What did Captain Zavala do next? and the SL's reaction.

fallsfromtrees wrote:I haven't really heard where you plan on putting the messing area, and the training areas, including the firing range, for the marines. Those are also requirements, and the firing range in particular could be a little difficult to fit it. It won't do much good to have marines on board if they are rusty as hell when you get to the destination that they are supposed to assault.

kzt wrote:

I suspect that it's not exactly impossible to use the mess facilities provided for the flag staff?

Where do you suggest they practice normally using their anti-armor weapons, the ones utilizing wedges or nuclear charge initiated plasma bolts? In the mess hall of a broadsword? How do you think the pinnace pilots practice their drop skills given that most ships spend their transit time in grav wave? Does this seems to result in horrible accidents due to their lack of familiarity with how to fly a pinnace?

For that matter, where exactly do you think the armor platoon of a marine battalion on an amphib in the western pacific practices fire and maneuver? How about an infantry company deliberate attack exercise?

No, these are done in training areas, with reinforcement via simulators when possible. People really don't forget how to shoot or fly in a few weeks if you really have been trained to the level where you should be.

Jonathan_S wrote:And for small arms (or even pulse rifle) firing practice we have no reason to think that the Roland's designers omitted the firing lanes that were standard on other RMN warships - where any naval crewman can practice anything from dueling pistols to (IIRC) pulse rifles.

That's where the Rolands naval ratings, who are to some degree cross trained for boarding actions, or away missions, would do their live fire practice.

Now given the miniscule crew compliment of the Roland it may only be a couple firing lanes, so scheduling the extra Marines through might be annoying.


As an aside - it's probably not long enough to serve as a good rifle range without some computer simulation / support. But it should be easy enough to do something like a holo target pretending to be 200+ yards past backstop and a computer able to extrapolate from where the rounds hit the grav stop to show the virtual remainder of their trajectory.

OK. Answers my questions. I suppose in the followup ships (since the Roland is a transitional type), that proper marine quarters will be included, at least as an option.

These things are destroyers, guys. I won't go so far as to say what what everyone is suggesting can't be done. But I do wonder if we are talking about BCs in disguise.

The thing is, Rolands are small. They have been upsized a bit to allow to carry a decent load of Mark 16s along with the tubes to launch them. And yes there is a flag bridge. But I bet the thing is pretty cramped, probably more like the auxillary bridge on the old War Maiden with only the bare bones a flag officer would need to do his job. As far as a separate mess for flag officers, I bet not. If it's important for them to eat separately, if I were the designer, they would be eating on different shifts than the rest of the crew rather than separate Places.

Do you need Marines? Arrange separate transport for them and their gear. Also, Rolands probably are not going to be deployed solo. A squadron or a division, yes. In that case, they probably need transport for extra missiles anyway.

Maybe what you guys are suggesting is doable and sometimes its a case of needs must. But my bet is that no one would try it unless there was absolutely no other choice.

Don

n7axw wrote:These things are destroyers, guys. I won't go so far as to say what what everyone is suggesting can't be done. But I do wonder if we are talking about BCs in disguise.

The thing is, Rolands are small. They have been upsized a bit to allow to carry a decent load of Mark 16s along with the tubes to launch them. And yes there is a flag bridge. But I bet the thing is pretty cramped, probably more like the auxillary bridge on the old War Maiden with only the bare bones a flag officer would need to do his job. As far as a separate mess for flag officers, I bet not. If it's important for them to eat separately, if I were the designer, they would be eating on different shifts than the rest of the crew rather than separate Places.

Do you need Marines? Arrange separate transport for them and their gear. Also, Rolands probably are not going to be deployed solo. A squadron or a division, yes. In that case, they probably need transport for extra missiles anyway.

Maybe what you guys are suggesting is doable and sometimes its a case of needs must. But my bet is that no one would try it unless there was absolutely no other choice.

Don

Thinking about it, it is not even clear why there is a flag bridge on a destroyer. I would have thought that if you were going to have a set of destroyers on detached duty, you would do as the SL did at Torch, where the flag was actually on a light cruiser, which could be larger and have a separate flag bridge.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Thinking about it, it is not even clear why there is a flag bridge on a destroyer. I would have thought that if you were going to have a set of destroyers on detached duty, you would do as the SL did at Torch, where the flag was actually on a light cruiser, which could be larger and have a separate flag bridge.

I don't recall where, but there is a textev infodump that explains the problems the RMN encountered by not having sufficient small-ship flagships available.

One point not made directly, but having a flag deck does give the Rolands the capability of ferrying diplomats as well as providing facilities for squadron command.

--snipping--

fallsfromtrees wrote:Thinking about it, it is not even clear why there is a flag bridge on a destroyer. I would have thought that if you were going to have a set of destroyers on detached duty, you would do as the SL did at Torch, where the flag was actually on a light cruiser, which could be larger and have a separate flag bridge.

There's a bit of logic in the textev, but I agree that it makes more sense to have a flag bridge on a Sag-C. Problem with that logic is that the Janacek admiralty -- which approved the basic Roland and Saganami-A designs -- wasn't known for good sense. It was known for "yes men", cronyism, and corruption. The admiralty slipped the Saganami-C design, pretty much a different breed of cat -- under the radar, and between the two, I think they pretty much made every RMN ship in between temporarily irrelevant.

In another thread, I sort of argue that the ideal small squadron might have multiple Rolands, a Sag C, an Agammemnon, and an ammo/repair ship, with the -C and the Aggie having more of the flag space, plus the training facilities, etc. for the Marines, etc. and perhaps fleshing out the Roland 3rd shift crews with said Marines. But I'm not RFC... so we shall see.

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

fallsfromtrees wrote:Thinking about it, it is not even clear why there is a flag bridge on a destroyer. I would have thought that if you were going to have a set of destroyers on detached duty, you would do as the SL did at Torch, where the flag was actually on a light cruiser, which could be larger and have a separate flag bridge.

There's a bit of logic in the textev, but I agree that it makes more sense to have a flag bridge on a Sag-C. Problem with that logic is that the Janacek admiralty -- which approved the basic Roland and Saganami-A designs -- wasn't known for good sense. It was known for "yes men", cronyism, and corruption. The admiralty slipped the Saganami-C design, pretty much a different breed of cat -- under the radar, and between the two, I think they pretty much made every RMN ship in between temporarily irrelevant.

In another thread, I sort of argue that the ideal small squadron might have multiple Rolands, a Sag C, an Agammemnon, and an ammo/repair ship, with the -C and the Aggie having more of the flag space, plus the training facilities, etc. for the Marines, etc. and perhaps fleshing out the Roland 3rd shift crews with said Marines. But I'm not RFC... so we shall see.

The reason is simple regarding Flag Deck:

Cruisers are the smallest ship for Independent deployment. Destroyers are not tasked with independent deployment. Destroyers are tasked assignments in squadron/division strength. Ergo Destroyers need a Flag deck. If a Cruiser is around to head up a destroyer squadron, then sure, the flag may choose to move to the more powerful vessel.

Another reason no one has brought up is that the Apollo Class and Avalon class CL's may not have a flag deck at all. There are roughly 400 such ships in inventory...

wastedfly wrote:The reason is simple regarding Flag Deck:

Cruisers are the smallest ship for Independent deployment. Destroyers are not tasked with independent deployment. Destroyers are tasked assignments in squadron/division strength. Ergo Destroyers need a Flag deck. If a Cruiser is around to head up a destroyer squadron, then sure, the flag may choose to move to the more powerful vessel.

Another reason no one has brought up is that the Apollo Class and Avalon class CL's may not have a flag deck at all. There are roughly 400 such ships in inventory...

That does touch on another issue in these parts: the Roland/Avalon/Saganami-C generation is all transitional. The Roland and Saganami-C have grown way out of proportion to traditional size range for their types; the Roland is thoroughly rearranged inside for spinal missile fire; none of these is meant to represent a new settled plateau in ship design. And they're all what could be put into service by BuShips under an uncooperative Janacek admiralty, for use in an unsettled limbo between peace and war, against enemies that don't necessarily but could have comparable capabilities.

The Roland is meant to find things and wreck things, as the minimal new hyper-capable wrecking unit. It's very good at that. It's got some flag facilities, because it's intended to operate in groups and that capability may let it serve as a flag for Avalons that don't. In the event, the Roland is drawing a lot of work that would be better for a light cruiser - Talbott and Meyers have been environments quite unlike anything contemplated by a Janacek Admiralty or even BuShips.

