Escort Carrier Modification

Love the thread, even though the discussion is effectively about killing a dead horse -- again. The WW-II analogies are apt, and I'd assume that RFC is not going to create a hand-wavium new ship class when like others -- I find it far easier to argue that the FSV is already an escort carrier, and a damn good one.

Plot wise, in the post UH Honorvere, I would think it safe to believe that the GA will dedicate their current big-ship pipelines strictly to Nikes and the FSVs, and scale their remaining production around what I might call "SAG-C" update X and what would be effectively a "Roland II". These small ship variants have already proven that with a missile stash and maneuver range, the GA forces win.

My evidence would be that Hypatia with one FSV and C's instead one Nike + Bs is a much different battle sequence. Heck --> since a Roland is already supposed to be able to host a flag-level officer, the admiral never had to be within SLN firing range. That said, I'm glad RFC wrote the task group battles in UH the way he did... much more emotionally loaded and worthwhile to read.

But Hemphill and Foraker, LTD of Bolthole, and "pissed off Grayson Space Navy re-constructors aren't stupid. They can take all the battle reports and come up with some quite nifty ship variations and let the kinda-sorta retired GA brain trust sip the PD 192X mai-tai(s) and Old Tillman(s), or whomever wherever can game up the squadron-level tactics and squadron formation plans they need. Story wise, the GA needs to unleash a whole lot of escorted hunter/killer formations out into the Honorverse galaxy to nail down where to find and begin fighting the true MAlign once and for all.

Thoughts?

SharkHunter wrote:Plot wise, in the post UH Honorvere, I would think it safe to believe that the GA will dedicate their current big-ship pipelines strictly to Nikes and the FSVs, and scale their remaining production around what I might call "SAG-C" update X and what would be effectively a "Roland II". These small ship variants have already proven that with a missile stash and maneuver range, the GA forces win.

I think you're right on the FSVs and Sag-C updates (Sag-D or they finally get a new class name), but I don't think you're right on the big ship and destroyer lines.

The RMN has historically favoured battlecruisers and the Nike is a huge asset. I really think they'll invest in battlecruisers. Those are the largest ships that can reasonably be used to project power: cruisers are good for showing the flag and putting out fires and you don't send SDs unless you're invading or defending from invasion, so if you want to impress, you send a BC. Now, maybe the Nike class is too big and thus too expensive for peace-time effort, though that's not a given as they were designed by the Janacek Admiralty, which was ostensibly peace time and intent on cutting costs. Any R&D costs on her have long since been paid off and all the economies of volume and streamlining are in. But if it is, they'll probably downsize it to the size of an Agamemnon, but keep the Keyhole capability. I can also suggest the class name: after Nike, call it Samothrace, after both Augustus Khumalo's ship (which needs to be decommissioned) and the Nike of Samothrace (which is clearly the reason that name was chosen for the SD class).

As for the destroyer line, the Rolands were a wartime measure. For peace, they may not be the best, as you hinted with "Roland II." My question is only whether that replacement already exists in the form of the Wolfhound class, which is a modern DD capable of firing DDMs (I assume), but of which we have seen very little of. Though what we do know is that they've been sent to Sarnow to patrol Silesia, and they might actually be good at that.

The wolfhound is a good solid design but can only fire SDMs.

It along with the Avalon CL, which again has had very little if any screen time, are the main units in use in Silesia, where the need for DDMs capable warships is very low.

if they want to save money then I would expect a new ship about 250/300K tons that is basically a Roland with armour, another couple of missile tubes, bigger magazines and space for Marines. can do both the DD and CL job so probably be called a CL, and phase out DD completely, much like frigates were.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:Plot wise, in the post UH Honorvere, I would think it safe to believe that the GA will dedicate their current big-ship pipelines strictly to Nikes and the FSVs, and scale their remaining production around what I might call "SAG-C" update X and what would be effectively a "Roland II". These small ship variants have already proven that with a missile stash and maneuver range, the GA forces win.

I think you're right on the FSVs and Sag-C updates (Sag-D or they finally get a new class name), but I don't think you're right on the big ship and destroyer lines.

