Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests

LAC on LAC warfare

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
LAC on LAC warfare
Post by cthia   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:00 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12549
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

LAC Strike Fighter Tactics Program 8-)


Jonathan_S wrote:Snipped from . . .

I agree that the design work on the Shrikes, and on HMS Minotaur was probably underway before Honor took Wayfarer to Silesia. But the LACs she took were still fusion powered, and didn't have the bow walls of the Shrikes, nor the beta-squared nodes. However as one of the final pre-Shrike evolution of "the new LACs the Star Kingdom had been laying down over the last four T-years" [EoH] they did have Grayson derived compensators and far more powerful impellers than classic LACs. So they had stronger sidewalls and about 200g more acceleration (roughly 50% more) than a pre-war LAC. They also has slightly heavier energy batteries; but those were still broadside mounts and their missiles were still carried in single shot box launchers.

A Shrike would eat one for breakfast.
Do pardon me borrowing some gravy Jonathan.

This provides me with an opportunity to start a thread for my own edification and to right my ship which seems to be a bit off-kilter, as I've been meaning to do regarding LAC on LAC warfare. I don't understand how any LAC has any insurmountable advantage over another unless it is allowed into energy range. It seems to me like one-on-one missile warfare of even an old SLN type LAC against an RMN LAC should be mutual destruction, if missile range is equal. Even with much greater accel, a LAC can't outrun missiles, and they don't have the maneuverability of an F-14 Tomcat. So, in a missile battle, any particular LAC's greater accel isn't enough to overcome the tactics of a well trained LAC crew, and, of course, assuming the greater accel isn't so great that it outruns targeting, like it does against the larger warships inability to lock-up such a small target in an energy battle. Which shouldn't happen in a LAC on LAC missile engagement or energy battle.

In fact, if you are too much faster than your targets that could pose a problem for you. It reminds me of the movie Final Countdown when the USS Nimitz went through a time warp and F14 Tomcats ended up in a dogfight against slow as molasses Japanese Zeros. The Tomcats kept overshooting their targets. That shouldn't happen with LAC on LAC warfare because the difference in accel and maneuverability gradient isn't that steep. But even then it comes down to the advantages in a LACs survivability (bow walls, etc.) than accel. The only mitigating factor would be training, LAC fighter tactics. But, if an inferior LAC navy employed the same Top Gun tactics as it is applied to LACs, it could increase its survivability quite a bit. Certainly even if applied to Haven's inferior LACs against the best the RMN had to offer. Katanas? In an all-else-equal dogfight, it comes down to which LAC gets to unleash its energy batteries first. So the RMN LAC employs bowwalls, etc, to give it a significant advantage. Ok, but that's in a dogfight. A smart navy wouldn't let it come to that. So if they have the numbers, it shouldn't. In At All Costs didn't Haven have the numbers? Yet, Truman's Katanas tore the hell out of them.

At any rate, LACs are not impervious to missiles and only one missile of any LAC can destroy another, lest I'm mistaken. If that is true, the only way an opposing force of LACs can get within energy range of another is because one side possesses overwhelming numbers. But if one side possesses overwhelming numbers, there shouldn't be a need for an energy battle. The missile engagement should bring the battle to its conclusion.

Remembering Honor's energy battle with the Q-ship, it came down to Honor's intuition, her kinesthetic sense of knowing where she is in relation to her surroundings in a 3D environment and her impeccable training, but that was only because Fearless had damaged sensors. That probably wouldn't be the case in most LAC to LAC confrontations.

At any rate, a well trained LAC crew in LAC warfighter tactics can significantly blunt any advantages in technology even in a all-out energy battle Top Gun dogfight. As the US Navy does against the more maneuverable Soviet MIGs.

Well, logically, I did warn you my ballast tanks may be inoperable.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Duckk   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 7:50 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4175
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:29 pm

An old style LAC spends something like 25% of its mass (IIRC) on just its fusion plant. That puts a massive squeeze on the available tonnage for other equipment. A new style LAC with a fission plant has a lot more mass and volume to play with by comparison. That lets them build in a lot more defensive features, like more capable and more numerous point defense and EW. Then you have advances like the beta squared nodes which improve sidewall strength by a factor of 5 over previous LACs (and also save additional mass), and the bow/sternwalls which reduce the vulnerable arcs. In the early engagements against Shrikes and Ferrets, it was noted how much more resistant they were to broadside energy mounts. They can still be swarmed by enough old style LACs, but the loss ratio will be entirely in the new LACs’ favor.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by tlb   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 8:35 am

tlb
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

cthia wrote:This provides me with an opportunity to start a thread for my own edification and to right my ship which seems to be a bit off-kilter, as I've been meaning to do regarding LAC on LAC warfare. I don't understand how any LAC has any insurmountable advantage over another unless it is allowed into energy range. It seems to me like one-on-one missile warfare of even an old SLN type LAC against an RMN LAC should be mutual destruction, if missile range is equal. Even with much greater accel, a LAC can't outrun missiles, and they don't have the maneuverability of an F-14 Tomcat. So, in a missile battle, any particular LAC's greater accel isn't enough to overcome the tactics of a well trained LAC crew, and, of course, assuming the greater accel isn't so great that it outruns targeting, like it does against the larger warships inability to lock-up such a small target in an energy battle. Which shouldn't happen in a LAC on LAC missile engagement or energy battle.

--- snip ---

At any rate, LACs are not impervious to missiles and only one missile of any LAC can destroy another, lest I'm mistaken. If that is true, the only way an opposing force of LACs can get within energy range of another is because one side possesses overwhelming numbers. But if one side possesses overwhelming numbers, there shouldn't be a need for an energy battle. The missile engagement should bring the battle to its conclusion.

Remembering Honor's energy battle with the Q-ship, it came down to Honor's intuition, her kinesthetic sense of knowing where she is in relation to her surroundings in a 3D environment and her impeccable training, but that was only because Fearless had damaged sensors. That probably wouldn't be the case in most LAC to LAC confrontations.

At any rate, a well trained LAC crew in LAC warfighter tactics can significantly blunt any advantages in technology even in a all-out energy battle Top Gun dogfight. As the US Navy does against the more maneuverable Soviet MIGs.

Well, logically, I did warn you my ballast tanks may be inoperable.

