Roland DD or not?

SharkHunter wrote:The Rolands can drop 12, which would be 'six per side' in an older ship, so salvo size is similar. Reduced crewing allows about 50% more missiles...

So, Rolands are... big honkin' destroyers with cruiser-weight whack-it sticks, and superior defenses -- against any non-MDM opponent.

The Roland has 12 tubes, yes, but it can stack the salvos and stagger drive activations and put 24 birds into space per salvo. So it puts out more than the broadside of a Sultan BC.

Also with the Mark 16 Mod G wasn't there discussion in SFtS between Helen and Jimmy Boy's TO that the Mod G gave the Mark 16 the hitting power of Manticore's capital ship missiles from the first war? That would give it SD whacking sticks, not cruiser.

icspots wrote:

SharkHunter wrote:The Rolands can drop 12, which would be 'six per side' in an older ship, so salvo size is similar. Reduced crewing allows about 50% more missiles...

So, Rolands are... big honkin' destroyers with cruiser-weight whack-it sticks, and superior defenses -- against any non-MDM opponent.

The Roland has 12 tubes, yes, but it can stack the salvos and stagger drive activations and put 24 birds into space per salvo. So it puts out more than the broadside of a Sultan BC.

Also with the Mark 16 Mod G wasn't there discussion in SFtS between Helen and Jimmy Boy's TO that the Mod G gave the Mark 16 the hitting power of Manticore's capital ship missiles from the first war? That would give it SD whacking sticks, not cruiser.

We're thinking similarly, I'm calling the salvo size Destroyer, because the PNS Vaubon light cruiser (in Honor among Enemies) could throw nine per side = 36 in a spun/stacked salvo. -Cruiser thacking weight not on a per missile basis, on a per-killable opponent basis. A Roland can ship-kill any non-Haven sector battle cruiser in a few stacked salvos, but it likely doesn't have the ammunition supply to take out an SD unless it's a golden BB, though the -G makes a mission kill on any ship more likely.

SharkHunter wrote:So, Rolands are... big honkin' destroyers with cruiser-weight whack-it sticks, and superior defenses -- against any non-MDM opponent.

Right. It's not based on tonnage/volume or on combat capability that they're not light cruisers - it's intended role. They're not fit for cruising - no excess crew, no Marines, magazines that are not deep for the fire rate (although with that firepower, there are so many places they don't _need_ to use full fire rate), and probably limited stores of supplies on board.

Again - not that anyone's disputing this - it's a transitional design in a world where the established rules for how to build a warship and what you can expect of it are up in the air. It's very, very effective, but - like BC(P)'s that way - it's entirely possible that it does a fine job at a role that fleets will not have for long, and the Roland will be the predecessor of something significantly different. My guess is that the destroyer/light cruiser distinction is going to vanish, with the additional capabilities that you need for the CL mission as something that you may as well build in to the DD, with the DD role crowded out on the other side by LAC's and recon drones. (It's entirely possible that the result will be called 'destroyer', 'light cruiser', 'cruiser', or, for all I can tell or care, 'frigate'.)

JeffEngel wrote:snip
Again - not that anyone's disputing this - it's a transitional design in a world where the established rules for how to build a warship and what you can expect of it are up in the air. It's very, very effective, but - like BC(P)'s that way - it's entirely possible that it does a fine job at a role that fleets will not have for long, and the Roland will be the predecessor of something significantly different. My guess is that the destroyer/light cruiser distinction is going to vanish, with the additional capabilities that you need for the CL mission as something that you may as well build in to the DD, with the DD role crowded out on the other side by LAC's and recon drones. (It's entirely possible that the result will be called 'destroyer', 'light cruiser', 'cruiser', or, for all I can tell or care, 'frigate'.)

Yes! Let's call them frigates, just so we can tell RFC, yes there is a role for frigates in the new galaxy.

fallsfromtrees wrote:Yes! Let's call them frigates, just so we can tell RFC, yes there is a role for frigates in the new galaxy.

