The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

munroburton wrote:You're ignoring the anti-missile capability of the LACs. As I already pointed out, the 9 LACs can counter each 24-DDM salvo with 72 CMs - exactly three CMs per missile. I can't remember how fast CM launchers are exactly - but they're considerably quicker cycling than shipboard launchers, whether SDM, DDM or 3DM. So the LACs have time, at longer ranges, to get multiple CM salvos off. 72 becomes 144 becomes 216.

The clustering isn't really an issue - missile attack ranges being <50,000km, every single ship in any fleet is within missiles' range baskets. If anything, the LACs can tumble around each other along with their decoys, confusing the missiles targeting them even more.

LAC missiles are roughly the size of pre-war CA/BC missiles going by this: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/hon ... 0211142025

You can see how the current gen RMN missiles compare to each other here: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/F ... 7746&qo=69
Countermissiles here: http://maxxqbunine.deviantart.com/art/C ... 7746&qo=71

I would be very surprised if the LAC missiles couldn't provide powered ranges of at least 8 million km.

18s/DDM Fusion launcher
8s/CM capaciter Invictus/BCL/SAG-C launcher

3s/CM Echoes of Honor LAC launcher. Now, is this 4 launchers equal 1 per 3seconds for 12s launcher cycle times or each launcher every 3s? Older ships had CM launch cycle times of 10s or so. I think 12s/Launcher is probably what is truly meant in this text.

So, 18*2=36 36/12 = 3 Salvos per old style Shrike LAC if 12s cycle times against a stacked Roland double broadside. I would think that Katana's cycle time would be shorter.

In short: No way in Hades is a Roland double broadside getting through an equal tonnage of LAC anti missile defenses outside of a leaker which will promptly get shredded by an enormous number of PDLC's who only have one single target to obliterate.

All of this is presumptive of the fact where the LAC stealth systems were picked up by RD's so the ship in question even has a missile target lock to begin with! If RD's do not pick up the LAC's and track them, then the LAC's will easily get inside their own missile range via stealth. If it was not for RD's at Monica, those SLN BC's would have gotten inside their own missile envelop before Terekov even knew they were there.

SharkHunter wrote:Do you really think 9 or 24 LACS would survive multiple DDM launches at about maybe 10x their own missile range

Obviously and very definitely yes. It´s not guaranteed that ALL will survive, but it is quite likely.

The LACs have superior maneuverability to mess with geometry, they have decent ECM, plenty of CM launchers, enough point defense to have a very high probability to catch unlikely leakers, bow and stern walls for when nothing else helps...

And they also have the advantage of numbers, meaning that they can maneuver a bit like a wall of battle would, allowing for mutual, overlapping defensive support.
This would be serious murder to counter for a single ship.


A Roland vs 9 modern LAC, or a Sag-C vs 24?
Dead ship.

End of story.

SharkHunter wrote:Against the RMN pen-aids and missile seekers, and an alert and highly competent Tactical section on the cruiser?

Why are you assuming higher tech and training on one side? That was not part of the question.

At that point i might just tell you that my flying space chicken breathes fire on your cruiser and it dies horribly.

SharkHunter wrote:Do you really think 9 or 24 LACS would survive multiple DDM launches at about maybe 10x their own missile range

Easily. Or have you forgotten that LACs is the primary missile defense for modern fleets?

They´re not capable of defending against missiles, they´re MADE FOR IT.

Go reread some of the last few BIG battles, take a look at just how many missiles those LACs there are capable of intercepting even when the opposition is trying to have the missiles NOT getting close to the LACs.

A Roland would have to quadstack launches just to be able to fire more missiles than the LACs have CM launchers. And the LACs will be able to fire at least a few times with each CM launcher against incoming.

Frankly, i rather doubt that TWO Rolands would be able to win a fight against 9 modern LACs.

2 Sag-Cs should have some better chances against 24 LACs, but i still wouldn´t bet on it.

Relax wrote:3s/CM Echoes of Honor LAC launcher. Now, is this 4 launchers equal 1 per 3seconds for 12s launcher cycle times or each launcher every 3s? Older ships had CM launch cycle times of 10s or so. I think 12s/Launcher is probably what is truly meant in this text.

I doubt that considering how the LAC launchers are considered "rapid fire" launchers.
Can´t say for certain though.

Relax wrote:All of this is presumptive of the fact where the LAC stealth systems were picked up by RD's so the ship in question even has a missile target lock to begin with! If RD's do not pick up the LAC's and track them, then the LAC's will easily get inside their own missile range via stealth. If it was not for RD's at Monica, those SLN BC's would have gotten inside their own missile envelop before Terekov even knew they were there.

Only if they´re not maneuvering beyond minimally. Coming in ballistic, or mostly so, is not an easy thing to manage.

Tenshinai wrote:

Relax wrote:3s/CM Echoes of Honor LAC launcher. Now, is this 4 launchers equal 1 per 3seconds for 12s launcher cycle times or each launcher every 3s? Older ships had CM launch cycle times of 10s or so. I think 12s/Launcher is probably what is truly meant in this text.

I doubt that considering how the LAC launchers are considered "rapid fire" launchers.
Can´t say for certain though.

Relax wrote:All of this is presumptive of the fact where the LAC stealth systems were picked up by RD's so the ship in question even has a missile target lock to begin with! If RD's do not pick up the LAC's and track them, then the LAC's will easily get inside their own missile range via stealth. If it was not for RD's at Monica, those SLN BC's would have gotten inside their own missile envelop before Terekov even knew they were there.

Only if they´re not maneuvering beyond minimally. Coming in ballistic, or mostly so, is not an easy thing to manage.

True, I have always argued for the 3s/salvo for launchers on LAC's as that is how the text directly reads. MaxxQ didn't think so in previous forum posts. While he never definitely said the 3s was ret-conned the assertion was rather apparent. Besides, I was trying to bias the results as unfavorable as possible towards the LAC's just to prove how out classed the ROLAND would be.
______________________________________________

Ballistic or close enough to ballistic is rather obvious to predict. You have space stations, and planets as destination points. It does not take a brilliant Inventor to figure out the millions upon millions upon millions of cubic kilometers of empty space is NOT the destination. Ballistic interception under stealth while, not a great all-in-one battle strategy, shouldn't exactly be unexpected either.

Having heard the arguments regarding the difficulty of swatting LACs I have to completely agree with the side saying it's too hard to beat an equivalent tonnage.

Maybe win against half a squadron of LACs? (6)

The idea being that in the course of its scouting or counter-scouting duties it may have to dust a few LACs.

There is one other factor in favour of survivability however.

With CL acceleration, if the CL picks up the LACs quickly enough it can maintain the range gap for an extended period. So an half an hour or even an hour where the LACs cannot reply to any missiles thrown at them. At some stage the CL will get 'lucky' and start landing hits. Every hit will degrade the defence net of the LAC squadron and the CL will only need to land as many hits as there are LACs so six LACs - six hits.

Since a stern chase is a long chase the CL is limited only by its magazine size in this kind of engagement.

Once the LACs close they may be facing salvos of 40-50 vipers as well. I don't think it is a hopeless case for the cruiser in that kind of scenario. The keys to winning the conflict would probably be detection and geometry.

I will reiterate my agreement that it does not seem realistic to expect victory against equal mass LACs however. I'm happy to amend that mission requirement to just being able to effectively engage LACs.

It seems there is an issue of optimisation:
If you wish to optimise against LACs then LERMs are best due to being able to fit more launchers with deeper magazines.
If you wish to optimise against Light Warships then DDMs are superior due to longer range and greater stopping power (bigger warheads).

A ship with DDMs will still be able to put up a fight against LACs, however a ship with LERMs will not do so well against ships armed with DDMs, so I suppose DDMs would be the way to go, since they are more flexible.

Relax wrote:Ballistic or close enough to ballistic is rather obvious to predict. You have space stations, and planets as destination points. It does not take a brilliant Inventor to figure out the millions upon millions upon millions of cubic kilometers of empty space is NOT the destination. Ballistic interception under stealth while, not a great all-in-one battle strategy, shouldn't exactly be unexpected either.

I disagree about this in regard to Light Cruisers. Since the mission profile of the CL is NOT deep penetration raids you will not see CLs hypering into a hostile system and then going zero-zero for a planet under normal circumstances. Mostly they will be doing scouting or possibly commerce raiding where they will stay near or outside the hyper limit using active stealth.

EDIT: LACs are the least of the CLs worries in these circumstances. If someone launches a few dozen pods worth of missiles their way they could easily be toast.

Only BCs+ and/or possibly CLAC launched LACs are likely to survive going that deep into the grav well in modern/future combat.

BobfromSydney wrote:Since a stern chase is a long chase the CL is limited only by its magazine size in this kind of engagement.

Once the LACs close they may be facing salvos of 40-50 vipers as well. I don't think it is a hopeless case for the cruiser in that kind of scenario. The keys to winning the conflict would probably be detection and geometry.

Minor quibble, there's no tetxtev that anything except Katana's load the Viper anti-LAC (counter-)missile at all. Not even the missile heavy Ferret's seem to carry them.

The viper is simply a Mk 31 countermissile, with quite a bit of 'frills'. If you expect to see LACs at all, you'd bring a CLAC packed with Katana's, not load each starship with Vipers which bring down the total number of basic CMs you can carry.

BobfromSydney wrote:There is one other factor in favour of survivability however.

With CL acceleration, if the CL picks up the LACs quickly enough it can maintain the range gap for an extended period. So an half an hour or even an hour where the LACs cannot reply to any missiles thrown at them. At some stage the CL will get 'lucky' and start landing hits. Every hit will degrade the defence net of the LAC squadron and the CL will only need to land as many hits as there are LACs so six LACs - six hits.

Massive Problem: Ammo capacity. Even a SAG-C only has 30 rounds per tube. Roland has 20. Even LAC's have more CM rounds per tube than you have offensive missiles.

BobfromSydney wrote:

Relax wrote:Ballistic or close enough to ballistic is rather obvious to predict. You have space stations, and planets as destination points. It does not take a brilliant Inventor to figure out the millions upon millions upon millions of cubic kilometers of empty space is NOT the destination. Ballistic interception under stealth while, not a great all-in-one battle strategy, shouldn't exactly be unexpected either.

I disagree about this in regard to Light Cruisers. Since the mission profile of the CL is NOT deep penetration raids you will not see CLs hypering into a hostile system and then going zero-zero for a planet under normal circumstances. Mostly they will be doing scouting or possibly commerce raiding where they will stay near or outside the hyper limit using active stealth.

EDIT: LACs are the least of the CLs worries in these circumstances. If someone launches a few dozen pods worth of missiles their way they could easily be toast.

Only BCs+ and/or possibly CLAC launched LACs are likely to survive going that deep into the grav well in modern/future combat.

For a light cruiser? You would be correct. Its job is pretty much anti piracy, long range scouting system assessment.

Somtaaw wrote:Minor quibble, there's no tetxtev that anything except Katana's load the Viper anti-LAC (counter-)missile at all. Not even the missile heavy Ferret's seem to carry them.

Actually there is textev that main combatants -- i.e. SDs and presumable any other ship capable of MK31 CMs -- can fire vipers from their CM tubes.