You need to reread At All Costs, chapter 20:
Of course, it didn't take weapons that powerful just to kill another LAC. Anything would kill a LAC . . . assuming it could score a hit in the first place. But the Havenites' sidewalls and EW were both far inferior to their Manticoran counterparts, and none of the Cimeterres at Sidemore had mounted a bow or stern wall at all. Worse, from the Havenites' perspective—though they might not realize it yet—six of Tremaine's squadrons were Grayson Katanas.
Designed specifically as "space superiority" LACs, the Katanas were the Alliance's conceptual equivalent of the Cimeterre itself. Unlike the Cimeterre, however, the Katana incorporated all of the Alliance's tech advantages. It was smaller than its Havenite rival—and also faster, more maneuverable, far better protected, with enormously superior electronic warfare capabilities and the LAC-sized version of the new bow wall "buckler," and equipped with what were for all intents and purposes a trio of superdreadnought point defense laser clusters, in addition to the Grayson-designed Viper anti-LAC missile.
The Viper was about two-thirds the size of a standard LAC missile, but it was quite different. It carried a much smaller warhead, without the multiple lasing rods of a conventional warhead, in order to incorporate significantly better seekers and an enhanced AI. And it also was designed for engagements at much shorter ranges. Engagements in which massive acceleration, agility, and the ability to reach targets quickly were vastly more important than endurance. Which was why the Viper used the same drive systems as the Mark 31 counter-missile.
--- snip ---
Captain Boniface Abercrombie watched the Manticoran LACs on the plot of his command LAC. He didn't much care for the odds. The Cimeterre was a pure attrition unit, designed to overpower the individual superiority of its Manty opponents by means of massive numerical superiority. Abercrombie knew Admiral Foraker and her staff were working furiously to improve the Cimeterre's capabilities in the Republic's second-generation light attack craft, but the limitations of their tech base, even with the rumored upgrades from the Erewhonese, meant her teams simply couldn't match the Manties' capabilities.
Current doctrine called for engaging Manty LACs at minimum odds of four-to-one. Even at that level, Republican casualties would probably be heavy in a straight-up fight. It was hard to say for certain, because the only LAC-on-LAC engagements so far had been dominated by the Republic's surprise "Triple Ripple" tactic. But the MDM missile profiles employed against Captain Schneider at Zanzibar were chilling proof the Manties knew all about the Ripple. They'd undoubtedly adjusted their LAC tactics even more than their MDM doctrine, and Abercrombie didn't look forward to being the first Republican COLAC to discover exactly how they had.
--- snip ---
Commander Dillinger's missiles streaked towards the Havenite LACs.
It was the first time they'd ever been used against live targets, and even Dillinger was a bit surprised by how well they performed. Their AIs were better than those of any previous missile remotely close to their size, and those AIs had been carefully optimized to go after small, fast, fragile targets. They were far more capable of independent engagements, with less need for telemetry links to the vessels which had launched them. After all, LAC EW—or, at least, the Havenite version of it—was much less capable than that of a starship. There was less need for fire control officers to correct for the sort of sophisticated razzle-dazzle larger ships could perform, and their shorter powered envelope meant the Vipers' sensors had a much better look at their target when they were launched.
In effect, they were launch-and-forget weapons, which saw to their own midcourse corrections, and the Katanas were free to maneuver, and to employ all of their fire control links for counter-missiles, once they'd gotten the Vipers away
.
And it was obvious the Peeps hadn't had a clue that they were going to face attack missiles whose acceleration had just been increased by forty-two percent. The incoming Vipers were actually over thirty percent faster than the counter-missiles trying to kill them.
--- snip ---
"Oh my God," Sandra Inchman whispered, her face white as her surveillance platforms showed Cimeterre after Cimeterre disappearing from her plot. They went not by ones or twos, but by tens.
Captain Abercrombie's was one of the first to die, but he'd kept his tactical uplink on-line to the very end. Inchman could scarcely believe the acceleration numbers, yet she had no choice but to believe as the brutally efficient massacre wiped away the Gaston System's total LAC force in less than three minutes.
Everette Beach sat frozen in his command chair. His swarthy face was the color of cold gravy, and his hands were pincers clamped on the armrests of his chair.
"I can't—" Commander Randall paused and cleared his throat. "I can't believe that," he said.
"Believe it," Beach rasped. He closed his eyes for a moment, then thrust himself up out of the chair.
"I knew we were going to lose them," he said flatly. "But I never would have sent them in if I'd even guessed they wouldn't kill a single Manty."
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Theemile   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:11 am

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4050
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

cthia wrote:<snip>
This provides me with an opportunity to start a thread for my own edification and to right my ship which seems to be a bit off-kilter, as I've been meaning to do regarding LAC on LAC warfare. I don't understand how any LAC has any insurmountable advantage over another unless it is allowed into energy range. It seems to me like one-on-one missile warfare of even an old SLN type LAC against an RMN LAC should be mutual destruction, if missile range is equal. Even with much greater accel, a LAC can't outrun missiles, and they don't have the maneuverability of an F-14 Tomcat. So, in a missile battle, any particular LAC's greater accel isn't enough to overcome the tactics of a well trained LAC crew, and, of course, assuming the greater accel isn't so great that it outruns targeting, like it does against the larger warships inability to lock-up such a small target in an energy battle. Which shouldn't happen in a LAC on LAC missile engagement or energy battle.
<snip>



A point you are missing is the AGILNESS of a LAC.

In another thread, we were discussing how smaller warships can spin to fire their off broadside, doubling their salvo size, but larger ships cannot due to their larger size forcing them to take longer to spin up and down.

Well, even a Frigate is 3-5X the mass of a LAC, this means that LACS can maneuver MUCH more easily, even though they are limited by the same motive rules, and (in older LACs) lower accels.

- the advantage? much, much sharper headings changes and ship rotations. This allows you to build sharper course changes, and interpose your wedge more easily against threats, and "snap back" to engage your target or make a maneuver. And, as other have mentioned smaller ships also means smaller open wedge aspects, making a quick motion of the wedge even more effective as a defense.

In WoH, Foraker was thinking about her LAC expert and how he built the new LACs to be essentially scaled up Assault Shuttles - in short, they focused on maneuverability.

