?

tlb wrote:Note that having an explosion of a device attached to the LAC would definitely give away its position. However, one way that could be achieved would be if the LAC ejected the graser and its power source before the instant of firing. You know, like a graser torpedo that had been stripped of its spider drive and left with only thrusters for maneuvering. Several of these could be held on hard points that would fill the capacitors and eject the graser in the direction of the target at firing time.

But you also want that thing to move a bit away from you before firing. Even if you didn't need that because of the resulting explosion and radiation, you want your crews to get away and being illuminated by an explosion in the face of an enemy returning fire is not conducive to long and healthy lives.

So that thing this LAC ejects must have a drive of some sort. So it's a missile or torpedo.

I don't see the point of a LAC carrying a spider-drive torpedo. Why launch from a LAC, instead of from an LD or Shark? Range is not a limit. Size is, though: a torpedo is probably as big as the LAC itself, so a LAC carrying a single torpedo is probably in the 45k tonne range. And yet it's carrying only one.

As for carrying a missile with a 3-second graserhead... that might make sense, but why would that be better than the Galton Hasta-like solution?

tlb wrote:Note that having an explosion of a device attached to the LAC would definitely give away its position. However, one way that could be achieved would be if the LAC ejected the graser and its power source before the instant of firing. You know, like a graser torpedo that had been stripped of its spider drive and left with only thrusters for maneuvering. Several of these could be held on hard points that would fill the capacitors and eject the graser in the direction of the target at firing time.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:But you also want that thing to move a bit away from you before firing. Even if you didn't need that because of the resulting explosion and radiation, you want your crews to get away and being illuminated by an explosion in the face of an enemy returning fire is not conducive to long and healthy lives.

So that thing this LAC ejects must have a drive of some sort. So it's a missile or torpedo.

I don't see the point of a LAC carrying a spider-drive torpedo. Why launch from a LAC, instead of from an LD or Shark? Range is not a limit. Size is, though: a torpedo is probably as big as the LAC itself, so a LAC carrying a single torpedo is probably in the 45k tonne range. And yet it's carrying only one.

As for carrying a missile with a 3-second graserhead... that might make sense, but why would that be better than the Galton Hasta-like solution?

I am not advocating for it, only trying to make sense of what Penny is proposing.

We know that the mass drivers that launch missiles from RMN ships (and pods) can push a missile out beyond the point where is wedge interference, so I do not see a problem with this minimum torpedo only having thrusters; note that the LAC can be moving away at the same time. Such a torpedo would NOT be anywhere close to being the size of a LAC.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

tlb wrote:Note that having an explosion of a device attached to the LAC would definitely give away its position. However, one way that could be achieved would be if the LAC ejected the graser and its power source before the instant of firing. You know, like a graser torpedo that had been stripped of its spider drive and left with only thrusters for maneuvering. Several of these could be held on hard points that would fill the capacitors and eject the graser in the direction of the target at firing time.

But you also want that thing to move a bit away from you before firing. Even if you didn't need that because of the resulting explosion and radiation, you want your crews to get away and being illuminated by an explosion in the face of an enemy returning fire is not conducive to long and healthy lives.

So that thing this LAC ejects must have a drive of some sort. So it's a missile or torpedo.

I don't see the point of a LAC carrying a spider-drive torpedo. Why launch from a LAC, instead of from an LD or Shark? Range is not a limit. Size is, though: a torpedo is probably as big as the LAC itself, so a LAC carrying a single torpedo is probably in the 45k tonne range. And yet it's carrying only one.

As for carrying a missile with a 3-second graserhead... that might make sense, but why would that be better than the Galton Hasta-like solution?

I'd tend to think the MA will want to do something about that GA LAC screen. Historically, a swarm of LACs was deployed to do just that. If the MA's LACs are eating the GA's LACs in the heat of battle, then historically - in that same heat of battle - LACs were able to slip through because the fleet was normally preoccupied with other problems. Out of site out of mind.

