LAC Style Destroyers?

I think we have at look at that space warfare until the wars with haven had remained largely static for centuries.The distinctions between the ship classes was pretty well defined.


Right now they are in the middle of a war tech surge that has yet to settle down enough to give them the time to such define such things as goal posts keep getting moved around.

Relax wrote:Hold the boat!

In HAE, it was a new Peep CL hanging out in the middle of nowhere. Not a peep DD. The Peep DD(WoH), was afixed to a gas station in orbit and was effectively being used as a single directional courier to a fleet train whom also probably had a moving gas station with them for when they attacked Marsh. Foraker and company were on a CL far from home(HAE). Not a Peep DD. So, peeps had roughly the same doctrine as the RMN concerning DD/CL distinctions.

Hawking, while a single DD tasked with the Hauptman Liner, was supposed to have company and was only tasked as it was the ONLY platform available. IE two DD's or so. Common practice was for several DD's and a CL to be together on convoy protection duties.

So, DD's do not act independently in the Honorverse. They act in division or squadron strength. Even when scouting as was shown in AAC during the cutworm raids. CL's on the other hand DO act independently.

Even back in HotQ, the multiple DD's were "flagged" by a CL or CA.

In WoH, the scout ship through the new wormhole terminai was a... CL. Same goes for ToF.

I'm not just talking about the events in HAE when I brought up Hawkwing. I'm also talking about the time Honor was in command.

And, again, I refer you to House of Steel's entry on destroyers, where it is made clear destroyers can and do operate solo.

Lastly,

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/69/1

The destroyer is far from "obsolete," at least in the minds of the Manticorans. The destroyer's mission is the traditional mission of light units large enough to be independently deployed, small enough to be expendable if worse comes to worst, cheap enough to be built in large numbers, and powerful enough to stand up to other destroyers and light cruisers. The destroyer was never intended to fight heavy cruisers or above, and was never really survivable against those types. Essentially, a destroyer is used to protect and police commerce, and for scouting, anti-reconnaissance, system pickets, commerce raiding, and to screen heavier forces against harassment by other light units.

Originally, the primary Honorverse distinction between CL and DD likely would have been endurance. However ... I suspect in the late pre-war period, the difference in endurance was a lot lower than it had been previously, and war-era designs would have had little difference ... and the degree of most of the other differences likely shrank as well.


And nowadays? When the smallest DDM combatant (that's really too small) is most of the size of a late pre-war heavy cruiser, and the smallest DDM broadside combatant is most of the size of a late pre-war battlecruiser, the difference in endurance between a DD and a CL designed for the newly evolving environment is probably negligible at best.


Under the presumption that every new hypercapable warship will be designed for DDM-tube, MDM-tube, or internal missile pod deployment, the size minimums for a practical warship are such that the bunkerage to make up the nominal cruise duration difference between a destroyer and a light cruiser is relatively small. Especially if you also decide you want some degree of Keyhole or just Keyhole-light capability as well.


Frankly, I suspect that the big (only notable) difference between a modern-environment destroyer and a modern environment light cruiser will be the intended design/combat purpose. Assuming, of course, that the roles of the two types don't get more or less rolled into one ship category.

However, to be honest, between the massive tonnage creep inherent in a minimal DDM broadside combatant, and the tonnage creep that's going to be inherent in the "next" design feature of a Keyhole-light for "light" combatants, I suspect that there probably won't be all that much point between about the bare minimum plus a little for a survivable-against-peer combatant - whatever you decide to call it - which will probably creep to the 750kt or 800kt range, especially since Keyhole got size-inflated to hell, and the BC(L) (or size-inflated BC(P), I suppose) at 2mt+. Because, really, once you're at 750kt - guesstimate for something roughly similar to a Sag-C, aka minimum sized DDM broadside combatant, in capability plus Keyhole/Keyhole-light, and maybe some extras - you're big enough for plenty of bunkerage, and you're big enough for a company or so of marines, and anything else you might need for the missions expected of either/both the Destroyer and the Light Cruiser.
Actually, given the apparent future environment, there might be room for something with the approximate combat weight of the "minimum" combatant, probably a bit heavier on the defenses, but with a sufficient increase in size to be the more modern equivalent of the Broadsword Marine Support Cruiser - ie, increased boat bay capacity, and lots of extra marine support infrastructure. If the "minimum" combatant is 750kt or so, then perhaps this design is 1mt or so, probably less.
It could be that that winds up being the distinction between the destroyer - meaning the baseline "minimum" combatant - and the (light) cruiser - meaning the "minimum" combatant plus a fair amount of extra marine capacity.


