new light cruiser needed

to use a name from some other of RFC's work, you think they are going to start building Monitors?

intresting idea.

can't see it happening for quite a while if ever but still interesting idea

crewdude48 wrote:I also feel that in the near future, the Haven Sector navies will develop a new ship of the wall a size up from current generation SDs. Something that will be about the same speed as prewar SDs, but bigger and more powerful. A super duper super dreadnought, if you will.

Ok, that motivated me to play around with the tonnage/accel numbers.

* In SftS we're shown that an Invictus-class SD(P) is up to 613.3 (from 562.6 at launch) in 1920PD [task force maximum of “six-point-zero-one KPS squared"]
* On the pre-grayson compensator a Gryphon-class SD could do 402.1g.

So how much larger could an SD(P) grow before it's accel drops to around 400g?

Well the compensator in that Invictus is 154.76% as effective as the pre-grayson baseline; I'll assume that's a linear shift of the entire compensator curve. That means the top end; where the accel starts dropping off a cliff shifts from 8.5 mtons to 13.1 mtons and the accel there shifts from 399.8g to 522.6g.
The old slow-down post drop-off was approximately 1g per 2,500 tons; even at 154.76% efficiency I think a mere 300k tons would drag the accel down to 401.9g



So if my assumption piled on assumption is correct a 13.4 mton ship (on that compensator) would have roughly the accel of an old-style SD. (But I'm not sure the extra 300k / 2.2% is worth it; I'd probably take the higher accel at 13.1 mtons)

Vince wrote:SDP - largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with MDMs. Currently exists as the Medusa/Harrington, Invictus, Sovereign of Space, Temeraire and the unnamed IAN SDPs (tonnage and Marine complement).

FYI... The current IAN SDP design is the Adler Class (Eagle). The name is mentioned during BoMA 1.

I see the break point in RMN ship classes being Keyhole 1 & 2 capability as opposed to pure size.

Essentially the difference between a Capital ship and a BC is pod MDM versus tube DDM with both having a full duplex Keyhole-2 FTL control link.

The real difference between a CA and a BC is the CA has a "half duplex" KH-1 platform compared to a both ways FTL control link.

The break point between a CA and the CL/DD is the lack of a KH-1 capability to fight behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capability.

All classes will have exterior hard points for either full up or DDM missile pods.

All non-capitol ships will have DDM. The class difference is their ability to use DDM and their marine compliments.

This is my rough idea of class breaks based on capability.

SDP - Capital ship, largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with pods and limited tube launched three stage MDMs, full duplex (AKA Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, uses external platform for offense and defense and fights being a wedge. Between 8.5 and 10 million tons displacement. Marine compliment Reinforced Battalion (+) (100% powered armor as it is easier to add cargo space as opposed to life support)

BC - largest sized hyper combatant below the wall for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, power projection, commerce protection/raiding It is equipped with double drive missile (DDM)s and a full duplex (AKA miniaturized Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, A larger than Nike BC(L) ship with additional spinal missile launchers for a DDM control missile to work with the smaller KH2. It will be capable of fighting behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capabilities. It will be between 2 million and 4 million tons displacement. Marine compliment between a two reinforced companies and a reinforced battalion size. "Reinforced" in this case meaning 1/2 to 2/3, as opposed to 1/3, of the marine units are in powered armor.

CA - intermediate sized hyper combatant for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. It will have a miniaturized KH-1 "Half duplex" FTL missile control. It can fight behind a wedge but at a severe electronic warfare disadvantage compared to a BC. Tonnage bracket between 1 million and 1.5 million. It will lack the spinal launched FTL DDM-type control missiles. The Marine complement sized between the DDM equipped CL and BC. Call it one marine company with two platoons in full powered armor and two platoons without as the bottom end.

CL/DD - smallest hyper combatant for flag-showing, scouting, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage equal to or larger than the Edward Saganami-C class. It will lack a full up miniaturized KH-1 but will have both offensive and defensive point defense tractored platforms. It will lack full offensive missile capability fighting behind a wedge. The break point CL/DD class difference here may be "Double spinal" versus "Double broadside" missile fit as far as the trade off of energy weapons/marine combat capabilities are concerned. Platoon to company sized Marine complement depending on the DD versus CL mission.

