LAC not so useful after all?

The only main modern and one-sided engagement that used the modern and best LAC, Filareta's Raging Justice shows that even 53,000 unguided not very good DDM's first generation. Took out 200-300 LAC. (2000 crew killed 6-10 per LAC)... In a pod layer to pod layer screened with LAC force losing 200-300 LAC in each Salvo is going to wipe out all CLAC LAC carried into battle in the first 3-4-5 Salvos. It just goes to show even the best LAC isn't good enough to be in the wall of battle. Even if one is fighting what amount to useless old school SD's.

One is going to need something else. A screening BCL optimized for defense might survive. Or a pod based PDLC would cut the loss of personnel to a minimum. LAC just don't work as planned.

Lord Skimper wrote:In a pod layer to pod layer screened with LAC force losing 200-300 LAC in each Salvo is going to wipe out all CLAC LAC carried into battle in the first 3-4-5 Salvos.

It just goes to show even the best LAC isn't good enough to be in the wall of battle. Even if one is fighting what amount to useless old school SD's.

And just how many ships other than LACs did the Grand Alliance lose? The LACs did their job screening the wall of battle. I didn't bother to look up the totals you ignored, but IIRC the GA fleet(s) lost less than 1% of their LAC screen and NONE of the ships the LACs were screening.

Lord Skimper wrote:The only main modern and one-sided engagement that used the modern and best LAC, Filareta's Raging Justice shows that even 53,000 unguided not very good DDM's first generation. Took out 200-300 LAC. (2000 crew killed 6-10 per LAC)... In a pod layer to pod layer screened with LAC force losing 200-300 LAC in each Salvo is going to wipe out all CLAC LAC carried into battle in the first 3-4-5 Salvos. It just goes to show even the best LAC isn't good enough to be in the wall of battle. Even if one is fighting what amount to useless old school SD's.

One is going to need something else. A screening BCL optimized for defense might survive. Or a pod based PDLC would cut the loss of personnel to a minimum. LAC just don't work as planned.

It would appear you have forgotten or never read my post in a different thread on this same subject. Well, co-joined subject.

Just where do you think anti CM's are going to come from?

1 Invictus SDP has less than 200 CM launchers.

1 Katana LAC has 5 CM launchers.

We do not know the LAC CM launcher times, but are probably equivalent to that on the SDP.

SDP is one launch every 8s or 200*60/8 = 1500CM's minute

1 CLAC RMN DN size has only 100 LAC's

100 LAC's * 5 launchers per LAC or 500 launchers compared to an SDP with only 200. Or, 150% more CM's.

A BCL has exactly 64CM tubes... A pitiful number compared to an SDP. Let alone an equivalent hull form full of LAC's.

Closer to reality would be a CLAC as used by the RHN, with 200 LAC's per CLAC instead of the RMN's 100. GSN goes with 150, but a more heavily armored CLAC than the equivalent tonnage RHN unit.

Now, if you wish to propose a CM only BC platform with 200 CM launchers, now that would be a possibility. Of course said BCL will die to about 40 hits or less and the missiles flying around are all capitol grade laser heads, so the number is probably far fewer. On top of this the missile head strength is also increasing, making light units even less likely to survive or be cost effective.

LAC's on the other hand actually win the tonnage war in that the missiles coming at them are still the same size, but it requires more hits to eliminate their CM ability than an equivalent BCL tonnage CM dedicated platform or at least the exact same. Of course the countervailing argument is that the BCLCM only platform will have more CM's to burn than an equivalent tonnage of LAC's as its systems infrastructure is far more efficient.

Anywhoo. Open House of Steel and do a little war gaming my friend. PDLC, is vastly in favor of the LAC's as well over the BCL or the SDP.

IIRC, not all of those casualties were incurred with LACs. It was implied that several capital ships took minor damage.

I completely agree with Relax.

10 crew for 5 CM launchers (not including the support crew of the CLAC) is a ratio of 2 people in the line of fire per CM launcher.

Nowhere else in the fleet can you find such a good low ratio of crew to launcher. Also One hit can only take out 5 launchers max on a LAC.

I think the only downside of LACs that matters is the size of the magazines.

Hi BobfromSidney,

You're right Relax is right.

From false premises only freaky results can follow, as GIGO demonstrates again.

