New LAC's

From my own post which you ignored...

Relax wrote:EDIT: POD missile tubes CAME FROM the LAC program...

I need say no more...

RTFQ yourself Kiz... and drop the F part. Screwing questions helps no one...

You also missed a rather major point in the books/pearls...

SHRIKES CARRY A CA MISSILE. SO DO FERRETS. The LERM was a DIRECT REPLACMENT for the previous CA missile. Uh, hem... Direct replacement though it is slightly larger and cannot be fired out of really old CA tubes as was seen in SoSag at Monica. Also shown in ToF. We have missile tonnage from OBS... ~70tons per.

You also missed DW's quote that due to the horrific losses of the SHRIKE's at BOMA1, they were being phased out... To a logical mind, that would mean BuShips has determined that Graser armed LAC's are not effective... EDIT: effective meaning against modern units. Everything works against pirates.

Relax wrote:From my own post which you ignored...

Relax wrote:EDIT: POD missile tubes CAME FROM the LAC program...

I need say no more...

RTFQ yourself Kiz... and drop the F part. Screwing questions helps no one...

You also missed a rather major point in the books/pearls...

SHRIKES CARRY A CA MISSILE. SO DO FERRETS. The LERM was a DIRECT REPLACMENT for the previous CA missile. Uh, hem... Direct replacement though it is slightly larger and cannot be fired out of really old CA tubes as was seen in SoSag at Monica. Also shown in ToF. We have missile tonnage from OBS... ~70tons per.

You also missed DW's quote that due to the horrific losses of the SHRIKE's at BOMA1, they were being phased out... To a logical mind, that would mean BuShips has determined that Graser armed LAC's are not effective... EDIT: effective meaning against modern units. Everything works against pirates.

When I type a post and you respond with something I covered in that post, I wonder if you were reading them closely enough.


Pearl of Weber - Is the destroyer obsolete as a ship type?

However, it is virtually certain that it will never be possible to engineer MDM capability into something as small as a LAC, which means that they will always be at a severe disadvantage for long-range engagements.

I would guess the closest would be the idea we both had, putting a hard point, at the expense of some internal volume, to carry two pods for long range use, ala the original LACs before the Shrikes were made.

I don't ever recall the quote that shrikes carried CA missiles, I was under the impression that they carried a special purpose built missiles that were no bigger than DD missiles and might even be smaller. Can you please find the quote for me?

Remember that prewar CA's and BC's fired the same missiles. Also remember that Mk-16 are called dual drive missiles, only the Mk-23's and system defense missiles are MDM's, so another way of saying it is that LAC's wouldn't ever be build to launch capital ship MDM's, without excluding BC size DDM's

The DW himself said beauships was considering a LAC that had 4-revolver missile tubes and a central removable weapons pack. that weapons pack could either be a shrike sized graser OR contain viper missiles and launch tubes. This indicates that DW is not finished with energy weapons on LAC's.

IMO an energy weapon would make sense for a LAC on system defense picket duty where it would be a liability in capital ship engagements. I don't know what DW meant, but possibly he was saying that the shrike was being phased out of fleet duty for use elsewhere.

Kizarvexis wrote:

Relax wrote:From my own post which you ignored...

I need say no more...

RTFQ yourself Kiz... and drop the F part. Screwing questions helps no one...

You also missed a rather major point in the books/pearls...

SHRIKES CARRY A CA MISSILE. SO DO FERRETS. The LERM was a DIRECT REPLACMENT for the previous CA missile. Uh, hem... Direct replacement though it is slightly larger and cannot be fired out of really old CA tubes as was seen in SoSag at Monica. Also shown in ToF. We have missile tonnage from OBS... ~70tons per.

You also missed DW's quote that due to the horrific losses of the SHRIKE's at BOMA1, they were being phased out... To a logical mind, that would mean BuShips has determined that Graser armed LAC's are not effective... EDIT: effective meaning against modern units. Everything works against pirates.

When I type a post and you respond with something I covered in that post, I wonder if you were reading them closely enough.


Pearl of Weber - Is the destroyer obsolete as a ship type?

However, it is virtually certain that it will never be possible to engineer MDM capability into something as small as a LAC, which means that they will always be at a severe disadvantage for long-range engagements.

I would guess the closest would be the idea we both had, putting a hard point, at the expense of some internal volume, to carry two pods for long range use, ala the original LACs before the Shrikes were made.

darrell wrote:I don't ever recall the quote that shrikes carried CA missiles, I was under the impression that they carried a special purpose built missiles that were no bigger than DD missiles and might even be smaller. Can you please find the quote for me?

