Escort Carrier Modification

Theemile wrote:

Maldorian wrote:Like my start post say´s: If the Pod storage at a pod laying Battlecruiser is not big enough, than are all other disscusions pointless.

Creating a new ship class is out of question. That´s why Escort Carrier called "Dead Horse".

Partwise the new support ships can fullfill the role of a carrier, because they can transport LAC´s, but they are not suited for battle, a Battlecruiser without doubt is.

Ok, Let's star by looking at MaxxQ's renders of an Agamemnon BC(p)

https://www.deviantart.com/maxxqbunine/art/AgamemnonVariants-001-487154356

https://www.deviantart.com/maxxqbunine/art/AgamemnonClassBC-P-004-485503922

https://www.deviantart.com/maxxqbunine/art/AgamemnonClassBC-SS006-486663899

As Mentioned in HoS, a Shrike B is 72mx20mx20xm, massing 21,250 Tons. All the RMN LAC variants have the same dimensions, but the rest are slightly lighter.

The Agamemnon class is 815mx118mx110m and masses 1,750,750 Tons.

AS we can see in link 1, the standard pod bay is slightly more than 1/2 the length of the ship, let's call it 55%. The diagram also shows that the back 30% of the ships has pods lined up in a Cross pattern, while the next 25% (in the ship's main body) is more condensely packed.

Looking at link 2, we see that there are 4 pod bay doors, each the size of the broadside of a pod, with a space in the center.

Looking at Link 3, we see the doors (center) with extra pods in the main bay around them. We see that in the 118M width of the hull there are 5 pod spacings, and still about 1/3rd a pod length in hull on the edges. MAking each pod length just over 20m

Breaking the rear into 5ths, the size of each door is ~20 m in height and a LAC might be able to fit - tightly - in each if they were slightly modified.

Each door is followed by a slender pod feed ~240 M deep, then an open bay ~200M deep.

So, volumetrically, you could stack in 3 LACS in each pod feed, and 24, maybe 28 in the pod bay, for a total of 36-40 LACs. However this is tight STORAGE. Maybe the feed tube LACs could launch under battle conditions, but not all of them.

And to do this you geld a BC(p) of all its firepower.

Geld? I like your choice of words. At any rate, you Fearless it. 'Ouch!'

About carrying them externally. Wouldn't that be at the expense of missile tubes or energy weapons?

I still don't understand why the Havenite's notion of towing them thru hyper isn't improved upon. Extra large dedicated tractors.

cthia wrote:
I still don't understand why the Havenite's notion of towing them thru hyper isn't improved upon. Extra large dedicated tractors.

The RMN adopted a variant of it as an emergency measure. I think it was in one of RFC's posts, rather than in a book though.

Current doctrine is for the CLACs supporting a fleet to drop their brood and hyper out to a safe rally point until recalled - that keeps the vulnerable carriers away from the missile swarms; but their LACs head in system escorting the strike force. But if the raiding force is forced to withdraw under fire they don't have time to call the CLACs back (and don't really want to subject them to that fire).
So instead the LACs tractor themselves onto the warships (possible a few deep) and the collective blob jumps into hyper.

But they only do this trick long enough to get back to the detached CLACs where the LACs can go back into their hangars.


But I think the reason is isn't generally adopted is the issues that even a big BC like Thunder of God could barely managed to move a couple LACs at a time - and the LACs had to be moved uncrewed and carefully prepped because, while under tow, they were outside the compensation field and subject to extreme acceleration forces.

If you can't put them inside a ship, you'd prefer them hooked onto the exterior of something large enough for the compensation field to stretch over LACs tractored onto the hull. (So something much larger than a BC - which seems to put you up into BB or DN territory.

Oh, and of course if you're towing them from a random ship that's not designed to support LACs then they've got no maintenance support and no ammo resupply - so you're going to all this trouble to get maybe 20 minutes of combat use out of them before they're out of missiles and no way to organically resupply. But if it's a ship that large that's designed to support LACs then why tow them externally?

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:
I still don't understand why the Havenite's notion of towing them thru hyper isn't improved upon. Extra large dedicated tractors.

The RMN adopted a variant of it as an emergency measure. I think it was in one of RFC's posts, rather than in a book though.

Current doctrine is for the CLACs supporting a fleet to drop their brood and hyper out to a safe rally point until recalled - that keeps the vulnerable carriers away from the missile swarms; but their LACs head in system escorting the strike force. But if the raiding force is forced to withdraw under fire they don't have time to call the CLACs back (and don't really want to subject them to that fire).
So instead the LACs tractor themselves onto the warships (possible a few deep) and the collective blob jumps into hyper.

But they only do this trick long enough to get back to the detached CLACs where the LACs can go back into their hangars.