Given the errors regarding all the details in the first post, such as crew size [10 for RMN/GSN LAC's, 13-15 for RHN] the basic premise is deeply flawed.

The idea a loss of 211 LAC's from 68,000+ missiles [323-1] somehow invalidates the GA doctrine of LAC fleet defense is more than quite a stretch, its embarrassing.

Obviously, the 211 LAC's lost were more due to an inability to get out of the way than anything intentional by the SLN.

When has a ratio of 323-1 kill ratio ever been considered a success or victory?

L

BobfromSydney wrote:I completely agree with Relax.

10 crew for 5 CM launchers (not including the support crew of the CLAC) is a ratio of 2 people in the line of fire per CM launcher.

Nowhere else in the fleet can you find such a good low ratio of crew to launcher. Also One hit can only take out 5 launchers max on a LAC.

I think the only downside of LACs that matters is the size of the magazines.

...And...
1) Katana launchers are described in HoS as "high speed"; current gen Mk16 capable launchers cycle every 18 seconds, but that is including the extended "fusion spin-up" stage of the launch cycle for the Mk 16; safe to say Katana launchers are cycling about every 7 seconds - or less.
2) Katana's mount 3 SD-grade PD clusters as main armament, plus 6 DD/LAC-grade clusters in the after aspect. All of these weapons would be incorporated into the CM belt fire plan. (There is some textev implying this, though it is vague.)
3) A major portion of the LAC CM engagement envelope is beyond the fleet engagement sack. The forward LACs continue to engage fleet bound missiles all the way through their own zone and into the fleet final CM basket.
4) LAC wedges are just as impervious to attack as ship wedges. I think we can assume that during the immediate inter-penetration portion of the counter missile battle, the wedges of the LAC CM force are also incorporated into the missile interdiction plan. Further, it is reasonable to assume that the wedge overlap of the portion of the LAC force which remains with the wall of battle is partly planned and deployed to complicate and cover the more vulnerable aspects of the capital ship force.

Conclusion: the availability of a CM LAC force, integrated into the overall task force CM plan, doesn't just add capability to the CM capability, it multiplies it!

Also recall that the entire weight of 11th fleets fire was almost certainly focused on just the Home Fleet portion of the trapping forces. Certainly the (disorganized) pod launch, still the deadliest portion for all its irregularity, was all aimed at Honor's task group. That means that probably only Home Fleet, and its 2000 LAC covering force, were in position to effectively contribute to the critical CM engagement.

dreamrider

The ultimate point of a screening unit isn't to ensure its own survival, it's to ensure that the critical assets of your force survive longer. As such, losses amongst screening units are expected and accepted (Up to a point, of course), calling the entire concept into question when those losses are hovering at around 10 to 15% in a hugely anomalous engagement is premature, to say the least.

Lord Skimper wrote:The only main modern and one-sided engagement that used the modern and best LAC, Filareta's Raging Justice shows that even 53,000 unguided not very good DDM's first generation. Took out 200-300 LAC. (2000 crew killed 6-10 per LAC)... In a pod layer to pod layer screened with LAC force losing 200-300 LAC in each Salvo is going to wipe out all CLAC LAC carried into battle in the first 3-4-5 Salvos. It just goes to show even the best LAC isn't good enough to be in the wall of battle. Even if one is fighting what amount to useless old school SD's.

One is going to need something else. A screening BCL optimized for defense might survive. Or a pod based PDLC would cut the loss of personnel to a minimum. LAC just don't work as planned.

I have often thought similer thoughts, and, in the offence role, I think the LAC's are about finished due to the SDP's and multi-drive missles. Oh, there may be uses is suprise aattckes on modern ships, and they are quite effective against none modern ships, but mostly they have lost their offensive punch.

I agree that they still are extemely useful as defensive deployments but I wont rehash everything they said. I would like to say that for every LAC CM launcher and missle that are deployed there is that much more space on the SDP for additioanl Pods, and by extention, ammo.

Many are missing the point of the books recent discussions of CM development here.

The CM-role LACs are essential, because with the long ranges of engagement, multi-drives, and consequent extremely high closing velocities, it is an absolute necessity to extend the CM engagement zone by 2-4 times feasible CM range.

If you tried to use large screening platforms for that, them you would probably just end up with "the screen elimination battle before the battle".

dreamrider