New Manty ship ideas.

WilliamHall wrote:I thought I read somewhere about more modular LAC designs in the works. If this was the case then making LAC bays that only allow crews to board them and only allows switching out modules might be less vulnerable. But I also think I read something that indicated that rearming was not that big an issue. Maybe the changes are not going to be very large at all. Just tying LACs into some sort of FLT defensive firing net might improve the defensive basket enough.

Well I suspect that anything BC or larger, and designed to go in with the wallers, is going to be equipped with at least Keyhole 1 so it can fire CMs while rolled behind it's wedge. (Actually, I think RFC's post might have said something about the new tougher CLACs carrying Keyhole)

So there'd be at least that change to their defenses; whatever else they did. (And that'd cost you some LAC bays since a Keyhole bay takes up a non-trivial amount of broadside; even on something the size of a DN)

When considering adding armor to a CLAC you need to remember that there would be more openings or at least channels in that armor for a CLAC than there would be for an SD
Energy mounts on an SD need power which is going to come from the reactors inside the ships primary armor. Same for the missile launchers which need to be fed from magazines though I suppose you could have ready magazines at the launchers (more space used and more vulnerable) along with the feeds from the primary magazines.
Every one of those 100 + LAC bays has at least one missile feed system for the anti-ship missiles and probably a seperate one (because of size of ammo) for counter missiles. Then there are all sorts of access for crew and for other things although you might run the crew and power/enviro/data in groups of say 1 set for each 8 LACs.
It depends.
The CLACs are not designed nor intended to stand with the wall though they will now deploy "behind" it to add the LACs to both the counter-missile defence and to strike capability.
Building an SD/CLAC is similar to what Japan tried to do with it's hermaphrodite carriers. Half battle ship, half carrier. The comparison does break down because the carrier half was supposed to be running seaplanes which would be landing in the water and then recovered aboard. That could give them some fighter coverage and some bombing but was mostly providing ariel recon and observation.
The question is usually what is going to be needed to do the job intended for the ship being built and if you add X, what do you have to take off of it to still retain the general characteristics to do the job. That is probably badly phrased.
An "Escort CLAC" is ***Probably*** going to be not much more than a small CLAC designed to carry and deploy (and fight) perhaps 24 LACs. It will not have much in the way of armor and any missile capacity beyond counter-missiles are going to likely be chase systems to be used when the ship is running away from trouble. Of course, if you give it something like Keyhole (and pay the price in what you lose in other things and size for it) then you can play hell with perhaps up to a SL CL from beyond any range they can fire on you. However, what you build is going to be more of a means to post and maintian the LAC squadrons in a system for defence or to add depth of defence or force projection to strike squadrons of other warships up to perhaps BCs IF you give the ELACs the abilit to run with your BCs or Crusiers.
I suspect that a FF squadron commander with a half dozen DDs and a couple of BCs facing a small RMN squadron with some "small transports" would be in for a very nasty surprise when the transports turn out to be carrying 48 RMN LACs. The challange is keeping the enemy warships away from the CLAC of any size.

Brigade XO wrote:When considering adding armor to a CLAC you need to remember that

We do not know the length of a Keyhole. It may be possible to put a keyhole in line with the beam of the ship instead of perpendicular. Especially as CLAC keyhole will not be apollo FTL capable, might be partially to talk with RD's though... Since CLAC's already have holes essentially "bored" through its ship anyways, why not bore all the way through. Still have ship above and below. Its not like this is a water based design ... vacuum.

KH1 is, IIRC, about the mass of a LAC. KH2 is much larger.

How about using a hyperdrive sled for LAC deployment. Be it small, individual, to each LAC or larger BC core with mounting racks to just carry LAC. No re-arming, possible life support extension hookups, no real ship just a frame basket kind of tug. Alpha nodes with very small crew compensator and bottle. An LAC freighter. Might even have a half sized LAC mk16 pod, which it drops off with the LAC.

No armour no weapons certainly not something that would ever enter combat. Drop and run with later pick up options, much like a freighter.

LAC pod was an after thought, 7 mk16 missiles that allow a hyper sled to deliver an LAC with system superiority possibilities.

Lord Skimper wrote:How about using a hyperdrive sled for LAC deployment. Be it small, individual, to each LAC or larger BC core with mounting racks to just carry LAC. No re-arming, possible life support extension hookups, no real ship just a frame basket kind of tug. Alpha nodes with very small crew compensator and bottle. An LAC freighter. Might even have a half sized LAC mk16 pod, which it drops off with the LAC.

No armour no weapons certainly not something that would ever enter combat. Drop and run with later pick up options, much like a freighter.

