LAC not so useful after all?

lyonheart wrote:Hi WastedFly,
The initial salvo's at Solon were far smaller than 11th Fleet's 51,240 sudden storm, so they were far easier to avoid.

L

Why I did the ratio. It is all about CM:Ms ratio for killing. The number in space matters not a whit.

Avoid? There is no "avoiding" MDM's or SDM's unless ballistic. Neither SLN or RHN birds were ballistic. MDM's with their vastly higher Delta V compared to your ships and their ability to create delta V would make your suggestion point in the opposite direction than stated.

Lets not commit KISS suicide here.

PS. Stating missiles do not come in stacked would be rather puzzling. For no other reason than the first missile takes out a CM, yet the fire control guys directing traffic think their is only one there. They are only going to have point resolution unless they are creating a 3d map with their FTL RD's. IE requires 2 known points to determine a 3rd point. In this case points. Why FTL RD's used as scouts of the enemy increase hit percentage. Allows for 3d modeling of the task force and the incoming missile salvo. The first CM wedge blinds the rear CM's wedge and its reaction time is lessened. After all it is not as if 200CM's are being launched simultaneously from an Invictus SDP. They would kill themselves after all. Same goes for launching from pods, or a ships tubes. They are all staggered initially to some degree.

Brian

Well I hate to disagree with LS but I do.

LAC's, as they are portrayed in the books, are super ships. When they were first presented, I tended to think of LAC's like modern day aircraft or BSG Vipers or SW X-wings, just somewhat bigger. Then I finally sat down and thought about it.

What they really are are really small DD's without hyperdrives that can somehow be produced in vast VAST numbers. They also have a miracle fission drive plant which somehow manages to produce more power than the fusion plant a normal vessel would use so it doesn't need to carry any real reactor mass. They also somehow can be operated by a extremely small crew. What makes them deadly is that they take all that space which a normal vessel would use to house a normal crew and hold the reactor mass and house the hyperdrive and fill them with things which their enemies would rather they not have.

As you can probably tell there are some things I find inconsistent amongst these facts but the evidence clearly is that what I'm describing is essentially what a LAC is.

Now like a very small DD or (gasp) Frigate, LAC's are pretty fragile so it really doesn't take a lot to destroy one. What seems to be their saving grace is that, unlike a small DD, LAC's are inexplicably hard to target and hit. LAC's live in a special universe all their own.

Because of this, ton for ton, nothing can come within shouting distance of a LAC because no other kind of vessel is imbued with the special qualities that a LAC possesses. And because they can apparently be built faster that rabbits breed, there is nothing that can be in the same universe of cost effectiveness.

This means you can lose a lot of them before you actually begin to approach the cost of a hypercapable warship in terms of either material or human terms. Because of this, you can use them as attrition units and lose a lot of them in either the attack or screening roles because you can lose a LOT of LAC's before you begin to approach the cost, in material or human terms, of any other kind of warship.

That's what makes LAC's work.

Alizon wrote:Well I hate to disagree with LS but I do.

LAC's, as they are portrayed in the books, are super ships. When they were first presented, I tended to think of LAC's like modern day aircraft or BSG Vipers or SW X-wings, just somewhat bigger. Then I finally sat down and thought about it.

David has said over and over that LACs are not the equivalent of aircraft. They are more like torpedo boats. Lots of people have expounded on the aircraft analogy, but it just isn't so, and the author has always opposed it.

What they really are are really small DD's without hyperdrives that can somehow be produced in vast VAST numbers. They also have a miracle fission drive plant which somehow manages to produce more power than the fusion plant a normal vessel would use so it doesn't need to carry any real reactor mass.

They are nothing like a DD. And their power plant does not produce more power than a fusion plant--it produces quite a bit less. If it could produce more than a fusion plant, then the LAC wouldn't have chronic problems with energy management, and wouldn't need capacitors just to run the weapons. The reason they use fission plants is because they couldn't shrink a fusion plant down small enough to fit.

They also somehow can be operated by a extremely small crew. What makes them deadly is that they take all that space which a normal vessel would use to house a normal crew and hold the reactor mass and house the hyperdrive and fill them with things which their enemies would rather they not have.