Remember that prewar CA's and BC's fired the same missiles. Also remember that Mk-16 are called dual drive missiles, only the Mk-23's and system defense missiles are MDM's, so another way of saying it is that LAC's wouldn't ever be build to launch capital ship MDM's, without excluding BC size DDM's

I agree, in AoV, when the Ferrets were described, it was noted in two places as LAC sized missles. So, possibly not even DD missles.

MDM is Multi Drive Missile which also covers Dual Drive Missiles. He could have only meant capital Missiles or not.

darrell wrote:The energy weapons on the roland take up a significant amount of space. How big would the roland be if it didn't have any grasers or lasers???

The missile tubes and support gear on the Roland take up the entire hammerhead and extend deep into the body of the ship itself. It's clearly a lot longer than the BC scale graser that the shrike is wrapped around.

Kizarvexis wrote:Yes, you can run up the hyper generator, if it is in stand by, which takes a 30 seconds (DB) to about 4 minutes (SD) to jump to hyperspace. If the hyper generator is in routine readiness, which is where they are when not in combat, then you add more even more time. So you better hope you detect the LACs early and remember LACs are stealthy. You then plot a micro jump is hyperspace which is not precise per textev. Then jump in where you will be vulnerable until you spin up your systems and localize the LAC to attack. Sure, easy peasy.

You assume that the people who are planning on attacking your ships are not planning on getting in combat? Can you explain how that makes any sense?

darrell wrote:I don't ever recall the quote that shrikes carried CA missiles, I was under the impression that they carried a special purpose built missiles that were no bigger than DD missiles and might even be smaller. Can you please find the quote for me?

There was missile lineart that showed the Shrike missile being slightly longer than a DD/CL missile and virtually identical to the CA/BC one, if slightly slimmer. This lineart was from before the Great Resizing so it might no longer be valid.

More recently, there is this: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... -465723294

MK16 looks the same size as MK13. Confirming that the increased requirements in shipboard launcher mass is for the microfusion igniter and armouring to contain accidents. However, as already pointed out, LACs can't fire up microfusion reactors with only a fissile pile.

I suppose you could get around that by firing the missiles up aboard base or CLAC before launching the LACs. But that doesn't seem like a great idea given how worried the RMN seems to be about those missiles blowing up prematurely.

More sensible to stick with towing those missiles in pods, I'd say. Old LACs had box launchers for a reason - but with pod launchers they also get to throw away the useless mass of empty launchers and ancillary equipment left behind after firing the missiles. If these pods happen to have an Apollo bird in them, the LACs won't be able to tow enough pods to saturate their own available fire control either.

LACs can't tow pods without severe acceleration degradation. However, if they're on patrol, there's no reason for them to need full acceleration. And because of the enormous ranges available to those missiles, the LACs can simply fire them as soon as they detect hostile units.

IMO, it's the best compromise; keeping a LAC as small and agile as possible whilst giving it one hell of a first blow. After all, no matter how tough they are now, they simply don't have the durability of any larger warship. Every bit of its defensive outfit is designed to prevent a hit, not survive one(even sidewalls - they bend incoming fire away from the ship rather than acting as an absorbing shield).

Relax wrote:EDIT: POD missile tubes CAME FROM the LAC program...

Well, more specifically the " new lightweight mass-drivers" [SVW:ch17] technology Hemphill designed for LACs was applied to pods of capital ship missiles. But I'm not sure how that bears on your arguments for fitting LACs with Mk16 missiles - missile pods had signiicant changes since then, and it's really only the tech that physically throws the missile clear of the tube that was said to have been developed for LACs. At the time of that quote it was being used to throw capacitor powered single drive missiles; so it doesn't seem to say anything about the ability for later LACs to power and launch micro-fusion powered dual drive missiles...

munroburton wrote:

darrell wrote:I don't ever recall the quote that shrikes carried CA missiles, I was under the impression that they carried a special purpose built missiles that were no bigger than DD missiles and might even be smaller. Can you please find the quote for me?

There was missile lineart that showed the Shrike missile being slightly longer than a DD/CL missile and virtually identical to the CA/BC one, if slightly slimmer. This lineart was from before the Great Resizing so it might no longer be valid.

Yep that lineart was at the front of Ashes of Victory; and the same insert has SD's at their pre "Great Resizing" length of 3,200 meters.

But measuring shows that, despite the "Shrike Missile" being placed at the bottom of the otherwise descending size scale, that it measures almost exactly the same length and width as the one labeled "CA/BC Missile". (Both of which are longer, but a little thinner than the one between them labeled "CL/DD Missile")


I'm really surprised to see that, since I'd certainly picked up an impression that the LAC missiles were smaller than DD missiles. But that drawing certainly shows the opposite.
I think I picked up that impression from the text in Ashes of Victory, Ch24.
"The LAC-sized specialist missiles and drones were less capable than the full-sized [ghost rider; Mk41 MDM] versions"
"but LAC-sized missiles would be much less effective against anything bigger than a heavy cruiser."

