What about CM pods?

hanuman wrote:Wait a moment. Hasn't RMN LAC doctrine changed to providing LACs only with CM missiles, with their offensive armament being grasers?

No.

dr

dreamrider wrote:

hanuman wrote:Wait a moment. Hasn't RMN LAC doctrine changed to providing LACs only with CM missiles, with their offensive armament being grasers?

No.

dr

Though if we ever see the modular LAC design that RFC mentioned was being studied, we might see a pure CM module (with no offense at all). I'm guessing that designing a magazine for pure CMs; with no support for the longer Viper anti-LAC missiles, should let you cram in more rounds.

For a pure missile defense design you wouldn't want to waste the internal volume on a big grazer. Though without the ability to reconfigure modules quickly in the field I wouldn't be comfortable if my CLACs were crammed almost entirely full of pure missile defense units; with no real secondary offensive and anti-screen capabilities.


But for the moment Katanas, with the SD grade PDLC and a magazine full of Vipers, is the most effective anti-missile LAC hull the GA has. Ferrets and Shrikes contribute, but they're just not quite as effective at the Katanas in the pure anti-missile role.

dreamrider wrote:

SWM wrote:I don't think LAC shipkillers are big enough.

Looking over MaxxQ's recently posted renders on deviantart, I think you are probably right, for the current gen CM.
Unfortunately, his family of shipkillers includes the Viper, but not the LAC missile (Do we know that Mk#?)

If the standard Shrike/Ferret shipkiller approximates the size of the Mk13, but shorter, it might be possible to design a purpose-built CM, less massive and long ranged than the Mk30/31, possibly with a soft triangular cross-section ahead of the impeller ring, that could fit as many as 3 CM in a LAC-fired canister bus. Certainly no more than that, and they would have to be more limited envelope birds.

2 CM submunitions doesn't look like it would be an efficient configuration.

dreamrider

Heh... I was wondering when this would be brought up.

IIRC, the Mk-31 is the LAC cm, and the Viper is basically a Mk-31 with a laserhead added, which is why a LAC can be outfitted with either or both.

Theemile wrote:I'm actually suprised no one has mentioned loading CM canisters in the missiles tubes of Shrikes and Ferrets.

Assuming 3 CMs fit in a Shrike Missile sized canister as a DD/CL canister can, a Ferret can extend it's loadout by as many as 171 CMs

SWM wrote:I don't think LAC shipkillers are big enough.

kzt wrote:The only drawing I found showed them about the same size as DD/CL missiles. If I was the person designing LAC missiles I'd be kind of irate if someone put a tube diameter in was ALMOST big enough for me to use DD/CL components, but instead would force me to do a whole new drive/capacitor/warhead design. But not sure if DD/CL launchers had CM canisters at all.

Terekhov used CM canisters from his CLs in the 1st war during his nightmare flashback at the beginning of SoSag. Assuming the flashback sequence was a truthful depiction of what happened and not a neverending nightmare of what-ifs, DD/CL missile tubes do have a CM option.

MaxxQ wrote:Heh... I was wondering when this would be brought up.

IIRC, the Mk-31 is the LAC cm, and the Viper is basically a Mk-31 with a laserhead added, which is why a LAC can be outfitted with either or both.

So...
Could you fit 3 in a LAC shipkiller? How about 3 that had been 'form-fitted' (see above)?

dr

Jonathan_S wrote:Though if we ever see the modular LAC design that RFC mentioned was being studied, we might see a pure CM module (with no offense at all). I'm guessing that designing a magazine for pure CMs; with no support for the longer Viper anti-LAC missiles, should let you cram in more rounds.

For a pure missile defense design you wouldn't want to waste the internal volume on a big grazer. Though without the ability to reconfigure modules quickly in the field I wouldn't be comfortable if my CLACs were crammed almost entirely full of pure missile defense units; with no real secondary offensive and anti-screen capabilities.


But for the moment Katanas, with the SD grade PDLC and a magazine full of Vipers, is the most effective anti-missile LAC hull the GA has. Ferrets and Shrikes contribute, but they're just not quite as effective at the Katanas in the pure anti-missile role.

Yes, but if w're talking about CM pods, a single pod will give 50 CMs, most likely in 1 burst (since we've never seen a pod fired any other way, the recoil Weird Harold mentions may be the issue, kicking the pod out of the tractor beam when it's fired.)