The RMN has historically favoured battlecruisers and the Nike is a huge asset. I really think they'll invest in battlecruisers. Those are the largest ships that can reasonably be used to project power: cruisers are good for showing the flag and putting out fires and you don't send SDs unless you're invading or defending from invasion, so if you want to impress, you send a BC. Now, maybe the Nike class is too big and thus too expensive for peace-time effort, though that's not a given as they were designed by the Janacek Admiralty, which was ostensibly peace time and intent on cutting costs. Any R&D costs on her have long since been paid off and all the economies of volume and streamlining are in. But if it is, they'll probably downsize it to the size of an Agamemnon, but keep the Keyhole capability. I can also suggest the class name: after Nike, call it Samothrace, after both Augustus Khumalo's ship (which needs to be decommissioned) and the Nike of Samothrace (which is clearly the reason that name was chosen for the SD class).

As for the destroyer line, the Rolands were a wartime measure. For peace, they may not be the best, as you hinted with "Roland II." My question is only whether that replacement already exists in the form of the Wolfhound class, which is a modern DD capable of firing DDMs (I assume), but of which we have seen very little of. Though what we do know is that they've been sent to Sarnow to patrol Silesia, and they might actually be good at that.

Actually, Khumalo's ship was the Hercules - a Samothrace class SD.

Only 19 wolfhounds were built (with 20 getting destroyed on the stocks at Grendlesbane.) The Wolfhound only had a slightly larger complement than the Roland, in the mid 70s, and much smaller physically - Where the Roland was a leap, adding the Cruiser weight DDM, the Wolfhound was the next linear step in Destroyer evolution. The Wolfhound is limited to the LERM missile (Light extended range) that the Avalon CL and Kammerling CL also fire. And There is a reason multiple hundred Avalons were built pre-May 1921 - they are the best Patrol light unit of the build group, with the hardware and crew size to do all the standard DD/CL jobs; where the Roland, with the DDMs is the best warfighter.

Remember, the only unit to walk away from Monica without a scratch was the Aegis, an Avalon CL. We don't have a firm count on the # built (the 196 built prior to May 1st 1921 was just the tip of the iceburg. Another 200+ might have been constructed prior to OB. Note: no Wolfhounds were constructed after the first 39.

Theemile wrote:Remember, the only unit to walk away from Monica without a scratch was the Aegis, an Avalon CL. We don't have a firm count on the # built (the 196 built prior to May 1st 1921 was just the tip of the iceburg. Another 200+ might have been constructed prior to OB. Note: no Wolfhounds were constructed after the first 39.

Ah, thanks for the update.

So it seems that the Wolfhound is an obsolete design too. The RMN should not build DD that can't fire DDMs any more.

I also agree that the Avalons are probably the best units for patrolling far-flung systems, now that the GF will probably become the galactic police that the SLN isn't any more. That's what light cruisers are for anyway. The DDs are probably going to stay in the SEM quadrants and maybe help in the Madras sector by invitation. That is, a cluster of stars with friendly ports for resupply.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:So it seems that the Wolfhound is an obsolete design too. The RMN should not build DD that can't fire DDMs any more.

I'd go farther than that and say the RMN should not build DDs anymore (barring another disruptive tech imbalance). It's just not possible to make one that's survivable against a peer navy. RFC has suggested that the 300Kton "notional destroyer" he's toyed with may not be workable, and the bottom end for hyper-capable ships in the long run may pretty much be a Sag-C.

Which, despite having enough firepower to destroy most BCs and even obsolete (aka SLN) SDs, being the twice the size of a first war CA, and being a nominal CA, I think is pretty much effectively a CL. It can't really do peacetime CA jobs well; its crew complement is too small. So I'd postulate a roughly Sag-C-sized "CL" and a 1-1.5 Mton "CA" in the next stack of GA designs.

drothgery wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:So it seems that the Wolfhound is an obsolete design too. The RMN should not build DD that can't fire DDMs any more.

