New Manty ship ideas.

Bill Woods wrote:Personally, I'd like to resurrect the term 'battleship' for capital ships. 'Dreadnought' just means 'superbattleship', and 'superdreadnought' means 'superduperbattleship'. ... And 'podnought' means 'having no pods'. It's time for a reset.

That's one of those little things that have bugged me ever since I first read OBS, David using the terms with the same meaning to refer to different class ships. I think at one point in Honorverse history the BB was the sole capital ship type. Then someone made a bigger one, then still bigger ones. For some reason the word "dreadnought" was used for the bigger ship, and "super dreadnought" for the biggets ones. Why not simply use "battleship" for all capital ships? After all, in USN history, every battleship from those in the pre-WW1 "Great White Fleet" to the cancelled Montana-class (think Iowa with four 16" turrets) were given the BB designation despite the vast difference in sizes. And the Yamato and Musashi were known as "super battleships", but still called battleships. I guess David had to be a contrarian.

Bill Woods wrote:Is armor still an important feature for capital ships? It seems like the current paradigm is podlaying ships for offense, surrounded by a cloud of LACs for defense. In an age of long-range missiles with real-time fire control, the whole 2-D 'wall of battle' thing has been replaced by a 3-D formation.

Yes armor is still important, while the tactics have changed a lot it doesn't change the need for passive protection as active protection (LACs, point defenses, EW, ect) are by their nature never going to be 100% reliable so the passive protection of armor is needed to absorb the missiles that leak through. This will get even more important once enemies start deploying Apollo equivalents. DW has mentioned that one of the major design aspects of the 4th gen SD(P)s is that they will have greatly improved survivability

It seems there are many ships that no longer need exist.

The Roland replaces the DD / CL. If a Roland can't handle it nothing smaller can. Perhaps a LAC but Dogma states they are massed or stealthy or dead.

Pirates are the fall back but with the taking of Silesia they either have moved to the Shell / Verge or retired after seeing a Roland.

A Shrike / Katana LAC. Is the Ferret needed?

Roland

Kamerling (only technically a light cruiser)

Saganami C

Agamemnon

Nike

Hydra

Invictus.

Weapons:

CM, Viper, LAC Missile, Mk16, Mk23, Mk25.
Roland and Saganami C lasers
Grasers of different sizes.
PD of Different sizes.

Yes LERM ERM exist but seem to be missiles without a purpose.
The Wolfhound and Avalon likewise seem to be pretty useless now.
Making 200 Avalon maybe a mistake.

The Agamemnon might be out of favour and might be a good gift of thanks for Grayson. Who seem to like BC(P).

I suppose as many as possible, able to be manned, Wolfhound and Avalon might go to Torch / Ballroom. Low crew numbers and more capable than anything else they have.

LERM ERM seem to be a solution for a pirate problem that no longer exists. And the ships that use them are a ship one wouldn't take to where the pirates will end up going.

Certainly not RMN weapons or ships.

So other than mounting Mk16's on the Kamerling, why have any other kind of ship.

One could easily decommission every other ship. The Medusa might be used until fully replaced by new Invictus but why have all these other ships.

Yes Lacoon adds to the need of ships, but fortes will replace those ships eventually or a Mycroft system.

1 Roland, 1 Kamerling, 3 Saganami C, 2 Agamemnon, if kept, eventually commanded by a Nike, with a Hydra and LAC. A squadron of ships to secure every system in the SEM. Some main systems will have Mycroft and other system defenses. For the next 10 years these Mk16 and LAC defended systems will end piracy in the SEM and secure every system.

The Wall of Battle will still exist. 100+ SD(P) and 50+ CLAC plus 6000 LAC. 3 fleets of the wall.

An Agamemnon Escort CLAC BC could also be deployed. 20-40 LAC, Chase Roland like Mk16's, Grasers, no pods. Make a very effective commerce escort. Everything a Roland can do and 20-40 things it cannot. No need for Keyhole, no armour problems.

Lord Skimper wrote:It seems there are many ships that no longer need exist.

