BB(P/C) for rear area security

Jonathan_S wrote:

Positroll wrote:@Duck
...

Yes a 4 mton hull sounds like it's got a lot of room. But compare the beam of even the 6 mton Mintoaur-class CLAC to the length of two Katanas. The LACs alone stretch 142 m into the 189 m wide hull; leaving only 47 meters for LAC bay hatches, docking buffers, ammo tubes, personnel tubes; leaving very little room for the things that normally go in the middle of a starship. (Crew quarters, fusion reactors, ammo magazines, etc, etc)

The closest we've got in HoS to a 4 mton ship is the 3.8 mton Ad Astra-class DN; with a beam of 154 m. Put a pair of LAC bays on on the broadsides and you've got only 12 m clearance between the LACs' noses. Yeah that puts a massive crimp on the space. And like Duckk said, the pod bay after is already displacing ship systems forward and hullward; adding LAC bays, even to a 4 mton ship just compromise its usable and protected volume that much more. And if you tried to put armor cofferdaming around the bays; wow total lack of space. But if you don't then they're gaping deep vulnerabilities in it's armor protection. (Which is why CLACs now hang back and try not to go into a missile duel, because despite all their active defenses they're hideously vulnerable to any hits which do get through.

Which is why, as I said in my initial post, I wouldn't put in "normal" LAC bays but rather an upsized boatbay that runs lenghtwise at the underside of the BB where it is protected by the wedge (yes, it makes deployment slower, but who cares? we are just talking about 4 LACs in the bay, they don't need much time to get away ...). Say 160 m out of an overall 1100 m ? I'd pobably put it below the area for the pod storage. If so, I don't think the bay would be part of the core hull, but it still would get intermediate armor and they would definetely be covered by the sidewalls.

Positroll wrote:Which is why, as I said in my initial post, I wouldn't put in "normal" LAC bays but rather an upsized boatbay that runs lenghtwise at the underside of the BB where it is protected by the wedge (yes, it makes deployment slower, but who cares? we are just talking about 4 LACs in the bay, they don't need much time to get away ...). Say 160 m out of an overall 1100 m ? I'd pobably put it below the area for the pod storage. If so, I don't think the bay would be part of the core hull, but it still would get intermediate armor and they would definetely be covered by the sidewalls.

Whoops, forgot you'd said that - yeah, that should reduce the impact somewhat. With docking buffers and armor maybe you're only losing the bottom 25 - 35 meters out of a 144 m tall hull.

And I guess if you docked the LACs two facing forward and two aft you could still have the oversize personnel / re-ammo / maintenance tubes that so simplify LAC maintenance and operations on a CLAC. (You might be able to squeeze the LACs in perpendicular to the ship, like a pinnace, but given the way the hull narrows at the lower curve I suspect there's not quite room)

I still don't know that it's worth it. And I assume you're giving up your normal boat bay capacity to squeeze these in (since it's not like the bottom of a ship is unused space - those are probably the lowest impact items to lose, compared to sensors, radiators, maneuvering thrusters, etc)

I get a sense from some of this that the idea that "battleships" are obsolete and useless is a bit of a dogma that must not be questioned.

The main problem seems to be a probably intentional irritating change in definition over time of useful naming categories into confusing nonsensical archaisms just like the real world does.

It seems that since the newer manticoran BC's are starting to become the old size of BB's surely this means something in the more then 1M ton less then 4M ton range must be useful as they are being built so why should naming it a BB make it useless.

The general weight to class scale seems rather arbitrary after all why is a 1M ton ship useful and a 2M ton ship not or 3M or 4M or 6M or 7M or 0.5M does not a 4M ton ship make all 2M ships just as obsolete as a 8M makes all 4M obsolete if the only measure is that it can't beat the ship twice as big? So logically if anything that can't beat a 8M ton ship is useless that should be the only size ever built. But that is not so and I suspect if over a few books BC's crept up to 4M tons nobody would bat an eyelid but would still call a proposed 4M ton BB useless just because of the name.


I do wish that the navies would redefine their categories and scrap the DN SD terms and just use Battleship since it really doesn't make sense to have a wall of battleship that you cant put in the wall of battle. Or hell since it is generally used terminology they could just use Waller, but if they would just define by role and not arbitrary weight limits it would be so much neater.

gantrakk wrote:I do wish that the navies would redefine their categories and scrap the DN SD terms and just use Battleship since it really doesn't make sense to have a wall of battleship that you cant put in the wall of battle. Or hell since it is generally used terminology they could just use Waller, but if they would just define by role and not arbitrary weight limits it would be so much neater.