In the future, the RMN is probably going to need a lot more light cruiser capability, while still needing the kind of firepower the Roland has and the Avalon doesn't. I suspect their next generation minimal hyper-capable unit - at least the one built in bulk - is likely to be a bit larger than either of them and to combine Avalon range and cruising capabilities with Roland firepower and (maybe) the Roland spinal missile architecture. (Maybe not, since if it's larger, the Roland's peculiar design may not be necessary that way.)

In the nearer future, sending some Avalon's to Talbott/Meyers would be great, and mixed squadrons with some small Marine component in them would make situations like Saltash a lot more easily managed.

JeffEngel wrote:

wastedfly wrote:The reason is simple regarding Flag Deck:

Cruisers are the smallest ship for Independent deployment. Destroyers are not tasked with independent deployment. Destroyers are tasked assignments in squadron/division strength. Ergo Destroyers need a Flag deck. If a Cruiser is around to head up a destroyer squadron, then sure, the flag may choose to move to the more powerful vessel.

Another reason no one has brought up is that the Apollo Class and Avalon class CL's may not have a flag deck at all. There are roughly 400 such ships in inventory...

That does touch on another issue in these parts: the Roland/Avalon/Saganami-C generation is all transitional. The Roland and Saganami-C have grown way out of proportion to traditional size range for their types; the Roland is thoroughly rearranged inside for spinal missile fire; none of these is meant to represent a new settled plateau in ship design. And they're all what could be put into service by BuShips under an uncooperative Janacek admiralty, for use in an unsettled limbo between peace and war, against enemies that don't necessarily but could have comparable capabilities.

The Roland is meant to find things and wreck things, as the minimal new hyper-capable wrecking unit. It's very good at that. It's got some flag facilities, because it's intended to operate in groups and that capability may let it serve as a flag for Avalons that don't. In the event, the Roland is drawing a lot of work that would be better for a light cruiser - Talbott and Meyers have been environments quite unlike anything contemplated by a Janacek Admiralty or even BuShips.

In the future, the RMN is probably going to need a lot more light cruiser capability, while still needing the kind of firepower the Roland has and the Avalon doesn't. I suspect their next generation minimal hyper-capable unit - at least the one built in bulk - is likely to be a bit larger than either of them and to combine Avalon range and cruising capabilities with Roland firepower and (maybe) the Roland spinal missile architecture. (Maybe not, since if it's larger, the Roland's peculiar design may not be necessary that way.)

In the nearer future, sending some Avalon's to Talbott/Meyers would be great, and mixed squadrons with some small Marine component in them would make situations like Saltash a lot more easily managed.

Let's also not forget that the Wolfhound design was supposed to be built in large #s and the Roland was supposed to be the limited edition model. In that fleet config, it would make sense to have the Wolfhounds running all over the place as independant units and the masssive, heavily armed flag equipped Rolands as the DD "Leaders" heading DD groups.

As happened, the war capped the Wolfhounds at 19 completed hulls (with 20+ destroyed at Grendlesbane), and the Heavily equipped Roland was the new mass-produced front line DD, despite it's greater cost.

Their was a 2 tier design plan, like the Prince Consort/Crusader CAs, but the War had other plans. (besides, the Crusader showed that a dedicated Flag unit caused constant fleet structure problems due to maintenance schedules.

JeffEngel wrote:The Roland is meant to find things and wreck things, as the minimal new hyper-capable wrecking unit. It's very good at that. It's got some flag facilities, because it's intended to operate in groups and that capability may let it serve as a flag for Avalons that don't. In the event, the Roland is drawing a lot of work that would be better for a light cruiser - Talbott and Meyers have been environments quite unlike anything contemplated by a Janacek Admiralty or even BuShips.

In the future, the RMN is probably going to need a lot more light cruiser capability, while still needing the kind of firepower the Roland has and the Avalon doesn't. I suspect their next generation minimal hyper-capable unit - at least the one built in bulk - is likely to be a bit larger than either of them and to combine Avalon range and cruising capabilities with Roland firepower and (maybe) the Roland spinal missile architecture. (Maybe not, since if it's larger, the Roland's peculiar design may not be necessary that way.)

Well Helen may have been wrong about "Nothing smaller (or older) than a Saganami-C-class ship would ever be able to handle [Mk16s]" because she wasn't thinking of spinally mounting them. But she probably was fairly close to correct if you're talking about a conventional broadside mounting.

