Fall 1924 - The changes of ship roles

In the other 1924 topics, the changing nature of ship roles is brought up, and which ships are relevant to which role.

Traditional Warship Roles include:

System Policing
System Picketing
Tactical Scouting
Missile Screen
Strategic Scouting
Convoy Escort
Presence
Show the Flag
Commerce Raider
System Raider
System Defense
Strategic Offence
Wall Adjunct
System Control
Marine Carrier/Escort
LAC distribution


Most of these can be broken down into "Light" and "Heavy" roles, where 2 (or more) different classes usually do the role, with different tactical, strategic, or political requirements and connotations for the different classes assuming the same role.

forex: In peacetime, you would never waste a BC on backwater convoy duty in a mild pirate infested area, unless the BC was already "going that way", likewise you wouldn't assign a lone DD or CL for a similiar escort to the front lines of an active warzone.

or: Sending a DD/CL on a "show the flag" mission to a political hotspot would send a neutral message, where a squadron of BCs on the same "Show the Flag" mission might either quell the issue, or inflame it, depending on said issue.

So what roles have I missed? What roles are going away? What roles are "normally" appropriate for each class of ship? And where are there redundancies in the "Perfect" RMN fleet post 1924?

Also, for other navies, are there other roles that are special to them, or traditional RMN roles that simply don't matter to them post-1924?

Theemile wrote:System Policing
System Picketing
Tactical Scouting
Missile Screen
Strategic Scouting
Convoy Escort
Presence
Show the Flag
Commerce Raider
System Raider
System Defense
Strategic Offence
Wall Adjunct
System Control
Marine Carrier/Escort
LAC distribution


Most of these can be broken down into "Light" and "Heavy" roles, where 2 (or more) different classes usually do the role, with different tactical, strategic, or political requirements and connotations for the different classes assuming the same role.

I think most of the roles above, aside from the specialised ones (the last two), can be "all of them" and will depend on what the unit is expected to face against.

So my take:

System Picketing
DD through CA, with assignments based on importance, risk, and availability of ships. For example, if the picket is too far, then DDs may be a poor idea.

Tactical Scouting
CL and CA, unless this is part of a larger fleet, in which case DDs are available. Similar to the one above, I wouldn't send DDs in singletons or in division strength on their own very far from a base of support. But far-range scouting on areas of minimal threat could be served by frigates.

Strategic Scouting
CL through BC.

Missile Screen
All of them depending on who they're defending, with heavy emphasis in LACs.

Convoy Escort
All below the wall, depending on importance and risk. BCs rarely, but as the quoted post by RFC says, it can happen for very important convoys.

Presence
Not sure I understand what you mean. Probably "all below the wall."

Show the Flag
All below the wall.

Commerce Raider
Like convoy protection, will depend on risk. So DD through BC.

System Raider
Anything, depending on the system in question. You can take on an undefended system with a gunboat, but you can't take on Solon or Spindle with anything less than a battle fleet. If you restrict this to a moderately rich system with some defences but not part of the GA (so no MDM system defence missiles), I'd say a BatCruRon or CruRon, depending on the system.

System Defence
Assuming you don't mean a home or even regional capital here. I'd have a minimum of one LAC wing in any and every system, scaling up depending on traffic. Since these are own systems, stationing DDs is possible and for the foreseeable future will stop any kind of incursion. In the medium to long term, this may need to scale up depending on the importance of the system, to CL and CAs. I don't see BCs used for single system defence, but nodal instead.

Strategic Offence
For anything short of a large system conquest which will require a wall of battle, a well-balanced task group/force, centred on a BC division or squadron, with a CLAC for support. Those BCs need an escort, so the TF will have either CAs, CLs or DDs, or all of the above.

Wall Adjunct
All of them below the wall.

System Control
That will depend on the system, especially if it already has a base for the LAC wing or Mycrofts. If it doesn't, then a Keyhole-capable CLAC if that exists, regular CLAC if not, or a David Taylor-class auxiliary in a pinch. If it does, then CL and CAs.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Theemile wrote:System Policing
System Picketing
Tactical Scouting
Missile Screen
Strategic Scouting
Convoy Escort
Presence
Show the Flag
Commerce Raider
System Raider
System Defense
Strategic Offence
Wall Adjunct
System Control
Marine Carrier/Escort
LAC distribution


Most of these can be broken down into "Light" and "Heavy" roles, where 2 (or more) different classes usually do the role, with different tactical, strategic, or political requirements and connotations for the different classes assuming the same role.

I think most of the roles above, aside from the specialised ones (the last two), can be "all of them" and will depend on what the unit is expected to face against.

So my take:

System Picketing
DD through CA, with assignments based on importance, risk, and availability of ships. For example, if the picket is too far, then DDs may be a poor idea.

Tactical Scouting
CL and CA, unless this is part of a larger fleet, in which case DDs are available. Similar to the one above, I wouldn't send DDs in singletons or in division strength on their own very far from a base of support. But far-range scouting on areas of minimal threat could be served by frigates.

Strategic Scouting
CL through BC.

Missile Screen
All of them depending on who they're defending, with heavy emphasis in LACs.

Convoy Escort
All below the wall, depending on importance and risk. BCs rarely, but as the quoted post by RFC says, it can happen for very important convoys.

Presence
Not sure I understand what you mean. Probably "all below the wall."

Show the Flag
All below the wall.

Commerce Raider
Like convoy protection, will depend on risk. So DD through BC.

System Raider
Anything, depending on the system in question. You can take on an undefended system with a gunboat, but you can't take on Solon or Spindle with anything less than a battle fleet. If you restrict this to a moderately rich system with some defences but not part of the GA (so no MDM system defence missiles), I'd say a BatCruRon or CruRon, depending on the system.

System Defence
Assuming you don't mean a home or even regional capital here. I'd have a minimum of one LAC wing in any and every system, scaling up depending on traffic. Since these are own systems, stationing DDs is possible and for the foreseeable future will stop any kind of incursion. In the medium to long term, this may need to scale up depending on the importance of the system, to CL and CAs. I don't see BCs used for single system defence, but nodal instead.

Strategic Offence
For anything short of a large system conquest which will require a wall of battle, a well-balanced task group/force, centred on a BC division or squadron, with a CLAC for support. Those BCs need an escort, so the TF will have either CAs, CLs or DDs, or all of the above.

Wall Adjunct
All of them below the wall.

System Control
That will depend on the system, especially if it already has a base for the LAC wing or Mycrofts. If it doesn't, then a Keyhole-capable CLAC if that exists, regular CLAC if not, or a David Taylor-class auxiliary in a pinch. If it does, then CL and CAs.

Presence is just being "there", usually meaning everywhere - Typically such units are acting as the eyes of the fleet, portable tripwires that can run for a bigger brother, or just report everything they saw to their intelligance services. The infamous Soviet fishing trawler, fishing 3 meters inside international waters in the Caribbean by a missile test facility is a recent wet water version of this, though a "covert" one. Prior to 1900 pd, the RMN had as many as 1000 Frigates as presence units as it's eyes across it's sphere of influence - the idea was not that they would fight a battle, but they could summon someone that would make you wish you never picked a fight.

The Kammerlings are called a "System Defense Cruiser" - probably because they are perfect for facing pirates and light insurgents.

Theemile wrote:The Kammerlings are called a "System Defense Cruiser" - probably because they are perfect for facing pirates and light insurgents.

So close
Kamerling-class system control cruiser

House of Steel wrote:the Kamerling’s weapons fit is biased towards defense and, despite its tonnage advantage over both the Avalon and Valiant classes, its antiship capability is limited for its size due to the tonnage consumed by additional life-support. These ships were never intended to contest space control with another navy’s units. Rather, they were conceived of as units intended to police commerce and restore the peacekeeping and humanitarian mission capabilities which had been lost in the low-manpower designs

Basically take the defenses of a reasonably modern CA, the offense of a small CL, cram in 3 companies of Marines along with their small craft, and all in the hull the size of an older CA.

Oh, and each one takes a construction slip that could otherwise be building a Sag-C.

That said, they presumably mount the same Mk 36 LERMs as the slightly earlier Avalon and Wolfhound; so even with just 8 in a broadside should still be more than capable of swatting down any pirate or light insurgent that might challenge them. But, like the older and slightly smaller Broadsword-class Marine operations support cruiser (CA), it seems to be primarily focused on command and control for its Marine forces.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Theemile wrote:The Kammerlings are called a "System Defense Cruiser" - probably because they are perfect for facing pirates and light insurgents.

So close
Kamerling-class system control cruiser

Whoops - I intended to say Control - where has my mind gone....

One thing missing:

Not perfectly a naval ship, but VERY close: Mail carrier: Dispatch boat. And if you have a dispatch boat in naval service has a now MUCH larger Hypergenerator 2X normal size making them more expensive... Lets see what else they can do?

Niggling thought here on lunch break.... If DD's/CL's are going to based on a common class chasis like say the Kammerling .... then this leaves a giant void for sending messages around cheaply. Using a 300,000t ship with 100-->150 naval personnel with all its systems just to picket seems like rather a waste said ship can be scouting enemy controlled systems or convoy duty.

Will we see the return of the Patrol boats. In wet navy they were schooners with a sungular chase gun on them. By WWII they had been replaced by the PBY Catalina/PT boat/Walrus float plane etc with a radio which often would not be heard without moving to a better reception area. No one would confuse them for a warship or fighter.

So, A dispatch boat hull with 1 pinnace PDLC, and say 2 or 3 RD's and a crew of ~ 5 or so. Can receive FTL, but can't send. PDLC/RD's attached to exterior of a standard Dispatch boat.

Other category missed though you might have it under adjunt: Repair/Logistics/Spec ops --> Taylor class and whatever they call the 8Mt version.

I'll think on the other stuff later.

Relax wrote:One thing missing:

Not perfectly a naval ship, but VERY close: Mail carrier: Dispatch boat. And if you have a dispatch boat in naval service has a now MUCH larger Hypergenerator 2X normal size making them more expensive... Lets see what else they can do?

The hypergenerator doubled in size, but IIRC that caused only a minor size increase in the dispatch boat. I want to say the size increased by little enough that external observers might easily believe it just had a bit more berthing volume; so-as to be be a more comfortable personal fast yacht. But it's not turning a 38,000 ton courier into a 76,000 ton old destroyer.


And just because the hull costs went up a little and the hyper generator costs probably went up quite a bit I don't see why you'd want to make the dispatch boats even bigger, slower, and more expensive by tacking more systems on them. Navies and governments are always short on dispatch boats -- but adding point defense, ECM, the sensors to drive them, RDs, etc. would add a relatively high percentage to their total cost. (Though why you wouldn't give them FTL comms I'm unclear on -- FTL receiving is just software knowing how to decode the signals its normal Warshawski detectors, the FTL sensor arrays, can already do. But transmitting just requires properly designed nodes, and that capability is a standard part of current RMN military impeller nodes design now.

But having the ability to scout (RDs) and light defenses might tempt system commanders into using them for duties other than carrying dispatches around as quickly as possible. And given the non-trivial costs of those extra systems they'd have been able to afford fewer dispatch boats in the first place, making diverting one to other duties even less justifiable.

I'd say the new dispatch boats should stick with the aesthetic of minimal hull wrapped around secure message storage, fusion generator, military hyperdrive (now streak drive), military impellers, particle shielding, nodes and compensator, plus minimalist crew quarters. Basically the cheapest design you can use to get the desired transit speed.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:One thing missing:

Not perfectly a naval ship, but VERY close: Mail carrier: Dispatch boat. And if you have a dispatch boat in naval service has a now MUCH larger Hypergenerator 2X normal size making them more expensive... Lets see what else they can do?

The hypergenerator doubled in size, but IIRC that caused only a minor size increase in the dispatch boat. I want to say the size increased by little enough that external observers might easily believe it just had a bit more berthing volume; so-as to be be a more comfortable personal fast yacht. But it's not turning a 38,000 ton courier into a 76,000 ton old destroyer.


And just because the hull costs went up a little and the hyper generator costs probably went up quite a bit I don't see why you'd want to make the dispatch boats even bigger, slower, and more expensive by tacking more systems on them. Navies and governments are always short on dispatch boats -- but adding point defense, ECM, the sensors to drive them, RDs, etc. would add a relatively high percentage to their total cost. (Though why you wouldn't give them FTL comms I'm unclear on -- FTL receiving is just software knowing how to decode the signals its normal Warshawski detectors, the FTL sensor arrays, can already do. But transmitting just requires properly designed nodes, and that capability is a standard part of current RMN military impeller nodes design now.

But having the ability to scout (RDs) and light defenses might tempt system commanders into using them for duties other than carrying dispatches around as quickly as possible. And given the non-trivial costs of those extra systems they'd have been able to afford fewer dispatch boats in the first place, making diverting one to other duties even less justifiable.

I'd say the new dispatch boats should stick with the aesthetic of minimal hull wrapped around secure message storage, fusion generator, military hyperdrive (now streak drive), military impellers, particle shielding, nodes and compensator, plus minimalist crew quarters. Basically the cheapest design you can use to get the desired transit speed.

A pinnace PDLC is the equivalent of dumping a 50 caliber machine gun on a PT boat in WWII. An RD is the equivalent of a Radio and binoculars. There would not be one single thing different from a civilian DB other than a board to manipulate the RD. Would never cross the hyper limit.

As for FTL using your nodes ... Is obvious as Hell. That is why you would never SEND via FTL.

Obviously systems you think would be occupied you need a unit with stealth and such a DB would never work as it has no stealth.

Speaking of stealth, at what point is the notional 300kton DD too damned big to hide? Compared to a purpose built DB with stealth a popgun PDLC and a couple RD's? Roland supposedly can barely hide so, bring on the spider asap I suppose if one truly will only have 300kton DD/CL's.

Relax wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:The hypergenerator doubled in size, but IIRC that caused only a minor size increase in the dispatch boat. I want to say the size increased by little enough that external observers might easily believe it just had a bit more berthing volume; so-as to be be a more comfortable personal fast yacht. But it's not turning a 38,000 ton courier into a 76,000 ton old destroyer.


And just because the hull costs went up a little and the hyper generator costs probably went up quite a bit I don't see why you'd want to make the dispatch boats even bigger, slower, and more expensive by tacking more systems on them. Navies and governments are always short on dispatch boats -- but adding point defense, ECM, the sensors to drive them, RDs, etc. would add a relatively high percentage to their total cost. (Though why you wouldn't give them FTL comms I'm unclear on -- FTL receiving is just software knowing how to decode the signals its normal Warshawski detectors, the FTL sensor arrays, can already do. But transmitting just requires properly designed nodes, and that capability is a standard part of current RMN military impeller nodes design now.

But having the ability to scout (RDs) and light defenses might tempt system commanders into using them for duties other than carrying dispatches around as quickly as possible. And given the non-trivial costs of those extra systems they'd have been able to afford fewer dispatch boats in the first place, making diverting one to other duties even less justifiable.

I'd say the new dispatch boats should stick with the aesthetic of minimal hull wrapped around secure message storage, fusion generator, military hyperdrive (now streak drive), military impellers, particle shielding, nodes and compensator, plus minimalist crew quarters. Basically the cheapest design you can use to get the desired transit speed.

A pinnace PDLC is the equivalent of dumping a 50 caliber machine gun on a PT boat in WWII. An RD is the equivalent of a Radio and binoculars. There would not be one single thing different from a civilian DB other than a board to manipulate the RD. Would never cross the hyper limit.

As for FTL using your nodes ... Is obvious as Hell. That is why you would never SEND via FTL.

Obviously systems you think would be occupied you need a unit with stealth and such a DB would never work as it has no stealth.

Speaking of stealth, at what point is the notional 300kton DD too damned big to hide? Compared to a purpose built DB with stealth a popgun PDLC and a couple RD's? Roland supposedly can barely hide so, bring on the spider asap I suppose if one truly will only have 300kton DD/CL's.

Oh, I mis-read that and thought you were saying a pinnace and a PDLC. But pinnaces have fixed forward lasers, they don't have PDLCs.

And you'd want FTL to talk to friendly ships and systems - when you weren't somewhere hostile. But yes, if trying to be sneaky you wouldn't want to transmit FLT to another ship or recon drone if there might be enemy sensors anywhere close to within being in that transmission path. (And for all their backscatter shielding I get the impression that even the RMN can't tighten an FTL signal to narrower than maybe a +/- 60-70 degree cone)



But if you're not sending the dispatch boat into a potentially hostile system (a decision I totally agree with; they've no business there. As you say they don't have stealth systems; not to mention being ridiculously lacking in defenses even if someone grafted a PDLC onto one) then when/where would they be deploying this RD?



IF you want to send RDs through a potentially hostile system send a DD. (Or CL) Something that can see an enemy coming and has a prayer of escaping. But if it's not a potentially hostile system then why are you lurking outside the hyper limit and sending an RD to snoop around?

Your Dispatch Boats should probably have at least minimal point defense with PDLC and make sure it covers the stern area as well. A DB shouldn't be sent into known harm but should be able to use light speed defense weapons to help it run away successfully. They have speed, not armor and shouldn't think of going after any other ship- even a run-of-the-mill pirate on a commercial ship with some weapons. That sort of pirate isn't likely to waste a lot of missiles (nor have that many) trying to kill a DB.
So, does now RMN have the Streak Drive? I remember that there is information on it but has it been worked up to where RMN has a workable drive? Information flow is important and the Streak surely would help. If your using the DB to shuttle information and "something" comes up, having one that can probably deal with one, perhaps two missiles would be a plus but mostly it's to cover yourself as you run for the hyper limit. Normally a system should be able to identify an actual warship showing up and warn whatever is in-system that there is a potential problem- at which time the DB should get itself running for the hyper limit somewhere other than the vector the bogy is approaching from. Run like hell and keep recording everything till it get out of the system.

WW II PT boats often mounted twin-50cal mounts which were used for a lot of things. Like anti-aircraft defense, shooting up other small boats and strafing the crap out of whatever might be a Problem. That and giving the Problem a reason to flinch and screw up it's aim. The one I'm failure with had a twin 50 turret, a 20mm on the stern and torpedoes....and hated anybody's aircraft, also preferring to be out at night when the aircraft (of either side) were not out hunting them. If I recall correctly, Kennedy's PT 109 added on a 37mm anti-tank gun but there seems to have been a bunch of field modifications to make them more dangerous to what they might encounter.
Not suggesting you should strap a box-launcher or two on a DB. It would give you range but mostly that would be more along the line of distracting a potential enemy in what you hope is a stern chase and make them waste time fending them off- presuming the DB has enough sensor and tactical power to feed the missiles the initial target and then continue running like hell for hyperspace.