"Modern" era Battleships - are they still obsolete?

Weird Harold wrote:I agree that the Kammerlings aren't a solution to the manpower shortage and you're correct that there aren't that many. I was merely responding to Yellow Spring's assertion that such a ship could/should be developed; one already has been developed.

Though I can't really see the RMN building anything new that's hyper-capable without at least DDMs.

drothgery wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:I agree that the Kammerlings aren't a solution to the manpower shortage ...

Though I can't really see the RMN building anything new that's hyper-capable without at least DDMs.

DDMs or MDMs would do nothing to enhance a Kammerling's designed mission. The space requirements for DDMs (and/or fusion powered missiles) would actually be counter-productive to the designed mission.

Jonathan_S wrote:I'm pretty sure that as the need for the maximum number of ships possible diminishes the next generation of DD - BC designs will add back in some of that crew capacity so they can perform the classic detached missions. This time they'll likely make it flexible so they can run fine with reduced crew when operating with a fleet or deployed to a SEM inhabited system but able to attach addition crew or Marine forces when operating on detached duty.

We’ve already demonstrated that there is plenty of available space for at least several squads of marines on the ships, in the space designed to handle an entire squadron HQ. It’s all plot. It will be fixed when it’s convenient to the plot for it to no longer be a problem.

Jonathan_S wrote:
I'm pretty sure that as the need for the maximum number of ships possible diminishes the next generation of DD - BC designs will add back in some of that crew capacity so they can perform the classic detached missions. This time they'll likely make it flexible so they can run fine with reduced crew when operating with a fleet or deployed to a SEM inhabited system but able to attach addition crew or Marine forces when operating on detached duty.

Warships already have peacetime and wartime complements. What you appear to be proposing is to have a reduced (peacetime) manning level when operating as part of a fleet, or in a "home" system, a larger peacetime complement for "detached" service, and then an even larger wartime manning.

There are a certain minimum number of billets required for normal watch standing purposes (times two (for port/starboard watch keeping), or three (for eight hour watch keeping)). Even if the RMMC doesn't take part in normal peacetime watch standing outside of their own "country" (except for the traditional Captain's and Flag guards, bridge and flag bridge guards, brig duty, ship's police, etc.), they still have their own internal watch standing, training, and other duties. In the tradition of the US and Royal Marines, the RMMC mans certain weapons stations, and damage control parties, etc. when at battle stations. Those positions have to be manned, whether by spacers or Marines.

Since ships can be assigned at a moment's notice for detached duty, your split manning levels are not very practical. There are also needs for prize crews, crew members "loaned" to merchies in emergencies (a common practice for the antebellum USN on foreign stations), etc.

Fox2! wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:
I'm pretty sure that as the need for the maximum number of ships possible diminishes the next generation of DD - BC designs will add back in some of that crew capacity so they can perform the classic detached missions. This time they'll likely make it flexible so they can run fine with reduced crew when operating with a fleet or deployed to a SEM inhabited system but able to attach addition crew or Marine forces when operating on detached duty.

Warships already have peacetime and wartime complements. What you appear to be proposing is to have a reduced (peacetime) manning level when operating as part of a fleet, or in a "home" system, a larger peacetime complement for "detached" service, and then an even larger wartime manning.

There are a certain minimum number of billets required for normal watch standing purposes (times two (for port/starboard watch keeping), or three (for eight hour watch keeping)). Even if the RMMC doesn't take part in normal peacetime watch standing outside of their own "country" (except for the traditional Captain's and Flag guards, bridge and flag bridge guards, brig duty, ship's police, etc.), they still have their own internal watch standing, training, and other duties. In the tradition of the US and Royal Marines, the RMMC mans certain weapons stations, and damage control parties, etc. when at battle stations. Those positions have to be manned, whether by spacers or Marines.

Since ships can be assigned at a moment's notice for detached duty, your split manning levels are not very practical. There are also needs for prize crews, crew members "loaned" to merchies in emergencies (a common practice for the antebellum USN on foreign stations), etc.

There do not seem to be "split" crews who take turns running ships. We have seen no examples at all of that. And tours
can be very long. There are exercise areas in the ships and I am certain plenty of electronic entertainment.