So, in a LAC on LAC battle, missiles will be less effective, especially when the LACs are lousey with ECM and Stealth. It will be hard to lock them up, easy for the LAC to Maneuver out of the missile target basket, and easy for LAC to confuse the missile with it's ECM - and after all that, the Missile will probably just smash into the LAC's hasitly interposed wedge. So Missile launches will need to be closer, to increase the probability of a hit.

And that means you are more likely to get into an energy fight between LACS than larger ships. Which brings us to the Katana. With it's Viper missiles, you have a small, fast agile missile that can, in shorter range, overcome the nimbleness of an opposing LAC, and hopefully generate a hit, if Nothing else, the ALC will be forced to react to the Vipers, allowing the Katana to Close and overwhelm their targets with a staccato of SD class PD lasers - 3 mounts of 16 lasers allows an almost constant firing of lasers with a 150K KM range, pounding a target, looking for a vulnerability, as the LACs maneuver against one another.

And this is the advantage of the Katana over the Shrike. The Katana has more forward Viper launchers (6 v 4 ) and the 3 16 laser clusters vrs the massive Shrike Graser. Yes, if the Shrike hits you, even glances you, you are dead - and it has a much longer range (500K agaimst sidewalls, 1 Million against bare targets) But the shots are short, and the Shrike only has a handful (6 maybe 10), before it needs to pause and recharge the Graser's capacitors. But the Katana carries 3 gattling guns, and can fire constantly bracketing a target in close range, so if you ever expose an opening, it will hit it.
******
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: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:17 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:This provides me with an opportunity to start a thread for my own edification and to right my ship which seems to be a bit off-kilter, as I've been meaning to do regarding LAC on LAC warfare. I don't understand how any LAC has any insurmountable advantage over another unless it is allowed into energy range. It seems to me like one-on-one missile warfare of even an old SLN type LAC against an RMN LAC should be mutual destruction, if missile range is equal. Even with much greater accel, a LAC can't outrun missiles, and they don't have the maneuverability of an F-14 Tomcat. So, in a missile battle, any particular LAC's greater accel isn't enough to overcome the tactics of a well trained LAC crew, and, of course, assuming the greater accel isn't so great that it outruns targeting, like it does against the larger warships inability to lock-up such a small target in an energy battle. Which shouldn't happen in a LAC on LAC missile engagement or energy battle.

A SLN LAC is presumably only capable of about 400 - 410 gees (the standard for pre-Grayson LACs) - and most LACs don't mount any CMs; giving even the Series 282 with it's single CM per broadside a significant survivability edge (not to mention its strong wedge also enabled stronger sidewalls). And the SLN LAC should have less powerful grav launchers for its box magazine; which should (though the numbers in the books don't seem to back this up) give its missiles a bit less range and terminal velocity.

Still it's not that unlikely that despite its higher accel, stronger sidewalls, and more capable point defense, that a Series 282 might end up in a mutual kill situation against a SLN LAC where both flushed their entire box of missiles at each other. (Though the SLN LAC might be over confident and try holding back many of its missiles for other targets. If it underestimates the defenses of the Series 282 then the RMN LAC might survive the encounter)


As for my thinking on the advantages that a Shrike would have over the Series 282 LACs Honor took to Silesia.
* Bow Wall (as strong as a BC's sidewall), and further strengthened sidewalls over the Series 282.

* Point Defense - the Shrike has 4CMs forward (all of which can engage on most aspects), as well as 6 PDLC, while the Series 282 has no chase CMs (just 2 PDLCs) and 1CM and 3 PDLCs on each broadside. So the Shrike can stop a far heavier missile salvo than the Series 282. (Also EoH notes that the Shrike carries a surprisingly large magazine of CM, 72 CMs)

* Missiles - the Shrike carries improved missiles with burst variants of dazzler and dragon's teeth; far more capable than any prior LAC missile sported.
The Series 282 carries a pair of 12 missile box launcher, one in each broadside. The Shrike mounts 4 rotary launchers forward, each of which carries 5 missiles in a 'revolver' magazine. (So an advantage in total missiles to the older LAC, but the Shrike can more easily get all it's missiles off against a single target)

* ECM - Shrikes also carry enhanced ECM over any previous LAC (helped in part by the volume freed up by the brand new Beta-squared nodes "her impeller node mass has been cut by forty-seven percent" [EoH]. Letting them get even more wedge power than the Series 282 but with much less volume devoted to drives)

