Wind-class Strike Carrier

[Major B]

In what lately has been only a very little bit of free time, I’ve been working on a conversion of the Wind-class Strike Carrier from Supplement 9 using the MT design sequence. I think this vessel has the essentials of a wise decision on the part of IN procurement – transforming the carrier that at TL12 could depend on its fighters to be the main striking weapon into a TL15 fighting vessel that carries fighters designed to supplement and complement the carrier’s inherent weapon systems.

The Wind-class carrier, as described in S9, sports a meson spinal plus an assortment of impressive bay and turret weaponry, and carried eighty 50-Ton fighters. My work so far on the conversion is falling a little short of the mark (in terms of volume available for carried craft), so I’ve experimented with splitting the fighter complement a little. After some fiddling, I’m working on a carried brood of 80 craft divided as follows:

Three squadrons of twelve 50-Ton Strike Fighters

Three squadrons of twelve 20-Ton Atmospheric Fighters

One Flight of four 50-Ton Assault Landers

One Flight of four 20-Ton Utility Boats

The carrier design is almost done. I’ve reduced the S9 version’s Meson Screen from factor 9 to factor 7, increased the jump drive potential from 3 to 4, added space for fuel sufficient for an extra jump-2 (this is a Strike vessel, so it should be able to jump in, hit, and jump out without refueling). Most of the rest of the design particulars from S9 I’ve been able to implement using MT rules, and reducing half the fighter wind to 20-ton craft has kept me within the constraints on a 75,000-ton hull.

But before I can finalize the carrier design, I have to finish off the designs for the four types of carried craft. So far, I have the Strike Fighter finished and I’ll describe it in the next post. Subsequent designs will follow as I finish them, as will the carrier design (after I finish each of the craft).

Please look at each design with a critical eye. Each first post is really a first draft – I’m hoping to gather feedback, ideas, suggestions, or even just proofreading. In other words, poke holes wherever you can. I like the feedback and will post updates as I incorporate everyone’s ideas.

 

[Major B]

Gauntlet-class Strike Fighter

I’m really happy with how this design has turned out. I tried to keep any preconceived notions out as I built the design, and it turned out much different from what I expected.

My starting idea was for a fighter with a bit of added armor, high power but short range weaponry, possibly fast but probably not agile, with a mid-range computer that would handicap the design’s effectiveness. I hoped to be able to maximize one, or maybe two of these items to give the design at least some utility when used in conjunction with the carrier. Boy was I surprised – turned out this number has far more capability than I thought I could achieve.

The design worksheets are posted here, and the craft profile is posted here.

The fifty ton hull was the key that made it all possible. Another key was choosing a spherical hull, as this gave a 20% savings in hull weight. With the volume and weight savings this hull provided, I ended up with a heavily armored, expensive, fast, and agile fighter that still had good endurance and potent weaponry (at least against the targets fighters are best suited for).

The main drawback to this design is expense (meaning it will have to be fielded in smaller numbers). The onboard computer is only a model 7, which is better than most fighters but still less than the best available.

But the strengths of the design more than compensate. It has an armor value of 70, giving a +10 modifier to rolls against surface explosions and radiation damage (except meson guns). It has 6G acceleration and 6 agility (which is difficult to achieve in MT). This means that the fighter’s defensive modifier under normal maneuver power is +9, and when under combat maneuver power is +15. That means it is hard to hit, and when you do get lucky it is hard to penetrate.

It mounts both a fusion gun and a missile launcher, giving good long- and short-range capabilities. It has a maximized sensor suite meaning it can find targets for itself and can more effectively screen and provide early warning for the carrier. And it is stealthy, with no detectible emissions in the normal maneuver power mode. It can also handle long-endurance missions, with five tons of cargo space, small staterooms for each of the three crewmembers, and emergency low berths in case of emergencies. It can also scoop fuel for itself making this a viable gas giant defender.

I guess if you can afford the MCr 169.344 price tag, you can buy yourself a lot of capability.