The only alternative that I can think of to distinguish between destroyers and light cruisers would be designing one (likely the destroyer) as carrying unusually heavy (wildy excessive, really) point defense and countermissile (and Viper/anti-LAC) capabilities but reducing shipkiller capacity/capabilities (and probably a reduced marine complement as well) relative to its size, with the intention of use in a fleet, and designing the other (likely the light cruiser) as more balanced, with a slightly larger marine complement/capacity, with the intention for use on solo patrols.
And, to be honest, that's probably not a distinction worth making - even if Weber had not said, repeatedly, that the RMN doesn't like that kind of super-specialization in its hypercapable warships.


I'm not sure that there would be much purpose or space in a design between minimum combatant with broadside DDM and Keyhole/variant capability (whatever you call this type of "light" combatant) and the BC(L), except in terms of a marine support design.

Duckk wrote:

Relax wrote:Hold the boat!

In HAE, it was a new Peep CL hanging out in the middle of nowhere. Not a peep DD. The Peep DD(WoH), was afixed to a gas station in orbit and was effectively being used as a single directional courier to a fleet train whom also probably had a moving gas station with them for when they attacked Marsh. Foraker and company were on a CL far from home(HAE). Not a Peep DD. So, peeps had roughly the same doctrine as the RMN concerning DD/CL distinctions.

Hawking, while a single DD tasked with the Hauptman Liner, was supposed to have company and was only tasked as it was the ONLY platform available. IE two DD's or so. Common practice was for several DD's and a CL to be together on convoy protection duties.

So, DD's do not act independently in the Honorverse. They act in division or squadron strength. Even when scouting as was shown in AAC during the cutworm raids. CL's on the other hand DO act independently.

Even back in HotQ, the multiple DD's were "flagged" by a CL or CA.

In WoH, the scout ship through the new wormhole terminai was a... CL. Same goes for ToF.

I'm not just talking about the events in HAE when I brought up Hawkwing. I'm also talking about the time Honor was in command.

And, again, I refer you to House of Steel's entry on destroyers, where it is made clear destroyers can and do operate solo.

Lastly,

http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... ngton/69/1

The destroyer is far from "obsolete," at least in the minds of the Manticorans. The destroyer's mission is the traditional mission of light units large enough to be independently deployed, small enough to be expendable if worse comes to worst, cheap enough to be built in large numbers, and powerful enough to stand up to other destroyers and light cruisers. The destroyer was never intended to fight heavy cruisers or above, and was never really survivable against those types. Essentially, a destroyer is used to protect and police commerce, and for scouting, anti-reconnaissance, system pickets, commerce raiding, and to screen heavier forces against harassment by other light units.

as someone pointed out to me in another thread, that 2,004 post is more than 10 years old. There is more recent information in other posts, as well as "house of steel"

House of Steel wrote:

Historically, the frigate was the primary RMN cruising unit, not the light cruiser. Designed for inde-pendent, long-endurance interstellar operations, frigates frequently engaged in commerce protection, anti-piracy operations, and strategic intelligence gathering. They became a common sight in many Verge systems as the Manticoran merchant fleet expanded, and as the first inde-pendent commands for many outstanding Manticoran officers of the war years, these tiny ships may rightly claim to have played a major part in the RMN’s subsequent successes.
The RMN’s longtime predilection for this type, despite its known disadvantages, stemmed from the need for numbers of platforms to deal with relatively low-level threats. Frigates were cheaper than destroyers, although their crew sizes and operating costs were very nearly equal, and they were capable of trouncing almost any pirate they were likely to meet. The ability to deploy them in greater numbers made them more desirable to a Navy whose primary business was just that—trouncing pirates—despite the always marginal combat power imposed by the heavy demands life-support, power rooms, and hyper generators placed upon the available mass and volume of such small hulls.
It took the looming war against Haven to knock the frigate out of favor due to its inability to face any regular warship, regardless of tonnage, and one of King Roger’s major initiatives was the gradual replacement of the large inventory of frigates with light cruisers for long-range interstellar missions.
Light cruisers were seen as interstellar units, intended to operate for long periods of time without outside support,

To summarize, the light cruiser is designed "to operate for long periods of time without outside support,"

Destroyers are designed to operate together.

Due to the fact that the RMN was always short of light cruisers, destroyers were often used to fill the role of a light cruiser, but that is not what they are designed for, and even in the "independent" roll, they still often operated in close proximity. For example all 8 destroyers in a squadron would be tasked with anti-piracy patrols in Silesia.

Remember that just because a ship is used for a purpose doesn't mean that it is designed for that purpose. You can take a rowboat out on the open ocean, but that doesn't mean that a rowboat is designed for the ocean.

