Ronald class CL

No, that's not a typo ...

I was thinking about what kind of CL the GA could build next. Yes, in the long run, the SAG-C might play that role. But right now there are lots of yards in the RoH that need to be brought up to speed. I think a CL design based on a elongated Roland DD would do the trick in the sense of giving them a quite effective unit that can be designed fast and can be build in big numbers.

Basically I'd take a Roland, keep its hammerheads with the Mk 16, but elongate the hull to make room for another 4-6 LERM launchers + magazines.

That would get the CL size up to the one of the new System Control Cruiser the Manties have. Comparing their weaponry, here should be enough room for what we need, if we reduce the marines to 1-1,5 companies (instead of 3) and downsize the boatbay with them ...

The Mk 16 is a must for a modern cruiser, but it would be used sparingly, only when the distance requires its use (to save a merchie from pirates) or to fight off stronger ennemy at a distance.
The LERM missiles would be the ones used when fighting run of the mill pirates, when giving warning shots, or to add to the Mk16s when the shit hits the fan and you need to throw everything at an enemy CA/BC that you can't outrun for whatever reason ...

Sure, there is a logistical downside to using 2 kinds of missiles, but the smaller size of the LERM still would give the CL at lot more strategic endurance as far as its weapons are concerned (and more room for fuel bunkerage compared to an all out Mk 16 load ) ...

4-6 LERM tubes is not enough to be worth firing. A frigate has a bigger broadside than that.

SWM wrote:4-6 LERM tubes is not enough to be worth firing. A frigate has a bigger broadside than that.

Um, no.

With modern launchers, off bore firing and the guidance channels of a Roland / Ronald, you can stack double or triple broadsides.

I'd guess that LERM launchers are faster then the big Mk 16 ones. So while you usually doublestack the Mk 16s for 24 missiles, you could send out the same number of LERM even with 4 launchers per side in a similar timeframe (2x4x3=24) ...

P.S. If 24 LERM aren't enough and you can't run, add a follow up salvo of Mk 16s and time them so that the Mk16s arrive a moment after the LERM - if you are lucky, the enemy concentrates on the LERM and you get your heavier Mk 16s through ...

P.P.S. Basically, a Roland has a "broadside" of 6 missiles, except that it has been moved to the hammerhead ...

P.P.P.S. I just shuddered remebering that Honors first Fearless had a broadside of a mere TWO missile tubes. And she couldn't stack them except by rotating ...

I'm not sure whether an LERM would be quite that much faster than a DDM, but won't argue the point. You're right that it will be at least a little faster.

You said you wanted to use LERMs to conserve DDMs. I assume that is because of lack of missile production? It's not clear whether LERMs or DDMs have a greater shortage right now. But that's pretty irrelevant, because Manticoran missile production will restart within months. According to the timetable given after the Yawata Strike, it should be starting soon. So there's no point in designing new ships based on a missile shortage. Was there some other reason you wanted to conserve DDMs?

SWM wrote:I'm not sure whether an LERM would be quite that much faster than a DDM, but won't argue the point. You're right that it will be at least a little faster.

You said you wanted to use LERMs to conserve DDMs. I assume that is because of lack of missile production? It's not clear whether LERMs or DDMs have a greater shortage right now. But that's pretty irrelevant, because Manticoran missile production will restart within months. According to the timetable given after the Yawata Strike, it should be starting soon. So there's no point in designing new ships based on a missile shortage. Was there some other reason you wanted to conserve DDMs?

Not talking about production capacity but:

- taking mostly about space aboard and strategic endurance. CLs often are on missions far from resupply and that will be especially true in the future when you need to protect GA merchies all around the verge. You simply can carry more LERM then Mk16 for the same volume used aboard, so if you can get rid of a pirate with 4 LERM it makes sense to conserve the Mk16 until / unless you happen to meet a Solly CA ...

- as a secondary thought, LERM are cheaper, too

I'd guess that were basically the reasons why the Avalon CL was built for LERM despite the Mk16 being close to production. But given that even a lowly DD now has Mk16s, and given the range advantage and the heavier missile head it carries, it just doesn't make sense anymore to build new CLs without that capability.

A weapon that allows 5 DDs to take out 4 Solly BCs simply is a must have on new CLs imO, but a cruiser that only carries Mk16s necessarily gets close in size to a Sag-C. ... my proposal tries to close that gap - oh, and it would also allow for more active defenses to be mounted, improving the chance of a effective defense against a peer that seems such an important issue to the SEM (or RFC?)

Positroll wrote:snip
I'd guess that were basically the reasons why the Avalon CL was built for LERM despite the Mk16 being close to production. But given that even a lowly DD now has Mk16s, and given the range advantage and the heavier missile head it carries, it just doesn't make sense anymore to build new CLs without that capability.

Although just a lowly destroyer the Roland is larger than the Avalon. According to House of Steel it is 188,750 tons to the Avalon's 146,750. Manticore classifies on role not on size. The CLs for the Manties are designed for longer cruises out of internal stores.

