CLASSIC BATTLETECH CATALYST game labs

02 Sep, 2010, 09:35:14 am   Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

News

Updates complete, as usual direct any comments and questions To the appropriate thread.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Down
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

WarShip of the Week: Samarkand Class Carrier

Yes, everyone, I finally got this one finished, and, believe me, this one has been killing me!  Welcome to this week's (month's?  year's?) WarShip of the Week, which might be the last one for a while (need...more....ships!).  I apologize a bit for my tardiness, but besides my scary work schedule, I've had some trouble puzzling out today's subject, and exactly what I wanted to say about what may be, for now, the last of this series of articles.

Today, as the subject line said, we're talking about the Draconis Combine's Samarkand class carrier.  First produced in 2581, the Samarkand, we're told, is Hehiro's plan to boost the Combine's economy, and bolster the DCA in preparation for the inevitable Reunification War, because, as we know, military spending is always a great economy booster...well, at least until the spending stops.  Of course, in the Draconis Combine, that's hardly an issue, because military spending never stops!  So, yay?  Anyway, Hehiro's big plans needed ships sooner than later, so when he first came up with the idea, and called for the class, the manufacturers were told they had two years to complete the first vessels.

Yes, you read that right:  two years to design and build a new class of faster-than-light WarShip.  This is not much time, people, and the end result of these kinds of rush jobs are usually flawed in the extreme.

Such was not the case with the Samarkand:  despite time constraints, those unnamed manufacturers managed to avoid the pitfalls so common on rush jobs, and produced one hell of a ship.  At 350,000 tons, the Samarkand is near the upper end of what we consider corvette tonnage in the Battletech universe, but well below what we attribute to destroyers.  Weaponry, like we'd expect, is somewhat light on the Block I, with a smattering of anti-fighter weapons and actual point-defense guns backing up a limited array of capital guns: a medium naval PPC in the nose, NAC/10s in each forequarter, a light NPPC in each broadside, then twin NL35s in the aft-quarters and twin NL45s dead aft.  Personally, I would've standardized more, but it is in keeping with a ship rushed into production, the idea being to use what they've got available.  Her 950 heat sinks allow the Samarkand Block I to fire a full three-arc broadside, while also firing both her bow and stern chasers or, alternatively, fire one full broadside, and combine it with the fore-quarter and broadside arc on the opposite side.

The Block I , then, can produce 24 capital points on a combined broadside, and 19 points nose or aft, with sufficient heat sinks to fire up to five arcs, if you choose carefully.  That's not astounding, but it does edge out the contemporary Vincent and earlier Vigilant.  Also edging it out is armor, with the Block I carrying a 48/38/38/40 arrangement of standard armor backed by a whopping 71 SI.  In essence, then, the Samarkand could function on its own as a relatively swift, agile and durable corvette with a fairly average array of firepower which, for the most part, didn't require much in the way of ammunition.  Placement of the naval lasers aft meant that the Samarkand, when supporting the Dragon's glorious ground forces, could hover above a fixed position in orbit, use her drive system to keep from falling into the atmosphere and burning up, and provide pin-point orbital fire support in concentrated zones that didn't have to suffer from lag-time.

Secondary weaponry on the Samarkand Block I isn't too shabby, either:  five LRM-20s and four medium lasers in the nose, quad LRM-10s and three SRM-4s in each fore-quarter, two large and two medium lasers in each aft-quarter, and twin medium lasers aft all provide the Block I with a notable layer of anti fighter defenses.  These are supplemented by what is, for the era, serious point defense:  ten machine guns in each broadside, another six in each aft-quarter, and six more dead aft.

However, where the Samarkand Block I really shines, and its real offensive power, is in its fighter complement: fully 72 aerospace fighters and 12 small craft call the ship home, and a team of thirty Marines to provide counter-boarding security, or to board opposing vessels in those small craft.  The penultimate episode of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica had a line in it, to the effect that a Battlestar's heart, its core reason for being, its primary function, is to launch fighters...well, they said "Vipers", but the meaning is the same.  The Samarkand is no different.  Make no mistake: the Samarkand is a carrier first and foremost, and everything about the ship should be viewed in that light.  Just like Galactica, launching her 72 aerospace fighters and dozen supporting small craft is the Samarkand's main reason for existing, too. 

