Ideas for new ship classes an doctrines (Republican Tech)

Brigade XO wrote:The actual ships of the Home Fleet serve as a fast and manuverable reaction force against attack. One of the reason you need hyper-capable ships for the Manicore fleet is the nature of the binary system and the potential/probable need to shift vessels from one to the other star via hyperspace. The ships give you the ability to move and manuver quickly within the systems as well as outside the hyperlimit.

You also want to maintain the ability to adjust the composition of the Fleet by shifting vessels (or squadrons) to or from it as you perceive the tactical or strategic situation. Rotating ships (and crews) is an important method of keeping up the skills and training.

You need to keep the Home Fleet ships equiped to do their mission. That means keeping them ready to do all of the mission including being deployed to other places with minimal modification. So you keep them staffed and you keep them supplied and you keep them busy with training.

Read this as no more than a small difference of emphasis, please -

There's a certain level below which you won't ever want to uncover the inner system, and for that, hypergenerators just aren't necessary. Even impeller-driven launching vehicles aren't, when you've got munitions with stupendous range now. And where you do need impellers but not hypergenerators, new LAC's are fast enough that they can assume a lot of work previously done by hyper-capable warships. So there's legitimate reason to have some of the burden of a Home Fleet assumed by fortresses, system defense missile pods, and LAC's now, and a greater quantity than before MDM's, FTL fire control, and fast LAC's.

I don't mean to deprecate hypercapable units for Home Fleets entirely: they're still what you need for operations near and around the hyperlimit, and binary systems and those with wormhole termini just beg for some as swing units to support the defense of multiple spots, or at least to shorten enemy possession of them to tolerable short periods.

And as you say, it's a very useful reserve where you can have force that doesn't call for hypercapability at the moment kept usefully for when it does need it later on. Keeping it right on top of your central command node is really helpful for responsiveness, too.

And last, there's a lot of in-system tactical use for units much larger than LAC's and yet still much smaller than fortresses, where building them hypercapable doesn't represent much of a penalty for their in-system uses and is a necessity for any out-system ones. I suspect semi-dedicated fire control platforms that aren't meant for permanent stationing in a given system are likely to fall into that range anyway. (My guess is slightly modified BC(P)'s could find great work there: they're built with lots of fire control and among the best missile defenses below-the-wall already, and they're available and not comfortably fitting in a major fleet niche currently.)

JeffEngel wrote:I don't mean to deprecate hypercapable units for Home Fleets entirely: they're still what you need for operations near and around the hyperlimit, and binary systems and those with wormhole termini just beg for some as swing units to support the defense of multiple spots, or at least to shorten enemy possession of them to tolerable short periods.

And as you say, it's a very useful reserve where you can have force that doesn't call for hypercapability at the moment kept usefully for when it does need it later on. Keeping it right on top of your central command node is really helpful for responsiveness, too.

Your line of thought is remotely viable for a system whose entire strategic interest is in the home system. It doesn't work as well for a larger Navy with multi-system interests.

Essentially this thread is about specialist units that are only useful in their designed role. That in turn implies specialist personnel that are trained only for specific equipment in specific roles. The SLN's division into Battle Fleet and Frontier Fleet provide an object lesson in that kind of stratification.

Prolong exacerbates that kind of stratification and is the reason for the RMN's policy of rotating officers through various commands -- like assigning LAC-wizard Tremaine to command a cruiser division, or assigning Honor to the WDB and Saganami Island.

Having a fleet composed of a minimum number of generalist ship types simplifies the diversification of personnel qualifications. Sending a destroyer from Fleet Screen with Home Fleet to pirate suppression in Silesia is much simpler if the personnel involved don't have to learn a new ship's systems and quirks as well as learning new SOP and ROE. (Standard Operating Procedures and Rules Of Engagement)

Saving a few bucks by deleting Hyperdrive or even Impeller drives would be a false economy if you spent all of the savings in construction on design and training for the new types, especially if you factor in the additional training costs of rotating personnel to as many Navy commands as possible.