The Avalon has a broadside of 10 missile tubes. Given that we know the DDM is a size hog and Bu Ships could only squeeze 6 into the hammer head of the Roland by taking out the normally stand alone support equipment for each tube and putting it centrally in the hammer head and arranging the sextet of launchers around it. This reduces redundancy and makes them much more vulnerable to a single hit wiping out half of a Roland's Mk16 launchers.

Presumably the Avalon has the LERMs since it is expected as a cruiser to be on its own longer and be less vulnerable than a DD. Whereas although larger than its CL cousin the Roland will shoot itself dry fast meaning it need to be somewhere close to supply, such as tied to the fleet or station. It is also much more a vulnerable design to battle damage.

Thank you very much for starting this tread. I have been thing very much about light cruisers of late and what a DDM armed CL as a smaller brother to the Sag-C CA might look like.

You wouldn't need to elongate the hull very much to fit such launchers. The Avalon is 15m longer than the Roland and has 10 LERM launchers per side. However you would still need to find room for magazines and bunkerage.

That said there are some reasons I think this is the wrong way for designing a CL. We have never seen a ship which mounts two different types of missiles for internal tubes that I remember seeing. While this doesn't rule it out, there are very good reasons we haven't. This will make a logistical nightmare. The vessel will need to have access to both types of ammo from a station or ammo ship or it has the potential to be empty on one of its main weapons, which limits where it can be deployed. Also this prevents magazines from being able to feed other launchers should a magazine be destroyed in combat. We have seen cruisers with this ability and for long term combat patrol it is a good one. Which in itself is another problem, if this ship takes a hit in either its fore or aft hammer head magazine then it will be down a full half of its Mk16 missiles.

Finally I can’t see a cruiser using the Roland model for launchers. The unorthodox and vulnerable set up for the Roland was the trade off for being able to wrap a hull around DDM launchers. That trade off can be considered usable in a DD but a cruiser by its very missions need to be able to be further off of supply and not so much of an eggshell with a sledgehammer as the Roland is.

That said these are only my opinions and thank you for putting your idea out there.

Wolf

Is there a way to edit the thread title?

Considering that it will be a modified and elongated Roland, it might make more sense to call it the RONALDO class - with 3 syllables, the risk of confusion due to inexact spelling would also be reduced ...

Positroll wrote:No, that's not a typo ...

I was thinking about what kind of CL the GA could build next. Yes, in the long run, the SAG-C might play that role. But right now there are lots of yards in the RoH that need to be brought up to speed. I think a CL design based on a elongated Roland DD would do the trick in the sense of giving them a quite effective unit that can be designed fast and can be build in big numbers.

Basically I'd take a Roland, keep its hammerheads with the Mk 16, but elongate the hull to make room for another 4-6 LERM launchers + magazines.

Next gen CL designs is a interesting topic. Unfortunately all I've got is a boring idea -- to make a longer endurance Roland I'd lean towards stretching it, while keeping the (sadly vulnerable) hammerhead Mk16 missile clusters, to make room for larger Mk16 magazines behind the impeller rooms.

Oh, and to add some marine quarters. That wouldn't give it a heavier throw weight, but the extra length would give you room in stick on a few more CM launchers and PDLCs on the broadside.


I'm just not sure a mixed missile type class is really worth it. On the other hand, short of that, I'm not sure if it's practical to up the throw weight of a Mk16 equipped DD or CL.

I think you'd up the hammerhead size too much trying to fit in an extra tube or two there; and we've been told you need something the width of a Sag-C CA to fit Mk16s in broadside...

Although just a lowly destroyer the Roland is larger than the Avalon. According to House of Steel it is 188,750 tons to the Avalon's 146,750. Manticore classifies on role not on size. The CLs for the Manties are designed for longer cruises out of internal stores.

Except that a ship with such a mission profile but that can't take on a Mk 16 armed Roland DD should properly be called ... wait for it ... a FRIGATE !

The Avalon has a broadside of 10 missile tubes. Given that we know the DDM is a size hog and Bu Ships could only squeeze 6 into the hammer head of the Roland by taking out the normally stand alone support equipment for each tube and putting it centrally in the hammer head and arranging the sextet of launchers around it. This reduces redundancy and makes them much more vulnerable to a single hit wiping out half of a Roland's Mk16 launchers.

Yep. But if you add another 6 LERM launchers per broadside, such a hit will only destroy 1/4 of all launchers ...Which means a Ronald CL is (bigger and) less vulnerable than a Roland DD. Which is how things are meant to be in a well ordered universe ...


Presumably the Avalon has the LERMs since it is expected as a cruiser to be on its own longer and be less vulnerable than a DD. Whereas although larger than its CL cousin the Roland will shoot itself dry fast meaning it need to be somewhere close to supply, such as tied to the fleet or station. It is also much more a vulnerable design to battle damage.

Thank you very much for starting this tread. I have been thing very much about light cruisers of late and what a DDM armed CL as a smaller brother to the Sag-C CA might look like.

You wouldn't need to elongate the hull very much to fit such launchers. The Avalon is 15m longer than the Roland and has 10 LERM launchers per side. However you would still need to find room for magazines and bunkerage.