And the Sag-C is roughly 55% wider (at 74m) than the Avalon (48
m), and still almost 40% wider wider than the Roland (54m). Even if you went with something a bit bitter than the Roland as your new CL design you'd almost certainly have to do something non-standard to fit it with Mk16 tubes.

Based on previous discussions here it wouldn't necessarily have to be spinal tubes though... (as an aside, a hypothetical CL(L)'s diameter probably isn't sufficiently larger to let you fit in another row of spinal tubes - so it would likely have no more than the same 6 chase tubes a Roland has)
Some other options that were floated were:
* Asymmetric broadsides (tubes on only one broadside)
* Interleaved tubes (tubes and feeds that stretch past the midpoint so the breach of the port tubes nestled between the starboard tubes)
* Angled tubes (have the tubes in a chevron pattern, when seen from above)

Now all of those have survivability and damage control implications (as of course do the spinal tubes), not to mention ship design issues.

Jonathan_S wrote:

JeffEngel wrote:The Roland is meant to find things and wreck things, as the minimal new hyper-capable wrecking unit. It's very good at that. It's got some flag facilities, because it's intended to operate in groups and that capability may let it serve as a flag for Avalons that don't. In the event, the Roland is drawing a lot of work that would be better for a light cruiser - Talbott and Meyers have been environments quite unlike anything contemplated by a Janacek Admiralty or even BuShips.

In the future, the RMN is probably going to need a lot more light cruiser capability, while still needing the kind of firepower the Roland has and the Avalon doesn't. I suspect their next generation minimal hyper-capable unit - at least the one built in bulk - is likely to be a bit larger than either of them and to combine Avalon range and cruising capabilities with Roland firepower and (maybe) the Roland spinal missile architecture. (Maybe not, since if it's larger, the Roland's peculiar design may not be necessary that way.)

Well Helen may have been wrong about "Nothing smaller (or older) than a Saganami-C-class ship would ever be able to handle [Mk16s]" because she wasn't thinking of spinally mounting them. But she probably was fairly close to correct if you're talking about a conventional broadside mounting.

And the Sag-C is roughly 55% wider (at 74m) than the Avalon (48
m), and still almost 40% wider wider than the Roland (54m). Even if you went with something a bit bitter than the Roland as your new CL design you'd almost certainly have to do something non-standard to fit it with Mk16 tubes.

Based on previous discussions here it wouldn't necessarily have to be spinal tubes though... (as an aside, a hypothetical CL(L)'s diameter probably isn't sufficiently larger to let you fit in another row of spinal tubes - so it would likely have no more than the same 6 chase tubes a Roland has)
Some other options that were floated were:
* Asymmetric broadsides (tubes on only one broadside)
* Interleaved tubes (tubes and feeds that stretch past the midpoint so the breach of the port tubes nestled between the starboard tubes)
* Angled tubes (have the tubes in a chevron pattern, when seen from above)

Now all of those have survivability and damage control implications (as of course do the spinal tubes), not to mention ship design issues.

Thanks. Right then - I'll plunk down the guess that they will either (1) stick with an essentially Roland configuration for the hypothetical "Roland II" "new light cruiser", but with a bit more size for more people, more stores, more active defenses (to minimize the risks the hammerhead main batteries inflict) and more magazine size, and possibly more recon drones or a larger boat bay, or (2) swallow the initial cost and go with something very like a Saganami-C as the standard "small" workhorse cruiser.

I don't think the RMN really would feel the need for more than a Roland's firepower for a "small" hyper-capable warship. It's issues of endurance and cruiser mission capability that are open to welcome improvement. There's still some niche for the destroyer role, as opposed to the old frigate/light cruiser one. But given the reduced size of that niche (with LAC's for in-system fleet screening and Ghost Rider recon drones for recon), how much the larger hulls demanded by MDM missiles (even the smallest dual-drive ones) invite picking up the cruising capabilities at a much smaller marginal cost, and the change of their operational environment from the huge, intense fighting of the Havenite Wars to the long-distance, often independent, play-so-much-by-ear encounters in the conflict with the League and Alignment... keeping a separate design specifically for the narrowly destroyer niche may no longer be all that necessary or desirable.