This, too, is in keeping with the Draconis Combine, and one of the reasons why Hehiro Kurita probably mandated that the Samarkand class be a carrier:  as the entry on the Sabre in TR3075 shows us, the Draconis Combine took to aerospace fighters early on and, in those days before the BattleMech, placed a great deal of emphasis upon them.  Even in the modern era, while the Mechwarrior may be revered, the aerospace fighter pilot is still a highly honorable profession for the Combine's samurai.  Also, in keeping with the "economic boost" the Samarkand class was meant to provide, increased production of fighters to fill these carriers would enrich those companies, too, keeping workers employed building fighters, their spare parts, munitions, etc., which probably factored heavily into Hehiro's thinking as well.

The Samarkand's thrust is a solid 4/6 (2 Gs safe, 3 Gs full), impressive for its era, and helpful towards maneuvering around a star system at high thrust to deliver her fighter payload where it's needed most, or to get herself out of harm's way.  With over 2500 tons of fuel, the Samarkand has enough to supply her birds and maneuver, though supplemental fuel in her cargo holds is advisable for long duration patrols.  Fortunate, the Block I has over forty-six thousand tons of cargo, making that not at all hard to do.  Three DropShip docking collars allow the Samarkand to either supplement her cargo holds with cargo DropShips, support a ground invasion with troop transports, or to carry assault DropShips to screen the carrier.  In practice, I'd recommend sticking with the last of those:  the Achilles class DropShip went into production only three years after the Samarkand, and, since later on manufacturing of the Achilles was centered in the Draconis Combine, it's not at all unrealistic to think that this might have been the case prior to the fall of the Star League, as well.

So, all in all, the Block I of the Samarkand was an excellent ship in her own right and, when combined with the offensive firepower her fighters provided, able to fight well above her throw weight, making her a notable threat to WarShips which, individually, are well above the Samarkand's "throw weight", making the Samarkand a fitting vessel to hold the name of what was, at the time, the Draconis Combine's capitol.

Now, it's a century after the introduction of the Samarkand, and your ship's starting to feel a bit long in the tooth.  Perhaps your neighbors, the Federated Suns, are building more of their premier destroyer, the Davion Block II class.  The Star League has recently started building a number of new vessels, such as the updated Lola III, and the Texas and McKenna class battleships.  As part of the Star League's buildup, they're looking for ships, too (let's face it, their corvette, the Vincent has gone way past being "long in the tooth".  What do you do?

You revamp the Samarkand.

Debuting in 2668, the Samarkand Block II is a notable improvement over the Block I, and that's saying something.  In fact, it's saying it's "a notable improvement over the Block I."  Remember how I mentioned the Block I of the Samarkand was a pretty nifty ship?  The Block II is better.  Much, much better.

First, the Block II retains several key elements from the original Block I:  seventy-two aerospace fighters, twelve small craft, 4/6 thrust, and a generous fuel bunker.  Then, though, are the improvements:  structural integrity was increased to 73, and her armor went way up, thanks to the switch to ferro-carbide:  91 points foreward, 70 points in each fore-and-aft side, and 80 points aft.  Ladies and gentlemen, that's damn near cruiser level armor, and puts her well ahead of the frigates of the time, such as the Congress.  Add in a fourth docking collar, increase the Marine complement to 100, and, if nothing else had been changed, the Samarkand Block II would already be a major improvement on an already good WarShip.

But, those weren't the only changes:  firepower's gone up, too.  First, the capital guns were improved, with the nose now carrying twin medium NPPCs and twin NL35s.  The fore-quarter NACs have been upgraded to NAC/20s, while the broadsides now mount a single heavy NPPC, replacing the light NPPC of the Block I.  Only the aft-sides and aft arcs remain exactly the same.  This improved capital weapons array has been paired with an increased number of heat sinks, with 1700 single heat sinks now cooling the Samarkand Block II off.  Now the Samarkand can fire everything but her aft chaser at the same time, needing to only drop one other arc to fire that at someone off her stern, so, not only does she have better firepower, she can use it, too:  the Block II, using her capital guns, can manage 45 points off her bow (combining nose and fore-quarter), or 42 points from a three-arc broadside, while targets off her stern are still facing a combined 16-point strike, while retaining the same anti-fighter and point-defense arrays of the Block I.  And the ship still has more than 36 kilotons of cargo available.

