An ideal raiding/defense squadron mix...

One of the other threads about Captain Zavala at Saltash (see link) has some fun conversations going on it,but I thought it would be interesting to break this out a separate thread,

http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6521

--snip--

JeffEngel wrote:...While I'm at it - For that next generation unit, if they are building it a bit larger than a destroyer, they may want to build it with some modular elements. For instance, with quarters/storage that can be configured without terribly trouble for either (1) flag staff and systems, (2) a Marine detachment, (3) additional stores for longer patrols, (4) (this one is a bit wilder, granted) systems to service and monitor a larger number of recon drones, for scouting work.

I've been thinking about this also, from the concept of hull count total instead of independent ships. For example, the detachment to Saltash was "five ships", the detachment to Mobius twelve. Based on Saltash, just the Marines [aboard the CLAC] and a Roland or two would have one just as nicely in terms of required combat power, because at Mobius the LAC which weren't even part of the tactical plan; the Sollies thought it was an SD, aka essentially HMS Cloud was window dressing.

Let's say, squadrons designed for "maximum multi-system, multi-mission types and coverages, ships from known, already built units" or maybe a small percentage new build from known types.

What think ye?

Kicking things off, here'a mine:

How about a standard squadron consisting of an Aggie, A Sag-C, and two Rolands? with a goal of having a good part of the "third shifters" for each ship crewed mostly by marine sub-units. Likely the Aggie has the morgue, for all of the marines, etc. for a loss of say 10% of their missile loadout, more than make-upable with limpeted pods on the smaller ships. Perhaps supported by one logistics fleet train ship / missile collier. [total, 5 hulls].

If you need even more firepower, known in advance -- maybe we're punching out a sector capital that has an FF fleet base or something similar, combine two squadrons of these and add a CLAC if available.

Obviously the number of squadrons is the lesser of "Roland count / 2 or available Sag c's or available Aggies, etc. but let's say you could get 40-50 of these "squadrons" unit- operational, sans the roving CLAC requirement.

SharkHunter wrote:One of the other threads about Captain Zavala at Saltash (see link) has some fun conversations going on it,but I thought it would be interesting to break this out a separate thread,

http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6521

--snip--

JeffEngel wrote:...While I'm at it - For that next generation unit, if they are building it a bit larger than a destroyer, they may want to build it with some modular elements. For instance, with quarters/storage that can be configured without terribly trouble for either (1) flag staff and systems, (2) a Marine detachment, (3) additional stores for longer patrols, (4) (this one is a bit wilder, granted) systems to service and monitor a larger number of recon drones, for scouting work.

I've been thinking about this also, from the concept of hull count total instead of independent ships. For example, the detachment to Saltash was "five ships", the detachment to Mobius twelve. Based on Saltash, just the Marines [aboard the CLAC] and a Roland or two would have one just as nicely in terms of required combat power, because at Mobius the LAC which weren't even part of the tactical plan; the Sollies thought it was an SD, aka essentially HMS Cloud was window dressing.

Let's say, squadrons designed for "maximum multi-system, multi-mission types and coverages, ships from known, already built units" or maybe a small percentage new build from known types.

What think ye?

I think a CLAC and its wing compared to a Roland as "one ship" in the count makes the ship count a very bad measure of force/resources.

Also, going in, the CLAC may have had a lot more to do at Mobius, for all they know.

I could use a reminder - Just what was the idea with the CLAC to Mobius? I know Marines aboard was a part of it, but I don't recall if the LAC count was maintained as normal or was reduced or even eliminated (!) in order to put it to work as a Marine transport. In that case - wasn't there a Marine transport available, or even some older cruisers fit for carrying more Marines?

Or were the LAC's intended as support for ground operations? Are they even suitable for that?

I apologize for potentially derailing the thread this soon.

As to the original point, or something like it: I'd rather have a better idea of what sort of particular mission is in mind and what's available to fulfill it. If it's left as vague as "maximum multi-system, multi-mission types and coverages, ships from known, already built units", well... A pair of older cruisers for Marine carriage, prize crews and range, and 4-6 Rolands or Saganami-C's, for buttkicking. I'm not much for the newer ships that don't aim for dual-drive missile use but still don't have the utility of the older, larger crews, and I wouldn't want to assume the availability of CLAC's, BC(L)'s, BC(P)'s, or wallers for a scratch squadron for who knows what.

SharkHunter wrote:One of the other threads about Captain Zavala at Saltash (see link) has some fun conversations going on it,but I thought it would be interesting to break this out a separate thread,

http://forums.davidweber.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6521

--snip--

JeffEngel wrote:...While I'm at it - For that next generation unit, if they are building it a bit larger than a destroyer, they may want to build it with some modular elements. For instance, with quarters/storage that can be configured without terribly trouble for either (1) flag staff and systems, (2) a Marine detachment, (3) additional stores for longer patrols, (4) (this one is a bit wilder, granted) systems to service and monitor a larger number of recon drones, for scouting work.

I've been thinking about this also, from the concept of hull count total instead of independent ships. For example, the detachment to Saltash was "five ships", the detachment to Mobius twelve. Based on Saltash, just the Marines [aboard the CLAC] and a Roland or two would have one just as nicely in terms of required combat power, because at Mobius the LAC which weren't even part of the tactical plan; the Sollies thought it was an SD, aka essentially HMS Cloud was window dressing.

Let's say, squadrons designed for "maximum multi-system, multi-mission types and coverages, ships from known, already built units" or maybe a small percentage new build from known types.

What think ye?

Regarding the LACs at Mobius, they were a bit more than window dressing. The sudden emergence of a hundred small warships, demonstrating acceleration rates far beyond that of the Sollies, meant that even without a single RMN cruiser (and they had 4) the Sollie Naval force was doomed. They couldn't fight that many ships, and they couldn't run for it.

The Rampart is the Sollies smaller destroyer; its top speed was given as 5.09 kps squared. The LAC accel is around 7 kps sqd. Even aside from their initial mis-identification of the CLAC as a waller, the presence of so many vessels, with that much speed--and the light cruisers couldn't even outrun the CLAC. Psychological warfare had always worked for the Sollies; now the intimidation factor is being used against them.

Re: raiders.

Why do you need additional stores for longer patrols? If you base supply depots/train elements at the wormholes, then you don't have so far to go. The crux is your target.

What is your target criteria? Is it solely military, or is there a political aim? If the aim is political, how do you shape the military action for a political response toward the direction you want to go?

Something for the Fleet Admirals to weigh in on...

Regards,

Rob

Interesting speculation, SharkHunter (BTW, do you? Hunt Sharks, that is).

I agree, the next generation of ships will be more 'elcletic' and able to multi-task easier than the current man-power limited SEM ships they currently have.

Those ships were built to fight the late Havenite Wars, where Marines were not as critical as getting heavy missile slavos on top of the opponent. Now they find themselves fighting forces that are literally targets and taking surrenders of masses of personnel many times their own complement. So the next generation will have to take that into account.

But right now, you have to fight with what you have.

As for Saltash and Mobius, Mike Henke had to deploy what she thought would (1) Be sufficient to perform the mission and (2) leave her with enough material to counter any other opforce actions. She apparently felt the mix of what she had against unknown forces was sufficient.

And it was not overkill. There is no overkill. There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload". (Schlock Mercenary).

Just saw your second post, can't argue with the distribution....if you have those ships available. Remember, the Manties are going to be fighting with what they have (no new ships, even small ones, for at least another year or more) and there are limited numbers of the newest ships. So you may have to include a couple of old destroyers and a Reliant BC with your Sag-C (see Pang Ya-Pau's force mix at Nolan in ART).

Still, force mix will be interesting the next book, especially with the RHN in the mix...

SharkHunter wrote:Kicking things off, here'a mine:

How about a standard squadron consisting of an Aggie, A Sag-C, and two Rolands? with a goal of having a good part of the "third shifters" for each ship crewed mostly by marine sub-units. Likely the Aggie has the morgue, for all of the marines, etc. for a loss of say 10% of their missile loadout, more than make-upable with limpeted pods on the smaller ships. Perhaps supported by one logistics fleet train ship / missile collier. [total, 5 hulls].

If you need even more firepower, known in advance -- maybe we're punching out a sector capital that has an FF fleet base or something similar, combine two squadrons of these and add a CLAC if available.

Obviously the number of squadrons is the lesser of "Roland count / 2 or available Sag c's or available Aggies, etc. but let's say you could get 40-50 of these "squadrons" unit- operational, sans the roving CLAC requirement.

Your mix is a small task group, I think.

The ships all have a different number of salvos. The Aggies 90, the Sag-C 30, the Rolands 20. Why not use mostly same-type ships in squadron strength, with a heavier punch from an Aggie or Nike if (and only if) necessary to the mission?

You are also setting up a situation where your "squadron" needs repair parts for multiple vessel types. We don't even know if the air scrubbers, for example, are the same size. . . . .

Regards

Rob

There's a scene during the first Havenite war in which Caparelli discusses the merits of recalling more outdated ships into yard hands for refits and maintenance.

It touched upon the idea that a non-homogeneous(mixed ships) squadron is only as capable as its least capable unit. An example was something like no point having five ships capable of 525g when the other three can only pull 450g.

A squadron of pure Rolands can dance around at nearly 800g, adding a CLAC pulls that down to something like 600g - a 25% reduction! Granted, not a huge problem with even SLN destroyers being slower than GA SDs, but it forces the Rolands to give up a large chunk of advantage they would otherwise be freely exploiting.

Sorta snipping and answering multiple bits..., the by the way my monicker is for "hunting for those dastardly 'Shark Class' ships that snuck-attacked our favorite home system".

SharkHunter wrote:...
How about a standard squadron consisting of an Aggie, A Sag-C, and two Rolands? with a goal of having a good part of the "third shifters" for each ship crewed mostly by marine sub-units. Likely the Aggie has the morgue, for all of the marines, etc. for a loss of say 10% of their missile loadout, more than make-upable with limpeted pods on the smaller ships. Perhaps supported by one logistics fleet train ship / missile collier. [total, 5 hulls]....

Re the CLAC: One of the questions seemed to think a CLAC was part of my five, it wasn't, it would only join in for operations where the fleet command decided it was necessary. My fifth ship is pure "squadron support", say Mark-16 missile reloads, perhaps the marine training facilities, parts and spares, etc.

Re: in my mix I temporarily left those out because they may not be not super-superior to "latest generation" FF units, etc. But in our real PD1922 universe, it would likely be required.

Armed Neo-Bob wrote:Your mix is a small task group, I think.

The ships all have a different number of salvos. The Aggies 90, the Sag-C 30, the Rolands 20. Why not use mostly same-type ships in squadron strength, with a heavier punch from an Aggie or Nike if (and only if) necessary to the mission?

You are also setting up a situation where your "squadron" needs repair parts for multiple vessel types. We don't even know if the air scrubbers, for example, are the same size. . . . .

Regards

Rob

Cool thoughts, the supply question answered up above. The reason it's a squadron is ship count. Maybe it becomes the ideal specified force mix for "Commodore training course 502: Independent Squadron Operations" But you're spot on with what I'm aiming for which is "task group capability with a minimum number of ships". It still leaves the rest of the Nike's CLACs, and all of the remaining available smaller ships to form 10th Fleet, Sarnow's fleet, etc. plus re-equipping all the older ship types which you can to handle the Mark-16, even if just in pod-limpeting mode.

Salvo wise, you're right, the Aggie has a whole lot of big hammers, so for many Talbott/Madras/Verge operations, it might be redundant or the strategic reserve. In a big action you'd want the Aggie to "shoot itself dry" to punch out as many opposing ships as possible in the initial engagement, leaving the ships with smaller salvo counts mostly fully armed through the whole battle space.

munroburton wrote:There's a scene during the first Havenite war in which Caparelli discusses the merits of recalling more outdated ships into yard hands for refits and maintenance.

It touched upon the idea that a non-homogeneous(mixed ships) squadron is only as capable as its least capable unit. An example was something like no point having five ships capable of 525g when the other three can only pull 450g.

A squadron of pure Rolands can dance around at nearly 800g, adding a CLAC pulls that down to something like 600g - a 25% reduction! Granted, not a huge problem with even SLN destroyers being slower than GA SDs, but it forces the Rolands to give up a large chunk of advantage they would otherwise be freely exploiting.

At the 90% power setting (which appears to be the new 'non-emergency' max for RMN ships) a Roland is capable of 702g - If a Hydra-class CLAC had an equally efficient compensator I calculate that it's 90% power would be 584.2g. So "only" about a 20% reduction

(Though CLACs are a bit "fatter" than other ship's of that displacement, so they may pay a slight acceleration penalty due to their hull form. It's something I talking briefly with Tom Pope about at Honorcon, but without his notes he was understandably reluctant to get pinned down on how much of an impact that might cause)

Jonathan_S wrote:

munroburton wrote:There's a scene during the first Havenite war in which Caparelli discusses the merits of recalling more outdated ships into yard hands for refits and maintenance.

It touched upon the idea that a non-homogeneous(mixed ships) squadron is only as capable as its least capable unit. An example was something like no point having five ships capable of 525g when the other three can only pull 450g.

A squadron of pure Rolands can dance around at nearly 800g, adding a CLAC pulls that down to something like 600g - a 25% reduction! Granted, not a huge problem with even SLN destroyers being slower than GA SDs, but it forces the Rolands to give up a large chunk of advantage they would otherwise be freely exploiting.

At the 90% power setting (which appears to be the new 'non-emergency' max for RMN ships) a Roland is capable of 702g - If a Hydra-class CLAC had an equally efficient compensator I calculate that it's 90% power would be 584.2g. So "only" about a 20% reduction

(Though CLACs are a bit "fatter" than other ship's of that displacement, so they may pay a slight acceleration penalty due to their hull form. It's something I talking briefly with Tom Pope about at Honorcon, but without his notes he was understandably reluctant to get pinned down on how much of an impact that might cause)

Typically though, the performance of the CLAC is not going to be relevant, as it will have dropped its LACs and retired, so the performance at issue here is not that of the CLAC, but the performance of the LACs.