New LAC's

Kizarvexis wrote:

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

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,

Why are you applying pirate problems to modern LAC design?

Lets just assume for a moment that we are also talking about raiding squadrons at the hyper limit...

How are LAC's going to magically police the hyper limit? They can't. It takes them an HOUR to get out there. Whereas a hyper capable ship with hot nodes takes minutes. So, NO, LAC's will not be used at the hyper limit to protect incoming merchant marine.

And please, do not bring up the brain drain stupid point that they could engage. No they could never engage, as you see any LAC outside the hyperlimit is fish in the barrel. Any ship with a hyper generator just hypers out when a LAC gets within 500,000km, hypers back in 1M km away and blows the stupid technological inferior POS Graser Shrike back assward to the scrap pile where it belogns.

Now, you could argue, for all systems to set up a Cerberus style entry point. So, what is going to hold this system hyperlimit entry point? Pods. What is going to control those pods? A fort, with LAC's as anti missile defense. Great, we now have LAC's at the hyper limit. How is a Graser going to work here? What is the Range again? Millions of kilometers. Lets assume someone jumped in even closer. Why use expensive human crewed LAC's? What happened to the Graser/Laser Mines that are dirt cheap? Deterrent is the Pods of missiles or those in the LAC's.

Do the Math. Even if someone jumps in 2.5 million kilometers from you. Your LAC has 0 initial velocity. Time required to get to Graser range is over 13minutes. Every single missile has already been long since fired. Leaving you going up against a Ship with hundreds/thousands of Vipers in its hold which oh-by-the-way have already been fired at you as you are within easy range, and most likely you are already dead.

No pirate is going to raid a system defended by missile pods/LAC. The only credible threat is a raiding force. Said LAC's will not have stealth due to raiding forces RD's, so unlike Hancock, they cannot get close. Instead all Shrike "strikes" will end just as badly as all of those in War of Honor and AAC.

Why do you wish to believe that the clock is going backwards to before WoH, AAC, etc?

Relax wrote:Shall we look at basic nuclear physics? For the so called fusion reactors that are so "dangerous"?


alpha particles,
beta particles,
neutrons,
gamma rays, and
X-rays.

Alpha particles are stopped by a piece of paper or air
Beta is stopped by aluminum foil
Neutrons are stopped by high hydrogen materials such as plastics

gamma/Xrays are essentially the same coin but different energy levels. Only these actually require much shielding. Might have noticed, but the Honorverse has this nifty thing called radiation shielding...

In either case, radiation poisoning is not a problem which is where almost all the "nuclear" problems exist and almost all of those problems are due to FISSION, not Fusion. Besides, these micro fusion reactors are turned on for a matter of seconds before firing. Some radiation getting out is not a problem. When these micro Fusion devices are fired, radiation might be emitted, but fusion by products are not, so at worst this is like getting a tan. It is the LOTS that is the problem.

Stop getting your information regarding nuclear physics from Hollywood stupidity.

***** Did you know that a lot of food is cleaned via radiation? ***** It is a cheap way of "tanning" the food killing off the surface bacteria so it does not spoil as quickly.

Yes, I know about the different types of radiation and some shielding takes space. And what works vs one type of particle won't necessarily work for the next. And fusion reactors need shielding for them to be safe for humans. High energy neutrons and the like. Since space in a pod is at a premium, it might not have all the space needed for sufficient shielding of a micro fusion reactor to make it safe for humans. We also don't know how big rad shielding is or what power requirements rad shielding has. BTW, before you assume where I get my info from and make an as/ well you get the picture, you might have wanted read my handwavium comment as well.

Yes, I know about radiation sterilization of food, so what.

Kizarvexis wrote:

Relax wrote:Shall we look at basic nuclear physics? For the so called fusion reactors that are so "dangerous"?


alpha particles,
beta particles,
neutrons,
gamma rays, and
X-rays.

Alpha particles are stopped by a piece of paper or air
Beta is stopped by aluminum foil
Neutrons are stopped by high hydrogen materials such as plastics

gamma/Xrays are essentially the same coin but different energy levels. Only these actually require much shielding. Might have noticed, but the Honorverse has this nifty thing called radiation shielding...