Most important to consider, though, is who fielded the Samarkand Block II, because TR3075 makes the first mentions of Samarkands in Star League service after mentioning how Coordinator Urizen II authorized the Block II in 2668.  Now, given that we know the Star League was conducting its own military buildup at roughly the same time, building new classes of all types, we begin to see why the Star League Defense Force never bothered replacing the Vincent, despite how much it was showing its age:  why bother, when you could just by the superior Samarkand Block II?

The last question to consider is the final fate of the Samarkands.  We know the Star League and Draconis Combine used them in "multitudes":  Tech Readout 3075 tells us as much.  We know that "many" of those "multitudes" served the Star League Defense Force as escort vessels, and that "most" of those were destroyed serving that role during Operation Liberation.  What's not known, and TR3075 says as much, is whether or not any are in the hands of the Clans.

What's curious is that "few" remained in the Combine, defending recharge stations, and worlds that hosted vital resources and factories, where "most" were destroyed during the First and Second Succession Wars.  Only one Samarkand survived to the 31st Century: the Togura, which "barely serves as a museum piece orbiting New Samarkand". 

So, what's this all mean?  Were Samarkand Block IIs almost exclusively Star League vessels, with only a handful of the Block IIs serving in Draconis Combine fleets?  Is the Togura which, from the sound of it, is damn near a derelict, an older Block I that, thanks to its age and retirement, managed to survive the WarShip purges of the Succession Wars?  Lastly, why, when they had an example Samarkand lying around they could examine, did the Draconis Combine decide to try to design an all-new class of carrier, the Kaga class, instead of simply putting the Samarkand class back into production during the 3050s?

All good questions.  Frankly, we just don't have enough information to definitively answer any of them.  We can, how ever, try to deduce possible answers to them.  My theory is that, yes, most of the Block IIs produced went to the Star League.  The Member States were limited by law in the number of hulls they could field, which meant that the Draconis Combine just couldn't field the number of Samarkand Block IIs that it would have liked to have been able to.  Undoubtedly, older Block I vessels had to be retired to pave the way for the Block IIs in the Draconis Combine Admiralty's fleet, which would imply, to me, that the only known survivor, the Togura, is one of these vessels.

The number of York class destroyers in the Clans tells me that there probably weren't very many Samarkands in the Exodus fleet:  you wouldn't have needed to expand the Riga class destroyer's flight decks to cram in 50 fighters if you have a number of vessels that already carried 72 fighters ready to go back into service.  Perhaps the Clans didn't have to tooling to put the Samarkand into production.  Perhaps Kerensky wanted ships with bigger cargo holds and fewer fighter pilots to feed on Exodus.  Perhaps treaties between the Star League and Draconis Combine required the former to turn over the surviving Block IIs to the latter after Liberation.

As for the Kaga class, the Draconis Combine of the 3050s was definitely an ambitious one, and I suspect that, just like they might've bit off more than they could chew early on with the Yamato class battleships, the Kaga class might have been a larger ship than the Samarkand, with more fighters and, as a result, more difficult for Combine industries trying to relearn the lessons of the past to successfully design and build.  Imagine, if you will, trying to build a frigate or cruiser-sized hull with, say, twice the fighter loadout of the Samarkands.  Maybe that was just too much for the post-Succession War Draconis Combine to successfully pull off.

But enough rampant speculation about the universe.  You want to know how to use one of these in a fight, don't you?  The answer is pretty straightforward:  use them like a corvette with heavy fighter cover.

