Large Ships and Spinal Mounts: What is the Point?

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I thought the Balance of Judgment was both bigger and more powerful. That episode certainly ran that way.

As I recall Balance of Judgement was classified as a Destroyer. (I have that episode on DVD, I'll check Monday.

) The Wrath of Achilles was a new type and Dylan had never seen anything like it before he saw it. Though he did comment that he Wrath of Achilles was an entire Commonwealth fleet all to itself. So perhaps it would be a Drednaught to Andromeda's Cruiser. THough in all fairness in the Universe of Andromeda, the Andromeda and her sister ships would classify easily as Drednaughts compared to everything else flying, except obviously to the World Ship, and in that case the Wrath of Achilles would be a Super Drednaught.

THough that is a comparitive situation, not what tyhe ship is designated as. The Graf Spee was classified as a Cruiser, a Pocket Battleship, or a Battlecruiser depending on who you listened to.


In a fleet that doesn't expect combat, and the Commonwealth had been at peace for 1000 or so years, you will still see Cruisers on a regular basis but Bigger ships are specifically for combat and not very cost effective for peace time missions. (Also note the Federation's reliance on Cruisers.)

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I thought the Balance of Judgment was both bigger and more powerful. That episode certainly ran that way.

As I recall Balance of Judgement was classified as a Destroyer.
</font>[/QUOTE]How odd. The Balance of Judgment was kicking the Andromeda Ascendant all over the place until the Eureka Maru pulled it's little stunt.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
THough that is a comparitive situation, not what tyhe ship is designated as. The Graf Spee was classified as a Cruiser, a Pocket Battleship, or a Battlecruiser depending on who you listened to.

The Graf Spee and the Scharnshorst were, in most placed I've read them, called Pocket Battleships.

What source has been calling them battlecruisers?

 

[lightsenshi]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
As near as I can tell there are no SPinal Mounts anywhere in Andromeda. Most offensive systems are missiles, with short range Point Defense Lasers and Small craft. As far as being, crew sized much bigger than an AHL, well size is relative. Have you seen the size difference on Ad Astra's website between a Federation Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser, Klingon D-7 Battle Cruiser and a HMS Medusa Clas Super Drednaught?

Yes and it really proves why Star Trek ships are so fragile. ^_^

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
THough that is a comparitive situation, not what tyhe ship is designated as. The Graf Spee was classified as a Cruiser, a Pocket Battleship, or a Battlecruiser depending on who you listened to.

The Graf Spee and the Scharnshorst were, in most placed I've read them, called Pocket Battleships.

What source has been calling them battlecruisers? </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Germany wasn't allowed to build battleships, pocket or otherwise. So they were built and classified as Cruisers. And the 11" guns were the largest allowed by the Treaty of Versailles for German Cruisers. THe Washington Treaty was the one that limited Heavy Cruisers to 8" Guns. (And the Germans weren't signatories of that treaty.) Because of the firepower, compared to other contempory Cruisers they certainly weren't Cruisers. After the fact, and remember history is written by the victors, they are virtually universally classified as Pocket Battleships. Since they are definitely more than a contemporary Cruisers and well less than Battleships, which would put them in the Battlecruiser classification. About equivalent to the "Refit" and "Repair." (Officially named Repulse and Renown.) Though I haven't seen anything that officially classified them as Battlecruisers, I guess they were too slow.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by lightsenshi:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
As near as I can tell there are no SPinal Mounts anywhere in Andromeda. Most offensive systems are missiles, with short range Point Defense Lasers and Small craft. As far as being, crew sized much bigger than an AHL, well size is relative. Have you seen the size difference on Ad Astra's website between a Federation Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser, Klingon D-7 Battle Cruiser and a HMS Medusa Clas Super Drednaught?