The Roland replaces the DD / CL. If a Roland can't handle it nothing smaller can. Perhaps a LAC but Dogma states they are massed or stealthy or dead.

Pirates are the fall back but with the taking of Silesia they either have moved to the Shell / Verge or retired after seeing a Roland.

A Shrike / Katana LAC. Is the Ferret needed?

Roland

Kamerling (only technically a light cruiser)

Saganami C

Agamemnon

Nike

Hydra

Invictus.

Weapons:

CM, Viper, LAC Missile, Mk16, Mk23, Mk25.
Roland and Saganami C lasers
Grasers of different sizes.
PD of Different sizes.

Yes LERM ERM exist but seem to be missiles without a purpose.
The Wolfhound and Avalon likewise seem to be pretty useless now.
Making 200 Avalon maybe a mistake.

The Agamemnon might be out of favour and might be a good gift of thanks for Grayson. Who seem to like BC(P).

I suppose as many as possible, able to be manned, Wolfhound and Avalon might go to Torch / Ballroom. Low crew numbers and more capable than anything else they have.

LERM ERM seem to be a solution for a pirate problem that no longer exists. And the ships that use them are a ship one wouldn't take to where the pirates will end up going.

Certainly not RMN weapons or ships.

So other than mounting Mk16's on the Kamerling, why have any other kind of ship.

One could easily decommission every other ship. The Medusa might be used until fully replaced by new Invictus but why have all these other ships.

Yes Lacoon adds to the need of ships, but fortes will replace those ships eventually or a Mycroft system.

1 Roland, 1 Kamerling, 3 Saganami C, 2 Agamemnon, if kept, eventually commanded by a Nike, with a Hydra and LAC. A squadron of ships to secure every system in the SEM. Some main systems will have Mycroft and other system defenses. For the next 10 years these Mk16 and LAC defended systems will end piracy in the SEM and secure every system.

The Wall of Battle will still exist. 100+ SD(P) and 50+ CLAC plus 6000 LAC. 3 fleets of the wall.

An Agamemnon Escort CLAC BC could also be deployed. 20-40 LAC, Chase Roland like Mk16's, Grasers, no pods. Make a very effective commerce escort. Everything a Roland can do and 20-40 things it cannot. No need for Keyhole, no armour problems.

Not going to happen unless there's a very long period of zero technological advancements.

Designing the best ship means using the most advanced technologies available to you. Ship design/development will produce new models/variants every time there is a significant technological advancement. Since military technology is still advancing at breakneck speed, you won't have your homogenized navy soon.

Bill Woods wrote:Is armor still an important feature for capital ships? It seems like the current paradigm is podlaying ships for offense, surrounded by a cloud of LACs for defense. In an age of long-range missiles with real-time fire control, the whole 2-D 'wall of battle' thing has been replaced by a 3-D formation.

Personally, I'd like to resurrect the term 'battleship' for capital ships. 'Dreadnought' just means 'superbattleship', and 'superdreadnought' means 'superduperbattleship'. ... And 'podnought' means 'having no pods'. It's time for a reset.

Armor, and even more so sidewalls are a very important feature of capital ships. It is what allows them to survive, and while Apollo has outpaced the defense, it is unclear if it will remain so. But please note that of the two SD's caught in a 17k missile salvo at Solon one came home again.

For the naming convention reset, it is more trouble to try changing naming schemes, and would only generate confusion all around. You can do it if you introduce Rolands as DD's and not CL's, but retrospectively, not really a good idea. You would have to complain to the builders of the first DN (probably the SL).

No, you just call your ship what you want to call it. Who cares what other navies think? It's how you get a destroyer that displaces almost as much as a WW2 CA.

kzt wrote:No, you just call your ship what you want to call it. Who cares what other navies think? It's how you get a destroyer that displaces almost as much as a WW2 CA.

true enough. if its mission parameters is that of destroyers. if it can perform like a destroyer. then by all means it can be called a destroyer. from what we know, Rolands outperform other navies destroyers in all aspects despite its size. so who is to say it's not a destroyer?

