Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 345044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caplin

Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #450 on: August 22, 2018, 12:50:39 PM »
As per discussion in this thread, it would be nice if the intelligence window could maintain a list of previously-detected populations. It stands to reason that populations would be less mobile than ships, and would be the kind of thing any half-competent intelligence staff would keep records about.
 
The following users thanked this post: swarm_sadist, Kytuzian, DIT_grue, Titanian, Rye123, King-Salomon

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #451 on: August 22, 2018, 04:29:40 PM »
MIRVS don't really provide that kind of flexibility unless you want to SM in every combo you want as needed.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #452 on: August 22, 2018, 05:11:31 PM »
MIRVS don't really provide that kind of flexibility unless you want to SM in every combo you want as needed.
That's because you shouldn't be able to strap five missiles onto four hardpoints just because the total mass comes to the same number, unless you go to the trouble of building a custom system like a MIRVed warhead. You can't just wake up in the morning and decide that you want to load fifty Stingers on your missile destroyer instead of the five cruise missiles it's designed for (or eight Sidewinders on your fighter-bomber in place of the two 2000 pound bombs it's designed to carry), just because the total displacement would be the same. What you might be able to do is attach a purpose-built missile pod, but you'd still need to manufacture that pod and get it to your staging area. Effectively a fire-and-forget launch platform wrapped around a number of missiles, which in Aurora would be represented by a two-stage system with multiple warheads.

What you should reasonably be able to do with full flexibility is attach a smaller missile to a hardpoint designed for a larger one, and the box launcher already lets you do that out of the box (you should pardon the, pun) with no need for workarounds.
 

Offline DEEPenergy

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 55
  • Thanked: 35 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #453 on: August 22, 2018, 05:25:06 PM »
Hi Steve, if it's possible could NPR missile firings not reduce the game to 5 second increments? I'm sure there's a reason behind it but I don't like that it gives away what the enemy is doing. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 07:14:18 PM by DEEPenergy »
 

Offline swarm_sadist

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • s
  • Posts: 263
  • Thanked: 21 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #454 on: August 22, 2018, 08:15:38 PM »
MIRVS don't really provide that kind of flexibility unless you want to SM in every combo you want as needed.
That's because you shouldn't be able to strap five missiles onto four hardpoints just because the total mass comes to the same number, unless you go to the trouble of building a custom system like a MIRVed warhead. You can't just wake up in the morning and decide that you want to load fifty Stingers on your missile destroyer instead of the five cruise missiles it's designed for (or eight Sidewinders on your fighter-bomber in place of the two 2000 pound bombs it's designed to carry), just because the total displacement would be the same. What you might be able to do is attach a purpose-built missile pod, but you'd still need to manufacture that pod and get it to your staging area. Effectively a fire-and-forget launch platform wrapped around a number of missiles, which in Aurora would be represented by a two-stage system with multiple warheads.

What you should reasonably be able to do with full flexibility is attach a smaller missile to a hardpoint designed for a larger one, and the box launcher already lets you do that out of the box (you should pardon the, pun) with no need for workarounds.
Why? There is no engineering problem with this. There are even an example of modern nuclear submarines that can carry multiple surface to air missiles packed into a single VLS designed for a ballistic missile. They even have small diametre quad packs of bombs that can go on a single hardpoint for aircraft. Sure a dedicated platform designed to fire those missiles would be much more effective, but a little penalty in mass or loadout is well worth the versatility allowed.

But Harrier is a terrible fighter plane and was mainly used due to its VTOL capability, that allowed "mini-carriers" to ferry them to combat zones. The plane lacks an integral gun and thus the need to carry a gun-pod like the Equalizer. So it kinda proves the point Scandinavian was making.
The harrier was used for two purposes:
1) To give the assault ships and helicopter carriers more "teeth" than helicopters allowed, and to be able to provide bare minimum air superiority in the area and
2) To allow the Royal Air Force to maintain a presence even in heavy mountains, forests, and nuked cities (remember, cold war).

For a first generation VTOL jet with no computer assisted flying, the Harrier did everything needed. It was never going to compete with land based air superiority fighters, not even catapult launched aircraft can compete with a contemporary land based aircraft. Honestly, the Harrier wasn't THAT bad.

Quote
Even the smallest lasers (10cm Focal Size) are 150 tons. With Reduced-size you can bring it down to 100 tons but then you have to accept quadrupled recharge times. That's still 20% of your 500 ton fighter, or even a higher percentage if you're making a faster interceptor-type fighter.
Which is equivalent to a large missile box launcher. Also, pretty sure there are much more extreme reduced-size options available.

Quote
To me, swapping something that is twenty percent of the mass of a fighter does not sound doable. Even the B-52, that could carry 31 tons of bombs, couldn't just swap those bombs with some other weapon, because it was purpose-built to carry bombs in its cavernous bomb bays and nothing else.
Again, why not? A B-52 can carry 31 bombs, or it could carry 60 smaller bombs, or 1 giant bomb, or guided bombs, or standoff bombs with 200 mile range, or cruise missiles with nuclear tips. Hell, pretty sure they have ballistic missiles that can be fired from bombers. Nothing is stopping someone from putting 100 sidewinders in a B-52, there just isn't a reason why you would.

I would like to suggest bomb bays, although I'm sure that has been suggested before.

Hi Steve, if it's possible could NPR missile firings not reduce the game to 5 second increments? I'm sure there's a reason behind it but I don't like that it gives away what the enemy is doing. 
That is because the computer still has to calculate damage and weapon use, even when the player cannot see. If it didn't pause, you could have hour long turns with no feedback into what is happening. Don't worry, I'm sure C# Aurora will be quicker.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 08:18:49 PM by swarm_sadist »
 
The following users thanked this post: QuakeIV

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #455 on: August 22, 2018, 09:20:06 PM »
Swarm sadist made a lot of the points I was going to make moments before reading them in his post.  Hardpoints work exactly in the way that Scandinavian claimed they dont.  In general airframes have a maximum payload weight, which can be split any which way among its hardpoints into various different weapons, so long as the load is balanced and you don't run out of hardpoint space.  I can fully understand the point made earlier about it potentially not being worth the added complexity, but its nonsensical to say you shouldn't be allowed to do it.



« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 09:29:50 PM by QuakeIV »
 

Offline Whitecold

  • Commander
  • *********
  • W
  • Posts: 330
  • Thanked: 88 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #456 on: August 23, 2018, 12:30:19 AM »
@QuakeIV: The biggest problem I see is from a gameplay perspective, what is the difference to box launchers? Box launchers already have a chance to explode on being hit now, making them extremely dangerous to get caught with missiles still unfired.
All you get is a box launcher that no longer cares about size of individual launcher cells. Being outside of armor might make it even better for early fighters, since it reduces the size inside armor, and the armor on these fighters is mostly dead weight anyway. So you just end up with out any interesting trade off for your new system.

You can easily argue with the box launcher containing essential equipment to launch a missile which would not be easily possible at a hardpoint, or starting drives damaging each other if they are not properly shielded from each other, requiring separate cells.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #457 on: August 23, 2018, 01:08:59 AM »
There are even an example of modern nuclear submarines that can carry multiple surface to air missiles packed into a single VLS designed for a ballistic missile. They even have small diametre quad packs of bombs that can go on a single hardpoint for aircraft. Sure a dedicated platform designed to fire those missiles would be much more effective, but a little penalty in mass or loadout is well worth the versatility allowed.
Yes, there are examples of building a custom weapons package that lets multiple missiles be packed into a single larger tube. This still has to be purpose-built, it's not a minor hot works you can decide to make on the fly as you load the ordnance for deployment.

Quote
Nothing is stopping someone from putting 100 sidewinders in a B-52,
For transportation, sure. But you can also do that with box launchers (they provide full magazine capacity equal to their max missile size).

