The cruiser future in the RMN - another go

I did mention my proposal for a CL would be around 560,000 tons and that the CA would be between that and a Nike BC(L), which would most likely be 1,000,000+ tons. Based on the Pearls that JeffEngle posted, RFC is thinking in those directions on ship sizes due to the RMN wanting survivability to be a major component of RMN ship design.

The RMN is satisfied with the firepower of their current designs. They are not at all satisfied with their ability to survive that firepower directed at themselves. Survivability is not increased by adding more missiles to the main magazines. Maybe deeper CM magazines, but not the main magazines.

kzt wrote:The RMN is satisfied with the firepower of their current designs. They are not at all satisfied with their ability to survive that firepower directed at themselves. Survivability is not increased by adding more missiles to the main magazines. Maybe deeper CM magazines, but not the main magazines.

I do agree with Kizarvexis in a way, the Sag-C's magazines were a bit shallow, especially in the emerging battlefield. If it's replacement scaled to 1 Mton with Keyholes, I can see it having 1800-2000 missiles for 40 tubes, however, most of that growth would be, as you pointed out, aimed at defensive technologies.

SWM wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:Roland style tubes with additional magazine space in the girth and perhaps some amidships, primarily. I fudged factored the missile count (400) as 250 Roland plus 40% girth plus sneaky fit plus a few percent extra, if that makes sense. If nothing else, adding current flatpack pods would up the DDM count quite heavily.

Not at the MaxxQ level (hope I got his moniker right), but I can picture a couple of configurations in my head that would still be somewhat modular. Might be that the hull configuration would look something like \\\\\ mission & crew ///// with an added layer of missile capability <=======> magazine space amidships with the \\\ being the angled tubes, and the equals signs being stowed missiles that can get to the tubes.

Roland-style tubes are not a good idea for your cruiser of the future. They did it on the Roland, but that was because it was the only way to get DDMs onto the Roland. David has told us that it is a poor design. Losing a single tube means you lose several, because they share missile-handling equipment. It was a compromise they were willing to accept on what they knew was a transitional design, but they aren't going to do it for the cruiser of the future.

I think the size is still right, however. Because of the "off bore" capability, it seems likely that an "angled" tube configuration would allow the DDMs to be used, and add back in the stacked salvo capability and pods? with the right mix (plus better CMS and more armoring than the old CL's) even a single CL would be a formidable force projection/ convoy protection platform, plus the Star Knight was big enough for multiple mission configurations.

kzt wrote:The RMN is satisfied with the firepower of their current designs. They are not at all satisfied with their ability to survive that firepower directed at themselves. Survivability is not increased by adding more missiles to the main magazines. Maybe deeper CM magazines, but not the main magazines.

One of the big complaints of the Roland class DD is the small magazine capacity. RFC said one of the features of the BC(L) was a greater endurance for long range patrols. If you are making cruisers bigger for better defense, why not add the missile capacity for long range/term patrolling with it as that seems to be something current officers are complaining about.

Kizarvexis wrote:One of the big complaints of the Roland class DD is the small magazine capacity. RFC said one of the features of the BC(L) was a greater endurance for long range patrols. If you are making cruisers bigger for better defense, why not add the missile capacity for long range/term patrolling with it as that seems to be something current officers are complaining about.

How many serious ship to ship engaments do you think it is reasonable to plan for per cruise? I'm perfectly serious here, as I would expect that conducting one significant ship to ship engagement before requiring rearming, if not major repairs, is a perfectly practical design criteria.

kzt wrote:

Kizarvexis wrote:One of the big complaints of the Roland class DD is the small magazine capacity. RFC said one of the features of the BC(L) was a greater endurance for long range patrols. If you are making cruisers bigger for better defense, why not add the missile capacity for long range/term patrolling with it as that seems to be something current officers are complaining about.

How many serious ship to ship engaments do you think it is reasonable to plan for per cruise? I'm perfectly serious here, as I would expect that conducting one significant ship to ship engagement before requiring rearming, if not major repairs, is a perfectly practical design criteria.

Especially when one considers how many MK-16G warhead "hits" is required to completely Mission Kill a light combatant. See, the problem is not total number of missiles, well in the CM's case it is(but I digress). Rather total number able to get through modern defenses and conversely on the opposite side, how many CM's are able to achieve intercepts at a high percentage.

Unless you are planning for your ships to be able to attack and kill 2 other equivalent ships , the number of missiles is rather unimportant. If this is your criteria, it is rather arrogant to believe that your ships will always be so superior that this vastly superior tactical position will continue for the foreseable future.

In this case, we are talking ships out past the current batch of ships which currently certainly DO have such a vastly superior tactical position to make total number of missiles they hold, a very "pressing problem". Well that and because they are at war with a nation who has more SD's in for repair than they have Destroyers...

War will create parity quickly. The next follow on ships will certainly NOT have a vastly superior tactical position against its peers. Thus it is overall system efficiency that counts, not total numbers, though eventually quantity does indeed have a quality all its own.

