The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

Starting with some key bits from RFC:

At some point, navies have to strike a balance between survivability and numbers of deployable platforms. Manticore's preference has always been to err on the side of survivability when possible, which is one reason the jeune ecole's "pragmatic" willingness to accept attritional tactics (and the casualties which went with them) was anathema to the historical school. If you look at current Manticoran designs and doctrine, you'll see the merger of the two positions, with the original proponents of the jeune ecole continuing to lead in technological radicalism but with the historical school tempering their enthusiasm and generally knocking the "panacea-merchants" on the head at every opportunity. The BC(L) design will undoubtedly be further refined as defensive systems and doctrine mature and change, but that "step" on the operational (and tonnage) ladder will undoubtedly remain. The tonnage of the BC(L) is higher than the Admiralty would like to see, but it is probably the lowest tonnage range which will permit the balance between numbers and survivability Manticore is looking for. And it should also be pointed out, I suppose, that over the operational lifetime of a warship (particularly assuming that the Manties can revert to more of a peacetime stance), operational costs are going to enormously outweigh construction costs. The reason I make this point is that there is actually very little difference between the operational costs of a Nike and a Saganami-C. Oh, the heavy cruiser has some edge in the "affordability" department, but nowhere near as much of an edge as it has in the construction cost competition. This means that the economic advantages of the smaller, less capable type are nowhere near as pronounced as one might think. Procurement cost does have to be factored in when it comes to contemplating force mixes, of course, however, and that is where the Nike becomes more desirable than, say, a 4,000,000-ton design which would provide even more tonnage for survivability features and, possibly, permit an all-up MDM armament. The thing is that the Admiralty doesn't want an all-up MDM armament specifically because of the way it would drive up platform sizes (and costs) beyond those necessary for the mission in envisioned for the Nikes and their follow-on designs. (See the paragraph below.)

All of which also leads into your second point about the ammunition capacity of the BC(L). Ammo capacity is a part of the BC(L) design philosophy. A significant part, to be sure, but only a part. The BC(L) is intended to dominate in the face of anything below the wall, and with the increase in defensive capabilities and general all-around toughness, it's going to take something with all-up MDM capability and Manticoran-style laser heads to seriously challenge it. The type is intended for long distance, independent deployment, where ammunition resupply can become a problem; it's intended to stack quite large salvos, despite its limited (compared to a pod-layer design, at any rate) number of launchers, so it can get in a heavy initial salvo if it needs to; it already has Keyhole capability, and Keyhole is a major factor in defensibility; and it's designed for possibly running engagements with large numbers of individually smaller and less capable opponents (dealing with a LAC group, for example, or laying down the law to a "navy" of primarily light units which has crossed the line, like some of the Silesian systems were wont to do). The Saganami-C is actually more likely to disappear than the Nike, to be honest, because the Nike has more endurance and more toughness than the Saganami-C. That doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that the Saganami-C is going to simply vanish in the next six weeks, or the next six years, or possibly even the next sixteen years, but it means that the type will find itself being relegated more and more to secondary duties as the opposition's offensive capabilities improve.

(This is from http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/286/1)

From this forum (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4892&p=121140&hilit=Saganami#p121140):

I should perhaps have said that something evolved from the Saganami-C would become the new CL equivalent. This is an area where thoughts are still evolving --- in my own thinking, as well as the RMN's --- so it would be a mistake to think that anything I've said above is the cast in stone word of God about How Things Will Be. My comments are more an analysis of how the situation is evolving and what the designers' constraints and options are likely to be/revolve around. I have some very definite idea of where the technology itself is going, but that doesn't automatically equate into what will prove to be the best way to implement that tech. To a large extent, that sort of thinking works its way out as I work on the books.

So, yes, the Sag-C is a transition type, but what it transitions into is likely to become the standard CL of the RMN. The "notional" 300,000-tonner may never go into production at all. On thing you can be pretty confident of is that warships aren't going to get a lot smaller. Assuming that you take DD tonnage as lying somewhere in the 100,000-120,000 ton range and you assume the same proportionate growth as that between a WW II Fletcher class DD and a Flight III Arleigh Burke class DD, your Honorverse DD would grow to 500,000-600,000 tons, which is moving you up towards something bigger than a Sag-C even for a DDD.

