New Manty ship ideas.

Compensators either work or don't work, they don't sort of work. Missiles are stated to have compensators built into the drive system. So the missile is in zero g for the entire trip, the only felt acceleration is the grav launcher. Which might also not impose a shock depending on how it works.

And yes, it's certainly possible to design something to handle absurd acceleration. This is logically what David should have done instead of the missile compensator thing, but so it goes.

One wonders if a missilewedge could be added to a ship for a short emergency boost. Say 10 to 20 times normal acceleration for 3 minutes. Give a good 30 to 60 minute boost. Like nitrous for a one shot deal.

Time and again it's shown that it's the compensators that limit the acceleartion of a maned ship, not wedge strength.

Lord Skimper wrote:One wonders if a missilewedge could be added to a ship for a short emergency boost. Say 10 to 20 times normal acceleration for 3 minutes. Give a good 30 to 60 minute boost. Like nitrous for a one shot deal.

No, skimper, one does *not* wonder that. Only *you* wonder that.

Why do I keep clicking on his posts to read them? I have him on ignore for a reason. I suppose it's like watching a train wreck...

Skimper... you've come up with some pretty ridiculous things in the past, but this takes the cake. You obviously have *no* grasp of Honorverse physics. If you had even a basic understanding, you'd know why that thought of yours is one of the stupidest things you've ever written here.

First off, you *can't* give a ship "10 to 20 times normal acceleration for 3 minutes", or even for one second, because the instant you exceed the limit of the compensator, the crew is splattered jelly all over the inside of the ship.

Next, the size of the wedge on a missile - and a CM - is only 10 kilometers on a side (roughly square-shaped), whereas those on ships are between ten and thirty times that size - the wedge on a Star Knight (such as my Fearless) is IIRC about 120-130km on a side, and those on SD-sized ships are 300km. You really think adding a missile wedge is going to add any significant accel?

The reasons that a missile (or CM) wedge can accelerate a missile to those high numbers are:

1) The missiles are unmanned, and so can take higher accel rates than a manned ship.

2) The nodes are extremely overpowered for the size of the missiles, especially those on CMs, since even though a CM is roughly 25% the size of a regular missile, it's wedge is roughly the same size as that of the missile it's trying to take out.

3) Missiles mass much less than a ship, which, combined with their oversized (for their mass) wedges, is what gives them such high accel numbers.

Weird Harold wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:In which case they have to travel a lot of ground to get rearmed.

Agreed. Magazine space in LACs can be a problem, hence the suggestion of loading CM canisters in flat-pack pods set for single-fire as LAC CM reserves.

You do realize I am the one who opened the discussion about CM pods right?

Rakhmamort wrote:THey would also be out of the defensive envelope of the wall and would be vulnerable if the enemy decides to 'sweep' up the pesky anti missile cover.

Aren't LACs the "defensive envelope of the wall?" The wall itself is only the inner layer of the defensive envelope. the further out layers of LACs can be pushed, the better the defense.

As for "sweeping up the pesky anti-missile cover" I'm sure that any commander would like to see his opponent try that:

1) LACs are harder to hit than wallers.
2) an enemy who is shooting at LACs is NOT shooting at my wallers.
3) Ultimately, LACs are expendable and losing LACs instead of wallers is a grim profit, but profit nonetheless.

Do note the exercise where Scottie's LACs were swatted out by missile boats. LACs are hard to hit, if you don't know where they are and if they are moving too fast for your energy batteries to hit. Modern missiles have multiple laser heads. They can hit ships deep inside a very very wide pair of wedges. LACs aren't hidden in that wide of a wedge and even one partial hit destroys a LAC. LACs can be swatted away, don't imagine they are invincible or unhittable.

Rakhmamort wrote:You do realize I am the one who opened the discussion about CM pods right?

Yes, I do realize that. I also realize I'm not talking about "CM Pods," which are theoretical constructs of yours. I'm talking about standard in-service missile pods loaded with in-service canisters of CMs.

The former is an RD project, the latter is a new combination of existing technology -- with possibly one new wrinkle in the single-fire mode. Standard, in-service pods may already have that ability.

Rakhmamort wrote: Do note the exercise where Scottie's LACs were swatted out by missile boats. LACs are hard to hit, if you don't know where they are and if they are moving too fast for your energy batteries to hit. Modern missiles have multiple laser heads. They can hit ships deep inside a very very wide pair of wedges. LACs aren't hidden in that wide of a wedge and even one partial hit destroys a LAC. LACs can be swatted away, don't imagine they are invincible or unhittable.

Yes, LACs can be swatted by alert enemies; I don't think anyone disputes that.

1) Any LAC commander on missile defense duty that gets his ship or squadron within energy range of the enemy should be cashiered, if not executed!

2) If the enemy chooses to expend missiles on LACs, then the LACs have succeeded in keeping those missile from attacking the wall. Not the ideal way to stop missiles, but the end result is the same whether the LAC destroys the missile or the missile destroys the LAC -- that missile (or those missiles) is no threat to your wallers.

3) I would welcome battle against any idiot willing to expend missiles on anti-missile LACs.

Weird Harold wrote:
Yes, I do realize that. I also realize I'm not talking about "CM Pods," which are theoretical constructs of yours. I'm talking about standard in-service missile pods loaded with in-service canisters of CMs.

The former is an RD project, the latter is a new combination of existing technology -- with possibly one new wrinkle in the single-fire mode. Standard, in-service pods may already have that ability.

You do realize this is a thread for NEW designs right? The canisters already exist so they don't fall into that qualification.

Yes, LACs can be swatted by alert enemies; I don't think anyone disputes that.

1) Any LAC commander on missile defense duty that gets his ship or squadron within energy range of the enemy should be cashiered, if not executed!

2) If the enemy chooses to expend missiles on LACs, then the LACs have succeeded in keeping those missile from attacking the wall. Not the ideal way to stop missiles, but the end result is the same whether the LAC destroys the missile or the missile destroys the LAC -- that missile (or those missiles) is no threat to your wallers.

3) I would welcome battle against any idiot willing to expend missiles on anti-missile LACs.

Taking out the AM cover early means your later salvoes go in intact. There is a reason a wall's screen is kept with the wall. So they also gain protection from the wall's defensive capabilities. If you leave your screen out to dry, a wise enemy will make sure you regret wasting such resources.

Hell, if I am the enemy commander and I know my salvos are not going to get thru a wall's defenses because of the added depth provided by the LACs, why would I keep throwing ineffective salvos? Why shouldn't I shift my fire and take out the extra layer of defense and once that is gone, my next salvos will have better chances to get to my real target?

I may not win the battle, but I'm quite sure that the enemy fleet is going to be slowed down because they would have to replenish their LAC screens before they can whack the next system in the line. At this point we know SL needs to delay the GA to give time for their superior manufacturing capabilities to produce decent ships that can face the GA fleet.

Sure, GA fleets can go in without LAC screens, but they would take more damage. That would again slow their advance since they will need to repair the damage.

All in all, taking out the LAC screen isn't as useless or idiotic as you think.

Rakhmamort wrote:You do realize this is a thread for NEW designs right? The canisters already exist so they don't fall into that qualification.

The combination of canisters and flat-packs is new, as is the idea of using that combination to extend LAC capacity. It is a "new idea" that can be implemented quickly.

Rakhmamort wrote:Hell, if I am the enemy commander and I know my salvos are not going to get thru a wall's defenses because of the added depth provided by the LACs, why would I keep throwing ineffective salvos? Why shouldn't I shift my fire and take out the extra layer of defense and once that is gone, my next salvos will have better chances to get to my real target?

If you can target the LAC screen before you get in range of the wall they're protecting, then fire away -- you'll have #%$^& for accuracy against alliance LACs at maximum range, but feel free to thin out the anti-missile defenses.

Once you get into range of the opposing wall, that becomes the greater danger because they can hurt you far more than the LACs can. A missile aimed at the opposing wall might be a golden BB; A missile aimed at the LAC screen has zero chance of killing a waller.

You have to survive shooting at the LACs long enough to try again against the opposing wall. If you're realy in such bad shape you need to fire at the AM screen, your proper course of action would be to strike your wedge and surrender.

Weird Harold wrote:

Rakhmamort wrote:You do realize this is a thread for NEW designs right? The canisters already exist so they don't fall into that qualification.

The combination of canisters and flat-packs is new, as is the idea of using that combination to extend LAC capacity. It is a "new idea" that can be implemented quickly.

Rakhmamort wrote:Hell, if I am the enemy commander and I know my salvos are not going to get thru a wall's defenses because of the added depth provided by the LACs, why would I keep throwing ineffective salvos? Why shouldn't I shift my fire and take out the extra layer of defense and once that is gone, my next salvos will have better chances to get to my real target?

If you can target the LAC screen before you get in range of the wall they're protecting, then fire away -- you'll have #%$^& for accuracy against alliance LACs at maximum range, but feel free to thin out the anti-missile defenses.

Once you get into range of the opposing wall, that becomes the greater danger because they can hurt you far more than the LACs can. A missile aimed at the opposing wall might be a golden BB; A missile aimed at the LAC screen has zero chance of killing a waller.

You have to survive shooting at the LACs long enough to try again against the opposing wall. If you're realy in such bad shape you need to fire at the AM screen, your proper course of action would be to strike your wedge and surrender.

Keep on thinking that enemy commanders would never realize that with the LACs adding depth to the missile defense, their salvos are worth nothing. Even a kid would lash out at the things he can take out instead of whacking against something whose paint he can't even scratch.

Lord Skimper wrote:This also has one wondering how fast / far a keyhole system can travel. Supposedly it has a large battle computer could have powerful sidewalls and should be able to carry launch CM / Vipers. Plus all the PD.

Um, I don't believe keyholes have onboard CMs.

They can act as fire control relays for CMs launched from their parent ships; but (AFAIK) can't launch their own.


Which makes some sense. Even as large as keyhole's are there's not room for them to carry any significant number of CMs. Certainly not compared to the numbers their parent ships does. And even RMN ships can already fire more CMs than they (with their keyholes) can control; so why add size, cost, and complexity to put a few more launchers, with an minimal number of CMs, on a tethered platform?