New LAC's

Duckk wrote:

Ok, Where did RFC talk about this Modular LAC?

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

Thank you. I recall the conversation now, I just forgot the part about Modular LACs. Perhaps I forgot it because I don't think that would be the way to go...big smile.


Another question to ask- and we won't have the answer or rational for a while- is what would be the difference in time and complexity for swapping out modules vs. 1) rearming LACs in a combat situation or 2) swapping out the missile loads on LACs if you arrive at your target or have a situation develop where you are standing and need to change weapons profiles at least on the missiles?

We know that at least one variation of LAC is set up such that it's missile tubes(or magazine feeds) (and countermeasure and consumables) are at the front and the LAC more or less plugs it's nose into a section of bay wall and can resupply w/o having crew go EVA or leave the ship.
I guess the question becomes: What tactical advantage does the proposed modular system bring and what are the trade-offs?

John Prigent wrote:Darrell, I'm thinking about the space needed to store the actual modules - not the space needed for ammunition to refill them after use. Even if stowed fully loaded, each module is going to take up space that was previously used for those reloads - and I don't see how the interchangeable module can NOT be bigger than the ammo load that fits inside it.
Cheers
John

Yes, and No.

Yes, it will take more volume, but no, it will not take as much as one thinks.

LAC's are always going to have CM' magazines. Personally, I would assume that extra CM magazine space will be folded into the LAC hull itself. It is also rather logical that the CM magazine racks in the LAC's will also work for larger anti ship missiles as well. We can assume this scenario is done in several ways using just tech from today even without grav collars/pressors in the honorverse which makes automated missile movement rather simplistic.

Honestly, I see any LAC still firing the 70 ton CA grade missiles as a waste going forward. To start with said CA grade missile is only good for OLD CA grade sidewalls going forward and not modern CA's. Far prefer either 100% Viper, or Viper/CM mix, or CM/MK-16G/LERM mix. Essentially, new LAC's going forward will have larger Missile tubes able to fire the MK-16 or LERM as their standard CM/missile tubes. A merger between Ferret/Katana. Anti LAC is not a mission parameter anymore as your base ships can fire Vipers and your LAC's still have vipers/SD PDLC, so sacrificing a bit of mass for the ability for much longer range missile fire seems rather obvious.

So, the only "module" is the difference between his proposed PDLC's trade out for his mini Grasers. Personally, I think a much more viable option is to take the EXISTING SD PDLC mount with its ~14 LASERS and possibly make it switchable for a single Graser using the same power bus. Still a complete waste as cannot get up the kilt shots anymore against modern units with different types of bow/kilt partial/full walls.

Personally, I see any Graser on a LAC as a complete waste. Any obsolete pirate is already going to be quickly destroyed by standard missiles.

As I read it, the advantage isn't tactical, it's operational. You don't have to dedicate CLACs to specific classes of engagement when the wing is embarked.

Brigade XO wrote:

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

Thank you. I recall the conversation now, I just forgot the part about Modular LACs. Perhaps I forgot it because I don't think that would be the way to go...big smile.


Another question to ask- and we won't have the answer or rational for a while- is what would be the difference in time and complexity for swapping out modules vs. 1) rearming LACs in a combat situation or 2) swapping out the missile loads on LACs if you arrive at your target or have a situation develop where you are standing and need to change weapons profiles at least on the missiles?

We know that at least one variation of LAC is set up such that it's missile tubes(or magazine feeds) (and countermeasure and consumables) are at the front and the LAC more or less plugs it's nose into a section of bay wall and can resupply w/o having crew go EVA or leave the ship.
I guess the question becomes: What tactical advantage does the proposed modular system bring and what are the trade-offs?

Louis R wrote:As I read it, the advantage isn't tactical, it's operational. You don't have to dedicate CLACs to specific classes of engagement when the wing is embarked.

Arguably if you're talking about system defense LAC bases it might be somewhere in the middle; depending on how long it takes to swap a weapons module.

If you can do it quickly enough though, and also assuming a good enough sensor/recon setup, you can get a good look at the composition of an inbound raid/attack and tune your LAC armaments modules to more optimally counter it. Swap modules around, then head out of the base.

But it probably takes too long to do the swap to actually count on pulling that off and still getting the LACs to a good engagement possition.

If you hangar the LACs without a module, it might be doable in 1/2 hour or so, assuming you have a full set of handling equipment for each bay. In most cases that would be fast enough.

