Solomani Confederation (Military)

Confederation Navy: Organization

V. Light cruisers would be about twenty four to forty four vessels.

W. The thing is, the definition of a light cruiser differs in the Confederation.

X. No spinal mount, and no exact borders on the tonnage range.

Y. Anyway, in theory if you used two thirds reduction, eight to fifteen.

Z. Though I'm thinking add light carriers to that, and have a through deck cruiser.
Confederation Navy: Cruisers

1. Heavy(ish) cruisers are easy, especially in relation to the Imperium.

2. We know the limitations.

3. There is a cruiser gap, because the of the heavy emphasis in keeping (over) large numbers of fast dreadnoughts.

4. And due to the fact that Solomani Security uses the cruiser budget as a slush fund, to build stealthed infiltration cruisers.

5. You give a starship a spinal mount, and voila, heavy cruiser.

6. I suppose a hundred kilotonne megafreighter (or would that require a megatonne?) stuffed with bay weapon systems but no spinal mount, would be a light cruiser.

7. I used to think that the two to hundred kilotonne range would be somewhat bare in terms of starwarships for the Confederation Navy.

8. Recent publications (re)introduced the strike destroyer.

9. Which sorta breaks through the two kilotonne border.
Last edited:
Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

1. There are four ways that the Confederation Navy acquires spinal mounts.

2. They can build them themselves.

3. They can purchase them through third parties, member governments, private enterprise, or non Confederate sources.

4. They can recycle them from scrapped starwarships.

5. They can capture them.

6. Keeping the spinal mount factor one meson gun at technological level twelve, and not wasting resources to further develop it.

7. Also ensures that the production line doesn't need to be upgraded, or a new one established.

8. For planetary defences, or rather large hulls, this wouldn't, and shouldn't, matter.

9. It would keep them cheaper, and presumably, easier, to maintain.
However, the time-consuming construction of the triple-16-inch (406 mm) turrets for the Lion class would delay their completion until 1943 at the earliest. The British had enough 15-inch (381 mm) guns and turrets in storage to allow one ship of a modified Lion-class design with four twin-15-inch turrets to be completed faster than the Lion-class vessels that had already been laid down.

The BL 15-inch Mark I succeeded the BL 13.5-inch Mk V naval gun. It was the first British 15-inch (380 mm) gun design and the most widely used and longest lasting of any British designs, and arguably the most successful heavy gun ever developed by the Royal Navy.[3] It was deployed on capital ships from 1915 until 1959 and was a key Royal Navy gun in both World Wars.
Okay, that may be too obscure.

The primary difference between a technological level twelve and fifteen meson gun factor one is seventy five hundred tonnes at two gigastarbux, against sixty hundred tonnes at two and three fifths gigastarbux.

So you sacrifice fifteen hardpoints, and add about ten crewmen, but you save six hundred megastarbux.

Damage remains the same, as does range, armour piercing, radiation and power draw.
No. It is a problem with how you are interpreting the TL scale.
A TL14 meson gun is very different from a TL13 meson gun, it is not just an incremental improvement.
The difference is the same as the difference between a muzzle loading cannon and a modern ship mounted gun - same principle but very different.
The effect is the same, whether it's from the muzzle of a technological level twelve, thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen factor one meson gun.

Arguably, a King George the Fifth fourteen incher has about the same effect as Queen Elizabeth fifteen incher, and maybe a next generation thirteen and a half incher would follow suit. Difference, weight savings due to improved material science.
No it isn't.
It is a totally different tech paradigm - which is the whole point of the TL scale.

Going from TL8 to TL 9 is not incremental - it is paradigm shifting.

The same for meson tech.

TL14 meson guns are a paradigm shift from TL13 - otherwise a TL 13 world could build the TL14 stuff.
I'm looking at the spinal mount(s) table.

The only difference between technological levels are (increased) cost and (decreased) volume, at the same factor.
Let's say a Sturmgewehr is technological level six, compare that to an advanced combat rifle of the same calibre.

That would be four technological levels of difference, and at technological level nine you get a boost in range and a decrease in weight.