Weird Harold wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:I don't mean to deprecate hypercapable units for Home Fleets entirely: they're still what you need for operations near and around the hyperlimit, and binary systems and those with wormhole termini just beg for some as swing units to support the defense of multiple spots, or at least to shorten enemy possession of them to tolerable short periods.

And as you say, it's a very useful reserve where you can have force that doesn't call for hypercapability at the moment kept usefully for when it does need it later on. Keeping it right on top of your central command node is really helpful for responsiveness, too.

Your line of thought is remotely viable for a system whose entire strategic interest is in the home system. It doesn't work as well for a larger Navy with multi-system interests.

Essentially this thread is about specialist units that are only useful in their designed role. That in turn implies specialist personnel that are trained only for specific equipment in specific roles. The SLN's division into Battle Fleet and Frontier Fleet provide an object lesson in that kind of stratification.

Prolong exacerbates that kind of stratification and is the reason for the RMN's policy of rotating officers through various commands -- like assigning LAC-wizard Tremaine to command a cruiser division, or assigning Honor to the WDB and Saganami Island.

Having a fleet composed of a minimum number of generalist ship types simplifies the diversification of personnel qualifications. Sending a destroyer from Fleet Screen with Home Fleet to pirate suppression in Silesia is much simpler if the personnel involved don't have to learn a new ship's systems and quirks as well as learning new SOP and ROE. (Standard Operating Procedures and Rules Of Engagement)

Saving a few bucks by deleting Hyperdrive or even Impeller drives would be a false economy if you spent all of the savings in construction on design and training for the new types, especially if you factor in the additional training costs of rotating personnel to as many Navy commands as possible.

That's taking everything I wrote there far, far past anything I suggested. Maybe your reading of the nature of the thread makes for a context that encourages that reading - I can't figure anything else that might.

All I'm saying is that, for places where you will have some portion of the forces required never, ever using a sort of system, it's entirely viable to build units without it, if you'll get enough benefit from the omission. That's the point of fortresses and LAC's, and for basing some missiles on system defense missile pods instead of mobile units. And systems where you will have a permanent minimum presence are the places where you'd use such units. Even sprawling empires will have some such places, and when we're talking about Home Fleets, we're talking about forces based precisely in such systems.

I'm not claiming that the whole of such fleets ought to be units you can't practically use elsewhere. I'm just noting that there's going to be some significant portion of the forces in such systems that can very reasonably be composed of such permanently assigned units, and that there may be more than zero use for some semi-specialist units for hyper-capable system defense meant particularly for use in conjunction with system defense missile pods. Even then, a BC(P) is vastly more a generalist sort of unit for that than the thread's early fire control frigate notion. In fact, it's a fairly generalist sort of unit that would be useful for that role specifically because the fire control and missile defense it has already would be appropriate; because it's out of fashion for classic battlecruiser use; and because supplementing permanent or semi-permanent system defenses (LAC's, system defense missile pods) really IS a broad mission category for which it is better suited than any other modern unit.

Manticore developed it's system of Home System defense as it went along and reacted to actual and preceived threats to itself. Haven was a major threat. Attempted attach to take over the Junction and or various termini was also a threat and, though people like Janeck and his party officially belittled the problem and/or cynically used it as needed to futher thier own ambitions, there were problems. We have been told or shown that outside forces have tried to sieze the Juntion (initially just while it was still an essentilay unknown potential wormhole) and to prey on the later growing Manticorian merchant marine.

So they ended up with what they had at the actual start of the war with Haven becauses they responded to what concerned people saw as developing threats and worked to develop both new technology & tactics and to find usefulll improvements in ways of using what they presently had or were expanding to having more of. The fact that they both needed and were able to use the Navy in the role of commerce protection gave them training for the Navy in real life situations and pushed the expansion of said Navy to counter the looming threat that people like King (initially Prince) Roger saw.

