Escort Carrier Modification

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

munroburton wrote:Broadly, I think all this shows that the RMN started out imitating the SLN and mirroring it. Because the SLN wasn't really trying, they found it fairly easy to catch up and overshoot before developing the confidence to try something revolutionary.

Not just the RMN. Everyone emulated the SLN, including the PN, that was before the war with Manticore the only premier navy that had actually fought wars (against much smaller neighbours, but still). Emulating the SLN's doctrine was one of the reasons why the Short Victorious War was neither short nor victorious.

The SVW was neither short nor victorious because neither combatant could apply the SLN doctrine of massing an overwhelming force and punching the enemy's capital out ASAP.

Historically, yes. The PN and RMN both have emulated SLN doctrine, in Haven's earlier conquests and Manticore's earlier wars(San Martin & Silesia) in which it imposed generous terms instead of conquering.

By 1905, Haven had lost its chance to do this against Manticore due to a boom in shipbuilding and fortbuilding and Parnell wanted to whittle down the RMN in detail before moving against the MBS.

The bottom line is, Third Yeltsin appears to be the first time in galactic history that superdreadnoughts ever engaged each other. Prior to that, the SLN's biggest engagement involved a waller squadron screened by around 150 smaller units beating up 500 smaller units.

Indeed, I believe the SLN had doubts about whether it could actually implement Raging Justice against what it thought existed in the MBS - all those forts. Rajampet seemed to authorise its launch only after he assumed Oyster Bay had destroyed all the "fixed" defenses. Prior to OB, he had an additional 600 SDs moving to reinforce Filareta although it sounds like this was planned as a second attack wave.

Brigade XO wrote:
BCs on the other hand, are more likely to be sent out singly or in small groups. You transfer BC squadrons to area coverage locations- like Meyers- not normally send them to intimidate some Fringe world in the Frontier. The BC's also got a massively larger amount of actual work than the SD (as did the SLN DDs etc) and they also occasionally had to engage in combat against something. That would be mostly the FF ships but I would not be surprised that FF didn't get all that much of any new design or upgrade flight of BC etc but more usually they got "used" Battle Fleet escorts and BCs which probably would have been through a full maintenance and upgrade pass before being redeployed to FF.
On the other hand, FF was the ships that got used hard and fired weapons in other than simulations or fleet maneuvers so they would have been getting relatively more work done on them if for nothing more than their officers and crews were wearing out parts and systems but they were actively using all that equipment and knew their lives depended on it being in the best repair possible. FF would have been a more practical to do live testing of new equipment, software etc in a hostile environment. Point of the spear stuff.

It seems the BF didn't have many BC's of it's own, becaus ethe prevaling thought was to grab FF units to expand the screens as needed. The reserve supposedly only had 180 BCs in it, and Byng only had 1 squadron of BF units out of his fleet of 4 squadrons. Now, the interesting item was all the BF ships were Nevadas, while the FF ships were the older Invincibles.

It does seen that BF got refreshed the soonest, and probably passed their older ships to the FF.

But this does lead to a good question - WHO designed the Nevada class, and for what purposes? Fr the same reason no 2 people look for the same options in cars, no 2 navies look for the same functions in their warships. The US always designs in extra range and the ability to pace a carrier group in it's surface designs, because it needs to screen carriers and their high speeds, and it need to deploy across the world. Other navies will cram in as much firepower as possible, etc.etc.

The FF won't want the options BF ordered (for screening battle Fleets) - what if they are repeatedly stuck with a sub-optimal design for their uses? No Range, little ability to work on it's own, poor flag suites, etc. How would this effect FF operations?

Theemile wrote:It seems the BF didn't have many BC's of it's own, becaus ethe prevaling thought was to grab FF units to expand the screens as needed. The reserve supposedly only had 180 BCs in it, and Byng only had 1 squadron of BF units out of his fleet of 4 squadrons. Now, the interesting item was all the BF ships were Nevadas, while the FF ships were the older Invincibles.

Indefatigables.

Byng's squadron wasn't of BF. He and his staff were a transfer from BF, but the units and the crews themselves were FF. That alone was guaranteeing failure of whatever mission, since he looked down on the "rubes" of his crew and his crew knew him to be an incompetent and arrogant fob (one of those two impressions was correct).

