What about DN(P)s for the GA?

MaxxQ wrote:

lyonheart wrote:I've noted before we don't know the mass of the Mk-31 and Viper; personally I'll be surprised if they aren't at least in the 20-25 ton range, for a range of up to 250-312 Mk-31'/Vipers aboard Katana's, more than most appear to credit the Katana.

Then be surprised.

Actually, it appears the newest CM designs (presumably the mk 32s, perhaps the mk 31s) are smaller than their processors - quote from the Medusa B infodump “They adopted the new, smaller (and longer-ranged) counter-missiles…”This means they can carry more missiles in a smaller magazine space than before (if it is a new mag optimized for the new missiles).

Theemile wrote:Actually, it appears the newest CM designs (presumably the mk 32s, perhaps the mk 31s) are smaller than their processors - quote from the Medusa B infodump “They adopted the new, smaller (and longer-ranged) counter-missiles…”This means they can carry more missiles in a smaller magazine space than before (if it is a new mag optimized for the new missiles).

Based on the date on that infodump I think RFC was talking about the Mark 30 CMs (the ones Honor used at Sidemore).

But the Mark 31s upped the drive endurance to 75s (and are what the Vipers started from). Now the timeline means that the same tubes that fire the Mark 30 pretty much need to be able to handle the Mark 31 without retrofit because of this tidbit from At All Costs - as the quote from AAC says Sidemore was only months before Honor's ships began using the Mark 31s. That's not time to enlarge their launchers.

Unfortunately since we don't know how long the Mark 31 had been in development, it's entirely possible that the tubes were designed to be flexible enough to handle whatever the predecessor of the Mark 30 was, the Mark 30, and the Mark 31 even if all of them are somewhat different in size. (Heck, maybe the Mark 31 is bigger than the Mark 30, but merely a return to the larger older CM sizes)



Ok, I thought that post might have gone somewhere, but as I wrote it it just rambled off without conclusion... Ah well

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:Actually, it appears the newest CM designs (presumably the mk 32s, perhaps the mk 31s) are smaller than their processors - quote from the Medusa B infodump “They adopted the new, smaller (and longer-ranged) counter-missiles…”This means they can carry more missiles in a smaller magazine space than before (if it is a new mag optimized for the new missiles).

Based on the date on that infodump I think RFC was talking about the Mark 30 CMs (the ones Honor used at Sidemore).

But the Mark 31s upped the drive endurance to 75s (and are what the Vipers started from). Now the timeline means that the same tubes that fire the Mark 30 pretty much need to be able to handle the Mark 31 without retrofit because of this tidbit from At All Costs - as the quote from AAC says Sidemore was only months before Honor's ships began using the Mark 31s. That's not time to enlarge their launchers.

Unfortunately since we don't know how long the Mark 31 had been in development, it's entirely possible that the tubes were designed to be flexible enough to handle whatever the predecessor of the Mark 30 was, the Mark 30, and the Mark 31 even if all of them are somewhat different in size. (Heck, maybe the Mark 31 is bigger than the Mark 30, but merely a return to the larger older CM sizes)



Ok, I thought that post might have gone somewhere, but as I wrote it it just rambled off without conclusion... Ah well

You may be correct, but the "date" on the pearl is 1922, while the pearl discusses it's design period pre-1920 - so who knows....for all we know It may be discussing the yet to be unveiled mk 33

lyonheart wrote:The Shrike-A ...

The Shrike-B ...

The Ferret class ...

Multiply all of those numbers by 100 or so to get the total anti-missile capability of LACs. Individually, they don't come close to any thing more capable than a SLN destroyer, but when deployed in squadron or wing strength, they add up to a lot of launchers -- with a lot of range when forward deployed.

CM magazine capacity is a minor problem; as you note, a LAC has room for bigger magazines, or a specialist anti-missile LAC could be developed.

The bottom line is that textev tells us that thicker LAC shells are the way that the RMN and RHN are evolving their anti-missile doctrine. MWW has mentioned the possibility of "escort carriers" up-armored to stay close enough to rearm anti-missile LACs.

A 'specialist' anti-missile LAC already exists - the Katana. The launchers used for the Viper anti-LAC missiles are the just regular CM launchers. All you have to do to create a pure missile-defence ship is fill the magazines with CMs instead of Vipers.

Dafmeister wrote:A 'specialist' anti-missile LAC already exists - the Katana. The launchers used for the Viper anti-LAC missiles are the just regular CM launchers. All you have to do to create a pure missile-defence ship is fill the magazines with CMs instead of Vipers.

Actually, the Katana is a "space superiority fighter" that just happens to be well suited to anti-missile duty. It still suffers from limited magazine capacity, which one would expect a specialist anti-missile LAC -- like the RHN's latest Cimmeterres -- to address. I'd expect the Katana to be the starting point for a next generation anti-missile LAC.

Weird Harold wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:A 'specialist' anti-missile LAC already exists - the Katana. The launchers used for the Viper anti-LAC missiles are the just regular CM launchers. All you have to do to create a pure missile-defence ship is fill the magazines with CMs instead of Vipers.