In either case, radiation poisoning is not a problem which is where almost all the "nuclear" problems exist and almost all of those problems are due to FISSION, not Fusion. Besides, these micro fusion reactors are turned on for a matter of seconds before firing. Some radiation getting out is not a problem. When these micro Fusion devices are fired, radiation might be emitted, but fusion by products are not, so at worst this is like getting a tan. It is the LOTS that is the problem.

Stop getting your information regarding nuclear physics from Hollywood stupidity.

***** Did you know that a lot of food is cleaned via radiation? ***** It is a cheap way of "tanning" the food killing off the surface bacteria so it does not spoil as quickly.

Yes, I know about the different types of radiation and some shielding takes space. And what works vs one type of particle won't necessarily work for the next. And fusion reactors need shielding for them to be safe for humans. High energy neutrons and the like. Since space in a pod is at a premium, it might not have all the space needed for sufficient shielding of a micro fusion reactor to make it safe for humans. We also don't know how big rad shielding is or what power requirements rad shielding has. BTW, before you assume where I get my info from and make an as/ well you get the picture, you might have wanted read my handwavium comment as well.

Yes, I know about radiation sterilization of food, so what.

Uh: Reality: If capacitors are fusion plasma capacitors: they are, they must have radiation shielding as well... The micro fusion plant is simply more energy dense and therefore throws out more radiation. They both throw radiation neutrons/gamma/Xrays.

If LAC front is modular, then the missile tubes for MK16 startup would have the rad shielding now wouldn't they? Modular is Modular. It is nothing more than a volume.

DW has stated startup time is 30s for micro fusion. The launch tubes cycle time is 18s, but no reason one cannot have the startup times in the launch tube itself and limit cycle time to 30s for a very long reach. Obviously in the anti ship role, you are not going to 100% load out on MK16, but going to mix MK16 with LERM as they are the same diameter/missile head for different range engagement. Obviously the LERM MK13 has faster firing cycle times.

Relax wrote:
Why are you applying pirate problems to modern LAC design?

Oh I don't know, MAYBE its the navies JOB to stop pirates??

Relax wrote:
Lets just assume for a moment that we are also talking about raiding squadrons at the hyper limit...

How are LAC's going to magically police the hyper limit? They can't. It takes them an HOUR to get out there. Whereas a hyper capable ship with hot nodes takes minutes. So, NO, LAC's will not be used at the hyper limit to protect incoming merchant marine.

Oh I don't know, maybe long patrols of the hyper limit like hyper capable ships do of which there is ample textev? Do you even read the posts for all the little details?

Relax wrote:And please, do not bring up the brain drain stupid point that they could engage. No they could never engage, as you see any LAC outside the hyperlimit is fish in the barrel. Any ship with a hyper generator just hypers out when a LAC gets within 500,000km, hypers back in 1M km away and blows the stupid technological inferior POS Graser Shrike back assward to the scrap pile where it belogns.

Yes, you can run up the hyper generator, if it is in stand by, which takes a 30 seconds (DB) to about 4 minutes (SD) to jump to hyperspace. If the hyper generator is in routine readiness, which is where they are when not in combat, then you add more even more time. So you better hope you detect the LACs early and remember LACs are stealthy. You then plot a micro jump is hyperspace which is not precise per textev. Then jump in where you will be vulnerable until you spin up your systems and localize the LAC to attack. Sure, easy peasy.

Relax wrote:Now, you could argue, for all systems to set up a Cerberus style entry point. So, what is going to hold this system hyperlimit entry point? Pods. What is going to control those pods? A fort, with LAC's as anti missile defense. Great, we now have LAC's at the hyper limit. How is a Graser going to work here? What is the Range again? Millions of kilometers. Lets assume someone jumped in even closer. Why use expensive human crewed LAC's? What happened to the Graser/Laser Mines that are dirt cheap? Deterrent is the Pods of missiles or those in the LAC's.

