Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jonathan_S and 60 guests

New LAC's

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: New LAC's
Post by Brigade XO   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:28 pm

Brigade XO
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: KY

Ok, Where did RFC talk about this Modular LAC?

I'd forgotten about the smaller "battle carrier" set up for hot replenishment. I believe those would be smaller. The thing is, you still have to make a decision about your CLAC load-out before you sent it off.

The question of how you currently load-out a CLAC should be fairly straight forward: It's mission based. If you are sending a CLAC somewhere, you are going to attempt to customize the LAC mix to the planned mission. So depending on what the intent is. Heavy (but perhaps not more than 80 or 90%) Katana for anti-LAC or anti-missile. Think Home Fleet kind of work and in addition to the LACs deployed in the system, you have some in the ultimate movable base-a CLAC- that really can move around or even jump between the binary systems.. Going raiding and you load heavy with Ferret helped with Katana for at least the CLAC's defense since you might just have to deal with local defending ships trying to take out your "carrier". Going for a major strike and you load Shrikes, again with some of both Katana and Ferret for your own defense- again to protect the CLAC or perhaps your logistic train/ammunition ships

There are two other general CLAC load groupings we have to consider.

The 1st is what do you carry for the Wing if you are "just" going on a patrol/mission, are a warship but not tasked for any particular strike mission? I don't know, I don't think we have been told.

The 2nd is the job those CLACs were doing when they were grabbed by Mike for 10th Fleet when they showed up in Talbott Sector tasked to deliver LACs, LAC crews (in Squadrons), equipment, ammo, simulators, manintence shops, maintence people, trainers and a bunch of other stuff as baseline System Defense Units to the new Manticorian systems. Sure, a bunch of equipmenet and ammo may have been on accompanying transports, but the CLACs were being used to ferry the LAC Squadrons to their new postings to both defend and train people to use & maintain LACs as SDF's. Haul at least a full compliment (plus a bunch of stairs/extras) with trained-and trained together as at least Squadrons- crews LACs to deploy in the various Talbott systems in addition to any hypercapable warships which might be stationed at one or crusing among several of the star systems for local defence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Duckk   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:35 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Ok, Where did RFC talk about this Modular LAC?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1706&p=34143
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:10 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Duckk wrote:
Ok, Where did RFC talk about this Modular LAC?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1706&p=34143

Upon rereading that I see I'd forgotten that RFC accompanied this modular LAC idea with "specialized forward support ships which could carry spare modules and change them out before a given engagement".

So it seems the CLAC wouldn't be the one carrying these spares (or at least not most of them). It would be something like a new fast freighter variant that would be part of the attached fleet train. And if you're still preceding raids or attacks with DD and recon drone scouting of the system then at your last minute deep-space rendezvous (where the fleet gets the final intel dump from the scouts and makes the final pre-attack tweaks to their plans) is also probably where you'd make a final determination of module loadout for the attack.

At that point the support ship and the rest of the attached fleet train can wait there (or move to a new post-battle rendezvous site) while the warships make the short jump to the target system.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:15 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

The E wrote:I wouldn't say that. They were useless in a situation where both sides were prepared for them, but I don't think that sort of situation is likely to appear in the normal day-to-day operations in peacetime, or when fighting an enemy that doesn't have CLACs or a proper anti-LAC doctrine. Shrikes are still some of the most effective system defence platforms available right now, and are more than capable of eating unlucky pirates.

Given that pirates are typically a rowboat with a popgun per David's descriptions, can you suggest exactly which LAC is incapable of destroying unlucky pirates? I'd suggest that Katana's are not ideal, but they would still work loaded with vipers.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Relax   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:57 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Shrikes are a dead end technology: What can they do that a Ferret/Katana can not? Attack CA/BC's armor more effectively. How realistic is this? Not at all.

1) In the near future everyone will have RD's with endurance. Shrikes cannot count on stealth.

2) Someone else will figure out how to make Vipers, at which point Shrikes miniscule number of CM's will bite them in the rear. Just as happened to the RHN Cimetteres who attacked, uh tried attacking, RMN units firing Vipers out of their CM tubes... They were obliterated... quickly.

