OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to OurBattleTech.com - A BattleTech Fan Site

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?  (Read 5907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CJvR

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
And an escort...
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 06:39:10 PM »

Mass: 100,000 tons
Fuel: 2,000 tons (20,000)
Tons/Burn Day: 19.75
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Sail Integrity: 3
KF Drive Integrity: 4
Heat Sinks: 840
Structural Integrity: 90

Armor: (180 tons standard)
   Fore: 39
   Fore-Sides: 30
   Aft-Sides: 30
   Aft: 39

Cargo:
        Bay 1: Fighter  (20)      6 doors
        Bay 2: Small Craft (4) - 1 doors
        Bay 3: Cargo 5771 tons - 2 doors

Dropship Capacity: 2
Grav Decks: 2 (95-meter diameter)
Escape Pods: 100
Crew: 430
Weapons:
        40 x LRM20 w 30 rnds each
        20 LL
        40 mL
        40 AC10 w 30 rnds each
        10 KW Missile tubes


If you got the KF-cores designed before they became lostech then the yards could continu to crank out ships like these for as long as they built JS in actual BT. Compact cores are not more complex than standard cores.
Logged

Rainbow 6

  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,994
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2012, 01:30:16 PM »

You know this is a really great idea, nice Blacknova.
Logged

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2012, 01:54:53 PM »

Personally, I expect structural integrity issues circa 3025...especially if you're strapping a Behemoth Drive to the inside of a JumpShip.  ;)
Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

CJvR

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2012, 05:47:36 PM »

Yeah, but why would you do that? Militarized JSs are questionable regardless of the circumstances
Logged

Halvagor

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2012, 09:13:39 PM »

Honestly?  From an economic perspective a compact-core JS makes a far better and more cost-effective bulk transport than does a Star Lord with half a dozen Behemoth DS.  Especially if the compact-core JS has its own DS collars.

On the military side of the house, the only thing which WarShips this primitive would bring to the table would be orbital bombardment.
Logged
"...but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers."  From Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2012, 11:41:46 AM »

Cost is still an issue Halvagor. In-universe terms at least, the cost of a compact core and associated docking collars is a hefty sum of C-Bills. Just going by the stated construction costs, I'm not sure the Great Houses circa 3025 could afford their price.

Then again, when has the so-called "cost" of any component been an indicator of how likely it will be constructed or built in large numbers?

Just something else to think about...
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 11:43:19 AM by Knightmare »
Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

Halvagor

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2012, 01:15:52 PM »

If the ship still has a useful life measured in centuries, I think the economic incentive is still there. 

But, regardless, compact-core ships aren't terribly more expensive, according to HMA.  The Sylvester from TRO 3057R clocks in at merely 3.2 billion credits, for a 280,000 ton ship.  That may still be 2.5 times the cost of a 274,000 ton Star Lord, but the Sylvester, despite wasting between 3,000 to 15,000 tons on surplus crew, heat sinks, and weaponry, still provides 73,000 tons of cargo.  Yep, it's a lot more expensive, but it's also a lot more survivable, and much like real-world merchant ships, if you make it bigger, it becomes even more cost effective.

A Sylvester Plus, at 2,500,000 tons, crew to match, max armor (still standard), 20 DS collars (10x the basic Sylvester) has more than 800,000 tons of cargo space (about 11x that of the basic Sylvester) at only 18.6 billion c-bills, less than 6x the cost of a standard Sylvester. If you keep only the 2 DS collars from the original Sylvester, you get 822,000 tons cargo space for only 4.2 billion c-bills.  Quite the steal, honestly.  It'd take more than ten Behemoths to equal that cargo, they'd travel slower, you'd have to hire at least two ships to move them, and they'd cost you 6.3 billion c-bills, 50% more than your 2.5 million ton Sylvester Plus. 

So, for bulk hauling, civilianized compact-core JumpShips have it all over JumpShip + Cargo DS. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2012, 01:17:43 PM by Halvagor »
Logged
"...but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers."  From Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

Knightmare

  • Terran Supremacist
  • Network Gnome
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,459
  • Taking out the Sphere's trash since 3026
    • Our BattleTech
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2012, 01:38:37 PM »

One suggestion. Don't use HMA for calculating cost. I think the C-Bill numbers are hopeless off at this point, and costs might be much higher. 

While I'm not sure it has been definitively stated, or changed, the required time to produce the ship should be taken into account. (I often wondered if CGL would ever provide some sort of correlation between cost and production time?) With mass + component = construction time, it might be better to continue producing Star Lords. After all, six ships operating at once, while lower in total cargo tonnage transported can still reach six different destinations at once, compared to say a single WarShip-type vessel. Also consider that while a single Sylvester is being built, five out of the six Star Lords are already in operation and are useful assets.

Assuming for a second said Star Lord yards are large enough to handle a Sylvester-type ship, (meaning new construction for production isn't required.) Probably one of the reasons why new WarShip construction in the Inner Sphere used either newly constructed yards or yards that historically built WarShips.

I guess in the end, it comes down to investment preference.   
Logged
Quote from: Dragon Cat
WORD (of Blake) is good for two things. 1. Leaving inappropriate notes on other people's work. 2. Adding fake words (of Blake) to the dictionary.