61Cygni wrote:...

That's one of those little things that have bugged me ever since I first read OBS, David using the terms with the same meaning to refer to different class ships. I think at one point in Honorverse history the BB was the sole capital ship type. Then someone made a bigger one, then still bigger ones. For some reason the word "dreadnought" was used for the bigger ship, and "super dreadnought" for the biggets ones. Why not simply use "battleship" for all capital ships? After all, in USN history, every battleship from those in the pre-WW1 "Great White Fleet" to the cancelled Montana-class (think Iowa with four 16" turrets) were given the BB designation despite the vast difference in sizes. And the Yamato and Musashi were known as "super battleships", but still called battleships. I guess David had to be a contrarian.

Size inflation happens in all navies. We just built and launched a 15,000 ton "destroyer", for heaven's sakes! That is just wrong.

Lord Skimper wrote:It seems there are many ships that no longer need exist.

I see your point, but we already know that Manticore isn't satisfied with their current designs; that those don't represent (in their opinion) the best employment of their current (much less future) war-fighting tech.

Which isn't too surprising. Those designs were necessarily created based on how they were expected to theoretically work in combat, and now with some direct experience with them flaws and shortcomings become apparent.

Specifically, from various things in the boooks and that RFC has posted here:
The Roland overemphasized short duration high-intensity combat (kind of necessary to squeeze Mk16 DDMs into something so 'small') to the point where it's poorly equipped for a number of classic DD/CL missions and lacks the magazine depth for CL length low patrols in low intensity combat situations (doesn't have the missiles to spare for warning shots, etc)

The RMN was looking splitting the role of the Hydra 2nd gen DN-sized CLAC across two different designs. The first an SD-sized CLAC optimized around dropping her brood and hypering out to wait (the larger size allows LACs to be carried more efficiently). The second a better defended 'assault' CLAC designed to stay with the SD(P)s to allow their escorting anti-missile screen of LACs to replenish expendables without having to break back across the hyper limit to rendezvous with a detached CLAC.

And they're also looking a more survivable 4th gen SD(P) designs. (No specific details on how they'd differ from the Invictus-class designs currently in service)


So, while I expect the even older designs to continue to be retired as sufficient new ships become available to replace them in the secondary roles they're currently filling, I also expect Manticore to continue coming up with new designs to replace many of the ships on your rationalized list

Given the crew reductions, a Nike with a similar pre small crew size, could replace everything smaller than itself. It could be a Roland, and a Kamerling, and a Saganami C. By itself or in a pair, see below, it can do anything the other ships do.


Crew size is similar to light cruisers of the past. The troops it carries and the command facilities allow it to complete any such mission. It might be over kill on most missions but better over kill than under powered. It isn't slow any longer, it can fire warning shots or sit in system and is a commanding presence. Literally.

I suppose a Agememnon sized CLAC escort carrier might work. With 20-40 LAC and chase missiles.

How about a new "oversized" ship typing.

Agamemnon CLAC escort.

Nike all purpose ship.

Hydra Full Size CLAC

Invictus SD(P)

300-500 crew for the "Smaller Ships".

1000-2000 for the Larger.

Yes the Roland only uses 62. But an older Destroyer had about 300.

Also with 150 Nike they can do everything that 700 smaller ships could do, add 150 Agamemnon CLAC escort with 20 to 40 Shrike / Katana. Agamemnon is only 118 metres wide.

Operating in pairs they make a great new "squadron".

Add some Extra Mk30 Pinnace for inspection duties and such a pair can do just about anything anything smaller can do.

Mycroft to provide inner system protection.

Why have a Roland, Wolfhound, Avalon, Kamerling or Saganami C, when a Nike can do all these jobs as good or better?

Add a Small CLAC and even the notion of have more ships makes little to no difference.

3 Agamemnon CE and 3 Nike per system 60-120 LAC and Mycroft for total system defense.

We could call it an ACE! (Agamemnon CLAC Escort)

1 Nike would handle the 6 BC and Transport encounter easily. Even without pods. Would they risk attacking what appears to be a BB?