The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

MaxxQ wrote:Given current armoring standards and the other updates to modern warships, Theemile is also probably correct that that particular laserhead would now be somewhat useful against DD/CL classes, unless they happen to be older, not really updated CA/BC classes.

I wonder what "modern" navy might have ships that old...?

BobfromSydney wrote:Weird Harold:
I understand that pirates would be motivated to fight to the death (death penalty) but what kind of smugglers would fight to the death against warships? Are you expecting the Millennium Falcon?

Weird Harold wrote:

BobfromSydney wrote:Weird Harold:
I understand that pirates would be motivated to fight to the death (death penalty) but what kind of smugglers would fight to the death against warships? Are you expecting the Millennium Falcon?

Any Merchant/Smuggler would be severely damaged or completely destroyed by the "near capital range" warhead of a Mk16G. A Viper would discourage the same ship without completely destroying it.

The thought is that a Viper would be a cheaper, less destructive, means of dissuading lightly armed ships to surrender than an all-up ship killer.

Relax wrote:It does raise a different question: How did the RHN LAC's die first without being able to flush their own missiles? A viper, as far as we have currently seen, does not have a 1/2 power setting. No damage for the complete destruction of the entire RHN LAC force indicates that the Viper most certainly does have a 1/2 power setting. Their maximum range is 3.75Mkm under "normal". LAC's missiles range use standard, or near standard SDM's, unless the RHN has gone to micro missiles that even the old Grayson's would recognize in 1900 that is.

runsforcelery wrote:he Mk 31 and the Viper. CM missile nodes always have --- and still do --- burn out much more quickly than attack missile nodes built by the same technology, however, and the overpowered nature of their wedges mean that they can't be "stepped down" for extra endurance. Even at the most minimal level possible for the desired wedge strength, they are operating at too high a level to extend endurance significantly

JeffEngel wrote:
For that matter, you could have a few old-fashioned nukes built on the same frame, fired from the same launchers, for use as warning shots, remote scuttling charges, etc. Vipers are likely cheaper than ship-killers - especially if your ship-killers are DDM's! - but they're not cheap by CM standards. If something a bit cheaper can do, offering it a little space in the magazines of ships likely to have occasion for it is worthwhile.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:It does raise a different question: How did the RHN LAC's die first without being able to flush their own missiles? A viper, as far as we have currently seen, does not have a 1/2 power setting. No damage for the complete destruction of the entire RHN LAC force indicates that the Viper most certainly does have a 1/2 power setting. Their maximum range is 3.75Mkm under "normal". LAC's missiles range use standard, or near standard SDM's, unless the RHN has gone to micro missiles that even the old Grayson's would recognize in 1900 that is.

Just FYI here's something RFC posted a year ago confirming that they don't have a 1/2 power extended range setting

runsforcelery wrote:he Mk 31 and the Viper. CM missile nodes always have --- and still do --- burn out much more quickly than attack missile nodes built by the same technology, however, and the overpowered nature of their wedges mean that they can't be "stepped down" for extra endurance. Even at the most minimal level possible for the desired wedge strength, they are operating at too high a level to extend endurance significantly

thinkstoomuch wrote:Simple reason for waiting. Same reason that the BBs waited until Honor fired at 4th Yeltzin or White Haven fired first at the terminus during Icarus or dozens of other times in the series.

At long tange Haven wasn't going to get any hits due to just ECM and PDLCs.

BobfromSydney wrote: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.