But I think the reason is isn't generally adopted is the issues that even a big BC like Thunder of God could barely managed to move a couple LACs at a time - and the LACs had to be moved uncrewed and carefully prepped because, while under tow, they were outside the compensation field and subject to extreme acceleration forces.

If you can't put them inside a ship, you'd prefer them hooked onto the exterior of something large enough for the compensation field to stretch over LACs tractored onto the hull. (So something much larger than a BC - which seems to put you up into BB or DN territory.

Oh, and of course if you're towing them from a random ship that's not designed to support LACs then they've got no maintenance support and no ammo resupply - so you're going to all this trouble to get maybe 20 minutes of combat use out of them before they're out of missiles and no way to organically resupply. But if it's a ship that large that's designed to support LACs then why tow them externally?

FYI - The Thunder of God was a Sultan Class BC - massing 859 Ktons. The Masadian LACs she towed were ~9 Ktons apiece - which she could only tow 3 at a time through hyper. If towing capability is purely tonnage based, a Sultan class BC can only tow 1 20 Kton Shrike safely. (Or 1 ~26 Kton RHN Cimmetere)

Jonathan_S wrote:If you can't put them inside a ship, you'd prefer them hooked onto the exterior of something large enough for the compensation field to stretch over LACs tractored onto the hull. (So something much larger than a BC - which seems to put you up into BB or DN territory.

Oh, and of course if you're towing them from a random ship that's not designed to support LACs then they've got no maintenance support and no ammo resupply - so you're going to all this trouble to get maybe 20 minutes of combat use out of them before they're out of missiles and no way to organically resupply. But if it's a ship that large that's designed to support LACs then why tow them externally?

Indeed, they're not meant for long slugging matches but for shorter engagements.

The theory only works if they can build a <2MT skeleton vessel capable of carrying thirty to forty LACs. As mentioned before, it'd have little to no maintenance shops and very limited ammo restocking capabilities. It'd have no armour, a core crew even smaller than the Roland/Wolfhound, no weapons or defenses and rely utterly on its speed(even if compromised by a very widened compensator field, it'd still be somewhat faster than a CLAC) and stealth to survive.

If they can produce three of those "hyper-sticks" for the same cost of a proper CLAC, it could substantially increase the strategic area covered by a navy's carrier component.

For example, 60 CLACs and 180 escort carriers would provide about the same number of first-strike LACs as 120 CLACs, but they could hit twice as many targets. Consolidated into a single force, they're not going to be reloading 120 CLACs worth of LACs after the first wave returns anyway...

I probably wouldn't build those sort of shoestring abominations in peacetime, but they'd be one route to quickly increase a mainly defensive navy's offensive power once a war breaks out.

munroburton wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:If you can't put them inside a ship, you'd prefer them hooked onto the exterior of something large enough for the compensation field to stretch over LACs tractored onto the hull. (So something much larger than a BC - which seems to put you up into BB or DN territory.

Oh, and of course if you're towing them from a random ship that's not designed to support LACs then they've got no maintenance support and no ammo resupply - so you're going to all this trouble to get maybe 20 minutes of combat use out of them before they're out of missiles and no way to organically resupply. But if it's a ship that large that's designed to support LACs then why tow them externally?

Indeed, they're not meant for long slugging matches but for shorter engagements.

The theory only works if they can build a <2MT skeleton vessel capable of carrying thirty to forty LACs. As mentioned before, it'd have little to no maintenance shops and very limited ammo restocking capabilities. It'd have no armour, a core crew even smaller than the Roland/Wolfhound, no weapons or defenses and rely utterly on its speed(even if compromised by a very widened compensator field, it'd still be somewhat faster than a CLAC) and stealth to survive.

If they can produce three of those "hyper-sticks" for the same cost of a proper CLAC, it could substantially increase the strategic area covered by a navy's carrier component.

For example, 60 CLACs and 180 escort carriers would provide about the same number of first-strike LACs as 120 CLACs, but they could hit twice as many targets. Consolidated into a single force, they're not going to be reloading 120 CLACs worth of LACs after the first wave returns anyway...

I probably wouldn't build those sort of shoestring abominations in peacetime, but they'd be one route to quickly increase a mainly defensive navy's offensive power once a war breaks out.

The minimum size ship to have docking bays laterally in the broadsides is ~3.5-4 ton merchie design, and it would be a "fat" ship at that. This would fit ~54 LACS in it's bays and would be slower than normal, due to it's beamier design.

(instead of "fat" we should use the wet naval term "hogged". This was the situation where a normally sleek ship had been overloaded, especially on it's main deck, stretching out it's top planks and ribs laterally. As a result, the ship was wider in the middle - like a hog, and slowed down they ship by ruining it's originally sleek lines. This was often accomplished by adding heavy canon to top decks not designed for the number and size of guns. Removing the weight and placing the ship in drydock (or ordinary) so the wood could dry and shrink many times fixed this issue.)