Range kills every time.

So, realistically, CLAC loadouts going forward will be Ferret/Katana with maybe one squadron of Shrikes for orbital infrastructure destruction. Of course can they do this faster than say, a CM, obliterating the infrastructure using its wedge? I would say; no. I personally, would leave all Shrikes, on the scrap heap of military history.

Today, the equivalent of the Shrike(graser) would be a swarm of boats that have to RAM a ship and blow a hole in its side using contact explosives... Beyond stupid. All one has to do is place TOW missiles or 70mm guided rockets from Army units on a NAVY ship(gasp no!) and viola the problem is solved. Realistically, a swarm of small boats in a real world scenario today would be more analogous to the Ferret. Automated "PT boats" effectively with a load-out of torpedoes.

EDIT: Shrikes "revolver" magazines waste space as well. Don't ask me the reason DW went with a revolver magazine in the first place. Revolver guns are made today and yesteryear because they are dirt simple to produce, not because they are small or volume efficient.
Last edited by Relax on Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by darrell   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:59 pm

darrell
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:57 am

That post needs to be added to the infodump.

In the first paragraph it says:
A ships Graser is more powerful than a ships laser.
A ships Graser is longer ranged than a ships laser.
A ships Graser is bigger than a ships laser.
A 1K ton Graser is more powerful than a 1K ton laser.

In the second paragraph is says """Lasers are shorter ranged and provide less punch, but they are also substantially less massive.""""

The rest of the post says why pre laserhead ships were designed with a mix of lasers and grasers. It also said that the reason that grayson went with all graser broadside was because most of those considerations became obsolete with the introduction of the laserhead.

we actually do see grasers on older light cruisers. In "On Basilisk Station" when discussing the modification of the fearless, we find that the light cruiser lost "All four graser mounts," but kept both lasers in each broadside.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/85/1
Roland-class destroyer
Chase energy armament: 4 "CA-scale" grasers; 2 each forward & aft

That is hard proof that there is both CA and CL scale grasers, which kills your belief that a graser 1/3 the size of the shrike can't exist.

Duckk wrote:
You are bringing something in that I have not ever seen before, the fact that there is a minimum size for grasers. As most destroyers have grasers and most SD's have lasers I didn't consider that.

OK, change Graser to Energy weapon. Size the ENERGY WEAPON to the weapons volume. Make it the most powerful energy weapon with a volume (with capacitor rings and other support) that will fit within 1/5 of the offensive weapons volume.


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3079&p=67147

Grasers: Grasers are longer-ranged and more powerful than lasers, both absolutely and on a ton-for-ton basis. Their minimum size and mass is greater than for an effective shipboard laser, but they are substantially more destructive.

Plus, again, logic indicates otherwise. If it were possible to scale graser down so small, we would have seen them somewhere. They would have been on older destroyers and cruisers. They would have been on Havenite LACs. They would have been somewhere. Their complete and utter absence everywhere should be proof enough that it's not possible.

Most destroyers have grasers. In addition, "On Basilisk Station" the light cruiser fearless, before it was gutted had twice as many grasers than lasers in each broadside. That is 4 grasers and 2 lasers in each broadside. If the minimum size for a destroyer or small light cruisers graser is thousands of tons, than why did beauships build fearless with more grasers than lasers??? They could have gone with 1 graser and more than a dozen lasers.


I looked over HoS again, and it takes until the Wolfhound - 1919PD design nearly the size of a light cruiser - for a destroyer to mount a graser.

As for light cruisers, the Courageous was noted for being needlessly overgunned. The none of the more modern classes mounted grasers until the Avalon-class, another 1919 design.