Do the Math. Even if someone jumps in 2.5 million kilometers from you. Your LAC has 0 initial velocity. Time required to get to Graser range is over 13minutes. Every single missile has already been long since fired. Leaving you going up against a Ship with hundreds/thousands of Vipers in its hold which oh-by-the-way have already been fired at you as you are within easy range, and most likely you are already dead.

No pirate is going to raid a system defended by missile pods/LAC. The only credible threat is a raiding force. Said LAC's will not have stealth due to raiding forces RD's, so unlike Hancock, they cannot get close. Instead all Shrike "strikes" will end just as badly as all of those in War of Honor and AAC.

Why do you wish to believe that the clock is going backwards to before WoH, AAC, etc?

First, using fixed entry points wouldn't work as you have merchants coming in from all over space. Cerberus was a one off. So the zero velocity rant is a non-starter. But since you are saying 13 minutes to get into range, that would mean the pods would have landed and the LACs would take out the cripples. If you time it right, the attacking force would be forced to pick, fire Vipers at the LACs and let the pods land, fire at the pods and let the LACs attack or try to split between both. And why would RD's magically find every LAC when they are some of the stealthy ships out there in the GA?

Second, before you go on about how LACs at the hyper limit won't be able to engage either due to velocity, you forget they would be on patrol and already up to speed. Yes, they would only have a small area they can reach, but so would any hyper capable unit on patrol as seen in textev. At least the LAC has a faster accel, so can travel farther than a hyper capable unit.

AND where did you get the idea that the LAC I proposed with a Grazer would NOT have some missiles. The original Shrikes did have around 20 ship killers in rotary magazines, so there is some missiles to use as well. Plus you have the grazer which never goes 'winchester'. The LAC I posit has 2 hard points for larger ship killer pods, the grazer and replaces internal ship killers with more Viper/CMs and PD since everything is getting more and more missile heavy so you want more defense. THIS WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY LAC BUILT. Just one class and a small one that I feel still has a use. The other LAC would be a missile heavy LAC with lots of PD, Viper/CMs and modules for swapping CMs and ship killers so the LAC could be a modular Katana/Ferret for whatever mission you need. Putting two hard points for pods would really help this for ship killing and if you made a CM pod for fleet defense you could deepen the magazine more for the CM basket far from the wall. In all cases, you could pick up more pods from a shoal of pods, instead of landing, reloading and relaunching. In both LACs, I would give up some internal offensive power to mount the hard points for pods as they increase the power a lot. Modern LACs are a unit used in numbers. I would not send out a system patrol with less than 2 LACs and would prefer at least 6 or more mixed LACs to maximize firepower if something bigger (ie a BC) comes wandering by.

And as I reminder, I do not believe Mk-16s would fit on a LAC due to comments made about the Roland. So I doubt, LERMs would either if they are only 70 and 90 tons respectively.

Relax wrote:Uh: Reality: If capacitors are fusion plasma capacitors: they are, they must have radiation shielding as well... The micro fusion plant is simply more energy dense and therefore throws out more radiation. They both throw radiation neutrons/gamma/Xrays.

So where does it say that capacitors are fusion plasma? I have not seen this.

Still doesn't mitigate that the Sag-C is the smallest unit with broadside launchers and the Roland is the smallest with chase Mk-16 weapons. Still don't think even a modular LAC can fit the Mk-16 missiles in a launcher with magazine space. If you are positing putting single cell launchers in, then why not pods. Pods are already in the fleet, build hard points on the LACs and reload with another pod once you fire the first one?

EDIT: POD missile tubes CAME FROM the LAC program...


1) LAC's can tow pods. ~A pod. Compensator field currently does not extend far enough for a "bolt on pod" or place for a tractored pod arrangement. Now a new design LAC this could be completely changed and I completely agree, that This should be the design going forward... Heck, I have postulated such a design going forward before, where the only "fixed" part of the LAC is its power source, impeller rings, C&C, Sidewall generators, EW, rear PDLC, a base forward number of PDLC, CM Tubes, and everything else is added/bolted on.

