Are Tincans and CL's obsolete to "modern" fleets?

SharkHunter wrote:I don't see why all of the marines on the newer ship types wouldn't have battle armor available to them, nor why a CLAC under normal circumstances (except used outside of normal purpose a la Mobius in Shadow of Freedom) or an SD(p) would have ANY marines at all. Easier to bring along a Marine transport or even a freighter full of them bad-boys.

Certainly they wouldn't need Marines in the same proportion to their crew size - much less tonnage! - as smaller classes. But for security purposes, search-and-rescue of potentially hostile people, and just spreading the wall's Marine complement around evenly so that it's consistently proportionate to the wall around, there's reason to keep a regular marine contingent on each of them. The CLAC's may get a little more ground/security action, or be sent alone where you may otherwise have sent a DD or CA squadron, and have a use for those Marines for those situations.

And personnel and small craft allocations for capital ships aren't tight the way they are for smaller units. Giving them people for use outside normal circumstances on a regular basis will appeal to planners who don't want to be caught with their pants down when weirdness happens.

I too think they could easily work with smaller contingents than they currently have; I just think there are good reasons to keep them well above zero. For me, it's less that I'm sure they won't have work to do with the SD(P)'s and CLAC's than that I am sure they do have work to do on the cruising classes and they're being missed there.

JeffEngel wrote:It gets into an argument about definitions around here.

Warships in the 60k-200k tonnage range pretty much are going by the wayside - the smaller, the faster, apart from the Torch special case. Even that 300k notional unit may end up 400k easily enough, especially if the extra 100k gets you a good bit more functionality without much more crew commitment. That's why I think we may find the notional light-cruiser/destroyer/new-frigate/whatever of the future most nearly represented now by the Saganami-C. It may not be much smaller than that, especially to include some stripped-down Keyhole and FTL missile control better than "Apollo Lite". Then there's the question of whether the RMN (for instance) would want one design to do both fleet screen and patrol duties or opt for one design for each. (Or one design for each of those and a third, larger one for both - a lot like a current DD/CL/CA scheme.)

If you're defining DD's and CL's by that 60k-200k or so tonnage range, then you'd have few people here trying to claim a bright long-term future for those.

If you're defining them by function - the way the RMN has started doing with the serious size creep - then you would have to argue that those functions simply aren't going to be done by hypercapable warships below the wall anymore. I don't think that argument is going to go well.

If you read the RFC quote I posted up-thread, you would see that David does not foresee destroyers or cruisers being used for fleet screen in the fleet of the future. That role will be the responsibility of LACs. The only roles David lists for light ships is patrol and escort.

Also, the "stripped-down Keyhole" concept is based on Keyhole I, not Keyhole II. The stripped-down Keyhole is more for its defensive benefits than its offensive missile-control benefits. As far as I can tell from my search, there is no textev or infodump suggesting the possibility of FTL missile control for cruisers, or even for battlecruisers (other than Apollo-Lite, and that only works on MK-23 which cannot be launched from internal tubes on ships smaller than current dreadnoughts).

SWM wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:It gets into an argument about definitions around here.

Warships in the 60k-200k tonnage range pretty much are going by the wayside - the smaller, the faster, apart from the Torch special case. Even that 300k notional unit may end up 400k easily enough, especially if the extra 100k gets you a good bit more functionality without much more crew commitment. That's why I think we may find the notional light-cruiser/destroyer/new-frigate/whatever of the future most nearly represented now by the Saganami-C. It may not be much smaller than that, especially to include some stripped-down Keyhole and FTL missile control better than "Apollo Lite". Then there's the question of whether the RMN (for instance) would want one design to do both fleet screen and patrol duties or opt for one design for each. (Or one design for each of those and a third, larger one for both - a lot like a current DD/CL/CA scheme.)

If you're defining DD's and CL's by that 60k-200k or so tonnage range, then you'd have few people here trying to claim a bright long-term future for those.

If you're defining them by function - the way the RMN has started doing with the serious size creep - then you would have to argue that those functions simply aren't going to be done by hypercapable warships below the wall anymore. I don't think that argument is going to go well.

If you read the RFC quote I posted up-thread, you would see that David does not foresee destroyers or cruisers being used for fleet screen in the fleet of the future. That role will be the responsibility of LACs. The only roles David lists for light ships is patrol and escort.

I had in mind the forward scouting element in hyperspace and eyes on nearby hyperbands role there. Gotta use more words, eep.

I don't think he has in mind BC's for those purposes - not that you couldn't, it's just excessive. Granted, also, that no fleet is going to need many ships for that, so whatever is doing it isn't likely to be a design used for nothing else.

Also, the "stripped-down Keyhole" concept is based on Keyhole I, not Keyhole II. The stripped-down Keyhole is more for its defensive benefits than its offensive missile-control benefits. As far as I can tell from my search, there is no textev or infodump suggesting the possibility of FTL missile control for cruisers, or even for battlecruisers (other than Apollo-Lite, and that only works on MK-23 which cannot be launched from internal tubes on ships smaller than current dreadnoughts).

