LAC Style Destroyers?

The E wrote:

darrell wrote:Without a boarding force of marines, the rolands are designed to act in squadrons.

And? Rolands are, essentially, warfighting Destroyers. They're not patrol craft; they're designed to do the DD scout/escort mission in an environment where the enemy has tech at least within shouting distance of the RMN.

The role of antipiracy/commerce escort/patrol craft that was previously done by Destroyers and CLs is now filled by old, pre-MDM designs and the Avalon class.

See also: http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/85/1

A LAC style destroyer would be designed to operate independently as pirate hunters. As such they would need a platoon of marines for boarding actions, either to secure pirate ships when it is protecting a convoy, or merchant ships when it is raiding enemy merchants, such as the SL.

The reason that I gave two options is because I am unsure of if they would be able to mount Mk-16 tubes or not.

Again: The RMN already has a design for this role. It's called the Avalon class. Most of them are currently in Silesia, doing antipiracy work.

As we've seen, and David has mentioned, the line between DD and CL has blurred. We've encountered numerous cases where a CL is merely a slightly enlarged version of its sibling DD, but with a couple more weapons, and a few more crew. They both are given similiar roles and jobs, usually with their capabilities deciding who gets what, but are, for the most part, interchangable in those roles.

Now, the Roland DD is larger than the Avalon CL, which has the larger crew of the 2. Each has a specific job to do from the DD/CL playbook, and abre optimized to do those sets of roles. The Avalon probably comes closest to a rounded design, but the LERM missile, in comarison to the mk 16, limits its use in modern peer combat.

Theemile wrote:Now, the Roland DD is larger than the Avalon CL, which has the larger crew of the 2. Each has a specific job to do from the DD/CL playbook, and abre optimized to do those sets of roles. The Avalon probably comes closest to a rounded design, but the LERM missile, in comarison to the mk 16, limits its use in modern peer combat.

Which is why vessels of that class are currently in Silesia, policing the region. The risk of running into something they can't handle is drastically reduced, and they're still comfortably superior to any likely opposition they do encounter.

Theemile wrote:As we've seen, and David has mentioned, the line between DD and CL has blurred. We've encountered numerous cases where a CL is merely a slightly enlarged version of its sibling DD, but with a couple more weapons, and a few more crew. They both are given similiar roles and jobs, usually with their capabilities deciding who gets what, but are, for the most part, interchangable in those roles.

I think if you reached back into the 1850 PD era that there was better differentiation between Frigates, Destroyers, and Light Cruisers.

In general (because there's always somebody with a definition breaking design)
Frigates traded away weapons and defenses for increased cruising duration - kind of the minimum viable patrol and escort unit.

Destroyers traded away endurance for the most weapons and defenses you could cram into their hull. Designed to operate with a fleet, so they didn't need the legs for solo detached deployments.

Light Cruisers usually traded away inexpensiveness, and weapons/defenses. They'd mount slightly more weapons, on a bigger hull, but much of the increase in displacement was going towards increased endurance. So they could cruise for at least as long as a frigate; but with more power and survivability than a destroyer.



But as weapons evolved and drove the minimum survivable ship larger the cube-square law meant that on a hull big enough to mount the desired weapons and defenses you had enough internal volume for consumables for longer duration missions. So destroyers got longer legged, while frigates were too small to be militarily viable. But that meant that the main difference between DDs and CLs was the slightly heavier weapons fit on the CL; their differences in cruising endurance might still be there but the ratio probably significantly shrank.

Jonathan S probably coverd it but one thing i will being up is combat endurance i.e. ammo, the weapons fit on (Honorvese at least) a CL has always only been a little better.

for current discusion,

CL has 8 tubes per broadside DD has 5.

CL usually carried a few more lasers then a DD (or in cases like Courageous class or late Apollo class grasers)

not much in the weapons fit as i said but often the CL carried enough ammo to be able to fight for much greater amount of time. not sure of exact amounts as except in a few recent cases a fixed number of missiles for a ship class was not given.

if i recall correctly roland carries about 250 missiles and a SagC about a 1000, now if a DDM CL existed i would expect it to have a about 500 missile capacity.

Dauntless wrote:Jonathan S probably coverd it but one thing i will being up is combat endurance i.e. ammo, the weapons fit on (Honorvese at least) a CL has always only been a little better.

for current discusion,

CL has 8 tubes per broadside DD has 5.

CL usually carried a few more lasers then a DD (or in cases like Courageous class or late Apollo class grasers)

not much in the weapons fit as i said but often the CL carried enough ammo to be able to fight for much greater amount of time. not sure of exact amounts as except in a few recent cases a fixed number of missiles for a ship class was not given.

if i recall correctly roland carries about 250 missiles and a SagC about a 1000, now if a DDM CL existed i would expect it to have a about 500 missile capacity.

BTW, the roland has: Shipkiller Missiles: 240 Mk 16 MDM

The traditional differences between destroyers and light cruisers in a nutshell.

1. Most destroyers have one fusion plant, most light cruisers have two.

2. Most light cruisers are about 50% bigger than light cruisers. Everything else being equal, they would have about 75% more weapons volume, but because they have double the fusion plants, they only have about 50% more weapons volume.