2) A SAG-C or Roland missile tube implementation is pointless as those are designed so a missile can explode in the tube with an 18s firing rate even though the reactor start time is 30s, when hit by outside forces without blowing the ship up. If a LAC gets hit by outside sources it is already destroyed so therefore it is pointless to harden the missile tubes on a LAC from an exploding missile.
*** This is a MASSIVE difference ***

3) Difference between the SDM LAC missiles they currently carry and the MK16 is all of 20-25tons.

4) Inside the Hyperlimit their major problem is range. Outside the hyperlimit without a CLAC they are just useless other than at fixed nodal points. The whole universe is going to DDM/MDM and yet a LAC is supposedly going to be a deterrent to outside forces with Vipers or SDM's or towing a single pod? Hardly.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/289/1
Return of the frigate as a combat-effective unit
"""A LAC actually has as much or more firepower than a frigate, because it saves the mass and volume penalties of a hyper generator and alpha nodes. From a combat perspective, something like a Shrike is simply a much more capable platform on a ton-for-ton basis."""

"""The FG has less combat capability than a LAC which masses somewhere around a third as much,"""

As you can see, The 20K ton Manticore LAC has as much combat capability as a 60K ton frigate.

Add onto the fact that the LAC with maximim missile power would have no energy weapons, while the roland has 4 grasers and 8 lasers.

I don't think there is a problem fitting 1/2 the missile tubes, 1/5 the missile storage, and none of the energy weapons on a frigate that is 1/3 the size of the Roland. And since DW says that a LAC has more weapons than a frigate, then it would be easy to do the same to a LAC.

kzt wrote: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.

Relax wrote:1) LAC's can tow pods. ~A pod. Compensator field currently does not extend far enough for a "bolt on pod" or place for a tractored pod arrangement. Now a new design LAC this could be completely changed and I completely agree, that This should be the design going forward... Heck, I have postulated such a design going forward before, where the only "fixed" part of the LAC is its power source, impeller rings, C&C, Sidewall generators, EW, rear PDLC, a base forward number of PDLC, CM Tubes, and everything else is added/bolted on.

RTFQ

Kizarvexis wrote:In both LACs, I would give up some internal offensive power to mount the hard points for pods as they increase the power a lot.

Relax wrote:2) A SAG-C or Roland missile tube implementation is pointless as those are designed so a missile can explode in the tube with an 18s firing rate even though the reactor start time is 30s, when hit by outside forces without blowing the ship up. If a LAC gets hit by outside sources it is already destroyed so therefore it is pointless to harden the missile tubes on a LAC from an exploding missile.
*** This is a MASSIVE difference ***

3) Difference between the SDM LAC missiles they currently carry and the MK16 is all of 20-25tons.

And a larger volume. Which means bigger machinery, which means more space in a small LAC. You are still positing a launcher with magazine with or without a cofferdam for explosions. Seems to me the cofferdam would be armor around the fusion start up section to the hull, yes, as that is where the explosion would happen? The armor along the sides of the launcher doesn't effect the length. There would be no extra armor for the spaceward side as you WANT the explosion to go that way. So that leaves the armor at the back of the cofferdam to remove and that still doesn't reduce the length of the launcher by more than a few meters at most then, based on the armor on a Star Knight CA. See other posts about size of a LAC and size of the Mk-16 missiles.

Relax wrote:4) Inside the Hyperlimit their major problem is range. Outside the hyperlimit without a CLAC they are just useless other than at fixed nodal points. The whole universe is going to DDM/MDM and yet a LAC is supposedly going to be a deterrent to outside forces with Vipers or SDM's or towing a single pod? Hardly.

Kizarvexis wrote:The LAC I posit has 2 hard points for larger ship killer pods...

...I would not send out a system patrol with less than 2 LACs and would prefer at least 6 or more mixed LACs to maximize firepower if something bigger (ie a BC) comes wandering by.