The tactical and stratigic situations have now changed for Manticore, Haven and much of the known universe. MDM, POD warfare (with Podlayers or just system defence fields) Apollo, Spider Drive ships and the new Alignment stealth technology and weapons families, all have changed the mix. You still need to keep your Home System safe. Much of what Manticore has currently in-place is going to stay for the forseeable future. Fortresses which have limited (vs hyper capable ships) movility and said hypercapable ships are still part of the mix. So are the LACs and the new developments in Pod based defence systems. How they employ them has and will continue to evolve.

The US has had a long history of Costal Defence though the actual physical manifistations of that have fallen away since near the end of WW II. You can see the forts or representations of what were there in places like NYC (Ft Hancock) and the WW II Harbor Defence museum in Charleston SC. Later it was not so much costal but air defence. Growing up I had a Nike Missile Site (hard site, radar station, underground magazines and launchers) on a hilltop a mile behind where I lived and at least a total of 5 within 20 miles of where we were outside of New Haven, CT agains Russian strategic bombers. In additon to being on a potential attack path for NYC and points south, the area was full of things like Sikorsky (helps) Winchester, Remington, Marlin, High Standard (all firearms including military weapons and ammuntion ) and more hardware manufaturers and toolmaking shops than you can shake a stick at. You need to address threats.

Want a good look at something smaller than Ft. Hancock, take a look at Plumb Island of the NE corner of Long Island, NY at that end of Long Island Sound. Place is off limits- not going to have that discussion here- but you can clearly see the remains of the old costal artillery fortifications that had once been to deal with ships in the early 19th century and eventialy against German submarines in WW II. Oh, yes, along with protection to the shipping and harbors for commerce along CT and access into the NYC area and an alternative access for merchant shipping into the lower Hudson River it is also the chokepoint leading to deep water for the US Submarine Base at Gails Ferry (by New London) CT.

Tactics evolve.

JeffEngel wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:Saving a few bucks by deleting Hyperdrive or even Impeller drives would be a false economy if you spent all of the savings in construction on design and training for the new types, especially if you factor in the additional training costs of rotating personnel to as many Navy commands as possible.

...All I'm saying is that, for places where you will have some portion of the forces required never, ever using a sort of system, it's entirely viable to build units without it, if you'll get enough benefit from the omission.

I'm not doing too well expressing myself recently.

The whole point I wanted to make was that building specialized ships is more likely to cost more -- in design, development, and training costs -- than any possible gain from making less capable ships that can't be redeployed as strategic and tactical needs change.

Weird Harold wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:
...All I'm saying is that, for places where you will have some portion of the forces required never, ever using a sort of system, it's entirely viable to build units without it, if you'll get enough benefit from the omission.

I'm not doing too well expressing myself recently.

The whole point I wanted to make was that building specialized ships is more likely to cost more -- in design, development, and training costs -- than any possible gain from making less capable ships that can't be redeployed as strategic and tactical needs change.

Ah! Yeah, I caught that, it just seemed peripheral. Ah well.

For my part, I wouldn't take myself to be suggesting much if anything along those lines.

Fortresses - already designed.
LAC's - designs for system defense and CLAC duty will overlap entirely or nearly so.
Hypercapable warships with fire control and other systems suitable for large-scale control of system defense missile pods, as part of their system picket, patrol, and defense duties - already around in the case of BC(P)'s, and not an unreasonable thing to ask of the next generation heavy cruiser, not yet designed or built anyway.

Apart from the fortresses, those are all things that can be redeployed as need be, with little or no retraining or refitting. LAC's operating from bases with long patrols may be getting somewhat different operational experience than those operating short sorties from CLAC's, but that's not likely so different (it's not like wet-naval carrier ops versus airfields). And neither of those operational types should be such a minority that you wouldn't be keeping all the LAC crews prepared for either. Heck, even the fortresses are being built in modules, so they could be redeployed much more effectively than previously, albeit in a vastly more clunky affair than any ship or pod.