Frankly, I haven't made my mind entirely up, but I'm thinking the classic DD role/mission no longer applies and we'll be looking at simply deleting that class and going with a single cruiser niche below the Nike. I'm not saying that's the way things will happen, but the truth is that most of the DD/CL/CA screening roles for the battle fleet are nonstarters in an MDM/DDM universe. What is going to be needed is a platform that can be built in sufficient numbers to deploy everywhere you need it (which implies as cheap and small as possible) and yet remain survivable enough to do its job in peacetime and wartime alike (which implies not-cheap and not-small). As always, the designer's unenviable challenge will be to somehow reconcile those conflicting requirements.

While these aren't from the same time and may represent an evolution of ideas, I take it that a reconciliation is possible supposing that there will be (probably) one hyper-capable warship class smaller than the battlecruiser in regular service, that it's more likely more like a Saganami-C than anything else, but that the role and expectations of it will be more of a light cruiser than a heavy cruiser - more a scout and picket than a BC writ small.

The key changes, I think, will be the use of some successor of Keyhole I (specifically NOT Keyhole II) small enough for a 300-500 kton vessel to use effectively, and something to reduce operating costs particularly so that they are much less than the Nike's. But the role isn't going to be something to slug it out like a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser: it's going to be effectively what the light cruiser's role has been. It's something for commerce raiding, commerce protection, reconnaissance and system picketing, all with an emphasis on long-range operations, long-term deployment, and flexibility over sheer combat power.

Put another way: it's going to be all they're happy about with the Avalon now, but big enough to use Mk 16 DDM's easily and with fairly deep magazines and some smaller version of Keyhole I. Or a third way: it's going to be the smallest, least expensive, but genuinely effective long-range independent warship for the remainder of the 20th century PD.

So - what makes a Nike not much more expensive to operate than a Saganami-C? Sheer tonnage doesn't seem a critical factor: the Nike is five times the size but supposedly similar in operating cost. If sheer tonnage is no good indicator, I suspect crew complement would be the best with weaponry as a fair substitute. I don't have a crew figure for the Nike, but the weaponry count is close enough between the Nike and Saganami-C that I do think the operating cost may track weaponry pretty well. The Nike has 50 missile launchers, 64 counter-missile launchers, 84 PD clusters. The Saganami-C has 40 missile launchers, 20 grasers, 6 lasers, 40 counter-missile launchers, and 64 point-defense clusters. So while some of that five-fold increase in tonnage is going to weaponry and a little maybe to deeper magazines, almost all of it is going to sheer armor and sidewalls and the Keyhole system, plus possibly proportionately greater EW capabilities. At any rate, mostly it's built so much larger to be so much tougher, and that toughness isn't increasing operating costs much though it may increase procurement cost plenty.

So if the new light cruiser is going to be much more plentiful and cheaper to operate than a Nike BC, and it need not be remotely as dangerous or as tough as one, it looks like the place to reduce operating costs is with the weaponry more than anything else. You can do that with less weaponry, with less operating cost per weapon, or with both.

I think they can go for both, given the cruiser mission. Just reducing missile throughput increases time it takes to empty magazines (which is taken as an unalloyed good when RFC compares the BC(L) to the BC(P) - not something I can agree with, but he's representing BuShips any which way), and being able to sustain fire over several battles may be more important for that mission than being able to swamp defenses with a lot at a time. So as a light cruiser, a Saganami-C successor could afford fewer missile tubes, and as a unit needed in quantity, it needs anything that saves money and crew commitment over time compatible with its mission.

So suppose it halves the missile tubes to 10 per broadside, exactly as the Avalon has - and is considered adequate now having, despite those missiles not being dual-drive, off-bore-fire-capable, or possessed of the G killer warheads. The Saganami-C successor is still going to be about as large as the -C, particularly about as wide, so that's going to free up not only a lot of crew but a lot of volume. Since armor and other such passive defenses seem to be cheap in terms of operating expenses, let's suppose a lot of that tonnage goes there, and into the smaller Keyhole I variant. If it can't fire (or fire and control) nearly so many missiles at a time, at least it can expect to keep being able to fire them for longer.

The other big operating cost reduction I have in mind is a lot more radical, but given the nature of the mission and evolving RMN practice, I think it's got a shot at acceptance. The idea is to eliminate on-mount weapon crews for the missile launchers and grasers at least. They're only back-ups in case damage eliminates the ability of those weapons to fire from central control. I submit that that is not essential to the mission of the smallest effective warship. You would lose some ability to take mediocre shots under some damage conditions, all of which usually obtain, if at all, only when you're losing badly already. If you don't have to provide for those crews, you can fit in even more armor and protective measures, all of which will, when you do get into heavy combat, reduce the likelihood that damage will compromise that central fire control anyway. And back-up links should be easy enough with that spare tonnage, though that's maybe one place where the 1980's vision of the future on which the series is based diverges from a 2015 vision of it.

