What about DN(P)s for the GA?

All good points.

Increased magazine capacity would be a good start, certainly, though you may run into some pretty inflexible volume restrictions; how big do you want your LAC to get, given that it has to fit into the carrier? Larger LACs means fewer ships per carrier, so where is the sweet spot between platform numbers and platform capability?

The Ferret would be a good start for an EW platform, assuming you want it to deploy some kind of remote platform. However, given that LAC shipkillers are relatively small and that the latest EW platforms are rather larger, perhaps it would be better to build something like Dazzler/Dragon's Tooth capability into the LAC itself, deleting all missile armament to free up volume and leaving the ship with only PDLCs as weapons.

Dafmeister wrote:Increased magazine capacity would be a good start, certainly, though you may run into some pretty inflexible volume restrictions; how big do you want your LAC to get, given that it has to fit into the carrier? Larger LACs means fewer ships per carrier, so where is the sweet spot between platform numbers and platform capability?

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, where ever that "sweet spot" might be, CLAC escorts trump the "DN(p)s are needed to provide more hulls for anti-missile defense" argument.

Magazine capacity doesn't necessarily need to be internal -- I've suggested elsewhere that a standard pod loaded with standard canister rounds (with 3-5 CMs each) would extend magazine capacity by 24-50 missiles -- depending on pod model and canister capacity.

Dafmeister wrote:The Ferret would be a good start for an EW platform, assuming you want it to deploy some kind of remote platform. However, given that LAC shipkillers are relatively small and that the latest EW platforms are rather larger, perhaps it would be better to build something like Dazzler/Dragon's Tooth capability into the LAC itself, deleting all missile armament to free up volume and leaving the ship with only PDLCs as weapons.

Ferrets already stock dazzlers and dragons' teeth -- they may not have the endurance of an all-up MDM pen-aid or EW Drone, but they should be sufficient for missile defense.

The problem with using pods for CM canisters is the same as has always been the case for pods - if you don't flush them early, you start losing them to soft kills. LACs carrying canister pods are going to invite the kind of saturation fire I mentioned as a counter to the LAC missile defence plan.

The thing is, the LACs don't need to stop a missile salvo entirely, they just need to kill some of the missiles and cut the salvo down to more maneagable proportions for the defence systems on the wallers.

Dafmeister wrote:The problem with using pods for CM canisters is the same as has always been the case for pods - if you don't flush them early, you start losing them to soft kills. LACs carrying canister pods are going to invite the kind of saturation fire I mentioned as a counter to the LAC missile defence plan.

1) Each tube used is 3-5 internal CMs available for later. Even if half the pod is destroyed before being fried, the tubes used would extend the LAC's missile capacity.

2) Towed Pods are vulnerable to soft-kills; I'm not sure that's true for pods tractored to the hull so they're protected by the wedge.

3) It is rather difficult to saturate a dispersed formation. LACs in an anti-missile formation would be spread out to cover as much of the missile storm as possible. Each LAC would have to be targeted individually with more missiles than it could counter.

Dafmeister wrote:The thing is, the LACs don't need to stop a missile salvo entirely, they just need to kill some of the missiles and cut the salvo down to more maneagable proportions for the defence systems on the wallers.

The problem is that the size of salvos and the effectiveness of the SKMs in evading CMs means that this is very, very hard. How many missiles of the salvo that Honor fired through the middle of 2nd fleet did 2nd fleet kill?

Jonathan_S wrote:Well Viper's almost have to be bigger (or at least longer) than Mk31 CMs. I'd be a bit surprised if the missile magazines were flexible enough to let you efficiently store either. So I wouldn't be surprised if a LAC designed around only carrying CMs could optimize the magazine for their exact dimentions and cram more in.

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/C ... -465722583

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/C ... -465723044

Same diameter between Mk-31 and Viper

kzt wrote:

Dafmeister wrote:The thing is, the LACs don't need to stop a missile salvo entirely, they just need to kill some of the missiles and cut the salvo down to more maneagable proportions for the defence systems on the wallers.