So, honestly I think I had to have missed something. The Gauntlets are just far better than I thought they would be. Check it out and let me know where I screwed up. These are my first draft – I just finished the design tonight. I’ll proofread them over the next few days, when time permits, and see if I can address any feedback into an update later in the week.

I’m also working on deck plans I hope to post with the next update.

 

[whartung]

Well, first off, I love the presentation in the PDFs, very nice.

I just want to clarify something though.

The way I read this is you have 3 separate power plant (1 for normal maneuver, 1 for combat maneuver, and 1 for combat weaponry), and 2 M-Drives, a 2G normal drive, and a 6G combat drive.

Are these there simply for redundancy, especially the drive where a 6G drive makes a perfectly good 2G drive.

Just curious about that.

I also love the emergency backup power with the Solar, where if the primary power plants fail, there's at least some power for life support and some comms. Dunno about how efficient those are out there with the Gas Giants, but I love the idea.

 

[Major B]

Thanks much Whartung.

The way I read this is you have 3 separate power plant (1 for normal maneuver, 1 for combat maneuver, and 1 for combat weaponry), and 2 M-Drives, a 2G normal drive, and a 6G combat drive.

Are these there simply for redundancy, especially the drive where a 6G drive makes a perfectly good 2G drive.

There is only one power plant and a single maneuver drive, but I separate them out into categories to allocate fuel. If I figured in a 15-day fuel load for the power plant running at max capacity, I'd need 238.6 kl of fuel, which blows the design out. Instead, I only power the M-drive enough for 2G and include only essential systems, then provide enough fuel for that lower power setting. Then I add 16 hours of fuel for the M-Drive at full capacity (plus the extra power needed for agility) and 8 hours worth of fuel to power the fusion gun. All that only requires 39.6 kl of fuel.

I also love the emergency backup power with the Solar, where if the primary power plants fail, there's at least some power for life support and some comms. Dunno about how efficient those are out there with the Gas Giants, but I love the idea.

Thanks, but I can't take credit. That idea I stole from someone else's design somewhere. The solar collectors will only provide the stated power when within the habitable zone of a system, and the power drops as you go further out. I thought of adding fuel cells or batteries as an additional backup, but it got to be too much.

I found a couple of typos in the first sheets posted, so I'm headed there now to replace them with corrected copies.

 

[Swiftbrook]

The Wind-class carrier, as described in S9, sports a meson spinal plus an assortment of impressive bay and turret weaponry, and carried eighty 50-Ton fighters. My work so far on the conversion is falling a little short of the mark (in terms of volume available for carried craft),

{snip}

What design software are you using?
I quickly ran the ship through my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet and came out OK with only reducing the agility to 2 and a different crew size. A very high agility is just not realistic on a large size ship in MT. Also, I haven't optimized it, just a quick creation.

Now, I have every trick programmed into my Lotus design file I created 10 years ago! I don't have the time to redevelop it in Excel and unfortunately, Acrobat crashes when trying to print from my version of Lotus.

If I have more time later this week, I type out the design here.

-Swiftbrook

 

[Major B]

What design software are you using?

It is mostly manual, with excel doing the calculating work but it still requires fiddling with the formulas for each design.

I quickly ran the ship through my Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet and came out OK with only reducing the agility to 2 and a different crew size. A very high agility is just not realistic on a large size ship in MT.

Thats where mine is too. I reduced agility to 2 and reduced the meson srceen from 9 to 7. Still needed to cut some space, as I made some improvements on the S9 design, such as adding electronic circuit protection and an additional launch tube. Once I finish the fighter designs, I can finish off the carrier and post it here. I'm interested to see how it compares to yours.

Now, I have every trick programmed into my Lotus design file I created 10 years ago! I don't have the time to redevelop it in Excel and unfortunately, Acrobat crashes when trying to print from my version of Lotus.

I wish I had Lotus so I could check it out.

If I have more time later this week, I type out the design here.

Please do!

 

[Major B]

Ailette-class Strike Fighter

First cut on the 20-Td Ailette-class Strike Fighter is now posted in the file library here.

Here are some comparisons between the Ailette and the Gauntlet:

- The Ailette has the same sensor and commo packages. All fighters need to be able to communicate with one another and any fighter should be able to designate targets or undertake EW (jamming) roles to support another's attack run.

- Acceleration and agility are identical, but the Ailette's airfoil configuration makes it much more nimble than a Gauntlet when operating in atmosphere.

- The Ailette has no armor above the minimum 40, suggesting a tactical arrangement where Ailettes provide distant (missile) supporting fire while the Gauntlets take the initial attack runs. After enemy defensive fires have been suppressed, the Ailettes can go in to strike point targets. (not that the published combat rules support this analysis)

- The Ailette is much cheaper and lighter.

- The Ailette mounts a pulse laser and missile launcher so is better suited to long-range attacks than the Gauntlet which mounts a Fusion Gun. However, the Ailette's weapons are in fixed mounts, limiting their field of fire.

- The Ailette's crew of two has to share a single small stateroom on long patrols. Endurance is reduced from that of the Gauntlet (to less than 10 days) but is still good. The Ailette only has space for one ton of cargo but can top off its own tanks in only 12 minutes when skimming.

- The Ailette has better EMM, with no emissions at even full power. This, plus the relative strengths and weaknesses of the fighter's weaponry also leads to suggested tactics of using the Ailettes to support the Gauntlets from long range initially. After the Ailette's supporting fire and jamming allows the Gauntlets to close and suppress/disrupt the target, the ailette's can close and finish the fight.

 

[Major B]

Forgot to add:

While working on the Ailette, I noticed another mistake on the Gauntlet designs. I guess I read the wrong line on the Avionics table. Both the Ailette and the Gauntlet should have an NOE speed cap of 190 rather than the 180 listed on the Gauntlet Craft Profile.

I've fixed that now and a corrected copy will be posted when I've finalized all four carried craft designs.

 

[Major B]

Caisson-class Assault Shuttle

The first draft of the 50-ton assault shuttle is done and posted here.

My first thought was to use the Gauntlet hull but after looking the final design over, I went back and made it a disk so I could get an airfoil hull and improve atmospheric performance. It doubled the cost though.

The Caisson is a short-duration design but if the right cargo modules are available, it can be configured for many uses to include long-duration missions.

 

[Major B]

Drogher-class Intrafleet Courier

The Drogher Class Courier Design worksheets are posted here and the UCP sheet is posted here.

Not much exciting with this one – it is an inexpensive workhorse design that is both cheaper and has better cargo capacity that the common design from the Imperial Encyclopedia.

No armor above the 40 minimum and no weaponry. Max acceleration is 3G.

 

[Major B]

Fighter and Lander Design Updates

I caught an error in the fighter designs as I was finishing up the Drogher. The lander design too.

The cost and weight of the electronic circuit protection wasn’t summing up with all the other values. Since the agility calculations weren’t taking this weight into account, the power required for agility wasn’t high enough, so power plant sizes increased slightly and fuel loads had to be adjusted too.

I have updated design sheets done now and I’ll be replacing all of the attachments in the file library with the corrected final copies soon.


Edit: all of the updated files are posted in the library now.

 

[Major B]

Wind-Class Strike Carrier

The first draft of the lady herself is posted here.

Overall, this MT retrofit is pretty close to the original design in S9. In most respects, I think this version is much more versatile than the original too. Maybe you will agree.

The biggest weakness of the retrofit is that my design is limited to 4G maximum acceleration. It also has a relatively low agility (2), although agility 3 is possible by diverting power from some offensive weapon systems and agility 4 can easily be achieved while still powering all weaponry by halving the power required by the Meson Screen.

But the tactical maneuverability deficit is compensated for in terms of strategic maneuverability – and for a strike vessel one could argue that strategic maneuverability is more important.

This design is upgraded to J4 from the original’s J3 range. More, the vessel carries enough fuel for two J3s, allowing it to jump in, cause as much mayhem as possible, then jump back out without having to refuel.

For offensive power it carries a factor-J meson spinal mount, 32 factor-9 missile bays with 20 battery-rounds, 20 factor-9 BLaser batteries, 2 factor-9 fusion gun batteries, and 1 factor-7 particle accelerator battery.

Defensive systems are a factor-9 nuclear damper, factor-7 meson screen, 9 factor-9 repulsor bays, and 10 factor-9 sandcaster batteries also with 20 battery-rounds.

Carried craft are 36 50-Td heavy strike fighters, 36 20-Td light strike fighters, 4 50-Td assault craft, and 4 20-Td shuttles. A 50-Td and a 20-Td launch tube allow all craft to be launched in one turn (the original design only had one tube so took two turns).

I’ll go over some of the other design peculiarities in separate posts. Until then, check out the worksheet and provide any comments, suggestions, or critiques you can see.

 

[Major B]

Command and Control Nodes

One idea I’m struggling with (and this design is a test-bed for some of my ideas) is how a large capital ship controls all of the many functions that would be required in combat.

This is the breakdown of command and control nodes I came up with for the Wind-class. I’m not yet convinced that I have it right yet, so I’m hoping for some feedback.

The benefit of determining the required nodes is that it provides a framework to figure out what communications and sensor systems are needed. It also allows dedicating space in the design for each, rather than having to carve the space out of billeting volume when doing deckplans (yes, I’m thinking of eventually doing deckplans for this design – someone please talk me out of that idea!).

So, until I get some better ideas, I’m using the following definitions:

The Bridge is primarily to control the vessel and the Command Bridge is to control other vessels but both need to match and serve as backup to one another.

The Craft Operations Control Center is the space version of air traffic control – separate for carriers but can be done by the bridge on most ships.

The Vessel Fire Control Center and Defensive Systems Control Center are to manage, operate, and target offensive and defensive systems (respectively). On smaller ships the bridge would do this, but for large ships I think this would have to be separated.

The Surface Operations and Surface Logistics Control Centers are only needed for ships that will command troops on the surface. Smaller forces could combine these into one node.

Surface Fire Control Center is only needed if the ship has an ortillery role and if the surface troops are commanded from orbit, this node would probably also control fire direction tasks for surface-to-surface fires and maybe even coordinate missile defense / point defense tasks.

I do not think that any of these nodes need to be huge. All that is needed is enough workspace for a few trained personnel who can plug in to the ship’s computer. What is important is that these nodes have access to a dedicated sensor and/or communication suite in order to perform their needed functions.

 

[Major B]

Imperial Marine Complement

I'm on a short pass before my unit ships, so have time for a couple of updates. Before we moved to our predeployment training post I was able to post a detail (by MOS, grade, and duty position) of the Marine complement for the Wind-Class Carrier (here)

Now I can catch up with the discussion notes for that bit - sorry for the delay.

The original Wind-class design in S9 carried only 40 marines. IMTU, the Imperial Marines have shipboard security responsibilities in addition to short-duration surface missions. A force trained and equipped for one mission isn’t ideally suited to the other, so my Fleet Marine complements are often composite structures with a security contingent (also used for boarding actions) and surface-action contingent.

My concept for the Wind-class is a composite detachment composed of four sections plus a small detachment headquarters. A quick listing of Organization broken down by MOS, grade, and position title is in the file library here.

First is a security section of 25 organized into two squads (each of two teams) plus a separate team to man the brig.

Next is an Infantry Section of three fire teams, 16 personnel total.

Next is a Recon & Targeting Section of 14 personnel organized into one team of four Recon tanks (using the M109 single-crew design) plus two recon teams each with three marines and a navy forward observer.

Last is a composite lift section of 20 personnel. This section is composed of one lift infantry squad (with a grav APC) and one tank squad (with two tanks).

The detachment headquarters has two personnel drawn from the marine total authorization of 77 plus four personnel that are counted against the vessel’s crew authorizations. Using the MT crewing rules, when I added the 77 marines to the crew total, the command and medical sections both increased by one and the steward section increased by two. So, I reason that those additional crew are there only to support the marines and I used them in the complement design.