?

penny wrote:Text has incidences where, “We just lost Graser 1 mam,”. Each similar incidence always cast images of huge “pieces” of armor drifting off into space. At times I learned the loss simply meant a technical issue of severed power cables, etc. But I always assumed that some incidents actually involved entire chunks of dissected armor. But now I dunno. Huge chunks of destroyer sized pieces blown away and drifting into space?

Not necessarily. If you lose whatever sits on the outside and focuses the gamma-ray beam into a laser, or just damage it sufficiently, it won't do its job. It's probably rather fragile, even if not a glass lens.

And it's a weak spot in the armour. The ship might shrug hits elsewhere and keep going, but hit the grasers and lasers, or the missile tubes, and the energy goes into the ship wrecking everything that was behind it.

Still, I wonder. In a vacuum, streamlining isn't necessary. Couldn't the lasers and grazers be mounted outside of the armour, with small conduits for power and control the only piercings.
I do realise that isn't so from the illustrations, but wonder?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:Text has incidences where, “We just lost Graser 1 mam,”. Each similar incidence always cast images of huge “pieces” of armor drifting off into space. At times I learned the loss simply meant a technical issue of severed power cables, etc. But I always assumed that some incidents actually involved entire chunks of dissected armor. But now I dunno. Huge chunks of destroyer sized pieces blown away and drifting into space?

Not necessarily. If you lose whatever sits on the outside and focuses the gamma-ray beam into a laser, or just damage it sufficiently, it won't do its job. It's probably rather fragile, even if not a glass lens.

And it's a weak spot in the armour. The ship might shrug hits elsewhere and keep going, but hit the grasers and lasers, or the missile tubes, and the energy goes into the ship wrecking everything that was behind it.

Daryl wrote:Still, I wonder. In a vacuum, streamlining isn't necessary. Couldn't the lasers and grazers be mounted outside of the armour, with small conduits for power and control the only piercings.
I do realise that isn't so from the illustrations, but wonder?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:
Not necessarily. If you lose whatever sits on the outside and focuses the gamma-ray beam into a laser, or just damage it sufficiently, it won't do its job. It's probably rather fragile, even if not a glass lens.

And it's a weak spot in the armour. The ship might shrug hits elsewhere and keep going, but hit the grasers and lasers, or the missile tubes, and the energy goes into the ship wrecking everything that was behind it.

Well, you still need "streamlining" to some degree with the compensation field - ie, something can't protrude too far from the skin before it's outside the field. And you also need access hallways for maintenance and manning requirements. But otherwise, yes, it could sit outside the armor (I believe PDLCs are this way). Also the manned section is usually considered a armored compartment that they pump the atmosphere out during battle. Since manning is being removed (or reduced) from the mounts in newer ships, this might be more feasible.

The downside of placing the big guns out there is they can be easily damaged in a firefight, and maintenance will be a pain.

Thinking about the newest generation of the Real World OTO Melara 76 Sovraponte mount. It is 30-40% lighter than their standard 76 Super Rapid, and is designed to mount on top of standard decks (not reinforced weapons mounts) with no deck penetration. The gun mount features a stealth cupola and 76 rounds in the mount with a autoloader, and can fire 2 rounds a sec. In short, you just bolt it wherever, give it power and a connection to your fire control, and you can put out 2 3" rounds a second out to 40 KM.

Daryl wrote:Still, I wonder. In a vacuum, streamlining isn't necessary. Couldn't the lasers and grazers be mounted outside of the armour, with small conduits for power and control the only piercings.
I do realise that isn't so from the illustrations, but wonder?

Theemile wrote:Well, you still need "streamlining" to some degree with the compensation field - ie, something can't protrude too far from the skin before it's outside the field. And you also need access hallways for maintenance and manning requirements. But otherwise, yes, it could sit outside the armor (I believe PDLCs are this way). Also the manned section is usually considered a armored compartment that they pump the atmosphere out during battle. Since manning is being removed (or reduced) from the mounts in newer ships, this might be more feasible.

The downside of placing the big guns out there is they can be easily damaged in a firefight, and maintenance will be a pain.

Remember the graser is described as being 5 tons or more and it has to be pointed outward (only the gravity lens at the end shifts to control the direction). So if you tried to put these beasts completely outside the armor, the ship would look like a porcupine and the explosion of one being hit could take out all of them on one side of the ship. Yes, burying them inside the armor might result in more localized damage, but more fighting power would still remain.

penny wrote:Text has incidences where, “We just lost Graser 1 mam,”. Each similar incidence always cast images of huge “pieces” of armor drifting off into space. At times I learned the loss simply meant a technical issue of severed power cables, etc. But I always assumed that some incidents actually involved entire chunks of dissected armor. But now I dunno. Huge chunks of destroyer sized pieces blown away and drifting into space?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Not necessarily. If you lose whatever sits on the outside and focuses the gamma-ray beam into a laser, or just damage it sufficiently, it won't do its job. It's probably rather fragile, even if not a glass lens.

And it's a weak spot in the armour. The ship might shrug hits elsewhere and keep going, but hit the grasers and lasers, or the missile tubes, and the energy goes into the ship wrecking everything that was behind it.