I assumed that meant they had DD/CL weight laserheads (which led me to assume a smaller missile) but I guess it might have just been a reference to the general toughness of a BC, even against CA/BC grade missiles...

kzt wrote:

Kizarvexis wrote:Yes, you can run up the hyper generator, if it is in stand by, which takes a 30 seconds (DB) to about 4 minutes (SD) to jump to hyperspace. If the hyper generator is in routine readiness, which is where they are when not in combat, then you add more even more time. So you better hope you detect the LACs early and remember LACs are stealthy. You then plot a micro jump is hyperspace which is not precise per textev. Then jump in where you will be vulnerable until you spin up your systems and localize the LAC to attack. Sure, easy peasy.

You assume that the people who are planning on attacking your ships are not planning on getting in combat? Can you explain how that makes any sense?

Since the first sentence details the time, when IN combat mode of stand by, to jump to hyperspace, yeah, I was thinking of people planning to attack. If you are patrolling along and find a small ship stooging along the hyperlimit all stealthy like, then you can be sure it is a pirate. Since they would wait for awhile, possibly days for a ship to jump in, you would expect them in routine readiness on the hyper generator. Per DW's list of Hyper generator states of activation, the routine readiness mentions "various safety interlocks are still closed to preventâ?¦ unfortunate accidents" seems to me illustrate that point. He doesn't mention a time for going from routine to stand by, but does say that it is shorter than from powered down to routine. So as a swag I would guess double the time to go from standby to jumping as a reasonable guess? Still not so long that you wouldn't put it into standby if you had not detected the aggressor first.

The idea of not armoring the outboard side of a LAC tube as a sort of blow-out panel is ok. If you take a hit from anything like a warship type weapon in that point, the armor/lack of armor probably won't make a difference. If your missile power supply blows up in the tube and the "panel" blows out, some of the crew might be around to be rescued later.

You probably can calculate where the most probable area- relative to a given system - where a hypercapable ship would come. Most of the time you are talking about ships that are coming from somewhere specific and heading to the destination system for a reason. What reason? Usually trade of some sort. Even passinger ships are carrying cargo and cargo ships are going places-usually- to deliver and pick up cargo. An exception is a warship that might be patrolling and not following a regular schedule of visits and so would take odd choices in where and when it goes to various places to randomize it's visits. Another would be the classic "tramp steamer" who is hunting cargo or potential markets and changes venues or potential routes rather than continue in normal shipping sequences.
If there is trade or any sort of regular trade rout either between two systems or systems which regularly get trade from three or more places not on some circular route, then you know where ships are starting from and are ending up even if they only stop at point B because it is "on the way- more or less" and can drop and/or pick up cargo at a profit. So you calculate where the starting point(s) are relative to the destination and plot that on the sphere that is the destination system's hyper limit- relative to the shortest route from the starting points. Not quite like hanging off Chesapeake Bay or the Hudson River but close. Ships will eventualy be heading for point X though exactly where they come out of hyper is more difficult. A submarine hanging about (or a hypercapable pirate lurking in stealth mode) off the VA Capes looking for targets entering or leaving the Chesapeake has (or had) to pick a likely position that something might come close too or it could also run up to engagement range with a target. So, if a system has trade with two or three other systems on a regular basis, your pirate has to decide which sector of the hyperlimit sphere to cover.
It is also is essentially incoming traffic because any freighter with any sense is going to have th hyperdrive spun up and ready to use just after it leaves the hyper limit.
You could put a LAC patrol -sensor heavy- out at those sectors of highest traffic and use it to augment you general system sensor scanning. The patroling LAC(s) could be the control node for Pods inside the hyper limit which could be used to engage a pirate who is detected skulking around. I MAY have the advantage of pushing where such pirate does the skulking from the hyper limit and widen the margin of where a merchant can get into the system and be "defended" by what are essentilay harbor batteries of the pods.
Just a thought.


If a LAC can't carry an MDM due to considerations of size, you might be able to attach one to external hard points -if it would be withing the field for the LAC and didn't totally mess with the flight geometry. However you are probably going to be limited to one and would have to provide a reason to actually do it. Kind of like hanging a torpedo on a Catalina PBY in the early years of WWII out of frustration and a desire to at least try and inflict damage on the enemy.

The frigate question comes and goes. Perhaps a better discussion is when migh the Honorverse navies decide to recast the size range with the mission parameters of what they call various classes of ships. The size of the DD though BC have been growing so even the Sollies are talking about the CL sized (aka "those big assed destroyers") current generations of RMN DD's. IF- a very big IF- a "frigate" sized ship makes economic sense to use on range of systems rather than a DD -which makes less sense tying down to one system as pirate guard- then the hyper capable frigate does make some sense.