Author Topic: Box Launcher Reloads  (Read 2443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seolferwulf

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2017, 07:34:53 AM »
How about adding another order for ships with box launchers?
"Reload missiles at next hangar" or something which simply reloads box missiles without changing the mothership-parasite settings.
Wouldn't this take care of the added micro management?
 

Offline Zincat

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 228
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2017, 11:05:55 AM »
How about adding another order for ships with box launchers?
"Reload missiles at next hangar" or something which simply reloads box missiles without changing the mothership-parasite settings.
Wouldn't this take care of the added micro management?

If Steve can implement this, I think it would be good. A "reload box launchers " order that can be chosen when selecting a TF or a base with hangars of a sufficient size. Just pick your task force, move it to the base/mothership/whatever, and then use the "reload box launchers" order.
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2017, 01:21:49 PM »
Somewhat late to the party here.  If we can avoid the micromanagement problems, I have no problem requiring all launchers be reloaded in hangar.

Below is an excerpt from the U.S. Naval Institute Blog regarding the replenishment of current VLS.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2015/07/30/vls-at-sea-reloading

"Unfortunately, reloading VLS at-sea isn’t incorporated into the Navy’s logistical DNA in the same way refueling is. Reloading VLS cells in today’s status quo demands an industrially robust port facility with heavy equipment, trained rigging crews, and a large munitions storage facility. It is not uncommon to damage equipment, and people have been seriously injured during VLS loading and unloading evolutions. Experts at the Naval Weapons Stations and some Naval Support Facilities use cranes to unload spent canisters, move gas management system equipment, and place loaded canisters in cells. "
There's no IQ requirement to publish with USNI.  It's a lot like an internet forum, except that everyone involved has the letters USN after their name.  The reason the USN abandoned UNREP of VLS (which they used to have the capability to do) was that in the aftermath of the Cold War they were looking more at land-attack missions than air defense, and as such it wasn't really necessary, given the complications involved.  That said, I work across the street from the Naval Weapons Station in Seal Beach, CA, and they have like a couple of cranes.  Not big ones like you see in ports or to build skyscrapers, but the kind mounted on trucks.  And this is one of the leading weapons facilities for the Pacific Fleet.  I wouldn't want to do it at sea (missiles are big, ships move), but I don't think you'd have any real trouble doing it in any port, except for the paperwork.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline ardem

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 749
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2017, 12:27:13 AM »
Again I see no reason to have hangers, as I believe maintenance facilities are exactly that. They would be facilities with docking berths to allow for the repair and maintenance of internal and externals of the ship. Having Hangars is extra layer that does not need to be there

Box launchers are not a balance issue, if you get swamped by a single attack of box launchers, then return the favor with AMM to you arsenal in box launcher fashion, just like in honor harrington with missile pods. Either way there is no need for BALANCE in a single player game, realism and options creates it own balance.

As for Box launchers being so hard compared to missile magazines, here are a number of images, from our current wet navy. As for loading missiles on future starships into magazines I see no difference, they will always have a limited entry point. They will always need stacking internally and it will always need to be done carefully. Only difference for space that i see is EVA and non EVA requirements. But if you do box launchers like the current Ticonderoga class with these internal/external missile pods for the tomahawks there is very little EVA.

Box Launchers
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eeH3-CXcYMo/VWuPXmAcvWI/AAAAAAAAEXw/9Pb1hzgscqs/s1600/tomahawk%2Blauncher.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/62/24/0c6224de245819e442be6b1c16f4ba59--navy-chief-naval-history.jpg

Magazine
As you could see these would be loaded in one by one, even if they were precrated into magazine you would still need to them at a size suitable for cargo entries, no in huge bulk.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/84/ed/0784ed70505f8f0139f368eb51e3889c.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/USS_Mahan_loading_an_SM-2ER.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6lvJE8W.png


Side note it looks like most of the wet navies these days are going back to box launch styles, rather then magazine style AAM, atleast for their big missiles.





 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2017, 01:19:27 PM »
Side note it looks like most of the wet navies these days are going back to box launch styles, rather then magazine style AAM, atleast for their big missiles.
It's a bit more complicated than that.  Some types of missiles have always been 'box', most notably anti-ship missiles.  The FFG-7s did have Harpoon capability on their Mk 13 launcher, but that was the exception, not the rule, and I can't think of another example.  (Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets had some.)  ASROC and Sea Sparrow were also box (except for the ASROCS on some of the rail launchers), although they usually had onboard reloads.  Magazine-type launchers were only seen for SAMs.  I believe that one of the main reasons they switched to VLS was that it allowed them to handle bigger missiles, mostly Tomahawk, which they couldn't fire out of Mk 13 or Mk 26 launchers.  Another aspect may have been the demise of the really big missiles, like Talos, which might have been tricky to fit in a VLS.
I'm not sure how much of this carries over into space.  One particular aspect is that you don't have sea motion in space, which is a serious constraint on missile handling.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Elouda

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 152
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2017, 06:06:29 PM »
To add to the above, there are a few other things that I'd consider key factors for why VLS is really the 'standard' for modern warships, even in the air defence role;
-Flexibility; Most modern systems can accept a range of munitions, meaning your mix of short-range SAMs (often multipacked), long-range SAMs and other loads (anti-sub, land attack, anti-surface) is entirely up to the users preference and mission requirements
-Availability; Anything thats loaded is 'instantly' available, and this is really key especially when you have multiple different munitions loaded
-Compactness/Weight; Again, while there's some advantages to VLS even with a single munition, if you have multiple, replacing the 'single purpose' systems for those with a 'multi-purpose' VLS can save quite a bit of weight and space.

Also, while the Talos is fairly long (just under 10m), its certainly possible to fire missiles of that size from a VLS, as the P-700 is the same length and bulkier. Of course, in this case the VLS for them is 'single purpose', but thats probably a design issue, as the Soviets/Russians seem to have liked dedicated VLS systems for each weapon type.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2017, 06:08:09 PM by Elouda »
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2017, 10:58:59 AM »
I believe that one of the main reasons they switched to VLS was that it allowed them to handle bigger missiles, mostly Tomahawk, which they couldn't fire out of Mk 13 or Mk 26 launchers.  Another aspect may have been the demise of the really big missiles, like Talos, which might have been tricky to fit in a VLS.

My impression at the time (mostly from Harpoon and Clancy :) ) was that it was RoF for missile defense.  Aegis was designed to counter the threat of massed soviet bomber attacks launching large salvoes of ASM; the main improvements in the Aegis cruisers to support this were the introduction of phased array radars for electronic steering and multiple target illumination and the VLS system for rapid launch.  Wikipedia claims that the Mk 13 one armed bandits have a RoF of 1 per 10 seconds for ASM.  This site http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htm says Mk 26 (double-rail launcher that Aegis cruisers started with) has twice that (2 per 10 seconds), while Mk 41 VLS is listed at 1 per second.

Hmmmm - just realized...  STEVE:  Have you thought about a phased array fire control that could illuminate a boatload of targets simultaneously?  Would probably screw up game balance, but it seems a reasonable extension.

John
 

Offline Elouda

  • Registered
  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 152
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2017, 11:18:42 AM »
If only firecontrol channels and limitations were a more detailed thing... :D
 

Offline byron

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 848
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2017, 11:09:04 AM »
My impression at the time (mostly from Harpoon and Clancy :) ) was that it was RoF for missile defense.  Aegis was designed to counter the threat of massed soviet bomber attacks launching large salvoes of ASM; the main improvements in the Aegis cruisers to support this were the introduction of phased array radars for electronic steering and multiple target illumination and the VLS system for rapid launch.  Wikipedia claims that the Mk 13 one armed bandits have a RoF of 1 per 10 seconds for ASM.  This site http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htm says Mk 26 (double-rail launcher that Aegis cruisers started with) has twice that (2 per 10 seconds), while Mk 41 VLS is listed at 1 per second.

Hmmmm - just realized...  STEVE:  Have you thought about a phased array fire control that could illuminate a boatload of targets simultaneously?  Would probably screw up game balance, but it seems a reasonable extension.

John
I'd need to re-read the relevant Friedman (which I have at home), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was some of all of the above.  Another aspect, not mentioned, is that your missiles are not left exposed to the elements, and you can fire in worse weather, due to ship motion constraints.
That said, AEGIS doesn't use a phased-array illuminator.  What gives it better target-handling capability is that unlike earlier ships it doesn't have to use the illuminator throughout the flight of the missile.  The missiles have a programmable autopilot, which extends range (they can fly more efficient trajectories) and means that they illuminators are only required for the final few seconds of flight.  The SPG-62s are slaved the AEGIS, and in fact do not even have a receive unit to make sure that they're tracking the target.  New Threat Upgrade was a program for earlier missile ships which gave them the programmable autopilot, but they still had lower capability due to worse main radar and the fact that their illuminators had to search, unlike the SPG-62s.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline sloanjh

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2628
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2017, 07:17:00 AM »
That said, AEGIS doesn't use a phased-array illuminator.  What gives it better target-handling capability is that unlike earlier ships it doesn't have to use the illuminator throughout the flight of the missile.  The missiles have a programmable autopilot, which extends range (they can fly more efficient trajectories) and means that they illuminators are only required for the final few seconds of flight.  The SPG-62s are slaved the AEGIS, and in fact do not even have a receive unit to make sure that they're tracking the target.

Yep - I'd forgotten this.

John
 

Offline mandalorethe1st

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Box Launcher Reloads
« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2017, 05:44:11 PM »
What if box launcher reloads were allowed between ships, but required special equipment on both the reloading and reloaded ship?  This would mimic the system currently in use.   This module would slowly reload the box launchers while underway and docked with the collier.   The reloading module would be larger, representing the dedicated equipment to move missiles into the tubes, cranes, and ready the tubes for firing, while the receiving equipment can be smaller, representing docking and handling equipment.   There would be a penalty for movement speed, and a possibility of killing a crew member on both vessels.   That way there is a way to reload a ship underway, but it is a risky operation that requires a dedicated collier.   It could also be included on a forward fleet base.   Then the player can choose to include the ability to reload with a mass penalty.   For example, a home defense missile boat would not benefit from it, and could carry more missiles, but a forward deployed destroyer could stay engaged a lot longer if a system was included.   The reloads would be made quicker and safer with the logistics bonus of the various commanders.   

 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51