Yes and it really proves why Star Trek ships are so fragile. ^_^ </font>[/QUOTE]Only when compared to other genre's. Within the Star Trek Universe they are quite capable. And besides the Enterprise has one thing that most of the other Science Fiction Universes don't have. Photon Torpedoes, which according to the early tech manuals are Matter-Antimatter weapons. Virtually everyone else uses Nukes.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
Only when compared to other genre's. Within the Star Trek Universe they are quite capable. And besides the Enterprise has one thing that most of the other Science Fiction Universes don't have. Photon Torpedoes, which according to the early tech manuals are Matter-Antimatter weapons. Virtually everyone else uses Nukes.

What about nova bombs? They're supposed to be a wee bit more effective than photon torpedos.

My main problem is that they're hyped up through the whole first season, and then when it comes time to use one on the world ship, it goes off, but has no appreciable effect, <phfffffft!>.

 

[endersig]

Naw, in To Loose the Faithful Lightning, Nova bombs are first introduced, and used on at least one system. They are then loaded into Slipfighters, and sent after 22 different systems. The ony thing about the Worldship was that the Abyss fed off chaos and acts of war... the definition of Nova bombs... the dude just ate all those explosions. With Nova Weapons, the whole game would be a pushover

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by endersig:
Naw, in To Loose the Faithful Lightning, Nova bombs are first introduced, and used on at least one system. They are then loaded into Slipfighters, and sent after 22 different systems.

Like I said, "hyped up".

Originally posted by endersig:
The ony thing about the Worldship was that the Abyss fed off chaos and acts of war... the definition of Nova bombs... the dude just ate all those explosions. With Nova Weapons, the whole game would be a pushover

Yes, this was exactly my complaint. The episode ended with "and, magically, the enemy avoided the problem".

 

[savage]

yep. duds but he tried it before ... not sure why dylan did it again with nova duds. Should've figured out something new. It was a terrible episode.

Savage

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by endersig:
Naw, in To Loose the Faithful Lightning, Nova bombs are first introduced, and used on at least one system. They are then loaded into Slipfighters, and sent after 22 different systems. The ony thing about the Worldship was that the Abyss fed off chaos and acts of war... the definition of Nova bombs... the dude just ate all those explosions. With Nova Weapons, the whole game would be a pushover

Actually Nova Bombs were introduced in Episode 2, An Affirming Flame, when they used 40 of them to temporarily turn the singularity into a miniature big bang. However they were mentioned in Episode 1, Under The Night. Personally I think that using them against the system's sun instead of the World Ship in the final episode of Last Season, while it would have toasted Arcology, would have had a better chance of toasting the Worldship as well. After we know what happens when you try to use it against the world ship and what happens when you use it against a star. Catch the damn thing in the blast.

Not saying it would have worked, but at least it had the advantage of not being tried before. Besides, wasn't a Nova how the World Ship was defeated?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Back, basically on topic. In most Science Fiction, there is a place for large Naval vessels. (Even if the characters aren't in control of these Naval Vessels.) They are, at the very least, part of the background. Whenever you have a large Interstellar government, you have vast quantities of loose cash lying around. When you have loose cash lying around, politicians, being what they are, will pry more cash loose and build big ships.

Look at the US Navy. Aircraft Carriers, were designed to project power. To give aircraft a base they could strike the enemy from because you couldn't get there from your land bases. Further the philosophy has always been that land based air was, generally a better solution than Aircraft Carriers. Sailing a warship into the range of land based air was considered extremely dangerous and normally was accompanied by horrendus losses.

The last time an Aircraft Carrier was used in Naval warfare was for the Falklands war. Carriers are used today in support of operations in Iraq and Afganistan, but they are also in range of US Air Force Land bases. (Both here in the US and leased from our allies or liberated from the ground taken.) The actual role of the Carrier has declined drastically over the past 20 years, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. They do provide some flexibility, since you don't have to rely on anyone else to provide you with airbases close to the target area for quick reaction strikes, but they are at the point where they are far from essential and numerous smaller carriers might provide a more flexible less expensive response that wasn't so vulnerable. However there is no way the Navy will give up its big Super Carriers, (until someone shows how vulnerable they actually are.) and no way the US Congress will stop building them, because they look big and impressive. And they can point to them and say, "see that, I voted to pay for that!"

