Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 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 Relax   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:23 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

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

darrell wrote:That post needs to be added to the infodump.


You missed this part:

RFC: "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,"

Also missed, why the $#@ do you want multiple Grasers? The one a Shrike has is already effectively useless.
Last edited by Relax on Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by darrell   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:35 pm

darrell
Rear Admiral

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

3,000 tons is the first I have heard a hard number for the size of a CA graser, thank you KZT.

The shrike graser can't be more than about 4,000 tons and still pack in missiles, CM's, EW, crew quarters, wedge, sidewalls, fission plant and everything else.

This would verify that an energy weapon that would be 1/3 the volume of the shrike graser would be a laser.
IMO probably bigger than a CA laser but smaller than a BC laser, and possibly ablut 1/4 the power of the shrike graser.

Duckk 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.


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.


kzt wrote: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.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Relax   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:41 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

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

The Wolfhound/Roland Grasers are all spinally oriented... That right there should tell you something. ACK! JUST SAW Wolfhound has them broadside with a 29m beam. Obviously a much smaller versions exist.

Shrike had a spinal BC class Graser. So, assume it is 4000tons or so, says a DD Wolfhound Graser is probably no more than 1000 tons. 500tons seems more realistic.

Couragous Light Cruisers in 1820 had broadside grasers...

If a Shrike Graser is 3-4000 tons, this means theoretically you could carry/fire 30-40 MK-16G's... Seems a heck of a lot better option than any small ass graser that cannot penetrate even CA sidewalls...
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:21 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

As I said there is a lot of magic in the shrikes. The BC graser is most of the length of the entire 20,000 ton shrike, so I suspect it is LOT more than 4000 tons, and even more then that when you include the power systems and other essential pieces other then the bare graser.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by darrell   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:21 pm

darrell
Rear Admiral

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

We can go about this another way. DD/CL missiles prewar were 70 tons. Add 50% to allow for feed tubes, storage inefficiencies, and launch tubes.

The shrike will have on the order of 2625 tons in shipkiller missiles.

The ferret will have on the order of 5880 tons in shipkiller missiles.

5880-2625=3225 as the estimated tonnage for the shrike graser, everything else being equal.

If the ferret had twice as many counter missiles than the shrike, (200 vs 100) 1,563 tons to the shrike graser.

So logically, there is your range for the shrike graser, 3,225-4,788 or 4,000 tons plus or minus 750 tons



kzt wrote:As I said there is a lot of magic in the shrikes. The BC graser is most of the length of the entire 20,000 ton shrike, so I suspect it is LOT more than 4000 tons, and even more then that when you include the power systems and other essential pieces other then the bare graser.


Logic, an organized way to go wrong with confidence.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by kzt   » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:33 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

I suspect the launchers and feed mechanism isn't free, and I'm not sure of the actual difference here on my phone.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by Kizarvexis   » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:28 am

Kizarvexis
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:18 pm

kzt wrote: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.


3,000 tons after the miniaturization? If so, then this quote from Mission of Honor would mean that a regular graser is larger and a 3,000 ton graser would not survive firing the first shot.

Whereas the Royal Manticoran Navy had concentrated on improving the efficiency of its standard laser heads, Daniel Detweiler's R&D staff had taken another approach. They'd figured out how to squeeze what amounted to a cruiser-grade graser projector into something small enough to deploy independently.
The power of the torpedo's graser wasn't remotely comparable to that of the weapon mounted by current-generation Shrikes, yet it was more powerful than any single bomb-pumped laser head. Of course, there was only one of it in each torpedo, but R&D had decided the new weapon could sacrifice the laser head's multi-shot capability, because it offered three highly significant advantages of its own. First, it was just as hard to pick up as a spider-drive ship, and the best anti-missile defense in the universe couldn't hit something it didn't know was coming. Second, the torpedo carried extraordinarily capable sensors and targeting systems and an AI which approached the capability of the one Sonja Hemphill's people had fitted into the Apollo control missile. As a consequence, its long-range hit probability was significantly higher on a per-beam basis than anything short of Apollo itself. And, third, a bomb-pulsed laser had a burst endurance of barely five thousandths of a second; a laser torpedo's graser's endurance was a full three seconds . . . and it had a burn-through range against most sidewalls of over fifty thousand kilometers.
Fitting all that into something the size of a torpedo had required some drastic engineering compromises, and there'd never been any possibility of squeezing in the power supply for more than a single shot. Even if there had been, no one could build a graser that small and that powerful which could survive the power bleed and waste heat of actually firing. But that was fine with the MAN's designers and tacticians. In fact, they were just as happy every graser torpedo would irrevocably and totally destroy itself in the moment it fired, since they weren't looking forward to the day one of their enemies finally captured one intact and figured out how to duplicate it.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by darrell   » Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:47 am