LAC pod was an after thought, 7 mk16 missiles that allow a hyper sled to deliver an LAC with system superiority possibilities.

Really?

Before you post your next idea, please go to http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/series/Harrington/ and brush up on what Mr. Weber has already shot down.

In this case from 1998, 15 years ago, http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/132/1

WilliamHall wrote:Those are really good points. The question I have is then with the fundamental weakness of having so much open space devoted to LAC bays how do you upgrade the CLAC toughness to match a 2nd gen SDP? David has hinted that Manticore has followed some sub-optimal design patterns in recent ship design. I was wondering where that might lead.

If putting the LAC's on the outside is best then is it possible that SDP's would be moving towards a more CLAC general design?

One possibility would be to rotate the ship axially 90 degrees, placing the bays top and bottom. Certainly it's not as simple as that, but most of the problems have a few solutions. Obviously the LAC's would have to maneuver around the wedges on launch and recovery, but I believe there is room inside the wedge for reaction drive to push them outside the wedge boundaries, perhaps with tractor assistance. Mass launches would probably be best handled by temporarily striking the wedges for launch.(Analogous to wet navy carriers having to turn into the wind for launches/landings.) I know VLS systems for missiles have been discussed and discarded, however most of those problems seem to be related to mass drivers and the fact that missiles are impeller drive only.
You would have to rearrange the standard superstructure on the topside into something more compact, but I don't see that as insurmountable either, since a CLAC has no need for offensive fire links and can get by with a reduced sensor suite, using the LAC's and fleet links instead. This arrangement would allow for the broadsides to be both well armored and dedicated to the defensive armament. I'm certain there's a hole or three in this plan, I've been up a while and things are getting weird.

Matt

kzt wrote:KH1 is, IIRC, about the mass of a LAC. KH2 is much larger.

Well, I didn't elaborate, but here goes.

Shrike was that long because that was the length of the Graser. We know that there are some "limits" to how stubby an impeller driven object can be. The one "drawing" of a KH we do have shows it being VERY stubby. That was a Keyhole 1 on BCL and it is Very stubby. About same ratio as a LAC. KH2 appears to be less stubby though.

Shrike B/Ferret/Katana 72/20r where the Katana for some reason is 1m shorter returning to the dimension of the original shrike.

Length/Radius ratio is effectively 3.5:1 Exactly what KH1 seems to be or close enough.

Since a CLAC already has said "holes" bored effectively to its "core" may as well add one more hole for a KH1 platform.

kzt wrote:KH1 is, IIRC, about the mass of a LAC. KH2 is much larger.

Not quite.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/283/1 wrote:The original Keyhole-One platform was about the size of a LAC. ...
...
Keyhole-Two is another can of worms entirely. First, the platforms themselves are substantially larger. While the final (or, at least, currently final) generation of Keyhole-One is somewhere around 65,000 tons (or darned near the size of a prewar destroyer), Keyhole-Two is even larger. ...

The original Keyhole-One was the size of an LAC. But that was because all it did was telemetry relay.

Which brings up some different thoughts that I will probably spend a few days contemplating. Thank you.

Have fun,
T2M

Relax wrote:

kzt wrote:KH1 is, IIRC, about the mass of a LAC. KH2 is much larger.

Well, I didn't elaborate, but here goes.

Shrike was that long because that was the length of the Graser. We know that there are some "limits" to how stubby an impeller driven object can be. The one "drawing" of a KH we do have shows it being VERY stubby. That was a Keyhole 1 on BCL and it is Very stubby. About same ratio as a LAC. KH2 appears to be less stubby though.

Shrike B/Ferret/Katana 72/20r where the Katana for some reason is 1m shorter returning to the dimension of the original shrike.

Length/Radius ratio is effectively 3.5:1 Exactly what KH1 seems to be or close enough.

Since a CLAC already has said "holes" bored effectively to its "core" may as well add one more hole for a KH1 platform.

There are two drawings that include (what I assume to be) a Keyhole in House of Steel; the Nike-class and the Invictus-class. Now, since the specs for each class are for the lead unit as of initial commissioning, I assume the SD(P)'s shows a Keyhole 1, not the more massive Keyhole II.


If the drawings are approximately to scale we can do some pixel counting to get a size for those Keyhole platforms. (Well their length and height anyway; we've got no view from which to measure their beam/width)

For the heck of it I did so and came up with:
* Nike-class Keyhole 114m L x 53m H
* Invictus-class Keyhole 1 167m L x 75m H
If those are even close to correct that's way too long to dock nose-first.


(Fair warning, the drawings probably aren't perfectly to scale; each pixel appears to represent 20% more length than height. IOW the ratio of pixels to meters is 20% more when measuring length than when measuring height)