That is fairly accurate. Also, they did away with all crawl spaces, and living spaces. Crews essentially have to sleep at their posts, and all maintenance and restocking have to be done from outside the ship.

As you can probably tell there are some things I find inconsistent amongst these facts but the evidence clearly is that what I'm describing is essentially what a LAC is.

Now like a very small DD or (gasp) Frigate, LAC's are pretty fragile so it really doesn't take a lot to destroy one. What seems to be their saving grace is that, unlike a small DD, LAC's are inexplicably hard to target and hit. LAC's live in a special universe all their own.

Yes, they are even more fragile than a frigate. A single laser (not even a graser) would be enough to kill everyone aboard.

But their stealthiness is not that big a surprise. They are a small fraction of the volume of a frigate or destroyer, with a much smaller energy signature, smaller impellers, no alpha nodes, and high acceleration due to their small size. Those add up to major advantages over a destroyer.

Because of this, ton for ton, nothing can come within shouting distance of a LAC because no other kind of vessel is imbued with the special qualities that a LAC possesses. And because they can apparently be built faster that rabbits breed, there is nothing that can be in the same universe of cost effectiveness.

This means you can lose a lot of them before you actually begin to approach the cost of a hypercapable warship in terms of either material or human terms. Because of this, you can use them as attrition units and lose a lot of them in either the attack or screening roles because you can lose a LOT of LAC's before you begin to approach the cost, in material or human terms, of any other kind of warship.

That's what makes LAC's work.

All true.

SWM wrote:

Alizon wrote:What they really are are really small DD's without hyperdrives that can somehow be produced in vast VAST numbers. They also have a miracle fission drive plant which somehow manages to produce more power than the fusion plant a normal vessel would use so it doesn't need to carry any real reactor mass.

They are nothing like a DD. And their power plant does not produce more power than a fusion plant--it produces quite a bit less. If it could produce more than a fusion plant, then the LAC wouldn't have chronic problems with energy management, and wouldn't need capacitors just to run the weapons. The reason they use fission plants is because they couldn't shrink a fusion plant down small enough to fit.

Not quite. The old style LACs, up through the ones Honor took to Silesia aboard Wayfarer did have fusion plants.

But for some (unspecified) reason the GRAVMAK (grav pinch) fusion plants used by starships seem to have serious scaling problems trying to fit into and power something so small as a LAC. You can do it, and for years that was the only choice, but they're big, bulky, and also fuel hogs (compared to their power). Fusion powered LACs also seem to need significant capacitors to handle their weapon systems.

(And the mag bottle, laser fired, fusion plants used in pinnaces and shuttles don't scale up to produce sufficient power for a LAC)


It's that "hole" between the effective ranges of the two Honorverse fusion plant technologies that the advanced fission plants for LACs slide into.

I look at the fusion/fission problem this way:

Fusion microtization is very inefficient.
Fission microtization on the other hand is very efficient.

Vastly superior fission efficiency trumps theorized fusion power potential.

An engineering breakthrough is needed for small fusion power density throughput.

SWM wrote:Let me get this straight, Skimper--you are suggesting that extended-range missiles from Gryphon- and Sphinx-class ships be used as counter-missiles. Is that correct?

YES

Lord Skimper wrote:Although I still don't understand why a missile can't turn when they are launched but can turn when on final attack. They are not cannons they are missiles.

What makes you think they can't turn when launched? Of course they can--the text explicitly states that they can turn 180 degrees, so you can even fire a broadside from the side facing away from the enemy.

AS STATED SOMEWHERE PEARLS I THINK MDM'S CAN BE FIRED INTO ANY FIELD OF FIRE. LERM / ERM INTO ADJACENT. PRE LERM MISSILES WOULD ONLY BE FIRED BY THE ASPECT, BROADSIDE OR CHASE. LIKE A CANNON.

There are at least 200 such ships just sitting there.

Actually, they aren't just sitting there. Most of them are in active service already.

