LAC Style Destroyers?

Relax wrote:Operationally the GSN expects to use these ships in much the same way the RMN uses the Rolands. They have the stowage for extended operations for deep-raid or commerce protection missions. This represents a change for Grayson destroyer doctrine, one made possible only by the tr highly vulnerable... Or not. Why? Vipers can be fired out their CM tubes. It is only a matter of time til' someone figures out how to modify a viper allowing it to use 1/2 step power for much longer run times. So, why the #$*R%*$)@) have they not added the marines or made allowances for them... They already have the pinaces and boat bays. What is the use of a ship that cannot board another ship? Maybe RMN is planning on cross training their small crews to do boarding action without marines? If so, they are going to have to increase enlistment periods to financially cover the extra training required. Another non sexy topic that never sees ink between the covers of a book for .... I would think, obvious reasons.

That would be a significant breakthrough; RFC said somewhere that the overpowered drives of CMs (same drive used by the Vipers) cannot be stepped down. Guess that's the tradeoff for the extra acceleration over the anti-ship missiles.

(Though OBS has, as I recall, an example of reducing accel of Fearless's CMs. Don't know whether to chalk that up to obsolete CMs or an authorial retcon.)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:Operationally the GSN expects to use these ships in much the same way the RMN uses the Rolands. They have the stowage for extended operations for deep-raid or commerce protection missions. This represents a change for Grayson destroyer doctrine, one made possible only by the tr highly vulnerable... Or not. Why? Vipers can be fired out their CM tubes. It is only a matter of time til' someone figures out how to modify a viper allowing it to use 1/2 step power for much longer run times. So, why the #$*R%*$)@) have they not added the marines or made allowances for them... They already have the pinaces and boat bays. What is the use of a ship that cannot board another ship? Maybe RMN is planning on cross training their small crews to do boarding action without marines? If so, they are going to have to increase enlistment periods to financially cover the extra training required. Another non sexy topic that never sees ink between the covers of a book for .... I would think, obvious reasons.

That would be a significant breakthrough; RFC said somewhere that the overpowered drives of CMs (same drive used by the Vipers) cannot be stepped down. Guess that's the tradeoff for the extra acceleration over the anti-ship missiles.

(Though OBS has, as I recall, an example of reducing accel of Fearless's CMs. Don't know whether to chalk that up to obsolete CMs or an authorial retcon.)

If I was a betting man, I would put it up to obsolete CM's. Old CM's could have 2 drive setting, but the engineering to create a CM with twice the range means that the second drive setting is lost.

For a RL example, you can replace a 1/2 HP variable speed motor with a 1 HP single speed motor, but a 1 HP variable speed motor would be too big.

darrell wrote:For a RL example, you can replace a 1/2 HP variable speed motor with a 1 HP single speed motor, but a 1 HP variable speed motor would be too big.

Horrible example as the there is no size difference between variable verses non variable.

Unless you add in the controller... Variable speed is determined by outside control via voltage regulation if we limit discussion to induction electric motors. Other motor types can be speed controlled by varying the frequency such as synchronous motors etc.

Size of electric motors is dependent on its load service factor rating. Effectively how well it can keep its stator windings cool. Determined by flux density. A 1HP motor, with a 1.05 service factor rating is a cheap 1HP motor. One with a 1.15 service factor is vastly superior and can easily be twice the size. So, while both will be "1 HP" motors, qualitatively when comparing startup torque and length of life expectancy due to power surges near and above 1HP, the 1.15 will demolish the service factor "1HP" motor with a 1.05 rating. What is sad is you can even buy "1HP" motors with service ratings of 0.95...

EDIT: Yea yea, can do pole switching speed control, phase control etc. So, I used the two easiest most common methods to describe the problem: Sue me

Might have noticed my caveat. A viper with a step down 1/2 power setting drive would need modified "parts". What all that would entail, would be an interesting discussion as we currently have no idea what that actually DOES entail to begin with on "normal" missiles. Other than the impeller drive to begin with...

Only reason I brought up the 1/2 power viper in the first place is on a small unit, sometimes something less than an MK16 would be highly desirable.

What happens if they make a slightly less powerful Viper of same dimensions but has the ability to use 1/2 power setting? Essentially, I am arguing for a meld between a viper and an MK36 except in the form of a single laser rod Viper form factor. Nor am I arguing that a ship would hold only these types of missiles. In fact, I am arguing that a ship would probably hold only a few.

But, if one could do a viper modification to 1/2 power settings...

Relax wrote:Might have noticed my caveat. A viper with a step down 1/2 power setting drive would need modified "parts". What all that would entail, would be an interesting discussion as we currently have no idea what that actually DOES entail to begin with on "normal" missiles. Other than the impeller drive to begin with...

Only reason I brought up the 1/2 power viper in the first place is on a small unit, sometimes something less than an MK16 would be highly desirable.