So the Shrike can head towards the Series 282 using its advantages in ECM, point defense, and side(bow) walls to likely confuse or destroy any return fire from the 12 cell box launcher on the other LAC's flank. In return the Shrike can dump up to 20 more capable, harder to hit, missiles back in a 15 second stream (at max rate on all launcher) which will utterly overwhelm the 1 CM + 3 PDLC that the Series 282 can muster in its own defense.
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:32 am

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

tlb wrote:You need to reread At All Costs, chapter 20:
Of course, it didn't take weapons that powerful just to kill another LAC. Anything would kill a LAC . . . assuming it could score a hit in the first place. But the Havenites' sidewalls and EW were both far inferior to their Manticoran counterparts, and none of the Cimeterres at Sidemore had mounted a bow or stern wall at all. Worse, from the Havenites' perspective—though they might not realize it yet—six of Tremaine's squadrons were Grayson Katanas.
Designed specifically as "space superiority" LACs, the Katanas were the Alliance's conceptual equivalent of the Cimeterre itself. [snip]

I'd assume we were focusing on pre-Katana LACs. Certainly the post I made, that cthia quoted, about a Shrike being more than a match for the LACs Honor took to Silesia I was thinking of the early Shrikes, before anybody was carrying Viper anti-LAC missiles (or even the extended range Mk31 CM they were built from).



Though in theory the Viper has a weakness against an hypothetical interceptor style LAC build around a full range SDM optimized for anti-LAC work. The Viper has less than 1/2 the range of a conventional LAC missile; and so the dogfigher LACs carrying it have to survive across about 4 million km where conventional missiles can reach them but their Vipers can't respond.

So far it hasn't been a problem because the Cimeterres' missiles aren't all that good, and so Katanas are mostly able to survive under their fire until they reach Viper range. But in theory someone with RMN or better tech could build a full sized LAC missile that wouldn't be so easy to brush aside. Then build LACs designed to intercept, launch those longer ranged missiles, and break away (not closing in to dogfight). That could potentially blunt the effectiveness of Katanas by attritting them without the ability to respond.

And we've already seen that it's possible to run Katanas out of Vipers by throwing enough missiles at them. I still wouldn't want to take most LACs into an energy range fight against them though.
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by tlb   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:56 am

tlb
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1840
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:34 am

tlb wrote:You need to reread At All Costs, chapter 20:
Of course, it didn't take weapons that powerful just to kill another LAC. Anything would kill a LAC . . . assuming it could score a hit in the first place. But the Havenites' sidewalls and EW were both far inferior to their Manticoran counterparts, and none of the Cimeterres at Sidemore had mounted a bow or stern wall at all. Worse, from the Havenites' perspective—though they might not realize it yet—six of Tremaine's squadrons were Grayson Katanas.
Designed specifically as "space superiority" LACs, the Katanas were the Alliance's conceptual equivalent of the Cimeterre itself

Jonathan_S wrote:I'd assume we were focusing on pre-Katana LACs. Certainly the post I made, that cthia quoted, about a Shrike being more than a match for the LACs Honor took to Silesia I was thinking of the early Shrikes, before anybody was carrying Viper anti-LAC missiles (or even the extended range Mk31 CM they were built from).



Though in theory the Viper has a weakness against an hypothetical interceptor style LAC build around a full range SDM optimized for anti-LAC work. The Viper has less than 1/2 the range of a conventional LAC missile; and so the dogfigher LACs carrying it have to survive across about 4 million km where conventional missiles can reach them but their Vipers can't respond.

So far it hasn't been a problem because the Cimeterres' missiles aren't all that good, and so Katanas are mostly able to survive under their fire until they reach Viper range. But in theory someone with RMN or better tech could build a full sized LAC missile that wouldn't be so easy to brush aside. Then build LACs designed to intercept, launch those longer ranged missiles, and break away (not closing in to dogfight). That could potentially blunt the effectiveness of Katanas by attritting them without the ability to respond.

And we've already seen that it's possible to run Katanas out of Vipers by throwing enough missiles at them. I still wouldn't want to take most LACs into an energy range fight against them though.

Except that Cthia was saying:
I don't understand how any LAC has any insurmountable advantage over another unless it is allowed into energy range. It seems to me like one-on-one missile warfare of even an old SLN type LAC against an RMN LAC should be mutual destruction, if missile range is equal. Even with much greater accel, a LAC can't outrun missiles
So I gave an example of a purely missile fight where the Haven LAC's were shut out by LAC's from Manticore and Grayson, based purely on technological advantage within the same range. The fire and forget missile allowed the Katana to concentrate its resources on self defense.
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by cthia   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:52 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 12549
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Thanks guys.


I did say if all else is equal, except my ballast tanks? ECM, those godawful Vipers, and CM acceleration isn't equal. Anyway, I know all things aren't equal, and I know that Manty LACs tended to have a field day with Havenite LACs. It just never seemed realistic to me. I accept it, but with a shrug. The Peeps always had the numbers. In a dogfight, you are at a disadvantage when you are being attacked by several opponents working together. Text stated the RMN trained on how to handle the LACs, and I always took that to mean they had as close to a Top Gun type training as possible. But I would assume the Peeps did as well. I suppose the ECM along with the high rate of CM accel would defeat even four to one odds without a single kill??? But that's in a dogfight.

It is ironic because of the various posts I can see where a missile engagement would fare even worse against RMN tech. Even though only one hit is needed. Essentially the same dynamics are at play in a LAC on LAC engagement that exists between the much larger ships. But it is hard to accept that because a LAC is much more fragile and can suffer only one hit. And the engagement ranges are much lower, which should lessen ECM's effectiveness.

Another pill I have a hard time swallowing is a LACs ability to dispense CMs like ticker tape at a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. I also didn't realize LACs were armed with the fiendish ECM the larger ships fission plant allows. I can't see the smaller power plant of a LAC having that much reserve left over for ECM, needing to continue to serve the LACs other needs during battle, without suffering some performance drawbacks. Especially since we've already entertained their inability to recharge their capacitors during battle. Isn't a LACs ECM dependent upon its power plant?

I think the MA can build a LAC that can compete, especially if they can produce them in the same four to one odds, with age-old Top Gun training. Although they're going to be pitted against seasoned professionals.

They're agile, but not F-14 agile. They can't outrun the targeting computer. And it's hard to spin to deny one LAC a shot when there's several more targeting you. Against a well trained unit, four to one odds should have fared much better. Albeit, I suppose I should tell that to the Migs. LOL

.
Last edited by cthia on Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Theemile   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:28 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4050
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

cthia wrote:<snip>

Another pill I have a hard time swallowing is a LACs ability to dispense CMs like ticker tape at a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. I also didn't realize LACs were armed with the fiendish ECM the larger ships fission plant allows. I can't see the smaller power plant of a LAC having that much reserve left over for ECM, needing to continue to serve the LACs other needs during battle. Without suffering some performance drawbacks. Especially since we've already entertained their inability to recharge their capacitors during battle. Isn't a LACs ECM dependent upon its power plant?

<snip>


it's not that a Fission plant cannot recharge the ship during battle, far from it - it just cannot recharge quickly.

Complete fiction here, but Say the Fission plant produces 100 "Edisons" a minute. The Life support uses 10 Edisons a minute, The Engines use 20 Edisons, and the Ships electronics use another 20 Edisons; That leaves 50 Edisons. Now that 50 Edisons is alot of power - enough to power a city, but the ships needs more

The Missiles tubes use 5 Edisons each to fire the CMs and missiles, and the pdlcs use another 5 each

The Sidewalls use 20 Edisons a minute each, but the front and back sidewall each have a battery with holds 200 Edisons. So There are 4 sidewalls and 2 batteries

And there is the Big Weapon, it uses 60 Edisons to fire, but it has a battery that holds 400 Edisons.

So every minute, you can use the extra energy from the reactor to feed a battery or fire a smaller weapon or power a sidewall. Energy can be moved from battery to battery.

So just jaunting around with no sidewalls, you can send all 50 Edisons to some batteries. If you don' need to use the engines and electronics at 100%, maybe even more.

If you are in combat but not engaged, you have some extra power to top off the batteries - not a lot, but the numbers will climb swiftly.