You've really got two choices when deploying the Samarkand:  keep the carrier at a distance and let your fighters do the work, or use your carrier's guns and thrust to fight like the corvette that, in the end, it still is, while using your fighters to supplement its capabilities.  Which strategy will be most successful depends upon what kind of opposition you're facing:  remember, even the tougher Block II can still be taken down by sufficiently forceful capital gunfire:  I strongly suspect that's what finally took the Samarkands down in the Succession Wars, when Davion Block II commanders, willing to suffer the slings and arrows of the Samarkand's fighter wings, would use their amped-up nose and fore-quarter batteries to punch through the Block II's armor:  whether the Davion then fell in battle or not was almost besides the point and, by the time the Succession Wars rolled around, a Davion Block II could carry two fully-loaded Vengeances into combat with it, thus neutralizing the Samarkand's fighter advantage.  If the DCA had stuck to Achilles or similar assault DropShips on their Samarkands, rather than adding Vengeances and more fighters, they'd find themselves rapidly neutralized.  In fact, for the time period, that's really the optimal answer for the Samarkand player against a Davion II:  Bring More Fighters.

On the Lyran front, the Mako was, I suspect, designed to "get around" the slower Samarkands: the Mako's 6/9 thrust would allow it to outflank the larger carrier, while matching the thrust of the Combine's medium and heavy fighters.  The Mako's gun bays, meanwhile, were rather large, allowing it to score heavy hits on the Samarkand.  Playing this fight out, I imagine, would make for an interesting maneuvering battle, while, again, the Samarkand has to rely on its fighters pretty heavily. 

In conclusion, for her era, the Samarkand was a hell of a ship, equal or superior to the corvettes of her day and, in the end, made obsolete not by another WarShip, but by a DropShip that could turn any WarShip with docking collars into a fighter carrier.  This doesn't make the Samarkand class useless, since they can carry Vengeances, too, but it does take some of the shine off the Samarkand, and shifts things from the time where she was, in essence, a corvette that could fight well above her weight class thanks to having a significant numerical superiority in aerospace fighters, to a time where she's a corvette with a bit of an edge over her competitors, thanks to having a head start on fighter numerical superiority.  In an era when everyone else might be the shiny new Pegasus, the Samarkands can still function as the tried-and-true Galactica.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

*Want*
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

*Want*

For Niops in the FGC?  Been saying that for a while.  Not sure how long until Holt's finished his reverse-engineering from examining the Togura, but that would make the Draconis Combine a source for Samarkand Block Is, while the only source I know of for Block IIs would be the Clans' mothball fleet, which, like the Du Shi Wang, could make the Goliath Scorpions a possible source for the Block II.

Of course, one of these days, you and I need to work out a naval procurement strategy beyond "Do Want!". Wink
*
Major
Posts: 4052
Run!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Excellent article, GiovanniBlasini.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

For Niops in the FGC?  Been saying that for a while.  Not sure how long until Holt's finished his reverse-engineering from examining the Togura, but that would make the Draconis Combine a source for Samarkand Block Is, while the only source I know of for Block IIs would be the Clans' mothball fleet, which, like the Du Shi Wang, could make the Goliath Scorpions a possible source for the Block II.

Of course, one of these days, you and I need to work out a naval procurement strategy beyond "Do Want!". Wink

Samarkands with Titans and Pentagons hanging off the collars!
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Excellent article, GiovanniBlasini.

Thank you. Smiley

Samarkands with Titans and Pentagons hanging off the collars!

I'll negotiate with Holt, you work on the Scorpions?
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Thank you. Smiley

I'll negotiate with Holt, you work on the Scorpions?

Do you suppose the 819th Escort Squadron flew off a Samarkand?



*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Refresh my memory: who are the 819th Escort Squadron?
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Refresh my memory: who are the 819th Escort Squadron?

Random fictitious number, I needed an excuse to call them Vipers
*
Major
Posts: 5798
Head GM, Fan Councils (Retired)

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Well done.  Interestingly, you did hit exctly what I felt killed the carriers.  The Vengence.  It just does too much.
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

With docking collars prevalent on most WarShips, the Vengeance class DropShip makes WarShip-based carriers somewhat harder to justify, yes.  Theoretically, those docking collars could be used "better" for other purposes, but 40 aerospace fighters are 40 aerospace fighters, and a DropShip docking collar takes up less mass on a WarShip than those fighters would.