One of the problems of the cut-back crew levels is manning things for watches. On smaller vessels there are fewer officers and that has to be considered for watches. You can only have one captain and one XO. Chances are, only one astrogator...when changes in course are made they are probably all on the bridge. It is likely that a junior officer will have been trained in astrogation but might be doing other things a good deal of the time. Chances are two TAC officers (it sounds like Abigail has only one officer as assist and that it on a Roland, a large destroyer).

Finding enough officers to stand watches will be a key element and it is likely that some higher ratings and petty officers will be standing some of those unless something important is happening. Some trips take a month or more and most of the time nothing is happening that would require a real lot of attention.

I don't know if I missed it about the RMN, but in the USN each ship has only one CO, XO, Eng, Nav and Weaps. Depending on the ship they may have officers assistants to the department heads, but the department heads are hardly there for every change of navigation or plot update.

Junior officers handle their watch, it's part and parcel the job. When the ship changes course, moves a weapon or performs an engineering evolution the appropriate department head may or may not be present depending on the complexity of the exercise and if they want to do a spot check on the department.

There are enlisted personnel who maintain just about every watch up to the 2nd in charge of the watch section, depending on the ship involved. Most ships have a crew complement sufficient to maintain 3 different watch standers for any required function (3 section watch rotation), though often we were short a person and you'd be 2 section (also called port and starboard, a 12 hr rotation). Sometimes you were fat and happy and had 4 people for a watch station. (Typically the most senior watch station to give the most senior people more time off. Nominally so they could handle other responsibilities with that free time.)

This is the general situation from destroyers to aircraft carriers in the USN.

drothgery wrote:Though I can't really see the RMN building anything new that's hyper-capable without at least DDMs.

From HoS the Wolfhound class destroyers and Avalon class light cruisers are being built with launchers for the Lightweight Extended Range Missile rather than DDMs. Presumably the Kamerling class have the same launchers.

These ships are designed for escorting convoys and anti-piracy missions rather than front line use, so DDMs are overkill and a waste of tonnage that can be put to better use for the intended mission.

ldwechsler wrote:One of the problems of the cut-back crew levels is manning things for watches. On smaller vessels there are fewer officers and that has to be considered for watches. You can only have one captain and one XO. Chances are, only one astrogator...when changes in course are made they are probably all on the bridge. It is likely that a junior officer will have been trained in astrogation but might be doing other things a good deal of the time. Chances are two TAC officers (it sounds like Abigail has only one officer as assist and that it on a Roland, a large destroyer).

Finding enough officers to stand watches will be a key element and it is likely that some higher ratings and petty officers will be standing some of those unless something important is happening. Some trips take a month or more and most of the time nothing is happening that would require a real lot of attention.

My reading of it is that the officer-to-enlisted ratio is getting quite a bit larger on the newer ships. The automation is mostly eliminating the grunt-level work to maintain and fight the ship rather than the officers needed to command it properly. For example, automation might allow you to reduce the on-mount crew for a graser from 5 to 2. On a Sang-C that's 60 people cut from the total crew compliment, all of them enlisted ranks rather than officers.

Keep in mind, from what we saw Honor's middie cruise was served on a heavy cruiser that had only one ATO. When Santino was relieved of training duties they passed to the TO, not a second ATO.

Other departments would see similar cuts: mostly enlisted rather than officers, although I could see engineering losing a few slots for junior officers. And cutting the crew so much would also cut down on support crew. Losing two thirds of your mess stewards and cooks isn't going to cost any officers their jobs, right?

Overall, a Sang-C has about a third of the crew of an older CA (oh how I wish crew numbers were a stat listed in HoS) but probably 90% of the officers that much larger crew required.

kzt wrote:We’ve already demonstrated that there is plenty of available space for at least several squads of marines on the ships, in the space designed to handle an entire squadron HQ. It’s all plot. It will be fixed when it’s convenient to the plot for it to no longer be a problem.

Nike class BCs and Sanganamis of all types already carry a dedicated marine force - it's just much smaller than previous ships of those sizes carried. CAs used to carry companies and now carry platoons, while BCs carry reinforced companies instead of battalions. It's only the Rolands which lost their marines entirely. It's possible the Wolfhounds and Avalons did as well, but their intended functions have a much higher probability for routine marine deployments so it seems likely they'd keep at least some marines as well.