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Only when compared to other genre's. Within the Star Trek Universe they are quite capable. And besides the Enterprise has one thing that most of the other Science Fiction Universes don't have. Photon Torpedoes, which according to the early tech manuals are Matter-Antimatter weapons. Virtually everyone else uses Nukes.

What about nova bombs? They're supposed to be a wee bit more effective than photon torpedos.

My main problem is that they're hyped up through the whole first season, and then when it comes time to use one on the world ship, it goes off, but has no appreciable effect, <phfffffft!>. </font>[/QUOTE]But Nova Bombs are strategic weapons. Photon Torpedoes are Tactical Weapons.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
The last time an Aircraft Carrier was used in Naval warfare was for the Falklands war. Carriers are used today in support of operations in Iraq and Afganistan, but they are also in range of US Air Force Land bases. (Both here in the US and leased from our allies or liberated from the ground taken.) The actual role of the Carrier has declined drastically over the past 20 years, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. They do provide some flexibility, since you don't have to rely on anyone else to provide you with airbases close to the target area for quick reaction strikes, but they are at the point where they are far from essential and numerous smaller carriers might provide a more flexible less expensive response that wasn't so vulnerable. However there is no way the Navy will give up its big Super Carriers, (until someone shows how vulnerable they actually are.) and no way the US Congress will stop building them, because they look big and impressive. And they can point to them and say, "see that, I voted to pay for that!"

Not really sure about that. In the Falklands the aircraft carier was used to support land operations and to defeat land-based aircraft. IIRC, the only Argetine naval casualty was te Belgrano, sunk by a submarine.

The US Navy keeps around a dozen carrier battle groups because they do allow force projection in a way the AF can't. In a fleet vs fleet action they are secondary to the submarine battle.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The last time an Aircraft Carrier was used in Naval warfare was for the Falklands war. Carriers are used today in support of operations in Iraq and Afganistan, but they are also in range of US Air Force Land bases. (Both here in the US and leased from our allies or liberated from the ground taken.) The actual role of the Carrier has declined drastically over the past 20 years, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. They do provide some flexibility, since you don't have to rely on anyone else to provide you with airbases close to the target area for quick reaction strikes, but they are at the point where they are far from essential and numerous smaller carriers might provide a more flexible less expensive response that wasn't so vulnerable. However there is no way the Navy will give up its big Super Carriers, (until someone shows how vulnerable they actually are.) and no way the US Congress will stop building them, because they look big and impressive. And they can point to them and say, "see that, I voted to pay for that!"

Not really sure about that. In the Falklands the aircraft carier was used to support land operations and to defeat land-based aircraft. IIRC, the only Argetine naval casualty was te Belgrano, sunk by a submarine.

The US Navy keeps around a dozen carrier battle groups because they do allow force projection in a way the AF can't. In a fleet vs fleet action they are secondary to the submarine battle. </font>[/QUOTE]True, the British Carrier Air Arm did not attack Argentine Naval shipping but the Carriers were used for force protection. Flying Combat Air Patrol, protecting the naval assets from the Argentine Airforce and Navy, is participating in a Naval engagement.

 

[aramis]

Didn't the british air also provide long-range recon which led to the submarine engagement? The combined tacint role of the CAW is a MAJOR fleet asset. The ASW capabilities are also useful; there was little threat of Argentine subs, but the CAW's ASW Helos provide that capability.

The whole point of naval assets, wet or space, is projection of force at a distance from the population base. (based upon A.T. Mahan, the Influence of Seapower upon History.)

ships of the lines (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships) are efficient anti-shipping and general patrol craft, but are not terrifically flexible; they are fairly robust as a rule.

Carriers are a modern form of force projection; fragile, but potent, and VERY flexible.

Submarines are a different form of force-projection; limited, fairly fragile, but stealthy and deadly, and actually fairly fast.

The space arena is one where the submarine analogue runs far better than the surface one; the carrier, however, is still valid, for a scouting role; as a combatant, I have serious doubts. (Tho fighters make good story, most space fighter ideas are fairly hokey.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

British Air, or US Satelites, provided that recon. However, if it was British Air it was British Land Based Air. (Vulcans or Nimrods.) Harriers don't have the kind of range, especially with a STOL mission profile. Since Vulcans, unlike Nimrods, don't have a real Naval Strike capability I would guess Vulcans. (A Nimrod would probably have unloaded a 2-4 Harpoons on the General Belgrano with the same results as the Submarine Attack.)

Funniest stories I ever heard about VSTOL carriers was the Soviet Navy. The Kiev had aircraft similar in concept to the Harrier, the YAK-36, later the YAK-38. THe problem was that if the pilot wasn't very, very careful with how much fuel it took to get off the deck he may or may not have enough fuel to circle the carrier and land. (The YAK-36 did not carry enough fuel for a useful VTOL profile mission.

) The Soviet Navy ditched an awful lot of YAK-36s in the Black Sea.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Didn't the british air also provide long-range recon which led to the submarine engagement? The combined tacint role of the CAW is a MAJOR fleet asset. The ASW capabilities are also useful; there was little threat of Argentine subs, but the CAW's ASW Helos provide that capability.

The whole point of naval assets, wet or space, is projection of force at a distance from the population base. (based upon A.T. Mahan, the Influence of Seapower upon History.)

ships of the lines (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships) are efficient anti-shipping and general patrol craft, but are not terrifically flexible; they are fairly robust as a rule.

Carriers are a modern form of force projection; fragile, but potent, and VERY flexible.

Submarines are a different form of force-projection; limited, fairly fragile, but stealthy and deadly, and actually fairly fast.

The space arena is one where the submarine analogue runs far better than the surface one; the carrier, however, is still valid, for a scouting role; as a combatant, I have serious doubts. (Tho fighters make good story, most space fighter ideas are fairly hokey.)

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'm pretty there were no Nimrods involved, and the only Vulcan was the one that flew half way round the world to bomb Port Stanley airfield*.

I think it was the sub HMS Conqueror that spotted the Belgrano task force.


*There's a great cartoon about that: two Argentinians diving for cover as it flies overhead, with one saying to the other, "If that's the size of their planes, just how big is their aircraft carrier?!"

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually the British moved a Vulcan Bomb Wing to Ascension Island and operated them out of there. There may have only been one documented bombing mission by Vulcans, though I doubt that, but the planes were there. Perhaps it was, at the time, the longest bombing mission in a combat environment. (A world record so that is why it was mentioned.

)

I am also pretty sure a Nimrod squadron was also moved to Ascension Island. (Though I am not as sure of that.) But again, since Nimrods routinely carry Harpoon missiles when used for ocean surveillence, instead of ASW missions, I doubt they would have bothered with the sub.

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
I'm pretty there were no Nimrods involved, and the only Vulcan was the one that flew half way round the world to bomb Port Stanley airfield*.

I think it was the sub HMS Conqueror that spotted the Belgrano task force.


*There's a great cartoon about that: two Argentinians diving for cover as it flies overhead, with one saying to the other, "If that's the size of their planes, just how big is their aircraft carrier?!"

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Having now checked the facts, rather than relying on memory, it seems you were right: there were Nimrods stationed on Ascention, flying several long-range recon missions. There were also 3 Vulcans, flying at least 5 missions - each 8000 miles, taking 16 hours and needing 11 tanker aircraft - although some were aborted.

(I miss the Vulcan. It's a beautiful aircraft, and I loved seeing them at airshows...especially when they flew over at tree-top height with the throttle wide open...)