New Manty ship ideas.

SWM wrote:As was already pointed out by several people, there is no point in doing that. If the target can be hit by an energy torpedo (i.e. you can get into a position without a sidewall interposed), the target can also be hit by a graser from much further out. If a LAC gets a down-the-throat shot at 700,000 km, the LAC's own buckler sidewall will completely protect the LAC from the enemy's return graser fire. In other words, if the LACs can swarm a ship well enough to force down-the-throat and up-the-kilt shots, you don't need to get inside energy-torpedo range. Therefore, LACs don't need energy torpedoes.

I suspect that ETs can deliver more damage with successful hits than grasers can. Fearless was able to "blow up" a SD very quickly with only 14 ET launchers once the sidewall was down - and that refit had eliminated all of her grasers. In which case it's a debate of whether getting a small percentage of ET launchers being able to generate up-or-down shots makes it worth using them in the numbers necessary to generate those opportunities, when clearly something like 75% of the time they won't be able to fire in situations where a graser could merrily blast away.

But as you say, it's been pointed out that ETs are as useful as rotten eggs against sidewalls, which are beginning to be used to cover all open aspects, not just port and starboard.

How many graser hits does it take to destroy a SD, anyway? Other than the lucky hit that blows up a fusion reactor.

The E wrote:

Whitecold wrote:A waller is large enough so it doesn't matter if the launcher is useless most of the time to have it ready for the few chances where it can be employed.
But a SD doesn't have to rely on it, while a LAC would be completely useless in 99% of all combat situations.

Do note, however, that there are no current RMN designs that mount energy torpedo batteries.

I think that akin to what White Haven said to Honor in her study when he was informed of the new SD(P) weapons mix.

Just because they aren't in use doesn't mean they are not going to be useful.

LACs are either relegated to improve the point defense capabilities of the wall or are assigned to be the piranhas taking out damaged units. Yes they have a graser that gives them a big punch but their missile magazines are only good for a couple of salvos. Replace 2 missile launchers with 2 E-Torp launchers. You have your Graser, standard missiles and your E-Torp launchers that can deliver devastating damage when the opportunity presents itself.

So you end up with a LAC which has effectively zero missile-based firepower. Shrikes are already considered massively limited in long range (relative to energy weapons) firepower. There's a reason why the Alliance also decided to design and build Ferrets. They're not interested in losing the little that they have just to mount very situationally useful weapons, on a design which already can eviscerate battlecruisers.

Not only that, all modern LACs are already massively disadvantaged with regards to power generation. The fission plant is barely enough to power a Shrike's graser, bow wall, and propulsion. They're not interested in cramming yet another energy hog on a design which is already starving from the lack of juice.

Also, IIRC, energy torpedoes are pockets of contained plasma launched at the target. Where will a fission-pile powered LAC get that plasma from? It doesn't have a fusion reactor to siphon it from...

Borealis wrote:Also, IIRC, energy torpedoes are pockets of contained plasma launched at the target. Where will a fission-pile powered LAC get that plasma from? It doesn't have a fusion reactor to siphon it from...

Electricity. You add power to something it gets hot. Eventually it breaks down into plasma.

kzt wrote:

Borealis wrote:Also, IIRC, energy torpedoes are pockets of contained plasma launched at the target. Where will a fission-pile powered LAC get that plasma from? It doesn't have a fusion reactor to siphon it from...

Electricity. You add power to something it gets hot. Eventually it breaks down into plasma.

Very true, but even with the fission-piles, LAC's have a limited energy budget by how it's been described they can have either a bow-wall or a stern-wall, but not both at the same time. Also, the Beta-squared nodes are also described as having a wedge 'more powerful than any other LAC known' which I also imagine to be a serious power drain. It may be possible to put an energy torpedo in a LAC, but I doubt you would be able to run much more than a wedge and life support to power it...

kzt wrote:

Borealis wrote:Also, IIRC, energy torpedoes are pockets of contained plasma launched at the target. Where will a fission-pile powered LAC get that plasma from? It doesn't have a fusion reactor to siphon it from...

Electricity. You add power to something it gets hot. Eventually it breaks down into plasma.

Fusion bomb generates plasma quite nicely.

namelessfly wrote:

kzt wrote:Electricity. You add power to something it gets hot. Eventually it breaks down into plasma.

Fusion bomb generates plasma quite nicely.

Yah, but I would personally prefer a slightly more controlled source for my plasma, thank you very much.

jgnfld wrote:

jgnfld wrote:

...The incoming weapons had extraordinarily low radar signatures, and they were coming in at barely 60,000 KPS. Even if some of them had been detected, their velocity was so low it was unlikely to pop through the defenders' threat filters. ...

Looking at this quote--which is from the MoH ARC--something seems off. 60,000 KPS is 17% of the terminal speed of a Mark 23 after expending all 3 drives. What kind of filter would be set so low as not to report an object at that velocity???

Was this changed in the final version, I don't have it here on my computer.

It is in the final edit of the ebook of MoH.

Duckk wrote:So you end up with a LAC which has effectively zero missile-based firepower. Shrikes are already considered massively limited in long range (relative to energy weapons) firepower. There's a reason why the Alliance also decided to design and build Ferrets. They're not interested in losing the little that they have just to mount very situationally useful weapons, on a design which already can eviscerate battlecruisers.

Not only that, all modern LACs are already massively disadvantaged with regards to power generation. The fission plant is barely enough to power a Shrike's graser, bow wall, and propulsion. They're not interested in cramming yet another energy hog on a design which is already starving from the lack of juice.

not really... i said replace 2 of the existing 4 launchers. LAC missiles aren't that effective against SD armor anyway but ETorps are (granted there are no sidewalls). LACs attacking undamaged SDs using underpowered missiles from long range is not what I would call an intelligent use of force which means whether you have your current 4 launchers or just 2, you'd be getting a lot of LACs swapped out of space.

As for being energy hogs, why keep using the graser if you have a chance to deliver far more damage with ETorps? Use the graser if the sidewalls are still up, send in as much ETorps when you find a target with sidewalls down. Judicious use of the weapon systems on hand.

----

add the fact that missiles are costly. ETorps = price of launchers. With the amount of hardware that's going to be built, cutting some costs would be one point in favor of putting ETorps in some LACs to replace some of their launchers.