new light cruiser needed

Jonathan_S wrote:Oh, also I was in a bit of a hurry on that post, but I'd note that ships of the wall have significantly lower length-to-beam ratios that CAs.

. . .

So it's possible you could significantly shorten a CA hull (much more than the 14% I ran the numbers on) without pushing it off the optimum compensator curve -- giving more additional accel than I'd calculated.

Or it could be that the formula for optimal length-to-beam ratio depends on the length. It may not be a fixed ratio. It's an interesting question.

SWM wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Oh, also I was in a bit of a hurry on that post, but I'd note that ships of the wall have significantly lower length-to-beam ratios that CAs.

. . .

So it's possible you could significantly shorten a CA hull (much more than the 14% I ran the numbers on) without pushing it off the optimum compensator curve -- giving more additional accel than I'd calculated.

Or it could be that the formula for optimal length-to-beam ratio depends on the length. It may not be a fixed ratio. It's an interesting question.

Another possibility, alas, may be that there is some curve that would ideally be in mind but is not consistently reflected in the data as it reaches readers. Think the Great Resizing but more subtle.

WHY would you waste time, money and yard space on a ship 20% smaller than a Saganami-C that costs 90% as much and has at least 40% less combat capability? In the current war environment, I don't really see anything smaller than a Saganami-C as a practical combatant.

The Alliance won't be whacking fat, stupid Sollies from three times their effective range forever, and it makes no sense to build more ships that can't do more than that. The Roland is already obsolete.
-------------------
Mrs. Tweedy! The chickens are revolting!

Imaginos1892 wrote:The Alliance won't be whacking fat, stupid Sollies from three times their effective range forever, ...

The Alliance (and every other self-respecting Navy) will be "whacking fat, stupid" PIRATES until the heat-death of the universe, though. It doesn't take a heavy cruiser and multi-drive missiles to whack them, either.

Weird Harold wrote:The Alliance (and every other self-respecting Navy) will be "whacking fat, stupid" PIRATES until the heat-death of the universe, though. It doesn't take a heavy cruiser and multi-drive missiles to whack them, either.

Sure. You have lots of existing DDs that are just fine for this. Building new ships that are functionaly obsolete when laid down is not a good plan or use of limited resources.

Imaginos1892 wrote:WHY would you waste time, money and yard space on a ship 20% smaller than a Saganami-C that costs 90% as much and has at least 40% less combat capability? In the current war environment, I don't really see anything smaller than a Saganami-C as a practical combatant.

The Alliance won't be whacking fat, stupid Sollies from three times their effective range forever, and it makes no sense to build more ships that can't do more than that. The Roland is already obsolete.
-------------------
Mrs. Tweedy! The chickens are revolting!

The 300,000 ton ship that David Weber has talked about is not intended for "the current war environment". It is being imagined as a light cruiser or destroyer for a future peacetime environment in which everyone has DDMs.

Relax 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.

Hey! This is FICTION!

Why "MY" BC's cost what your DD's cost...

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

As has been noted in other threads, there is much Economics Handwavium.....

-- Stewart

Imaginos1892 wrote:WHY would you waste time, money and yard space on a ship 20% smaller than a Saganami-C that costs 90% as much and has at least 40% less combat capability? In the current war environment, I don't really see anything smaller than a Saganami-C as a practical combatant.

This logic leads to the idea that some of the traditional classes might go away. We've already seen the RMN basically give up on the DN; maybe the CL will be the next to go away.

What it comes down to is the questions of what a CL can do that a DD can't, what a CA can do that a CL can't, what does it cost to provide those capabilities, and does it make sense to build something in that niche between the two?

If a CL has nearly the same crew requirements as a CA, negligible accel advantage, but no more armor than a DD, there's no real reason to build them. Instead, build more DDs and CAs.

That would leave DD, CA, BC, SD as the four hyper-capable combatant size classes (excluding CLACs as indirect combatants).

TheMonster wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:WHY would you waste time, money and yard space on a ship 20% smaller than a Saganami-C that costs 90% as much and has at least 40% less combat capability? In the current war environment, I don't really see anything smaller than a Saganami-C as a practical combatant.

This logic leads to the idea that some of the traditional classes might go away. We've already seen the RMN basically give up on the DN; maybe the CL will be the next to go away.

What it comes down to is the questions of what a CL can do that a DD can't, what a CA can do that a CL can't, what does it cost to provide those capabilities, and does it make sense to build something in that niche between the two?

If a CL has nearly the same crew requirements as a CA, negligible accel advantage, but no more armor than a DD, there's no real reason to build them. Instead, build more DDs and CAs.

That would leave DD, CA, BC, SD as the four hyper-capable combatant size classes (excluding CLACs as indirect combatants).

I think the DD role will be more likely to be squeezed out in favor of the CL as tonnage inflation continues. The minimum practicable ship size will be driven by the size of the missiles carried.

In the Honorverse with all forces having access to MDMs and DDMs, and with sufficient resources (finance, manpower, etc.), I think the hyper-capable classes will break down like this:

CL - smallest hyper combatant for flag-showing, scouting, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage equal to the Edward Saganami-C-class, with the same size Marine complement. Initially this CL may actually be the Sag-C, but as time goes by naval architects will probably tweak the design based on feedback from the field.

CA - intermediate sized hyper combatant for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage bracket around the current Reliant or Warlord BCs, with a Marine complement sized between the DDM equipped CL and BC.

BC - largest sized hyper combatant below the wall for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, power projection, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Currently exists as the new Nike-class BC (tonnage and Marine complement).

SDP - largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with MDMs. Currently exists as the Medusa/Harrington, Invictus, Sovereign of Space, Temeraire and the unnamed IAN SDPs (tonnage and Marine complement).

Vince wrote:I think the DD role will be more likely to be squeezed out in favor of the CL as tonnage inflation continues. The minimum practicable ship size will be driven by the size of the missiles carried.

In the Honorverse with all forces having access to MDMs and DDMs, and with sufficient resources (finance, manpower, etc.), I think the hyper-capable classes will break down like this:

CL - smallest hyper combatant for flag-showing, scouting, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage equal to the Edward Saganami-C-class, with the same size Marine complement. Initially this CL may actually be the Sag-C, but as time goes by naval architects will probably tweak the design based on feedback from the field.

CA - intermediate sized hyper combatant for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage bracket around the current Reliant or Warlord BCs, with a Marine complement sized between the DDM equipped CL and BC.

BC - largest sized hyper combatant below the wall for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, power projection, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Currently exists as the new Nike-class BC (tonnage and Marine complement).

SDP - largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with MDMs. Currently exists as the Medusa/Harrington, Invictus, Sovereign of Space, Temeraire and the unnamed IAN SDPs (tonnage and Marine complement).

I agree with you in most ways, but I would put the first two tonnage brackets just a hair lower than you did, and I suspect that the class names will be DD, CC, BC, and SD(p).

I also feel that in the near future, the Haven Sector navies will develop a new ship of the wall a size up from current generation SDs. Something that will be about the same speed as prewar SDs, but bigger and more powerful. A super duper super dreadnought, if you will.