CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« on: December 24, 2008, 11:57:51 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
Class/Model/Name: Nike (Heavy Cruiser)
Tech: Inner Sphere / 2807
Mass: 830,000 tons
K-F Drive System: (Unknown)
Length: 823 meters
Sail Diameter: 1250 meters
Power Plant: Standard
Armament:
12 NAC30 (1200 rnds)
12 AR10 (60KW,60WS,120B)
32 NL55
32 LRM20 (1920 rnds)
6 PPC
16 Large Laser
40 AMS (2400 rnds)------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
The Nike development program started before the horrible carnage of the Succession war began to be felt by the
TRN. As ship after ship, squadron after squadron and indeed whole fleets were destroyed the aim of the project changed from building a modern state of the art battlecruiser to finding a suitable cost effective design to replace the mounting losses. The ship had to squeeze maximum fighting power from every ton so it was to be a very different beast from the old Star League designs.
The Nike was originaly intended to be a slightly slower but much more heavily armed and armored version of the very successful Sovremenyy class, the size was selected to make use of the previous designs of KF cores for the Sovetskii Soyuz and Sovremenyy classes. As the war progressed and industrial losses mounted and sometimes surpassed the military losses the Nike design team was forced to adapt their design and the ship that they eventually presented to the Admiralty was a very different beast than the one they had originaly been instructed to design.
==Capabilities:==
The Nike class was the first ship to be designed on purpose to use lower tech materials as well as taking full advantage of the lessons of the raging war.
The ship only uses heavy weaponry already in production for other TRN ship classes and uses only three types to
simplify maintanence. The weapons layout was optimized for longer ranged engagements to avoid the need to close to point blank range and expose the ship to the full fury of the enemy. A solid heavy laser and missile array allow the ship to engage at ranges where it need not become decisively engaged.
The advanced AR10 missile systems are used mainly to ensure that at least some missiles will always be available to reload the magazines.
The secondary weapons loadout reverted from state of the art advanced weaponry to a much simpler, and more available, weapon layout. The LRMs lost their advanced targeting systems and the shorter ranged cooler firing standard lasers and PPCs were used rather than the extended ranged versions.
The heatsinks were downgraded to standard single heatsinks and vastly increased in numbers to compensate for their lower efficiency. The greatest alterations however was carried out on the hull itself. Analysis of the actions fought in the war showed the importance of protection on warships. This combined with the industrial decline showed an alarming fact. Many modern TRN ship designs in service, like the Genesis, Dewey and Republic classes, had a relatively weak hull structure and depended on a declining availability of advanced armors to maintain a satisfactory protection level, without the more advanced armor types the survivability of these classes would decline sharply and without major reconstruction there was no way to avoid this. A new design would have to make use of simpler, less effective, materials and as a result the Nike design was extensively reworked to strengthen the hull and allow it to carry almost 2500 tons of either standard or ferro-aluminium armor.
The strengthening of the hull came at a steep cost and slashed a quarter of the planned enginepower off the ship
but even using the weaker standard armor the ship was designed to survive a few glancing blows from nuclear missiles and even a direct hit from a fighter launched warhead. To further reduce the threat from hostile gunboats and fighters the Nike was also retrofitted with an extensive anti-missile defence system.
The Nike was originaly to use the four docking collar KF-drive design of the Sovetskii Soyuz and Sovremenyy cruiser classes but in the end the old six collared KF-drive design for the Avatar's drive core was dusted off and used instead.
The additional dropship capacity fitted better with the navy's Quicksilver program and the new heavy assault
dropships it produced. Adding a dropship flotilla provided the ship with even more ability to engage at range as well as operate as a mobile base for the flotilla of dropships, some 500 extra cabins are provided for the dropship crews.
The last weapon of the Nike is the four fighter wings making it one of the TRN's larger carriers. The combination of 72 fighters and 6 assault dropships backed up by the well protected weaponry on the ship itself make a Nike group a hard nut to crack for any enemy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 17)
Jump Sail: (Integrity = 5)
Structural Integrity: 150
Total Heat Sinks: 4776 Single
Fuel: 6000 tons (15000)
Armor Type: Standard (1086 total armor pts)
Ferro-Aluminium (1584 total armor pts)
Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: S L/R FA L/R
Fore: 143 206
Fore-Left/Right: 200/200 292/292
Aft-Left/Right: 200/200 292/292
Aft: 143 206
Cargo:
Bay 1: Fighters (36) with 6 doors
Bay 2: Fighters (36) with 6 doors
Bay 3: Small Craft (
with 2 door
Bay 4: Cargo (43519 tons) with 2 door
Dropship Capacity: 6
Grav Decks #1-6 : (2x85 2x95 & 2x105-meters diameter)
Crew: 600, 150 marines, 500 passengers. 2250 ton supplies
Escape Pods: 200 (7 tons each)
Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 NL55 Nose 11 11 11 11
2 AR10 Nose * * * *
4 LRM-20 Nose 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC Nose 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser Nose 4(36) 2(16) -- --
5 AMS Nose 2(15)* -- -- --
5 NL55 FL/R 28 28 28 28
2 NAC30 FL/R 60 60 60 --
1 AR10 FL/R * * * *
4 LRM-20 FL/R 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
2 Large Laser FL/R 2(16) 2(16) -- --
5 AMS FL/R 2(15)* -- -- --
4 NL55 LBS/RBS 22 22 22 22
2 NAC30 LBS/RBS 60 60 60 --
2 AR10 LBS/RBS * * * *
4 LRM-20 LBS/RBS 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
2 Large Laser LBS/RBS 2(16) 2(16) -- --
5 AMS LBS/RBS 2(15)* -- -- --
5 NL55 AL/R 28 28 28 28
2 NAC30 AL/R 60 60 60 --
1 AR10 AL/R * * * *
4 LRM-20 AL/R 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
2 Large Laser AL/R 2(16) 2(16) -- --
5 AMS AL/R 2(15)* -- -- --
2 NL55 Aft 11 11 11 11
2 AR10 Aft * * * *
4 LRM-20 Aft 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC Aft 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser Aft 4(36) 2(16) -- --
5 AMS Aft 2(15)* -- -- --
EDIT: Added some AMS to make the ship more survivable in the gunboat era...
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 05:36:47 PM by CJvR » Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
Takiro
Administrator
Avatar
Offline
Posts: 5059
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2008, 12:20:21 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting and effective design. Surprised you went with the AR-10. Wouldn't that be too high tech? Why not just pick a missile? I see your justification in fluff as you can use whatever missile you have available but isn't the launcher itself too high tech?
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
U. S. Grant
"Don't think about what I say, cause I don't."
John Luther
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2008, 12:29:01 AM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Takiro
Interesting and effective design. Surprised you went with the AR-10. Wouldn't that be too high tech? Why not just pick a missile? I see your justification in fluff as you can use whatever missile you have available but isn't the launcher itself too high tech?
Well I thought about it, but then both the Warlord and Juggernaut use the AR10. Until it goes out of use on the droppers there is no particular need to reduce the use on regular warships, and the logistics advantage is considerable...
Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2008, 04:49:04 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rough table LFB & DS with cost in millions of CB...
none: 0 - 1425
none: 2 - 3029
none: 4 - 4633
none: 6 - 6237
none: 8 - 7841
none:10 - 9445
about 800 / DS
LFB: 0 - 4275
LFB: 2 - 9087
LFB: 4 - 13899
LFB: 6 - 18711
LFB: 8 - 23523
LFB:10 - 28335
about 2400 / DS
You are better off building two ships without DC rather than adding a pair of DCs to a LFB equipped ship. Indeed you could build a 10 DC ship - 5 times the capacity for the same cost by dropping the LFB. Big assault dropships are a questionable investment. They cost about a billion and as much or more to carry into action on a WS. The only justification for them really is as nuke platforms. If the TR is to continue building WSs then no LFB and high numbers of DCs is the way to go.
The SO altered to costs somewhat to make size of the drive a bigger issue but # of DCs still seemed to be the dominating factor. In the post-SW4 universe eveyone went with the delux WS versions since they yard capacity was far more limiting than the budget apparently. The TR have somewhat the opposite problem, plenty of yard capacity and rationing and shortages of everything else, except enemies and incoming fire... Relatively small well protected ships with large numbers of DC and missiletubes would fit the TRN rather nicely.
Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2008, 11:41:07 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code:
Class/Model/Name: Nemesis (Heavy Cruiser)
Tech: Inner Sphere / 2812
Mass: 830,000 tons
K-F Drive System: (Unknown)
Length: 823 meters
Sail Diameter: 1250 meters
Power Plant: Standard
Armament:
12 NAC30 (1200 rnds)
12 AR10 (60KW,60WS,120B)
32 NL55
32 LRM20 (1920 rnds)
24 PPC
16 Large Laser
20 Medium Laser
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
The astronomic cost of adding dropship capability to ships equipped with Lithium Fusion batteries effectively ended
production of such units during the war. The Nemesis development program originated in the decission not to include
the LFB feature in the Nike design in favor of extra dropship capacity for that class. The Terran Royal Navy however
didn't want to lose the very valuable and rare capabilities that the LFB and HPG systems offered the fleet. A simplified
KF-drive design without any dropship capability was to be produced and fitted with a LFB to produce a variant of the
Nike-class with double jump and interstellar communication capabilities to act as flagships, scouts or a rapid reaction
force.
==Capabilities:==
The Nemesis-class share most operational features with the Nike-class except that the absence of the integral
dropship support makes it more difficult and dangerous for the Nemesis to operate alone. The alterations done to the
design includes the removal of the docking collars and some 400 passenger cabins and various support elements for
those passengers. Other than those alterations the fighting capabilities of the ship itself is identical to that of the Nike.
The Nemesis was built as a cheap means of keeping the critical abilities of double jumping and interstellar
communications in the fleet. Despite adding these costly features the Nemesis and Nike classes cost roughly the same.
Nemesis primary job is to serve as a heavy scout where it's unique ability to get in and out of enemy held systems and
report on the hostile forces present there. Secondary tasks involves acting as flagships. A job for which they, with
their interstellar communications facilities and roomy passenger facilities, were well suited for as well as to operate as
parts of the TRN's rapid reaction forces.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 3
Maximum Thrust: 5
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 17)
Jump Sail: (Integrity = 5)
Structural Integrity: 150
Total Heat Sinks: 4776 Single
Fuel: 6000 tons (15000)
Armor Type: Standard (1086 total armor pts)
Ferro-Aluminium (1584 total armor pts)
Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: S L/R FA L/R
Fore: 143 206
Fore-Left/Right: 200/200 292/292
Aft-Left/Right: 200/200 292/292
Aft: 143 206
Cargo:
Bay 1: Fighters (36) with 6 doors
Bay 2: Fighters (36) with 6 doors
Bay 3: Small Craft (
with 2 door
Bay 4: Cargo (45113 tons) with 2 door
Dropship Capacity: 0
Grav Decks #1-6 : (2x85 2x95 & 2x105-meters diameter)
Crew: 600, 150 marines, 100 passengers. 1530 ton supplies
Escape Pods: 150 (7 tons each)
Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 NL55 Nose 11 11 11 11
2 AR10 Nose * * * *
4 LRM-20 Nose 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC Nose 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser Nose 4(36) 2(16) -- --
4 medium Laser
5 NL55 FL/R 28 28 28 28
2 NAC30 FL/R 60 60 60 --
1 AR10 FL/R * * * *
4 LRM-20 FL/R 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC FL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser FL/R 3(26) 2(16) -- --
2 medium Laser
4 NL55 LBS/RBS 22 22 22 22
2 NAC30 LBS/RBS 60 60 60 --
2 AR10 LBS/RBS * * * *
4 LRM-20 LBS/RBS 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC LBS/RBS 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser LBS/RBS 3(26) 2(16) -- --
2 medium Laser
5 NL55 AL/R 28 28 28 28
2 NAC30 AL/R 60 60 60 --
1 AR10 AL/R * * * *
4 LRM-20 AL/R 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC AL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser AL/R 3(26) 2(16) -- --
2 medium Laser
2 NL55 Aft 11 11 11 11
2 AR10 Aft * * * *
4 LRM-20 Aft 5(48) 5(48) 5(48) --
3 PPC Aft 3(30) 3(30) -- --
2 Large Laser Aft 4(36) 2(16) -- --
4 medium Laser
Equipped with LFB and HPG
6 DCs cost about as much as a LFB and HPG on a ship so here is a Nike variant.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 11:49:43 PM by CJvR » Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
blacktigeractual
Contributor
Champion
Offline
Posts: 722
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2008, 09:42:18 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Takiro on December 25, 2008, 12:20:21 AM
Interesting and effective design. Surprised you went with the AR-10. Wouldn't that be too high tech? Why not just pick a missile? I see your justification in fluff as you can use whatever missile you have available but isn't the launcher itself too high tech?
Given it's usefulness the AR-10 might just be the last high tech piece of eqipment after dual heat sinks to be lost. Remember the better somthing is the more chance it becomes standardized and mass produced. once something goes into mass production inferior techs become rare, the better stuff gets cheap and widespread. Every body uses it so the tech isnt lost.
Gauss rifles ar another example, look at the tech (Zeus willing there is at least one engineer among you.) if you can build fusion engines you can build a gauss rifle. Hell sixteen car batteries some copper wire and a pipe you can put a steel slug through your dad's engine block. (I'm not kidding. ) now instead of car batteries put a 300vlar as the power source. Well c'mon do the math.
Don't ask me what I can do with a copper matrix and a strong magnetic field.
Anyway, a launcher is not that complex, nether are the missiles which probably use the same software in thier guidance packages, probably really dumb AI's cause well.....gee I don't know HEAT!!!!! Warships in CBT cant hide for crap.
You know the more I think on it, dare I say it, we might need to reevaluate the Tech Decline. It gets kind of funny when you can build in your garage what the NAIS can't duplicate.
Anyway just a thought.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain Bruce Gilmour
13th Assault Company "The Black Cats"
90th Heavy Assault Regiment
My sense of the absurd keeps me sane.
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the person, the surer they are they know precisely what is right and what is wrong."
-Henry L. Mencken
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
-Ambrose Bierce
"Enjoy please HappyJoyColdFun Pops now with more natural blue flavor!"
Kit
Contributor
Advocate
Offline
Posts: 317
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2008, 12:29:00 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: CJvR on December 29, 2008, 04:49:04 PM
A rough table LFB & DS with cost in millions of CB...
none: 0 - 1425
none: 2 - 3029
none: 4 - 4633
none: 6 - 6237
none: 8 - 7841
none:10 - 9445
about 800 / DS
LFB: 0 - 4275
LFB: 2 - 9087
LFB: 4 - 13899
LFB: 6 - 18711
LFB: 8 - 23523
LFB:10 - 28335
about 2400 / DS
You are better off building two ships without DC rather than adding a pair of DCs to a LFB equipped ship. Indeed you could build a 10 DC ship - 5 times the capacity for the same cost by dropping the LFB. Big assault dropships are a questionable investment. They cost about a billion and as much or more to carry into action on a WS. The only justification for them really is as nuke platforms. If the TR is to continue building WSs then no LFB and high numbers of DCs is the way to go.
The SO altered to costs somewhat to make size of the drive a bigger issue but # of DCs still seemed to be the dominating factor. In the post-SW4 universe eveyone went with the delux WS versions since they yard capacity was far more limiting than the budget apparently. The TR have somewhat the opposite problem, plenty of yard capacity and rationing and shortages of everything else, except enemies and incoming fire... Relatively small well protected ships with large numbers of DC and missiletubes would fit the TRN rather nicely.
It isn't quite as clean cut as that. Keep in mind you are looking at initial costs of the ship alone. Other costs to consider:
Maint. It is pretty clear in the game that a single ship is easier to keep up to speed than 2, no matter how much more advanced the single ship is (with the exception of completely lacking the technology). This is true both from a manpower perspective and from a simple parts required perspective. This is a fact that will, in the long run, make 1 ship much more cost effective in the long run than any number of cheaper ones.
Secondly, an LF bat gives you something that cannot be undervalued: flexibility. The main use as far as military assets are concerned is being able to move to location quickly (very useful as even with a larger fleet sometimes you will be grouped up in the completely wrong place). Even more vitally it gives you the chance to escape. Without the LF you jump in, if it is a trap you fight and die. With the LF you jump in, if it is a trap you run like shit until you have a jump plotted and jump away. Yes, very hard on the KF drive, yet much much MUCH less expensive to repair that than to rebuild 1 ship (or 2 if you are going to say it is more cost effective to build 2 cheap to 1 expensive LF ship). Repairing verses completely replacing is a very big difference. Again, a cost that is less for the advanced ship in the long run.
Jumps are energy intensive. Not having enough DS collars means you need many more ships in a single area to move your army. This groups your forces into one area. Makes for a nasty ambush (see point above) or problem if you are out of position (see above again).
As far as Pocket Warships (CBT Term) I generally agree that the super expensive ones are a bit silly and try to keep them under 1B myself, however even here there is a rational. Facilities to build them and repair them are by far much more plentiful; much lower start up cost. Also the cost to maintain a pocket warship is much lower than a true warship. This means it would be a good way to boost your fleet and a very attractive alternative as your ability to build/support warships died off. They are most certainly not only to be valued as nuke dispensers.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog Orloff Military Academy
lrose
Administrator
Grand Champion
Offline
Posts: 1119
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2008, 03:08:15 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: blacktigeractual on December 31, 2008, 09:42:18 AM
Gauss rifles ar another example, look at the tech (Zeus willing there is at least one engineer among you.) if you can build fusion engines you can build a gauss rifle. Hell sixteen car batteries some copper wire and a pipe you can put a steel slug through your dad's engine block. (I'm not kidding. ) now instead of car batteries put a 300vlar as the power source. Well c'mon do the math.
Yeah been there done that- I just built a small scale model (single stage capable of launching a small piece of a paper clip) but I did talk with my Electro-Magnetics professor about building a multi-coil model capable of embedding nails in a steel door. (actually we were going to combine it with a primative motion tracker build the equivalent of the Sentry Guns from the movie Aliens.)
Quote
Anyway, a launcher is not that complex, nether are the missiles which probably use the same software in thier guidance packages, probably really dumb AI's cause well.....gee I don't know HEAT!!!!! Warships in CBT cant hide for crap.
You know the more I think on it, dare I say it, we might need to reevaluate the Tech Decline. It gets kind of funny when you can build in your garage what the NAIS can't duplicate.
Anyway just a thought.
I agree about the AR-10- there is nothing fancy about it- it's just that the launcher can fire 3 different types of missiles. All you really need is a loading mechanism with 3 ammo feeds so that you can select which type of missile you want. That is a relatively easy problem -compared to say building an ER PPC or a advanced electronics.
As for the problems with the tech decline- the issue is that Btech is the future of 1985, not the future of 2009. In 1985 Gauss rifles were a long way off, and while they are still not ready to be deployed, enough experimental models have been built that they are probably not that far off, while lasers and PPCs are still in the realm of Science Fiction.
Besides that- for SD I think the Tech decline is going to be very different. One factor that keep tech levels low was Çomstar- if not for their efforts, the IS would probably have begun recovering SL technology by the end of the 2nd SW.
Report to moderator Logged
blacktigeractual
Contributor
Champion
Offline
Posts: 722
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2008, 06:16:05 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might look something like this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/30/tank_industry_checks_out/ Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Captain Bruce Gilmour
13th Assault Company "The Black Cats"
90th Heavy Assault Regiment
My sense of the absurd keeps me sane.
"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the person, the surer they are they know precisely what is right and what is wrong."
-Henry L. Mencken
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
-Ambrose Bierce
"Enjoy please HappyJoyColdFun Pops now with more natural blue flavor!"
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2009, 05:37:20 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Kit
Maint. It is pretty clear in the game that a single ship is easier to keep up to speed than 2, no matter how much more advanced the single ship is (with the exception of completely lacking the technology). This is true both from a manpower perspective and from a simple parts required perspective. This is a fact that will, in the long run, make 1 ship much more cost effective in the long run than any number of cheaper ones.
Given centuries of life expectancy perhaps, but with the casualty rates of the SW the maintanence cost advantage is probably barely above a rounding error. Also to consider when it comes to maintanence and refits is that with two ships you can keep one on station while the other is in the yards.
Quote from: Kit
Secondly, an LF bat gives you something that cannot be undervalued: flexibility.
Yes, no need to preach the advantage of the LFD to the choir. Those abilities is why I added the Nemesis LFB variant. Having both LFB and a solid DS capacity is the real economic problem.
Quote from: Kit
Facilities to build them and repair them are by far much more plentiful; much lower start up cost. Also the cost to maintain a pocket warship is much lower than a true warship. This means it would be a good way to boost your fleet and a very attractive alternative as your ability to build/support warships died off. They are most certainly not only to be valued as nuke dispensers.
Well as long as regular warships are around and can field far more firepower combined with jump capability for a fraction of the cost it would take to mount that level of firepower on a DS the main argument in favor of DS combatants are expendability and nukes. Only once you start mixing LFBs and DCs will the DS be financialy competitive as a weapon. The TR at least have WS yards standing idle.
Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
Kit
Contributor
Advocate
Offline
Posts: 317
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2009, 11:00:39 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: CJvR on January 01, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
Given centuries of life expectancy perhaps, but with the casualty rates of the SW the maintanence cost advantage is probably barely above a rounding error. Also to consider when it comes to maintanence and refits is that with two ships you can keep one on station while the other is in the yards.
Out of curiosity how many nations do you believe were building WarShips with the idea of "Lets finish this thing so it can get busy dying" rather than with the idea of it being around for awhile? Especially considering that nothing as destructive as the Succession Wars had ever happened (nothing even approaching that since the Age of War) and that current fleets possessed many older designs (the SLDF and Hegemony especially) that were both in active service and mothballed for a rainy day?
If people knew the Succession War was going to be coming and the extent of the destruction your argument holds water, however that is not the case. If people knew how bad it would have gotten they wouldn't have started down that path. It would be like me advising you to buy up gold and stop paying for items using cash or credit because your government is about to collapse and only gold will hold any value. You would laugh me off as a loon. Because that hasn't happened to any nation in a very long time and seems impossible.
Quote from: CJvR on January 01, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
Well as long as regular warships are around and can field far more firepower combined with jump capability for a fraction of the cost it would take to mount that level of firepower on a DS the main argument in favor of DS combatants are expendability and nukes. Only once you start mixing LFBs and DCs will the DS be financialy competitive as a weapon. The TR at least have WS yards standing idle.
You cannot have it both ways here. Either they are expecting horrible losses in which case DropShips are useful and they build WarShips to die quickly, or they are not in which case DropShips are useless and WarShips last forever making expensive initial costs not much of a factor.
More to the point, I was talking mostly about smaller nations (periphery), resource strapped nations (Terrans), and nations that find themselves dealing with a deteriorating fleet and ability to replace losses (other Successor States).
It is also importaint to consider that even pre-Succession War fleet numbers are not so high as to make Pocket Warships useless if they are not using nukes. You cannot spread your fleet across every boarder system, that is just asking to have it gobbled up in small pieces. Nor would you expect Pocket Warships to take on a WarShip... just all those softer Troop DropShips that are following it around when it comes to invade your planet. Or perhaps to act as an anti-fighter escort for your own WarShips (which lack good anti-fighter weapons at this time). Or perhaps as a heavy close escort for your own Troop DropShips during an invasion.
Fact is that everyone would love to have a fleet of nothing but WarShips to fill every single job, but it simply isn't practical or cost effective or even reasonable. There are some jobs that are better left to a DropShip and while yes a true WarShip can destroy a Pocket WarShip that is moot. The Pocket WarShip isn't intended to attack a true WarShip. Likewise I doubt you would argue that a fleet of nothing but 2,500,000T BattleShips is all any nation would ever need so why bother with mere BattleCruisers or Destroyers or Corvettes. Just because the 2,500,000T Dreadnaught can kill everything else doesn't make the decision to use it particularly efficient or smart.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog Orloff Military Academy
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2009, 05:30:47 PM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Kit
Out of curiosity how many nations do you believe were building WarShips with the idea of "Lets finish this thing so it can get busy dying" rather than with the idea of it being around for awhile?
If they didn't after 15 years of SW and 85-90% naval casualties they would need to have their heads examined.
Quote from: Kit
If people knew the Succession War was going to be coming and the extent of the destruction your argument holds water
Well the DC and FWL did to some extent, but the houses didn't have LFB tech to any great extent so the issue never realy came up. Also the SL had the luxury of not having to choose but could afford the best of both worlds.
Quote from: Kit
Either they are expecting horrible losses in which case DropShips are useful and they build WarShips to die quickly, or they are not in which case DropShips are useless and WarShips last forever making expensive initial costs not much of a factor.
Your observations are essentially correct but off by 15 years since my remarks were more concerned with the 2800 situation. A weapon cost about 14 times more on a DS than on a WS but they compensate for this by faster construction and by being more expendable as well as good nuke and fighter platforms.
Quote from: Kit
More to the point, I was talking mostly about smaller nations (periphery), resource strapped nations (Terrans), and nations that find themselves dealing with a deteriorating fleet and ability to replace losses (other Successor States).
Resource is such a fuzzy concept in BT. If cost is an issue, and it is mentioned in the Republic fluff, then DS are a very questionable deal. If rare metals and alloys are a bottleneck then DS will look much better. The Perifs don't have the ability to build proper WS and the SS are probably rapidly running out of ability to do a major upgrade of their DS yards to more and better assault ship classes.
Quote from: Kit
It is also importaint to consider that even pre-Succession War fleet numbers are not so high as to make Pocket Warships useless if they are not using nukes. You cannot spread your fleet across every border system, that is just asking to have it gobbled up in small pieces.
Actually I would say that they were rather useless except in specialist rolls like highspeed interceptors, carriers and naturally landing crafts. There are no real SL-era combat DS designs, other than the Amarian ones in TRO2800. Local space defences would be based on ASF-wings, SS and rapid reaction forces. The cost of building huge numbers of heavy assault DS isn't really justifiable under a SL situation IMPO.
Report to moderator 213.112.69.158
Takiro
Administrator
Avatar
Offline
Posts: 5059
Re: TRS Nike, SW ship design...
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2009, 07:42:40 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes over fifteen years the fleets of the InnerSphere have been reduced 80 to 90 percent but the industry that made these ships possible was the first casualty of the war. Shipyards and orbital industries suffered dramatically in the first years of the conflict cutting the legs out from under the Navies. Their numbers had no where to go but down. Just wanted to comment on the sudden lose of industry that made replacement parts and ships harder and harder to come by.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."
U. S. Grant
"Don't think about what I say, cause I don't."
John Luther
Kit
Contributor
Advocate
Offline
Posts: 317
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2009, 08:39:52 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: CJvR on January 02, 2009, 05:30:47 PM
If they didn't after 15 years of SW and 85-90% naval casualties they would need to have their heads examined.Well the DC and FWL did to some extent, but the houses didn't have LFB tech to any great extent so the issue never realy came up. Also the SL had the luxury of not having to choose but could afford the best of both worlds.
See Tak's post, industry was lost first (Both in Canon and in BTSD). No new production cycle to alter designs would have a chance to get off the ground, except for maybe in the Republic which has the coreward Shipyards. Even then you could argue those yards become increasingly dedicated to repair and refit despite fleet losses.
Quote from: CJvR on January 02, 2009, 05:30:47 PM
Your observations are essentially correct but off by 15 years since my remarks were more concerned with the 2800 situation.
Actually I hit my mark perfectly. The Republic currently has low resources (simple statement in fact by the source books), the Pheriphery does not have the heavy industry to make massive fleets that quickly, especially after years of oppression, and the houses don't care initially but will sit up and take notice PDQ when their traditional fleets start to die off in droves.
Quote from: CJvR on January 02, 2009, 05:30:47 PM
Actually I would say that they were rather useless except in specialist rolls like highspeed interceptors, carriers and naturally landing crafts. There are no real SL-era combat DS designs, other than the Amarian ones in TRO2800. Local space defences would be based on ASF-wings, SS and rapid reaction forces. The cost of building huge numbers of heavy assault DS isn't really justifiable under a SL situation IMPO.
100% Incorrect. I can think of 3 just off the top of my head. Achielles (which apparently is canonically unable to enter atmosphere) and the Elephant, and the Avenger. The Star League and Hegemony very clearly had access to, and even used, combat DS designs. Not as extensively as I think would be reasonable, but the fact is they had them and the idea would not be new to anyone. What would be new is how many might start to be used and the types of weapons that would begin to appear.
Report to moderator Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my blog Orloff Military Academy
CJvR
Advocate
Online
Posts: 383
Re: KF-drive costs... (AT2r)
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2009, 12:08:11 AM » Quote Modify Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Kit
The Republic currently has low resources (simple statement in fact by the source books), the Pheriphery does not have the heavy industry to make massive fleets that quickly, especially after years of oppression, and the houses don't care initially but will sit up and take notice PDQ when their traditional fleets start to die off in droves.
Well as long as you are throwing nukes around any DS with a few missile tubes or fighter bays are worthy investments, probably the best way to spend the naval budget. But if you excersice more restraint and stay conventional WS will be a better deal, provided you have what you need to build them.
Quote from: Kit
I can think of 3 just off the top of my head. Achielles (which apparently is canonically unable to enter atmosphere) and the Elephant, and the Avenger
Achilles and Avenger are the fast deepspace interceptors I mentioned and the Elephant is an armed tug, intended for boarding actions I assume. There are no real shipkillers among the SL DS designs, many of the transports outgun the A & A.