Actually, the Katana is a "space superiority fighter" that just happens to be well suited to anti-missile duty. It still suffers from limited magazine capacity, which one would expect a specialist anti-missile LAC -- like the RHN's latest Cimmeterres -- to address. I'd expect the Katana to be the starting point for a next generation anti-missile LAC.

Well, that's the thing. The Katana was indeed built for anti-LAC combat, but the use of the Viper as the primary weapon means that the Katana's entire weapon set is CM tubes and PDLCs. So by building a space-superiority LAC, they got an anti-missile LAC free of charge.

I'm not sure what could be done to improve the design for anti-missile work, other than the usual cycle of system upgrades. The only think that leaps to mind is the ability to launch some kind of EW platform to screw with the missiles' mid-course guidance, though that may have limited utility if the missiles are still receiving targeting data from their launch ships. Possibly something to sever or degrade the control links from the launch ships? Of course, the counter to that would be either intense missile fire targeted on the anti-missile LACs themselves or a 'fighter sweep' attack by a Katana-equivalent to breach the defence.

Dafmeister wrote:Well, that's the thing. The Katana was indeed built for anti-LAC combat, but the use of the Viper as the primary weapon means that the Katana's entire weapon set is CM tubes and PDLCs. So by building a space-superiority LAC, they got an anti-missile LAC free of charge.

I'm not sure what could be done to improve the design for anti-missile work, other than the usual cycle of system upgrades. The only think that leaps to mind is the ability to launch some kind of EW platform to screw with the missiles' mid-course guidance, though that may have limited utility if the missiles are still receiving targeting data from their launch ships. Possibly something to sever or degrade the control links from the launch ships? Of course, the counter to that would be either intense missile fire targeted on the anti-missile LACs themselves or a 'fighter sweep' attack by a Katana-equivalent to breach the defence.

Well Viper's almost have to be bigger (or at least longer) than Mk31 CMs. I'd be a bit surprised if the missile magazines were flexible enough to let you efficiently store either. So I wouldn't be surprised if a LAC designed around only carrying CMs could optimize the magazine for their exact dimentions and cram more in.

Also the Katana carries SD weight PDLC emitters, to be used as an anti-LAC weapon. In the pure missile defense picket role those might be better replaced with lighter emitters with more per cluster. Or even dropping one of the PDLCs to free up mass/volume for more CMs.


Not huge changes, but should provide some increase in effectiveness and endurance as an anti-missile picket. But they would also result in an extremely single-purpose non-flexible design. Probably something that makes more sense as a mission module if the modular LAC design RFC has mentioned every comes to fruition.

Hi Jonathan_S,

The SD class PDLC's have more emitters than any other, for anti missile duties more than anti LAC; you may be confusing the Roland's 10 broadside lasers primary targets.

Given the velocity of the Mk-31/Viper, 53% more than the average missile, plus the Katana's stealth that reduces the enemies effective range so it has to come close means the Katana is indeed quite the LAC killer, yet we have no textev the differences between the Viper and Mk-31 require magazine differences.

L

Jonathan_S wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:Well, that's the thing. The Katana was indeed built for anti-LAC combat, but the use of the Viper as the primary weapon means that the Katana's entire weapon set is CM tubes and PDLCs. So by building a space-superiority LAC, they got an anti-missile LAC free of charge.

I'm not sure what could be done to improve the design for anti-missile work, other than the usual cycle of system upgrades. The only think that leaps to mind is the ability to launch some kind of EW platform to screw with the missiles' mid-course guidance, though that may have limited utility if the missiles are still receiving targeting data from their launch ships. Possibly something to sever or degrade the control links from the launch ships? Of course, the counter to that would be either intense missile fire targeted on the anti-missile LACs themselves or a 'fighter sweep' attack by a Katana-equivalent to breach the defence.

Well Viper's almost have to be bigger (or at least longer) than Mk31 CMs. I'd be a bit surprised if the missile magazines were flexible enough to let you efficiently store either. So I wouldn't be surprised if a LAC designed around only carrying CMs could optimize the magazine for their exact dimentions and cram more in.

Also the Katana carries SD weight PDLC emitters, to be used as an anti-LAC weapon. In the pure missile defense picket role those might be better replaced with lighter emitters with more per cluster. Or even dropping one of the PDLCs to free up mass/volume for more CMs.


Not huge changes, but should provide some increase in effectiveness and endurance as an anti-missile picket. But they would also result in an extremely single-purpose non-flexible design. Probably something that makes more sense as a mission module if the modular LAC design RFC has mentioned every comes to fruition.

Dafmeister wrote:I'm not sure what could be done to improve the design for anti-missile work, other than the usual cycle of system upgrades.

Magazine capacity. and/or some sort of resupply/rearm improvement.

Dafmeister wrote:The only think that leaps to mind is the ability to launch some kind of EW platform to screw with the missiles' mid-course guidance, though that may have limited utility if the missiles are still receiving targeting data from their launch ships.

For that kind of anti-missile work, the Ferrets would be the best choice for a tarting point. They already have a better ECM suite than other RMN LACs and a broad selection of ship-killer sized ECM missiles. Not to mention the Ferrets have more CM tubes, too.