Quote
I would like to suggest bomb bays, although I'm sure that has been suggested before.
A system that could launch ordnance that doesn't require active targeting, such as buoys or bombs, would make excellent sense. If done right it could also be used to greatly simplify the micro around minelaying. Which is badly needed at the moment.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #458 on: August 23, 2018, 10:53:27 AM »
Bear in mind that "fighters" in aurora are still the size of large patrol ships and small corvettes (the only things of their size in the air today are fully laden mega-transports) and serve a function closer to what a patrol boat might rather than a modern fighter. The weaponry that can typically be swapped around on aircraft is generally things like bombs, missiles, external fuel tanks, rockets, things of that nature, things that swap it between an air-to-air role and an air-to-ground role, something that is already represented by ground combat pods as proposed. When you're talking about missiles, you're not talking about a launcher, you're talking about a rail. Yes there's a lot of cross compatibility there because you're swapping the hard points which are just things to which the missile is attached. This is quite a different proposition than launch tubes which is more along the lines of what I think aurora is supposed to represent. Someone mentioned a system that allows for mutliple missiles to be loaded into a single larger tube, but are they really just stuffing a bunch of missiles in a single tube or is there some sort of system, some sort of container, that allows them to be fired that way? Unless I'm mistaken there aren't a lot of hard limits that multi-stage missiles have to be built around in aurora, could you not make something that is essentially just a case that holds several missiles in a larger launcher? Maybe not quite as efficient, but it probably shouldn't be, in fact it's probably not in real life. I might be wrong with that I haven't experimented too much with multi-stage missiles.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, DEEPenergy

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #459 on: August 24, 2018, 02:07:40 PM »
The SSBN's were never intended to be hot-swapped for differing munitions, the subs were pretty much built around a given missile, and would keep it pretty much until the end, not exactly modular.  So naturally, there wasn't a lot of wiggle room in making them functional with another weapon system, so their tubes received a more rigorous re-design to accommodate the tomahawks and wiring to control each.  Enough that they got redesignated as SSGN's, and can't easily return to SSBN duties without similar reworking.   

Mk-41 VLS for US and allied warships however was built with modularity in mind.  Every visit to port could see a different weapon placed in the same cell if there were reason to change it out/reload.  Effectively box launchers coming in sets of 5 or 8 per module, each receiving an encased munition allowing a common interface for multiple weapon types, the wiring and adaptation of the interface to any given munition occurs inside the weapon canister—the ship only ever talks to canisters, the canisters translate/relay to the weapon/ship—, which slots neatly into the cells/"box launchers" and serves as launch tube for the weapon within.   

That brings me to RIM-162 ESSM, those fit four to a canister, and required zero alteration of the Mk-41 vls hardware to accommodate.  They fit into a standard canister, the canister fits the VLS.     On any given voyage they will decide if they will sail with the standard set of munitions, or if they need to change it up a bit.  Often the ships are not completely stocked these days, no need, but there is literally nothing stopping an arleigh burke destroyer from going to sea with 96 tomahawks or 384 ESSM, other than a desire to have a mix of munitions available at all times.  The change between is literally a crane lifts one canister out, and lowers the other into place.   

As far as I'm concerned, so long as there is no sharing of capacity between cells/boxes —2 size 15 box launchers cannot fit 5 size 6 missiles, only 4— , and commonality of munition within each box launcher, I don't see an issue with it.  But only for box launchers.  Standard launchers are an entirely different beast.

Its no great leap to assume standardised canisters are utilised to simplify training of ordnance personnel, transportation, and warehousing of munitions.  So long as you obey the canister's dimensions, anything goes.   

I would expect there to be some minor loss of capacity in building the separators between cells for multiple munitions, but not significant, just enough to say you can't fit 5 size 3 rounds into a size 15 launcher, but could probably get 2 size 7's into it.  I would expect that the more munitions loaded, the more is lost to dividers, such that if you could just get 2 size 7's into a size 15 launcher, you'd never fit 14 size 1's as well, but maybe 10-12.   

see here: https://www. alternatewars. com/BBOW/Weapons/VLS_Baselines. pdf
and here: https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System
« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 02:13:22 PM by amram »
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, El Pip

Offline TMaekler

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1112
  • Thanked: 298 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #460 on: August 24, 2018, 03:21:27 PM »
Depending on the type of nation one plays, it would be nice to handle civilian shipping individually. I am thinking of a multi nation start on earth; one a western democracy with no restrictions on civilian shipping. The other a communist country with all restrictions on civilian shipping applied. Possible?
 

Offline Darkminion

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • D
  • Posts: 26
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #461 on: August 24, 2018, 07:33:08 PM »
The SSBN's were never intended to be hot-swapped for differing munitions, the subs were pretty much built around a given missile, and would keep it pretty much until the end, not exactly modular.  So naturally, there wasn't a lot of wiggle room in making them functional with another weapon system, so their tubes received a more rigorous re-design to accommodate the tomahawks and wiring to control each.  Enough that they got redesignated as SSGN's, and can't easily return to SSBN duties without similar reworking.   