And remember, as someone already mentioned, it worked the first time for the RMN because Haven wasn't expecting them. It will work for the first time for the MA as well. Especially considering they will enjoy a stealthy debut.

Surprise can kill. That is why lawyers are legally required to divulge all evidence ahead of time.

And, where I disagree with you, if a LAC finds itself in a position to fire on an SD, then it should if it can kill it. An SD for a LAC has always been the pied piper's dream! And, please do forgive me for mentioning this, but LACs have always been expendable. That is their MO. That is what a screen does. It soaks up damage and deaths.

But if you really think the MA won't sacrifice a LAC for an SD, you've got to be kidding yourself. A LAC with a true 3-second firing mode that can kill an SD would be a true kamikaze. Even if it has to die.

Plus! Think about Fearless in the war games. A stealthy LAC can await prey like a hole in space and strike like Fearless in the wargames. Think of lots of Fearlesses with an Alpha brain onboard. Fearless had an Alpha's brain onboard as well. Multiply that by the thousands.

Difference between a SLACK and a Hasta? Utility and a brain that thinks for itself.

I am proposing 3-second firing grasers as the native energy weapon mounted on MA warships. To be used as a last resort, or Providence. But practical because it can fire w/o deadly repercussions for 1-second as well. Well, deadly repercussions for the enemy.

I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

penny wrote:I am proposing 3-second firing grasers as the native energy weapon mounted on MA warships. To be used as a last resort, or Providence. But practical because it can fire w/o deadly repercussions for 1-second as well. Well, deadly repercussions for the enemy.

I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

I keep trying to provide a better alternative and you keep ignoring it. We have NO information that the 3-second graser has any other firing mode.

While I agree that the Malign would accept such a trade, there is a smarter way and you keep running on about how much smarter an alpha is supposed to be.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:I am proposing 3-second firing grasers as the native energy weapon mounted on MA warships. To be used as a last resort, or Providence. But practical because it can fire w/o deadly repercussions for 1-second as well. Well, deadly repercussions for the enemy.

I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

I keep trying to provide a better alternative and you keep ignoring it. We have NO information that the 3-second graser has any other firing mode.

While I agree that the Malign would accept such a trade, there is a smarter way and you keep running on about how much smarter an alpha is supposed to be.

I appreciate your input. And I like it too! But this has always been the thread where the imagination runs wild. Even rampant. This is the prototype thread. Consider the human saying that if you can think it up, you can do it.

Besides, and again, why can there not be varying LAC designs?

An actual hellish energy mount whose firing time is measured in seconds has more of a utility. It can destroy enemy missiles as well as Manticoran LACs, w/o having to worry about running out of missiles. It can take on any LAC the GA has and eat it for breakfast. And it strikes fear in the heart of capital ships. Which means capital ships may have to expend missiles on 'mere' LACs. And LACs are already hard to lock up. Even w/o stealth.

penny wrote:I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

Until the actions by Galton's Hastas, the multi-second graser had only been used against objects without a wedge or sidewall. The results of the Galton version prove that the above sentence is false.

penny wrote:I appreciate your input. And I like it too! But this has always been the thread where the imagination runs wild. Even rampant. This is the prototype thread. You know that human saying that if you can think it up, you can do it.

Besides, and again, why can there not be varying LAC designs.

An actual hellish energy mount whose firing time is measured in seconds has more of a utility. It can destroy enemy missiles as well as Manticoran LACs, w/o having to worry about running out of missiles. It can take on any LAC the GA has and eat it for breakfast. And it strikes fear in the heart of capital ships. Which means capital ships may have to expend missiles on 'mere' LACs.

No one is arguing against various LAC clases; I am only arguing against a waste of personnel and materiel, when there is a smarter solution. But perhaps the Alphas are NOT very intelligent.