That said, there are benefits to using a full WarShip, since it's more resistant to damage than a DropShip, and can, logistically, support them better and for longer than the Vengeance, which is basically a flight deck with a fusion drive and bridge module.
M.U.L. Team
*
BT Volunteer
Posts: 8443

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Vengence are somewhat unique for the large fighter capacity and inability to support them. Warship based ASFs are basically point defence while dropships give them much greater reach. I really have to wonder whether the Vengence is what the Star League asked for or a later House modification.


Anyway, I don 't buy the York argument. Simply because there were not that many of them. There were lots of Rigas, but only six survived to become Yorks.

If you want to get an idea of Samarkand II numbers I would look to the Sovetskii Soyuz. Similar sort of role, general purpose cheap escort leader. Think the inner layer of fighters to complement the Sov Soy's Titans on ranged duty.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Vengence are somewhat unique for the large fighter capacity and inability to support them. Warship based ASFs are basically point defence while dropships give them much greater reach. I really have to wonder whether the Vengence is what the Star League asked for or a later House modification.


Anyway, I don 't buy the York argument. Simply because there were not that many of them. There were lots of Rigas, but only six survived to become Yorks.

If you want to get an idea of Samarkand II numbers I would look to the Sovetskii Soyuz. Similar sort of role, general purpose cheap escort leader. Think the inner layer of fighters to complement the Sov Soy's Titans on ranged duty.

The Clan Titan has a similar high Fighters:Supplies ratio as well.
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Vengence are somewhat unique for the large fighter capacity and inability to support them. Warship based ASFs are basically point defence while dropships give them much greater reach. I really have to wonder whether the Vengence is what the Star League asked for or a later House modification.

Well, Titans are nearly as bad in their Clan incarnation, as chanman pointed out.  For that matter, so is the Leopard CV.  I can't recall whether the Okinawa and Miraborg are as bad, but, if not, then they represent a doctrinal shift, and the original Titan becomes a bit of an anomaly during its era.

Quote
Anyway, I don 't buy the York argument. Simply because there were not that many of them. There were lots of Rigas, but only six survived to become Yorks.

Six Riga class destroyers may well have outnumbered the number of Samarkand Block IIs in SLDF service at the end of Operation Liberation.  We simply don't know how many were left to the Star League, though TR3075 implies that nearly all that did survive were in the Draconis Combine's hands, and that the Combine had a relatively small number of them.

Quote
If you want to get an idea of Samarkand II numbers I would look to the Sovetskii Soyuz. Similar sort of role, general purpose cheap escort leader. Think the inner layer of fighters to complement the Sov Soy's Titans on ranged duty.

Its original numbers?  Probably, yeah:  four hundred plus Samarkand Block IIs would not at all surprise me.  How many survived Operation Liberation, or were in service with the Draconis Combine at the start of the First Succession War is anyone's guess, though.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

You know, these would make good escorts in lawless areas, and generally patrolling sparsely populated areas.  You can have a few mech droppers, enough fighters for taking down anything pirates can throw at you, and enough accelleration to intercept threats to any merchants in a convoy.  All very convenient.
M.U.L. Team
*
BT Volunteer
Posts: 8443

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

All Titans are good for about 6 reloads.

Vengences can't mange 1.

I have a spreadsheet with a formula taking into account the mothership's needs, fuel stored in cargo bays, etc. Its indicative of what these ships are capable of.



Dropships           Sorties
Leopard CV U         3
Leopard CV            3
Okinawa                 3
Carrier                  13
Miraborg                5
Vengence U           <1
Vengence              <1
Titan                    18
Titan C                   6

Samarkand                 100
Samarkand II                76
York                           221
Conqueror                    10
Thera                           52
Feng Huang Upgrade    40
Leviathan II                   14
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

All Titans are good for about 6 reloads.

Vengences can't mange 1.