CJvR

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 267
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2012, 05:50:30 PM »

Don't use HMA for calculating cost. I think the C-Bill numbers are hopeless off at this point, and costs might be much higher.
I dont think the WS/JS costs have changed since AT2 - except for the KF-components bit which essentially adds a size factor to the KF-core which was almost totally absent before. 100M CB / 100kt JS or 200M CB / 100 kt of WS.
Logged

Cestusrex

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
  • Killing is our business and business is good.
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2012, 10:38:20 PM »

I'm lost.  This was a thread about the SSs having warships wasn't it?
Logged
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere

Blacknova

  • Puppet Master
  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,351
  • Rugby Players - Inspiration for the BattleMech
    • The Kapteyn Universe
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2012, 10:51:43 PM »

Yes, it was about the plausibility of WarShips in 3025 as an arm of service and an industry.  It has gone a little off topic though.

Original question/thoughts still stand though.
Logged
Dedicated to committing viciously gratuitous bastardy of the first order.

The Kapteyn Universe - http://www.ourbattletech.com/kapteyn

Follow the KU on twitter: Matt Alexander
@BlackNova01

You know there is something wrong with the FWL, when Word's spell check changes Impavido to Impetigo and Zechetinu to Secretion.

Halvagor

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2012, 11:53:57 AM »

One suggestion. Don't use HMA for calculating cost. I think the C-Bill numbers are hopeless off at this point, and costs might be much higher. 
Agreed about the uselessness of C-bill values, but lacking anything else, I'll use HMA.  And my version (V1.06 R07) the K-F drive of a 280k (2 DS collar) WarShip costing 5.0008 times the K-F drive of a 280k (2 DS collar) JumpShip, which is sufficiently close to the value relative costs of the much-more-complex K-F drive in StratOps that I'm going to call it a wash which accounting version is used, as I don't have time to calculate the differences by hand.

Quote from: Knightmare
While I'm not sure it has been definitively stated, or changed, the required time to produce the ship should be taken into account. (I often wondered if CGL would ever provide some sort of correlation between cost and production time?) With mass + component = construction time, it might be better to continue producing Star Lords. After all, six ships operating at once, while lower in total cargo tonnage transported can still reach six different destinations at once, compared to say a single WarShip-type vessel. Also consider that while a single Sylvester is being built, five out of the six Star Lords are already in operation and are useful assets.
This is why my argument was about moving massive quantities of bulk goods (iron ore, grains, etc); with many multi-billion planets in the Inner Sphere, few of which are self-sufficient, combined with the economic disaster of the Succession Wars which tended to destroy all but a handful of production facilities, the sort of massive Foxconn-esque factories seems to be the vogue, which would require bulk goods on a megaton or gigaton scale, for which throughput has an economic incentive over reaching multiple markets.  Finished products are probably better transported by a larger number of smaller-capacity ships, if only because this lessens the losses due to piracy/enemy action.

Quote from: Knightmare
I guess in the end, it comes down to investment preference.
Agreed.

Quote from: Cestusrex
I'm lost.  This was a thread about the SSs having warships wasn't it?
Indeed it was; the point I was making was that as long as there was an economic reason to produce civilian compact-core ships the technology would also be there for the military to have them.  Of course, TPTB claim, in the Sylvester profile from TRO 3057R, that civilian compact-core ships weren't economical, which shows they don't have any interest in fixing FASAnomics.

Still, IIRC it was claimed in one of the books (TRO 3057, maybe?) that the technical know-how for compact-core WarShips existed before 3050, but that no Successor Lord had wanted to start the costly arms race which would have been provoked once someone built a WarShip.  This would explain how so many WarShips were commissioned in the succeeding 15 years, if not how so many SL-era ones which the SLDF had considered beyond repair were brought back online (I'm looking at you, Wobblies).
Logged
"...but if evil men were not now and then slain it would not be a good world for weaponless dreamers."  From Kim, by Rudyard Kipling, 1901

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2012, 02:30:39 PM »

I'm lost.  This was a thread about the SSs having warships wasn't it?

Quite so and what I was pointing out by listing known derelicts is they do have warships even in canon. They just don't work but could serve as useful templates for new designs, training limited naval crews, or repair/salvage ops.
Logged

Blacknova

  • Puppet Master
  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,351
  • Rugby Players - Inspiration for the BattleMech
    • The Kapteyn Universe
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #28 on: February 12, 2012, 03:58:06 PM »

The Sylvester was probably a nod to the Savannah, Otto Han and Mutsu nuclear merchant ships of the recent past, costly failures.
Logged
Dedicated to committing viciously gratuitous bastardy of the first order.

The Kapteyn Universe - http://www.ourbattletech.com/kapteyn

Follow the KU on twitter: Matt Alexander
@BlackNova01

You know there is something wrong with the FWL, when Word's spell check changes Impavido to Impetigo and Zechetinu to Secretion.

Cestusrex

  • Fanjunkare
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 252
  • Killing is our business and business is good.
Re: WarShips in 3025: Can it be Plausible?
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2012, 09:09:22 PM »

HA!  I've been on the Savannah.  And it was a financial failure.  That's why it's sitting in Charleston Harbor next to the USS Yorktown (CV-10).
Logged
Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up