Carrier Standardization Project (Complete)

This is the file for all projects in R&D that have completed the process and been approved for full production.

Moderator: IDOMIR

Locked
User avatar
jacenwesiri
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander
Posts: 948
Joined: 2008-03-26 18:53
Custom Title: Sith Sorcerer, Supreme Commander, something else
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Carrier Standardization Project (Complete)

Post by jacenwesiri » 2012-01-18 05:11

Designation: Illustrious class Fleet Carrier

Purpose:

My intention is to create a standardized Fleet Carrier for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and probably 4th Fleets. I've decided on the following criteria would be most important for a Fleet Carrier.
  • It must have a high Squadron Capacity
  • Efficiently maintain and deploy it's Squadrons as needed.
  • It must have high survivability for most probable situations. (I don't expect it to be able to survive on the line, but rather to be able to survive long enough to get to safety if the enemy were to break through, or if some bombers would get through.)
  • Ability to effectively coordinate it's assigned fighters.
  • It should not have unnecessary frills, which would either detract from it's previously listed abilities, or generate additional IC costs.
That being said, Viktor and I had originally selected the Endurance class, with the Prowler mk II to supplement it and the Vanquishers being maintained. The Endurance fit those criteria very well, but then I was made aware of the approved Venerator mk II. Somehow, is able to fit into a frame that isn't much larger than the Endurance nearly 2x as many fighters, and a potentially very impressive array of firepower. I don't see why it would be desirable to have a carrier that also sports line grade weaponry, a large amount of capital ship warheads, and I don't see how it's possible to do that with doubling the carrier capacity over a dedicated fleet carrier. I don't see any reason for why if the venerator mk II can do this, that a better dedicated fleet carrier could be designed on the Endurance hull.

Application: This is intended to be a standard fleet carrier for the NIF. It would incorporate much of the uberness of the Venerator mk II into a dedicated Fleet Carrier.

Schedule: We have experience with Endurance class, and making Carriers. It should be a simple matter to adapt the hull for use as a dedicated fleet carrier.

Visual Description: It will look very much the same as an Endurance Class

Technical Specifications:
Name/Type: Illustrious-class Fleet Carrier
Designer/Manufacturer: NIF
Designation: Fleet Carrier
Crew: 5,500 + 100 Gunners
Length: 1,040 meters
Speed: 60 MGLT, 1,000 Kph
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 7,300 SBD
Hull Rating: 1,277 RU
Weapons: 8 Turbolaser Cannons, 24 Double Laser Cannons, 8 Ion Cannons, 10 Interceptor Tractor Beams
Fighter Complement: 54 Squadrons.
Troops: 400 Troopers.
Support Craft: 6 Shuttles, 30 Combat Utility Vehicles
Modifications: Molecular Recycling Plant, Helios AI, limited Ion Hardened Armour, 42 MIST Turrets

Commentary: the speed of 70 MGLT is unnecessary, so cutting it down to 60 MGLT should reduce power requirements compared to the Endurance. Similarly, the number of Turbolaser Cannons are reduced, generally a fleet carrier will not be operating without an escort, which undermines the purpose of the Turbolaser Cannons, but most are retained. Adding the MRP would be to free up space and power, not to increase endurance. Removing Troop Capacity Upgrading the Laser cannons to Double Laser cannons and adding another 4 would provide some protection against fighters or bombers that get through the main line, and the limited ion hardened armour would make it less vulnerable to attacks a la what happened to the Nemesis a while back.

Weaknesses: Much the same as an Endurance Carrier, but without quite so much flexibility to reflect existing realities and the whole Specialized > Generalized paradigm. I'm usually critical of the Specialized > Generalized carried to some extremes, but for a ship that is intended to operate within fleets, I believe that increasing the specialization makes a lot of sense. It's an acceptable tradeoff.

Projected Upgrades: TBD
Last edited by jacenwesiri on 2014-03-10 03:22, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't worry guys, it's cool. We've got this, I'm Master Yi!" -- a questionable Yi player, who ended the game 2-16. We lost.

User avatar
Tavish McFini
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral
Posts: 1502
Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Location: ESD Intimdator
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project

Post by Tavish McFini » 2012-01-18 15:35

Just a thought: I would imagine this would have made a very interesting design competition for people to enter potential ideas into. That being said, I guess our active numbers and the general length of time it oft takes from start to finish doesn't really make it a feasible idea.

Wow, 54 squadrons? In a vessel just over a kilometer long? Of course, length hardly gives a direct correlation to volume but I suppose it needs to be asked... How quickly could all 54 of those squadrons soar out into space? For a reference point, if we remember the iconic Star Destroyer (Imperial-class), it has the nice big massive gaping hole underneath which was essentially a cut away that was surrounded by hangers. I imagine this would have allowed for the Star Destroyer to launch it's entire wing (12 squadrons) of fighters at once allowing the starfighters to quickly overwhelm its foe instead of getting picked off piecemeal.

In the case of this carrier, if we have a whopping 54 squadrons, we would potentially need 4.5 massive openings to allow all those fighters to deploy at once. Okay, the Star Destroyer also had troop transports to consider and shuttles so let's just cut that number in half (because lest we forget, it also had a secondary hanger for shuttles) so you need 2.25 or just 2.5 (I like rounding up to account for other details not thought of) large holes in your ship. Alternatively, you could go for the NR style and just have a bunch of smaller hangers all along the side of the vessel but I don't think that's really an option.

Assuming you're just keeping the 1 large bay, I suppose you could expand the hangers to accommodate, say, 2.5 squadrons in each of them and thinking about it, they'd all just file out as normal, but since no one is going to fly at 100 MGLT inside of a ship, the time to deploy all those TIEs into battle will increase significantly versus giving each squadron their own hanger space.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on that particular matter...

Something I noticed which seems to be a common oversight for any carrier/warship. In most literature, vehicles like assault gunboats and Skiprays are classified separately from the usual starfighter/bomber squadrons. So I must ask, will this ship carry any of those or are we eschewing those sorts of vessels (I'd call them subcaps but it seems not all of them fall under that classification) in favor of more fighters and bombers? If we are, why?
Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.

User avatar
jacenwesiri
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander
Posts: 948
Joined: 2008-03-26 18:53
Custom Title: Sith Sorcerer, Supreme Commander, something else
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project

Post by jacenwesiri » 2012-01-18 18:26

54 squadrons comes from the venerator mk II not all that much larger, having 48 squadrons, and somehow finding space for hundreds of capital ship grade missiles inside. And yes, the Venerator is longer, but the Endurance appears to have a wider hull, so the volume differences would be less than one would think. Beyond that, additional resources could be expended to increase the tech level of the ship, to bring it up to scratch. Beyond that, it's cutting down the engine systems from 70 mglt to 60 mglt, and reducing crew size for certain functions through increased automation, slashing troop sizes, and incorporating the MRP to reduce volume constraints.

As for launching the fighters, I don't think the giant gaping hull was just for that. In the movie, they also used that to take in and capture a corvette, so yeah. Still, it did provide a relatively defended area where the hangers could be connected to for fast launching. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the giant flight deck like the old venerators, with some giant doors that could be opened or closed as needed. As the ship is designed to be behind the main line, the weaknesses would be an acceptable tradeoff. Just looking at the image, I think it's reasonable to claim that there would be at least 4 openings. the two in the bulges, and then where the armor widens, both along the middle of the sides. I'd assume it would be possible to fit in more, but with that, there'd be the two main entrances that seem like the Venerator's, and then two smaller entrances. The larger ones I'm assuming are on the order of maybe 50 meters, and with good organization. Regarding that, I would assume that the fighters would be kept on some state of readiness on racks. When needed, they could be loaded and whatnot, and the pilots could enter a fighter at will, and then launch in said fighter. With automation, this would allow for a very short turnaround. When the fighters on said racks are ready to launch, the rack could be moved into position, and launched.

I'm eschewing them. I think realistically you need some shuttles to be able to ferry crew and such around, and then you would need some combat utility vehicles available for reloading as needed. I'm thinking that 30 may be too many, but yeah. With the idea of not operating independently, the idea is that things like TIE/fc from other fleet elements, like Magnates, could relay their information as needed to them. Though I am considering adding some.
"Don't worry guys, it's cool. We've got this, I'm Master Yi!" -- a questionable Yi player, who ended the game 2-16. We lost.

User avatar
jacenwesiri
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander
Posts: 948
Joined: 2008-03-26 18:53
Custom Title: Sith Sorcerer, Supreme Commander, something else
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project

Post by jacenwesiri » 2012-01-21 06:43

I'm revising the stats downward.

Technical Specifications:
Name/Type: Illustrious-class Fleet Carrier
Designer/Manufacturer: NIF
Designation: Fleet Carrier
Crew: 5,500 + 100 Gunners
Length: 1,040 meters
Speed: 60 MGLT, 1,000 Kph
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 7,300 SBD
Hull Rating: 1,277 RU
Weapons: 8 Turbolaser Cannons, 24 Double Laser Cannons, 8 Ion Cannons, 10 Interceptor Tractor Beams
Fighter Complement: 50 Squadrons.
Troops: 300 Troopers.
Support Craft: 6 Shuttles, 24 Combat Utility Vehicles, 3 TIE/ew, 3 TIE/fcs
Modifications: Molecular Recycling Plant, Helios AI, limited Ion Hardened Armour, 42 MIST Turrets
"Don't worry guys, it's cool. We've got this, I'm Master Yi!" -- a questionable Yi player, who ended the game 2-16. We lost.

User avatar
Tavish McFini
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral
Posts: 1502
Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Location: ESD Intimdator
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project

Post by Tavish McFini » 2012-01-21 14:33

I'd call that acceptable.

APPROVED!
Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.

User avatar
jacenwesiri
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander
Posts: 948
Joined: 2008-03-26 18:53
Custom Title: Sith Sorcerer, Supreme Commander, something else
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project

Post by jacenwesiri » 2012-01-24 07:26

I'm tempted to just close the project, but well, if anyone else would like to submit anything for it, I listed out what I thought the requirements were in here, so I guess it wouldn't hurt to leave this around some. If Fini and Co would rather just close it, I'm fine with that too.
"Don't worry guys, it's cool. We've got this, I'm Master Yi!" -- a questionable Yi player, who ended the game 2-16. We lost.

User avatar
jacenwesiri
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander
Posts: 948
Joined: 2008-03-26 18:53
Custom Title: Sith Sorcerer, Supreme Commander, something else
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Carrier Standardization Project (Completed)

Post by jacenwesiri » 2014-03-10 03:23

This is old and obsolete really. At least I think it's done. So archive please.
"Don't worry guys, it's cool. We've got this, I'm Master Yi!" -- a questionable Yi player, who ended the game 2-16. We lost.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests