New Manty ship ideas.

"
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.
"

On the other hand, CLACs have a very great need for DEFENSIVE fire links and need a very good picture of what is happening in a system because they serve as the CIC for their squadrons of LACs which- because of size and the often demonstrated need to run in stealth mode (which does mean NO ACTIVE SENSORS) - need to have information and tactical updates fed to them.
Sure, CLACs can pump out recon drones such as Ghost Rider platforms. They need to also monitor what they can from their own passive and active sensor suites so they don't get caught by some other force in the system.
This is much like current wet navy carriers both in their early days and the present.
Without at least some of its LACs "close" by it and in defensive mode, a CLAC is vunerable to offensive fire. It really only has a few options when dealing with something determined to attack a CLAC. One is to run away as fast as possible and using it's chase weapons to slow down pursuit till it can get to hyperspace. The other is to maintain a variation of a Combat Air Patrol to deal with unexpected attacks- and still try and run away from the threat at least until it can both be covered by and recover its main LAC force and then jump out.

Brigade XO wrote:"
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.
"

On the other hand, CLACs have a very great need for DEFENSIVE fire links and need a very good picture of what is happening in a system because they serve as the CIC for their squadrons of LACs which- because of size and the often demonstrated need to run in stealth mode (which does mean NO ACTIVE SENSORS) - need to have information and tactical updates fed to them.
Sure, CLACs can pump out recon drones such as Ghost Rider platforms. They need to also monitor what they can from their own passive and active sensor suites so they don't get caught by some other force in the system.
This is much like current wet navy carriers both in their early days and the present.
Without at least some of its LACs "close" by it and in defensive mode, a CLAC is vunerable to offensive fire. It really only has a few options when dealing with something determined to attack a CLAC. One is to run away as fast as possible and using it's chase weapons to slow down pursuit till it can get to hyperspace. The other is to maintain a variation of a Combat Air Patrol to deal with unexpected attacks- and still try and run away from the threat at least until it can both be covered by and recover its main LAC force and then jump out.

Taking that thought on a bit of a tangent.

If the RMN designs CLACs with Keyhole do you think it makes sense to focus on the defensive capabilities? I can see three possibilities, which each have various tradeoffs
1) New smaller defensive only Keyhole -- has all the CM/Viper control links from a normal keyhole, but ommits the offensive linkes to save size

2) Keyhole 1 -- nice turnkey solution, may even be able to refurbish and reuse already built platforms from units which were upgrade to Keyhole II

3) Keyhole II -- Takes up more space, but allows the CLAC to control Apollo pods, to share the load in controlling a battle groups fire, or potentially to give a Keyhole II to an SD(P) which lost one or both of theirs.


Option 1 takes more design time and you've got to set up new production lines, but it would have the smallest impact in terms of taking up CLAC hull space.

Option 3 is the largest, but in some ways the most flexible, while Option 2 is a middle ground that (at least initially) gives you some potential to reuse obsoleted platforms.

Jonathan_S wrote: 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.

Looks in HoS, CLAC's beam is, hmm greater than either the KH1 or KH2 platforms from the drawings.

Now on an SD, one doesn't want a path Through the ship, but on a CLAC? There are already 50 odd holes bored all the way to the core anyways. If you can even call it a core that is. By the time one adds in docking maintenance nose accessories for all practical purposes one LAC bay effectively is directly nosed into the other LAC bay. What is one more in the grand scheme of things?

PS. on KH height. For storage purposes I would presume that those comm arrays "fold". Especially on NIKE/Invictus as this shrinks the armored bays size dramatically. Could always do the, KH only half snuggles into the bay where the comm arrays come up "flush" with the outer hull and not the "half can proposed bay". Would work if this stays within the constraints for impeller wedge size volume limits. Which brings up the question, if you are staying within the impeller wedge constraints, why have a bay at all. Why not leave it permanently docked to the outside? Clearly since there is a bay, this would indicate that the KH when docked on outside of ship would impinge upon the impeller wedge ship/size constraints.

Putting armor on CLAC would be the next best thing to a really stupid idea, because you would eventually get some moronic admiral sticking them in the wall-of-battle and getting them shot to shit in the process. If you want a real world comparison look no further than HMS Glorious during the invasion of Norway in 1940.

As David has indicated in a previous infodump, carrier theory is moving in two directions. One is the bulk carrier, which carries the most LACs per ship, much like the Havenite or Grayson CLACs. The other direction is a design that is best suited to operate in conjunction with the wall, in order to provide nearby support for LAC operations.

saber964 wrote:Putting armor on CLAC would be the next best thing to a really stupid idea, because you would eventually get some moronic admiral sticking them in the wall-of-battle and getting them shot to shit in the process. If you want a real world comparison look no further than HMS Glorious during the invasion of Norway in 1940.

Duckk wrote:As David has indicated in a previous infodump, carrier theory is moving in two directions. One is the bulk carrier, which carries the most LACs per ship, much like the Havenite or Grayson CLACs. The other direction is a design that is best suited to operate in conjunction with the wall, in order to provide nearby support for LAC operations.

[quote="Jonathan_S] Taking that thought on a bit of a tangent.

If the RMN designs CLACs with Keyhole do you think it makes sense to focus on the defensive capabilities? I can see three possibilities, which each have various tradeoffs
1) New smaller defensive only Keyhole -- has all the CM/Viper control links from a normal keyhole, but ommits the offensive linkes to save size

2) Keyhole 1 -- nice turnkey solution, may even be able to refurbish and reuse already built platforms from units which were upgrade to Keyhole II

3) Keyhole II -- Takes up more space, but allows the CLAC to control Apollo pods, to share the load in controlling a battle groups fire, or potentially to give a Keyhole II to an SD(P) which lost one or both of theirs.


Option 1 takes more design time and you've got to set up new production lines, but it would have the smallest impact in terms of taking up CLAC hull space.

Option 3 is the largest, but in some ways the most flexible, while Option 2 is a middle ground that (at least initially) gives you some potential to reuse obsoleted platforms.[/quote]

Personally, I'd try to avoid designing a new ship around an obsolete platform, but I can see how it would make sense in light of the YS. If you set the combat-CLAC up with KH-II however, you add even more flexibility than you're crediting it with. It could then function as the main EW/recon node for the wall, tying into it's function as the LAC CIC. (which I completely forgot about in my previous post ) Basically, try to place as much computing power and specialist people as possible in a platform that will be near the battle, but not on the wall itself.
If the bulk carrier and C-CLAC are going to be working together, with the bulk carrier deploying the LAC's and then scooting back into hyper and the C-CLAC acting as just a forward rearming base, another interesting (though limited) offensive role opens up. Anything capable of servicing LAC's, either in full docks or semi-recessed bays, could also carry missile pods, either in the docks or tractored to the hull. Deploy the pods after translation, either handing them off to the wallers or controlling them directly with Keyhole. By the time the LAC's need service, the pods will likely be used up, allowing one C-CLAC to fill three support roles as LAC base, ammo ship and raven.

Matt

There is supposed to be some sort of huge Traveler-style computer required on the ship that uses KH2. Exactly why you need 80,000 tons of molecular-level computing hardware is not exactly explained...

kzt wrote:There is supposed to be some sort of huge Traveler-style computer required on the ship that uses KH2. Exactly why you need 80,000 tons of molecular-level computing hardware is not exactly explained...

That should be obvious, Mcrosoft finally managed to wipe out all knowledge of other operating systems so everything runs Windows, and we all know how bloat prone that is.

Shrike, Ferret and Katana-class LACs are all 70-75 metres long; CLACs have a beam five times that. The LAC bays don't reach the core, and their missile reload tubes won't be any bigger than the tubes linking a broadside tube to the magazines.

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote: 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.

Looks in HoS, CLAC's beam is, hmm greater than either the KH1 or KH2 platforms from the drawings.

Now on an SD, one doesn't want a path Through the ship, but on a CLAC? There are already 50 odd holes bored all the way to the core anyways. If you can even call it a core that is. By the time one adds in docking maintenance nose accessories for all practical purposes one LAC bay effectively is directly nosed into the other LAC bay. What is one more in the grand scheme of things?

PS. on KH height. For storage purposes I would presume that those comm arrays "fold". Especially on NIKE/Invictus as this shrinks the armored bays size dramatically. Could always do the, KH only half snuggles into the bay where the comm arrays come up "flush" with the outer hull and not the "half can proposed bay". Would work if this stays within the constraints for impeller wedge size volume limits. Which brings up the question, if you are staying within the impeller wedge constraints, why have a bay at all. Why not leave it permanently docked to the outside? Clearly since there is a bay, this would indicate that the KH when docked on outside of ship would impinge upon the impeller wedge ship/size constraints.

The RMN doesn't send its people out in ships that can't withstand hits from their peers, which for a CLAC means capital ship missiles.

saber964 wrote:Putting armor on CLAC would be the next best thing to a really stupid idea, because you would eventually get some moronic admiral sticking them in the wall-of-battle and getting them shot to shit in the process. If you want a real world comparison look no further than HMS Glorious during the invasion of Norway in 1940.

Dafmeister wrote:Shrike, Ferret and Katana-class LACs are all 70-75 metres long; CLACs have a beam five times that. The LAC bays don't reach the core, and their missile reload tubes won't be any bigger than the tubes linking a broadside tube to the magazines.

Relax wrote:Looks in HoS, CLAC's beam is, hmm greater than either the KH1 or KH2 platforms from the drawings.

Now on an SD, one doesn't want a path Through the ship, but on a CLAC? There are already 50 odd holes bored all the way to the core anyways. If you can even call it a core that is. By the time one adds in docking maintenance nose accessories for all practical purposes one LAC bay effectively is directly nosed into the other LAC bay. What is one more in the grand scheme of things?

Actually Dafmeister a CLAC's beam is only about 2.6x as wide as a LAC is long.

From House of Steel
Hydra-class CLAC beam: 188m
Minotaur-class CLAC beam: 189m

Ferret-class LAC lenght: 72m
Katana-class LAC length: 71m
Shrike-B-class LAC length: 72m
Shrike-class LAC length: 71m

I'd already noticed that there's very little room in a CLAC's core, since the LAC bays do reach almost all the way to the center.


I guess Relax is right; if you really wanted to you could build a (nose-first) Keyhole bay in each broadside that each sunk in 89% through the width of the ship. (They'd obviously have to be offset from each other)