Theemile wrote:

The minimum size ship to have docking bays laterally in the broadsides is ~3.5-4 ton merchie design, and it would be a "fat" ship at that. This would fit ~54 LACS in it's bays and would be slower than normal, due to it's beamier design.

(instead of "fat" we should use the wet naval term "hogged". This was the situation where a normally sleek ship had been overloaded, especially on it's main deck, stretching out it's top planks and ribs laterally. As a result, the ship was wider in the middle - like a hog, and slowed down they ship by ruining it's originally sleek lines. This was often accomplished by adding heavy canon to top decks not designed for the number and size of guns. Removing the weight and placing the ship in drydock (or ordinary) so the wood could dry and shrink many times fixed this issue.)

Not just wider in the middle. Actually I'm not sure how much the middle widened.

The main characteristic of a hogged ship is that its keel curves upward in the middle because there's so much excess weight towards the bow and stern of the ship (where the narrower hull shape provide less boyancy) than the forces there exceed what the stiffness of the hull girder to hold everything level. Amidships, where the wider hullform provides more buoyancy, then floats higher than the stem and stern causing that humpbacked hogged look.

(Sagging is the opposite, where the middle is overloaded and so the keel curves down there)


So a widened ship wouldn't look much like a hogged wet navy ship as there wouldn't be any deflection in its keel.



Also, I think you'd be able to get a lateral LAC bay into a smaller ship than a 3.5mton merchant hull if you restricted it to a single row and allowed the bay to extend well beyond the centerline of the ship. Even the 1.75mton BC(P) from this threat is 62% the width of a CLAC and 63% it's draught.

The CLAC appears to carry two rows of LAC bays on each of it's broadsides; so something 62% the size should be able to to carry one row of LAC bays on one broadside. You'd have to route passageways, ammo hoists, and ship utlilities above or below the bays, or between them and the far broadside - but you should be able to squeeze them in. Even on the CLAC there's about 40 meters between the noses of LACs berthed on opposite broadsides; so the hagar volume, passages, ammo hoists, etc. all have to fit into that 20% of the maximum beam. This notional asymmetric CLACL (light CLAC) would actually have more space beyond the end of it's LAC bay, that space just wouldn't be along the centerline. There's be about 55m between the nose of the LAC and the far broadside, and you only need one bay's worth of space and supply routes to squeeze into it, whereas the full sized CLAC need to service both LAC bays in it's 40-ish meters between the LACs.

And for a ship that should never engage in direct combat having an asymmetrical broadside doesn't seem so bad.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:

The minimum size ship to have docking bays laterally in the broadsides is ~3.5-4 ton merchie design, and it would be a "fat" ship at that. This would fit ~54 LACS in it's bays and would be slower than normal, due to it's beamier design.

(instead of "fat" we should use the wet naval term "hogged". This was the situation where a normally sleek ship had been overloaded, especially on it's main deck, stretching out it's top planks and ribs laterally. As a result, the ship was wider in the middle - like a hog, and slowed down they ship by ruining it's originally sleek lines. This was often accomplished by adding heavy canon to top decks not designed for the number and size of guns. Removing the weight and placing the ship in drydock (or ordinary) so the wood could dry and shrink many times fixed this issue.)

Not just wider in the middle. Actually I'm not sure how much the middle widened.

The main characteristic of a hogged ship is that its keel curves upward in the middle because there's so much excess weight towards the bow and stern of the ship (where the narrower hull shape provide less boyancy) than the forces there exceed what the stiffness of the hull girder to hold everything level. Amidships, where the wider hullform provides more buoyancy, then floats higher than the stem and stern causing that humpbacked hogged look.

(Sagging is the opposite, where the middle is overloaded and so the keel curves down there)


So a widened ship wouldn't look much like a hogged wet navy ship as there wouldn't be any deflection in its keel.



Also, I think you'd be able to get a lateral LAC bay into a smaller ship than a 3.5mton merchant hull if you restricted it to a single row and allowed the bay to extend well beyond the centerline of the ship. Even the 1.75mton BC(P) from this threat is 62% the width of a CLAC and 63% it's draught.