Note that a hit on a capital ship by a graser of any duration does NOT automatically kill everyone on board; that only occurs if the beam is lucky enough to cause compensator failure or the loss of containment on a fusion reactor. So it is not automatically a one for one trade. Again, look at the results at Galton, where thousands of Hastas (all that Galton had) were launched for a few capital ship kills.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

Until the actions by Galton's Hastas, the multi-second graser had only been used against objects without a wedge or sidewall. The results of the Galton version prove that the above sentence is false.

penny wrote:I appreciate your input. And I like it too! But this has always been the thread where the imagination runs wild. Even rampant. This is the prototype thread. You know that human saying that if you can think it up, you can do it.

Besides, and again, why can there not be varying LAC designs.

An actual hellish energy mount whose firing time is measured in seconds has more of a utility. It can destroy enemy missiles as well as Manticoran LACs, w/o having to worry about running out of missiles. It can take on any LAC the GA has and eat it for breakfast. And it strikes fear in the heart of capital ships. Which means capital ships may have to expend missiles on 'mere' LACs.

No one is arguing against various LAC clases; I am only arguing against a waste of personnel and materiel, when there is a smarter solution. But perhaps the Alphas are NOT very intelligent.

Note that a hit on a capital ship by a graser of any duration does NOT automatically kill everyone on board; that only occurs if the beam is lucky enough to cause compensator failure or the loss of containment on a fusion reactor. So it is not automatically a one for one trade. Again, look at the results at Galton, where thousands of Hastas (all that Galton had) were launched for a few capital ship kills.

Again, you use statistics incorrectly. It doesn't matter how many total missiles were launched. We're not discussing the effectiveness of Galton's ECM. That is a work in progress or classified information. What is important is how many g-torps it takes to mission kill an SD. Only 430 got thru with Shuttlecock, the launch that mattered. And they were not concentrated. The fact that Honor wasn't smoking crack and hypered out on successive launches - unlike Genevieve Chin - is besides the point.

penny wrote:I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

tlb wrote:Until the actions by Galton's Hastas, the multi-second graser had only been used against objects without a wedge or sidewall. The results of the Galton version prove that the above sentence is false.

penny wrote:I appreciate your input. And I like it too! But this has always been the thread where the imagination runs wild. Even rampant. This is the prototype thread. You know that human saying that if you can think it up, you can do it.

Besides, and again, why can there not be varying LAC designs.

An actual hellish energy mount whose firing time is measured in seconds has more of a utility. It can destroy enemy missiles as well as Manticoran LACs, w/o having to worry about running out of missiles. It can take on any LAC the GA has and eat it for breakfast. And it strikes fear in the heart of capital ships. Which means capital ships may have to expend missiles on 'mere' LACs.

tlb wrote:No one is arguing against various LAC clases; I am only arguing against a waste of personnel and materiel, when there is a smarter solution. But perhaps the Alphas are NOT very intelligent.

Note that a hit on a capital ship by a graser of any duration does NOT automatically kill everyone on board; that only occurs if the beam is lucky enough to cause compensator failure or the loss of containment on a fusion reactor. So it is not automatically a one for one trade. Again, look at the results at Galton, where thousands of Hastas (all that Galton had) were launched for a few capital ship kills.

penny wrote:Again, you use statistics incorrectly. It doesn't matter how many total missiles were launched. We're not discussing the effectiveness of Galton's ECM. That is a work in progress or classified information. What is important is how many g-torps it takes to mission kill an SD. Only 430 got thru with Shuttlecock, the launch that mattered. And they were not concentrated. The fact that Honor wasn't smoking crack and hypered out on successive launches - unlike Genevieve Chin - is besides the point.

But you were trying to compare it to the effectiveness of Apollo, which on first use was killing one ship for every nine to 18 missiles, depending on ECM included; much better than shuttlecock achieved. And after first use I expect that Apollo still continued to do better.

