Relax wrote: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.
So your saying only the grazer armed LACs could have taken the BCs. Seems a reason to have grazer armed LACs to me. A LACs problem, all the way back to HotQ, was ammo endurance. A grazer uses energy for ammo, so much larger ammo endurance than missiles AND with a much heavier 'payload' than said missiles, since the missile armed Ferrets went after CAs and left the BCs to Shrikes who could actually destroy them. Whether some other tactic or ECM can reduce the effectiveness of Vipers is part and parcel of the armor vs weapon nature of warfare. (In this case, the ship fired Viper is playing the part of armor.)
Relax wrote: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.
I'm failing to see where my following quotes apply to "more LAC's and less hyper capable screen."
Kizarvexis wrote: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.
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.
So covering something with LACs that you don't have enough hyper capable ships of covering is calling for LACs to replace hyper capable units? I don't get it. In my quotes I specifically mentioned rear area support. You know, sending LACs around the system on LONG patrols to try and catch someone pulling an Argus net type of recon or a stealth attack. Not everywhere has Manticore's huge sensor arrays. Long LAC patrols of the hyper limit to catch pirates. Or the idea of LACs for convoy protection, with or without a CLAC along. DW has mentioned using a cargo module to support LACs in a cargo ship to provide protection. So the most dangerous times for a merchant, in descending order, are coming out of hyper inbound to a planet, transiting from one grav wave to another in hyper and heading out to the hyper limit from a planet. ALL places where a grazer armed LAC would be useful vs pirates/raiders. Yes, you can have some parts of even a military convoy less protected than others. In WWII, the troopships were in the middle with the ships carrying material on the edges. Hard on the merchants carrying tanks to be picked off by U-Boats, but kept the harder to replace soldiers safe.
The grazer is ammo independent, so no worries about resupply for a long convoy route which can also apply to combat roles as well.
Relax wrote:**************************
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.
I said,
if (don't miss this word, it is important) a LERM can fit, then sure I can see a LERM armed LAC. Since the Roland DD can barely fit DDMs, I'm thinking they will not fit on a LAC except in a pod based style of use. Now for your 'if it is 70 ton then 90 ton can work as well' plan.
Lets take an look at this another way. You have a box that can hold a dozen donuts. If I give you 16 donuts, you are only going to get to put 12 in the box. Squashing them doesn't count as they are no longer nice donuts then. Saying, well if it can fire a 70 ton missile, which we are not sure it can, then it can fire a 90 ton missile instead could very well be the same as saying 16 donuts will fit where 12 donuts are, even they will not without destroying the donuts. So just because a LAC
might be able to use LERMs, doesn't mean it would use DDMs as well.
Yes, I saw the videos you posted. Since the LAC rotary magazine was introduced, it was not used in larger ships with larger weapons where it would have been a space savings. So something must be restricting its use to smaller missiles.
