"Modern" era Battleships - are they still obsolete?

With Haven and Manticore now being allied, sharing technologies, and no longer at each others throats, think there's any chance at a return of the Battleship?


Haven has a very, very long tradition of using Battleships to cover it's less important systems. CPS used it to cover unreliable systems, but the Legislaturalists used them to guard less important systems too. Hell, Pritchart still had some Battleships protecting some of the systems near Haven, during the first 2 Cutworms.


The RMN's Nike Class at 2.5 Mtons have 50 missile tubes, 64 CM tubes, and 60 PDLCs. Triumphant class Battleships have 76 missile tubes, 44 CM tubes, and 52 PDLCs, all on a hull that's only 50% larger than the Nikes at 4.5 Mtons. If you rearmed the old Triumphants with RMN style off-bore Mk16 missiles, compensators & Beta squared nodes, and RMN/GSN automation (since they're more efficient than the later Republican automation) a Triumphant becomes one hell of a rear-security ship. With similar compensators to the Nike's, I think a Triumphant-II could hit a military max of 625 gravs to the 2.5 MTon Nike's 675.


Being 4.5 MTons, they could even handle full-up Keyhole-II or a Keyhole-II (lite) and up their tubes to handle full Mk23's; making a very powerful, visible protection to a system. We saw in UH just how easy it is to knock even Mycroft out of action, Triumphant-II's would be big enough, tough enough, and mean enough even an incoming fleet of Lenny Dets would hesitate to cross swords with a squadron of them.


Arguments in favour:
1) Battleships are cheaper to operate than an SD, while providing damned near as much protection
2) Haven has a LOT of systems to cover, and long history of using BB's for that purpose.
3) Manticore now has a lot of space to cover, and just 3 squadrons of Triumphant-II's would put two in every Talbott system, with say 2 squadrons to watch over Silesia (which is highly unlikely to be getting full-up Mycroft defenses anytime soon).
4) Assigning Triumpant-IIs for visible system defense allows more podnoughts to be put in Reserve, without overly reducing fleet size or firepower.


Arguments against:
1) Battleships, even my proposed Triumphant-II armed with Mk16's or MK23, and other RMN tech is still a fraction of the firepower available to a podnought, and less ability to soak damage.
2) Battleships are specialist ships, not the generalist role that Manticore used to like pre-war.

Somtaaw wrote:With Haven and Manticore now being allied, sharing technologies, and no longer at each others throats, think there's any chance at a return of the Battleship?

Haven has a very, very long tradition of using Battleships to cover it's less important systems. CPS used it to cover unreliable systems, but the Legislaturalists used them to guard less important systems too. Hell, Pritchart still had some Battleships protecting some of the systems near Haven, during the first 2 Cutworms.

Arguments in favour:
1) Battleships are cheaper to operate than an SD, while providing damned near as much protection
2) Haven has a LOT of systems to cover, and long history of using BB's for that purpose.
3) Manticore now has a lot of space to cover, and just 3 squadrons of Triumphant-II's would put two in every Talbott system, with say 2 squadrons to watch over Silesia (which is highly unlikely to be getting full-up Mycroft defenses anytime soon).
4) Assigning Triumpant-IIs for visible system defense allows more podnoughts to be put in Reserve, without overly reducing fleet size or firepower.


Arguments against:
1) Battleships, even my proposed Triumphant-II armed with Mk16's or MK23, and other RMN tech is still a fraction of the firepower available to a podnought, and less ability to soak damage.
2) Battleships are specialist ships, not the generalist role that Manticore used to like pre-war.

Is it possible that the Allies will consolidate some the pre-war cases into fewer groups because of the growth in size of individual ships.

Destroyer + light cruiser -> "heavy" destroyer
Heavy Cruiser + battleship -> heavy cruiser
DN + SD -> SD

This ignores what has to be decided about pod layer and LAC carrier.

Frankly, no. The refitting proposed would be more expensive than just building more Nikes and not be much more effective.

Galactic Sapper wrote:Frankly, no. The refitting proposed would be more expensive than just building more Nikes and not be much more effective.

Counter-argument:
Refitting costis why my proposed refit I'm suggesting is the minimum possible. Take an already existing ship design (Triumphant class) and replace the launchers (routinely done), change out the compensator (also routine), and finally change nodes (still routine). The only change that might take time, or cost a bit, would be actually including Keyhole; and even that's a minor change. Keyhole platforms are essentially oversized decoys (which the design already has) and the tractors/impellers on the Keyhole doesn't require the ship design to change.


Also Nike's at 2.5 Mtons are literally already in the "small battleship" range already. Triumphant's were a little on the large side for a battleship, but not quite "small dreadnought" range.

So with equal technology, comparing a Nike and Triumphant-II, the Nike isn't superior at all, and is locked to only Keyhole-I. A Triumphant-II has more than enough tonnage to use SD-style Keyhole-II with the FTL fire control to control Apollo missiles unlike Nikes.