I'm not convinced I'd want to do it that way, and, of course, it won't help with whatever percentage of your force is out on patrol, but it's something to keep in mind.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Louis R wrote:As I read it, the advantage isn't tactical, it's operational. You don't have to dedicate CLACs to specific classes of engagement when the wing is embarked.

Arguably if you're talking about system defense LAC bases it's might somewhere in the middle; depending on how long it takes to swap a weapons module.

If you can do it quickly enough though, and also assuming a good enough sensor/recon setup, you can get a good look at the composition of an inbound raid/attack and tune your LAC armaments modules to more optimally counter it. Swap modules around, then head out of the base.

But it probably takes too long to do the swap to actually count on pulling that off and still getting the LACs to a good engagement possition.

Looking at basic logistics in engineering.

Missile tubes are not a problem for C&C loop. But PDLC's or Grasers? Lets look at the calibration required.

Lets assume the Sensors for detection the position of incoming missiles do not get modularized and MOVED(might not be true, could make more sense to incorporate these sensors directly into the PDLC mount.

So, these sensors are in a fixed known position. Under normal LAC non modular working environment, the PDLC/GRASER mounts are at known positions once the LAC comes up to temperature and the structure stops growing due to thermal expansion. Likewise the structural deflections due to maneuvering are also known due to TESTING. Therefore when the shot of the PDLC at an incoming missile, the sensors and the PDLC are aligned.

Lets look at the radial accuracy required. Start non moving object and non moving LAC. Easiest Scenario. Radial accuracy required on a 1m target at 100,000km for a PDLC is arctan of 1m/100,000,000m. Of course the SD PDLC's are 1m/200,000km and worse yet for the Grasers at 500,000km, but lets make our life easier and use powers of 10. Now due to basic geometry we know that the same error radial angle must be present at the PDLC mount as well. How long is the PDLC mount(modular)? Lets call it 1m. Therefore the the maximum allowable PDLC mount error is 0.000000001 over said 1m.

Or 1 nanometers. = 10 Angstroms.

10 angstroms, depending on the material used is ~approx~ 5-10 atoms thick.

In short the modules in question better not have a single spec of dust, scratch, hair, flake of skin, or fingerprint on the mating surface. Irregardless of how you would manufacture such a device. Lets just assume one could actually build such a device. Of course a single degree celsius of thermal expansion will grown said PDLC far more than 10A...

How realistic is that on something that is being moved around multiple times and having maintenance done on it? Then add in slop in the mechanism that latches these face modules onto the front of the LAC.

Now, could you have an automatic calibration system that adjusts for this difference in position? Split diffraction laser inferometer for instance? In three dimensions? Might have to have such a system in place due to simple maneuvering stresses placed on the LAC already. Difference in the structural deflection between 1g maneuver and a 0g maneuver will warp the PDLC/Sensor alignment. Offhand I would say this is already highly likely if one believes one is going to actually hit anything with a PDLC. Such a system would have to be in place for the electro-mechanical adjustment for tracking the moving object and placement of the lens in question.

Of course at the alignment required here, a simple discharge of electro static/magnetic forces, say charging the PDLC to fire it... is going to move the lattice structure of the material itself changing the reflective properties of the material in question throwing off the inferrometer and therefore its aiming accuracy...

Enjoy your engineering 101...

LAC bays in a combat environment would have to be cleaner than the cleanest clean room here on earth....... Yea... phttttttt....

Shhhhh, don't worry, grasers hitting at 500,000 or 1,000,000 km would "only" require 1 angstrom out of alignment or less than half of a single average atomic radii nucli......

Relax wrote:Honestly, I see any LAC still firing the 70 ton CA grade missiles as a waste going forward. To start with said CA grade missile is only good for OLD CA grade sidewalls going forward and not modern CA's. Far prefer either 100% Viper, or Viper/CM mix, or CM/MK-16G/LERM mix. Essentially, new LAC's going forward will have larger Missile tubes able to fire the MK-16 or LERM as their standard CM/missile tubes. A merger between Ferret/Katana. Anti LAC is not a mission parameter anymore as your base ships can fire Vipers and your LAC's still have vipers/SD PDLC, so sacrificing a bit of mass for the ability for much longer range missile fire seems rather obvious.

Since the Roland Class DD can barely fit DDMs in a chase armament, I highly doubt a LAC can carry one with the feed lines and magazines. I can see attaching pods for DDM/MDM use, but not internally. A LERM armed LAC could be possible, if it is small enough.

Anti-LAC will still be a mission even though ships can fire vipers as LACs will usually outnumber ships. They can protect the less valuable areas of something to be defended that you don't have enough ships to cover. Not to mention long range patrolling for systems without sensitive detection arrays.

Relax wrote:Personally, I see any Graser on a LAC as a complete waste. Any obsolete pirate is already going to be quickly destroyed by standard missiles.

Yes, the small time frigate sized pirate is not the equal of any modern LAC squadron. But as far back as Cdre Edward Saganami, other star nations were subsidizing pirates with better ships. While all the Peep stragglers are likely gone, the League is fast falling apart with a breath taking array of ship classes, possibly even up to SDs, to slip through navy control. Look at all the BCs that got out before the League started to fall apart. So rear area security with LACs, even with grazers, helps to free more hyper capable ships for front line duty. Not to mention, behind the lines raiding will likely be done with BC's or lighter for lightly defended systems, where the LACs would be posted, so grazers with a mix of other types would be useful there.

As for LAC strikes on a navy fleet, the BoM LAC strike on 2nd Fleet was the worst possible attack, straight ahead to point blank range with no subtlety.

roughly from the text
RoH loses the screen
~1200 Haven LACs ~18k dead
~33 BCs ~77k dead
~41 CAs ~50k dead
145k dead total

Alliance ~200 LACs left
~2300 Manty LACs ~23k dead

In the cold calculus of war, it was still a favorable rate of exchange to defend your home system. Against a smaller fleet and able to use better tactics, it may work even better.

Rear areas will be held by LAC's with these new fangled things called missile pods... against real threats. Not their Grasers.

Your BOMA numbers are yesteryear numbers. While nice, fall very far short of modern reality. If said RHN screen had Vipers in their CM tubes, all those BC's would still be alive for starters and all those Shrikes would not ever have gotten the opportunity to use their Grasers. The Ferrets/Shrikes still would have done their damage against the CA's though.

Lets use your argument which oh coincidentally is also my argument; you argued for more LAC's and less hyper capable screen. Ergo, said GRASER armed LAC's really will not have any targets now and will be at a severe disadvantage due to loss of volume to a useless Graser.

**************************
LERM: 70ish tons (280m^3)
MK16 90ish tons (360m^3)(0.25 density)
^80 m^3.
If MK 16 2m radius(2m d) length = 28m
... Obviously missiles do not adhere to the 0.25ton/m^3 rule. Or do they? Judging by human scale drawing posted by MaxxQ... no. http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/Family-Portrait-002-465723413 As DW has the MK16's with a triple feed length and we know they fit broadside in SAG-C. Launch Tube/Energizer station/Feed que(Not breach loaded)... Of course Maxx-Q shows MK-13 being breach loaded into the missile firing tube so.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i99Ufp_wAnQ Why can they not also do so for the Mk16? So, could easily be shot out with a LAC.

End result, if LAC can fire LERM, can just as easily fire MK16 as the only difference is the MK16 is slightly longer it would appear from his drawing.

First, each weapon pack would carry the ammunition for the tube, so there will be no long missile feed tubes like in the ferret. I agree that DD missiles are not the best solution, which is why I am proposing that one of the weapons packs is designed for the component LAC to carry Mk-16's, not DD missiles.

The shrike has something on the order of 60% of it's offensive weapons volume being used by the graser. That means that in the shrike each revolver magazine and missile tube only takes up 10% of the offensive weapons volume. By making all 5 weapons blisters the same size at 20% each weapons pack will be twice the size of the revolver missile tube on the shrike.

Since each blister is twice as big as the shrike 5 round revolver missile tube, I don't see a reason that a shipkiller weapons pack couldn't be built that held 10 DD shipkiller missiles. That would be 50 shipkiller missiles (with five tubes) vs the 56 shipkiller missiles the ferret has.

IMO a better option is to create a shipkiller weapons pack that would fire MK-16 missiles. Since the Mk-23 is 120 tons, that should place the Mk-16 at somewhere APPROXIMATELY 90 tons, and a stand alone weapons pack should be able to be built that would hold 6-8 MK-16's.

Relax wrote:Honestly, I see any LAC still firing the 70 ton CA grade missiles as a waste going forward. To start with said CA grade missile is only good for OLD CA grade sidewalls going forward and not modern CA's. Far prefer either 100% Viper, or Viper/CM mix, or CM/MK-16G/LERM mix. Essentially, new LAC's going forward will have larger Missile tubes able to fire the MK-16 or LERM as their standard CM/missile tubes. A merger between Ferret/Katana. Anti LAC is not a mission parameter anymore as your base ships can fire Vipers and your LAC's still have vipers/SD PDLC, so sacrificing a bit of mass for the ability for much longer range missile fire seems rather obvious.