I'd go farther than that and say the RMN should not build DDs anymore (barring another disruptive tech imbalance). It's just not possible to make one that's survivable against a peer navy. RFC has suggested that the 300Kton "notional destroyer" he's toyed with may not be workable, and the bottom end for hyper-capable ships in the long run may pretty much be a Sag-C.

Which, despite having enough firepower to destroy most BCs and even obsolete (aka SLN) SDs, being the twice the size of a first war CA, and being a nominal CA, I think is pretty much effectively a CL. It can't really do peacetime CA jobs well; its crew complement is too small. So I'd postulate a roughly Sag-C-sized "CL" and a 1-1.5 Mton "CA" in the next stack of GA designs.

The good news is it's going to take 10-15 years for everyone else to catch up in a meaningful way to the RMN's current LERM/DDM DD/CL compliment, so the current designs do still have a lifespan... but it is probably dated.

Quite a few posters have argued that the Roland design is actually tomorrow's frigate - the bare minimum design with modern hardware, which is good for patrols, but can't really stand up to a modern competitor. If the Sag-C is tomorrow's CL, they are probably right.

My take on a BC/Escort CLAC is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't address what needs to be done and gives you the worst of both worlds.

Recall Harrington's Q-Ships. They had LACs but could only deploy and recover them through the CARGO doors. They were an adaptation to provide more firepower than the Q-ships were mounting with what was both available and practical with the design and they would be a very nasty surprise to what the Q-ships thought they would encounter....heck, they were a bad enough surprise to the Peep ships they did encounter.

The David Taylor FSV class works for what it is described as being designed for. That 8 LAC component is in a purpose built "stock" module and it appears to include what a CLAC supplies in miniature and scaled to the 8 LAC number. Remember, this module has 1) 8 LAC bays for the 8 LACs (and I believe one spare in "storage", 2) an engineering/armeror group for maintenance and repair of the LACs, 3) crew spacing/ environmental/berthing and C&C capability for the LACS and 4) it has a similar magazine and missile/cm feed system to EACH BAY just like a CLAC.
This gives RMN the "escort carrier" capacity to provide convoy defense since it can handle more speed than any normal merchant shipping. It is specifically NOT a full up warship though with it's integral missile/cm etc and tactical sensor and systems it might look like one to any ----lets say current level tech SLN DD that came after a convoy it was attached to and suddenly there is this "freighter" launching those dam RMN LACS and is lighting the DD up with sensors and pumping out serious missiles from way too far outside the SLN range. Suddenly the ship grows teeth and claws........big mistake to come hunting here guys.
But it is not designed for close work and for all it's size it's basically a fast freighter with some long claws and the systems to use them but not something you want to take into battle. It might drop it's LACs to slash and snarl but if a FSV starts fireing missiles it has better be already be running in the other direction and keeping the range open while it "degrades" the other side's capability and provides a chance for it's convoy mates to scatter what the marauder is otherwise occupied in trying to defend itself.

Brigade XO wrote:My take on a BC/Escort CLAC is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't address what needs to be done and gives you the worst of both worlds.

Recall Harrington's Q-Ships. They had LACs but could only deploy and recover them through the CARGO doors. They were an adaptation to provide more firepower than the Q-ships were mounting with what was both available and practical with the design and they would be a very nasty surprise to what the Q-ships thought they would encounter....heck, they were a bad enough surprise to the Peep ships they did encounter.

The David Taylor FSV class works for what it is described as being designed for. That 8 LAC component is in a purpose built "stock" module and it appears to include what a CLAC supplies in miniature and scaled to the 8 LAC number. Remember, this module has 1) 8 LAC bays for the 8 LACs (and I believe one spare in "storage", 2) an engineering/armeror group for maintenance and repair of the LACs, 3) crew spacing/ environmental/berthing and C&C capability for the LACS and 4) it has a similar magazine and missile/cm feed system to EACH BAY just like a CLAC.
This gives RMN the "escort carrier" capacity to provide convoy defense since it can handle more speed than any normal merchant shipping. It is specifically NOT a full up warship though with it's integral missile/cm etc and tactical sensor and systems it might look like one to any ----lets say current level tech SLN DD that came after a convoy it was attached to and suddenly there is this "freighter" launching those dam RMN LACS and is lighting the DD up with sensors and pumping out serious missiles from way too far outside the SLN range. Suddenly the ship grows teeth and claws........big mistake to come hunting here guys.
But it is not designed for close work and for all it's size it's basically a fast freighter with some long claws and the systems to use them but not something you want to take into battle. It might drop it's LACs to slash and snarl but if a FSV starts fireing missiles it has better be already be running in the other direction and keeping the range open while it "degrades" the other side's capability and provides a chance for it's convoy mates to scatter what the marauder is otherwise occupied in trying to defend itself.

Which is great if an FSV happens to be in the convoy. But it's far too expensive to make a routine escort. All its expensive repair capabilities, designed to support and resupply a fast BC squadron on deep raids, is wasted when it's assigned to play convoy escort.

Better to use a few DDs and/or cruisers to ride herd on a high value convoy. Or maybe some kind of cheap and cheerful merchant LAC carrier for a less high value one.

drothgery wrote:I'd go farther than that and say the RMN should not build DDs anymore (barring another disruptive tech imbalance). It's just not possible to make one that's survivable against a peer navy. RFC has suggested that the 300Kton "notional destroyer" he's toyed with may not be workable, and the bottom end for hyper-capable ships in the long run may pretty much be a Sag-C.

Which, despite having enough firepower to destroy most BCs and even obsolete (aka SLN) SDs, being the twice the size of a first war CA, and being a nominal CA, I think is pretty much effectively a CL. It can't really do peacetime CA jobs well; its crew complement is too small. So I'd postulate a roughly Sag-C-sized "CL" and a 1-1.5 Mton "CA" in the next stack of GA designs.

Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

The BCs grew first because of the attempt to make them carry missile pods, then because they were not only firing MDMs internally but also capable of carrying and powering Keyholes. Similarly, the Rolands are as massive as they are so they can carry and fire DDMs. So those are somewhat explained. On the other hand, the Sag-C is a very effective fighter, so I don't see a reason for CAs to grow to the size of pre-war BCs. In fact, as I said above, I see BCs shrinking back a little, to the minimum viable size to keep carrying MDMs and Keyhole, but saving on matériel and build time.

That leaves the CL case. The most modern class we know of is the Avalon, which is actually smaller than a Roland. So this imbalance will need to be addressed.

In any case, a DD is not expected to fight bigger ships. The fact that a Roland can is only due to the huge tech disparity, but that won't last forever. A DD's role is to fight other DDs, screening fleets and providing extended horizons for the bigger elements, plus some picket duties. In that role, DDs still make sense.

Theemile wrote:The good news is it's going to take 10-15 years for everyone else to catch up in a meaningful way to the RMN's current LERM/DDM DD/CL compliment, so the current designs do still have a lifespan... but it is probably dated.

Quite a few posters have argued that the Roland design is actually tomorrow's frigate - the bare minimum design with modern hardware, which is good for patrols, but can't really stand up to a modern competitor. If the Sag-C is tomorrow's CL, they are probably right.

So the RMN should probably not lay down any new Rolands. Those that were already almost finished should be completed and, added to those that survived the war (which might be most of them), those will be a very effective transitional force. Right now, no one can stand up to them. So they are a very cheap way for the RMN and allies to ensure the security of their member systems as well as those where they're invited to help (Madras). I would not expect them to go beyond the home borders.

That gives time for the Brain Trust to come up with a peace-time design, whether it be a DD or a CL, to take up those roles. Then again... the war with the Alignment isn't over.

Power projection should be left to cruisers: CLs for closer and peaceful regions like the Haven Sector and the other termini of the junctions, joint missions with Maya, and also fast missions with the RTN. CAs go everywhere else that needs fires putting out: areas where warlords set up shop after the withdrawal of the FF and OFS. And BCs for where the GA needs to project power, such as allied systems that seceded from the League. I'd say only Beowulf warrants a Battle Fleet.

And I don't see a reason why a CA needs to go to 1 million tonnes for that purpose.