MDM light cruiser - just a Saganami-C without armor?

Jonathan_S wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:Perhaps I am confused by the term Fleet Scouting. If what your are going to mean is going into systems and using LACs instead of DDs to sift through the volume for ships, weapons, and other things of interest, then no, you don't need DD in that role. You will, however, need some what/tactical plan to recover said LACs if you don't get to stay in the system.

LACs are now being used as a major component of Fleet (as in Wall of Battle) anti-missile defence and clearly the risk/reward for more platforms with lower potential loss of life is there. On the other hand, just how far forward or elcewhere around a formation (Wall, Task Group, Flotilla) can LACs spread out and remain effective.
One thing a LAC can't do is function as a communications/tactical link between ships in normal space and ships waiting in hyper. We have seen that multiple times. We have also seen using DDs as long range scout/pickets watching systems and running drones through them for information. Not something you can do with LACs thought CLs or CAs would be suitable. The question is numbers of hyper-capable units.

I think the earlier poster was using Fleet Scout to mean in-system scouting for people sneaking up on the fleet; since it was combined with anti-missile screen. Though for the RMN the mind boggling improvements in recon drone endurance mean those have largely taken over that 'check for ambushes' roll.
Haven, at least as of Thunderbolt, uses LACs as RD controllers and to FTL the drone's take back to the fleet. But that was mostly because they couldn't get a useful FTL transceiver into an RD


I believe long range scout/pickets watching systems (such as for pre-attack intelligence) would fall under the post's strategist scout role - a DD slips in, sends ghostrider RDs around to check things out and then runs back to the main fleet with details. (Or one does while others remain to provide a final update once the fleet arrives). LACs can't do that, since they don't carry RDs and you need another ship to carry them.

(Though I suppose in certain situations, you might in desperation attach a LAC and a few ghost rider drones to a legit merchant ship heading to a system of interest. Let them slip away and monitor the system until the fleet shows up - at which time the LAC and drones can get picked up by a CLAC. But you'd have to have a damned good reason to do that rather than sending a DD which could slip away if the need arose)

But you're right, the Paul Revere style relay is a DD role that that post omitted. Still like strategic scout it's not a role that requires DDs to stand with fleets during battle - you need them, but maybe not as many as when they also had a more direct role in clashes between wallers.

Brigade XO wrote:Perhaps I am confused by the term Fleet Scouting. If what your are going to mean is going into systems and using LACs instead of DDs to sift through the volume for ships, weapons, and other things of interest, then no, you don't need DD in that role. You will, however, need some what/tactical plan to recover said LACs if you don't get to stay in the system.

LACs are now being used as a major component of Fleet (as in Wall of Battle) anti-missile defence and clearly the risk/reward for more platforms with lower potential loss of life is there. On the other hand, just how far forward or elcewhere around a formation (Wall, Task Group, Flotilla) can LACs spread out and remain effective.
One thing a LAC can't do is function as a communications/tactical link between ships in normal space and ships waiting in hyper. We have seen that multiple times. We have also seen using DDs as long range scout/pickets watching systems and running drones through them for information. Not something you can do with LACs thought CLs or CAs would be suitable. The question is numbers of hyper-capable units.

Jonathan_S wrote:I think the earlier poster was using Fleet Scout to mean in-system scouting for people sneaking up on the fleet; since it was combined with anti-missile screen. Though for the RMN the mind boggling improvements in recon drone endurance mean those have largely taken over that 'check for ambushes' roll.
Haven, at least as of Thunderbolt, uses LACs as RD controllers and to FTL the drone's take back to the fleet. But that was mostly because they couldn't get a useful FTL transceiver into an RD


I believe long range scout/pickets watching systems (such as for pre-attack intelligence) would fall under the post's strategist scout role - a DD slips in, sends ghostrider RDs around to check things out and then runs back to the main fleet with details. (Or one does while others remain to provide a final update once the fleet arrives). LACs can't do that, since they don't carry RDs and you need another ship to carry them.