But this does lead to a good question - WHO designed the Nevada class, and for what purposes? Fr the same reason no 2 people look for the same options in cars, no 2 navies look for the same functions in their warships. The US always designs in extra range and the ability to pace a carrier group in it's surface designs, because it needs to screen carriers and their high speeds, and it need to deploy across the world. Other navies will cram in as much firepower as possible, etc.etc.

The FF won't want the options BF ordered (for screening battle Fleets) - what if they are repeatedly stuck with a sub-optimal design for their uses? No Range, little ability to work on it's own, poor flag suites, etc. How would this effect FF operations?

Those are very good questions. And you're right, there should have been more than one BC design.

drothgery wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:So it seems that the Wolfhound is an obsolete design too. The RMN should not build DD that can't fire DDMs any more.

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.

Theemile wrote:The good news is it's going to take 10-15 years for everyone else to catch up in a meaningful way to the RMN's current LERM/DDM DD/CL compliment, so the current designs do still have a lifespan... but it is probably dated.

Quite a few posters have argued that the Roland design is actually tomorrow's frigate - the bare minimum design with modern hardware, which is good for patrols, but can't really stand up to a modern competitor. If the Sag-C is tomorrow's CL, they are probably right.

I can't help thinking that the design of the Frigate is what a LAC would be if it had a hyper generator. So says the Wiki, the hyper generator consumes too much space for the design to be useful. Removing the hyper generator from a Frigate essentially allows the platform to be turned into a LAC?

But, I was thinking how small the Frigate is, and perhaps a design can be made to easily swap out the hyper generator quite readily and use the space for pods. That would be a new variant of LAC? Less maneuverable but missile heavy. But able to quickly be turned into a hyper capable warship. Can sails be designed to be an add on?

Why isn't there a DD(P)?

cthia wrote:I can't help thinking that the design of the Frigate is what a LAC would be if it had a hyper generator, so says the Wiki. The hyper generator consumes too much space for the design to be useful. Removing the hypergenerator from a Frigate allows the platform to be turned into a LAC?

But, I was thinking how small the Frigate is, and perhaps a design can be made to easily swap out the hypergenerator quite readily and use the space for pods. That would be a new variant of LAC? Less maneuverable but missile heavy. But able to quickly be turned into a hypercapable warship. Can sails be designed to be an add on?

Why isn't there a DD(P)?

Why isn't there a DD(P)? SIZE!

Pretty sure a DD is too small to run missile pod rails out to the hammerhead given the chokepoint formed by the aft impeller rooms (which form a ring inboard of the aft impellers).
Even the Roland, huge for a DD, has 10% the volume of an Agamemnon-class BC(P) and those can barely squeeze 4 pod rails through that hole. A Roland struggles to fit 6 missile tubes, which would take up maybe 50-60% the cross section of a podrail.

You might be able to squeeze in a broadside or ventral launch bay for pods; but those areas are full of important things so you'd really compromise the ship's other combat abilities to squeeze a few pods in.

As for trying to fit one into a LAC - the pod has approximately the same cross section at the LAC does. Not going to happen. No way no how.
A Shrike or Ferret is 72m x 20m x 20m while a Pod appears to be 20m x 20m x 5m

Plus a frigate is over twice the tonnage of a modern LAC and being build like a normal ship, around 10 times the volume. (LACs are super dense in no small part because much of their equipment is designed to be maintained more like an aircraft or shuttle than a ship; with much of their equipment only being servicable from the outside by removing access panels - whereas Frigates are just small warships and so everything can be accessed and maintained from the inside. Plus Frigates need far, far, more room for fuel and stores as they're designed for long range patrols of months while LACs aren't)

And no, adding a sail wouldn't be a trivial drop in upgrade. An Alpha node, needed to generate a sail, is far larger than the Beta Squared nodes that modern LACs use. And I think (but am not 100% sure) that the impeller mechanisms within the hull are also proportionately larger.


