new light cruiser needed

I proposed much the same thing in a previous post. If the next CA design goes up to around the 1 million ton mark because of adding Key Hole and more support capacities; then 500K tons would be about right for a CL.

drothgery wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:Now, I'm sure, they'd really, really like to be able to build Sag-C's for the same price and crew commitment as an Avalon or Roland. That's probably not going to happen, so the notional future light cruiser is going to be some sort of compromise among such criteria.

Eh, a Sag-C has a smaller crew complement than many pre-1st war destroyers and almost all light cruisers. Price is another matter, but since whenever you can count on staying in-system or anchored to a fleet you can use a LAC instead of a cruiser, I think in the end I'd be okay with just rebranding a Sag-C with some minor tweaks as a CL if I were running BuShips.

Thank you. I confused my ship types. Drop HB and give me 50! Would it be a good idea to work into the CL design one platoon of Marines? Say about 30-50? Might give the smaller ship more flexiblity, but at the expense of growing too large?

Maybe the Jarheads, (hey, I can call them that!) can be fully intergreted into the crew as gunners? Think of the good fist fights! I also think (FWIW+IMHO) fewer more effective weapons are a good idea too. Just me. HB of CJ (old coot) (ex)

HB of CJ wrote:Thank you. I confused my ship types. Drop HB and give me 50! Would it be a good idea to work into the CL design one platoon of Marines? Say about 30-50? Might give the smaller ship more flexiblity, but at the expense of growing too large?

Maybe the Jarheads, (hey, I can call them that!) can be fully intergreted into the crew as gunners? Think of the good fist fights! I also think (FWIW+IMHO) fewer more effective weapons are a good idea too. Just me. HB of CJ (old coot) (ex)

Manticoran ships already have fully integrated Marine complements.
It's why they can carry more Marines than their counterparts who have Marines that are just along for the ride (which, at least at one point, was said to be the practice in most other navies, IIRC).

At any rate, the typical MA/GA-tech baseline combatant designed for an environment where the MDM or Multi-Stage Missile ala Cataphract is in wide distribution/use, is probably going to look a lot like a Sag-C in terms of basic capabilities. It may have the light combatant Keyhole-lite, depending on how big that winds up being, which probably bumps size up to 600ktons, if not more. Crew size will be a bit bigger, and will probably have more extra/unused crew capacity relative to the nominal crew complement than usual.

Kytheros wrote:Manticoran ships already have fully integrated Marine complements.

Not Rolands.

All of the new RMN construction has reduced crew sizes, including reduced or eliminated Marine complements.

Weird Harold wrote:

Kytheros wrote:Manticoran ships already have fully integrated Marine complements.

Not Rolands.

All of the new RMN construction has reduced crew sizes, including reduced or eliminated Marine complements.

Let me rephrase/clarify, Manticoran ships that have Marines, already have their Marine complements integrated into the running of the ship, IIRC they're usually among the on-mount crews and on damage control teams (and almost certainly part of any security department), not just as passengers.

Theemile wrote:
MWW has said that the next "notional" Lt cruiser being designed before Oyster Bay was a ~300,000 ton design with Mk 16s, and it will take a hull about this size to fit in the crew of an avalon, mk 16s and sufficient magazines for a proper lt cruiser. So your Crystal Ball is correct.

The 300,000 future combatant is to be the jack of all trades light unit design with few corners cut, but as you noted, it requires a ship the size of a Star Knight to pull it off.

Oh, and one wrinkle with the Mk-16 - the Sag-
C is the narrowest hull you can mount double broadsides on due tot he length of the launchers. So the 300,000 unit can't have normal broadsides.

so likely to have tubes mounted as chase weapons like the rolands?

intresting.

Dauntless wrote:

Theemile wrote:
MWW has said that the next "notional" Lt cruiser being designed before Oyster Bay was a ~300,000 ton design with Mk 16s, and it will take a hull about this size to fit in the crew of an avalon, mk 16s and sufficient magazines for a proper lt cruiser. So your Crystal Ball is correct.

The 300,000 future combatant is to be the jack of all trades light unit design with few corners cut, but as you noted, it requires a ship the size of a Star Knight to pull it off.

Oh, and one wrinkle with the Mk-16 - the Sag-
C is the narrowest hull you can mount double broadsides on due tot he length of the launchers. So the 300,000 unit can't have normal broadsides.

so likely to have tubes mounted as chase weapons like the rolands?

intresting.

Not necessarily. They could go with an asymmetrical weapons fit, with all the Mk16 launchers pointed out of the port broadside. The starboard broadside would then be used for additional CM launchers(or vice versa).

There have been other arrangements suggested, such as staggering the launchers so their back ends overlap the centerline of the hull or orienting them diagonally in respect to the broadside hull.

aysmtrical? again intreting. radically different but Rolands and SD(P) shows that they are willing to go that way if they think it will work.

more likely i would think will be the staggered option, if they are placed broadside and not chasers

Theemile wrote:
MWW has said that the next "notional" Lt cruiser being designed before Oyster Bay was a ~300,000 ton design with Mk 16s, and it will take a hull about this size to fit in the crew of an avalon, mk 16s and sufficient magazines for a proper lt cruiser. So your Crystal Ball is correct.

The 300,000 future combatant is to be the jack of all trades light unit design with few corners cut, but as you noted, it requires a ship the size of a Star Knight to pull it off.

Oh, and one wrinkle with the Mk-16 - the Sag-
C is the narrowest hull you can mount double broadsides on due tot he length of the launchers. So the 300,000 unit can't have normal broadsides.

Dauntless wrote:so likely to have tubes mounted as chase weapons like the rolands?

intresting.

munroburton wrote:Not necessarily. They could go with an asymmetrical weapons fit, with all the Mk16 launchers pointed out of the port broadside. The starboard broadside would then be used for additional CM launchers(or vice versa).

There have been other arrangements suggested, such as staggering the launchers so their back ends overlap the centerline of the hull or orienting them diagonally in respect to the broadside hull.

Staggered or diagonal is vastly more likely than asymetric in that manner. And staggered is more likely than diagonal.
Staggered gets you more total tubes, and lets you rotate to bring an undamaged broadside to bear, should you need to. Diagonal also allows rotation for an undamaged broadside, but permits fewer total tubes than staggered, and, depending on just how much of an angle they need to be at, complicates firing arcs and the loading arrangements.
Also, if you've got asymetric broadsides like you suggest, those extra defenses are mostly useless if you're using the missile tubes, or the tubes are useless if you're using the extra defenses. In addition, for a smaller ship on independent deployments ... you're much more likely to encounter situations where you want (or need) to be able to use both sides of the ship for shooting (or defending).

A single broadside arrangement has no real benefit, and has several real downsides.


If they do chase armaments only like a Roland, it'll likely be an 8 tube cluster, instead of a 6 tube cluster.

Kytheros wrote:A single broadside arrangement has no real benefit, and has several real downsides.

With the "off-bore" capability newer RMN missiles have, a single broadside arrangement is feasible. The Roland already makes routine use of the capability to fire twelve missile salvos instead of crossing its own "T" to fire its chase-only missile arrangement.