A new Honorverse Ship Type ?

While thinking about HH ships while rereading the series it occurred to me that we are missing an obvious shiptype, an anti missile podnaught ! I know all about LAC's being quickly and easily built but they take a lot of manpower for each ship.

An AM(p) (I know had to call it something) would have the manpower requirements of a BC(P) or less, probably a lot less. I was thinking of the cannisters that Haven threw out of main missile tubes in one of the earlier books, forget which one, and it occurred to me that they could use those cannisters or something bigger with more missiles (Mk31's +) in and just drop loads of pods around their fleet. They could be pushed further out when defending an area and if they built the hulls on something small and fast could still be used in fleet actions, they drop their pods and leggit

Just a thought

JDredd wrote:While thinking about HH ships while rereading the series it occurred to me that we are missing an obvious shiptype, an anti missile podnaught ! I know all about LAC's being quickly and easily built but they take a lot of manpower for each ship.

An AM(p) (I know had to call it something) would have the manpower requirements of a BC(P) or less, probably a lot less. I was thinking of the cannisters that Haven threw out of main missile tubes in one of the earlier books, forget which one, and it occurred to me that they could use those cannisters or something bigger with more missiles (Mk31's +) in and just drop loads of pods around their fleet. They could be pushed further out when defending an area and if they built the hulls on something small and fast could still be used in fleet actions, they drop their pods and leggit

Just a thought

To date David Weber has been against pods for CM missiles. However it is possible that events at Galton might cause him to have the RMN change their minds about that.

Still, with the exception of the CLAC (and maybe the Roland) he's had the RMN committed to keeping their warships multi-purpose; so there really aren't any dedicated anti-missile escorts. Turning an entire BC sized vessel into one would be a major deviation from their established policy. (Which doesn't necessarily means it's a horrible idea -- though you'd want to make sure it wasn't ever detached for independent duty. I guess you'd basically change the composition of SD(P) squadrons to add one or two of your AM(P)s as permanent parts of the squadron)

JDredd wrote:While thinking about HH ships while rereading the series it occurred to me that we are missing an obvious shiptype, an anti missile podnaught ! I know all about LAC's being quickly and easily built but they take a lot of manpower for each ship.

An AM(p) (I know had to call it something) would have the manpower requirements of a BC(P) or less, probably a lot less. I was thinking of the cannisters that Haven threw out of main missile tubes in one of the earlier books, forget which one, and it occurred to me that they could use those cannisters or something bigger with more missiles (Mk31's +) in and just drop loads of pods around their fleet. They could be pushed further out when defending an area and if they built the hulls on something small and fast could still be used in fleet actions, they drop their pods and leggit

Just a thought

Jonathan_S wrote:To date David Weber has been against pods for CM missiles. However it is possible that events at Galton might cause him to have the RMN change their minds about that.

Still, with the exception of the CLAC (and maybe the Roland) he's had the RMN committed to keeping their warships multi-purpose; so there really aren't any dedicated anti-missile escorts. Turning an entire BC sized vessel into one would be a major deviation from their established policy. (Which doesn't necessarily means it's a horrible idea -- though you'd want to make sure it wasn't ever detached for independent duty. I guess you'd basically change the composition of SD(P) squadrons to add one or two of your AM(P)s as permanent parts of the squadron)

Since Galton launched multi-drive counter missiles from pods, it is obvious that RFC has changed his mind.

Honor remarks that the multi-drive CM, launched from a pod, is one of the things being worked on when she sees that very thing launched against them. I doubt that a brand new ship would be designed as long as the pod fits in a pod-layer load out. Perhaps a LAC could tractor one or two to extend the range. Are these expected to be so long ranged that an FTL unit needs to be added to each pod?

tlb wrote:Since Galton launched multi-drive counter missiles from pods, it is obvious that RFC has changed his mind.

Honor remarks that the multi-drive CM, launched from a pod, is one of the things being worked on when she sees that very thing launched against them. I doubt that a brand new ship would be designed as long as the pod fits in a pod-layer load out. Perhaps a LAC could tractor one or two to extend the range. Are these expected to be so long ranged that an FTL unit needs to be added to each pod?

Should have been more specific. RFC was against the RMN and other top tier navies relying on CM pods or canisters. The question is whether having now faced very long range pod-based CMs the RMN will revisit their stance against CM pods.


We do know the 3.5 million km (11.7 lightsecond) range (from rest) from Mk31s already slightly outrun their effective lightspeed fire control range. OTOH I didn't get the impression that pods end up much closer to the enemy than the launching ship does; and depending on the fight's geometry might be further away -- so adding FTL relays to them doesn't seem like a practical solution.

You'd probably be better off with some free-flying Keyhole variant that could fly itself a couple million km down the threat axis to act as a forward FTL fire control relay. (Though since ships don't seem to have any ability to do FTL fire control from hull mounted transceivers you'd presumably need tractors FTL platforms near your ship to complement the free flying ones downrange. That would seem to take up a lot of broadside volume -- at least if you want the redundancy of 2 local + 2 remote platforms per ship)


Though one of my little bugbears is why CM's don't have (and apparently can't have) rear facing FTL receivers. Even the ship using it's onboard, and ghost rider, FTL sensors to read the inbound missiles and ECM and pushing the updates to the CMs via FTL should significantly boost their effective control range. And just the receiver (which is just a basic grav sensor) should be vastly smaller and lower power draw than the FTL transmitter you'd need for 2-way FTL links.


(Or you just accept what Galton seemed to -- which is quite low hit percentages on their very long range CMs; due to leaving them largely on internal guidance/homing; and throwing enough to thin down the inbound strikes anyway. Plus by engaging further out you get longer reads on the missiles' ECM so your shorter ranged CMs that are still under full control are less likely to get fooled)

tlb wrote:Since Galton launched multi-drive counter missiles from pods, it is obvious that RFC has changed his mind.

Honor remarks that the multi-drive CM, launched from a pod, is one of the things being worked on when she sees that very thing launched against them. I doubt that a brand new ship would be designed as long as the pod fits in a pod-layer load out. Perhaps a LAC could tractor one or two to extend the range. Are these expected to be so long ranged that an FTL unit needs to be added to each pod?

Jonathan_S wrote:Should have been more specific. RFC was against the RMN and other top tier navies relying on CM pods or canisters. The question is whether having now faced very long range pod-based CMs the RMN will revisit their stance against CM pods.


We do know the 3.5 million km (11.7 lightsecond) range (from rest) from Mk31s already slightly outrun their effective lightspeed fire control range. OTOH I didn't get the impression that pods end up much closer to the enemy than the launching ship does; and depending on the fight's geometry might be further away -- so adding FTL relays to them doesn't seem like a practical solution.

What I originally suggested was something like Apollo be launched with the CM's to ride herd over them. What if the pod itself had an engine and FTL communication and held regular CM's that need not launch until after the engine burned out (they would be protected like the second stage of the Cataphract)? Or is that one of the designs that RFC specifically said "NO" to?

The use of LACs for anti-missile defense gives a way to get further out from your ships and cut down to the attacking missiles well before anything launched from your hyper capable ships is going to do. The CMs launched from LACs can be fed updates from the LaC or other sources. While still vulnerable (any hit from an anti-ship missile is going to destroy a lack) what we are seeing is the LACs firing into the volleys of missiles from the side in a multi focused attack. You shoot to intercept oncoming/passing missiles and use aft grazers to take shots when they are close enough. Rarely are any of the missiles aimed at hyper capable warships loosing lock on the primary target (multiple targets on some volleys) and go looking for anything as small as a LAC.

We have seen RMN use CM pods launched from missile tubes but that has been last ditch effort to survive and probably low on offensive missiles.

At this point there doesn't seem to be a practical use for a WW II style AA cruiser as a dedicated CM platform for missile defense. The get way out of the mission profiles of anything the RMN has been doing. Another point you have to consider is the potential geometry of engagement and where --and when- you would deploy such a dedicated CM platform relative to your the warships. Mixed in to the Wall?
Putting them just on the edges of your force perimeter might get you a better result as they would- probably- not get their sensors and those of their CM blinded or screened by the hash of opponents ECM, all the exploding intercepted missiles and such. Putting such ships on the edge might divert some of the incoming weapons to them or cause them to be specifically targeted but they are screening ships and it would be part of the job though the will lack too much armor.

Brigade XO wrote:<snip>

We have seen RMN use CM pods launched from missile tubes but that has been last ditch effort to survive and probably low on offensive missiles.

.

Not CM pods - CM canisters - the canister is a break away shell housing 3-5 CMs, based on the ship killer missile launcher size. The intention of a CM canister (initially) is not to thicken a CM launch, but to replace CM launchers lost in battle. The # of CMs a ship has is limited to it's CM control links, which is balanced with the # of launchers in the design, and as cm launchers are attrited, the # on CMs launched can be augmented by canister fired CMs. So when a ship starts a battle, there aren't a large # of spare control links available to control canister launched CMs.

Of course, using canisters:
1) lowers the # of ship killers that can be fired in each salvo.
2) each canister takes up space in the magazines. On a SD carrying 20,000 missiles this is not an issue, on a DD carrying 250 it is - just carrying 10 canisters removes 2-3 salvos of shipkillers from the equation which might be needed in a firefight. Carrying more starts limiting what a ship can do offensively.

The SLN added CM canisters to it's BCs in the Aegis program, to augment the inferior # of CM launchers on their BCS. A single Missile tube on each broadside was plugged with a CM targeting pod, and 2 tubes were dedicated to CM canister fire. This added 6-8 CMs per salvo, for the cost of 3 ship killers (out of 27 launchers)

The RMN's real answer to the CM pod is the Katana LAC - armed with 150 vipers and 3 SD class PDLCs, a Katana moves the firecontrol (and launcher) further up the threat axis than a pod can, so not just augmenting the weight of CMs, but creating a second bubble of counter missile defenses in a location that the incoming missile are not programmed to start their evasive maneuvers yet. (and of course, if someone does program a missile to start evasive maneuvers earlier, it will just eat up reaction mass of the RCS clusters early and drops the missile hit probability.)

Modern LACS only have 10 (RHN 12) people per ship. Each Katana has the defenses of a pre-war DD or CL, so even 2 -3 have better defenses than a Star Knight, whihc had 1000 crew. 10 could easily replace a BC with 2000 crew. LACs are cheap (on a manpower basis) replacement for warships, even if the warship has much deeper magazines, and is multi role.

Theemile wrote:The RMN's real answer to the CM pod is the Katana LAC - armed with 150 vipers and 3 SD class PDLCs, a Katana moves the firecontrol (and launcher) further up the threat axis than a pod can, so not just augmenting the weight of CMs, but creating a second bubble of counter missile defenses in a location that the incoming missile are not programmed to start their evasive maneuvers yet. (and of course, if someone does program a missile to start evasive maneuvers earlier, it will just eat up reaction mass of the RCS clusters early and drops the missile hit probability.)

Modern LACS only have 10 (RHN 12) people per ship. Each Katana has the defenses of a pre-war DD or CL, so even 2 -3 have better defenses than a Star Knight, whihc had 1000 crew. 10 could easily replace a BC with 2000 crew. LACs are cheap (on a manpower basis) replacement for warships, even if the warship has much deeper magazines, and is multi role.

The main issues with Katanas are that their Vipers go really fast -- they can shoot themselves dry against just a couple of large missile salvos; while pod based combatants can throw dozens of salvos that size.

So they're great against a single pod based ambush; but not so great against sustained podlayer combat.

There are at least 2 ways they could be made better; and RFC has indicated that the RMN has at least looked at the first of these.
1) "Assault" CLACs that trade off LAC carrying capacity for significantly increased survivability; better able to stay with the wall during combat. They'd act primarily as local resupply points for the LACs the normal fleet CLAC had dropped before pulling out -- allowing all the anti-missile LACs to cycle back in sequence to reload their Vipers/CMs.
2) Two stage/two drive oversized CMs launched from the wall where the LACs can ration their onboard Vipers/CMs and primarily act as forward fire directors for the long range CM fires coming from the wall behind them.

Theemile wrote:

Brigade XO wrote:<snip>

We have seen RMN use CM pods launched from missile tubes but that has been last ditch effort to survive and probably low on offensive missiles..

I ,meant canisters.

Perspective: Katana ~ 20k tons, 150 CM's 3.75M km, 3PDLC
~200g delta between LAC/Mothership

Viper is assumed to weight in around 20t, instead of old CM's of ~12t.

20k tons of Vipers = 1000 instead of Katana 150CM's(3kton)
Hrmm something seems off as that is only ~15% of ship tonnage. RFC's other ships all have roughly speaking ~25% of the hull tonnage dedicated to missiles except DD's, but LAC's are more like one shot wonders so shouldn't their tonnage to missile fire be higher?

If given 1 hour of lead time 3660s squared =13E6 s
Dist = 1/2 200g*10mg/s^2*13E6/1000m/km = 13E6 km

@ 13E6 km from mother ship, offensive missiles can simply fly around the LAC's to hit the mother ship formation outside the LAC's CM range let alone outside their PDLC range.

My point, very little good happens by placing your LAC's very far from the mother ship formation as any attack from another direction or even MAIN direction, the LAC's are useless. In reality, positioning of LACs we are talking maybe ~+1M kilometer and even this is highly debateable as at this range an offensive missile can nearly dodge the majority of PDLC death zone of the LAC's. But, we are left with what RFC has shown as said KATANA's are effectively their main line of defensive CM fire What I would believe is 100% logical and which RFC has repeatedly and correctly pointed out; would be main LAC defensive PDLC fire achieving different angles without wedge interference issues achieving MUCH superior results.

RFC has also said SHRIKES are still kept around for offensive operations so... Why bother with the KATANA as the Honorverse has now been granted CM pods, unless one removes all CM's and adds more PDLC and at that point, just call them.... Keyholes And have Keyhole carriers instead of LAC carriers leaving your SD's without massive holes in their armor.

Now I could see, removing the Shrikes offensive 20 Missiles, keeping the Grazer and adding all Viper's instead. Do remember that the 6 Vipers = 1 offensive missile with the obvious range disadvantage as I believe the laser head/rod are identical with only difference; number or rods. Of course we have stealth with the LAC's and massive acceleration advantage and apparently LAC's can haul around massive numbers of pods if one truly needs range, so... if you can haul Pods... WHY would anyone ever need a crappy Shrike Missile that a Viper would not do just as well?

Or, LAC's offensive heyday is already gone is yet another logical answer. In an era of MDM FTL C&C loop missiles is this true?

As for CM pods... should have happened 20 books ago with the introduction of the offensive missile pod. DW said no so until he said yes(TiEF) we all had to go along with the song and dance of pod launched alpha strikes and no pod launched defensive fire as the palm in face obvious response.