GA-League War lessons learned

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A lighter light cruiser? That's dangerously close to... frigates.

BTW, an escort destroyer is "DE."

Lighter only in terms of ship-to-ship armaments, not in tonnage. Think more of an Atlanta class cruiser from WW2 - a design that existed solely to see how many 5 inch AA guns could be crammed onto one hull.

And DE carries some undesirable connotations from the WW2 usage. Mostly in terms of speed and their focus on anti-submarine work rather than anti-air capability.

Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a single-mission frigate-sized ship if the size serves the purpose it is designed for. Or better yet, having a ship the size of a standard destroyer-to-CL tonnage but designed solely for missile defense rather than full multi-mission capability being designated as a frigate as a means of distinguishing the two. Don't let a knee-jerk reaction to the term dictate your evaluation of the concept.

Dauntless wrote:so on further though, further down the line they might go with frigates, it carries many of the pros of LACs relatively small and cheaper then destroyers to buy, though maintenance, crewing etc is about the same, hyper capable so that means money doesn't need spent on a carrier. though if it carries enough PD/CM to make it worthwhile there won't be any room for anti ship weapons, so it can't do anything other then protect the fleet. though for something the size of the SL, they can probably afford that better then SKM, though the SEM might be able to afford it, if they chose to abandon LACs.

of course such a ship will almost never do anything outside missile protection or courier duties. scouting if not done by drone will be destroyer work, anti piracy will be CL and CA work.

of course none of that touches on our other discussion (some time back) as to whether anything below a cruiser of about 500Kt is going to be worth building in the DDM/MDM era for those who want ships that are multi purpose rather then specialized.

The death of the Frigate was specific to the type not having large enough magazines and enough defensive mounts to survive a modern combat engagement against a peer competitor. I doubt that is going to change, even with an all defensive weapons suite, and especially not give it enough endurance to screen a wall.

Because LACs could rearm between engagements, smaller magazines are less of an issue.

Theemile wrote:Because LACs could rearm between engagements, smaller magazines are less of an issue.

And that's something they should research: rapid re-supply under battle conditions. Have the LACs launch from a hybrid CLAC / armoured freighter, which can send CM pallets to the LACs without them having to come aboard.

We know that resupply did happen and it was part of Beatrice too, but those weren't in the wall.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A lighter light cruiser? That's dangerously close to... frigates.

BTW, an escort destroyer is "DE."

Lighter only in terms of ship-to-ship armaments, not in tonnage. Think more of an Atlanta class cruiser from WW2 - a design that existed solely to see how many 5 inch AA guns could be crammed onto one hull.

And DE carries some undesirable connotations from the WW2 usage. Mostly in terms of speed and their focus on anti-submarine work rather than anti-air capability.

Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a single-mission frigate-sized ship if the size serves the purpose it is designed for. Or better yet, having a ship the size of a standard destroyer-to-CL tonnage but designed solely for missile defense rather than full multi-mission capability being designated as a frigate as a means of distinguishing the two. Don't let a knee-jerk reaction to the term dictate your evaluation of the concept.

Frigates already have a definition - and this doesn't match it in any way. If we're looking a new class and new role, better to use a different name unless MWW states differently.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Theemile wrote:Because LACs could rearm between engagements, smaller magazines are less of an issue.

And that's something they should research: rapid re-supply under battle conditions. Have the LACs launch from a hybrid CLAC / armoured freighter, which can send CM pallets to the LACs without them having to come aboard.

We know that resupply did happen and it was part of Beatrice too, but those weren't in the wall.

About 7 years ago, David mentioned that a future, modular LAC with quick swap magazines/weapons modules was in the RMN roadmap. No word on it since though, but since every story line of the last 7 years has ended in the same 12 hour period up until UH (which moved us forward a couple weeks) no further mention does not surprise me.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And that's something they should research: rapid re-supply under battle conditions. Have the LACs launch from a hybrid CLAC / armoured freighter, which can send CM pallets to the LACs without them having to come aboard.

It's hard to see how that is faster than loading it via the automated systems on the CLAC.