Is there a use of "Apollo Lite" for something other than an FTL recon drone down-range, so that the firing ship is getting FTL data back from the target area? (The "lite" part coming from the fact that the FTL communication is only downrange to ship rather than ship to downrange too.)

In any case, the stripped down Keyhole I is still going to ramp up the tonnage requirements for ships built to use it, and may help jack the tonnage floor up if it's considered a requirement for the smallest serious hypercapable warship.

JeffEngel wrote:I had in mind the forward scouting element in hyperspace and eyes on nearby hyperbands role there. Gotta use more words, eep.

I don't think he has in mind BC's for those purposes - not that you couldn't, it's just excessive. Granted, also, that no fleet is going to need many ships for that, so whatever is doing it isn't likely to be a design used for nothing else.

Scouting in hyperspace is a legitimate role, I guess; I can't recall offhand whether David mentioned that one.

Is there a use of "Apollo Lite" for something other than an FTL recon drone down-range, so that the firing ship is getting FTL data back from the target area? (The "lite" part coming from the fact that the FTL communication is only downrange to ship rather than ship to downrange too.)

No, that's the only Apollo-Lite I know of.

In any case, the stripped down Keyhole I is still going to ramp up the tonnage requirements for ships built to use it, and may help jack the tonnage floor up if it's considered a requirement for the smallest serious hypercapable warship.

Yes, and David said that was one reason why the notional 300,000 ton ship was that big. The thinkers had decided that future ships would need a lot more missile defense. So by their thinking, the smallest viable ship in the fleet of the future had to have some version of Keyhole I, at a minimum. Aparently 300,000 tons was the smallest they thought they could squeeze some version of Keyhole I into.

Of course, since this is merely a notional design, you are absolutely correct that this minimal ship could get much bigger. A notional design probably has only the vaguest of numbers and lots of handwaving, so translating that into practical reality faces a lot of tests.

Also, since this is only a notional design, they may decide next month that the whole idea is crazy and come up with a new notional design. David had not apparently not made up his mind yet.

SWM wrote:As far as I can tell from my search, there is no textev or infodump suggesting the possibility of FTL missile control for cruisers, or even for battlecruisers (other than Apollo-Lite, and that only works on MK-23 which cannot be launched from internal tubes on ships smaller than current dreadnoughts).

Bleh--Obviously that's wrong. Apollo-Lite (use of drones to send FTL targeting data) works perfectly fine with any missiles. The missiles themselves aren't getting FTL data, so it doesn't matter what kind of missile it is. Sorry about the brain-feeb.

SharkHunter wrote:(PNS Sultan vs RMS Roland-class a la Honor Among Enemies
--snipping--

Jonathan_S wrote:You might be right.

But two nitpicks.
1) A Roland on convoy escort is unlikely to have limpeted pods because they seem to have a lifetime of less than a week in that mode (queue kzt's request that they reinvent power cords )

2) The mk31 CMs/Vipers have more like 1.5x - 2x the range of the older CMs (depending on how much older); not 3x.

Of course in that particular scenario the other question (not addressed in the book) is what do base velocity vectors look like. Even given the Roland's extreme acceleration, could it avoid an energy range pass if the BC realized it was losing a missile fight and charged straight in. In HAE the BC was pussyfooting around with a medium range missile duel (where it didn't even bother to go to full firing rate on it's tubes until after taking a bunch of hits)

The Sultan's top speed is listed as 490G, the Roland's max is 780G, meaning the Sultan's not going to get to energy range, this is a missile duel only.

The RMN DD will open fire as soon as they get bearings on any ship firing on their "shepherded ships", They have a free field of fire, salvo wise until the PN missiles arrive.

That's acceleration, not top speed. If (and it's a big if) the Roland and Atlas have the misfortune of cruising along at 0.16c[1] directly at the Sultan and it opens fire at, say, 6 million km, then if they do nothing they'll slide past it in 123 seconds.

Assuming it sticks with the new 'safe' acceleration of 90%, so 702g, then in that 123 seconds a Roland can build a new vector of 846 km/s, and displace 52,041 km. That's wouldn't actually be enough to claw out of the energy range of the Sultan even if the Sultan didn't move either.

That's why the base velocity vector is so important; it would take a Roland almost 2 hours to build up to the fairly slow 'safe' speed of 0.16c and it can't alter that instantly.


All that said, the Roland would be very likely to be able to keep its wedge interposed against a single BC the entire time it was within energy range.
--------------
[1] turns out HAE does list the top 'safe' speed in that particular rift, 0.16c

The reason why I speculatively put a company of marines on a CLAC is how do you board a a Pirate/Privateer with a LAC with a crew of ten. Yes the might have more LAC's but the question remains the same.

SWM wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:I had in mind the forward scouting element in hyperspace and eyes on nearby hyperbands role there. Gotta use more words, eep.