Well, there is also the option of calling your ships by a deliberately deceptive name. IIRC the Nazis and the IJN did that.

gantrakk wrote:I get a sense from some of this that the idea that "battleships" are obsolete and useless is a bit of a dogma that must not be questioned.

If we define Battleships by tonnage, there is currently no useful design (and no, the BB(P) isn't useful either) in that range. If we define it by role, we come to a curious situation where there is no role for them. Haven used its BBs as rear-area security against raiding BC forces, with each deployment of them in an aggressive role being stopped cold by SDs or DNs. As it turns out, modern BCs give you enough firepower and enough endurance to fulfill both the defensive role of the BB and the offensive role of the BC.

The main problem seems to be a probably intentional irritating change in definition over time of useful naming categories into confusing nonsensical archaisms just like the real world does.

It seems that since the newer manticoran BC's are starting to become the old size of BB's surely this means something in the more then 1M ton less then 4M ton range must be useful as they are being built so why should naming it a BB make it useless.

Because the RMN defines it classes by role, not by tonnage. Nikes are BCs because they're designed to fill the role the BC always had in traditional RMN doctrine (fast, independent Raider and Escort).

I do wish that the navies would redefine their categories and scrap the DN SD terms and just use Battleship since it really doesn't make sense to have a wall of battleship that you cant put in the wall of battle. Or hell since it is generally used terminology they could just use Waller, but if they would just define by role and not arbitrary weight limits it would be so much neater.

Exactly! A Battleship (which can also be defined as a scaled-up Battlecruiser) has no place in the Wall of Battle, because they can not stand up to the damage dished out by a force of Dreadnoughts and Superdreadnoughts. You basically seem to have missed that at least the RMN already defines classes by role, not by tonnage bracket (See also: Roland-class DDs being larger than Avalon-class CLs).

The E wrote:Exactly! A Battleship (which can also be defined as a scaled-up Battlecruiser) has no place in the Wall of Battle, because they can not stand up to the damage dished out by a force of Dreadnoughts and Superdreadnoughts. You basically seem to have missed that at least the RMN already defines classes by role, not by tonnage bracket (See also: Roland-class DDs being larger than Avalon-class CLs).

Yep. They categorize by role. It just so happens that, at a given tech level, ships designed for a given role (aka cost and capability specification) fall into a fairly narrow tonnage range. (But as the tech level or desired capabilities change over time that tonnage range also changes - CL Fearless was still a CL, despite being no larger than newer DDs)

But it's the role driving the tonnage, not the tonnage defining the role. (Except kind-of for DNs, which are 'economy' SDs and pretty much defined as cheaper, smaller, less capable wallers; built to allow you to have more ships in more places)

Jonathan_S wrote:Whoops, forgot you'd said that - yeah, that should reduce the impact somewhat. With docking buffers and armor maybe you're only losing the bottom 25 - 35 meters out of a 144 m tall hull.

And I guess if you docked the LACs two facing forward and two aft you could still have the oversize personnel / re-ammo / maintenance tubes that so simplify LAC maintenance and operations on a CLAC. (You might be able to squeeze the LACs in perpendicular to the ship, like a pinnace, but given the way the hull narrows at the lower curve I suspect there's not quite room)

I still don't know that it's worth it. And I assume you're giving up your normal boat bay capacity to squeeze these in (since it's not like the bottom of a ship is unused space - those are probably the lowest impact items to lose, compared to sensors, radiators, maneuvering thrusters, etc)

There would be still be at least one boatbay at the front end of the middle section - a little larger than normal to make up for the lack of the aft one. Consider that they were able to fit 3 (!) boatbays in the Reliant with pinnaces the size of Jumbojets.
Otoh, I still need to reserve some room for my proposed LAC docking points ... (probably 2-3 each to the left and right of the center lined LAC bay; consider that normally 4 of them will be deployed on a rotating basis so that most of the surface area covered by them during hyper transit is available nin n-space for sensors etc; if the LAC bay were formed like an "Y" or a "T", another 2 LACs could be carried - without access for servicing them - in the lower part of the letter, but that would require twice the vertical space which is more than i'm probably inclined to sacrifice, even if it were to increase protection for the bay interior ..)

Btw, keyhole (c.f. Nike) reduces the need for sensors on the hull, doesn't it ?