Mil-tech bard wrote:I see the break point in RMN ship classes being Keyhole 1 & 2 capability as opposed to pure size.

Essentially the difference between a Capital ship and a BC is pod MDM versus tube DDM with both having a full duplex Keyhole-2 FTL control link.

The real difference between a CA and a BC is the CA has a "half duplex" KH-1 platform compared to a both ways FTL control link.

The break point between a CA and the CL/DD is the lack of a KH-1 capability to fight behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capability.

I'd been thinking too that naval architecture was developing those sorts of natural breakpoints, but this is putting it much better than I'd been prepared to.

It may be better to slap class designations on them after figuring out what they can be expected to do, and in the meantime just referring to tier 1, 2, and 3 subwallers. It leaves open whether or not there will even be different classes performing the CL/CA or DD/CL missions - I wouldn't want to assume that too readily.

All classes will have exterior hard points for either full up or DDM missile pods.

At risk of making Relax fume - do DDM missile pods not require energy to juice the missiles that hardpoints may not be built to supply?

All non-capitol ships will have DDM. The class difference is their ability to use DDM and their marine compliments.

This is my rough idea of class breaks based on capability.

SDP - Capital ship, largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with pods and limited tube launched three stage MDMs, full duplex (AKA Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, uses external platform for offense and defense and fights being a wedge. Between 8.5 and 10 million tons displacement. Marine compliment Reinforced Battalion (+) (100% powered armor as it is easier to add cargo space as opposed to life support)

BC - largest sized hyper combatant below the wall for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, power projection, commerce protection/raiding It is equipped with double drive missile (DDM)s and a full duplex (AKA miniaturized Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, A larger than Nike BC(L) ship with additional spinal missile launchers for a DDM control missile to work with the smaller KH2. It will be capable of fighting behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capabilities. It will be between 2 million and 4 million tons displacement. Marine compliment between a two reinforced companies and a reinforced battalion size. "Reinforced" in this case meaning 1/2 to 2/3, as opposed to 1/3, of the marine units are in powered armor.

I'll leave the discussion as to whether or not the spinal missile launched DDM control missile can be expected to work out - I suspect there will be Opinions, I'm just not prepared to get that ball rolling.

CA - intermediate sized hyper combatant for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. It will have a miniaturized KH-1 "Half duplex" FTL missile control. It can fight behind a wedge but at a severe electronic warfare disadvantage compared to a BC. Tonnage bracket between 1 million and 1.5 million. It will lack the spinal launched FTL DDM-type control missiles. The Marine complement sized between the DDM equipped CL and BC. Call it one marine company with two platoons in full powered armor and two platoons without as the bottom end.

No DDM control missiles expected here because the Keyhole platform is a half-duplex only model?

CL/DD - smallest hyper combatant for flag-showing, scouting, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage equal to or larger than the Edward Saganami-C class. It will lack a full up miniaturized KH-1 but will have both offensive and defensive point defense tractored platforms. It will lack full offensive missile capability fighting behind a wedge. The break point CL/DD class difference here may be "Double spinal" versus "Double broadside" missile fit as far as the trade off of energy weapons/marine combat capabilities are concerned. Platoon to company sized Marine complement depending on the DD versus CL mission.

With LAC's picking up fleet screening duties, the DD vs. CL distinction is getting thin. The RMN is managing to preserve it for now mostly because the CL mission can still be performed with units still using single-drive missiles. Picturing the future where that isn't a possibility anymore, there's some pressure to use the same platform for both missions - especially building up to the Saganami-C standard size, almost old battlecruisers. You could work out some customization per mission with a module to fit into the boat bay, for Marine support, more recon drones, more supplies, or flag staff support.