(Though I suppose in certain situations, you might in desperation attach a LAC and a few ghost rider drones to a legit merchant ship heading to a system of interest. Let them slip away and monitor the system until the fleet shows up - at which time the LAC and drones can get picked up by a CLAC. But you'd have to have a damned good reason to do that rather than sending a DD which could slip away if the need arose)

But you're right, the Paul Revere style relay is a DD role that that post omitted. Still like strategic scout it's not a role that requires DDs to stand with fleets during battle - you need them, but maybe not as many as when they also had a more direct role in clashes between wallers.

Theemile wrote:Being the op, Jonathan has it correct. In 1905, a proper fleet formation has multiple of layers of light ships, both in a distant and close scouting role, and the close in anti- missile role - a single battle squadron had 60 ship positions for each 8 capital ship formation. All of these roles are now taken by LACs or drones in a modern navy.

Yes, I missed the relay / picket role. It's always good to leave a ship or 2 at the hyperlimit to run for help or record your mistakes. Also to harass a system after it has been taken, and let friendlies know it is longer safe.

Imaginos1892 wrote:How long will it take Sonya and Shannon to develop the even faster Super-Streak Drive?

drothgery wrote:Simoes was already working on that before he defected, so one presumes they've got a good head start ...

Theemile wrote:

olddatsunfan wrote:Rather than create a MDM light cruiser, why not simply expand upon the size of the Roland itself. Stretch the frame out a bit, deepen the magazine space, add a bit of energy firepower and counter missle and point defense along with increased crew space for say a platoon or two of marines? Would you have to go past 200,000 tons to get this?

The Roland is already 188,000 tons. Just adding the missiles for an extra 4 tubes (without changing the salvo #) would add nearly 8000 tons, so adding just the 4 tubes and missiles to the Roland would take the design over 200,000 tons.

Essentially, there ae 3 ways to build a DDM ship smaller than a Sag-C

1) Make a Stubby Sag-C, with little or no accel advantage.
2) Scale up a Roland design with more Bow/Stern missile tubes and accept the single point of failure in the design.
3) Find another way to launch the missiles - be it box launchers or pods, they all have their disadvantages, which if implemented correctly, may be offset by the disadvantages in the other designs. Maybe angled launchers or asymetric broadsides?

olddatsunfan wrote:
As a wild idea, would it be possible to add an enlarged boat bay (since you have marines aboard you need additional pinnaces for delivery of marines) to be able to house a LAC?

Eagleeye wrote:

olddatsunfan wrote:
As a wild idea, would it be possible to add an enlarged boat bay (since you have marines aboard you need additional pinnaces for delivery of marines) to be able to house a LAC?

Nope. Any LAC would need too much space - even an old one. After all, it's not the LAC alone - you need service room around it, too. You could - could, I say - put a Shrike or a Ferret into a hull of - maybe 600.000 or 700.000 tons or so. Anything smaller - no way. But one LAC is the same as no LAC, as far as force enhancement and tactical variability is concerned. So noone will try to build something like that. So the CW and her sisters with her - what? 3 Million tons or so? - provide the smallest possible frame for a Mini-CLAC, as long as the constructional restrictions remain as they are.

ldwechsler wrote:People keep screwing up the idea of the mission as the determinant. Larger ships are probably better, particularly as more automation is used, taking away one of the disadvantages.

And there are a variety of ships carrying LACs. Sending out a group of Rolands along with a Charlie Ward type ship would provide more supplies, more missiles, some LACs, and an extended tour if necessary.

If the Rolands get really big and the Sags don't, then there might not be a need for an intermediate model. Unless they have specialized tasks, of course.

pappilon wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:People keep screwing up the idea of the mission as the determinant. Larger ships are probably better, particularly as more automation is used, taking away one of the disadvantages.

And there are a variety of ships carrying LACs. Sending out a group of Rolands along with a Charlie Ward type ship would provide more supplies, more missiles, some LACs, and an extended tour if necessary.

If the Rolands get really big and the Sags don't, then there might not be a need for an intermediate model. Unless they have specialized tasks, of course.

Which is the basic definition of mission, eh.