As a cruiser, and with the cruiser mission firmly in mind, it's going to need and get a good Marine complement. It will have the space for it, after all, but crew conservation will mean that the Marines are likely doubling as ship crew for everything they can be made to do without specialized training that doesn't have them needed somewhere else when they need to be a Marine specifically. If they're not serving as the crew for weapon mounts anymore, they'll still be valuable - maybe moreso - for damage control particularly, but also things like cooking and some assistance in sick bay.

The result is intended to preserve all the relevant virtues of the Avalon as a light cruiser and the Saganami-C as a DDM platform, while avoiding the obsolescent missile launcher type of the Avalon and the too-high operating costs of the Saganami-C for the workhorse light cruiser role. Production costs are likely to be nearly as high as a Saganami-C's, which is unfortunate but it's probably a bullet that the RMN will have to bite and it's going to cause less damage to their metaphorical teeth than paying to keep up the equivalent of 400 Nike's for policing second- and third-tier systems and every Manticoran trade route through so much space.

JeffEngel wrote:
As a cruiser, and with the cruiser mission firmly in mind, it's going to need and get a good Marine complement. It will have the space for it, after all, but crew conservation will mean that the Marines are likely doubling as ship crew for everything they can be made to do without specialized training that doesn't have them needed somewhere else when they need to be a Marine specifically. If they're not serving as the crew for weapon mounts anymore, they'll still be valuable - maybe moreso - for damage control particularly, but also things like cooking and some assistance in sick bay.

The shipboard role of the Marine detachment, from platoon to battalion in size and organization, is always a concern. The RMN seems much more willing to leave behind large number of Marines when their ship leaves a system. Who mans the guns, provides bodies for Damage Control, etc. the Marines normally staff? It seems that everybody just spreads a little thinner, as if they had suffered combat losses. Which is one reason why warships are overmanned, relative to an equivalent merchant.

On a pedantic note, the RMMC, as the USMC does today, gets their medical staff from the Navy. So if the Marines have to provide the equivalent of Pharmacist Mates to their ships, they will just be "loaning" back the PhMs "loaned" by the Navy to the Marines.

Fox2! wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:
As a cruiser, and with the cruiser mission firmly in mind, it's going to need and get a good Marine complement. It will have the space for it, after all, but crew conservation will mean that the Marines are likely doubling as ship crew for everything they can be made to do without specialized training that doesn't have them needed somewhere else when they need to be a Marine specifically. If they're not serving as the crew for weapon mounts anymore, they'll still be valuable - maybe moreso - for damage control particularly, but also things like cooking and some assistance in sick bay.

The shipboard role of the Marine detachment, from platoon to battalion in size and organization, is always a concern. The RMN seems much more willing to leave behind large number of Marines when their ship leaves a system. Who mans the guns, provides bodies for Damage Control, etc. the Marines normally staff? It seems that everybody just spreads a little thinner, as if they had suffered combat losses. Which is one reason why warships are overmanned, relative to an equivalent merchant.

On a pedantic note, the RMMC, as the USMC does today, gets their medical staff from the Navy. So if the Marines have to provide the equivalent of Pharmacist Mates to their ships, they will just be "loaning" back the PhMs "loaned" by the Navy to the Marines.

--------------
At least in the USN / USMC, the MD's and HM's are attached to the Marine command when assigned. When the Marine command deploys, those same MD's and HM's "operate" from the Sick Bay on the deploying ship and detach when the Marines detach.
When a RMMC Marine detachment stays on a planet for an operation, they likely retain the future equivalent of an Independent Duty Corpsman.

-- Stewart (USN Ret)

[quote="JeffEngel"]

The key changes, I think, will be the use of some successor of Keyhole I (specifically NOT Keyhole II) small enough for a 300-500 kton vessel to use effectively, and something to reduce operating costs particularly so that they are much less than the Nike's. But the role isn't going to be something to slug it out like a battlecruiser or heavy cruiser: it's going to be effectively what the light cruiser's role has been. It's something for commerce raiding, commerce protection, reconnaissance and system picketing, all with an emphasis on long-range operations, long-term deployment, and flexibility over sheer combat power.

Put another way: it's going to be all they're happy about with the Avalon now, but big enough to use Mk 16 DDM's easily and with fairly deep magazines and some smaller version of Keyhole I. Or a third way: it's going to be the smallest, least expensive, but genuinely effective long-range independent warship for the remainder of the 20th century PD.