2. A typical destroyer has 4-5 missile tubes and 100-200 missile storage. A typical light cruiser has 50% more missile tubes, (6-8) and because it has 50% more weapons volume, would have 50% more missile storage (150-300) That means that it's sustained length of fire would be simalar to a destroyer.

in other words, for a small destroyer, 4 missile tubes and 100 missles is 25 missiles per tube, or 6+ minutes at 15 seconds per missile. for a small cruiser, 6 missile tubes and 150 missles is also 25 missiles per tube, or 6+ minutes at 15 seconds per missile.

darrell wrote:

Dauntless wrote:Jonathan S probably coverd it but one thing i will being up is combat endurance i.e. ammo, the weapons fit on (Honorvese at least) a CL has always only been a little better.

for current discusion,

CL has 8 tubes per broadside DD has 5.

CL usually carried a few more lasers then a DD (or in cases like Courageous class or late Apollo class grasers)

not much in the weapons fit as i said but often the CL carried enough ammo to be able to fight for much greater amount of time. not sure of exact amounts as except in a few recent cases a fixed number of missiles for a ship class was not given.

if i recall correctly roland carries about 250 missiles and a SagC about a 1000, now if a DDM CL existed i would expect it to have a about 500 missile capacity.

BTW, the roland has: Shipkiller Missiles: 240 Mk 16 MDM

The traditional differences between destroyers and light cruisers in a nutshell.

1. Most destroyers have one fusion plant, most light cruisers have two.

{Snip}[/quote]

All hyper warships ( from major navies) have at least 2 fusion reactors for battle damage redundancy.

With the development of missile pods containing small tractors, layering the ammo on the outside of the hull makes sense in many situations. Does anyone know if in the Honorverse it is possible to tractor pods to other pods, making multiple layers practical (barring proximity kill)

Theemile wrote:

darrell wrote:BTW, the roland has: Shipkiller Missiles: 240 Mk 16 MDM

The traditional differences between destroyers and light cruisers in a nutshell.

1. Most destroyers have one fusion plant, most light cruisers have two.

{Snip}

All hyper warships ( from major navies) have at least 2 fusion reactors for battle damage redundancy.

not true. When RFC talks about the fusion plant (singular) of a destroyer, there are multiple singular references and nothing in the plural.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/145/1

A destroyer is over-powered with a standard fusion reactor, true, but it would require not simply one, but several, fission plants to provide the energy it does require. The trade-off between fusion plant and bunkerage requirements and number of fission plants (and increased capacitors) falls firmly on the side of the fusion plant. In other words, to replace a destroyer's fusion plant and bunkerage capacity with fission plants would actually end up requiring you to use more of the destroyer's internal volume rather than less. And, obviously, if that's going to be true for a destroyer, it's even more true for larger starships.

emphasis added by me.

also notice that I said most. It would not surprise me if the roland did have 2 fusion plants, since it is bigger than most light cruisers. I won't vouch for this, as I don't remember anything anywhere that specified the number of fusion plants the roland has.

darrell wrote:

Theemile wrote:
All hyper warships ( from major navies) have at least 2 fusion reactors for battle damage redundancy.

not true. When RFC talks about the fusion plant (singular) of a destroyer, there are multiple singular references and nothing in the plural.

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/145/1

A destroyer is over-powered with a standard fusion reactor, true, but it would require not simply one, but several, fission plants to provide the energy it does require. The trade-off between fusion plant and bunkerage requirements and number of fission plants (and increased capacitors) falls firmly on the side of the fusion plant. In other words, to replace a destroyer's fusion plant and bunkerage capacity with fission plants would actually end up requiring you to use more of the destroyer's internal volume rather than less. And, obviously, if that's going to be true for a destroyer, it's even more true for larger starships.

emphasis added by me.

also notice that I said most. It would not surprise me if the roland did have 2 fusion plants, since it is bigger than most light cruisers. I won't vouch for this, as I don't remember anything anywhere that specified the number of fusion plants the roland has.

I know the Jayne's books are only semi-cannon, as are the SITS shipbooks; but I checked them because they have more detail (but cover less classes) than House of Steel.

Every destroyer class they list is stated to have 2 fusion plants. That's:
PSN Desforge-class [Jayne's & SITS]
PSN Bastogne-class [Jayne's & SITS]
RMN Colverin-class [Jayne's & SITS]
RMN Chanson-class [Jayne's & SITS]
RMN Havoc-class [Jayne's]
RMN Falcon-class [Jayne's & SITS]
SCN Joachim Cheslav-class [SITS]
IAN Dolch-class [SITS]

So I think you're over-analyzing the phrasing around "fusion plant" in that post; since the number of those plants in a destroyer wasn't exactly the key point of his argument.

(Though, for what it's worth SITS does state the 1868 PD era SCN Gryf-class frigate carries only a single fusion reactor. That's the only frigate we've got data on; so I don't know if that was standard to the type or just Sillies cutting corners)

DDHvi wrote:With the development of missile pods containing small tractors, layering the ammo on the outside of the hull makes sense in many situations. Does anyone know if in the Honorverse it is possible to tractor pods to other pods, making multiple layers practical (barring proximity kill)

Yes, to a degree, but too many layered will fall outside the compensation field, slowing up the ship.

We know the following classes have been observed to tow the following amounts without effecting their max accel. (ie all pods being compensated)

Invictus/Medusa - >500 pods
Nike - 80 pods
Sag-c - 40 pods
Roland - 15 pods