SPOILER end of the MA

pappilon wrote:By the time you start making a big-a$$t destroyer even larger with more magazine space and no flag capability, then include a marine detatchmet or 3, you may as well just call it a new class CA and leave the Rolands alone for the mission they are designed for.

There is a big difference between 188k and 483k. I am not talking about dramatic increase in size, I am taking about a modest increase of ~50k and thats it. That represents a lot more of a size difference than between many destroyers and Light Cruisers, you can send a Sag-C to do a job or you can have two Roland's to do two jobs. There is a place for Roland's and Sag-C's as well.

The Roland's need an upgrade so as to become a versatile warship capable of doing multiple tasks and do them well as opposed to specializing ships into one or two tasks and no more.

Its time to scrap all the obsolete, manpower intensive POS ships in the fleet and replace them. However yes there is much more to do and new hulls will be rather low on the priority list, which did set off a flurry of accusations of treason, stupidity, Gross incompetence, a return to the Janacek policies of the inter-war period rom SMR et al.

At the moment even the manpower intensive POS ships are still generally on par with what other nations have or better so they are still useful, can't afford to decommission them until they have the replacements.

but they have a ship that can do that all and would actually be cheaper then a roland.

the Avalon CL was meant as a jack of all trades general purpose design and does it well. the only thing against it is the lack of Mk 16s. which for most of a DDs mission is so far beyond overkill it is no longer funny.

don't get me wrong i love the range and power a Mk 16 but as many have argued for years that useful as the experiment was the roland is a warfighter, and not designed for a peacetime navy.

the only thing the avalon lacks is the mk16 and really despite how useful it is the need for it below the BC is a serious matter of debate. because the manties build their BCs with cruiser weight tubes the Sag-C or its followers benefit but aren't really expected to be in a big enough fights where the power of the mk16 is really necessary.

I won't deny that i have argued for a mk16 CL but that was largely to simply production and the fact that every other hyper capable ship (barring things like the Charles Ward and legacy ships) had at least the mk 16 in the magazines.

don't forget also that manticore has different ideas as what a destroyers should do. most of the pre war destroyers were simply small CLs because they needed the extra hulls that could be squeezed out of the budget most of whom spent their time doing convoy duty.

with LACs most of the old roles for DDs are largely gone, the Roland was an attempt to keep DDs still viable. the argument we are having right now indicates that they did not fully succeed.

Dauntless wrote:but they have a ship that can do that all and would actually be cheaper then a roland.

the Avalon CL was meant as a jack of all trades general purpose design and does it well. the only thing against it is the lack of Mk 16s. which for most of a DDs mission is so far beyond overkill it is no longer funny.

In a one on one fight between the Avalon and the Roland who has the advantage?
Upgrade the Roland's shortcomings rather than build a warship that likely will be outclassed by every ship of the destroyer/light cruiser class when the rest of the galaxy catches up. If the RMN were to go with Avalon and Wolfhound classes and build them in significant numbers next time that the RMN is in a war there will once again be a rush to build SD(P)'s leaving very little capacity to build new destroyers/ light cruisers, which means that the RMN will be fighting a war with subpar equipment that will be outranged by anyone and everyone.

As for destroyers not needing that range? I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it, if the RMN makes Roland into a warship of 240,000 tons then they can fix many of it's shortcomings and have a proper warship whose captain can decide wether to attack from maximum range, get real close and personal or anywhere in between, giving them a less capable missile eliminates that choice.

don't get me wrong i love the range and power a Mk 16 but as many have argued for years that useful as the experiment was the roland is a warfighter, and not designed for a peacetime navy.

And the problem with this statement is that a navy should always be focused on war as its number one mission, warship's first task and primary task should be war, then distant second should be those peacetime missions. Having sub-par ships in your fleet because they are good peacetime ships means that when war breaks out the have no place in the war as they are predominantly peacetime ships.

with LACs most of the old roles for DDs are largely gone, the Roland was an attempt to keep DDs still viable. the argument we are having right now indicates that they did not fully succeed.

A lot of the old roles were taken over by LAC's but unless you are willing to slap a hyper generator on a LAC you still need the destroyers and its best to have the most capable destroyer in your inventory rather than one that meets a very narrow mission focus.

I can agree with you Sigs on scrapping the Flag Bridge to accommodate a squad or 2 of Marines. I think that would address the only real short come of the Roland.

I don't believe there is significant incentive to add 50K tons to the vessel. You're getting into the Realm of creating an entire knew class of vessel that way. Additionally more weight adds an larger acceleration penalty.

I also have to agree with Sigs on the point of the vessels. MK16s are the way to go. The goal of the Navy needs to be able to fight a war. the Rolands have demonstrated the utility of arming destroyers with MK16. No reason to scale down to the Avalons.

Sigs wrote:In a one on one fight between the Avalon and the Roland who has the advantage?
Upgrade the Roland's shortcomings rather than build a warship that likely will be outclassed by every ship of the destroyer/light cruiser class when the rest of the galaxy catches up.