How do you figure that?  The Star League Titan carried around 695 tons per six fighters - the Titan splits its fighters and cargo evenly across three bays.  Pretending for the moment that it uses all its cargo for its fighters, which isn't possible, since the DropShip needs room for spare parts, and you do need to feed the people on-board, you end up with around 115 or so tons per fighter.

The Clan Titan drops that to 395 tons of cargo, and triples the number of fighters, dropping that ratio down to 38.6 tons per fighter.  That's around a third the amount of cargo available so, if the Star League Titan could support six sorties using your numbers, the Clan one should only be able to support two.

The Miraborg is actually slightly worse: it carries 33.8 tons per fighter.  The Okinawa only 18 tons/fighter roughly, with the Leopard only 18 tons or so, while the Vengeance is indeed the worst at 4.6 to 5.6 tons/fighter, depending on the version of the DropShip we're talking about.

Quote
I have a spreadsheet with a formula taking into account the mothership's needs, fuel stored in cargo bays, etc. Its indicative of what these ships are capable of.

Dropships           Sorties
Leopard CV U         3
Leopard CV            3
Okinawa                 3
Carrier                  13
Miraborg                5
Vengence U           <1
Vengence              <1
Titan                    18
Titan C                   6

I'd be very interested to learn what the heck you're basing your numbers on. 
M.U.L. Team
*
BT Volunteer
Posts: 8443

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

First up I assign 1% of ship mass as spares for the  ship. Fuel is also assigned for the ship.

I break up the remaining cargo and fuel between the ASF, assigning cargo space to fuel as necessary. The two values are the equalised based on 3 tons of cargo and 3 tons of fuel per sortie.


Your Titan estimate is off. The SLDF version carries 18 ASF and the Clan version carries 30. The Clan version uses nearly twice the supplies but has 2/3 of the supplies so the number of sorties drops to 1/3rd.

The Miraborg carries less cargo than the Titan but carries nearly twice the fuel so it needs to assign less cargo space to ASF. It also weighs less so by my figures it does not need to assign as much cargo to it own needs compared to the Titan.

The Okinawa has useful fuel but a cargo bay 1/6th the size of the SLDF Titan. The Leopards have good fuel and benefits from its small size but has anemic cargo. The Vengence has good fuel but no cargo as you know.

Like I said, its general. But because its consistent across the board it allows comparisons.
Though I should probably add Small Craft...
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

First up I assign 1% of ship mass as spares for the  ship. Fuel is also assigned for the ship.

I break up the remaining cargo and fuel between the ASF, assigning cargo space to fuel as necessary. The two values are the equalised based on 3 tons of cargo and 3 tons of fuel per sortie.

OK, I see where you're coming from, though that seems like it might be a bit low for utilization.  Sure, 1% of the ship's mass is probably fine for spare parts, but that still doesn't take into account food for the DropShip crew, the fighter pilots, or the technicians that maintain the fighters.

The 3/3 split is probably OK, especially for smaller birds, but might be a bit low for some of the larger ones.

Quote
Your Titan estimate is off. The SLDF version carries 18 ASF and the Clan version carries 30. The Clan version uses nearly twice the supplies but has 2/3 of the supplies so the number of sorties drops to 1/3rd.

I'm well aware of how many fighters each version carries, Jellico[/i], though I did make a miscalculation when doing the numbers for the Clan version.

The Star League Titan had three bays, each with 6 aerospace fighters, and each with 695 tons of cargo.  Well, one was actually 696 tons, but that's OK, we'll ignore that extra ton.  Like I said earlier, dividing all the cargo per fighter, you get 115.833 tons per fighter.  The Clan version has 10 fighters per bay, and 395 tons of cargo per bay (ie. 56.83% the cargo of the original SLDF Titan).  Thus, dividing it that way would work out to 39.5 tons per fighter, not 38.6 tons.  Hence, I might have been off, but by less than a ton per fighter.

