The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

SharkHunter wrote:Based on discussion I think I'd amend that and say against a "non-optimized mix" of LACs. For example, putting that cruiser up against a mix that included Katanas, Ferrets, and Shrikes would be magnitudinally more difficult than a "single type" LAC setup. T'would be a set of fun sims, no?

The numbers I ran were for roughly 50/50% Ferret/Shrike, since they have near-identical defensive fitments and it didn't matter to me whether missiles or grasers killed the hyper warship(even a pure Shrike force can still throw numerous missiles). Swapping any of those for Katanas only decreases the likelihood of early kills for the DDM cruiser even further, albeit at the expense of overall offensive power for the LAC force.

Which should be bloody obvious, as Katanas aren't designed for killing cruisers. It's a LAC-killer that's also very good at missile defense.

Somtaaw wrote:Yes, but Katana's were designed with basically everything the Ferret does, but better. With the sole exceptions being smaller size, and outside of Vipers no true offensive missile.

The real way to look at it, are that Katana's are basically Ferret 2.0's, the new and improved model. Just like a Sag-C is 'technically' just a different model of the original Saganami, but in reality it's a whole new breed. With the LACs, it's the opposite, they are officially different, but really it's just a direct upgrade.

No, it's really not. The Katana is a completely different ship, for a completely different role. The Ferret was designed for long-range combat and ECM support, the Katana was designed, explicitly, as a space-superiority LAC for the day when a foreign power put a viable modern LAC design into the field.

SharkHunter wrote:So you're proposing that a 20K ship has a box launcher with cruiser weight missiles with superior to ERM range? Look at how close the LACs from Minotaur closed to an alert wall of Peep battleships at Hancock before they launched, and how quickly Diamoto started taking out LACs once he figured out the geometry problem. I'd bet that at max the LAC ship killers have < 1 million KM range.

Seriously, can´t you stick to what the question was ever? A WALL of BBs? And you think LACs getting swatted somehow disproves anything?

33 BB vs 96 LAC and you don´t see a problem?
On an equal tonnage basis, there should be 224 LACs per EACH BB. Do you really think those BBs would have had much chance if they had faced 7392 LACs? Or 77 times as many as was there.

I´m pretty sure i would NOT bet on the BBs to win such a battle, even though they would be in a wall and therefore FAR more effective than a single ship could ever be.

SharkHunter wrote:Remember, the Ticonderoga also has a HUGE radar and electronic detection advantage over the IJN ships and way-better close in defenses.

Doesn´t matter how good radar you have, when it will still always be limited by radar horizon.

SharkHunter wrote:Yes/no?

You keep assuming optimal conditions in your favour. One side gets to exploit their advantages but not the other.

You completely ignore for example, that almost every darn IJN DD has the Long Lance torpedoes, along with their cruisers.

And even one of those might sink a Tico, two definitely will. And you just let them have something like almost a thousand launchers spread over more than 200 ships.
Capable of being fired from the edge of Tico detection range.

SharkHunter wrote:You are correct that I was not limiting the Tomahawks to standard munitions, by the way.

Normal loadout for a Tico is 12 Tomahawk missiles. 0-4 of which are/can be nuclear armed.
The rest of the VLS launchers are mostly loaded with SM-2 missiles.

Either way, just the fact that you include nukes at all makes the whole comparison utterly ridiculous anyway.

Complete farce.

SharkHunter wrote:Back to the Honorverse though, that's the analog to my assertion about a latest gen- RMN cruiser vs. equivalent weight of LACs: I don't think the LACs would be able to close effectively.

Yes you keep saying that. Despite the evidence to the opposite.

Dafmeister wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:Yes, but Katana's were designed with basically everything the Ferret does, but better. With the sole exceptions being smaller size, and outside of Vipers no true offensive missile.

The real way to look at it, are that Katana's are basically Ferret 2.0's, the new and improved model. Just like a Sag-C is 'technically' just a different model of the original Saganami, but in reality it's a whole new breed. With the LACs, it's the opposite, they are officially different, but really it's just a direct upgrade.

No, it's really not. The Katana is a completely different ship, for a completely different role. The Ferret was designed for long-range combat and ECM support, the Katana was designed, explicitly, as a space-superiority LAC for the day when a foreign power put a viable modern LAC design into the field.

The Ferrets were only useful, because they are ECM, and missile heavy. As long as Manticore believed it could use LACs offensively, Ferrets were also useful. The moment Manticore stopped using LACs as offensive units, that is when Ferrets became obsolete, even though Ferrets carry more Mk 31s than Katana's carry Vipers.

Basically Ferret's would become ideal for anti-piracy and local system defense, supported by a few Shrike squadrons. The ECM would allow them to close to right on top of the pirates in stealth, and their missiles have the power to stop them cold.