------------------------

During a time of flux in naval designs, often multiple / "specialized" ship classes make their appearance -- sometimes out of necessity -- the British RN use of corvette escorts in WWII as convoy escorts due to a need for hulls in the water and the USN CVE operations for a similar reason -- ASW platforms in the Atlantic and Marine / Amphibious support in the Pacific without tying up the major combatants.

In the Honorverse, we have seen the Mars and Warlord classes introduced by Haven to counter the Starknights and Reliants from Manticore.

The counter-offer, the BC(p) from the GSN (Courvoisier II-class) and IAN, and later the RMN Agamemnons;
On the "conventional" BC line, the RMN introduces the Nike class, essentially the classic function of a BC in the size of a Battleship.

The size race is on.

Post-WWII there was a proliferation in ship-types -- especially Destroyers -- for a large part due to the size of the equipment being mounted on the hull, and the limited size / space on the hull (starting to sound familiar ?)
The sonar (ASDIC for our Brit allies) was bulky, as was the early shipboard RADAR. ASW Destroyers (primarily DD's) had limited Anti-air capacilities. DDG's (the anti-air variant) had functional ASW but it was not their specialty. the 1950's DDR's or Radar-picket Destroyers were retired as soon as radar systems did not displace other ship functions.

Again to the Honorverse, we have older Reliant and Homer-class BC's in secondary duties, pre-keyhole Agamemnon and Nike BC's, Keyhole-I capable Aggies and Nikes for the RMN BC's.

The CA's / CL's and DD's have a similar proliferation except the diference is single-drive vs dual-drive missiles and what electronic suites are available.

In this forum (in multiple threads) we have discussed a Keyhole-lite, which both Honor, Terekhov and Oversteegen have used, either in exercises or actual combat by linking their fire control to Hermes FTL recon / comm bouys

I suspect that the Honorverse, especially with the current shortage in all-up shipyards, might see, like post-WWII a proliferation in ship variants based on "refits in place" completed by deployed repair ships and the existing local Silician and Talbott yards until new Manticoran and Grayson Yards are built so the GA does not rely solely on Bolthole.


Whether the RMN goes all DDM for their CA / CL / DD or has a mix as the USN had with some SM-1/2 and some SeaSparrow or RAM remains to be seen. Only your RFC knows for sure (Bu9 cannot even be "sure")


-- Stewart

stewart wrote:--------------
At least in the USN / USMC, the MD's and HM's are attached to the Marine command when assigned. When the Marine command deploys, those same MD's and HM's "operate" from the Sick Bay on the deploying ship and detach when the Marines detach.
When a RMMC Marine detachment stays on a planet for an operation, they likely retain the future equivalent of an Independent Duty Corpsman.

-- Stewart (USN Ret)

Many years ago, my Father was an HA1 or 2 assigned to the Marines. After they had "invaded" either Puerto Rico or the Carolinas, the APD they were on pulled into the Bush Army Terminal. Dad was the only one from Brooklyn on the ship, lived less than 5 miles from where they were docked. Did he get liberty? NO! One of the crew required treatment every four hours for something or another. And the ship's Doc out ranked Dad. So Dad got to spend the night on-board.

Fox2! wrote:

stewart wrote:--------------
At least in the USN / USMC, the MD's and HM's are attached to the Marine command when assigned. When the Marine command deploys, those same MD's and HM's "operate" from the Sick Bay on the deploying ship and detach when the Marines detach.
When a RMMC Marine detachment stays on a planet for an operation, they likely retain the future equivalent of an Independent Duty Corpsman.

-- Stewart (USN Ret)

Many years ago, my Father was an HA1 or 2 assigned to the Marines. After they had "invaded" either Puerto Rico or the Carolinas, the APD they were on pulled into the Bush Army Terminal. Dad was the only one from Brooklyn on the ship, lived less than 5 miles from where they were docked. Did he get liberty? NO! One of the crew required treatment every four hours for something or another. And the ship's Doc out ranked Dad. So Dad got to spend the night on-board.

--------

And there were MANY nights I was standing in for my LTjg waiting for 8:00 Reports (I was officially off-duty) while he (also off-duty) was elsewhere on the ship working on his SWO-quals.....

As they say (1) "them's the breaks of NavalAir" and (1) N.A.V.Y. = Never Again Volunteer Yourself

Never learned that second lesson. Retired at 20.

-- Stewart

Fox2! wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:
As a cruiser, and with the cruiser mission firmly in mind, it's going to need and get a good Marine complement. It will have the space for it, after all, but crew conservation will mean that the Marines are likely doubling as ship crew for everything they can be made to do without specialized training that doesn't have them needed somewhere else when they need to be a Marine specifically. If they're not serving as the crew for weapon mounts anymore, they'll still be valuable - maybe moreso - for damage control particularly, but also things like cooking and some assistance in sick bay.

The shipboard role of the Marine detachment, from platoon to battalion in size and organization, is always a concern. The RMN seems much more willing to leave behind large number of Marines when their ship leaves a system. Who mans the guns, provides bodies for Damage Control, etc. the Marines normally staff? It seems that everybody just spreads a little thinner, as if they had suffered combat losses. Which is one reason why warships are overmanned, relative to an equivalent merchant.

Well yes. Warships will expect to get hit in performing their duties, and ideally, they'll degrade as little as possible in performance when they do.

But ideally, warships would grow on trees and it wouldn't be necessary anyway, because universal love would reign. I'm suggesting that the RMN may want to accept that preparing to suffer worse effectiveness degradation under damage really is going to be worth it for a light cruiser, because something has to give economically and they can afford to let that give better than a lot else, for a unit not intended to provide most of its service under heavy fire anyway.

Also, I think the RMN in the books may suffer "where are my Marines?" more than they do in practice, because books concentrate on exciting, readable stuff. Marines facing off an ocean of drug-crazed religious fanatics almost at the same time their ship is in desperate battle to prevent a war... that's readable! And infrequent. Jury-rigged boarders out to rescue captives aboard a space station of a neutral power under the sway of OFS - also readable! Also infrequent. So relying on the Marines, ideally, to be aboard when there's no specific reason for them to be somewhere else represents a typical combat situation. It's not going to happen all the time, by any means, but when it happens more often than not, and you can make good use of those Marines aboard, it's a good thing to plan on.

I'm sure warships will continue to be overmanned relative to merchants, due to having more systems that are worked harder. Having to have so many more bodies aboard for spares and for backup as additional reasons - that I think may represent a luxury and a sop to tradition that, while far from useless, may be more expensive than it is worth for a light cruiser's role.

On a pedantic note, the RMMC, as the USMC does today, gets their medical staff from the Navy. So if the Marines have to provide the equivalent of Pharmacist Mates to their ships, they will just be "loaning" back the PhMs "loaned" by the Navy to the Marines.

Hey, if the revolving door can make for more efficiency, let it swing. I had more in mind just whatever duties someone with a pair of strong arms, good first aid training, and no bunkers to take single-handedly at the moment may usefully perform in sick bay.

stewart wrote:[

Whether the RMN goes all DDM for their CA / CL / DD or has a mix as the USN had with some SM-1/2 and some SeaSparrow or RAM remains to be seen. Only your RFC knows for sure (Bu9 cannot even be "sure")


-- Stewart

IIRC, the SeaSparrow/RAM is fitted for self defense to vessels which no not have a primary AAW role, e.g., carriers, 'phibs, etc. The SM family of missiles are on the Burkes and Ticos, whch do have a primary AAW role.

Fox2! wrote:

stewart wrote:[

Whether the RMN goes all DDM for their CA / CL / DD or has a mix as the USN had with some SM-1/2 and some SeaSparrow or RAM remains to be seen. Only your RFC knows for sure (Bu9 cannot even be "sure")


-- Stewart

IIRC, the SeaSparrow/RAM is fitted for self defense to vessels which no not have a primary AAW role, e.g., carriers, 'phibs, etc. The SM family of missiles are on the Burkes and Ticos, whch do have a primary AAW role.

-------------

Some of the older DD's had a 5"38 or 5"45 with SeaSparrow for their Anti-Air. The early Spruance DD's had SeaSparrow rather than SM1. The Navy did its early experimentation with VLS by taking out the ASROC launcher behind Mount 51 and replacing it with a VLS module

-- Stewart

stewart wrote:During a time of flux in naval designs, often multiple / "specialized" ship classes make their appearance -- sometimes out of necessity -- the British RN use of corvette escorts in WWII as convoy escorts due to a need for hulls in the water and the USN CVE operations for a similar reason -- ASW platforms in the Atlantic and Marine / Amphibious support in the Pacific without tying up the major combatants.

In the Honorverse, we have seen the Mars and Warlord classes introduced by Haven to counter the Starknights and Reliants from Manticore.

