Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Battlefield-tactical LAMS

#1
I built a LAMS type system that can defeat missiles out to ranges over a kilometer. All it took was a big long impractical set of laser optics on a turret.
The turret arm itself has conventional LAMS defenses on the end to fight against incoming shells and missiles that do not fall within the main defense's firing arc.

[Image: GExNtzq.jpg]
[Image: NGDltAa.png]
[Image: 3vkXnFU.jpg]
[Image: NQbEepE.png]

For this setup the following are true.
Effective range: Approximately 1150m
Number of pumps: 96 / Power use per second 9600
Maximum capacity: 76800
Number of combiners: 2
Nominal alpha damage: 384 (at 40 fps)
Alpha DPS: 30720
Nominal sustained damage: 60 (at 40 fps)
Sustained damage: 4800 dps
This example setup uses two combiners per laser arm. Using only one per would allow a lighter laser arm, decrease alpha DPS by half, and substantially increase time between first firing and reaching sustained damage level. It would have no effect on sustained DPS.

The first three screenshots are of it wiping out a volley of 100 7-block radar-guided missiles fired in sequence. Because the range of this weapon is so extreme, it is harder to overwhelm with numbers than a typical LAMS; while a large missile volley might push back the point at which missiles are suppressed as shown in the screenshots, the great range means that the system can often finish off all missiles in the volley before any reach it - assuming that the missiles were fired at sufficiently long range.

The system as designed is rather impractical except perhaps as a dual-purpose weapon system due to its excessively high deck space requirements, especially behind the turret mount. An arm-like turret spanning the length of a vehicle and attached near the stern might be more practical; or a spinal-mount laser system if one happened to be using After Cataclysm with its alternate CIWS controller. I'm presently building a thrustercraft that mounts this sort of long-range fleet LAMS defense.


Attached Files
.blueprint   Tactical LAMS.blueprint (Size: 64.03 KB / Downloads: 58)
Reply

#2
Nice! I guess its a regular laser with CIWS controller? (Cant check myself sadly)
In that case, cant it be put on a two axis turret with a shorter "barrel" and just restrict the range?
Reply

#3
(2017-05-11, 07:11 PM)Zijkhal Wrote: Nice! I guess its a regular laser with CIWS controller? (Cant check myself sadly)
In that case, cant it be put on a two axis turret with a shorter "barrel" and just restrict the range?

Yeah, it is. Which is why it can't engage shells right now.
You could put it on a two-axis turret and shorten the optics, but the great range is the most useful thing about it - what makes it battlefield-tactical. A two-axis turret also wouldn't add a lot since its field of fire is already a 360-degree circle all around and 45 degrees up or down, only missing missiles in 90-degree cones directly above and below; usually things coming from those angles are close enough for conventional LAMS to destroy. Two-axis turrets are also more vulnerable to getting stuck.
Reply

#4
Might be useful if spinblock mounted, plus "dead" time could allow for charging up storage cavities for smaller energy storage systems.
Reply

#5
(2017-05-12, 05:00 AM)cheveyo877 Wrote: Might be useful if spinblock mounted, plus "dead" time could allow for charging up storage cavities for smaller energy storage systems.

Spinblock mounting would require LUA at present unfortunately, if it is possible. Though perhaps surprisingly there's very little dead time when engaging a volley of missiles, since the firing arc of a laser combiner is 45 degrees left and right as well as up and down.
Reply

#6
I think he means having it constantly spinning, like a lighthouse or something.
Uses the golden ratio.

[Image: n4pzmbo]

Fat_ninja - today at 1:40 PM
Would the perfect pair of boobs be 1.6 times the size of the body or vice versa?
Reply

#7
That still needs LUA if it's possible because, unlike the standard LWC, the vanilla antimissile cannon controller can only control weapons on turrets, not ones on spinblocks. (Even by controlling the spinblock.) If that weren't true I'd just hull-mount the silly thing.
Reply

#8
Iv been away from FTD a while, I hope I find the time to try this out later. I thought the detection system was about 500m ? and what kind of power is needed to run this setup? I mean it is viable for campaign and also or mostly adventure mode as we can get lots of long range fights
Reply

#9
(2017-06-15, 08:18 AM)lordmuck Wrote: Iv been away from FTD a while, I hope I find the time to try this out later. I thought the detection system was about 500m ? and what kind of power is needed to run this setup? I mean it is viable for campaign and also or mostly adventure mode as we can get lots of long range fights

I don't know what the maximum detection range is but it's certainly at least 1km - though dependent on the missiles' thrust. It is campaign practical though it would require a rather specialized capital ship to use to full effect. The power draw is dependent on the back end; this design is only a front end. However, this particular setup draws 9600 power - having 96 pumps - whereas the practical one on my presently not-uploaded Ion Lance draws at least 25600.

I've never gotten to the point of using a capital ship in adventure mode and this design requires a capital ship. So I cannot say.
Reply

#10
I have to checkout this piece of "technology" and adapt it maybe in my flagship
like's strange music Tongue
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)