I don't think he has in mind BC's for those purposes - not that you couldn't, it's just excessive. Granted, also, that no fleet is going to need many ships for that, so whatever is doing it isn't likely to be a design used for nothing else.

Scouting in hyperspace is a legitimate role, I guess; I can't recall offhand whether David mentioned that one.

Me neither. House of Steel mentions it a few times with regard to GSN destroyer doctrine at least and maybe in RMN thinking. But it's not something that will suck up a lot of hulls (as far as I can see, as far as things currently go...) I just need to spell out what I'm thinking sometimes better rather than abbreviate it into incomprehensibility.

In any case, the stripped down Keyhole I is still going to ramp up the tonnage requirements for ships built to use it, and may help jack the tonnage floor up if it's considered a requirement for the smallest serious hypercapable warship.

Yes, and David said that was one reason why the notional 300,000 ton ship was that big. The thinkers had decided that future ships would need a lot more missile defense. So by their thinking, the smallest viable ship in the fleet of the future had to have some version of Keyhole I, at a minimum. Aparently 300,000 tons was the smallest they thought they could squeeze some version of Keyhole I into.

Of course, since this is merely a notional design, you are absolutely correct that this minimal ship could get much bigger. A notional design probably has only the vaguest of numbers and lots of handwaving, so translating that into practical reality faces a lot of tests.

Also, since this is only a notional design, they may decide next month that the whole idea is crazy and come up with a new notional design. David had not apparently not made up his mind yet.

And while they're thinking of whole ship design, people down the hall are coming up with more must-have doohickeys.

Going to 300k as that smallest notional warship of the (possible) emerging technical plateau also means that, if a little more tonnage will mean the same design can do a lot more, you've got a powerful incentive to put that tonnage on it. I don't think there's going to be so much room for distinct classes (frigate, destroyer, light cruiser, heavy cruiser, battlecruiser) below the wall, even with BC's nudging into BB tonnage ranges, with the tonnage floor going up. (It's already eaten corvettes and frigates - run, DD's!) But you'll still have (largely) the same roles to fill, so if the duties a DD and a CL did (that LAC's aren't assuming) can be done by a single design, without badly compromising one set of roles or the other, there will be that reason to do it.

For that matter, I wouldn't be shocked if that notional 300-400k ship turns out to be a very widely used standard for every general-purpose warship job short of a battlecruiser. If I had to bet, I'd put more money on two distinct classes surviving smaller than the BC - maybe more, if BuShips is infested with splitters not lumpers - but not much more.

saber964 wrote:The reason why I speculatively put a company of marines on a CLAC is how do you board a a Pirate/Privateer with a LAC with a crew of ten. Yes the might have more LAC's but the question remains the same.

That is a great point! which I hadn't really considered. To another part of the point in your posts though, given the larger hulls, why wouldn't there be enough battle armor for every marine? It doesn't mean they'd use it for every marine in every operation (not every situation requires a hammer, sometimes a screwdriver or socket wrench will do). Thoughts?

--snipping--
(PNS Sultan vs RMS Roland-class a la Honor Among Enemies

Jonathan_S wrote:You might be right.

Of course in that particular scenario the other question (not addressed in the book) is what do base velocity vectors look like.

Sharkhunter wrote: The Sultan's top speed is listed as 490G, the Roland's max is 780G, meaning the Sultan's not going to get to energy range, this is a missile duel only.

The RMN DD will open fire as soon as they get bearings on any ship firing on their "shepherded ships", They have a free field of fire, salvo wise until the PN missiles arrive.

Jonathan_S wrote: That's acceleration, not top speed. If (and it's a big if) the Roland and Atlas have the misfortune of cruising along at 0.16c[1] directly at the Sultan and it opens fire at, say, 6 million km, then if they do nothing they'll slide past it in 123 seconds.

Assuming it sticks with the new 'safe' acceleration of 90%, so 702g, then in that 123 seconds a Roland can build a new vector of 846 km/s, and displace 52,041 km. That's wouldn't actually be enough to claw out of the energy range of the Sultan even if the Sultan didn't move either....

All that said, the Roland would be very likely to be able to keep its wedge interposed against a single BC the entire time it was within energy range.

I think we're in base agreement, given that the BC's were apparently lying "doggo" in the rift, which I take to mean in a somewhat stationary position, wedge down, until they launched that first set of missiles. At which point Artemis turns to a divergent course at max accel and the DD goes into defend mode at whatever accel gives the liner the best chance to escape.

If zero velocity in space is the case, the BC has to start building V and can't do it as quickly as the Manticoran ships, making it a matter of time before vector divergence ruins the ambush. Given that it was a mid-range missile duel, I think that would give every maneuvering advantage to the Roland and NONE to the BC at least long enough for 3-4 bigger Mark-16 stacked salvos to likely overwhelm the BC's CM fire and take it out. Yes/no?