More: "old ship use" for armchair admirals

Jonathan_S wrote:

The E wrote:
No fun. Because here's the thing: We already know that the idea of building a CLAC/Podnought hybrid is dead from the start. Everything it can do, a small selection of already existing craft can do better. We also know that there is no way in hell for the only people capable of building such a thing to seriously consider doing so, HMS Wayfarer notwithstanding.

Speculations in the Honorverse boil down to figuring out how to address a given situation with the tools in hand, not making up an arbitrary situation and then inventing a solution for it (also known in these circles as the "Skimper method").

[snip]
4. Wayfarer and her sisters were clear cases of "Needs must when the devil drives". They were only launched because the ships that would normally be put on antipiracy patrols were needed elsewhere; a BatCruRon would have been able to perform the same duties more efficiently. Using them as a pattern to base purpose-built ships on when you could use the same design and yard capacity for better things is idiotic.

I'd nitpick that for some of the anti-piracy work in Silesia (a special case that is no longer a factor) having parasite ships capable of covering more of the hyperlimit (while still being able to tackle your average pirate ship) gives you more flexibility than any single battlecruiser. (And there's no reason to assume a BatCruRon would operate in formation rather than scattering one ship per system like the AMC squadron did)

Of course, for that purpose, Warfarer would have been even better off with double the LAC count; even if it cost her a bit of broadside weight and some pod pay volume.


But I totally agree that the hybrids are a bad basis for designing a 'real' warship. And in most cases you get more usefulness and flexibility (not to mention survivabiliyt) from a squadron or division of smaller ships, or a CLAC paired with an SD(P), rather that one "Battlestar" that tries to do everything.

It is true that Wayfarer and her consorts were less than ideal designs. But what they really were was proof of concept for Hemphill's ideas, some of which worked out quite well such as the enhanced LACs and the pod layer design which went on to be key in the development of Manticore's modern navy.

It is also true that the Wayfarer class served in Silesia quite well in the pirate hunting and commerce protection role for a number of years despite their less than ideal design.

Don

Very cool points, goal met! Something I hadn't considered much -- is that my proverbial "Chimera II" mix needs to only transport the LACs plus (if a hybrid were desirable in any way) a butt-load of pods (ammo ship style) coded to work with perhaps several Rolands, because the Rolands are designed with near-flag decks, which would imply a better than average CIC/tactical control system per ship, and multiple dispersion points for the ghost-rider recon drones needed to tag and ID enemy ships for incoming alliance missiles.

Once a battle need is encountered an extremely powerful mini-fleet that is quite a bit easier to stealth would be quickly put into space including as many pods as are required and the carrier is out of range again, and the Rolands still haven't even used their internal tubes and limpeted pods. (I'm keeping in mind that Honor they gave Jackie Harmon pods at Sidemore in HoE, so it's a safe assumption that stealthed LACS can act as tow and launch platforms for one or two pods); might be something on another thread I haven't got to yet about that.

AKA even a fairly substantial SLN BaCruRon tries to jump the RMN in a verge system where they've had time to put in Rolands, deployed pods, and LACs and buhbye Frontier Fleet Ships.

SharkHunter wrote:Very cool points, goal met! Something I hadn't considered much -- is that my proverbial "Chimera II" mix needs to only transport the LACs plus (if a hybrid were desirable in any way) a butt-load of pods (ammo ship style) coded to work with perhaps several Rolands, because the Rolands are designed with near-flag decks, which would imply a better than average CIC/tactical control system per ship, and multiple dispersion points for the ghost-rider recon drones needed to tag and ID enemy ships for incoming alliance missiles.

Once a battle need is encountered an extremely powerful mini-fleet that is quite a bit easier to stealth would be quickly put into space including as many pods as are required and the carrier is out of range again, and the Rolands still haven't even used their internal tubes and limpeted pods. (I'm keeping in mind that Honor they gave Jackie Harmon pods at Sidemore in HoE, so it's a safe assumption that stealthed LACS can act as tow and launch platforms for one or two pods); might be something on another thread I haven't got to yet about that.