From the destroyers section of HoS:

Destroyer missions generally fit into one of two major roles: screening for the wall of battle, and independent missions such as commerce protection. The primary choice facing designers has always been how — or even whether — to balance these roles.

Duckk wrote:From the destroyers section of HoS:

Destroyer missions generally fit into one of two major roles: screening for the wall of battle, and independent missions such as commerce protection. The primary choice facing designers has always been how — or even whether — to balance these roles.

Reading the HoS descriptions for the various DD classes, it looks like the RMN cycles between building a generalist DD and building two classes optimised to perform the two destroyer sub-roles at the time.

Duckk wrote:From the destroyers section of HoS:

Destroyer missions generally fit into one of two major roles: screening for the wall of battle, and independent missions such as commerce protection. The primary choice facing designers has always been how — or even whether — to balance these roles.

read down to the cruisers section:

1. Until king rogers buildup, manticore built frigates and destroyers, few if any light cruisers were built.
2. To quote "House of steel"

"""one of King Roger’s major initiatives was the gradual replacement of the large inventory of frigates with light cruisers for long-range interstellar missions.

Light cruisers were seen as interstellar units, intended to operate for long periods of time without outside support,"""

Most destroyers are not designed for long range independent missions, that is what cruisers (and frigates ) are for.

Will agree that manticore used destroyers for independent action, but that was mainly because there was too few cruisers to do the job, not because that is what destroyers were designed for.

darrell wrote:
Most destroyers are not designed for long range independent missions, that is what cruisers (and frigates ) are for.

Will agree that manticore used destroyers for independent action, but that was mainly because there was too few cruisers to do the job, not because that is what destroyers were designed for.

I'd agree that destroyers are less suited to those missions than cruisers. But I'd add the caveat that on average newer destroyers are less ill-suited for long range independent missions than older destroyers.

But sometimes as you note you need to throw hulls at a problem even if they're not the optimal hulls. It seems a fair number of destroyers ended up operating solo in Silesia. Even if a whole DesRon was dispatched it would be a near criminal misuse of resources to operate them as a unified squadron again garden variety pirates. Vast overkill at the concentrated area they cover; but giving up the ability to hunt in many systems simultaneously.


OTOH Silesia might not be a difficult place to run prolonged patrols since there were presumably plenty of planets willing to sell fuel and food to RMN warships; so allowing for occasional port stops total cruise duration was likely dictated by maintenance requirements or, in the case of combat, ammo expenditure.

Duckk, stop making it a black and white issue. No one argues that Destroyers cannot be tasked with independent missions. Rather they rarely are. Sure, there will be a bell curve of mission types. Law of averages etc.

While Destroyers can be tasked with an independent mission they are far more likely to be in division strength whereas CL's are not. Rather CL's are more likely going to be used as the flag ship as we have seen in the books several times. Of course then there is the Roland with flag facilities... so, my take is that Post 1919 construction BuShips, said the heck with DD/CL distinctions as most jobs the DD is designed for has been overtaken by the LAC and RD. Therefore the cost savings justification for a dedicated DD platform vanished. All that R&D into a new design for a small class size when the MMM for long patrols has been tasked with CL's. Rather all that $$$ for R&D that used to be for DD's went towards, LAC's, RD's, Keyhole platforms. $$$ doesn't grow on trees and there has to be a cut somewhere.

See the giant Avalon build class where previously the largest class of ships they had were the Culverin class DD's. Clearly BuShips changed how the MMM is protected, or more likely, the reach of the MMM is much greater now than ~100 years ago and therefore the DD's do not have the legs to keep up with the MMM in modern times.

Off hand, I would argue if it were not for the dearth of extra squad/marines personnel on the Roland design they would have classified it as a CL.

Of course... What is "short range" 500LY? Basilisk to Silesia to Gregor and back home would be ??? 300+ LY by the time one adds in stops? If Warshawki sails fail, must have enough reserve to get somewhere safe. What? 100LY minimum reserve? 150LY?

With the annexation of Silesia, it could be argued that a large portion of short hop route needing protecting via DD's is not as pressing of a concern anymore further leading to the DD's demise and the rise of a DD/CL hybrid, or a lone CL class distinction. Of course if the SL really does fall into the crapper, it could also be argued that either there will be an immense number of long haul commerce protection required furthering the CL's role, but also a far more numerous number of short patrols where the DD with its cost savings become very useful.

I'm not making it a black and white issue. My entire point is that destroyers are routinely deployed independently. It is so routine that destroyers are often designed for that role, like the Chanson.