Are Tincans and CL's obsolete to "modern" fleets?

JeffEngel wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:I think what is obsolete at this point is missile control, and RFC and everyone here knows it. It's been well argued that a multiplex channel should be able to control more than one missile, and I've started to argue that a future ACM should be able to control more than one pod's worth, and also work with more types of missiles. If multiplexing "becomes" a better option for a ship back there 30MM kilometers or more, it is equally or more true for a control missile anywhere less than a light second.

Anyway, to use an ACM at 100%, at this point it requires enough mass outside of wedge interference for a Keyhole II. There's some discussion of how to do a "Keyhole lite", but no details,as the current KHII platform is as big as "pre-war" RHN destroyers. I'm prepared to surrender on that point and still try to think creativity about other ways to use FTL comms for battlefield superiority.

"Keyhole Lite" may suffer from some ambiguity, between (1) a Keyhole II platform that's smaller, or (2) a Keyhole I platform that is. Certainly I am not positive what someone means using it between those two.

I do think that DDM's have a much better claim to be the sine qua non for the smallest effective hypercapable warships; I don't think the extreme range capability of Keyhole II platforms is. It may mean a starker difference between the (enormous) BC's able to use that and the cruisers/destroyers below it that can't than traditionally existed, but it's not likely to push the smaller ships entirely below the military horizon.

I do wonder if the RMN isn't getting caught up on preserving all the Keyhole II capabilities for anything they consider for FTL missile control. Truly, while it's great to have a extra-wedge parasite that can help control CM's, help control missiles, protect itself, slice, dice, and make breakfast, if you can get one or two of the first couple without all the rest, especially for a unit not expected to survive extended combat - it's all right to be a lot smaller and a lot more likely to be expended.

Bill Woods wrote:

JeffEngel wrote: One thing that makes me feel all right about "light cruisers" nearly the size of current heavy cruisers, themselves nearly the size of old battlecruisers, is that there still is definitely a niche for at least two classes below-the-wall. The new CL/DD/whatever is there to be the minimal effective hypercapable warship; the BC is there to be the thing that stomps whatever below-the-wall and evades anything of it.

Whether there remains space for four such classes - DD, CL, CA, BC - I doubt. But then, the class roles tended to blend into one another anyway. If you get fewer with a starker contrast, fine.

Five classes — there's also FF. But having three flavors of 'cruiser' is surely too many.

JeffEngel wrote: One thing that makes me feel all right about "light cruisers" nearly the size of current heavy cruisers, themselves nearly the size of old battlecruisers, is that there still is definitely a niche for at least two classes below-the-wall. The new CL/DD/whatever is there to be the minimal effective hypercapable warship; the BC is there to be the thing that stomps whatever below-the-wall and evades anything of it.

Whether there remains space for four such classes - DD, CL, CA, BC - I doubt. But then, the class roles tended to blend into one another anyway. If you get fewer with a starker contrast, fine.

Bill Woods wrote: Five classes — there's also FF. But having three flavors of 'cruiser' is surely too many.

stewart wrote: We already have multiple flavors of Cruisers -- granted the primary Offensive Cruiser is the Sag-C, but there are Marine Support variants as Broadsword and Truncheon were Marine support variants of the Prince Consort hull.

Bill Woods wrote:"JeffEngel"]

By "three flavors of 'cruiser'", I was referring to 'light', 'heavy', and 'battle'.

stewart wrote:

Bill Woods wrote:"JeffEngel"]

By "three flavors of 'cruiser'", I was referring to 'light', 'heavy', and 'battle'.

-------------

In that I agree that the Honorverse ship classes are currently in a state of flux
The larger DD's (Roland and the like) are merging into the role of light cruisers.

The true DD-role likely will remain with the ERM-armed DD's / CL's;

Prior to WWII, the USN and RN had cruisers designated by main gun size -- 6" / 8" / 10" with gun (and turret) requirements defining hull beam and to some extent displacement.

Most DD's has 4.5" and 5" guns, smaller escorts (corvettes, DE's) had 3" and smaller due to hull size and mission (primarily ASW).

I suspect the Honorverse ships will develop into Long Range Escorts (Rolands and similar) and fleet scouts (the ERM-armed DD's / CL's) which can "drop into the outer range of a system, deploy Recon Drones, sit in stealth and provide the "take" to the arriving GA fleet.

-- Stewart

stewart wrote:

Bill Woods wrote:"JeffEngel"]

By "three flavors of 'cruiser'", I was referring to 'light', 'heavy', and 'battle'.

-------------

In that I agree that the Honorverse ship classes are currently in a state of flux
The larger DD's (Roland and the like) are merging into the role of light cruisers.

The true DD-role likely will remain with the ERM-armed DD's / CL's;

Prior to WWII, the USN and RN had cruisers designated by main gun size -- 6" / 8" / 10" with gun (and turret) requirements defining hull beam and to some extent displacement.

Most DD's has 4.5" and 5" guns, smaller escorts (corvettes, DE's) had 3" and smaller due to hull size and mission (primarily ASW).

I suspect the Honorverse ships will develop into Long Range Escorts (Rolands and similar) and fleet scouts (the ERM-armed DD's / CL's) which can "drop into the outer range of a system, deploy Recon Drones, sit in stealth and provide the "take" to the arriving GA fleet.

-- Stewart