The primary problem with reloading a LAC is that it needs to be two million KM away from the fleet in the direction of the enemy. So the time issue isn't loading the ammo, it's getting from the LAC combat position to the ammo and and then getting back.

The obvious (and wrong) answer is 'we'll forward deploy the ammo', which puts a giant lightly defended vessel outside of the main fleet anti-missile system and is by far the easiest target of the mixture of many highly stealthy 20KT LACs and an 8 million ton freighter. Which means your entire ammo supply gets all blowed up real good.

If this was a good idea the CLACs wouldn't hide out in hyper.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:A lighter light cruiser? That's dangerously close to... frigates.

BTW, an escort destroyer is "DE."

Lighter only in terms of ship-to-ship armaments, not in tonnage. Think more of an Atlanta class cruiser from WW2 - a design that existed solely to see how many 5 inch AA guns could be crammed onto one hull.

And DE carries some undesirable connotations from the WW2 usage. Mostly in terms of speed and their focus on anti-submarine work rather than anti-air capability.

Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a single-mission frigate-sized ship if the size serves the purpose it is designed for. Or better yet, having a ship the size of a standard destroyer-to-CL tonnage but designed solely for missile defense rather than full multi-mission capability being designated as a frigate as a means of distinguishing the two. Don't let a knee-jerk reaction to the term dictate your evaluation of the concept.

Give it up Galactic Sapper. I'm on your side here, but apparently some good looking navy man who once captained a Frigate, somehow stole everybody's girl. Beginning with the author's.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:As a matter of fact, if the SL foregoes the adoption of LACs in favor of escorts, and they manage to produce enormous numbers of them, then Manty doctrine which utilizes LACs will begin to show its weakness. Little wonder they are considering a CLAC that can stay with the fray.

Though if they don't also work out an effective anti-LAC doctrine then those escort warships are at risk of being cleared away by a surprise Shrike attack.

(Of course if they take the LAC route without also working out an effective anti-LAC doctrine then their screening LACs are vulnerable to being cleared away by a surprise Katana attack. And the SLN is likely quite ignorant of the GA's highly evolved anti-LAC tactics, or the existence of the Viper anti-LAC missile)

After all the SLN hasn't been great at piercing stealth, and until they improve their fleet acceleration and their ability to pick up stealthed ships, it shouldn't be too hard to sneak LACs as capable as RMN/GSN ones in to range to attack the screen without giving much (if any) warning.
And if you time the attack right you blow away much of the anti-missile screen just before they'd have begun engaging an inbound missile strike. Those missiles then giving the LACs cover to break away as the remaining SLN fleet would be too busy trying to survive the missile swarm to waste much time on LACs that have shot their bolt and are running clear.

You are correct, but of course I am assuming the SLN will do just that.

Since the thread is idling, do we have time to peek under the hood here?

What will be some of the weaknesses of using LACs for screens if the SLN should adopt escorts for screens?

What immediately comes to mind is survivability. LACs are eggshells compared to any other ship. And LACs cannot carry nearly as many missiles and CMs as an escort. So, if the SLN develops escorts as screening elements and field them in enormous numbers, even 1:1, then LACs are doomed. Of course, that will depend on an effective anti-Lac doctrine. So let's also consider that ...

If escorts can develop an anti-LAC missile that can engage the LAC far outside of its own envelope, then that in itself will nail the coffin shut. ...

But then, let's look at the GA's LAC doctrine. Historically, screens make up layers of protection composed of an inner and outer screen. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the RMN's LAC doctrine. Of course it would depend on the variant of LACs at the scene, but if they are all present then that probably means layers of screens made up of all three LAC variants. Which would mean an outer, middle and inner layer of screening elements?

But I'm not sure of the facts, I think Manty doctrine waits for the range to tick down before launching the LACs ahead of the fleet. But if an enemy launches first (I don't think that has ever been the case because of the RMNs range advantage) then I presume the LACs would accelerate away from the Fleet to meet the avalanche. No reason to waste CMs protecting LACs whose sole mission is to protect the Fleet. But when LACs accelerate from the Fleet, they are on their own and will be up against a Navy's antj-LAC doctrine. LACs can't equal an approximate parity of escorts. LACs will run out of missiles far too soon, and they are vastly overmatched in survivability. That will leave the SLN with screening elements with many missiles in reserve. Even if the escorts are outnumbered 2:1 the LACs will lose if they are engaged outside of their range.