This idea simply doesn't work because none of the relative sizes make any sense.

cthia wrote:I can't help thinking that the design of the Frigate is what a LAC would be if it had a hyper generator. So says the Wiki, the hyper generator consumes too much space for the design to be useful. Removing the hyper generator from a Frigate essentially allows the platform to be turned into a LAC?

But, I was thinking how small the Frigate is, and perhaps a design can be made to easily swap out the hyper generator quite readily and use the space for pods. That would be a new variant of LAC? Less maneuverable but missile heavy. But able to quickly be turned into a hyper capable warship. Can sails be designed to be an add on?

There's one huge difference between a LAC and a small, hyper-incapable frigate: the CLAC. The LACs don't have to have deep missile stores because they can rearm from the CLAC before the end of their useful endurance in a system. A small frigate may have deeper stores, but it's still of limited endurance.

But unlike the LAC, the frigate is stuck in that system. It can't be transported to another AO aboard a carrier. The logistics are much more complex, for too little gain.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I can't help thinking that the design of the Frigate is what a LAC would be if it had a hyper generator, so says the Wiki. The hyper generator consumes too much space for the design to be useful. Removing the hypergenerator from a Frigate allows the platform to be turned into a LAC?

But, I was thinking how small the Frigate is, and perhaps a design can be made to easily swap out the hypergenerator quite readily and use the space for pods. That would be a new variant of LAC? Less maneuverable but missile heavy. But able to quickly be turned into a hypercapable warship. Can sails be designed to be an add on?

Why isn't there a DD(P)?

Why isn't there a DD(P)? SIZE!

Pretty sure a DD is too small to run missile pod rails out to the hammerhead given the chokepoint formed by the aft impeller rooms (which form a ring inboard of the aft impellers).
Even the Roland, huge for a DD, has 10% the volume of an Agamemnon-class BC(P) and those can barely squeeze 4 pod rails through that hole. A Roland struggles to fit 6 missile tubes, which would take up maybe 50-60% the cross section of a podrail.

You might be able to squeeze in a broadside or ventral launch bay for pods; but those areas are full of important things so you'd really compromise the ship's other combat abilities to squeeze a few pods in.

As for trying to fit one into a LAC - the pod has approximately the same cross section at the LAC does. Not going to happen. No way no how.
A Shrike or Ferret is 72m x 20m x 20m while a Pod appears to be 20m x 20m x 5m

Plus a frigate is over twice the tonnage of a modern LAC and being build like a normal ship, around 10 times the volume. (LACs are super dense in no small part because much of their equipment is designed to be maintained more like an aircraft of shuttle than a ship; with much of their equipment only being servicable from the outside by removing access panels - whereas Frigates are just small warships and so everything can be accessed and maintained from the inside. Plus Frigates need far, far, more room for fuel and stores as they're designed for long range patrols of months while LACs aren't)

And no, adding a sail wouldn't be a trivial drop in upgrade. An Alpha node, needed to generate a sail, is far larger than the Beta Squared nodes that modern LACs use. And I think (but am not 100% sure) that the impeller mechanisms within the hull are also proportionately larger.


This idea simply doesn't work because none of the relative sizes make any sense.

Thanks. I always wondered why. And now I know.

I knew a Frigate was considerably larger, but I was thinking someone said, "Hey, if we remove the hyper generator and all its support system we could make a smaller more agile ship. And we could eliminate other stuff too and make it even smaller." And the LAC was born. Now I know why that isn't so.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:There's one huge difference between a LAC and a small, hyper-incapable frigate: the CLAC. The LACs don't have to have deep missile stores because they can rearm from the CLAC before the end of their useful endurance in a system. A small frigate may have deeper stores, but it's still of limited endurance.

But unlike the LAC, the frigate is stuck in that system. It can't be transported to another AO aboard a carrier. The logistics are much more complex, for too little gain.

The Frigate wouldn't be stuck in the system if the idea is practical and made sense.

Related to that, I always wondered why a warship needed a Collier (or a CLAC for LACs) in certain systems that have system defense pods which never seem to be used. I once thought they could simply meander over to that area of space and reload from there. Of course, now I know there is a prohibitive difference in missile sizes. That kind of silly thinking is what happens when you are spurned by Jane. Anyways, thanks.

cthia wrote:
I can't help thinking that the design of the Frigate is what a LAC would be if it had a hyper generator. So says the Wiki, the hyper generator consumes too much space for the design to be useful. Removing the hyper generator from a Frigate essentially allows the platform to be turned into a LAC?

<snip>

Prior to 1900, you are essentially correct, both were essentially a minimal weapons/sensor package wrapped inside the minimum warship capable of moving them. However, LACs usually mounted box launchers to have a 1 time huge missile salvo, and frigates had 1-2 weapon/defense of each type in each direction.

However, the hull form was quite different between the 2 ships (10K tons vs 45-50Ktons). All that extra hull space was dedicated to the hardware necessary getting that minimal weapons and sensor package the ability to move in hyperspace and have a meaningful range.

Theemile wrote:
Prior to 1900, you are essentially correct, both were essentially a minimal weapons/sensor package wrapped inside the minimum warship capable of moving them. However, LACs usually mounted box launchers to have a 1 time huge missile salvo, and frigates had 1-2 weapon/defense of each type in each direction.

However, the hull form was quite different between the 2 ships (10K tons vs 45-50Ktons). All that extra hull space was dedicated to the hardware necessary getting that minimal weapons and sensor package the ability to move in hyperspace and have a meaningful range.

Well to be fair, in the RMN and I think in most navies, the frigate was a small warship optimized for long range cruising.

The FF is smaller than a destroyer, but with a far higher percentage of its volume devoted to stores, fuel, etc. So ton for ton it was much more lightly armed that the DD. But it had essentially the same cruising endurance as the far larger light cruiser.


Which means some of that extra hull space was just to make room for larger internal storage spaces. If you'd wanted to build something with the weapons fit of a frigate but only the endurance of a contemporary DD you could probably shave off at least 10-15% of its volume.

[And note how much larger than either their a contemporaneous CL designs had to be. Though it carried only a slightly heavier weapons fit that the destroyer, it needed to be that much larger to carry that while also matching or exceeding the frigate's range. Though I do think some of that size went into larger magazines so it carried more rounds per tube that either]

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:
Prior to 1900, you are essentially correct, both were essentially a minimal weapons/sensor package wrapped inside the minimum warship capable of moving them. However, LACs usually mounted box launchers to have a 1 time huge missile salvo, and frigates had 1-2 weapon/defense of each type in each direction.

However, the hull form was quite different between the 2 ships (10K tons vs 45-50Ktons). All that extra hull space was dedicated to the hardware necessary getting that minimal weapons and sensor package the ability to move in hyperspace and have a meaningful range.

Well to be fair, in the RMN and I think in most navies, the frigate was a small warship optimized for long range cruising.

The FF is smaller than a destroyer, but with a far higher percentage of its volume devoted to stores, fuel, etc. So ton for ton it was much more lightly armed that the DD. But it had essentially the same cruising endurance as the far larger light cruiser.


Which means some of that extra hull space was just to make room for larger internal storage spaces. If you'd wanted to build something with the weapons fit of a frigate but only the endurance of a contemporary DD you could probably shave off at least 10-15% of its volume.

[And note how much larger than either their a contemporaneous CL designs had to be. Though it carried only a slightly heavier weapons fit that the destroyer, it needed to be that much larger to carry that while also matching or exceeding the frigate's range. Though I do think some of that size went into larger magazines so it carried more rounds per tube that either]

Thanks again y'all. What helped spurn the thought was when learning that the first LACs in history were owned by the SL and were much larger? I don't know how much larger, but I assume significantly. They were simply less capable weapons platforms. Dunno about their endurance.

At any rate, initially I was simply gathering wool about how much the size of the GA's LACs could increase to become more useful and still be considered LACs. (Same class of ship). Utilizing all the current tech advances. Present LACs have adopted a completely new paradigm (change in tactics) from the original conception of LACs. Without changing its class. Actually they've gotten even smaller than the old SL LACs? IINM.

But now that their tactics have changed and they're proving significantly more useful, can their size grow even larger fitting even more tech or weapons? Are LACs up against the limit of their design?

The thread is about increasing its strategic use. In addition to that, I'm questioning the future of an even more deadly and useful tactical ship.