Mk-41 VLS for US and allied warships however was built with modularity in mind.  Every visit to port could see a different weapon placed in the same cell if there were reason to change it out/reload.  Effectively box launchers coming in sets of 5 or 8 per module, each receiving an encased munition allowing a common interface for multiple weapon types, the wiring and adaptation of the interface to any given munition occurs inside the weapon canister—the ship only ever talks to canisters, the canisters translate/relay to the weapon/ship—, which slots neatly into the cells/"box launchers" and serves as launch tube for the weapon within.   

That brings me to RIM-162 ESSM, those fit four to a canister, and required zero alteration of the Mk-41 vls hardware to accommodate.  They fit into a standard canister, the canister fits the VLS.     On any given voyage they will decide if they will sail with the standard set of munitions, or if they need to change it up a bit.  Often the ships are not completely stocked these days, no need, but there is literally nothing stopping an arleigh burke destroyer from going to sea with 96 tomahawks or 384 ESSM, other than a desire to have a mix of munitions available at all times.  The change between is literally a crane lifts one canister out, and lowers the other into place.   

As far as I'm concerned, so long as there is no sharing of capacity between cells/boxes —2 size 15 box launchers cannot fit 5 size 6 missiles, only 4— , and commonality of munition within each box launcher, I don't see an issue with it.  But only for box launchers.  Standard launchers are an entirely different beast.

Its no great leap to assume standardised canisters are utilised to simplify training of ordnance personnel, transportation, and warehousing of munitions.  So long as you obey the canister's dimensions, anything goes.   

I would expect there to be some minor loss of capacity in building the separators between cells for multiple munitions, but not significant, just enough to say you can't fit 5 size 3 rounds into a size 15 launcher, but could probably get 2 size 7's into it.  I would expect that the more munitions loaded, the more is lost to dividers, such that if you could just get 2 size 7's into a size 15 launcher, you'd never fit 14 size 1's as well, but maybe 10-12.   

see here: https://www. alternatewars. com/BBOW/Weapons/VLS_Baselines. pdf
and here: https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System

I like the idea that if allowed to fit smaller munitions into larger capacity box launchers there should be diminishing returns. Maybe have a range of possible missile sizes a certain sized box launcher can accept rather than giving a player carte blanche with what can be stuffed in there. This would help with say building an aurora equivalent of the F15 Global Strike Eagle to min-max possible load outs. Although personally I'm not sure I would want smaller explosions :P

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.560.4885&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #462 on: August 24, 2018, 10:36:52 PM »
Quote from: Darkminion link=topic=9841. msg109515#msg109515 date=1535157188
Maybe have a range of possible missile sizes a certain sized box launcher can accept rather than giving a player carte blanche with what can be stuffed in there.

What about something like this?

Code: [Select]
maximumMunitions=INT(launcherSize^0.6)*2
maximumMunitionSize=INT(launcherSize*(1-0.015*(munitions-1))/munitions)

All munitions must

So size 15, raised to the power 0. 6 is 5. 0778, 5 when truncated to integer, 10 when doubled.   The hardlimit on munition quantity is 10.

To quad pack it, determine the munitions size limit,
Code: [Select]
INT(15*(1-0.015*(4-1))/4)
INT(15*(1-0.015*3)/4)
INT(15*(1-0.045)/4)
INT(15*0.955/4)
INT(14.325/4)
INT(3.58125)
3

So if you wanted to quad pack, they can't be larger than size 3, netting an effective capacity of size 12, for a 20% loss.   Nothing stops you quad packing size 1 in the same scenario, but you can't quad pack size 3. 75 and get the full 15 MSP.

To walk it in the other direction, if you planned to be able to quad pack with size 4, you need a launcher of at least:
Code: [Select]
roundup(size*packing/(1-0.015*(packing-1)),0)
roundup(4*4/(1-0.015*(4-1)),0)
roundup(16/(1-0.015*(4-1)),0)
roundup(16/(1-0.045),0)
roundup(16/0.955,0)
roundup(16.754,0)
17
Size 17, so you're wasting 1 MSP to quad pack with size 4.

You could quad pack a size 6 launcher, but it only with size 1's, wasting 33% of the launcher capacity.

The complete set for size 15 is 1 munition at size 15, 2 munitions @s7, 3 @s4, 4 @s3, 5 to 6 @s2, 7 to 10 @s1.