As far as aiming the PDLC's and engergy clusters you are right about the accuracy. You forget that at that accuracy minor temperature variations in the hull will be able to skew things the 10 angrastums to create a miss, so there has to be some sort of automatic correcting mechanism, of all grasers, lasers, and PDLC's on all warships, probably part of the grav lens. I don't see why that isn't the case with energy weapons and PDLC's that are part of the weapons packs. Worst case scenario, shortly after the LAC lauches it can test fire each energy weapon and find out how much the installation is off. Targeting could then say, The weapon fires 56 angstrums positive in the X axis, 96 angstrums negative in the Y axes, correct your aim in the future.

Relax wrote:Looking at basic logistics in engineering.

Missile tubes are not a problem for C&C loop. But PDLC's or Grasers? Lets look at the calibration required.


So, these sensors are in a fixed known position. Under normal LAC non modular working environment, the PDLC/GRASER mounts are at known positions once the LAC comes up to temperature and the structure stops growing due to thermal expansion. Likewise the structural deflections due to maneuvering are also known due to TESTING. Therefore when the shot of the PDLC at an incoming missile, the sensors and the PDLC are aligned.

Lets look at the radial accuracy required. Start non moving object and non moving LAC. Easiest Scenario. Radial accuracy required on a 1m target at 100,000km for a PDLC is arctan of 1m/100,000,000m. Of course the SD PDLC's are 1m/200,000km and worse yet for the Grasers at 500,000km, but lets make our life easier and use powers of 10. Now due to basic geometry we know that the same error radial angle must be present at the PDLC mount as well. How long is the PDLC mount(modular)? Lets call it 1m. Therefore the the maximum allowable PDLC mount error is 0.000000001 over said 1m.

10 angstroms, depending on the material used is ~approx~ 5-10 atoms thick.

In short the modules in question better not have a single spec of dust, scratch, hair, flake of skin, or fingerprint on the mating surface. Irregardless of how you would manufacture such a device. Lets just assume one could actually build such a device. Of course a single degree celsius of thermal expansion will grown said PDLC far more than 10A...

How realistic is that on something that is being moved around multiple times and having maintenance done on it? Then add in slop in the mechanism that latches these face modules onto the front of the LAC.

Now, could you have an automatic calibration system that adjusts for this difference in position? Split diffraction laser inferometer for instance? In three dimensions? Might have to have such a system in place due to simple maneuvering stresses placed on the LAC already. Difference in the structural deflection between 1g maneuver and a 0g maneuver will warp the PDLC/Sensor alignment. Offhand I would say this is already highly likely if one believes one is going to actually hit anything with a PDLC. Such a system would have to be in place for the electro-mechanical adjustment for tracking the moving object and placement of the lens in question.

Of course at the alignment required here, a simple discharge of electro static/magnetic forces, say charging the PDLC to fire it... is going to move the lattice structure of the material itself changing the reflective properties of the material in question throwing off the inferrometer and therefore its aiming accuracy...

Enjoy your engineering 101...

LAC bays in a combat environment would have to be cleaner than the cleanest clean room here on earth....... Yea... phttttttt....

Shhhhh, don't worry, grasers hitting at 500,000 or 1,000,000 km would "only" require 1 angstrom out of alignment or less than half of a single average atomic radii nucli......

So mystically you can fit 1/2 the launchers of a Roland and 1/5th of it's magazines in a ship 11% of the size? Yeah, right, pull the other one.

It's noted that the 54 meter width of a Roland is too narrow to fit broadside launchers, while the 76 meter with of a Sag C is wide enough, so a ship needs at least 30 meters of length to mount a Mark 16 launcher. So each of your modules needs to be 30+ meters long. Given that a LAC is only 76 meters long this seems like a problem.

The best part is that Mark 16 missiles require an operating DD class fusion reactor for reactor start up. (Don't ask me why, it's David's world) So you now have fit an entire fusion reactor and fuel system, which means that you have a much larger engineering section compared to the (magical) shrike fission reactor.

So now to fit the fusion reactor and absurd amount of fuel (which David says fusion reactors require) the weapon fraction is significantly reduced. Plus you have the increased crew needed to run a DD fusion reactor.

So no, this is absurd.