Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Keyhole LAC

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Keyhole LAC
Post by Lord Skimper   » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:10 pm

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

Nike BC with Keyhole 1. Could the Keyhole be fitted with a LAC dock in place of the Keyhole 1? There should be enough room for one or two Shrike LAC in a modified Keyhole 1 dock.

A Nike BC with the new tech automation and two to four LAC would be an awesome peace time Warship.

Crew levels are similar to Older CL. It can carry many more Troops, has huge numbers of missiles and can operate for extended time by itself with impunity.

Operating costs for nodes and such are more but crew costs are the highest of costs. No other ship can do everything it can do outside of a SD and that has 10-20 times the crew.

Thinking of On Basilisk Station Honor would have had no trouble with a Nike BC, With 300+ Crew and 300+ Marines. 2 to 4 Shrike LAC and 4 to 6 pinnaces. As for the final battle the Haven Q ship would have been toast and Honor would have a reputation as most profitable with least loss of life of her crew.

Any future peace time mission would be a shoe in for whoever has the Nike BC.

As for Grayson or the like Small Star nations should concentrate on BC sized forces with a Nike BC, Pod BC with LAC in place of Keyhole 1 or 2 it could have a Peace time force capable of Line duties without exceeding its stand alone fleet duties.

Grayson with BC classed ships could contribute to Wall duties during war and would have full peace time ship capabilities with just two types of Battle cruisers.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by Michael Everett   » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:25 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2210
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

...once again, an excellent solution to a problem that probably doesn't actually exist...
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
Animal Crossing Dreams at 6E00-00F5-2891
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by Maldorian   » Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:20 am

Maldorian
Commander

Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:54 am

One thing is sure: If you make it possible to carry LAC´s in a Keyhole-bay would make a ship more flexible. You have always to calculate the use against the modification costs.

I was thinking, wouldn´t it be good to make normal LAC-Carrier more flexible if the could transport different equippment in their LAC-Hangars? I was thinking of a couple of pods in a Lac-Hangar or a even bigger number of armed sensor probes. Like the fleet use the LAC´s for forward operating missle defense, a LAC could use some armed probes to increase their missle defense capaticity.
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by Theemile   » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:29 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio USA

Maldorian wrote:One thing is sure: If you make it possible to carry LAC´s in a Keyhole-bay would make a ship more flexible. You have always to calculate the use against the modification costs.

I was thinking, wouldn´t it be good to make normal LAC-Carrier more flexible if the could transport different equippment in their LAC-Hangars? I was thinking of a couple of pods in a Lac-Hangar or a even bigger number of armed sensor probes. Like the fleet use the LAC´s for forward operating missle defense, a LAC could use some armed probes to increase their missle defense capaticity.


I mentioned something similar - design a series of "modules" that fit the maximum volume of a standard LAC bay. Marine crew module, assault shuttle boat bay module. limited function keyhole module. etc.

However, after the last 2 books, I think we will see this more on the Taylor class auxiliaries, than on a LAC carrier. it is tempting to make them multi functional, but it does cut directly into a CLAC's main battery.
******
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: Keyhole LAC
Post by Nimitz1923PD   » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:45 pm

Nimitz1923PD
Commander

Posts: 206
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 7:45 pm

Theemile wrote:
Maldorian wrote:One thing is sure: If you make it possible to carry LAC´s in a Keyhole-bay would make a ship more flexible. You have always to calculate the use against the modification costs.

I was thinking, wouldn´t it be good to make normal LAC-Carrier more flexible if the could transport different equippment in their LAC-Hangars? I was thinking of a couple of pods in a Lac-Hangar or a even bigger number of armed sensor probes. Like the fleet use the LAC´s for forward operating missle defense, a LAC could use some armed probes to increase their missle defense capaticity.


I mentioned something similar - design a series of "modules" that fit the maximum volume of a standard LAC bay. Marine crew module, assault shuttle boat bay module. limited function keyhole module. etc.

However, after the last 2 books, I think we will see this more on the Taylor class auxiliaries, than on a LAC carrier. it is tempting to make them multi functional, but it does cut directly into a CLAC's main battery.


:) Any weapon no matter how many variations is only as tactically effective as the mind of the person that employs it :!:

Nimitz
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by Dauntless   » Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:37 am

Dauntless
Commodore

Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:54 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Thinking of On Basilisk Station Honor would have had no trouble with a Nike BC


honor would have had no trouble with any class of battle cruiser. heck if she had an unmodified Fearless with its much greater broadside and much deeper magazines the fight would have been very different
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by drothgery   » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:34 pm

drothgery
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1935
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:07 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Dauntless wrote:
Thinking of On Basilisk Station Honor would have had no trouble with a Nike BC


honor would have had no trouble with any class of battle cruiser. heck if she had an unmodified Fearless with its much greater broadside and much deeper magazines the fight would have been very different

Though up until the final confrontation with Sirius, a second RMN warship -- even if only a destroyer -- would have been far more useful to her than replacing CL Fearless with a ship of the wall.
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by SharkHunter   » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:10 am

SharkHunter
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1434
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:53 pm
Location: Independence, Missouri

Nike's are probably now the capital ship of the future except in full-on fleet engagements. Not all that efficient compared to what Tremaine used in SoV... which in my mind is an ideal force mix, whether or not you buy the "Barricade" plot device or not.

Picture First Hancock with a single Sag-C, four Rolands, and about a dozen LACs, backed by Ginger and crew and all of the current Ghost Rider goodies. They'd have eaten Chin's ships for lunch and offered to make a meal out of the SDs that never came in. Or the defense of Yeltsin (Third, I think?) with five SDs, etc. Thurston's battleships would NEVER have been able to range on the mini-squadron and they'd likely think that the LACS were DDs launching synched broadsides. The -G warheads would have torn either set of Peep ships to shreds.

Which is now true for any other space navy formation up to task group size, etc. outside of the GA... except perhaps the mystery MAlign which isn't ready to take on Manticore yet, let alone adding Haven, Beowulf, and the Andies to the mix.

Thoughts?
---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by pappilon   » Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:38 pm

pappilon
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:29 pm

Maldorian wrote:One thing is sure: If you make it possible to carry LAC´s in a Keyhole-bay would make a ship more flexible. You have always to calculate the use against the modification costs.

I was thinking, wouldn´t it be good to make normal LAC-Carrier more flexible if the could transport different equippment in their LAC-Hangars? I was thinking of a couple of pods in a Lac-Hangar or a even bigger number of armed sensor probes. Like the fleet use the LAC´s for forward operating missle defense, a LAC could use some armed probes to increase their missle defense capaticity.



So losing half of your fire control links for one LAC is a more flexible ship? May as wll gut the internal magazine of a CL and replace it with a grazer to make it more efective at close range.
Bad solution for a non-existent problem.
and "barricade is nothing but a modified triple ripple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The imagination has to be trained into foresight and empathy.
Ursula K. LeGuinn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: Keyhole LAC
Post by Fox2!   » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:27 pm

Fox2!
Captain of the List

Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:34 am
Location: Huntsville, AL

SharkHunter wrote:Nike's are probably now the capital ship of the future except in full-on fleet engagements. Not all that efficient compared to what Tremaine used in SoV... which in my mind is an ideal force mix, whether or not you buy the "Barricade" plot device or not.



Barricade was a waste of Mk 23s, the least expendable and most potent weapon the RMN has.
Top

Return to Honorverse