Fireflair wrote:I don't know if I missed it about the RMN, but in the USN each ship has only one CO, XO, Eng, Nav and Weaps. Depending on the ship they may have officers assistants to the department heads, but the department heads are hardly there for every change of navigation or plot update.

Junior officers handle their watch, it's part and parcel the job. When the ship changes course, moves a weapon or performs an engineering evolution the appropriate department head may or may not be present depending on the complexity of the exercise and if they want to do a spot check on the department.

There are enlisted personnel who maintain just about every watch up to the 2nd in charge of the watch section, depending on the ship involved. Most ships have a crew complement sufficient to maintain 3 different watch standers for any required function (3 section watch rotation), though often we were short a person and you'd be 2 section (also called port and starboard, a 12 hr rotation). Sometimes you were fat and happy and had 4 people for a watch station. (Typically the most senior watch station to give the most senior people more time off. Nominally so they could handle other responsibilities with that free time.)

This is the general situation from destroyers to aircraft carriers in the USN.

That's the way the RMN is supposed to be. But with a Sag-C we saw a ship with 1 senior officer and 1 junior officer per department, where a Star Knight would have had 3-4 officers. A capital ship might have had a dozen officer per department, now their crew is smaller than a Star Knight's was.

Less room to learn and grow, more hats on each person's heads. Chances are peacetime crews will grow slightly. I understand small warfighting crews - smaller crews = more ships manned and fewer losses per ship.

Galactic Sapper wrote:

drothgery wrote:Though I can't really see the RMN building anything new that's hyper-capable without at least DDMs.

From HoS the Wolfhound class destroyers and Avalon class light cruisers are being built with launchers for the Lightweight Extended Range Missile rather than DDMs. Presumably the Kamerling class have the same launchers.

These ships are designed for escorting convoys and anti-piracy missions rather than front line use, so DDMs are overkill and a waste of tonnage that can be put to better use for the intended mission.

ldwechsler wrote:One of the problems of the cut-back crew levels is manning things for watches. On smaller vessels there are fewer officers and that has to be considered for watches. You can only have one captain and one XO. Chances are, only one astrogator...when changes in course are made they are probably all on the bridge. It is likely that a junior officer will have been trained in astrogation but might be doing other things a good deal of the time. Chances are two TAC officers (it sounds like Abigail has only one officer as assist and that it on a Roland, a large destroyer).

Finding enough officers to stand watches will be a key element and it is likely that some higher ratings and petty officers will be standing some of those unless something important is happening. Some trips take a month or more and most of the time nothing is happening that would require a real lot of attention.

My reading of it is that the officer-to-enlisted ratio is getting quite a bit larger on the newer ships. The automation is mostly eliminating the grunt-level work to maintain and fight the ship rather than the officers needed to command it properly. For example, automation might allow you to reduce the on-mount crew for a graser from 5 to 2. On a Sang-C that's 60 people cut from the total crew compliment, all of them enlisted ranks rather than officers.

Keep in mind, from what we saw Honor's middie cruise was served on a heavy cruiser that had only one ATO. When Santino was relieved of training duties they passed to the TO, not a second ATO.

Other departments would see similar cuts: mostly enlisted rather than officers, although I could see engineering losing a few slots for junior officers. And cutting the crew so much would also cut down on support crew. Losing two thirds of your mess stewards and cooks isn't going to cost any officers their jobs, right?

Overall, a Sang-C has about a third of the crew of an older CA (oh how I wish crew numbers were a stat listed in HoS) but probably 90% of the officers that much larger crew required.

kzt wrote:We’ve already demonstrated that there is plenty of available space for at least several squads of marines on the ships, in the space designed to handle an entire squadron HQ. It’s all plot. It will be fixed when it’s convenient to the plot for it to no longer be a problem.

Nike class BCs and Sanganamis of all types already carry a dedicated marine force - it's just much smaller than previous ships of those sizes carried. CAs used to carry companies and now carry platoons, while BCs carry reinforced companies instead of battalions. It's only the Rolands which lost their marines entirely. It's possible the Wolfhounds and Avalons did as well, but their intended functions have a much higher probability for routine marine deployments so it seems likely they'd keep at least some marines as well.

Marines? A Rolland DD doesnt need no stinking Marines when it has Abby Hearnes and Mateo.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Marines? A Rolland DD doesnt need no stinking Marines when it has Abby Hearnes and Mateo.

Note: need 275 Abby and Mateo clones....