CM Canisters in a Ferret will give as many as 171 extra CMs as I said, without compromising stealth or acceleration - AND you can still vary the rounds in the magazine so you still have SOME shipkillers and ECM rounds as needed.

dreamrider wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Heh... I was wondering when this would be brought up.

IIRC, the Mk-31 is the LAC cm, and the Viper is basically a Mk-31 with a laserhead added, which is why a LAC can be outfitted with either or both.

So...
Could you fit 3 in a LAC shipkiller? How about 3 that had been 'form-fitted' (see above)?

dr

A Mk-13 and a Mk-16 are very close to the same size in diameter, and it looks to me like a pair of Mk-31s would have a very tight fit, if there were *no* space between them. However, there probably *would* have to be space between them, for mounts and such.

Trying to get more than two, even with altering the shape? I doubt it very much. Especially since that would mean altering the shape of the capacitor rings, which I don't know is possible (in universe).

Edit: I don't have any information on the size of LAC shipkillers, but I would hazard a guess and say they are probably very similar to the -13 or -16, since they would have to carry at least six laserheads as those two do.

One could always use the old school LAC to launch many one shot or limited shot CM many at a time. if a CM is 1/2 the diameter of a old school capital class LAC mounted missile a Highlander variant could be made with 24 CM in place of 6 Capital Ship in a Missile Cell. A Highlander carries 24 missiles in one shot cells, a CM version could fire 24 /48/96 CM missiles at one time and possibly have an internal reload, the Cell missiles are internal accessible. Whether they would have further internal CM is an option.

a Highlander Variant with such pods/cells of CM could saturate an area with controlled CM for defence against large missile salvoes.

A dozen Highlander II or III LAC could could fire at one shot 288 to 576 off-bore 1152 CM. All at once. No delay for reloading no fast firing all at once. the 5 of a Katana or 8 of a Ferret or Shrike would require either time or and numbers. 1152 in one salvo would require 144 Shrike / Ferret or 230+ Katana. Over time they could fire that many but over time they could also be punched out.

The Highlander II / III can still be taken out but they will have fired their CM loads. With a 45% hit rate. one is looking at a Missile decrease of 44 per LAC assuming they carry no other CM tubes or reloads. A single reload and PD and LAC PD Lasers would be able to dramatically reduce incoming missiles.


CM Pods would help smaller ships that tow pods for added defence and offence. a Saganami C or Roland would be well suited to using CM pods. A 200 missile salvo fired at 2 Saganami C and 2 Roland would normally be met by on-board CM numbering 40 in the case of Each Saganami C and 20 for each Roland. 120 total, at 45% that is a reduction of 54, leaving 146 missiles. assuming comparable missiles with similar to Mk16 pen-aides that would leave say half the missiles PD take out 20% of what is left. leaving hits from 13 to 15 missiles each. 13 to 15 Mk16's would likely heavily damage them.

with CM pods 24 CM per Pod. You could add 4-12 pods per ship. 96 CM per ship about enough CM to kill every missile with the other options listed. 1-4 times over. while firing 208 missiles off bore stacked back. in each salvo. In one case having extra CM pods makes all the difference.

Might not work good for Pod layers, but for Smaller Ships it might just save you.

dreamrider wrote:Harold,
I don't think it is a kludge at all. I can get behind the idea of dedicated, conformal LAC 'saddlebag' CM pods; much more so than CM pods from SD(P)s.

I think if you built and shaped the pod model specifically for the purpose, ...

If you, "built and shaped the pod model specifically for the purpose," you wouldn't be following the same philosophy of, "What do we have today that will work?"

The whole point of using canisters and existing pods is to avoid the R&D costs and delays of "built and shaped the pod model specifically for the purpose."

If you want to use the modern Mk-31 CMs in a pod-launched canister, and have more than two CMs per canister, the *only* way to do it would be to use pods built for Mk-23s.

This sort of discussion (CM pods) came up before, and I checked. You can only fit three Mk-31s in something the diameter of a Mk-23. Of course, Mk-31s are fairly short, so you could possibly even fit two canisters per pod tube, and manipulate the grav drivers to launch them seperately. One of those pods in my last batch of renders is a 10x Mk-23 pod, so you could get up to 20 canisters per pod, for a total of 60 Mk-31 CMs.

If you're willing to sacrifice half the pod loadout, you could fit 10 canisters of three Vipers, since those are built on the same drive and cap rings as the Mk-31.

However, I'm not betting on anything of the sort being used in any of the upcoming books. Possibly normal canisters using the older CMs as we have seen before, but using the newer Mk-31s or Vipers...?