Whether its worth it or not depends largely on the question how much you think that improved missile defense is worth.
The RMN (under early Roger Winton?) had a pase where they deliberatly gave up quite a bit of offensive punch with that aim ("enhanced survivability program"). As I see it, my BB(P) would not give up missile tubes as these earlier ships did but some duration of sustained Mk23 fire.
This is partially counteracted by (1) the increased accuracy of Apollo and (2) the possibility of continuing with Mk16 if the ennemy closes (bwt, if you think that's not so mportant you might save space by basing the front end not on the Nike but on a modified hammerhead with Roland style launcher systems ...)

In return, you get a 4-layered missile defense:
- PD laser(clusters)
- Keyhole platforms including PD (cf. http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/165/0 )
- CM
- 8-12 LACS, 4 of them Katanas

Unless you get ambushed and don't have time to drop the LACs (a rare occasion imO), I think it would make a big difference. Ratio-wise, 12 LACs for 1 BB is better than 2000 LACs for 150 SDs - which is what HH used when she trapped Filareta ...

In addition, you get the option of
- sending some LACs out for independent missions (say to check out a suspected pirate freighter on the other side of the inner system) and
- to resupply / carry special ops FFs.

As a captain, I'd love the options this gives me. Whether it fits BuShips plans ... shrug ...

P.S. Here are RFC's thoughts on part of the topic:
http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/134/1

Amen!!

BuShips reconsidered the wisdom of retrofitting Kehole I onto the Agememnons and Grayson never installed Keyhole on the Corvorsairs. The synergism with a Kehole I Nike is obvious. All of the BC(P)s were recalled during SFtS to be redeployed with Eigth Fleet. Why?

fester wrote:

Positroll wrote:But, as that post points out, the build time requirements for a BB are similar to those of a real Waller. You are proposing a design with a useful lifetime of a few short years, after which it becomes obsolete again due to a changed threat environment.

I really don't think they'd become obsolete soon - as a pod design, they can always add the newest missiles just by excachanging the pods.
Timewise, we don't know how long it takes for the SL to self-destoy. If they concentrate on keeping the core together while only doing some raiding in verge and GA, they might last a while - or not.

They will be obsolete against near peers, and those near peers will be coming off the building ways within the next five to ten years. The BB-P won't have the defensive depth or capability of a DN-P or a SD-P of roughly the same technology, and it is too big and expensive to build in the numbers of a BC-L. If you're worried about BC-Ls and BC-Ps raiding, a mixed squadron of NIKES and Aggs will eat a division of BB-Ps for lunch (assuming same tech)

Positroll wrote:Whether its worth it or not depends largely on the question how much you think that improved missile defense is worth.
The RMN (under early Roger Winton?) had a pase where they deliberatly gave up quite a bit of offensive punch with that aim ("enhanced survivability program"). As I see it, my BB(P) would not give up missile tubes as these earlier ships did but some duration of sustained Mk23 fire.
This is partially counteracted by (1) the increased accuracy of Apollo and (2) the possibility of continuing with Mk16 if the ennemy closes (bwt, if you think that's not so mportant you might save space by basing the front end not on the Nike but on a modified hammerhead with Roland style launcher systems ...)

In return, you get a 4-layered missile defense:
- PD laser(clusters)
- Keyhole platforms including PD (cf. http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/165/0 )
- CM
- 8-12 LACS, 4 of them Katanas

I love having LACs around for missile defense. I'm just not convinced that having each ship carry their own makes sense.

Except for DDs or CLs on anti-piracy patrols you never really see Honoverse navies operating their ships solo. So you don't seem to need a hybrid that combines missile combat with carrier operations. It tends to work much better simply assigned a dedicated carrier to the squadron, or for system defense shipping in LACs to operate from a fixed station (if you don't want to tie up a CLAC).

Hi, Positroll.

While you are calling this ship a BB, essentially what you have described is a very large BC. The ship you designed would still fall in the mission parameters for a BC class ship. Due to the new class naming conventions within the RMN, there is no real roll for a system defense type ship such as you envision. That roll is pretty well filled by a LAC base with system defense pods plus a couple of hypercapable ships. Current BC classes fulfill the raider niche and the DD/CL/CA classes work well as convoy escorts as well as being raiders in their own right.

As for LACs in the system defense roll, if more than a couple of squadrons of LACs are thought to be necessary, it will always be possible to add 1 or more dedicated LAC bases to bolster the defense. That way it would be possible to place one for planetary defense and one or more to protect any asteroid extraction industries.