Two technological levels further, you get gauss propulsion.
Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

A. Being left high and dry by the Imperium Navy, the nascent Confederation Navy is going to have to rearm.

B. They'd be interested in only two spinal mounts, factor one meson gun, and whatever meson gun factor that's installed in the Victory class battlecruisers.

C. This would be at technological level twelve.

D. Technological level thirteen breakthrough would prioritize meson guns to be installed in Zeus class battlecruisers.

E. You have to wonder if a ten percent decrease in weight would be worth retooling the production lines.

F. By the time you get to technological level fourteen antebellum, priority would be the meson guns for the Promethii.
A TL14 meson gun has to be very different to a TL13 meson gun or they would build the TL14 version at TL13.
The same with power plants etc. They must be different at different TLs or there is no point to the higher TLs - tables be damned.
You do not put a TL12 meson gun on a ship that is up against TL15 meson screens when you can build TL14 guns.
I'm still looking at High Guard, and I don't see any mention that higher technological level meson screens are more effective against lower technological levelled meson guns.

I didn't just pick on the meson spinal mount(s) in particular, or for that matter spinal mounts in general just out of the blue; capital sized cannons and their turrets is a rather specialized and extended manufacturing process, and the current rules set permit upto ninety percent modularized production for fifty kilotonnes and above.

Also, how many of them do you believe that the Confederation as a whole, and it's Navy in particular, manufacture or procure per year?
Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

G. Now, in theory, postbellum, they could start manufacturing technological level fourteen factor one meson guns.

H. Wolfe didn't prioritize the military industrial complex, being more interested in general economic development.

I. And I kinda suspect that at this point naval doctrine changed to over emphasize Fleet Squadrons, since they may have epiphanized to the fact that you build capital ships before a conflict, not during it.

J. So you probably had a lot of refurbishings of existing cruisers, and recycling of their components into new hulls.

K. And dirtside, it matters even less if a spinal mount is fifteen percent smaller.
Confederation Navy: Spinal Mounts

L. The Zeus class was probably the first attempt to design a starwarship that could take on Imperium battleships.

M. I'm going to speculate it would be a technological level thirteen factor five meson spinal mount.

N. That would be thirty three and three quarter kilotonnes at eleven gigastarbux.

O. This would be at the expense of range, three instead of four parsecs, and armoured protection.

P. You probably have to give them a manoeuvre drive capable of seven gees, to make up for it.
Confederation Navy: Cruisers

A. What would the (modern) Confederation Navy need a heavy(ish) cruiser for?

B. It's not internal security, since soft power with a light cruiser works better, and dropping in a Fleet Division with two star destroyers brings the point across better, if the velvet glove doesn't work.

C. External power projection runs straight into the borders of the Hierate, the Imperium, and the Hivers, and a casus belli with a bellicose heavy cruiser seems absurd.

D. Training would be conducted on actual dreadnoughts and battlecruisers.

E. That does leave commerce raiding and rapid reaction.

F. And deep space exploration.
Last edited:
Confederation Navy: Cruisers

G. Essentially, we come back to my theory that the Confederation Navy is basically Star Fleet.

H. You don't have many heavy(ish) cruisers, and those that are commissioned, are deployed on the frontier.

I. A portion are kept in operational reserve, to either use as a rapid reaction force (range five parsecs), or to be unleashed for deep strikes and commerce raiding, at least in the early phase of any war.

J. Later phases would be with Hilfskreuzer and strike destroyers.

K. Because you have to go with the assumption that at some point, the Imperium forces are going to catch up with them.
Last edited:
Confederation Navy: Cruisers

L. Replacing spinal mounts, or engineering, is considered a major refit, so not really worth it, unless you're trapped in a naval arms limitation treaty.

M. So you'd scrap the hull of old or badly damaged heavy(ish) cruisers, and recycle them, either into a newly built hull, or in a planetoid.

N. This partially gives cover for the construction of infiltration cruisers, since it's easier to write off old components.

O. Or reuse them in place of supposedly new ones, which would then be diverted to secret shipyard(s).

P. Which is why you have quite a number of monitors, battle riders (usually the same thing), and heavy cruisers that are planetoids.
Last edited: