aren't going to do any signicant
damage to fighters or SML's before it pops like a bug.

I considered this ship at one point (All submunitions instead of torps), but
the thought of losing as many ships as my opponent had fire controls left a
bad taste in my mouth.

My latest idea has been designing ships with submunitions and armour, the
survivability goes way up.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> Now that I finnaly picked up the fleet book, I got to look at my

Should be "Hull Fragile 1" (an 8 Mass Weak hull gets 2 hull boxes).

> Thrust 6 2

As long as it never gets attacked :-/

> Based off the Inflexible Fleet carrier model with very reduced flight

> deck and more bay space allocated to the PT boats.

Why use a bay when you could have a Mass 8 Tug engine for carrying those 4
strike craft?

Regards,

> On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Should be "Hull Fragile 1" (an 8 Mass Weak hull gets 2 hull

yep, you're right...I was recalling from memory...

> As long as it never gets attacked :-/

Well thats the standard with any tenders/carriers...

ideally they should hang out way way way in back of the battle line and just
observe...

> Why use a bay when you could have a Mass 8 Tug engine for carrying

Trying not to power game too much...?

Its a system. It also provides not just transport from system to system, but
also repair and rearmamemnt facilites. Thats what a tender does. Thats the way
a small attack craft system would operate. It forms the basis for a LPD as
well. Reduce the size of the bay to a capacity 25 bay. Add space for troops
quarters and add an ortillery system.
The fighters make a nice escort/combat addition to the force. The bay
size allows for capacity of several small assault craft or one really big one
(one has to be able to get the really huge tanks down...).

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

Damn, I hate quoting posts in full... can't think of anything to snip though.

Anyway, you're right. The only addition is that OPVs usually have "space and
weight" allocated to upgrade their armament radically in time of War with a
capital W.

See the "Freemantle" class that's in the ship registry for an example -
a super destroyer sized ship with a single class 1 beam (enough to deal

The actual trend in ships you are talking about are OPV's... Off shore Patrol
Vessels are basically corvette sized ships with LESS armament and greater sea
keeping abilities through longer time on station and refined hydrodynamics.
The ships you guys are designing look more like PT boats... A real OPV would
be about mass 14 to 16 ship with a hull of at least 3 and probably 4, (or 3
and armor) and have a thrust of 6 to 8. Armament would be 1 to 2 PDS's, a
class 2 beam, and SubMunitions...

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

Another option is to take a More Thrust Missile, place a 1 mass weasel sensor
in place of its warhead and fire that off. It acts just like a MT missile in
movement but apears to be a Mass 25 vessel to everyone else. Cost is 10 Full
Thrust points.