New Development in ship design:

1)Grav lensing missile heads(mod-G) now require much stronger sidewalls and armor schemes.
2)FTL bandwidth increasing: FTL components size decreasing
2a) Apollo will control more missiles/ACM and shrink
3)Compensator efficiency increasing:
4)Hyper Generator size increasing:
5)Missile size decreasing
6)CM size increasing(range)
7)RD complement increasing, could be vastly increasing
7a) RD's talk to CM's in their zone for FTL.
7b) RD's replace Keyholes for FTL talk to ACM's. They finally program a proper handshake so RD's can at minimum complement Keyhole for total FTL channels available.

Compensator upper limit combined with need for defense of mod-G warheads will force 12-16Mton ships

SDP +12Mton (Same hull form used for CLAC/ACLAC)
4 Keyholes(more dispersed and more reliable)
8-10 pod exit(6 aft) 2-4 dorsal/ventral
Pods have no ACM. ACM launched Broadside.
Vastly increased sidewall strength

CLAC +12Mton
+300LAC

ACLAC(Attack CLAC) +12Mton
~100 LAC, Keyholes 2FTL and 2non?, Increased CM/PDLC
No MDM missile tubes. RMN finally invents a power cord or I don't know puts hard points on the exterior that a pod grabs requiring no power at all from the fusion core.
4 keyholes for a small task force if one decides to put only 2 or maybe even 1 Keyhole on a BC. I could see this being more optimal, than trying to load up a BC hull for task force defense(ECM + CM control) etc.

BC ~2-3Mton
2 keyholes, maybe 4
Increased CM launchers. Same number Missiles
ACM launchers FTL via RD's.

CA 800k ton
Single keyhole, Spinal ACM launchers FTL via RD's
Huge increase in sidewall strength
Huge increase in CM's/RD's for pseudo CM FTL

CL 300k ton
No keyhole, uses RD's to fight behind wedge
Large increase in sidewall tonnage/strength
Room for a Marine company

DD? Goes the way of the Dodo Bird.

Mil-tech bard wrote:I see the break point in RMN ship classes being Keyhole 1 & 2 capability as opposed to pure size.

Essentially the difference between a Capital ship and a BC is pod MDM versus tube DDM with both having a full duplex Keyhole-2 FTL control link.

The real difference between a CA and a BC is the CA has a "half duplex" KH-1 platform compared to a both ways FTL control link.

The break point between a CA and the CL/DD is the lack of a KH-1 capability to fight behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capability.

All classes will have exterior hard points for either full up or DDM missile pods.

All non-capitol ships will have DDM. The class difference is their ability to use DDM and their marine compliments.

This is my rough idea of class breaks based on capability.

SDP - Capital ship, largest sized hyper combatant for defense and power projection equipped with pods and limited tube launched three stage MDMs, full duplex (AKA Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, uses external platform for offense and defense and fights being a wedge. Between 8.5 and 10 million tons displacement. Marine compliment Reinforced Battalion (+) (100% powered armor as it is easier to add cargo space as opposed to life support)

BC - largest sized hyper combatant below the wall for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, power projection, commerce protection/raiding It is equipped with double drive missile (DDM)s and a full duplex (AKA miniaturized Keyhole 2 or successor) faster than light missile control, A larger than Nike BC(L) ship with additional spinal missile launchers for a DDM control missile to work with the smaller KH2. It will be capable of fighting behind a wedge with full offensive missile and defensive anti-missile capabilities. It will be between 2 million and 4 million tons displacement. Marine compliment between a two reinforced companies and a reinforced battalion size. "Reinforced" in this case meaning 1/2 to 2/3, as opposed to 1/3, of the marine units are in powered armor.

CA - intermediate sized hyper combatant for flag-showing, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. It will have a miniaturized KH-1 "Half duplex" FTL missile control. It can fight behind a wedge but at a severe electronic warfare disadvantage compared to a BC. Tonnage bracket between 1 million and 1.5 million. It will lack the spinal launched FTL DDM-type control missiles. The Marine complement sized between the DDM equipped CL and BC. Call it one marine company with two platoons in full powered armor and two platoons without as the bottom end.

