Escort Carrier Modification

Brigade XO wrote:My take on a BC/Escort CLAC is a solution in search of a problem. It doesn't address what needs to be done and gives you the worst of both worlds.

Recall Harrington's Q-Ships. They had LACs but could only deploy and recover them through the CARGO doors. They were an adaptation to provide more firepower than the Q-ships were mounting with what was both available and practical with the design and they would be a very nasty surprise to what the Q-ships thought they would encounter....heck, they were a bad enough surprise to the Peep ships they did encounter.

The David Taylor FSV class works for what it is described as being designed for. That 8 LAC component is in a purpose built "stock" module and it appears to include what a CLAC supplies in miniature and scaled to the 8 LAC number. Remember, this module has 1) 8 LAC bays for the 8 LACs (and I believe one spare in "storage", 2) an engineering/armeror group for maintenance and repair of the LACs, 3) crew spacing/ environmental/berthing and C&C capability for the LACS and 4) it has a similar magazine and missile/cm feed system to EACH BAY just like a CLAC.
This gives RMN the "escort carrier" capacity to provide convoy defense since it can handle more speed than any normal merchant shipping. It is specifically NOT a full up warship though with it's integral missile/cm etc and tactical sensor and systems it might look like one to any ----lets say current level tech SLN DD that came after a convoy it was attached to and suddenly there is this "freighter" launching those dam RMN LACS and is lighting the DD up with sensors and pumping out serious missiles from way too far outside the SLN range. Suddenly the ship grows teeth and claws........big mistake to come hunting here guys.
But it is not designed for close work and for all it's size it's basically a fast freighter with some long claws and the systems to use them but not something you want to take into battle. It might drop it's LACs to slash and snarl but if a FSV starts fireing missiles it has better be already be running in the other direction and keeping the range open while it "degrades" the other side's capability and provides a chance for it's convoy mates to scatter what the marauder is otherwise occupied in trying to defend itself.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

The BCs grew first because of the attempt to make them carry missile pods, then because they were not only firing MDMs internally but also capable of carrying and powering Keyholes. Similarly, the Rolands are as massive as they are so they can carry and fire DDMs. So those are somewhat explained. On the other hand, the Sag-C is a very effective fighter, so I don't see a reason for CAs to grow to the size of pre-war BCs. In fact, as I said above, I see BCs shrinking back a little, to the minimum viable size to keep carrying MDMs and Keyhole, but saving on matériel and build time.

That leaves the CL case. The most modern class we know of is the Avalon, which is actually smaller than a Roland. So this imbalance will need to be addressed.

In any case, a DD is not expected to fight bigger ships. The fact that a Roland can is only due to the huge tech disparity, but that won't last forever. A DD's role is to fight other DDs, screening fleets and providing extended horizons for the bigger elements, plus some picket duties. In that role, DDs still make sense.

Maldorian wrote:And to commend your basic ship discussion: remember that the solarians could not build multi drive missles, yet, but their basic missle tecnology isn´t bad, maybe even better than the manticorian tec. So, if the manticorians analyse captured solarian missles, there is a chance, that they improve their capicator missle tec, what gives smaller missles more range and so make smaller ship designs effective again. Maybe with better capicators small dual drive missles with good range would be possible in the near future.

Jonathan_S wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.

The BCs grew first because of the attempt to make them carry missile pods, then because they were not only firing MDMs internally but also capable of carrying and powering Keyholes. Similarly, the Rolands are as massive as they are so they can carry and fire DDMs. So those are somewhat explained. On the other hand, the Sag-C is a very effective fighter, so I don't see a reason for CAs to grow to the size of pre-war BCs. In fact, as I said above, I see BCs shrinking back a little, to the minimum viable size to keep carrying MDMs and Keyhole, but saving on matériel and build time.

That leaves the CL case. The most modern class we know of is the Avalon, which is actually smaller than a Roland. So this imbalance will need to be addressed.

In any case, a DD is not expected to fight bigger ships. The fact that a Roland can is only due to the huge tech disparity, but that won't last forever. A DD's role is to fight other DDs, screening fleets and providing extended horizons for the bigger elements, plus some picket duties. In that role, DDs still make sense.