That makes Triumphant-IIs bigger, tougher and actually more dangerous when using towed [i]flatpackp/i] Mk23 pods than a Nike could ever be; while sacrificing only a tiny bit of speed... which for a ship that's used primarily for defending your own space rather than running around the galaxy is not a loss that matters.

Galactic Sapper wrote:Frankly, no. The refitting proposed would be more expensive than just building more Nikes and not be much more effective.

Somtaaw wrote:Counter-argument:
Refitting costis why my proposed refit I'm suggesting is the minimum possible. Take an already existing ship design (Triumphant class) and replace the launchers (routinely done), change out the compensator (also routine), and finally change nodes (still routine). The only change that might take time, or cost a bit, would be actually including Keyhole; and even that's a minor change. Keyhole platforms are essentially oversized decoys (which the design already has) and the tractors/impellers on the Keyhole doesn't require the ship design to change.


Also Nike's at 2.5 Mtons are literally already in the "small battleship" range already. Triumphant's were a little on the large side for a battleship, but not quite "small dreadnought" range.

So with equal technology, comparing a Nike and Triumphant-II, the Nike isn't superior at all, and is locked to only Keyhole-I. A Triumphant-II has more than enough tonnage to use SD-style Keyhole-II with the FTL fire control to control Apollo missiles unlike Nikes.

That makes Triumphant-IIs bigger, tougher and actually more dangerous when using towed [i]flatpackp/i] Mk23 pods than a Nike could ever be; while sacrificing only a tiny bit of speed... which for a ship that's used primarily for defending your own space rather than running around the galaxy is not a loss that matters.

The modern missiles are bigger, so it not just a case of boring out the launchers. The modern compensator might not be easy to retrofit either. A modern ship has more and better counter missile capability also.
Seems to me that you are just proposing a variation of the reusing the Solarian SDs discussion that always gets shot down. I thought you were suggesting a redesign, rather than a refit.

Somtaaw wrote:

Galactic Sapper wrote:Frankly, no. The refitting proposed would be more expensive than just building more Nikes and not be much more effective.

Counter-argument:
Refitting costis why my proposed refit I'm suggesting is the minimum possible. Take an already existing ship design (Triumphant class) and replace the launchers (routinely done), change out the compensator (also routine), and finally change nodes (still routine). The only change that might take time, or cost a bit, would be actually including Keyhole; and even that's a minor change. Keyhole platforms are essentially oversized decoys (which the design already has) and the tractors/impellers on the Keyhole doesn't require the ship design to change.


Also Nike's at 2.5 Mtons are literally already in the "small battleship" range already. Triumphant's were a little on the large side for a battleship, but not quite "small dreadnought" range.

So with equal technology, comparing a Nike and Triumphant-II, the Nike isn't superior at all, and is locked to only Keyhole-I. A Triumphant-II has more than enough tonnage to use SD-style Keyhole-II with the FTL fire control to control Apollo missiles unlike Nikes.

That makes Triumphant-IIs bigger, tougher and actually more dangerous when using towed [i]flatpackp/i] Mk23 pods than a Nike could ever be; while sacrificing only a tiny bit of speed... which for a ship that's used primarily for defending your own space rather than running around the galaxy is not a loss that matters.

Replace the launchers, the magazines, the feed tubes connecting the two. Probably have to rework corridors and decks around them since the new missiles are so much larger than the old.

Compensator and nodes might be doable.

The armor rework around mounting Keyholes is non-trivial, and by itself would be enough to make the project uneconomical.

The automation change would involve gutting the whole ship. Every single system in every single compartment on the ship would have to be torn out and replaced. Otherwise you're left with a ship MORE expensive to run than a modern SD(P), and the cost of doing that greatly exceeds the value of doing so. Scrapping the ships and building a new one is cheaper and faster.

And as tlb pointed out, the "rework the Solarian SDs" argument has been made and shot down repeatedly.

There's a reason Manticore doesn't build anything between an SD and a battlecruiser any more. If you need more than a BC, just build the damn SD and get the most for your money. Or build a good orbital fortress, maybe.

tlb wrote:The modern missiles are bigger, so it not just a case of boring out the launchers. The modern compensator might not be easy to retrofit either. A modern ship has more and better counter missile capability also.
Seems to me that you are just proposing a variation of the reusing the Solarian SDs discussion that always gets shot down. I thought you were suggesting a redesign, rather than a refit.

Mk16 DDM's I'm pretty sure are smaller than original Havenite capital SDMs, and the original Icarus Triumphants had SD lasers & grasers when they were attacked by the gen-1 Shrikes. Not unreasonable to assume if they had SD beams, they also carried SD missiles (possibly the reason they were such large BBs). Since the basic hull design seems solid, it's merely the weapons it's armed with that need to be modernized.