Even if LACs separate from the Fleet to create another axis or several more axis of threat, it still won't change the dynamics. They will easily be defeated in detail.

As far as sneaking LACs in, if the SLN accomplished this, then the GA will be relegated to having to do do just that as their only recourse, that of sneaking LACs into range to be effective. IOW, LACs will be rendered useless overnight. And the GA will be left without an effective screen.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:As a matter of fact, if the SL foregoes the adoption of LACs in favor of escorts, and they manage to produce enormous numbers of them, then Manty doctrine which utilizes LACs will begin to show its weakness. Little wonder they are considering a CLAC that can stay with the fray.

Though if they don't also work out an effective anti-LAC doctrine then those escort warships are at risk of being cleared away by a surprise Shrike attack.

(Of course if they take the LAC route without also working out an effective anti-LAC doctrine then their screening LACs are vulnerable to being cleared away by a surprise Katana attack. And the SLN is likely quite ignorant of the GA's highly evolved anti-LAC tactics, or the existence of the Viper anti-LAC missile)

After all the SLN hasn't been great at piercing stealth, and until they improve their fleet acceleration and their ability to pick up stealthed ships, it shouldn't be too hard to sneak LACs as capable as RMN/GSN ones in to range to attack the screen without giving much (if any) warning.
And if you time the attack right you blow away much of the anti-missile screen just before they'd have begun engaging an inbound missile strike. Those missiles then giving the LACs cover to break away as the remaining SLN fleet would be too busy trying to survive the missile swarm to waste much time on LACs that have shot their bolt and are running clear.

You are correct, but of course I am assuming the SLN will do just that.

Since the thread is idling, do we have time to peek under the hood here?

What will be some of the weaknesses of using LACs for screens if the SLN should adopt escorts for screens?

What immediately comes to mind is survivability. LACs are eggshells compared to any other ship. And LACs cannot carry nearly as many missiles and CMs as an escort. So, if the SLN develops escorts as screening elements and field them in enormous numbers, even 1:1, then LACs are doomed. Of course, that will depend on an effective anti-Lac doctrine. So let's also consider that ...

If escorts can develop an anti-LAC missile that can engage the LAC far outside of its own envelope, then that in itself will nail the coffin shut. ...

But then, let's look at the GA's LAC doctrine. Historically, screens make up layers of protection composed of an inner and outer screen. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the RMN's LAC doctrine. Of course it would depend on the variant of LACs at the scene, but if they are all present then that probably means layers of screens made up of all three LAC variants. Which would mean an outer, middle and inner layer of screening elements?

But I'm not sure of the facts, I think Manty doctrine waits for the range to tick down before launching the LACs ahead of the fleet. But if an enemy launches first (I don't think that has ever been the case because of the RMNs range advantage) then I presume the LACs would accelerate away from the Fleet to meet the avalanche. No reason to waste CMs protecting LACs whose sole mission is to protect the Fleet. But when LACs accelerate from the Fleet, they are on their own and will be up against a Navy's antj-LAC doctrine. LACs can't equal an approximate parity of escorts. LACs will run out of missiles far too soon, and they are vastly overmatched in survivability. That will leave the SLN with screening elements with many missiles in reserve. Even if the escorts are outnumbered 2:1 the LACs will lose if they are engaged outside of their range.

Even if LACs separate from the Fleet to create another axis or several more axis of threat, it still won't change the dynamics. They will easily be defeated in detail.

As far as sneaking LACs in, if the SLN accomplished this, then the GA will be relegated to having to do do just that as their only recourse, that of sneaking LACs into range to be effective. IOW, LACs will be rendered useless overnight. And the GA will be left without an effective screen.

cthia wrote:
Since the thread is idling, do we have time to peek under the hood here?

What will be some of the weaknesses of using LACs for screens if the SLN should adopt escorts for screens?