Size 100, 1@s100, 2@s49, 3@s32, 4@s23, 5@s18, 6@s15, 7@s13, 8@s11, 9@s9, 10@s8, 11@s7, 12 to 13@s6, 14 to 15@s5, 16 to 18 @s4, 19 to 22 @s3, 23 to 29 @s2, and 30 @s1.

So while there are 17 different packing options at size 100, you lose 70% of the overall capacity trying to max out on size 1's

This should keep a damper on excessive packing choices, yet still allow you to when necessary.   

That sound reasonable enough?
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, TMaekler

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2781
  • Thanked: 1047 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #463 on: August 25, 2018, 12:31:14 PM »
There is no engineering problem with this...
All the examples you gave and really, all the examples there exist, are just that - purpose-built engineering solutions. They already exist by the fact that any launcher will accept any missile as long as it fits. What QuakeIV and TMaekler were suggesting isn't that, it's much more because it would mean free swapping of all weapon systems with any other weapon system "on the fly". And that is not possible today, nor is it something that seems to be possible in the near future. And it shouldn't be brought into Aurora because it opens a massive can of worms with the combat model.

...for a first generation VTOL jet with no computer assisted flying, the Harrier did everything needed. It was never going to compete with land based air superiority fighters, not even catapult launched aircraft can compete with a contemporary land based aircraft. Honestly, the Harrier wasn't THAT bad...
That wasn't the argument. The Harrier was used as an example by QuakeIV to justify his suggestion that multirole fighters work and are great. You merely reinforced my earlier counter-point: that the Harrier, as capable as it was to perform a wide variety of tasks from a wide variety of bases, was NOT a great plane. It would always lose out to a dedicated specialist plane. I'd rather take an A-10 or SU-25 for ground support, and an F-15 or MiG-29 for air combat, or an AH-64 or a Mi-24 to operate from an improvised landing strip. Harrier's strength was that instead of 3 different platforms, you only needed to buy one.

Which is equivalent to a large missile box launcher. Also, pretty sure there are much more extreme reduced-size options available.
Box launchers, however, can get down to 50 tons. Lasers, even with the half-size reduction, which is the best there is, are still at least 100 tons. You're probably mixing it with GC that can be reduced down to 25 tons. That's still a lot more than 2% of platform mass.

Again, why not? A B-52 can carry 31 bombs, or it could carry 60 smaller bombs, or 1 giant bomb, or guided bombs, or standoff bombs with 200 mile range, or cruise missiles with nuclear tips. Hell, pretty sure they have ballistic missiles that can be fired from bombers. Nothing is stopping someone from putting 100 sidewinders in a B-52, there just isn't a reason why you would.
Because a weapon system does not exist in a vacuum. B-52 bomb bays were built to accommodate very few, very specific bombs. The specs of those bombs were then built into the bombsight. Every time the USAF wanted to get the B-52 to utilize a new weapon system, it had to modify or rebuild the bomb bays as well as the bombsight, and later the targeting computer(s). That's one reason why "smart kits" were invented, allowing mechanics to just slap them on "dumb" iron bombs, which in turn enabled bombers to drop semi-smart bombs without the need to modify the plane itself. The program to get the B-52 to fire cruise missiles was a big and costly one, requiring the design of purpose-built cruise missile for them, as well as a new version of the bomber itself to support it. So only the B-52G and H models can fire the AGM-86 ALCM, not any other model of B-52.

So again, either a platform is built for a specific weapon system, or a weapon system is built for a specific platform. Sometimes a weapon system can be used by multiple platforms, and a platform can generally use multiple weapon systems, but these are always built for the purpose, not something that is hot-swapped on a carrier deck. The external bomb racks on the wings of an F-16 cannot carry ANY type of weapon. No, they have a very finite list of weapons that they can put there.

We already have the ability to use missile launchers to shoot any type of missile as long as it fits. The ability to just swap-on-the-fly missile launchers with lasers or of violating launcher sizes as long as some arbitrary "total" isn't surpassed, goes against my sense of realism and immersion, nor does it seem like something that is really needed.
 