But in the middle of a furball, with at least 3 of your sidewalls up, and the Graser showing someone who really is the boss, while the CMs FLY and PDLCs make the Crew remember that Pink Floyd concert, Yeah, the batteries are going to quickly drain. But then again, that's what they are there for.

ok, that is all made up and we really don't know the power levels or ratios. but we know that in the Shrike, the Graser (even Ship Grasers) is powered off a Capacitor ring because of all the energy needed at once. Like an old strobe flash, it takes time to charge the capacitor between shots. Likewise, we know the Bow and Stern wall require a capacitor, but the broadside walls do not.
******
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: LAC on LAC warfare
Post by Jonathan_S   » Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:29 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

cthia wrote:Thanks guys.


I did say if all else is equal, except my ballast tanks? ECM, those godawful Vipers, and CM acceleration isn't equal. Anyway, I know all things aren't equal, and I know that Manty LACs tended to have a field day with Havenite LACs. It just never seemed realistic to me. I accept it, but with a shrug. The Peeps always had the numbers. In a dogfight, you are at a disadvantage when you are being attacked by several opponents working together. Text stated the RMN trained on how to handle the LACs, and I always took that to mean they had as close to a Top Gun type training as possible. But I would assume the Peeps did as well. I suppose the ECM along with the high rate of CM accel would defeat even four to one odds without a single kill??? But that's in a dogfight.

It is ironic because of the various posts I can see where a missile engagement would fare even worse against RMN tech. Even though only one hit is needed. Essentially the same dynamics are at play in a LAC on LAC engagement that exists between the much larger ships. But it is hard to accept that because a LAC is much more fragile and can suffer only one hit. And the engagement ranges are much lower, which should lessen ECM's effectiveness.

Another pill I have a hard time swallowing is a LACs ability to dispense CMs like ticker tape at a Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. I also didn't realize LACs were armed with the fiendish ECM the larger ships fission plant allows. I can't see the smaller power plant of a LAC having that much reserve left over for ECM, needing to continue to serve the LACs other needs during battle, without suffering some performance drawbacks. Especially since we've already entertained their inability to recharge their capacitors during battle. Isn't a LACs ECM dependent upon its power plant?

I think the MA can build a LAC that can compete, especially if they can produce them in the same four to one odds, with age-old Top Gun training. Although they're going to be pitted against seasoned professionals.

They're agile, but not F-14 agile. They can't outrun the targeting computer. And it's hard to spin to deny one LAC a shot when there's several more targeting you. Against a well trained unit, four to one odds should have fared much better. Albeit, I suppose I should tell that to the Migs. LOL

.

LAC combat isn't really a dogfight like you'd think of jets having. Without some form of inertia canceling drive (which isn't a thing in the Honorverse) you simply can't change vector in a spacecraft the same way an airplane can. There's no medium to work against to let you redirect your existing momentum; you have to fight against it instead.

So even a LAC fight is much more like jousting than dogfighting. Maybe if you detect the enemy early enough you can get yourself positioned to make it a running fight instead of a head on one; but that's about it.


But I think you're overlooking just how unequal the LACs are. Yes a single hit that gets through the sidewall will likely kill a LAC. But Shrikes have survived a head on hit from the broadside energy mounts of a battleship! Even in energy range at 2nd Hancock the Peeps found it easier to kill LACs by flying full up capital anti-ship missiles past the LACs and firing the spread of laserhead beams up their backside (back towards the BBs)!

The dinky lasers on a LAC sized laserhead are going to have to get very close and very lucky to get a clean hit through a Shrike's bow wall. Where-as the early Cimeterres don't even have a bow wall. So they're very vulnerable to missiles detonating ahead or astern of them.

Plus Cimeterres weren't originally built to directly fight other LACs. They were build primarily as anti-missile units using pretty dumb missiles with huge nasty nukes to wipe out waves of incoming missiles. And they had a secondary role of using those same pretty dumb missiles to break up coordinated Shrike + Ferret strikes against the Wall's escorts. Once that trick was known they became far less effective.

The later Cimeterres Alpha and Betas were more survivable; but they still lacked some of the tech advances that make Shrikes and Ferrets so deadly for their size.
Last edited by Jonathan_S on Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Return to Honorverse