What immediately comes to mind is survivability. LACs are eggshells compared to any other ship. And LACs cannot carry nearly as many missiles and CMs as an escort. So, if the SLN develops escorts as screening elements and field them in enormous numbers, even 1:1, then LACs are doomed. Of course, that will depend on an effective anti-Lac doctrine. So let's also consider that ...

If escorts can develop an anti-LAC missile that can engage the LAC far outside of its own envelope, then that in itself will nail the coffin shut. ...

But then, let's look at the GA's LAC doctrine. Historically, screens make up layers of protection composed of an inner and outer screen. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the RMN's LAC doctrine. Of course it would depend on the variant of LACs at the scene, but if they are all present then that probably means layers of screens made up of all three LAC variants. Which would mean an outer, middle and inner layer of screening elements?

But I'm not sure of the facts, I think Manty doctrine waits for the range to tick down before launching the LACs ahead of the fleet. But if an enemy launches first (I don't think that has ever been the case because of the RMNs range advantage) then I presume the LACs would accelerate away from the Fleet to meet the avalanche. No reason to waste CMs protecting LACs whose sole mission is to protect the Fleet. But when LACs accelerate from the Fleet, they are on their own and will be up against a Navy's antj-LAC doctrine. LACs can't equal an approximate parity of escorts. LACs will run out of missiles far too soon, and they are vastly overmatched in survivability. That will leave the SLN with screening elements with many missiles in reserve. Even if the escorts are outnumbered 2:1 the LACs will lose if they are engaged outside of their range.

Even if LACs separate from the Fleet to create another axis or several more axis of threat, it still won't change the dynamics. They will easily be defeated in detail.

As far as sneaking LACs in, if the SLN accomplished this, then the GA will be relegated to having to do do just that as their only recourse, that of sneaking LACs into range to be effective. IOW, LACs will be rendered useless overnight. And the GA will be left without an effective screen.

The main weakness I see of LACs as screens is their lack of combat endurance.

They're not especially vulnerable to long range MDM missiles as they're small targets, and at least the RMN/GSN LACs are quite stealthy (so have small hard to see target profiles) and are supported by very capable onboard ECM and Ferret launched decoys (and quite possible augmented by larger more capable and long lasting decoys pushed forward by the wall they're screening). And while you could probably kill the screening LACs with sustained long range MDM fire they'd absorb far more than their fare share of missiles -- and while you're doing that the wall that they're screening isn't taking any fire. And that means they're free to focus all their efforts on their offensive fire against the enemy wall.

For the crew, or the tonnage, they aren't that weak in CM.
Here's a list of modern RMN designs sorted by CM launchers per kiloton
Katana 0.256
Shrike/Ferret 0.188 [1]
Avalon 0.109
Roland 0.106
Wolfhound 0.097
Sag-C 0.083
Nike 0.025
Invictus 0.023

[1] Note for the Shrike/Ferret I only considered half their CM tubes, as the aft ones are to fill a coverage hole in the forward one; and they're not really intended to all be brought to bear on a single salvo to way the other modern ships are. All other ships simply use total CM tubes. Feel free to double the Shrike/Ferret number to 0.376 if you prefer.

Larger ships can carry far more CM's per tube, thanks to the cube-square law; but that same law means the surface area to mount more tubes climbs more slowly than their volume/tonnage.

And GA LACs are also pretty reistant to being swept away by other LACs. Again, they're difficult missile targets. LAC launched missiles have the advantage of starting from closer, and so getting a better view of the target. But trading off they're smaller and thus carry less capable sensors; and not being MDMs come in at far lower terminal velocity. So they're easier point defense targets and more susceptible to stealth, decoys, or jamming. And trying to send LACs to clear GA LACs screens requires you have the time before missiles start flying, to get them over there. And then they have to face the Katana's with their anti-LAC doctrine - which we saw Havenite LACs succumb to.

So not easy to sweep away a GA LAC screen. But fairly easy to run it out of CMs which will greatly blunt it's effectiveness. (At least if you've got podlayers to keep up heavy salvos -- it's more effective against towed pods as the LACs deplete their CMs blunting the handful of heavy pod salvos)