That makes it's definitely a refit, rather than a redesign. I'm not suggesting they'd change the weapon counts at all; so it's purely "rip out old weapon A, insert modern weapon B". That's the same kind of refits you'd do normally throughout a ships lifetime. The only difference is that (almost) all the original Triumphant's are scrapped, however Haven is still fielding at least a few. We saw them in more than one of the Cutworm operations during At All Costs.


I don't think it's completely the same as saying this is like proposing 'modernizing' the Solarian SDs. As I've said, Triumphants aren't much more lightly armed than the Nike class BCs, and it carries nearly the same count on weapons. The main reason they're obsolete is not having DDM/MDMs, longer-range CMs, and heavier PDLCs.

The question is whether the entire concept of a "rear security" battleship is completely dead or not. Battleships are essentially a "poor mans Superdreadnought", but modern SD's are now podnoughts. So there isn't a class devoted simply to being able to absorb tremendous punishment and remain in action anymore. We saw that the 2.5 Mton Nike's are capable of withstanding incredibly firepower (Battle of Chantilly), so a 4.5 Mton Triumphant armed with similar countermissiles/PDLCs would be even harder to kill, creating a very powerful, visible (and mobile) system defender.

Creating such a powerful ship specifically for system defense actually enhances the use of podnoughts; freeing those squadrons up to be used aggressively at need, because you have powerful "pocket SDs" who are intended to mind the store while those podnoughts are away.

They really don’t have that many left. They got thrown into action and shot up when Haven ran short of SDs.

Somtaaw wrote:

Galactic Sapper wrote:Frankly, no. The refitting proposed would be more expensive than just building more Nikes and not be much more effective.

Counter-argument:
Refitting costis why my proposed refit I'm suggesting is the minimum possible. Take an already existing ship design (Triumphant class) and replace the launchers (routinely done), change out the compensator (also routine), and finally change nodes (still routine). The only change that might take time, or cost a bit, would be actually including Keyhole; and even that's a minor change. Keyhole platforms are essentially oversized decoys (which the design already has) and the tractors/impellers on the Keyhole doesn't require the ship design to change.


Also Nike's at 2.5 Mtons are literally already in the "small battleship" range already. Triumphant's were a little on the large side for a battleship, but not quite "small dreadnought" range.

So with equal technology, comparing a Nike and Triumphant-II, the Nike isn't superior at all, and is locked to only Keyhole-I. A Triumphant-II has more than enough tonnage to use SD-style Keyhole-II with the FTL fire control to control Apollo missiles unlike Nikes.

That makes Triumphant-IIs bigger, tougher and actually more dangerous when using towed [i]flatpackp/i] Mk23 pods than a Nike could ever be; while sacrificing only a tiny bit of speed... which for a ship that's used primarily for defending your own space rather than running around the galaxy is not a loss that matters.

Fusion powered missiles have a completely different feed system than capacitor birds. The old capacitor birds were charged in the magazine prior to launch. Fusion missiles, due to having a running fusion reactor inside the ship, are spun up in an armored portion of the feed tube just outside the launch chamber. This elongates the feed tube and changes the magazine, and is the primary reason for the 18 second salvo time, namely only the birds being fired are fully powered. Making such updates on the Gryphons for the mk 23s, which use a similar feed structure, proved more costly and time consuming than building a new ship.

So retrofitting to a mk 16 on any platform... NO.

Your retrofit would have to be massive and expensive. The first piece is that you would have to essentialy replace all of the handeling equipment from magazines to launchers. The second is that you are going to have to make space for the Keyhole equipment and all the communications runs etc.
This is a lot of work for not enough return. Exactly the same sets of arguments for not using/refitting the SLN SDs or being able to refit/upgrade the Beowulf SDF (solly compatable designed) with RMN current weapons, compensators, targeting/sensors.

There are also very few RHN BBs left. If you feel you need to extend the useful life of these ships- and some of them are already going to have been either/both retrofitted under RHN design improvements or post combat repairs- you might be better off giving them abiilty to carry external mounted pods or flat-packs with most recent RHN missiles or whatever the joint RMN/RHN captial missles are going to be. That and add more energy counter-missle defences and CM- if you have the room for the CMs other than as some sort of external launcher-magazine you can bolt on.
Why? Because these ships are already funtionaly obsolete against anything other than current SLN ships below the wall. Their original function was to be guard ships (and in-system intimidation) against systems brought into the PR by force. The only reason they were used in attack agaist Manticorian locations was that is what the Peeps had and could bring together to get enough firepower and potential surviability in places they didn't have enough SDs for.

One RHN BB might be ok as local protection for a secondary system in the Republic now that the presumed problem it would be facing would be a conventional SLN type warship as a pirate. The BB is not going to run down anything from a DD to BC but it is going to out-gun it. You can use them in that kind of semi-static defense role until you start producing modern warships (or LACs) to fill the role.