The following users thanked this post: Scandinavian, kks, Whitecold

Offline amram

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • a
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 79 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #464 on: August 25, 2018, 06:22:03 PM »
Quote from: Garfunkel link=topic=9841. msg109520#msg109520 date=1535218274
We already have the ability to use missile launchers to shoot any type of missile as long as it fits.  The ability to just swap-on-the-fly missile launchers with lasers or of violating launcher sizes as long as some arbitrary "total" isn't surpassed, goes against my sense of realism and immersion, nor does it seem like something that is really needed.

Mostly agreed.   I think the modularity concept can get you as far as box launchers, by their nature a self contained empty space meant only to speak to an adapter which relays to a munition, where the munition is all stages of attack by itself, requiring the launcher only to turn on, get told who to attack, and when to begin.   We have modern examples of quadpacking VLS launchers from numerous nations now, across multiple weapons systems, requiring no physical alteration of a design that predated the new munition.

The modularity exists within the canister, you engineer your munition to play nice inside a canister, and the vls system doesn't care very much after that. 

It is realistic to accept that a large enough box launcher could receive an insert for two or more smaller munitions per box launcher, the US navy has been doing operationally it for almost 15 years.

As for anything not a box launcher, its a complete logistical train, involving generation/storage of ammunition, transfer of ammunition to the launch point, a re-loadable mechanism to fire more than once, and a complete wiring interface to communicate what stage of this process it is at when queried.

Gun pods on external pylons?  Not without torsional stress tests for the mount, modification of wiring to support the needed functions of the new weapon pod such as ammunition remaining.   And those wiring changes will need to be extended from the pylon/mount point to the central computer system, and from there to the cockpit for the pilot can be aware of what it is doing/control it.

Missiles?  The F-14 could haul around the much larger AIM-54(460kg), yet never could fire the AIM-120(160kg).  Instead it had the AIM-7 sparrow, also heavier than the AIM-120 at 225kg.   It wasn't wired in a way compatible with the AIM-120, the on board computer didn't know what it was, and the firecontrol couldn't talk to it.

The F/A-18 Growlers are literally just F/A-18F's with a few extra microwave generators and receivers bolted on.   A carrier at sea cannot perform the task of uprating another F to the G model.   they can overhaul the engines, perform complete engine swaps.   Can't uprate the model from F to G, there's too much involved for it to be a field task, much less a hot swap, it is a workshop task, a refit.

Just because ah-64's can have 4 4x racks(16) of hellfires doesn't mean you can go hang a rack on each of the 11 pylons under an A-10 to go play tag with tanks in a couple of hours-not wired for the missile at all, nor can you load 11 mavericks, despite the A-10's being wired for it--on some pylons.

In Aurora, we already get greater freedom than this, the software/firecontrol updates being abstracted away when you load the newest in a series of missiles.   Just have a missile fire control, have a suitable launcher, and the weapon in the magazines, and the weapon will work.

For warships larger than fighters perhaps then?

No naval vessel has ever seen its gun armament altered as easily as reloading ammunition.  There are logistical and structural issues with the weapon to account for.  The closest naval ships get to this capability are the littoral combat ships.   Even they are not quite hot swap.   Its a days in port sort of task.   They've done it in 96 hours before during rimpac in 2012.   Effectively a non-destructive, reversible refit.

No naval vessel with rail launchers has ever hotswapped its missile armament to missiles it wasn't designed for initially.   The Oliver hazard perry frigates lost their missile armaments as a cost cutting measure, in large part because they were limited to the outdated SM-1 missiles.   By the time they were stripped of their missile armament, the US was testing anti ballistic missile missiles like SM-6.   Their magazines may have been able to hold the larger missiles, but the reload mechanism, and the rail launcher couldn't, and uprating the launcher to be the same as that on the Tico's was deemed too much effort, because it would be quite a sizeable overhaul.

MK-41 VLS could UNREP at sea at a rate of 3 canisters per hour.  https://www. dtic. mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1032180. pdf .   Lifting one out is considerably easier - no need to perfect alignment before lifting, just be close enough.   Call it 30 minutes to perform a cell unload/load operation.   90 cells, in two banks(29 and 61) that can both be in progress simultaneously, you can rearm the ship in 31 hours.

In replacing a canister, you also replace the insert contained within the canister, which means you can hot swap from single weapon of one size, to quad packed weapons that are smaller.  2+ cells of complete mission/armament change/reload per hour at sea seems to fit the bill, if slow.

Its not a weight or attachment issue, its an everything else issue.
 
The following users thanked this post: Garfunkel, Scandinavian, Rook