Also, I wasn't factoring in the DropShip's fuel as part of the fighter loadout.  I'm generally loathe to do that because you don't know what percentage of that the DropShip will need to use for its standard patrol duties, so you're never 100% certain you can count on that when you need it.
M.U.L. Team
*
BT Volunteer
Posts: 8443

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

You have to include fuel. Its worth hundreds of tons of cargo. Speaking of which I think I made a mistake there due to a possible error in TRO3057. Anyway, while it is variable so is virtually every other value. From cargo to usage rates. And the usage by the mothership is small compared to that of a single full launch for nearly any carrier.

To swing this back on topic, at least it looks like the Samarkand can handle is ASF.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 7221

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Regarding its 2-year acquisition time, it might be possible that the Block I Sammies were based on a previous warship class, probably an orphan or (more likely) a failed proposal or unbuilt design; most of the design and test work would have already been completed and all that would be necessary would be to tweak the design to match the design requirements and actually build the thing.

Regarding the Vengeance, remember that while it is not an SLDF design, it was designed either just prior to or during the first succession war, when warships with ginormous cargo holds and few fighter berths were plentiful; in other words, Vengeance CV's were basically add-on external pods for adding fighters to warships - fighter fuel, ordnance and supplies could be easily carried by the existing cargo holds.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Regarding its 2-year acquisition time, it might be possible that the Block I Sammies were based on a previous warship class, probably an orphan or (more likely) a failed proposal or unbuilt design; most of the design and test work would have already been completed and all that would be necessary would be to tweak the design to match the design requirements and actually build the thing.

Regarding the Vengeance, remember that while it is not an SLDF design, it was designed either just prior to or during the first succession war, when warships with ginormous cargo holds and few fighter berths were plentiful; in other words, Vengeance CV's were basically add-on external pods for adding fighters to warships - fighter fuel, ordnance and supplies could be easily carried by the existing cargo holds.


I'm imagining the logistics of shuttling hundreds of tons of armour plate, fighter subassemblies and ordnance through the docking collar.  yech.
*
Major
Posts: 4638
"Six or Styx"

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Fairly easy once someone realised it had to be designed to do so.

Challenger
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 7221

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

I'm imagining the logistics of shuttling hundreds of tons of armour plate, fighter subassemblies and ordnance through the docking collar.  yech.

Considering the MASSIVE cargo holds of warships, it stands to reason that they are designed for that kind of thing... on both the jumper and the dropper.

Furthermore, as relates directly to the Vengeance, the primary things that would get transferred would be fuel (simple hose attachments) and ordnance. No big in zero G.  Cool
*
Moderator
Posts: 15899
No trouble at all...

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

I'm imagining the logistics of shuttling hundreds of tons of armour plate, fighter subassemblies and ordnance through the docking collar.  yech.

Why go through the docking collar? If I knew I'd be transferring a large amount of heavy equipment, I'd make it easier by attaching directly to the cargo bay with mine.
*
Major
Posts: 4052
Run!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Prior to 3075 and even 3050. Wasn't Aerospace Carriers themselves (dropship and warship) rare?

Typically, in old books (first writers) there were plenty of Warships packed least 3 squadrons of Aerospace Fighters.  Dropship were view, Most didn't fly more than 18 fighters tops.  

TRO 3057, first introduced Warship type Hybrid Aerospace Carrier, when they introduced York.  

I got the impression that the sheer number of Warships with fighters made bulk of the carrier fleet and old SLDF Titans and Leopard CVs were complimating them. Vengeance was introduced 2782, thats after the Amaris Coup it was introduced. So it didn't even factor in SLDF's forces.
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

Why go through the docking collar? If I knew I'd be transferring a large amount of heavy equipment, I'd make it easier by attaching directly to the cargo bay with mine.

"Open the pod bay doors, Hal."

Prior to 3075 and even 3050. Wasn't Aerospace Carriers themselves (dropship and warship) rare?

WarShip carriers?

Quote
Typically, in old books (first writers) there were plenty of Warships packed least 3 squadrons of Aerospace Fighters.  Dropship were view, Most didn't fly more than 18 fighters tops. 

The Texas and the Mckenna were always loaded down with something like 40 aerospace fighters.  The Vengance was actually published before them, amusingly.

Quote
TRO 3057, first introduced Warship type Hybrid Aerospace Carrier, when they introduced York. 