AKA even a fairly substantial SLN BaCruRon tries to jump the RMN in a verge system where they've had time to put in Rolands, deployed pods, and LACs and buhbye Frontier Fleet Ships.

Rolands can tow 15 pods without too much penalty and have the firecontrol for 36 missiles. LACs can tow 2 pods but lose 2/3 rds of their accel doing it and all their stealth ( even 1 pod destroys their stealth) and do not have MDM optimized firecontrol.

That being said, you're missing the major points mentioned above. A CLAC is optimally designed different than other ship designs. Putting the 2 together gives you not 1/2 of one and 1/2 of another, but something far less efficient. You may have a synnergy of tasks ( ie dumping cargo and running away), but if posible to construct, it's goig to be far less efficint than true units of the type.

You can make arguments on saved manpower, but a 4.5 Mton Volcano class ammo ship has a crew of less than 70. In addition, smaller CLACs need more crew per LAC, not fewer - the crew size of a butchered Chiamara is going to stay the same while the # of LAC crewman will go down. In addition, LAC wings do not normally carry spare maintence spcialists, they spread their specialists amongst the crews of their LACs. If you decrease the wing size below a certain point ( which we have not been told) you need to carry spare spcialists. So if you chop a Chiamara down to 54 LACS, it is possible you will need to carry 10 or more extra maintenance specialists.

Theemile wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:Very cool points, goal met! Something I hadn't considered much -- is that my proverbial "Chimera II" mix needs to only transport the LACs plus (if a hybrid were desirable in any way) a butt-load of pods (ammo ship style) coded to work with perhaps several Rolands, because the Rolands are designed with near-flag decks, which would imply a better than average CIC/tactical control system per ship, and multiple dispersion points for the ghost-rider recon drones needed to tag and ID enemy ships for incoming alliance missiles.

Once a battle need is encountered an extremely powerful mini-fleet that is quite a bit easier to stealth would be quickly put into space including as many pods as are required and the carrier is out of range again, and the Rolands still haven't even used their internal tubes and limpeted pods. (I'm keeping in mind that Honor they gave Jackie Harmon pods at Sidemore in HoE, so it's a safe assumption that stealthed LACS can act as tow and launch platforms for one or two pods); might be something on another thread I haven't got to yet about that.

AKA even a fairly substantial SLN BaCruRon tries to jump the RMN in a verge system where they've had time to put in Rolands, deployed pods, and LACs and buhbye Frontier Fleet Ships.

Rolands can tow 15 pods without too much penalty and have the firecontrol for 36 missiles. LACs can tow 2 pods but lose 2/3 rds of their accel doing it and all their stealth ( even 1 pod destroys their stealth) and do not have MDM optimized firecontrol.

That being said, you're missing the major points mentioned above. A CLAC is optimally designed different than other ship designs. Putting the 2 together gives you not 1/2 of one and 1/2 of another, but something far less efficient. You may have a synnergy of tasks ( ie dumping cargo and running away), but if posible to construct, it's goig to be far less efficint than true units of the type.

You can make arguments on saved manpower, but a 4.5 Mton Volcano class ammo ship has a crew of less than 70. In addition, smaller CLACs need more crew per LAC, not fewer - the crew size of a butchered Chiamara is going to stay the same while the # of LAC crewman will go down. In addition, LAC wings do not normally carry spare maintence spcialists, they spread their specialists amongst the crews of their LACs. If you decrease the wing size below a certain point ( which we have not been told) you need to carry spare spcialists. So if you chop a Chiamara down to 54 LACS, it is possible you will need to carry 10 or more extra maintenance specialists.