CL/DD - smallest hyper combatant for flag-showing, scouting, extended endurance missions, commerce protection/raiding equipped with DDMs. Tonnage equal to or larger than the Edward Saganami-C class. It will lack a full up miniaturized KH-1 but will have both offensive and defensive point defense tractored platforms. It will lack full offensive missile capability fighting behind a wedge. The break point CL/DD class difference here may be "Double spinal" versus "Double broadside" missile fit as far as the trade off of energy weapons/marine combat capabilities are concerned. Platoon to company sized Marine complement depending on the DD versus CL mission.

Would DDs be considered extended endurance ships? If I remember correctly one of the few advantages FFs had over DDs was that they had higher endurance. That was why the FFs were replaced with CLs when the RMN phased out the FFs rather then replacing them with DDs.

Roguevictory wrote:Would DDs be considered extended endurance ships? If I remember correctly one of the few advantages FFs had over DDs was that they had higher endurance. That was why the FFs were replaced with CLs when the RMN phased out the FFs rather then replacing them with DDs.

That's been historically true, but I think all lot of the short-ranged nature of DDs started going away as they went through tonnage creep - a quick look at HoS shows that the 1883 PD Culverin-class DD was almost as big and well armed as the 1820 PD Courageous-class CL. (technically 1k ton less; and gave up a bit of throw weight for extra CM tubes)

Drive up the displacement to allow for more weapons, more defenses, and deeper magazines and you tend to find space for more fuel, stores, and spare parts.

And by the time you're talking about like a Roland with twice that displacement, or a future-DD which might easily double that again... I don't think future DDs are going to be short ranged enough that you'll need CLs just for increased cruising endurance.

It should be noted: 1905 ship tonnage

9X SD to BC
3X BC to CA
2.5X CA to DD

Under my new +12ton SDP ratios go to
4.5X SDP to BC
3X BC to CA
2.5X CA to CL/DD

Ratio's stay the same other than the top end.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Roguevictory wrote:Would DDs be considered extended endurance ships? If I remember correctly one of the few advantages FFs had over DDs was that they had higher endurance. That was why the FFs were replaced with CLs when the RMN phased out the FFs rather then replacing them with DDs.

That's been historically true, but I think all lot of the short-ranged nature of DDs started going away as they went through tonnage creep - a quick look at HoS shows that the 1883 PD Culverin-class DD was almost as big and well armed as the 1820 PD Courageous-class CL. (technically 1k ton less; and gave up a bit of throw weight for extra CM tubes)

Drive up the displacement to allow for more weapons, more defenses, and deeper magazines and you tend to find space for more fuel, stores, and spare parts.

And by the time you're talking about like a Roland with twice that displacement, or a future-DD which might easily double that again... I don't think future DDs are going to be short ranged enough that you'll need CLs just for increased cruising endurance.

Definitely. I don't think that cruise endurance hasn't been a major concern for any class for quite a while. What was the normal prewar Silesian tour duration? 6 months to a year? Destroyers, even older ones, got sent on those solo all the time.
In the immediately prewar paradigm, you didn't really need a CL for the extended cruise duration - they'd have a few more weapons per broadside, a few more defenses per broadside, and a bit more EW capability, and deeper missile magazines - somewhat better combat endurance than a destroyer of the same age/contemporary design, but the biggest difference would have been in how many Marines they carried, and how many prize crews they could detach, and the CL would have been able to support more of each.

Oh, sure, a light cruiser can go longer than a destroyer (of the same age/design age) without refueling ... but it seems that refueling isn't really that big a deal - it's always been an essentially unmentioned/glossed over background issue, with the exception of when Honor used thrusters instead of the wedge for main acceleration at Cerberus, and even then, she had the onboard fuel to dump massive amounts of it in reaction drive mode - the equivalent of months worth of normal operation, and even then it was only a short term concern, and there was plenty of refueling capacity in the system - apparently a purely automated hydrogen farm collecting near the star that had the capacity to refuel all her ships.