The counter-offer, the BC(p) from the GSN (Courvoisier II-class) and IAN, and later the RMN Agamemnons;
On the "conventional" BC line, the RMN introduces the Nike class, essentially the classic function of a BC in the size of a Battleship.

The size race is on.

Post-WWII there was a proliferation in ship-types -- especially Destroyers -- for a large part due to the size of the equipment being mounted on the hull, and the limited size / space on the hull (starting to sound familiar ?)
The sonar (ASDIC for our Brit allies) was bulky, as was the early shipboard RADAR. ASW Destroyers (primarily DD's) had limited Anti-air capacilities. DDG's (the anti-air variant) had functional ASW but it was not their specialty. the 1950's DDR's or Radar-picket Destroyers were retired as soon as radar systems did not displace other ship functions.

Again to the Honorverse, we have older Reliant and Homer-class BC's in secondary duties, pre-keyhole Agamemnon and Nike BC's, Keyhole-I capable Aggies and Nikes for the RMN BC's.

It's familiar, but the Honorverse navies, the RMN at least, are averse to specialist designs that they can possibly avoid. Sometimes, they can't, but mostly, the variations are because (1) they're figuring out what they are doing with a new type or group of technologies, or (2) bigger or smaller things do different sorts of things, and they usually peg (as much as they can) one set of duties for one class of ship by size.

Where we have problems with destroyers that either specialize or get too large and expensive, the RMN is going to shrug and just build the larger, more expensive one in what numbers they can - until the bloat gets to be so much they have to re-define the mission requirements so that a smaller, less capable, less expensive vessel can do it. In a way, that's what I'm suggesting for the Saganami-C successor. As a simple combatant, building it large enough to be capable enough would mean building a Nike, and they cannot afford that many Nike's, nor would they have a use for all that capability in the many, many places where a mere Avalon CL is good enough (for now). So let the Nike be tough and big and expensive, and let the Saganami-C's successor lose every Saganami-C capability that's pricey and unnecessary for the cruiser mission.

But it's still going to be a generalist by comparison with wet naval ASW or anti-aircraft designs. It's going to remain better compared, functionally, to an Age of Sail warship - the "modern" frigate, a single decker, a cruiser as opposed to a ship-of-the-line. The "ecology" of Honorverse navies, for all the technology, really resembles the Age of Sail more than it does the 20th or 21st century wet naval experience.

The CA's / CL's and DD's have a similar proliferation except the diference is single-drive vs dual-drive missiles and what electronic suites are available.

In this forum (in multiple threads) we have discussed a Keyhole-lite, which both Honor, Terekhov and Oversteegen have used, either in exercises or actual combat by linking their fire control to Hermes FTL recon / comm bouys

I suspect that the Honorverse, especially with the current shortage in all-up shipyards, might see, like post-WWII a proliferation in ship variants based on "refits in place" completed by deployed repair ships and the existing local Silician and Talbott yards until new Manticoran and Grayson Yards are built so the GA does not rely solely on Bolthole.

It's also going to see some weird stuff, by people trying to keep up with the people leading the tech curve with less advanced toolkits (Shannon Foraker's RHN, Roszak's Maya Sector Detachment, the Cataphract missile), and the Alignment spider drive ships and weapons.

I'm just projecting forward under an assumption that where Manticore goes, others will follow if and when they can, and that the spider drive family isn't likely to revolutionize warfare. Both assumptions are arguable, I'm not taking either as certain, but I think they're both likely enough to be worth it as a basis for speculation.

Whether the RMN goes all DDM for their CA / CL / DD or has a mix as the USN had with some SM-1/2 and some SeaSparrow or RAM remains to be seen. Only your RFC knows for sure (Bu9 cannot even be "sure")


-- Stewart

I think the range and closing speed advantages of a multiple stage missile (MDM or DDM - and why, why, why can't we refer to DDM's as multiple drive missiles too? two is plural too!) are too much to go without, unless you can expect to fight only against things without them or somehow evade fire all that way til you get within your own range. LAC's may satisfy those conditions (and even then, I'm not so sure), but all-up warships can't. Single drive missiles, for them, are effective weapons against only other ships that do not have MDM's/DDM's either. The Avalon is useful only because the DDM's haven't proliferated to pirates and small-timers yet - heck, with the RMN not wanting to build warships that aren't effective against first-line opponents, it's already in violation of that standard.

So I don't see a choice there, not for a serious, generalist warship, and that's what the RMN usually insists on building.