Honor only had the fleet hyper out to dodge the final massive attack, the one that exhausted the supply of Hastas.

tlb wrote:We know that the mass drivers that launch missiles from RMN ships (and pods) can push a missile out beyond the point where is wedge interference, so I do not see a problem with this minimum torpedo only having thrusters; note that the LAC can be moving away at the same time. Such a torpedo would NOT be anywhere close to being the size of a LAC.

You're comparing to a missile with a full wedge, capable of tens of thousands or over a hundred thousand-gravity acceleration. Thrusters can't achieve that; at best they can do a couple hundred gravities. I don't see a tactic that would allow such a warhead to gain enough separation from the launching ship to ensure that the crew has a chance to survive. In turn, that means this ship has to basically be flying straight at its target, not on a tangential course that would deceive the target and let it disregard as a threat.

And that's assuming thrusters alone are sufficient to orient the warhead when it comes to attacking. We know that wedges can turn a ship much faster than thrusters and we know missiles do need to orient through the openings of the wedge.

penny wrote:I'd tend to think the MA will want to do something about that GA LAC screen. Historically, a swarm of LACs was deployed to do just that. If the MA's LACs are eating the GA's LACs in the heat of battle, then historically - in that same heat of battle - LACs were able to slip through because the fleet was normally preoccupied with other problems. Out of site out of mind.

See above. I could agree if the LAC were on a parallel or diverging course. That would lull the defenders into thinking that it's been damaged and is moving off. But if it's flying straight into the defenders, they will not think twice about shooting it down. The defenders do have LACs carrying cruiser-grade grasers, so they know what an undamaged LAC can do. Maybe not enough to kill a capital ship one-on-one (especially with turned wedges), but it can wreak havoc on the destroyer escort screen or attack the Keyhole platforms that are sticking out of the wedges.

And if this thing that slipped through is significantly larger than a standard LAC and does separate payload, it'll deserve attention.

And remember, as someone already mentioned, it worked the first time for the RMN because Haven wasn't expecting them. It will work for the first time for the MA as well. Especially considering they will enjoy a stealthy debut.

Right, but exactly once. After that, every single straggler is going to be shot down. So that's not a doctrine. The LACs did damage against the PN not because the PN couldn't learn, it's because the PN didn't have a proper way of defending against LACs in the first place, especially with bow walls.

We're not talking about a distributed and long war. We're talking here about the defence of the Darius system, with the GA bringing sufficient firepower to immediately counter this once they know it.

What you're arguing for is that they have to have lots of different surprises, all of them never seen before. That's a technique, but it's not something they should depend on. If "surprise is when you don't realise what's been there all along," the converse is that if you do realise what's going on, it's not a surprise at all. And if you require surprise for a plan to work, then it's not a plan you can depend on. You can't count on the enemy always making mistakes.

I would argue that, arrogant as they are, not even the Onion would make a defensive plan like that.

And, where I disagree with you, if a LAC finds itself in a position to fire on an SD, then it should if it can kill it. An SD for a LAC has always been the pied piper's dream! And, please do forgive me for mentioning this, but LACs have always been expendable. That is their MO. That is what a screen does. It soaks up damage and deaths.

But if you really think the MA won't sacrifice a LAC for an SD, you've got to be kidding yourself. A LAC with a true 3-second firing mode that can kill an SD would be a true kamikaze. Even if it has to die.

I'm not arguing against the trade-off. Six people and 30,000 tonnes of hardware against two thousand and 9 million tonnes is a definitely good exchange. Even 100 LACs per SD would be a favourable exchange.

I am arguing against kamikaze from the beginning. LAC crews may be daredevils who will accept risks others wouldn't, but they are usually not suicidal. Plus, suicidal people often take undue risks that could endanger the mission. You would have a hard time recruiting capable crews if they knew their first sortie is also their last. You also have no institutional knowledge to pass on, because they never return to tell tales.

Kamikaze strategies are an act of desperation. Yes, I would expect that from fanatical Alignment members in the defence of Darius, but that's different from creating a doctrine entirely around it. And I definitely do not expect it as an offensive strategy.

