Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 73 guests

Silesian Centaur BLAC

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Lord Skimper   » Thu May 26, 2016 9:09 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

BLAC (Battle Cruiser LAC Escort Carrier)

Built in Silesia on dispersed yard

1.75-2.5 Mton range.

Think of this as a multi use craft. Patrol, Lesser wall, and Escort LAC.

Similar to an Agamemnon but extra wide

145-150 metre width. Depends on Armour and Armoured bay doors

Each Broadside:

16 Mk23 tubes and 2 Apollo tubes. All made to be upgraded.
15 extra long LAC Bays. Can dock two Shrike LAC end to end in each bay or one Highlander II. Armoured Bay doors
2 SD Grasers
24 CM with Vipers
24 PD

1 Keyhole II in a perpendicular long large bay with armoured bay doors

Each Chase Hammerhead:

8 Mk23 tubes
1 Apollo tube
2 SD Grasers
8 Viper CM
8 PD

Nike Compensators
Acceleration Numbers

Crew 210+ Space for All LAC crew on Ship
Brig and Marines based on BLAC 90+ of Each
Marines and prisoner space on Each Highlander II
Prize crew on each Highlander II

Highlander II

LAC

138x21x22 metres

Similar to Shrike Acceleration

Broadside:

5 (PD) Lasers DD level Lasers with point defense function
12 MDM tubes Single shot
1 Apollo Tube double shot
6 Viper CM

Fore:

1 Shrike Graser
3 SD PD

Aft:

1 Ghost Rider bay
3 (PD) Lasers

A Small bottle for energy weapons
A Fission Pile for Movement / backup (replaceable)

Each Highlander 2 Carries 16 crew two sets of 8, plus 6 Marines and space for 6 prisoners. Life support for 36 as emergency lifeboat options.

Missiles are fired without FTL control but the BLAC can control all FTL missiles.

In Combat the Keyhole II and 15 Highlander II are launched. The on ship missiles and LAC "pods" are used to fire three MDM salvo's of 204 missiles with Apollo followed up with 54 missiles with Apollo while the Highlander II's reload and or provide defensive fire. Assuming the BLAC can control 204 missiles. If not then 6 102 MDM Salvo's. Followed up with 54 missile Salvo's.

Have any pod battles lasted longer than 3 Salvo's?
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Duckk   » Thu May 26, 2016 9:17 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

No, this will never happen. David has been absolutely clear on this point. You do not compromise a warship's ability to take punishment by opening up giant holes in the hull for LAC bays. You are creating a useless manbearpig for a problem that does not exist.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Sigs   » Thu May 26, 2016 10:14 am

Sigs
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:09 pm

Duckk wrote:No, this will never happen. David has been absolutely clear on this point. You do not compromise a warship's ability to take punishment by opening up giant holes in the hull for LAC bays. You are creating a useless manbearpig for a problem that does not exist.


Is that a no for escort/light carrier period or is it a no for a design that tries to do two widely different tasks?
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by The E   » Thu May 26, 2016 11:08 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2704
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Sigs wrote:Is that a no for escort/light carrier period or is it a no for a design that tries to do two widely different tasks?


The latter.
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu May 26, 2016 11:16 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

The E wrote:
Sigs wrote:Is that a no for escort/light carrier period or is it a no for a design that tries to do two widely different tasks?


The latter.
IIRC RFC has said he doesn't see Manticore going for dedicated escort/light LAC carriers; though they might experiment with LAC bay modules that could be installed temporarily into a freighter's hold.

However as I recall he also said that other navies might be willing to experiment with the concept of escort/light LAC carriers. (Though first they'd have to get themselves some LACs worth carrying around)
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by munroburton   » Thu May 26, 2016 11:20 am

munroburton
Admiral

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

The E wrote:
Sigs wrote:Is that a no for escort/light carrier period or is it a no for a design that tries to do two widely different tasks?


The latter.


The light carrier has been ruled unlikely also. CLAC development is likely to go down two paths - a tough, heavily defended assault carrier(intended to accompany SD(P) walls into combat and supply LACs with tactical reloads) and a less protected fleet carrier(meant to carry as many LACs as possible, drop them and hyper out).

The two classes will probably mass about the same, but with vastly different allocations to LAC numbers and defenses.
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by darrell   » Thu May 26, 2016 11:28 am

darrell
Rear Admiral

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

The E wrote:
Sigs wrote:Is that a no for escort/light carrier period or is it a no for a design that tries to do two widely different tasks?


The latter.


A BC size hull should be able to carry a single squadron of LAC's, but why?

as commerce protection a SAG-C will do a better job with both a smaller ship and less crew.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Theemile   » Thu May 26, 2016 11:32 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

darrell wrote:A BC size hull should be able to carry a single squadron of LAC's, but why?

as commerce protection a SAG-C will do a better job with both a smaller ship and less crew.


The only thing a squadron of LACs can do better is be in multiple places. And if that's the need, the Sag-C should have brought a pair of Rolands along to assist.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Theemile   » Thu May 26, 2016 12:20 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Lord Skimper wrote:
1 Keyhole II in a perpendicular long large bay with armoured bay doors

<snip>
?



We keep seeing this in designs people throw out - it's important to note that the externally housed Keyhole II module masses 120Ktons EACH, plus the mass of the docking apparatus and 70-80Ktons of extra computer equipment in the main ship.

All this means that in an SD(p) with 2 Keyholes, >320Ktons of the ship is dedicated to the Keyhole system - or more that the mass of a Star Knight!

The Keyhole 1 system on BCs is a little better, with only ~50-60 Ktons per module, with an unstated sized computer system backing it, but we could easily say that 150Ktons is used by the system - or about the size of a Avalon CL!

It is also important to remember that the mass required for systems like Keyholes pretty much entirely comes out of the space for weapons and defenses. So, retrofitting a Reliant BC for Keyholes probably will cut it's weapons and defenses in half.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: Silesian Centaur BLAC
Post by Rincewind   » Thu May 26, 2016 6:48 pm

Rincewind
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:22 pm

Duckk wrote:No, this will never happen. David has been absolutely clear on this point. You do not compromise a warship's ability to take punishment by opening up giant holes in the hull for LAC bays. You are creating a useless manbearpig for a problem that does not exist.


But you create a hollowed out ship where all the really essential components such as reactors, command, living spaces & life support are all crammed into a tiny portion of the core hull thus rendering them even more susceptible to critical or fatal damage?
Top

Return to Honorverse