light ships number and type

Crown Loyalist wrote:

drothgery wrote:And the DD is dying, and the CL may be as well.

The DD isn't dying, the class is just getting bigger and bigger to keep it combat viable. Not all recon can be done with recon drones; navies still need small-ish hyper-capable units to scout systems.

The role of the destroyer isn't going anywhere, so there are always going to be destroyers.

RFC has said straight-out that a Roland (which is bigger than most pre-war CLs and pushing on traditional CA territory) is not viable once everyone of consequence has something like Mark 16s. Recently he's suggested that may be true of anything smaller than a Sag-C.

I'd argue for 'rebranding' the Sag-C as a CL and sticking a 'new look' CA in the old ~1MTon classic BC range, but it may be that the RMN ends up with just Sag-Cs and Nikes (and their direct successors) below the wall.

Actually as far as I know, what MWW said is that both the Roland and the Sag-C are are overgunned for their defensive capabilities. Their next generation replacements are going to add about 100kt of defensive equippment. He has also stated, more or less, that the next generation light warship at 300kt, more or less, will not be a Roland derivative, size constraints might force the retention of clustered axial missile tubes, but otherwise the design will be a descendent of a cruiser, which means an updated star knight, though it is not impossible that the RMN might bite the bullet and move to a shrunken Sag-A hull, they might even use the Sag-B & C hullform, though I doubt the second.

drothgery wrote:

Crown Loyalist wrote:*snip*

The DD isn't dying, the class is just getting bigger and bigger to keep it combat viable. Not all recon can be done with recon drones; navies still need small-ish hyper-capable units to scout systems.

The role of the destroyer isn't going anywhere, so there are always going to be destroyers.

RFC has said straight-out that a Roland (which is bigger than most pre-war CLs and pushing on traditional CA territory) is not viable once everyone of consequence has something like Mark 16s. Recently he's suggested that may be true of anything smaller than a Sag-C.

I'd argue for 'rebranding' the Sag-C as a CL and sticking a 'new look' CA in the old ~1MTon classic BC range, but it may be that the RMN ends up with just Sag-Cs and Nikes (and their direct successors) below the wall.

drothgery wrote:

Crown Loyalist wrote:
The DD isn't dying, the class is just getting bigger and bigger to keep it combat viable. Not all recon can be done with recon drones; navies still need small-ish hyper-capable units to scout systems.

The role of the destroyer isn't going anywhere, so there are always going to be destroyers.

RFC has said straight-out that a Roland (which is bigger than most pre-war CLs and pushing on traditional CA territory) is not viable once everyone of consequence has something like Mark 16s. Recently he's suggested that may be true of anything smaller than a Sag-C.

Everyone of consequence having mark 16s or equivalents will probably take decades or centuries really depending on how large the bigger SL chunks are when the dust settles.

Roguevictory wrote:Everyone of consequence having mark 16s or equivalents will probably take decades or centuries really depending on how large the bigger SL chunks are when the dust settles.

Nope. 10 years max. Too many people know it can be done, the technologies involved are highly useful, and there will be enough money and researchers working on it to redo all the work they can't steal.

All light combatans will require a Keyhole platform to be survivable.

Nike BC will be improved with remote defensive platforms with PDLCs and FTL comm to forward control extended range CMs.

An updated Rolland with KH, more CMs and PDLCs wouldbeable to cope with it's own salvos of 24 Mk-16s, for a while.

namelessfly wrote:All light combatans will require a Keyhole platform to be survivable.

Nike BC will be improved with remote defensive platforms with PDLCs and FTL comm to forward control extended range CMs.

An updated Rolland with KH, more CMs and PDLCs wouldbeable to cope with it's own salvos of 24 Mk-16s, for a while.

Without serious additional minaturization I don't think you're getting even keyhole 1 capabilities into a CL (and probably not a CA).

Ok, scaling down the number of missiles it can fire would reduce the fire control links needed, which would let you shrink the size. But probably not by enough.


I think a defensive only keyhole derivative might be more practical on the smaller hulls. Make the ship more survivable when it rolls wedge against pod salvos, but require it to be nose or broadside on to control offensive missiles. (And probably scale back the number of PDLCs on the keyhole light). CM fire control links are definitely shorter ranged, and seem to be smaller than DDM range links - plus you gain back all the volume from deleting the offensive links in the first place. So you can roll wedge, but still launch and control CMs from both broadsides, use the platforms (fewer) PDLCs, and have the best tracking information fed to your onboard PDLCs to give them the best chance at a snap shot against any missile clearing the wedge.
And if you're taking fire that heavy a cruiser doesn't really have the throw weight to effectively respond; just cover your back and run.

<shrug> but that's just my random thought.

Jonathan_S wrote: CM fire control links are definitely shorter ranged, and seem to be smaller than DDM range links - plus you gain back all the volume from deleting the offensive links in the first place.

My impression is that there is no difference between CM fire control links and offensive fire-control links. I think the only difference between missile fire control and energy weapon fire-control is the transmit/receive channels are hardwired for energy mounts.

In simple terms, "fire-control" is Designate a target, designate a weapon, guide the two together. For Apollo capable ships, there is the obvious separation between light speed links and FTL links, but the computer support for both would be essentially the same: Target selection, Weapon selection, & Guidance.

Weird Harold wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote: CM fire control links are definitely shorter ranged, and seem to be smaller than DDM range links - plus you gain back all the volume from deleting the offensive links in the first place.

My impression is that there is no difference between CM fire control links and offensive fire-control links. I think the only difference between missile fire control and energy weapon fire-control is the transmit/receive channels are hardwired for energy mounts.

In simple terms, "fire-control" is Designate a target, designate a weapon, guide the two together. For Apollo capable ships, there is the obvious separation between light speed links and FTL links, but the computer support for both would be essentially the same: Target selection, Weapon selection, & Guidance.

I probably should have dug up and included the link to relevant pearl in my previous post; that one that spelled out that CM control links are smaller.
Anyway, slightly belatedly, here it is: Fire control uplink flexibility, and the relevant bit on offensive vs defensive control links

infodump wrote:Offensive control links are maximized to control offensive missiles at extreme ranges. They are large, complex, and expensive in terms of both mass and volume. Counter-missile control links are maximized to control the maximum number of relatively short-range missiles with a maximum powered flight endurance of no more than a minute. They are for short ranged use only, they are relatively small, less sophisticated, and available in much larger numbers because they cost less both financially and in terms of mass and volume. Moreover, for very good reasons, defensive and offensive fire control are completely separate control systems. The designers have very carefully segregated them from one another specifically to avoid overload conditions on one overloading the other.
[snip]
Basically, you can control about four counter-missiles for the "control link cost" of a single offensive missile.

So a CM control link is about 1/4 the volume as an offensive control link. That's why I think a CM-link only keyhole derivative could must more easily be made small enough to be carried by a cruiser.

Jonathan_S wrote:Fire control uplink flexibility, and the relevant bit on offensive vs defensive control links

infodump wrote:...

Noted.

Jonathan_S wrote:So a CM control link is about 1/4 the volume as an offensive control link. That's why I think a CM-link only keyhole derivative could must more easily be made small enough to be carried by a cruiser.

Given the infodump, you may be right. I'm not sure that it would be worth giving up the broadside space for, but an AMS KH derivative for CA/CL sized ships might well be possible.

Right now the Honorverse series of science fiction novels appears to be locked into a "Bigger is Better" warship size escalation theme that is determined by existing and near future imaginary technology that is absolutely superb in its scope and depth. Thus the trend for bigger and bigger ships to hold all the necessary improvements such as Keyhole and Apollo 1-4.

Warship size for the pod designs is getting larger and larger. Until there is a break through in designing much smaller and more effective weapons platforms, this size increase will continue. Will such a size break through occur in future story lines? If so, then we might see a return to the smaller warship as the desirable military vessel of the Honorverse? Something very small and effective?

I am thinking of a return to the capitol ship of around 500,000 tons, with small perfectly fine and lethal smaller warships massing in at around 50,000 tons? A mix of Malignment teck and future GA teck? A return to perhaps reason and sanity? If nothing else, think of how small the crew size could be? A 500 KT. SD(p) equivalent with a crew of ... only 250? Think of the resources saved.

HB of CJ (old coot) Lt.Cm.