The thing I could see pushing up the size of CAs is some kind of Keyhole lite/keyhole defensive. Even if it just provided PDLCs and control link relays for CMs (none of the bulkier offensive fire control links), that could easily double the survivability of such a CA over a Sag-C -- and that's no small thing in a universe where missile pods are proliferating. The ability to better weather an ambush like Monica might be worth some size and cost (plus it'll let them better perform the close anti-missile screening role for battle fleets)


So a bit bigger CA with defensive keyhole and room to carry somewhat larger peacetime patrol crews, or extra marines, (but still able to be operated effectively in wartime with a smaller crew) could well supplement and eventually replace Sag-Cs. But I don't know that it'd have to get all the way up to the size of a pre-war BC in order to do that.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Maldorian wrote:And to commend your basic ship discussion: remember that the solarians could not build multi drive missles, yet, but their basic missle tecnology isn´t bad, maybe even better than the manticorian tec. So, if the manticorians analyse captured solarian missles, there is a chance, that they improve their capicator missle tec, what gives smaller missles more range and so make smaller ship designs effective again. Maybe with better capicators small dual drive missles with good range would be possible in the near future.

The fact that Solarian missiles are faster does not mean they are better.

Solarian missiles were bigger and faster. Maybe the correlation is not spurious: maybe they were faster because they were bigger. The bigger body may have allowed a larger power budget. In this scenario, those missiles are not better. A faster missile would only be possible if fired from a BC or larger...

Theemile wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The thing I could see pushing up the size of CAs is some kind of Keyhole lite/keyhole defensive. Even if it just provided PDLCs and control link relays for CMs (none of the bulkier offensive fire control links), that could easily double the survivability of such a CA over a Sag-C -- and that's no small thing in a universe where missile pods are proliferating. The ability to better weather an ambush like Monica might be worth some size and cost (plus it'll let them better perform the close anti-missile screening role for battle fleets)


So a bit bigger CA with defensive keyhole and room to carry somewhat larger peacetime patrol crews, or extra marines, (but still able to be operated effectively in wartime with a smaller crew) could well supplement and eventually replace Sag-Cs. But I don't know that it'd have to get all the way up to the size of a pre-war BC in order to do that.

The light speed limted Keyhole modules were ~50Ktons apiece plus the cost of the cradles and transmission hardware - FTL KHII was ~120 Ktons apiece, plus ~75Ktons of extra processing hardware.

Droppng KH I modules on a ship probably costs 120 Ktons total (an Apollo CL) - KHII ~325 Ktons (ie, > than a StarKnight) So something with a Sag-C's capability and KHI will mass >600 Ktons.

munroburton wrote:
Remember how White Haven freaked out when he found out how much larger his new missiles were going to be? It took awkward sexual chemistry and exaggerated reports of death to shake him out of it completely. That's how naval traditionalists react and the SLN had more than its fair share of those.

The Scientist class SD is so old that many still have autocannon. That means Solarian SD missiles may well have been frozen in external dimensions for... 150 years?

Jonathan_S wrote:Well Cataphract seem to have showed that the linear external dimension wasn't firmly capped. I can't see how even a Cataphract-B, with its CA weight warhead, would be as short as a capital-weight SDM -- as it's basically that SD's SDM with the warhead and bus removed and a CM drive powered upper stage, with somewhat smaller warhead, bolted in its place.
So it seems quite likely that the magazines, ammo handling equipment, and launchers had a bit of flexibility in the overall length of the missiles being stored, moved, and launched.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

drothgery wrote:I'd go farther than that and say the RMN should not build DDs anymore (barring another disruptive tech imbalance). It's just not possible to make one that's survivable against a peer navy. RFC has suggested that the 300Kton "notional destroyer" he's toyed with may not be workable, and the bottom end for hyper-capable ships in the long run may pretty much be a Sag-C.

Which, despite having enough firepower to destroy most BCs and even obsolete (aka SLN) SDs, being the twice the size of a first war CA, and being a nominal CA, I think is pretty much effectively a CL. It can't really do peacetime CA jobs well; its crew complement is too small. So I'd postulate a roughly Sag-C-sized "CL" and a 1-1.5 Mton "CA" in the next stack of GA designs.

Holy size creep, Batman! Yes, all ship types have crept up in size in the last decade, most notably the battlecruisers, followed by the destroyers. The cruiser types have not grown nearly as much as those above and below them.

I have no reason to doubt you, other than a gut feeling. Right now there isn't a 300k-tonne destroyer and that sounds just wrong.