When the rest of the galaxy catches up, destroyers are definitely going the way of the frigate in the Honorverse, and CLs probably are, unless something not much smaller than a Sag-C is designated a CL. A Roland can't defend itself against an DDM-equipped cruiser (which since the Cataphract-A designs are generally available, will exist in the not too distant future from non-Manticoran Alliance sources), and another 50Ktons for marine bunkerage isn't going to change that. That wouldn't make a ship anywhere near big enough for a traditional broadside missile arrangement.

So I'd actually argue that the RMN shouldn't be building Avalons or "stretched" Rolands. It should be building more Sag-Cs (and designing a Mark 16-based Kamerling respin for roles that need a traditional CA's worth or more of marines).

drothgery wrote:When the rest of the galaxy catches up, destroyers are definitely going the way of the frigate in the Honorverse, and CLs probably are, unless something not much smaller than a Sag-C is designated a CL. A Roland can't defend itself against an DDM-equipped cruiser (which since the Cataphract-A designs are generally available, will exist in the not too distant future from non-Manticoran Alliance sources), and another 50Ktons for marine bunkerage isn't going to change that. That wouldn't make a ship anywhere near big enough for a traditional broadside missile arrangement.

By that logic the RMN shouldn't build Sag-C's and Nike's because they can't stand up to SD(P)'s.

Roland with more ammunition and marines onboard can fulfill the roles of a destroyer while having substantial combat power for a destroyer/light cruiser, saying that it can't stand up to a heavy cruiser therefore is obsolete should then be applied to LAC's, a Shrike can't stand toe to toe with a Heavy cruiser therefore it is obsolete... right?

A DD/CL is not meant to go toe to toe with a heavier foe, it is meant to accomplish a certain set of missions and heaving a Mk 16 missile with extended range makes those missions easier to accomplish.

So I'd actually argue that the RMN shouldn't be building Avalons or "stretched" Rolands. It should be building more Sag-Cs (and designing a Mark 16-based Kamerling respin for roles that need a traditional CA's worth or more of marines).

There are missions where sending a Sag-C would be an over kill and tie down significant firepower for mission where a Roland can do it as well if not better is a waste. The Roland's have sufficient firepower to hold their own against anyone as of the end of UH, and even when technological parity comes they will likely be able to face-off anyone within their class.

Sigs wrote:Roland with more ammunition and marines onboard can fulfill the roles of a destroyer while having substantial combat power for a destroyer/light cruiser, saying that it can't stand up to a heavy cruiser therefore is obsolete should then be applied to LAC's, a Shrike can't stand toe to toe with a Heavy cruiser therefore it is obsolete... right?

The logic of practical smaller warships in first-rate Honorverse navies is normally "fast enough to outrun anything that can destroy them and able to go toe to toe with a peer". The problem is that giving the other guys DDMs (which they're definitely going to get) makes a big dent in the mass differential you can get away with and still be fast enough to catch the other guy. Heck, Mars-class CAs were a lot bigger than Star Knights, had worse compensators, didn't have DDMs... and were still a big problem for the RMN.

I'm not great at scouring the forum archives, but I believe RFC has said outright that he no longer believes the 250Kton "notional destroyer" he was toying with is viable long-term, and something about the size of a Sag-C might be about the bottom end for a hyper-capable ship.

LACs are another story, for a lot of reasons.

drothgery wrote:The logic of practical smaller warships in first-rate Honorverse navies is normally "fast enough to outrun anything that can destroy them and able to go toe to toe with a peer". The problem is that giving the other guys DDMs (which they're definitely going to get) makes a big dent in the mass differential you can get away with and still be fast enough to catch the other guy. Heck, Mars-class CAs were a lot bigger than Star Knights, had worse compensators, didn't have DDMs... and were still a big problem for the RMN.

Yeah because they were 50% bigger than the Star Knight. Thats like comparing a 300k ton ship to a 190k ton Roland, the Roland will be worse off when compared to a technologically similar warship with 50% more tonnage.

ywing14 wrote:
I don't believe there is significant incentive to add 50K tons to the vessel. You're getting into the Realm of creating an entire knew class of vessel that way. Additionally more weight adds an larger acceleration penalty.

The incentive is that there have been shortcoming identified with the Roland and as a result the Roland should be redesigned in order to overcome those shortcomings and present a well rounded warship that can meet the needs of the Navy in war time and in peacetime.

Sigs wrote:

ywing14 wrote:
I don't believe there is significant incentive to add 50K tons to the vessel. You're getting into the Realm of creating an entire knew class of vessel that way. Additionally more weight adds an larger acceleration penalty.

The incentive is that there have been shortcoming identified with the Roland and as a result the Roland should be redesigned in order to overcome those shortcomings and present a well rounded warship that can meet the needs of the Navy in war time and in peacetime.

What specific short come is that? Ammo is always going to be an issue in smaller ships. It was the issue with BC(P)s as well. Adding tonnage and redesigning the Roland. You mind as well design a brand new ship at that point. The short comings of the Roland are manageable and really not all that significant given it's advantages. I can get on board with removing the flag bridge and either turning it into missile storage or marine space for a squad or 2. But adding tonnage doesn't make sense to me. throw in another 100-150 and make a light cruiser.