I got the impression that the sheer number of Warships with fighters made bulk of the carrier fleet and old SLDF Titans and Leopard CVs were complimating them. Vengeance was introduced 2782, thats after the Amaris Coup it was introduced. So it didn't even factor in SLDF's forces.

And, when those books were published, that might have been the intention.  With the publication of Tech Readout 3075, we now know that there were craploads of Samarkands in Star League service.  The Vengeance?  Well, was it a late Star League design to supplement fighter coverage on WarShips, or a counter to WarShip fleets built by the Houses?
*
Major
Posts: 4052
Run!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

"Open the pod bay doors, Hal."

WarShip carriers?


Sorry, bad habit.  Thats what I refer to them as. I know its sounds strange call them WarShip carriers.  You remember, prior to TRO3057, there were no ships that were dedicated carriers. Just DropShips. 


And, when those books were published, that might have been the intention.  With the publication of Tech Readout 3075, we now know that there were craploads of Samarkands in Star League service.  The Vengeance?  Well, was it a late Star League design to supplement fighter coverage on WarShips, or a counter to WarShip fleets built by the Houses?

Well, 3075 doesn't specify how many of the block II Samakands were built.  Block Is can be counted on single hand. 

I was disappointed they didn't mentioned any companion Warships flying with it when they were attacking Outworlds Alliance.  I hate think they only had used Star League Warships like the Aegis Class Heavy Cruiser maded up bulk of their WarShip fleet.
*
Moderator
Posts: 15899
No trouble at all...

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere it is written that the pre-Sucession Wars DCA was mostly focused on corvettes and destroyers, preferring to fight raiding engagements or using pack tactics against other fleets. The Kuritan Aegii were probably used as flagships to anchor a destroyer group, while the Samarkand was probably a fleet carrier, or as is mentioned, a defensive unit.
*
Major
Posts: 4052
Run!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere it is written that the pre-Sucession Wars DCA was mostly focused on corvettes and destroyers, preferring to fight raiding engagements or using pack tactics against other fleets. The Kuritan Aegii were probably used as flagships to anchor a destroyer group, while the Samarkand was probably a fleet carrier, or as is mentioned, a defensive unit.
I thought I read Liao was suppose to be ones using lighter Warships, up to Heavy Cruisers?

Well, from what I read in least two of the House Books, that in 1st Succession War, that they had this 100 ship vs 100 ship battle that wiped out the bulk of the Warship fleets in both Houses.  They needed have least have to more classes of ships to actually have those numbers.  Aegis HC the League sold was 1/3rd of what they had left, split between 5 Succession Houses, i'd imagine they only had...like 6 to 12 ships per house if they did it evenly.
*
Colonel
Posts: 13901
Comstar Explorer Service - Lost in Spaaaace!!!!

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

I don't remember where I read it, but somewhere it is written that the pre-Sucession Wars DCA was mostly focused on corvettes and destroyers, preferring to fight raiding engagements or using pack tactics against other fleets. The Kuritan Aegii were probably used as flagships to anchor a destroyer group, while the Samarkand was probably a fleet carrier, or as is mentioned, a defensive unit.

I recall something similar.  Could you imagine trying to raid with a Baron or Vigilant?  Makes me wonder if the Samarkand did that role, as well.
*
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 6773
No longer allowed to have nice things

Re: WarShip of the....Something (8/23/09) - the Samarkand Class Carrier

The Vengeance?  Well, was it a late Star League design to supplement fighter coverage on WarShips, or a counter to WarShip fleets built by the Houses?

I got an idea.  Attrition replacements/Fighter ferry.  You need to rotate line squadrons and replacement ships on and off somehow, and you probably infinitely prefer ready-to-fly craft to unboxing a kit labled "One (1) Rapier, Some assembly required".  In that role, you wouldn't need supplies for sorties - it's a straight ferry/transport for a wing or a load of replacement fighters.  And if it's the same size as a McKenna's complement, then you can relieve a McKenna's entire (surviving) fighters at the same time you send it a full set of replacements.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All   Go Up
 
: