Jane's Fighting Starships of the Commonwealth (293NE)

[tbeard1999]

Here are some more designs from my Commonwealth Campaign. I've decided to go with the armor and Big Darned Turret scheme I detailed here.

Some of these designs (primarily capital ships) will replace the ships in my Commonwealth Starships thread.

 

[tbeard1999]

IMS Royal Oak Fast Battleship

Others in class: (Nagumo, Nelson, Rodney, Spruance, Halsey, Yamamoto, Adama)

Type: Fast Battleship

Displacement: Streamlined, 3000 tons

Cost: MCr 1263.25 before discounts and without small craft

Drives: All drives Z, giving it Jump-4, Maneuver-4 and Power-4.

Fuel: 1240 tons

Armor: Super Heavy (Save 1+)

Armament:

6 triple light laser turrets
6 triple light missile turrets
1 triple heavy laser turrets
1 triple heavy missile turret

Fittings: 42 staterooms; 2 double sized command stateroom; 342 tons cargo; 100 ton small craft bay.

Electronics: Computer 7 with fiber optic backup

76 crew:

Captain 1
XO 1
Computer 1
Navigation 2
Medical 1
Communications 1
Ratings 4
Chief Engineer 1
Second Engineer 1
Engineer PO 2
Engineers 3
Chief Gunnery 1
Gunners 30
Marine Officers 1
Marines 26
Total 76

The Royal Oak class Fast Battleship is the newest capital ship in the Commonwealth Navy.

Originally designed to be a fast escort for Tarawa and Indefatigable class ships, the cancellation of the 5000 ton BB-4 class has converted it into "the primary expression of the Navy's controversial '4+4 Plan' ". The 4+4 Plan is the Navy's current Statement of Fleet Doctrine that calls for all warships and fleet support ships to be capable of Jump-4 and Maneuver-4.

Eventually, the Royal Oak class will form the core of the Navy's battleline, replacing the Virginia class dreadnought at a ratio of 1.5 to one.

Critics of the Royal Oak class generally acknowledge that the Royal Oak is a solid design; rather, they criticize the "4+4 Plan" primarily because it forces capital ships to be 3000 tons or smaller in design. As a result, the Royal Oak class only mounts 75% of the firepower of the 4000 ton Virginia class. Of course, the Royal Oak class is also proportionally less expensive and carries a smaller crew.

Supporters of the Royal Oak note correctly that it is twice as fast in combat and is also capable of Jump-4, which will allow it to respond to threats much faster than battlegroups centered around the Virginia class.

Originally, the Virginias were to be replaced by the projected BB-4 class of 5000 ton Jump-4 dreadnoughts. Since deployment of the BB-4 was dependent on development of new drives capable of producing Jump-4 and 4-G acceleration in a 5000 ton hull, the Navy knew that the BB-4 class would not be ready for another decade.

So, the Navy rushed the 3000 ton Royal Oak class light battleships into service, to provide the new carriers and assault ships with appropriate escorts. To stretch available funds, the Navy decided to retire the expensive Virginias early and rely on the Royal Oaks to fill the gap for a decade. As the new Royal Oaks came online, the Navy began transferring the Virginias to colonial and reserve fleets.

Unfortunately, ten years of development work failed to produce a deployable Jump-4 drive for the BB-4 class. The only BB-4 prototype, the Monitor, was nearly lost when its Jump drives overloaded on its initial jump and exploded, killing most of the ship's Engineering section. And her new maneuver drives nearly "shook the ship to pieces" at more than 2-G acceleration. Futile tinkering by Navy engineers failed to resolve the problem and finally, to someone's credit, the class was cancelled.

After the failure of the Monitor program, the Commonwealth Navy found itself with a problem -- it had no replacement for the Virginias. The Royal Oaks were excellent warships, but each mounted less firepower than a Virginia. Worse, precious shipyard space was being used mostly for the Indefatigable and Tarawa class ships. This has slowed procurement of the Royal Oak class.

The Navy's solution has been to return the Virginias to service until a suitable replacement could be deployed. Meanwhile, naval doctrine has been hastily revised (or "ret-conned" as some younger officers derisively sneered).

In many cases, Virginias have returned to service crewed by a significant percentage of colonial or reservist personnel and older officers. By contrast, the Royal Oaks tend to be crewed by younger, "best and brightest" crews. This has caused a certain amount of tension in the Fleet, as bad blood often develops between the two groups in port. Notably, the Fleet Marine Force seems inclined to ridicule such schisms -- and loudly so when on leave. Bar fights between Virginia and Royal Oak class crews have been known to turn into "Navy vs. Marines" fights...

Currently, the 12 Royal Oak class ships are deployed in 6 BatRons (Battleship Squadrons). These BatRons are often broken up to provide Indefatigable and Tarawa class battlegroups with a heavy battle element.

 

[sabredog]

Very nice design, my only question is will it be painted gray, China Station, or buff over white?

 

[Whipsnade]

Tbeard,

Superb stuff! It's details like these that bring a setting to life.

One minor quibble: Wouldn't each pair of Royal Oaks constitute a BatDiv (Battleship Division)? One to three (or four?) BatDivs would then make up BatRon.

Divisions within squadrons are both historical and canonical. One of CT's Ahzanti High Lightening supplements talks about a single CruDiv of post-retrofit vessels making up an understrength CruRon.

Also, does the Commonwealth suffer from the same escort "deficit" many historical navies did? Funding cruisers and battleships was seen as "sexier" by the civilian masters of navies as diverse as the RN, USN, IJN, and others. As late as 1917 Jellico still didn't have the number of destroyers necessary to screen the Grand Fleet, fight in the Harwich Force, fight in the Med, and escort convoys. Nearly 40 years later, King found himself in the same situation along the US' Eastern seaboard as his limited destroyer strength was swallowed up by the need to escort priority Atlantic convoys and screen the movement of various capital ships.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Tbeard,

Superb stuff! It's details like these that bring a setting to life.

One minor quibble: Wouldn't each pair of Royal Oaks constitute a BatDiv (Battleship Division)? One to three (or four?) BatDivs would then make up BatRon.

Historically, yes. Unfortunately, I made this mistake years ago, so I've retained it.

Also, does the Commonwealth suffer from the same escort "deficit" many historical navies did? Funding cruisers and battleships was seen as "sexier" by the civilian masters of navies as diverse as the RN, USN, IJN, and others. As late as 1917 Jellico still didn't have the number of destroyers necessary to screen the Grand Fleet, fight in the Harwich Force, fight in the Med, and escort convoys. Nearly 40 years later, King found himself in the same situation along the US' Eastern seaboard as his limited destroyer strength was swallowed up by the need to escort priority Atlantic convoys and screen the movement of various capital ships.

Not so much as these historical antecedents. There are three major factors that influence the Commonwealth Navy. First, the Commonwealth is an aggressive, free market democracy. Economic growth is a major objective (especially since its major foe has about 8 times its population). Thus, military spending is extremely constrained. The Navy is perenially short of funds and capital ships are very expensive. Second, the primary opponent isn't really much of a match for the Navy. The primary issues in a war between the Commonwealth and Caliphate are economic and logistical. Finally, the sheer size of the Commonwealth, compared with the resources the Navy has, forces the Navy to use large numbers of smaller ships. Indeed, the Navy even includes converted merchantmen (the San Pablo class gunboats), and large numbers of obsolescent ships (Shoho class light carriers, IMS Reliant frontier carrier, etc.).

However, there is a shortage of Jump-4/Maneuver-4 escort ships creating an analogous situation in the event of a shooting war.

The ubiquitous Saladin class light corvette and Cumberland class heavy corvette are Jump-2. The Jump-4 ANZAC class heavy corvettes are being procured slowly and most are deployed with the Indefatigable carrier groups and Tarawa assault groups. And so far, no Jump-4 light corvette has been deployed.

So at this point, the Navy's "4+4 Plan" is very incomplete.

 

[tbeard1999]

Very nice design, my only question is will it be painted gray, China Station, or buff over white?

I'm thinking battleship gray, of course...

 

[Whipsnade]

Historically, yes. Unfortunately, I made this mistake years ago, so I've retained it.

Ty,

I wouldn't call it a mistake. Instead, I'd call it a deliberate "Not In Kansas Anymore" detail.

Some player will "arrive" in your setting with the same naval crank knowledge I have and immediately begin making assumptions with said knowledge. When he learns that the Commonwealth space navy doesn't use the same "Divisions < Squadrons" model Earth ocean navies did, he'll begin to pay attention to the setting and stop sleepwalking through it.

It's a planned game feature and not design bug.

Not so much as these historical antecedents. (big snip of delightful and well thought out setting details

I like your "patroller-heavy" navy ideas very much. In fact, I've always liked them and I've always felt they'd be a more plausible model for large OTU navies than the current model. The fact that the current model is used becomes even more curious when you remember the canonical statements about IN strategic thinking changing from a "crustal" to an "islands of resistance" defense policy. (Of course, a "patroller-heavy" navy would make things much more difficult for the players so maybe that's why the other model was emphasized.)

However, there is a shortage of Jump-4/Maneuver-4 escort ships creating an analogous situation in the event of a shooting war.

That's both understandable and has historical precedent. The thinking has always been that the "missing" smaller escorts can be quickly produced when political tensions or war require it. Also, when you finally decide to build them, you can build escorts in more yards than the heavies. Of course, that thinking means that those escorts remain "missing" until they are built and the navy must make do until otherwise.

So at this point, the Navy's "4+4 Plan" is very incomplete.

Which provides those energetic Caliphate provincial governors with both a window of opportunity and a deadline. Very analogous to Wilhelmine Germany's thinking regarding Czarist Russia's railroad expansion, isn't it?

Interesting times indeed, Ty, interesting times indeed...


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

I'm thinking battleship gray, of course...

Ty (and Sabredog),

Ever visited USS Olympia in Philadelphia? Well worth the trip.

In a related note, the preservation process is going along well and it will be on display in a few years. What I'm talking about is the Monitor's turret.

I've stood on a platform and looked into the holding tank at that turret. I've seen the dents CSS Virginia's guns put in that turret.

I wasn't the only one shivering.


Regards,
Bill

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty (and Sabredog),

Ever visited USS Olympia in Philadelphia? Well worth the trip.

In a related note, the preservation process is going along well and it will be on display in a few years. What I'm talking about is the Monitor's turret.

I've stood on a platform and looked into the holding tank at that turret. I've seen the dents CSS Virginia's guns put in that turret.

I wasn't the only one shivering.


Regards,
Bill

Oh, now that is cool. I haven't seen Olympia, but I did tour New Jersey. How long has Olympia been there?

Interestingly, Olympia and Monitor have important roles in my interest in history. In 2nd Grade, a Cub Scout project was to build something solely out of a bag of odds and ends provided to each boy. My bag had (among other things), a thin board, a coffee can, a little toy American flag and 2 nails. I wanted to make a ship model somehow, so I looked in an encyclopedia that had dozens of ship drawings. In the middle of the page was Monitor, which fit the contents of my bag perfectly. I cut the hull shape out of the board, cut the coffee can in half, used the two nails as guns and put the flag on the back. I made the pilothouse out of scraps from the board. Won an honorable mention (this was the early 1970s and antiwar sentiment was rather high). Anyhow, this started a lifelong interest in Naval history. I read my first naval biography in 3rd grade -- Admiral George Dewey.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty,

I wouldn't call it a mistake. Instead, I'd call it a deliberate "Not In Kansas Anymore" detail.

Er...yeah, what you said.

I like your "patroller-heavy" navy ideas very much. In fact, I've always liked them and I've always felt they'd be a more plausible model for large OTU navies than the current model. The fact that the current model is used becomes even more curious when you remember the canonical statements about IN strategic thinking changing from a "crustal" to an "islands of resistance" defense policy. (Of course, a "patroller-heavy" navy would make things much more difficult for the players so maybe that's why the other model was emphasized.)

Glad you liked it. A good deal of inspiration for the campaign was the US and other Western China gunboat patrols in the 1920s-1930s, as well as colonial naval actions of the 19th century. The "small ship universe" seemed to dovetail nicely with that.

That's both understandable and has historical precedent. The thinking has always been that the "missing" smaller escorts can be quickly produced when political tensions or war require it. Also, when you finally decide to build them, you can build escorts in more yards than the heavies. Of course, that thinking means that those escorts remain "missing" until they are built and the navy must make do until otherwise.

Good thought, that. I hadn't really explored the idea that it might be an intentional decision. I'd just considered that the Navy's resources were stretched too tight. I think I'll swipe your idea.

Which provides those energetic Caliphate provincial governors with both a window of opportunity and a deadline. Very analogous to Wilhelmine Germany's thinking regarding Czarist Russia's railroad expansion, isn't it?

Now that you mention it, yes. I didn't explicitely think of it in those terms, but now I do.

Interesting times indeed, Ty, interesting times indeed...

Especially when you consider that the Commonwealth tends to make "business decisions" when it comes to war. It will often pay off troublesome Beys or Deys rather than engage in an expensive war.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth leaders have missed a critical point -- war is not business. Nor is diplomacy...

 

[Whipsnade]

How long has Olympia been there?

Ty,

Decades and decades at the least. She's right downtown still in her white and bluff. I used to visit her each time I was working at the now shuttered Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

I wanted to make a ship model somehow, so I looked in an encyclopedia that had dozens of ship drawings. In the middle of the page was Monitor, which fit the contents of my bag perfectly.

Will wonders never cease. My award winning 4th grade diorama featured Monitor and Virginia.

My turret was courtesy of Tobias, our Siamese cat, and his preference for 9 Lives. Guns were tubes of black construction paper formed around a pencil. I added wisps of cotton for gun and coal smoke too, each "artfully" colored with a magic marker.

The CSS Virginia (nee USS Merrimack) model was the result of several abortive attempts involving shoeboxes. I eventually got the sides sloped, but the rounded ends of the casemate foiled me, so she looked more like CSS Tennesee or CSS Arkansas than the real thing.

After getting my blue ribbon, I told the teacher I was surprised because one of the ships was shaped wrong. She gave me one of those tight smiles adults reserve for earnest, yet clueless, children.


Regards,
Bill