Let me make an argument based on existing naval technology. You are proposing to build an aircraft carrier that will carry only half the aircraft, but we will cram a bunch of cruise missiles in so that it can fight along side the other combatants.
Any naval officer who proposed such a chimera would be laughed out of the service.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Let me make an argument based on existing naval technology. You are proposing to build an aircraft carrier that will carry only half the aircraft, but we will cram a bunch of cruise missiles in so that it can fight along side the other combatants.
Any naval officer who proposed such a chimera would be laughed out of the service.

Unless the service in question was the Soviet (or now Russian navy)

They went hybrid with (or compromised) their Kiev-class aviation cruisers and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier carrying lighter air wings to enable a pretty heavy anti-ship missile loadout.


But the NATO Navies definitely all decided that cruise missiles belong on escorts, aircraft, or subs -- not on their carriers.

Jonathan_S wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:Let me make an argument based on existing naval technology. You are proposing to build an aircraft carrier that will carry only half the aircraft, but we will cram a bunch of cruise missiles in so that it can fight along side the other combatants.
Any naval officer who proposed such a chimera would be laughed out of the service.

Unless the service in question was the Soviet (or now Russian navy)

They went hybrid with (or compromised) their Kiev-class aviation cruisers and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier carrying lighter air wings to enable a pretty heavy anti-ship missile loadout.


But the NATO Navies definitely all decided that cruise missiles belong on escorts, aircraft, or subs -- not on their carriers.

Keeping explosive fire starters placed around the periphery on a ship full of loaded gas cans seems a good idea... Yea yea, they aren't gas cans any more. Kero cans. There is a reason for that armored deck where the detonator safety pins are removed on top of it and not inside. Yea Yea, I am sure the ruskies put armor between their cruise missiles and the hold, but still...

Soviet seaboard aircraft were very limited capability. They had very limited anti-ship capability.

"That being said, you're missing the major points mentioned above..."

Actually I was agreeing indirectly. What I was trying to imply was that the only thing some weird abortion of a half-CLAC ammo ship would be good for would be toting massive amounts of firepower and dropping it off where the LACs and other ships could do the fighting. Once they are there, that ship (whatever form) would just leave them behind and go fetch another set to deliver elsewhere.

Given that it is stated that a moderately sized freighter in the Cashimir incident is stated as having cargo holds big enough to put an RMN destroyer inside them, and with Manticore's control over many of the wormhole junctions after Lacoon II and the withdrawal of many hulls from Solarian space, getting LACs and pods to "faraway places" isn't an issue -- it's knowing when and where they'll be needed, and that is where the wide open future Honorverse beckons.

Thanks for the responses though, I learned some board rules and had a bit of fun being in the armchair.

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Let me make an argument based on existing naval technology. You are proposing to build an aircraft carrier that will carry only half the aircraft, but we will cram a bunch of cruise missiles in so that it can fight along side the other combatants.
Any naval officer who proposed such a chimera would be laughed out of the service.

-----------

See the Soviet / Russian Muskova class Aviation Cruisers. Effectively a heavy cruiser front half and a LPH rear deck. Effective ONLY as a helo-capable aviation platform with little aft defense.
The class did, however serve as a training platform for the Soviet Navy's first foray into Naval Aviation in the 1970's and 1980's.

Stewart

stewart wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:

Let me make an argument based on existing naval technology. You are proposing to build an aircraft carrier that will carry only half the aircraft, but we will cram a bunch of cruise missiles in so that it can fight along side the other combatants.
Any naval officer who proposed such a chimera would be laughed out of the service.

-----------

See the Soviet / Russian Muskova class Aviation Cruisers. Effectively a heavy cruiser front half and a LPH rear deck. Effective ONLY as a helo-capable aviation platform with little aft defense.
The class did, however serve as a training platform for the Soviet Navy's first foray into Naval Aviation in the 1970's and 1980's.

Stewart

And how did that work out for them. I suppose I should have said that no navy with any experience with aircraft carriers would consider building such a beast - The United Kingdom, US, Japan (not post WWII but prior).