Plus, the Math has a problem with this too. Just how many LACs do you think the MAN can have to defend Darius? A thousand? Ten thousand? 10k LACS on an exchange ratio of 100 to 1 is only 100 capital ships killed, leaving 150 Grand Fleet capital ships left standing. And if 10,000 ships are coming at you, you can hardly miss when shooting, especially because that makes manoeuvring more difficult.

Plus! Think about Fearless in the war games. A stealthy LAC can await prey like a hole in space and strike like Fearless in the wargames. Think of lots of Fearlesses with an Alpha brain onboard. Fearless had an Alpha's brain onboard as well. Multiply that by the thousands.

That doesn't multiply.

The Fearless trick worked exactly once. Not once per ship; once overall. If you had 1000 ships ready to attempt the same trick, it would still work only once.

Maybe this once could take multiple ships at the same time, not thousands. The strategy depends on the capital ship being in the right place at the right time (or wrong, depending on the point of view), and that will never line up perfectly for multiple, simultaneous attacks.

In any case, there's already a better solution for this. What you've described already has a name: a minefield. You don't need 1000 ships at tens of thousands of tonnes each with crew inside if you can have 10,000 of them or more, stealthier and with no people inside.

Difference between a SLACK and a Hasta? Utility and a brain that thinks for itself.

Yes, but how is that an advantage? What would the person's brain do that the preprogrammed (albeit stupid) machine wouldn't?

I am proposing 3-second firing grasers as the native energy weapon mounted on MA warships. To be used as a last resort, or Providence. But practical because it can fire w/o deadly repercussions for 1-second as well. Well, deadly repercussions for the enemy.

As others have said, we don't have evidence this is possible. Maybe the same mount can fire standard millisecond graser shots indefinitely, but there's no evidence it can fire non-standard shots more than once.

Though, admittedly, there's no evidence it can't, either.

I have been trying to get this point across for centuries before TEiF drove the point home. A 3-second firing energy weapon negates the need for a large capital ship sized energy weapon.

No it doesn't. My laser pointer can fire for an hour and it does not damage even a fly.

tlb wrote:We know that the mass drivers that launch missiles from RMN ships (and pods) can push a missile out beyond the point where is wedge interference, so I do not see a problem with this minimum torpedo only having thrusters; note that the LAC can be moving away at the same time. Such a torpedo would NOT be anywhere close to being the size of a LAC.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:You're comparing to a missile with a full wedge, capable of tens of thousands or over a hundred thousand-gravity acceleration. Thrusters can't achieve that; at best they can do a couple hundred gravities. I don't see a tactic that would allow such a warhead to gain enough separation from the launching ship to ensure that the crew has a chance to survive. In turn, that means this ship has to basically be flying straight at its target, not on a tangential course that would deceive the target and let it disregard as a threat.

And that's assuming thrusters alone are sufficient to orient the warhead when it comes to attacking. We know that wedges can turn a ship much faster than thrusters and we know missiles do need to orient through the openings of the wedge.

Thrusters only have to rotate the graser to line up the shot. I am not comparing this minimal graser device to a missile with a wedge. The only question I was trying to answer was the difference between taking a shot with the graser attached to the LAC versus detaching the graser and getting enough separation to be outside the danger zone when it fires (which requires some time delay between ejection and graser firing). So in either case the graser is in approximate firing position. Because it is in firing position, it only needs the graser, capacitors, sensors, thrusters and an automated controller, that is fed targeting and firing information just before ejection as the capacitors are being loaded.

If this were a LAC with a wedge, then after ejecting the graser it only has to rotate the wedge to prevent damage. This is slightly more complicated for a spider drive LAC, in that it does have to put some distance between the it and the graser. But I do not understand how far you think this has to be, several kilometers should be enough; this can easily be achieved with a mass driver, since it is sufficient to obtain wedge separation with a regular missile.