You fallsfromtrees. Me falls on floor laughing. I will even back you up temporarily* because those danged American heavy frigates in the age of sail such as the USS Constitution were about 50% of the weight and gunnery of a ship of the line.

*I admit to being bribable into submission on any topic by a signed copy of anything Honorverse by runsforcelery. As opposed to Nimitz who is bribable with celery.

saber964 wrote:As I read LS's latest drivel, I am reminded that he is and almost always a bit of a fruitcake when it comes to ships in the Honorvers. That being said ships are defined by there mission and role in a navy. Look at the British Royal Navy of the CE. It has Frigates that are as big or bigger than some of its destroyers. That is because the RN has designated its FF/FFG's as its primary anti-sub platform and its DD/DDG's as its primary anti-air platform. Also the RMN has also experienced tonnage creep like even current era navies. In the USN the Spruance and I-Spruance DD's are as big as several classes of WWII era CL's and some CA's and the new Zumwalt class DDG's are as big or bigger than most WWII CA's and all of the CL's

----------------

You don't have to go back to WWII
Zumwalt's close in on the size of one of my old ships -- USS California CGN36 -- 596ft / 10,814 t
PCU Zumwalt DD1000 -- 600ft / 14,564 tons

-- Stewart

saber964 wrote:As I read LS's latest drivel, I am reminded that he is and almost always a bit of a fruitcake when it comes to ships in the Honorvers. That being said ships are defined by there mission and role in a navy. Look at the British Royal Navy of the CE. It has Frigates that are as big or bigger than some of its destroyers. That is because the RN has designated its FF/FFG's as its primary anti-sub platform and its DD/DDG's as its primary anti-air platform. Also the RMN has also experienced tonnage creep like even current era navies. In the USN the Spruance and I-Spruance DD's are as big as several classes of WWII era CL's and some CA's and the new Zumwalt class DDG's are as big or bigger than most WWII CA's and all of the CL's

A lot of folks here are Navy, or naval history buffs. But no one --not even RFC-- brings up the RN ships built from 1928-1945 that were called "colonial sloops", not "frigates." These were a series of destroyer-sized ships that needed cruising range, but not destroyer level arms. They were built in military yards to military specs, unlike the corvettes and frigates.

They were about the same tonnage as same-era destroyers but beamier. The width made them slow --initial ships were 16 knots, the later ones around 20 knots. They had smaller guns than the current destroyers (but bigger than WWI DDs); depth charges, and eventually a lot of anti-sub gear.

They were never intended for the Fleet; they were intended for long range patrols, anti-submarine functions in war, shore bombardments of non-hardened targets, and showing the flag, mostly in the areas east of the Indian Ocean.

The last iteration (Black Swans) continued in RN service until the mid-50's, longer than any of their other "escort" vessels, and served in the FRG's initial navy for over a decade. One of the mid-30's design sloops (Bittern) was the basis for designing the Hunt class.

Regards

Rob

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:A lot of folks here are Navy, or naval history buffs. But no one --not even RFC-- brings up the RN ships built from 1928-1945 that were called "colonial sloops", not "frigates." These were a series of destroyer-sized ships that needed cruising range, but not destroyer level arms. They were built in military yards to military specs, unlike the corvettes and frigates.

They were about the same tonnage as same-era destroyers but beamier. The width made them slow --initial ships were 16 knots, the later ones around 20 knots. They had smaller guns than the current destroyers (but bigger than WWI DDs); depth charges, and eventually a lot of anti-sub gear.

They were never intended for the Fleet; they were intended for long range patrols, anti-submarine functions in war, shore bombardments of non-hardened targets, and showing the flag, mostly in the areas east of the Indian Ocean.

The last iteration (Black Swans) continued in RN service until the mid-50's, longer than any of their other "escort" vessels, and served in the FRG's initial navy for over a decade. One of the mid-30's design sloops (Bittern) was the basis for designing the Hunt class.