darrell
Rear Admiral

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

You can't use the graser torpedo as a basis for size, there is too many differences.

First, the duration of fire is a full three seconds vs a fraction of a second for a shipboard unit.

Second, the entire graser torpedo is 3,000 tons, the graser head is just a fraction of that.

Kizarvexis wrote:
kzt wrote: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.


3,000 tons after the miniaturization? If so, then this quote from Mission of Honor would mean that a regular graser is larger and a 3,000 ton graser would not survive firing the first shot.

Whereas the Royal Manticoran Navy had concentrated on improving the efficiency of its standard laser heads, Daniel Detweiler's R&D staff had taken another approach. They'd figured out how to squeeze what amounted to a cruiser-grade graser projector into something small enough to deploy independently.
The power of the torpedo's graser wasn't remotely comparable to that of the weapon mounted by current-generation Shrikes, yet it was more powerful than any single bomb-pumped laser head. Of course, there was only one of it in each torpedo, but R&D had decided the new weapon could sacrifice the laser head's multi-shot capability, because it offered three highly significant advantages of its own. First, it was just as hard to pick up as a spider-drive ship, and the best anti-missile defense in the universe couldn't hit something it didn't know was coming. Second, the torpedo carried extraordinarily capable sensors and targeting systems and an AI which approached the capability of the one Sonja Hemphill's people had fitted into the Apollo control missile. As a consequence, its long-range hit probability was significantly higher on a per-beam basis than anything short of Apollo itself. And, third, a bomb-pulsed laser had a burst endurance of barely five thousandths of a second; a laser torpedo's graser's endurance was a full three seconds . . . and it had a burn-through range against most sidewalls of over fifty thousand kilometers.
Fitting all that into something the size of a torpedo had required some drastic engineering compromises, and there'd never been any possibility of squeezing in the power supply for more than a single shot. Even if there had been, no one could build a graser that small and that powerful which could survive the power bleed and waste heat of actually firing. But that was fine with the MAN's designers and tacticians. In fact, they were just as happy every graser torpedo would irrevocably and totally destroy itself in the moment it fired, since they weren't looking forward to the day one of their enemies finally captured one intact and figured out how to duplicate it.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by kzt   » Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:54 am

kzt
Fleet Admiral

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

darrell wrote:You can't use the graser torpedo as a basis for size, there is too many differences.

First, the duration of fire is a full three seconds vs a fraction of a second for a shipboard unit.

Second, the entire graser torpedo is 3,000 tons, the graser head is just a fraction of that.

Nope. Graser Tops are BIG. They are too big to fit into the missile pods bays of the Sharks. 3000 tons is vaguely missile pod scale based on the what most commenters here have written.

David was very clear that the graser alone was about 3000 tons. I suspect you are dealing with a LAC scale weapon, in the 10-20K ton range, which is why the sharks had a jury-rigged rail system bolted onto the exterior of the ship to carry a few tops each.
Top
Re: New LAC's
Post by munroburton   » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:13 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

darrell wrote:You can't use the graser torpedo as a basis for size, there is too many differences.

First, the duration of fire is a full three seconds vs a fraction of a second for a shipboard unit.

Second, the entire graser torpedo is 3,000 tons, the graser head is just a fraction of that.


IIRC, the shipboard versions can go to continuous fire for several seconds, at the same cost of destroying the firing weapon. Terekhov did it at Hyacinth. The fractional-second pulse is standard because they want to use the shipboard units more than once and without killing their gun crews.

Granted, the torpedo version probably carries fewer cooling systems pertinent to the firing function, since its self-destruction is desirable. However, that simply means a LAC mounted version would need those systems, adding to the mass required.
Top

Return to Honorverse