Rolands actually have plenty of room for Marines

I have found another statement from the author, where he actually addresses the marine problem. Roland-Class Destroyer

Again, this isn't something I was going to let out of the bag just now -- especially since I deliberately did a little misleading in Shadow when I have my junior officers/middies reflecting on the fact that "nothing smaller" than Hexapuma would ever be able to mount the Mk 16 missile in worthwhile numbers. Still, you guys seem to be arguing your way through some of the same points I worked my way through, so here's the current thinking. Bear in mind that there's still room for change. I'm giving you basically the paper study (what the USN designers used to call the "spring style") for the new class as of a point somewhere before the beginning of Shadow. This is where BuShips thinking was headed at that time and the basic design they proposed at the same time they were calling Hexapuma's class the Saganami-C to get it past the Janacek bottleneck. This design is officially a "destroyer," since that was a class the Janacek Admiralty was willing to authorize for escort and commerce protection, but it was actually bigger than most light cruisers. At the same time, it probably is about the smallest you could build a light escort capable of standing up to modern commerce raiders (as opposed to pirates). BuShips and BuWeaps basically proposed two separate classes; this one, and one about 2/3 this size without MDM capability and with a larger crew (to provide more space for Marines) and longer endurance. Note that both designs applied the Beta-squared technology, and that both of them have the 2-phase bow and stern walls.

-- skip --

The smaller companion design (which I'm not going to describe here) is much more conventional in concept. Basically, it's an upscaled Troubador with more missile-defense capability but without any pretension to being able to engage at MDM ranges. This means that it can pack in quite a few more rounds for its shorter-ranged launchers and has a somewhat higher max acceleration rate, and it is designed primarily to engage "normal" pirates and as an anti-LAC screening unit. The drawback is that with the new electronics and everything else, the smaller design costs about 75% as much as the Roland for far less than 3/4 of the larger design's general combat power.

Oh, and a tidbit that it's a destroyer to get it past Janacek.

So the Rolands aren't really destroyers. They probably ought to be classed as light cruisers.

If I remember rightly in OTL. The US Senate wouldn't approve any new aircraft types, so the Super Hornet was put up as an improved new zersion, despite being much larger and more capable.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Oh, and a tidbit that it's a destroyer to get it past Janacek.

So the Rolands aren't really destroyers. They probably ought to be classed as light cruisers.

Considering the size inflation, I believe the answer is "NO"; the Roland really is a destroyer. That is the way that the author talked in the essay on the Destroyer: Is the Destroyer obsolete as a ship type?

The destroyer is far from "obsolete," at least in the minds of the Manticorans. The destroyer's mission is the traditional mission of light units large enough to be independently deployed, small enough to be expendable if worse comes to worst, cheap enough to be built in large numbers, and powerful enough to stand up to other destroyers and light cruisers. The destroyer was never intended to fight heavy cruisers or above, and was never really survivable against those types. Essentially, a destroyer is used to protect and police commerce, and for scouting, anti-reconnaissance, system pickets, commerce raiding, and to screen heavier forces against harassment by other light units.

In terms of commerce protection, the destroyer (with appropriate upgrades to reflect changes in war fighting technology, like the Roland-class "spring design" I gave you a while back) is a unit powerful enough to compel an enemy to deploy heavy units if he wants to raid your commerce. Its job isn't to destroy heavy cruisers, but rather to make it difficult or impossible for anything lighter than heavy cruisers to get through to your convoys and to compel the heavy cruisers themselves to operate cautiously (by presenting the risk of potentially non-repairable damage to the raider) in order to dissuade attacks on individual merchant ships or convoys under destroyer escort. If an attack is pressed home by a heavier unit, the destroyer is also expected to buy time for the convoy to scatter or the merchant ships to evade, which usually equates to dying gallantly in defense of the merchies in the approved Saganami fashion. Obviously, the destroyer is also intended to completely deter attacks by outright pirates, and a ship like the Roland or even the Chanson-upgrade would be more than adequate to handle 90-plus percent of the pirates one is likely to encounter. When it comes to policing commerce, the primary function of the destroyer is to patrol, stop, and search. For [customs] work within a star system, it would make more sense to use LACs in this role, but beyond the hyper limit, the LAC's inability to enter hyper makes that impractical. Destroyers are ideal for stopping suspected slavers, for intercepting hyper-capable ships which attempt to evade inspection, etc.

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Oh, and a tidbit that it's a destroyer to get it past Janacek.

So the Rolands aren't really destroyers. They probably ought to be classed as light cruisers.

It now is, but it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If, as the quote you included, the role of a destroyer is to compel the enemy to deploy at least a cruiser, then the Roland is overkill. It can go against anyone's cruisers, even the RMNs light ones and anything older than a Saganami, probably a B. That pushes light and heavy cruisers up in size too: no light cruiser smaller than 350k tonnes and no heavies smaller than 550k. And once everyone is at that range, then a 250k-tonne destroyer is justified.

But like I said, self-fulfilling.

Though one thing that does class them as destroyers is the number of missiles tubes on the broadside: 6. The Valiant-class CLs had 8, same as the Prince Consort-class CAs. A destroyer will shoot itself dry in relatively little time, whereas a cruiser might be expected to last longer.

They had to design something that, despite filling the niche of a light cruiser, was still clearly a destroyer. If, on the other hand, they had had the freedom to design (and budget to build) a real Minimum Viable Combatant, they may have opted for something bigger.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Oh, and a tidbit that it's a destroyer to get it past Janacek.

So the Rolands aren't really destroyers. They probably ought to be classed as light cruisers.

tlb wrote:Considering the size inflation, I believe the answer is "NO"; the Roland really is a destroyer.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:It now is, but it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If, as the quote you included, the role of a destroyer is to compel the enemy to deploy at least a cruiser, then the Roland is overkill. It can go against anyone's cruisers, even the RMNs light ones and anything older than a Saganami, probably a B. That pushes light and heavy cruisers up in size too: no light cruiser smaller than 350k tonnes and no heavies smaller than 550k. And once everyone is at that range, then a 250k-tonne destroyer is justified.

But like I said, self-fulfilling.

I do not think that is correct; the Roland design was a reaction to the change in the missile environment that started with the introduction of the modern missile pod. Everyone needed to increase the counter missile capabilities in every class of ship because of the possible missile tsunami coming their way. Which then meant that they also had to increase the number of missiles each class could shoot to get through that improved defense. That was what drove the size inflation of every class, with financial considerations and the compensator weight limit offering the only restraints.

It is not a "self-fulfilling prophecy"; when the author tells you how things are changing, because of technological improvements. That is more on the order of a positive feedback loop.

tlb wrote:I do not think that is correct; the Roland design was a reaction to the change in the missile environment that started with the introduction of the modern missile pod. Everyone needed to increase the counter missile capabilities in every class of ship because of the possible missile tsunami coming their way.

In first few books, It was stated that a LAC ~= DD in terms of offensive fire. Albeit 1 shot... No LAC can equal offensive fire of a Roland.

In middle few books, it was stated that a LAC ~= DD in terms of defensive fire. No LAC can equal defensive fire of a Roland.

In fact, all DD's have been kicked OUT of fleet engagements for anything other than scouting hyperbands, picketing systems or being an expensive courier boat.

If you are a scout, in hyperbands with LIMITED distance vision capability, why do you need DDM? If you are picketing a system, why do you need DDM and 20 CM' tubes? If you get jumped--> RUN, that is your job. To warn others, not to fight.

This essentially leaves Roland Design its other duties. Short range(why would a 189kton ship be short ranged??? These ships are ~built by robots anyways, a larger fuel tank is ~free in HV manufacturing "logic". So, anti piracy--> Great, but who needs DDM for anti piracy and you have ZERO marines--> Z-E-R-O(AKA LAC territory). If attacking commerce, both RMN/RHN doctrine is to use CA's/BC's, not DD's. So, why do we need a DDM armed DD for this? I know DD Roland showing up and blowing away BC's was cool and all, but not realistic.

And why on earth would you invest all that $$$ in R&D and not make capability for marines to be aboard? Making a common DD/CL design? Throw in ~2 EDM tubes per broadside if you are really worried about a single hit taking out 6 missile tubes at once. CL's do not have armor either so, what is the point?

Having so many classes o ships has NEVER made any sense to me in the HV. Sure, as tech has advanced quickly it makes sense, but after it plateaus? Nope. Simplify. Logistics & Personnel commonality training reasons for nothing else.

Operation costs today on a ship = 50++%%% of the cost, so a tiny bit more upfront costs allowing you to do BOTH jobs of DD/CL--> Why would you not? Probably less than 10,000t, since old DD's with HALF the tonnage or less, had ~120 marines on board. I find it absurd a 190k ton ship has no ability to have marines on board. The savings in 2 classes and a TINY lower "fuel bill" of vacuuming up some hydrogen out of the local gas giant is pitifully miniscule. If you do not want marines aboard sucking down resources, just do not put them on!

I mean think about it we have SD, DN, CLAC, BB, BC, CA, CL, DD, FF, LAC--> 10 classes of warship. 10!!! Not even at the height of the Royal Navy were there ever 10! classes of warship were there? I am no expert on the first world wide naval empire, but I have read quite a bit and I do not recall there ever being 10!!!! classes of warship. Maybe I am a dunderhead, but I cannot for the life of me think of more than 7. My very brief recollection is 7 classes be it sailing ships, or Steel ships. And even then several of those RN classes were effectively non existent or just OLD ships massively derated. Not classes actually BUILT from the keel up as new.

Anyways, gotta go make dinner. Daddy dinner night. Homemade pizza time.

Relax wrote:I mean think about it we have SD, DN, CLAC, BB, BC, CA, CL, DD, FF, LAC--> 10 classes of warship. 10!!! Not even at the height of the Royal Navy were there ever 10! classes of warship were there? I am no expert on the first world wide naval empire, but I have read quite a bit and I do not recall there ever being 10!!!! classes of warship. Maybe I am a dunderhead, but I cannot for the life of me think of more than 7. My very brief recollection is 7 classes be it sailing ships, or Steel ships. And even then several of those RN classes were effectively non existent or just OLD ships massively derated. Not classes actually BUILT from the keel up as new.

You are including classes that that the RMN did not have in the war with Haven: Frigate and Battleship. Also I am not sure any further Dreadnoughts were built during the war, they had been replaced by the Super Dreadnought.

I looked up ship classes for the US Navy in WW2 and came up with this list: PT boat, Landing Ship - Tank, Submarine, Minesweeper, Corvette, Destroyer, Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battleship, Escort Carrier and Carrier. There might be more, but I stopped at that point.

Perhaps you would prefer not to count the PT boat (boat, not ship); but then we should drop the LAC from your list, since it is not hyper-capable.

Relax wrote:This essentially leaves Roland Design its other duties. Short range(why would a 189kton ship be short ranged??? These ships are ~built by robots anyways, a larger fuel tank is ~free in HV manufacturing "logic".

I missed the point where the author said that the Roland was short ranged. Where is that stated?

Relax wrote:In fact, all DD's have been kicked OUT of fleet engagements for anything other than scouting hyperbands, picketing systems or being an expensive courier boat.

If you are a scout, in hyperbands with LIMITED distance vision capability, why do you need DDM? If you are picketing a system, why do you need DDM and 20 CM' tubes? If you get jumped--> RUN, that is your job. To warn others, not to fight.

This essentially leaves Roland Design its other duties. Short range(why would a 189kton ship be short ranged??? These ships are ~built by robots anyways, a larger fuel tank is ~free in HV manufacturing "logic". So, anti piracy--> Great, but who needs DDM for anti piracy and you have ZERO marines--> Z-E-R-O(AKA LAC territory). If attacking commerce, both RMN/RHN doctrine is to use CA's/BC's, not DD's. So, why do we need a DDM armed DD for this? I know DD Roland showing up and blowing away BC's was cool and all, but not realistic.

One of the roles DDs still play is convoy escort. And if you get jumped doing that you can't just run (well you can, but it's probably your career. Plus your training and traditions say to stay and defend the convoy)

So that's a situation where DDMs would be quite beneficial. Let's you outrange legacy units and still gives you the ability to return fire if you eventually run up against somebody with modern missiles.

If you think your opponent might be able to send DDM (or now Cataphract) armed cruisers after your convoy then you either need more numerous DDM armed destroyers or you have to use your much more expensive DDM equipped cruisers for convoy protection.