Daryl wrote:Still, I wonder. In a vacuum, streamlining isn't necessary. Couldn't the lasers and grazers be mounted outside of the armour, with small conduits for power and control the only piercings.
I do realise that isn't so from the illustrations, but wonder?

You mean it isn't designed that way? Well, I just got the memo! I agree on how easy it would be to damage if mounted externally, but disagree on how difficult it would be to repair, as opposed to a repair if partially recessed within the armor! One reason I thought an external design would be used is for reasons of being able to localize and limit damage. And to limit further damage by the compromised hull structure being able to be coffered and shut off from the enemy concentrating on that compromised section of the hull.

penny wrote:And to limit further damage by the compromised hull structure being able to be coffered and shut off from the enemy concentrating on that compromised section of the hull.

Being hit is a matter of percentages; the enemy does not concentrate on a compromised section of hull, when it is a matter of luck that they hit the ship at all. The only way I can imagine you get that effect, is if enough of the energy weapons are damaged on one side to reduce the anti-missile capacity for that direction.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:And to limit further damage by the compromised hull structure being able to be coffered and shut off from the enemy concentrating on that compromised section of the hull.

Being hit is a matter of percentages; the enemy does not concentrate on a compromised section of hull, when it is a matter of luck that they hit the ship at all. The only way I can imagine you get that effect, is if enough of the energy weapons are damaged on one side to reduce the anti-missile capacity for that direction.

I am surprised since the GR drone can see damage. Along with the accuracy of GR. So, it is possible for the RMN to adopt such a tactic. Possible for the MAN as well.

Even if not, just the worry from successive hits on the compromised section of hull should be a concern. And reason enough to build in a coffer damn ability.

penny wrote:And to limit further damage by the compromised hull structure being able to be coffered and shut off from the enemy concentrating on that compromised section of the hull.

tlb wrote:Being hit is a matter of percentages; the enemy does not concentrate on a compromised section of hull, when it is a matter of luck that they hit the ship at all. The only way I can imagine you get that effect, is if enough of the energy weapons are damaged on one side to reduce the anti-missile capacity for that direction.

penny wrote:I am surprised since the GR drone can see damage. Along with the accuracy of GR. So, it is possible for the RMN to adopt such a tactic. Possible for the MAN as well.

Even if not, just the worry from successive hits on the compromised section of hull should be a concern. And reason enough to build in a coffer damn ability.

Perhaps the Ghost Rider platforms could see the damage, but before Apollo there was no way to share that information with the missiles. I am not sure even now, how much information is shared between the drones and the Apollo command missile.

The FTL capabilities of the Malign are not yet as advanced as that of the GA and might not be applicable to a Cataphract missile; needing the micro-fusion reactor, the true multi-drive baffle and smaller, more capable FTL equipment to make a similar system.

PS: Not sure how how your "coffer dam" (note spelling) is different from what they do now; since they may have internal strengthening to help localize damage. I do not think that we know enough about the structure of the armor to say it is not there already.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:And to limit further damage by the compromised hull structure being able to be coffered and shut off from the enemy concentrating on that compromised section of the hull.

tlb wrote:Being hit is a matter of percentages; the enemy does not concentrate on a compromised section of hull, when it is a matter of luck that they hit the ship at all. The only way I can imagine you get that effect, is if enough of the energy weapons are damaged on one side to reduce the anti-missile capacity for that direction.

penny wrote:I am surprised since the GR drone can see damage. Along with the accuracy of GR. So, it is possible for the RMN to adopt such a tactic. Possible for the MAN as well.

Even if not, just the worry from successive hits on the compromised section of hull should be a concern. And reason enough to build in a coffer damn ability.

Perhaps the Ghost Rider platforms could see the damage, but before Apollo there was no way to share that information with the missiles. I am not sure even now, how much information is shared between the drones and the Apollo command missile.

The FTL capabilities of the Malign are not yet as advanced as that of the GA and might not be applicable to a Cataphract missile; needing the micro-fusion reactor, the true multi-drive baffle and smaller, more capable FTL equipment to make a similar system.

PS: Not sure how how your "coffer dam" (note spelling) is different from what they do now; since they may have internal strengthening to help localize damage. I do not think that we know enough about the structure of the armor to say it is not there already.

There still should be concern about further hits on a compromised section of the hull.

I would guess there is some sort of strengthening of compromised sections of hull from blown out pieces. For some reason I want to say a screen/force field is used. Dunno if I'm experiencing scene bleed from Star Trek or from something I read in the text or in the forums.

But my point is that a wholly hull mount would make a coffer dam easier to implement.

Sorry about spelling. Dunno how that happened. It is also in my original.

penny wrote:I would guess there is some sort of strengthening of compromised sections of hull from blown out pieces. For some reason I want to say a screen/force field is used. Dunno if I'm experiencing scene bleed from Star Trek or from something I read in the text or in the forums.

But my point is that a wholly hull mount would make a coffer dam easier to implement.

There is NO screen force field beyond the particle shield, the various sidewalls and the wedge.

They are NOT going to mount grasers on the outside of the hull. These things are huge and need to be protected, since they are also fragile. They have to point outwards and would make the ship look like a porcupine. Just be satisfied that the self defense laser clusters are on the surface.