The Ferret will make a small comeback, in strikes against the SLN, and potentially the MAlign, neither of which have modern LACs, and the MAlign continues to use wedge-less spider drive. They will also continue to be useful, until one/both of said current enemies start using pods. After the SLN (or MAlign) start using pods in every battle, the Ferret once more becomes a second-tier LAC behind the Shrikes and Katana's.

Somtaaw wrote:The Ferrets were only useful, because they are ECM, and missile heavy. As long as Manticore believed it could use LACs offensively, Ferrets were also useful. The moment Manticore stopped using LACs as offensive units, that is when Ferrets became obsolete, even though Ferrets carry more Mk 31s than Katana's carry Vipers.

Manticore never believed LACs could be used offensively against wallers. That was clear to Alice Truman before Minotaur saw combat for the first time. Offensive LACs have dropped out of the stories somewhat because we've been seeing larger scale actions, or small-scale actions on the end of a wormhole chain where a CLAC is too much ship to send through, not because of any fundamental change in philosophy.

drothgery wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:The Ferrets were only useful, because they are ECM, and missile heavy. As long as Manticore believed it could use LACs offensively, Ferrets were also useful. The moment Manticore stopped using LACs as offensive units, that is when Ferrets became obsolete, even though Ferrets carry more Mk 31s than Katana's carry Vipers.

Manticore never believed LACs could be used offensively against wallers. That was clear to Alice Truman before Minotaur saw combat for the first time. Offensive LACs have dropped out of the stories somewhat because we've been seeing larger scale actions, or small-scale actions on the end of a wormhole chain where a CLAC is too much ship to send through, not because of any fundamental change in philosophy.

I'm surprised that the Shrike is being prized over the Ferret in these discussions. Closing to energy weapon range is hard, really hard. It's only then that the Shrike is doing all that much. Another missile platform will deliver hits, at long range, and hard ones. If the G mod scales down to the missiles LAC's use, they'll be hitting much harder still.

Need support? Missiles. Want to kill ships? Missiles. Want to kill LAC's? Missiles. Want to kill missiles? Missiles. These are all approximations, sure, but the answer in each case at that level of detail is a whole lot better than "energy weapons".

I think a 21st cent analogy would be

Shirkes = A10 Thunderbolt
Ferret = B1 bomber (argument could be made for B2)
Katana are F15s


Shrike's like the A10 are built around a huge, devastating but relatively short range weapon.

Ferrett's just hang back and fire missile after missile, much like a B1 firing Cruise missile after cruise missile

then we have the katana on clean up duty making the vacuum safe for its less manovable and optimised for starships killing cousins much like an F-15 would in our world.

up against the right foes (like solly wallers) then all of them can do a lot damage though the Katana will struggle with its vipers, cos even solly wallers have insane amounts of armour

Using LACs as offensive units against wallers is mostly a question of how they are applied.

It is like asking if an anti-aircraft gun or a surface to air missle is an offensive or defensive weapon. Depends on how you use them. SAMs you can take one to a forward position or deep into enemy territory and use it to attack an enemy asset that is no where near your own lines just to kill that asset and deny it's use to the enemy. You can mount an AA gun on a mobile carriage which would also let it do direct fire against enemy targets or ballistic fire- like using it as an anti-tank or anti-infantry weapon such as the German 88 AA guns were used. Developed for AA but very useful if you want to take a direct fire or artillery with you on an attack

If you are going after enemy wallers and are Manticore or the GA, LACs are going to be part of that attack. The primary job is to intercept the enemy missiles being fired at your units plus add to the ECM mix. Then you use the to either kill cripples or take surrender of individual ships, do search & rescue or provide a security overwatch to keep the surrenedered ships honest.

The LACs are initaly in an offensive role as one part of the weapons systems being employed by the fleet.

Somtaaw wrote:The real way to look at it, are that Katana's are basically Ferret 2.0's, the new and improved model.

Nope. No Way, No How!

Ferrets and Katanas are designed for totally different missions. It's like you're saying that an F22 is just a new and improved model of the B1B Lancer.

Weird Harold wrote:

Somtaaw wrote:The real way to look at it, are that Katana's are basically Ferret 2.0's, the new and improved model.

Nope. No Way, No How!

Ferrets and Katanas are designed for totally different missions. It's like you're saying that an F22 is just a new and improved model of the B1B Lancer.

Given the relative sizes and performance enveloped comparing the ferret to the, now retired, F-111 might be a little closer. Plenty of attack ordinance but not designed for mixing it up in an air to air role. (F-15E is too good air to air to be a good comparison; but I think the B-1 has way too much payload [more lbs than the venerable B-52] to be a good LAC analogy)