The CLAC appears to carry two rows of LAC bays on each of it's broadsides; so something 62% the size should be able to to carry one row of LAC bays on one broadside. You'd have to route passageways, ammo hoists, and ship utlilities above or below the bays, or between them and the far broadside - but you should be able to squeeze them in. Even on the CLAC there's about 40 meters between the noses of LACs berthed on opposite broadsides; so the hagar volume, passages, ammo hoists, etc. all have to fit into that 20% of the maximum beam. This notional asymmetric CLACL (light CLAC) would actually have more space beyond the end of it's LAC bay, that space just wouldn't be along the centerline. There's be about 55m between the nose of the LAC and the far broadside, and you only need one bay's worth of space and supply routes to squeeze into it, whereas the full sized CLAC need to service both LAC bays in it's 40-ish meters between the LACs.

And for a ship that should never engage in direct combat having an asymmetrical broadside doesn't seem so bad.

Asymmetry - true, I should have stipulated that the design was symmetric with the "Classic" end on bays and a central core for LAC access and arming.

An Asymmetric design would probably be a true Slapdash conversion - something done in haste or emergency. If Manticore had been forced to heavily prosecute a peer war after OB, I can see such cheap force multipliers being built in Silesian or Talbot yards with limited capability - assuming someone could get a LAC factory up and running. It looks like a ~1.2 ton Merchie Hull would be about the smallest size you could do this with.

Jonathan_S wrote:Also, I think you'd be able to get a lateral LAC bay into a smaller ship than a 3.5mton merchant hull if you restricted it to a single row and allowed the bay to extend well beyond the centerline of the ship. Even the 1.75mton BC(P) from this threat is 62% the width of a CLAC and 63% it's draught.

The CLAC appears to carry two rows of LAC bays on each of it's broadsides; so something 62% the size should be able to to carry one row of LAC bays on one broadside. You'd have to route passageways, ammo hoists, and ship utlilities above or below the bays, or between them and the far broadside - but you should be able to squeeze them in. Even on the CLAC there's about 40 meters between the noses of LACs berthed on opposite broadsides; so the hagar volume, passages, ammo hoists, etc. all have to fit into that 20% of the maximum beam. This notional asymmetric CLACL (light CLAC) would actually have more space beyond the end of it's LAC bay, that space just wouldn't be along the centerline. There's be about 55m between the nose of the LAC and the far broadside, and you only need one bay's worth of space and supply routes to squeeze into it, whereas the full sized CLAC need to service both LAC bays in it's 40-ish meters between the LACs.

And for a ship that should never engage in direct combat having an asymmetrical broadside doesn't seem so bad.

Asymmetry would definitely be in the mix. The Hydras have a beam of 188m(shaved down from the Minnie's 189m). After subtracting the length of two LACs, 144m, we're left with less than 44m for the CLAC's spine and the armoured hatches.

If the spine is moved to hug the hull rather than being its core(as they are in some freighters), adding that 44 metres to one LAC length gives us a width requirement of 116m.

The Agamemnon is 118m wide. The notional CLACL would have an equivalent spine section about 350x40x100m. The LAC docking section is therefore around 350x75x100m. They can probably stack them three high and fit at least ten per row, producing a minimum of 30 LACs.

Lengthening this poor, twisted hull to the Nike's size buys another 200 metres, all of which would be allocated to the LAC section and adding up to six per row, producing a 48-LAC carrier for ~2.5MT.

Mind you, the way I envision it, they shouldn't need a 2.5MT hull to do that. How much of the mass on a battlecruiser is devoted to armour, sidewall generators, a bunch of grasers, missile and countermissile launchers, umpteen recon drones and so forth? Toss all that out but keep whatever's capable of generating a compensator field to cover that volume.

...it occurs to me that a LAC would make for a faster/safer shuttle than a Pinnace for non-planetary transfers, so why not add an external docking port to the top of the Capital Ships? The base already has the docking bays, but having a high-speed LAC or two that can be sent out to sneak round and block fleeing smuggler ships etc could be useful.
It wouldn't aid much for recon, however. Ghost Rider fills that role so well that trying to slot a LAC in would just degrade the whole thing.

Michael Everett wrote:...it occurs to me that a LAC would make for a faster/safer shuttle than a Pinnace for non-planetary transfers, so why not add an external docking port to the top of the Capital Ships? The base already has the docking bays, but having a high-speed LAC or two that can be sent out to sneak round and block fleeing smuggler ships etc could be useful.
It wouldn't aid much for recon, however. Ghost Rider fills that role so well that trying to slot a LAC in would just degrade the whole thing.

Pinnances are ~300 Tons - a Shrike is 21,250 Tons. you can carry ~70 Pinnances for the mass of one Shrike, making a Shrike a very inefficient shuttle. Besides, LACs cannot fly in atmosophere, land on ground or fit in boatbays.

As for the top mounting port - I'll just say the same thing David has said every time adding <something> to the dorsal and ventral areas has been brought up - those areas are already filled with other equipment. Moving a handful of items might be ok, but a 72x20m area is probably too much, even on a capital ship.