What happens if they make a slightly less powerful Viper of same dimensions but has the ability to use 1/2 power setting? Essentially, I am arguing for a meld between a viper and an MK36 except in the form of a single laser rod Viper form factor. Nor am I arguing that a ship would hold only these types of missiles. In fact, I am arguing that a ship would probably hold only a few.

But, if one could do a viper modification to 1/2 power settings...

Agreed, if you could half-power (or even 2/3rds power) a Viper, you're basically looking at a low-laserhead-strength single drive missile without the extended range capabilities developed during the first war. You're basically already at ~3/4ths the runtime of a half power single drive missile, only with a lot more accel than a full-power shot, although the laserhead's likely a lot less powerful than even a pre-war destroyer-grade shipkiller*.
Actually ... you might not even need a half-power setting on a Viper to make it effective over most of single-drive missile range. You'd probably want a partial power shot to make it all the way to single drive extended range missile distances.


Why waste a full DDM/MDM on pirates or whatever when you can use a modified Viper? Assuming you're in the Viper's range, anyways. The Viper's bound to be a lot cheaper, and even a ship carrying mostly CMs probably has a lot more Vipers than Mark-16s.



*This ... might not even be true - I assume the Viper is designed to make it through Shrike/Ferret/Katana sidewalls, which were basically waller strength (IIRC) at the time of their introduction. Getting through that might well mean that the Viper laserhead is a lot stronger than the laserheads on prewar non-capital missiles.

Kytheros wrote:<snip>


Why waste a full DDM/MDM on pirates or whatever when you can use a modified Viper? Assuming you're in the Viper's range, anyways. The Viper's bound to be a lot cheaper, and even a ship carrying mostly CMs probably has a lot more Vipers than Mark-16s.



*This ... might not even be true - I assume the Viper is designed to make it through Shrike/Ferret/Katana sidewalls, which were basically waller strength (IIRC) at the time of their introduction. Getting through that might well mean that the Viper laserhead is a lot stronger than the laserheads on prewar non-capital missiles.

Independent of it's hitting power - the missile only has 1 beam, and the amount of damage it can do(unless it can hit lengthwise through the ship) is relatively limited on anything with redundant systems, like most warships do.

However against pirates, which usually are piloting junk that makes obsolete ships look shiny, 1 or 2 such hits may be all it takes.

Kytheros wrote:*This ... might not even be true - I assume the Viper is designed to make it through Shrike/Ferret/Katana sidewalls, which were basically waller strength (IIRC) at the time of their introduction. Getting through that might well mean that the Viper laserhead is a lot stronger than the laserheads on prewar non-capital missiles.

The Viper uses the same laserhead as the pre- and early war Mk-13 shipkillers. It's a 3 meter laserhead, as opposed to the 5 meter laserhead used in the -16 and -23.

MaxxQ wrote:

Kytheros wrote:*This ... might not even be true - I assume the Viper is designed to make it through Shrike/Ferret/Katana sidewalls, which were basically waller strength (IIRC) at the time of their introduction. Getting through that might well mean that the Viper laserhead is a lot stronger than the laserheads on prewar non-capital missiles.

The Viper uses the same laserhead as the pre- and early war Mk-13 shipkillers. It's a 3 meter laserhead, as opposed to the 5 meter laserhead used in the -16 and -23.

So it's ~1/6th of a classic cruiser missile in maximum damage capability?

somewhat better than that, actually, if you hit the target at all:

the built-in dispersion of normal ship-killer heads means that, while you have a good chance of at least one beam hitting, unless you can pull off an inside-the-wedge detonation you aren't going to get more than 2-3 of them on target. getting the one beam of a Viper into the target is far more challenging, but when you do you may actually do just as much damage as the cruiser missile would have.

Theemile wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
The Viper uses the same laserhead as the pre- and early war Mk-13 shipkillers. It's a 3 meter laserhead, as opposed to the 5 meter laserhead used in the -16 and -23.

So it's ~1/6th of a classic cruiser missile in maximum damage capability?

Yeah, That was the reason I said "maximum damage capability"; the Ideal is that all the laserheads hit, but that's not exactly realistic, especially due to ECM and the sidewalls blocking sensors. It's really all a probability game - you pray for the best, expect the average, but plan for the worst.

Louis R wrote:somewhat better than that, actually, if you hit the target at all:

the built-in dispersion of normal ship-killer heads means that, while you have a good chance of at least one beam hitting, unless you can pull off an inside-the-wedge detonation you aren't going to get more than 2-3 of them on target. getting the one beam of a Viper into the target is far more challenging, but when you do you may actually do just as much damage as the cruiser missile would have.

Theemile wrote:So it's ~1/6th of a classic cruiser missile in maximum damage capability?

MaxxQ wrote:
The Viper uses the same laserhead as the pre- and early war Mk-13 shipkillers. It's a 3 meter laserhead, as opposed to the 5 meter laserhead used in the -16 and -23.