It sounds like the only reason you are suggesting this is to provide longer ranges for counter-missile action. Unfortunately, the text has noted that Manticoran counter-missiles are already coming up against the problem of communication lag time. Your solution does not fix this. Another problem is that missiles are not as agile as counter-missiles. It will be harder to hit the enemy missiles.

AGILITY COMES WITH ACCELERATION. WHILE HIGH SPEEDS LIMIT AGILITY. CARS CAN BE AGILE OR FAST, AT 100+ MPH A CAR IS NOT AGILE, AT 200 EVEN LESS SO. MISSILES ARE LIKE DRAGSTERS, NOT F1 CARS. IN SPACE IT IS MORE LIKE A HOVER CRAFT. YOU CAN CHANGE THE ANGLE OF THRUST BUT YOU'RE STILL ONLY GOING TO NUDGE THE DIRECTION A LITTLE.

ALSO FOR CM THE MISSILES ARE ON THEIR FINAL ATTACK TAKING WHATEVER FINAL MANUEVER TO GET INTO FIRING ANGLE. IT IS SURPRISING CM MISS SO OFTEN.

FOR INTERCEPTIONS WHERE NO ONE EXPECTS AN INTERCEPTION WAY OUT, THE MISSILES AREJUST BUILDING SPEED. NOT USING COUNTER MEASURES AND NOT TAKING EVASIVE MEASURES WHICH WILL EFFECT THEIR FINAL DESTINATION. SCATTERING MISSILES HALF WAY TO THERE TARGET WILL CAUSE ALOT OF MISSES.

This simply is not as effective as a forward-posted LAC screen. It could be done, and it would be somewhat effective, but there are better uses to be made of the old superdreadnoughts (such as the uses to which they are already being put).

THESE OLD SD ARE NOT THAT OLD, THE OLDEST GRYPHON IS 21 YEARS OLD, THE OLDEST SHRIKE B IS 14 YEARS YOUNGER? THEY ARE NOT 2-300 YEARS OLD. 7 YEARS NEWER THAN THE STAR KNIGHTS.

There literally no possible way that 18 years of power for a fission plant can possible mass less then a months worth of fuel for a fusion plant. The difference in energy density is absurd.

So yeah, they are "special".

kzt wrote:There literally no possible way that 18 years of power for a fission plant can possible mass less then a months worth of fuel for a fusion plant. The difference in energy density is absurd.

So yeah, they are "special".

Just a couple of points to keep in mind:

First David has said the 18 years time between refueling given in Echoes of Honor was an error. It was supposed to be 18 months (although he has also said he may let the 18 year time between refueling stand).

Second, it isn't just the reactor mass of each system that has to be accounted for, it is also both the mass and the volume of each system and its supporting equipment when deciding which is system is preferable for a specific ship's requirements.

Vince wrote:
Second, it isn't just the reactor mass of each system that has to be accounted for, it is also both the mass and the volume of each system and its supporting equipment when deciding which is system is preferable for a specific ship's requirements.

Lets look at this:

A kg of Pu239 produces 83.61 * 10^9 Joules.

A kg of Hydrogen concerted into Helium produces 6.4 x 10^14 Joules (With even more if you continue the process to iron).

So fusion yields (at least) roughly 100,000 times more energy than fission by fuel mass. Hence the energy produced by fusing 200kg of hydrogen to helium is roughly equivalent to the energy that could be produced by fission of a mass of Pu239 equal to an ENTIRE SHRIKE.

So, keeping that in mind, can you explain how this works?

kzt wrote:Lets look at this:

A kg of Pu239 produces 83.61 * 10^9 Joules.

A kg of Hydrogen concerted into Helium produces 6.4 x 10^14 Joules (With even more if you continue the process to iron).

So fusion yields (at least) roughly 100,000 times more energy than fission by fuel mass. Hence the energy produced by fusing 200kg of hydrogen to helium is roughly equivalent to the energy that could be produced by fission of a mass of Pu239 equal to an ENTIRE SHRIKE.

So, keeping that in mind, can you explain how this works?

You are assuming that Honorverse fusion plants are 100% effective at converting the energy of the fusion reaction into usable energy.

You are also assuming that the Honorverse plays by the same rules as our universe.