That said there are some reasons I think this is the wrong way for designing a CL. We have never seen a ship which mounts two different types of missiles for internal tubes that I remember seeing. While this doesn't rule it out, there are very good reasons we haven't. This will make a logistical nightmare. The vessel will need to have access to both types of ammo from a station or ammo ship or it has the potential to be empty on one of its main weapons, which limits where it can be deployed.

I think every suply ship out there already carries both, LERM and Mk16 ... 8and mines, and drones, and all Kind of other stuff, grab-bag style; cf. An act of war)

Also this prevents magazines from being able to feed other launchers should a magazine be destroyed in combat. We have seen cruisers with this ability and for long term combat patrol it is a good one. Which in itself is another problem, if this ship takes a hit in either its fore or aft hammer head magazine then it will be down a full half of its Mk16 missiles.

Yeah, but overall the Ronald CL would still be less vulnerable re: missile use than either the Roland or the Avalon, since it can move ist Missiles between the broadside launchers, Avalon style, and has the hammerhead launchers in addition ...

Finally I can’t see a cruiser using the Roland model for launchers. The unorthodox and vulnerable set up for the Roland was the trade off for being able to wrap a hull around DDM launchers. That trade off can be considered usable in a DD but a cruiser by its very missions need to be able to be further off of supply and not so much of an eggshell with a sledgehammer as the Roland is.
Shrug. If you look at it that way, just rename the SAG-C a CL (has happened before: Triumph BCs became CAs after the Axelrod attack) and build a new CA in the Relaiant tonnage range. Personally, I think thre is still room for a Ronald sized ship ...

That said these are only my opinions and thank you for putting your idea out there.

U R welcome ....

Positroll wrote:Although just a lowly destroyer the Roland is larger than the Avalon. According to House of Steel it is 188,750 tons to the Avalon's 146,750. Manticore classifies on role not on size. The CLs for the Manties are designed for longer cruises out of internal stores.

Except that a ship with such a mission profile but that can't take on a Mk 16 armed Roland DD should properly be called ... wait for it ... a FRIGATE !

The Avalon has a broadside of 10 missile tubes. Given that we know the DDM is a size hog and Bu Ships could only squeeze 6 into the hammer head of the Roland by taking out the normally stand alone support equipment for each tube and putting it centrally in the hammer head and arranging the sextet of launchers around it. This reduces redundancy and makes them much more vulnerable to a single hit wiping out half of a Roland's Mk16 launchers.

Yep. But if you add another 6 LERM launchers per broadside, such a hit will only destroy 1/4 of all launchers ...Which means a Ronald CL is (bigger and) less vulnerable than a Roland DD. Which is how things are meant to be in a well ordered universe ...


Presumably the Avalon has the LERMs since it is expected as a cruiser to be on its own longer and be less vulnerable than a DD. Whereas although larger than its CL cousin the Roland will shoot itself dry fast meaning it need to be somewhere close to supply, such as tied to the fleet or station. It is also much more a vulnerable design to battle damage.

Thank you very much for starting this tread. I have been thing very much about light cruisers of late and what a DDM armed CL as a smaller brother to the Sag-C CA might look like.

You wouldn't need to elongate the hull very much to fit such launchers. The Avalon is 15m longer than the Roland and has 10 LERM launchers per side. However you would still need to find room for magazines and bunkerage.

That said there are some reasons I think this is the wrong way for designing a CL. We have never seen a ship which mounts two different types of missiles for internal tubes that I remember seeing. While this doesn't rule it out, there are very good reasons we haven't. This will make a logistical nightmare. The vessel will need to have access to both types of ammo from a station or ammo ship or it has the potential to be empty on one of its main weapons, which limits where it can be deployed.

I think every suply ship out there already carries both, LERM and Mk16 ... 8and mines, and drones, and all Kind of other stuff, grab-bag style; cf. An act of war)

Also this prevents magazines from being able to feed other launchers should a magazine be destroyed in combat. We have seen cruisers with this ability and for long term combat patrol it is a good one. Which in itself is another problem, if this ship takes a hit in either its fore or aft hammer head magazine then it will be down a full half of its Mk16 missiles.

Yeah, but overall the Ronald CL would still be less vulnerable re: missile use than either the Roland or the Avalon, since it can move ist Missiles between the broadside launchers, Avalon style, and has the hammerhead launchers in addition ...

Finally I can’t see a cruiser using the Roland model for launchers. The unorthodox and vulnerable set up for the Roland was the trade off for being able to wrap a hull around DDM launchers. That trade off can be considered usable in a DD but a cruiser by its very missions need to be able to be further off of supply and not so much of an eggshell with a sledgehammer as the Roland is.
Shrug. If you look at it that way, just rename the SAG-C a CL (has happened before: Triumph BCs became CAs after the Axelrod attack) and build a new CA in the Relaiant tonnage range. Personally, I think thre is still room for a Ronald sized ship ...

That said these are only my opinions and thank you for putting your idea out there.

U R welcome ....

You are not the first to call the Roland a Frigate. More precisely, it will be the definition of an MDM age Frigate in about 10 or so years, when every major navy can field DDMs in light units.