The problem is that the size of salvos and the effectiveness of the SKMs in evading CMs means that this is very, very hard. How many missiles of the salvo that Honor fired through the middle of 2nd fleet did 2nd fleet kill?

Assuming the two sides have about equal EM, with LACs, probably a fair number. The purpose of LACs is to thin the missile salvo and their advantages are that they are generally far out in front as a missile defense and are -not- the target of an Apollo style missile storm, that gives them a lot more freedom to do their jobs. Their EM will likely be very good and despite the effectiveness of a Apollo missile storm, I think that even with the missiles under control, the CMs would still be effective, and if the missiles use their countermeasures against the LACs, that means they have less to use against the SDs they are supposed to be killing. Unless the enemy starts targeting the LACs (which is possible. Launch two waves close together and split the missiles; some to target the LACs, the rest at the SDs.)

Either way, the LACs aren't a perfect defense, but they are much better than nothing and CM pentaids will only improve when the LACS get FTL controlled CMs.

MaxxQ wrote:http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/CM-and-Viper-Family-Portrait-001-465722583

http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/C ... -465723044

Same diameter between Mk-31 and Viper

I remember seeing a comment (in a simulation, I think) about LACs being surprised that warships could fire the Mk9 Viper from standard Mk31 CM tubes. Unfortunately I can't find it again. If I'm not imagining things, the Viper could provide a starting point for a "fire and forget" CM that would eliminate fire control link limitation.

I suspect that with the length difference, Shrikes and Ferrets might have trouble with Vipers in their original CM launchers, but it should be a minor refit to give then the same launchers as the Katanas.

AAC Invictus fire Vipers. Cutworm 3 raid. Lovat I believe or was it Gastricht?

As has been stated many times, Viper is nothing more than a CM that is lengthened, with its internals moved around such that it contains a singlular lasing rod down its center.

ERGO, MaxxQ's drawing.

Stating Vipers are fire and forget is akin to finally admitting water is wet. CM's are fire and forget outside of very basic positional data broadcast required.

Why katana Launchers? Ferret is superior to Katana in fleet defense role. Has 8 CM tubes and 4 missiles tubes for a total of 12 compared to Katana's mere 5! 12 >>> 5 last I checked. 8 >> 5 as well last I checked. The only real question is, can one easily incorporate Ferrets to use the volume dedicated for SDM's towards CM's? The engineering answer is yes/no. [Designing/Installing handling equipment for two different sized objects is easy.]

Assuming the SDM ammo storage is a singular volume(makes sense as LAC's have no armor) and not interposed by multiple other systems. Ferrets have 2 CM mags forward/aft. So a singular SDM ammo locker for the forward SDM launchers makes sense. If 4 magazines are present interposed by multiple adjacent systems the question to be answered becomes, will CM's fit into these Ferret SDM magazines in a tidy integer number? Halves of missiles don't work so well If 4 adjacent SDM ammo lockers, interposed by systems, this configuration in my opinion would require a complete Ferret redesign for ammo storage for optimum CM/SDM or CM only role.

Zakharra wrote:

kzt wrote:The problem is that the size of salvos and the effectiveness of the SKMs in evading CMs means that this is very, very hard. How many missiles of the salvo that Honor fired through the middle of 2nd fleet did 2nd fleet kill?

Assuming the two sides have about equal EM, with LACs, probably a fair number. The purpose of LACs is to thin the missile salvo and their advantages are that they are generally far out in front as a missile defense and are -not- the target of an Apollo style missile storm, that gives them a lot more freedom to do their jobs.

You could look it up...

ALL of second fleet got 40 out of 60 missiles. So yeah, if you have to fly your missile salvo though the entire depth of 5 or so SD(P)s squadrons with their anti missile systems running then you can stop 40 missiles of the 1000 that a single Apollo ship can deliver in a single salvo. Good luck with that.