So 40-120 Mk-16s (60-180 if you tow a pod as well) or MORE missiles is not a threat? Or 32-96 Mk 23's (48-144 if you tow a pod)? Or multiple grazers "approximately as powerful as that mounted in our Homer-class battlecruisers." Per at the time Cpt Truman "...twelve LACs will have twenty-one percent more energy weapon firepower than a Reliant's broadside.', so if you are worried about Vipers or LAC internal missiles not being powerful enough, then wouldn't grazer armed LACs be a good thing since Mk-16s appear to be too big to fit in a LAC? And LACs are one of the most stealthly ships in the GA. I'm not talking about going up against BBs or bigger (which they were not designed to fight), but just BCs and smaller. And unless you have 12 or more LACs, when the BC shows up, you run and scream for help just like a DD or CA would. If the other side starts building BCs that are 2 Mtons, then everything below a BC is in trouble LAC, DD or Sag-C. And before you say it, not everything on the other side is going to be a 2 Mton BC. Nobody can afford that.

Remember, I'm not replacing all hyper capable units with LACs, just using them in areas where you don't have enough hyper capable units. That was the point of LACs in the first place.

DW calls them fusion capacitors. Aboard a starship, with a fusion plant, the fusion plant will be a convenient place to get the plasma for the capacitor. You can also use electricity to make plasma, so aboard a manticore LAC, the plasma would be created by some other type of plasma generator that would be built into the shrikes system.

Remember that a LAC has more weapons than a frigate that is 3 times bigger. That means that a manticore LAC has the same weapons as a frigate in the 60-65 ton range.

The component LAC set up for 5-Mk-16 weapons packs would have only 40% of the missile tubes of the roland. When you add in that the roland has both lasers and grasers, you will find that the component LAC would have less than 1/4 the total number of offensive weapons vs a roland. (tubes, lasers & grasers)

The energy weapons on the roland take up a significant amount of space. How big would the roland be if it didn't have any grasers or lasers???

If the energy weapons for a Roland take up 1/3 of it's offensive weapons, than a component LAC would need between 1/5-1/4 the offensive weapons tonnage of the Roland. This should be easy on a ship that has more combat capability than a frigate that is 1/3 the size of the Roland.

Kizarvexis wrote:

Relax wrote:Uh: Reality: If capacitors are fusion plasma capacitors: they are, they must have radiation shielding as well... The micro fusion plant is simply more energy dense and therefore throws out more radiation. They both throw radiation neutrons/gamma/Xrays.

So where does it say that capacitors are fusion plasma? I have not seen this.

Still doesn't mitigate that the Sag-C is the smallest unit with broadside launchers and the Roland is the smallest with chase Mk-16 weapons. Still don't think even a modular LAC can fit the Mk-16 missiles in a launcher with magazine space. If you are positing putting single cell launchers in, then why not pods. Pods are already in the fleet, build hard points on the LACs and reload with another pod once you fire the first one?

darrell wrote:http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/289/1
Return of the frigate as a combat-effective unit
"""A LAC actually has as much or more firepower than a frigate, because it saves the mass and volume penalties of a hyper generator and alpha nodes. From a combat perspective, something like a Shrike is simply a much more capable platform on a ton-for-ton basis."""

"""The FG has less combat capability than a LAC which masses somewhere around a third as much,"""

As you can see, The 20K ton Manticore LAC has as much combat capability as a 60K ton frigate.

Add onto the fact that the LAC with maximim missile power would have no energy weapons, while the roland has 4 grasers and 8 lasers.

I don't think there is a problem fitting 1/2 the missile tubes, 1/5 the missile storage, and none of the energy weapons on a frigate that is 1/3 the size of the Roland. And since DW says that a LAC has more weapons than a frigate, then it would be easy to do the same to a LAC.

DW said combat capability, not number of weapons. You are equating combat capability with the same weapons and that is not the same thing. The LAC is basically wrapped around the grazer in a one direction chase configuration. The FF uses much smaller lasers in a broadside and the FF is using DD missiles like the LAC. Just like a LAC, this doesn't mean that a DDM will fit in the smaller space of a 60k ton FF. Even if it can, which I HIGHLY doubt, that doesn't mean a 20k ton ship can carry the same weapon either.

The Roland took significant liberties with the support equipment for the tubes to be put into the ship. How many would it carry, if it used the full type of launcher each with it's own support equipment?