Not only that, SVW specifically says "Ships smaller than light cruisers are normally so cramped for weapons space that they have pure laser energy armaments."
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:15 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

darrell wrote:we actually do see grasers on older light cruisers. In "On Basilisk Station" when discussing the modification of the fearless, we find that the light cruiser lost "All four graser mounts," but kept both lasers in each broadside.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/85/1
Roland-class destroyer
Chase energy armament: 4 "CA-scale" grasers; 2 each forward & aft

That is hard proof that there is both CA and CL scale grasers, which kills your belief that a graser 1/3 the size of the shrike can't exist.
Um, no it doesn't. You demonstrated something we already knew, it was possible to put a graser into a CA or CL. That doesn't demonstrate anything about their size relative to BC scale grasers.

If the comparison I did between DD scale and BC scale lasers is any indication a CL scale graser is going to be closer to 60% the size of a BC's than it is to 33%. The emitter diameter probably went down by less than half, and the length probably decreased by a lesser percentage than that.

(And given that Duckk is the one with access to the secret tech bible, which has far more details than make it into House of Steel, he's working off more information than we have; even if he'd usually not free to share the details.
He can still forget or overlook things; but I'd side with him here even if the limited public info wasn't pointing in the same direction)
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:16 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

David mentioned, when discussing the Graser torpedo, that a cruser scale graser (just the actual weapon itself - not tracking, power, etc) massed about 3000 tons.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by darrell   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:18 pm

darrell
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:57 am

I don't believe that shrikes are dead, they have a range advantage. Their shipkiller missiles have double the range of viper missiles and their graser has 5 times the range of a katana's PDLC's.

For every weapon, there is a counter, for every counter there is a weapon.

What happens if the SL attacks Montana with a squadron of CA's? If all montana has is Katana's, Montana is toast unless it surrenders. A few squadrons of Shrikes could hand those soly CA's their head.

Relax wrote:Shrikes are a dead end technology: What can they do that a Ferret/Katana can not? Attack CA/BC's armor more effectively. How realistic is this? Not at all.

1) In the near future everyone will have RD's with endurance. Shrikes cannot count on stealth.

2) Someone else will figure out how to make Vipers, at which point Shrikes miniscule number of CM's will bite them in the rear. Just as happened to the RHN Cimetteres who attacked, uh tried attacking, RMN units firing Vipers out of their CM tubes... They were obliterated... quickly.

Range kills every time.

So, realistically, CLAC loadouts going forward will be Ferret/Katana with maybe one squadron of Shrikes for orbital infrastructure destruction. Of course can they do this faster than say, a CM, obliterating the infrastructure using its wedge? I would say; no. I personally, would leave all Shrikes, on the scrap heap of military history.

Today, the equivalent of the Shrike(graser) would be a swarm of boats that have to RAM a ship and blow a hole in its side using contact explosives... Beyond stupid. All one has to do is place TOW missiles or 70mm guided rockets from Army units on a NAVY ship(gasp no!) and viola the problem is solved. Realistically, a swarm of small boats in a real world scenario today would be more analogous to the Ferret. Automated "PT boats" effectively with a load-out of torpedoes.

EDIT: Shrikes "revolver" magazines waste space as well. Don't ask me the reason DW went with a revolver magazine in the first place. Revolver guns are made today and yesteryear because they are dirt simple to produce, not because they are small or volume efficient.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Duckk   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:18 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

we actually do see grasers on older light cruisers. In "On Basilisk Station" when discussing the modification of the fearless, we find that the light cruiser lost "All four graser mounts," but kept both lasers in each broadside.


I know. That's why I said "As for light cruisers, the Courageous was noted for being needlessly overgunned." The Courageous-class is the class of CLs that old Fearless belonged to. The point was that the Courageouses were heavily compromised to cram in those grasers.

Roland-class destroyer
Chase energy armament: 4 "CA-scale" grasers; 2 each forward & aft

That is hard proof that there is both CA and CL scale grasers, which kills your belief that a graser 1/3 the size of the shrike can't exist.


I know there are CA sized grasers. The whole argument is that they aren't as small as you think they are. To fit them in, the Rolands had to go with ridiculously oversized hammerheads, and had to go with spinal mounts which extend the weapons past the impeller rings, deeper into the core hull.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top

Return to Honorverse