Grav Lance Questions

WLBjork wrote:I came to a similar conclusion as valen.

(1) A Grav Lance is predominantly an engineering system (OBS)

(2) It is volume intensive, requiring the removal of 4 grasers (40cm?) (OBS)

(3) The only war shot we see of the weapon knocks out the wedge (OBS)

(4) Sidewall penetrators for contact nukes operate by "flickering" and reshaping the missile wedge to disable the sidewall (IFF).

All that suggests to me that the Grav Lance makes use of the Impeller Nodes, presumably in a similar method to the sidewall penetrator.

The equipment fitted allows a "spike" to be projected from the wedge into the sidewall, disabling said sidewall. I imagine that some form of the baffle was installed in an attempt to protect the nodes (and wedge) from failing.

Of course, only RFC knows for sure (and maybe BuNine).

Theemile wrote:

WLBjork wrote:I came to a similar conclusion as valen.

(1) A Grav Lance is predominantly an engineering system (OBS)

(2) It is volume intensive, requiring the removal of 4 grasers (40cm?) (OBS)

(3) The only war shot we see of the weapon knocks out the wedge (OBS)

(4) Sidewall penetrators for contact nukes operate by "flickering" and reshaping the missile wedge to disable the sidewall (IFF).

All that suggests to me that the Grav Lance makes use of the Impeller Nodes, presumably in a similar method to the sidewall penetrator.

The equipment fitted allows a "spike" to be projected from the wedge into the sidewall, disabling said sidewall. I imagine that some form of the baffle was installed in an attempt to protect the nodes (and wedge) from failing.

Of course, only RFC knows for sure (and maybe BuNine).

For #4, I'd use the word "interrupt" or "interpenetrate" rather than "disable". Penetrators never took down the sidewall, but created a local condition in the sidewall, allowing whatever it was shielding to pass through. A second missile, impacting simultaneously, would not be protected by a successful penetrator.

With One Stone wrote: "It wasn't the way our grav lance behaved," Cardones said, shaking his head. "It didn't affect the Q-ship's impeller nodes at all, for one thing. And even in destroying their sidewall, it only took down the starboard side, the side nearest us."

As far as you know," Hauptman put in pointedly. "Your sensors were pretty far gone by then, weren't they?"

"Yes, but they weren't so far gone that we couldn't get ranging readings as we pumped out our energy torpedoes," Cardones told her. "And the post-battle analysis of the destruction pattern clearly indicated that her port sidewall was still up when the torpedoes started ripping the guts out of her."

"Makes sense," Swofford murmured. "Just having that much metal between sidewall generators would make it hard for even a concentrated grav pulse to take out everything at once."

SWM wrote:

WLBjork wrote:I came to a similar conclusion as valen.

(1) A Grav Lance is predominantly an engineering system (OBS)

(2) It is volume intensive, requiring the removal of 4 grasers (40cm?) (OBS)

(3) The only war shot we see of the weapon knocks out the wedge (OBS)

(4) Sidewall penetrators for contact nukes operate by "flickering" and reshaping the missile wedge to disable the sidewall (IFF).

All that suggests to me that the Grav Lance makes use of the Impeller Nodes, presumably in a similar method to the sidewall penetrator.

The equipment fitted allows a "spike" to be projected from the wedge into the sidewall, disabling said sidewall. I imagine that some form of the baffle was installed in an attempt to protect the nodes (and wedge) from failing.

Of course, only RFC knows for sure (and maybe BuNine).

1, 2, and 4, are correct. 3 is not correct--the grav lance takes out sidewalls, not the wedge. But I think fallsfromtrees was asking where Valen got the idea that the grav lance was "basically a oversized and overpowered impeller node or gravity generator system"--at least, that was what I was wondering. That does not match either the text or the infodumps that David has posted on various forums.

The grav lance uses the wedge created by the perfectly normal impeller nodes built into the ship. The nodes are not overpowered or oversized, and there is no mention of a gravity generator involved.

crewdude48 wrote:The GL did not take out Sirius's wedge, but firing it did cause Fearless's wedge to fail. I suspect that is what WLBjork was referring to.

crewdude48 wrote:The GL did not take out Sirius's wedge, but firing it did cause Fearless's wedge to fail. I suspect that is what WLBjork was referring to.

Theemile wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:The GL did not take out Sirius's wedge, but firing it did cause Fearless's wedge to fail. I suspect that is what WLBjork was referring to.

However, it did not fail in the fleet exercises, only when firing at the Sirus. I would expect it was the excessive battle damage which caused the Grav Lance to shut down the wedge, not a normal factor in it's operation.

What good whould a grav lance be if when taking down your opponent's sidewalls, it dropped ALL your defenses and left you dead in space? You would be dogfood for any escorts the opponent has - 1 CM could do you in.

WLBjork wrote:

crewdude48 wrote:The GL did not take out Sirius's wedge, but firing it did cause Fearless's wedge to fail. I suspect that is what WLBjork was referring to.

It was, my apologies for curtailing my train of thought there.

Presumably this is a part of why the weapon was abandoned as well, not much good if you can't maneuver after firing, and your vulnerable are exposed...


@theemile That is the one fly in the ointment. I have 3 possibilities:

1. My speculation is incorrect.

2. The nodes fail due to feedback from the interactions. The underpowered shot in the war games doesn't cause enough feedback to disable either. (Least likely, I would have expected at least 1 test of an all up warshot against intact sidewalls which should have revealed this weakness).

3. The system that should have protected the drive nodes failed under battle damage, resulting in the nodes blowing.

Theemile wrote:The GL system was in active use on several classes of capitol ships prior to the Fearless tests. I doubt they would have installed it in SDs anc BCs if it had more than a % or 2 chance of dropping the entire Wedge (and sidewalls)

JeffEngel wrote:

Theemile wrote:The GL system was in active use on several classes of capitol ships prior to the Fearless tests. I doubt they would have installed it in SDs anc BCs if it had more than a % or 2 chance of dropping the entire Wedge (and sidewalls)

I imagine it's likely a whole lot sturdier in a capital ship built for it as opposed to an old light cruiser gutted and stuck back together in order to operate it (and nearly nothing else), done just to test the concept, expected to be an attrition unit, and (in the case of that specific testbed) never intended for actual combat.