Of course we then add in Keyhole... We have NIKE BCL able to shrug off 600 capital grade RHN missiles for all of one hit.

So, if we refight BoMa, RHN fired off roughly 500,000 capital grade missiles at ~100 SD's. When they saw this massive firestorm they should have turned and rolled. 600 to 1 ratio, lets call it 500:1 for ease of calculation means that if said SD's simply rolled behind their wedge, they should have each received a measly 10 hits each...

A year or two ago, went into the math for a missile trying to hit a ship behind a rolled wedge. Lets just say that it is next to impossible outside of passive only sensors.

So, this would indicate that a MASSIVE upgrade in passive capital grade missile sensors is a MUST, otherwise you may as well run freighters/BC's full of pods into a system and forget SD's. Or the need for a RD drone to be watching the broadsides and then transmit its information of the task forces positions at the last moment for the missiles incoming... Outside of this, well... SOL.

Question/thought here..

Does anyone think that the RMN might do away with the CA/CL designations and instead transition towards a standard Cruiser (CR?) and a Pod-Cruiser (CP?).

The CP could take over basically ALL convoy protection and when paired with a missile-defense heavy squad of DDs would be outstanding at system defense for all of the new members of the SEM.

In a stand up fleet combat scenario, the CPs could be spread further out from the Wall (with the 'new' missile-defense DD taking its place) and either thicken the missile salvo's OR individually target the other ships screen elements while the SD(P)s go after the big fish.

Just thinking there, but it seems that normally the primary target (as it should be) is to take out the enemies capital ships. However, that means that all of the escorts are largely untouched and able to continually help in defense duties.. If you had a premier convoy escort that also excelled at taking apart your enemies BCs/CAs/etc starting from salvo #1 then each salvo you fired would face even less defensive fire.

New DD- Fewer energy weapons, increased CM tubes and Laser Clusters.
New CP- Ability to roll 3-4 pods per salvo, minimal missile broadside, few energy weapons, standard missile defense. Even a small cargo of say 90 pods (at 3 per salvo) would give it a full 30 rounds of 9 missiles (non Apollo).
New HC- Decreased broadside missile tubes with increase Chase/Stern tubes. No energy in Chase/Stern, but standard on broadsides. Increased CM tubes and Laser clusters.

Relax wrote:

kzt wrote:How many serious ship to ship engaments do you think it is reasonable to plan for per cruise? I'm perfectly serious here, as I would expect that conducting one significant ship to ship engagement before requiring rearming, if not major repairs, is a perfectly practical design criteria.

Especially when one considers how many MK-16G warhead "hits" is required to completely Mission Kill a light combatant. See, the problem is not total number of missiles, well in the CM's case it is(but I digress). Rather total number able to get through modern defenses and conversely on the opposite side, how many CM's are able to achieve intercepts at a high percentage.

Unless you are planning for your ships to be able to attack and kill 2 other equivalent ships , the number of missiles is rather unimportant. If this is your criteria, it is rather arrogant to believe that your ships will always be so superior that this vastly superior tactical position will continue for the foreseable future.

In this case, we are talking ships out past the current batch of ships which currently certainly DO have such a vastly superior tactical position to make total number of missiles they hold, a very "pressing problem". Well that and because they are at war with a nation who has more SD's in for repair than they have Destroyers...

War will create parity quickly. The next follow on ships will certainly NOT have a vastly superior tactical position against its peers. Thus it is overall system efficiency that counts, not total numbers, though eventually quantity does indeed have a quality all its own.

Well there are two points for bigger cruisers. One to fit the Mk-16 DDM and two for more space for defenses since others have MDMs of their own. Other polities are building pod ships, so having the capability of defending vs larger salvos is a plus.

The RMN is also evidently worried about a lot of engagements over a long patrol. Since you don't like my explanation above from the infodumps, lets use some textev then.

The Shadow of Saganami
Cpt Terekhov has just hit Eroica Station and the Sag-C HMS Hexapuma has 1,155 missiles left, so has 96% of the normal loadout left. The oncoming Monican BCs are coming and he has 54 potential salvos before they are in range, but only 33 rounds per tube.

A Rising Thunder
Cpt Ivanov has a short division of Sag-Cs and four Roland DDs. In volley Alpha, he keeps the Rolands out of the demonstration attack to conserve ammo.

Shadow of Freedom
Cpt Zavala considers giving a warning like Cpt Ivanov did in Zunker, but with the limited amount of ammo per tube, goes with Fire Plan Sledgehammer instead of some type of warning.

That's three right off the top of my head, not to mention RFC's infodump that the Nike's 120 rounds per tube were for extended endurance in missile engagements. Like I said earlier, the two biggest complaints on the new ships were low manpower for detachments and not enough ammo for extended ops.

As for the math of various engagments Relax, we know you don't like them. I go with adjustments on the part of the RHN as Adm Theisman is no dummy and will have the navy make adjustments. The RMN does. Same thing on the differences in SLN intercept hits on various battles. It has been mentioned previously that changing the EW in battle can greatly change the outcome, so a decent handwavium for the differences.