One thing that can be said for pods and LAC's - if they aren't hypercapable themselves, they're not hard to load up, move, and unload, and the ships to do that with them are already fundamental types. For that matter, if you need an additional specialist capability, a specialized pod, LAC, Keyhole variant, or stealthy platform are all relatively easy to design and include with a ship or force, without needing or wanting a fully specialized warship for it.

There is always the question of which is better to have a system that you do not need on the ship or not have the system on the ship then find out you need it.

JeffEngel wrote:And as you say, it's a very useful reserve where you can have force that doesn't call for hypercapability at the moment kept usefully for when it does need it later on. Keeping it right on top of your central command node is really helpful for responsiveness, too.

Especially if you're willing to run short term risks with them.

You see a need for 4 squadrons out in system Y. You could scrape them up a division here, a division there, but it takes time to assemble them. Instead you can run a short term risk and send the squadrons directly from home fleet (no message lag and they're all concentrated) then send couriers off to scrape up those piecemeal replacements and send them all back to join homefleet to build back it's strength.

The message traffic loop is long enough that an enemy has basically no chance of finding out about and exploiting such a short term force deficit; but there's always some risk that a preplanned attack might happen to arrive when you were shorhanded in the middle of such a swap...

Jonathan_S wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:And as you say, it's a very useful reserve where you can have force that doesn't call for hypercapability at the moment kept usefully for when it does need it later on. Keeping it right on top of your central command node is really helpful for responsiveness, too.

Especially if you're willing to run short term risks with them.

You see a need for 4 squadrons out in system Y. You could scrape them up a division here, a division there, but it takes time to assemble them. Instead you can run a short term risk and send the squadrons directly from home fleet (no message lag and they're all concentrated) then send couriers off to scrape up those piecemeal replacements and send them all back to join homefleet to build back it's strength.

The message traffic loop is long enough that an enemy has basically no chance of finding out about and exploiting such a short term force deficit; but there's always some risk that a preplanned attack might happen to arrive when you were shorhanded in the middle of such a swap...

Right. The same will go for any nodal force with reports regularly coming in to it, a commander with the freedom and sense to issue appropriate orders, and hypercapable forces in significant excess of minimal immediate defense needs. But a capital system enjoys the near-certainty of having all those conditions satisfied.

One thing about those hyper-incapable units: designed well and placed sensibly, they should free up the hypercapable forces for just that kind of detachment, while taking up a fraction of the personnel, initial costs, and upkeep costs of a comparable hypercapable combat capability. (Insofar as a comparison is possible, of course; it breaks down hard at the hyperlimit.) And redeploying pods and LAC's nowadays is so, so much easier than redeploying mines, old-style pods, old LAC's, old corvettes, or old fortresses in yesteryear.

Of course you've got to be careful about it. If you don't have the capacity to get things into a hypercapable platform and over the limit in a hurry, you've got to be prepared for a fight to the death or to abandon or to lose it. You'd be a fool to slap stuff into a system you'd kinda sorta like to defend without being prepared to lose, abandon, or remove it - and the Janacek Admiralty were just such a lot of fools before Thunderbolt with small, unprepared LAC groups nominally defending lots of captured Havenite systems. They weren't enough to hold but were too much to lose, with no way to withdraw. Still, you can get yourself into just the same situation with hypercapable ships deep inside a system, like Elvis Santino. It's just possible to avoid it in that case with the same hardware.

One nice thing about the system defense pods though is that losing them won't make you cry the way losing LAC groups will. Any pod you recover after use is a happy bonus; any crewed unit you don't recover after use is a scandal and tragedy. A cruiser built (or given supplementary equipment for) a whole lot of missile control and a system defense missile pod network would represent no small amount of coverage for a system, but also one that you could extract all the people and a large amount of the investment in as needed. Pair it with a CLAC and LAC wing and much the same would still apply, with a lot more flexibility. (For that matter, the CLAC could be replaced with a mil-spec freighter if you made it a very small LAC force and had a little while unmolested way out in the dark to get the birds aboard.)