Regards

Rob

Then you get into the US Navy's experiments with modifying Destroyers to better support convoy work. In 1919 they ordered some of the (still under construction) flush deckers to be completed as convoy escorts - one planned boiler was omitted and the volume used for extra fuel. This gave extra range at the cost of 5 knots of top speed.

Vaguely similar idea, but a more quick and dirty mod, rather that really redesigning them like the RN sloops.


I seem to recall that there were some similar modifications made during WWII, but I'm not quickly finding evidence of it.

Jonathan_S wrote:Then you get into the US Navy's experiments with modifying Destroyers to better support convoy work. In 1919 they ordered some of the (still under construction) flush deckers to be completed as convoy escorts - one planned boiler was omitted and the volume used for extra fuel. This gave extra range at the cost of 5 knots of top speed.

Vaguely similar idea, but a more quick and dirty mod, rather that really redesigning them like the RN sloops.


I seem to recall that there were some similar modifications made during WWII, but I'm not quickly finding evidence of it.

Destroyer escorts were WWII expedients in at least the same vein. Some of the same sort of thing got the 'frigate' designation too - roughly, destroyer escort in the USN, frigate in the RN and its cousins.

I don't think there is likely to be a close parallel with such ships in the Honorverse though, in that they classically traded speed (primarily - weapons and armor could also go soon after) for range and seaworthiness. On water, it's hard to keep something small, fast, and seaworthy. In space - with impeller and hyperdrives, anyway - very small and fast has been a problem historically, til modern RMN LAC's, and small, hyper-capable, and armed remains a doozy. But you don't lose much acceleration, no maximum normal space max speed, and no hyperspace max speed getting large, til the top of the SD range. The chief point of being small is being a minimal commitment of resources and personnel to a mission that does not require more: it's not to be fast, hard to spot, or hard to hit.

Practically, the Roland is part of the ongoing exploration of how well you can manage small, hypercapable, and combat-effective - and it does it by giving remaining small a very low priority. That's the lesson classic Honorverse frigate enthusiasts persistently don't get.

Jonathan_S wrote:

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:A lot of folks here are Navy, or naval history buffs. But no one --not even RFC-- brings up the RN ships built from 1928-1945 that were called "colonial sloops", not "frigates." These were a series of destroyer-sized ships that needed cruising range, but not destroyer level arms. They were built in military yards to military specs, unlike the corvettes and frigates.

They were about the same tonnage as same-era destroyers but beamier. The width made them slow --initial ships were 16 knots, the later ones around 20 knots. They had smaller guns than the current destroyers (but bigger than WWI DDs); depth charges, and eventually a lot of anti-sub gear.

They were never intended for the Fleet; they were intended for long range patrols, anti-submarine functions in war, shore bombardments of non-hardened targets, and showing the flag, mostly in the areas east of the Indian Ocean.

The last iteration (Black Swans) continued in RN service until the mid-50's, longer than any of their other "escort" vessels, and served in the FRG's initial navy for over a decade. One of the mid-30's design sloops (Bittern) was the basis for designing the Hunt class.

Regards

Rob

Then you get into the US Navy's experiments with modifying Destroyers to better support convoy work. In 1919 they ordered some of the (still under construction) flush deckers to be completed as convoy escorts - one planned boiler was omitted and the volume used for extra fuel. This gave extra range at the cost of 5 knots of top speed.

Vaguely similar idea, but a more quick and dirty mod, rather that really redesigning them like the RN sloops.


I seem to recall that there were some similar modifications made during WWII, but I'm not quickly finding evidence of it.

You wont find any separate listing for the escort Wickes and Clemson class four-piper destroyers. The USN modified dozens of the ships to various roles. IIRC they modified several as small seaplane tenders for forward areas, high speed transport carrying about a company of troops and four LCVP, escort destroyers.