Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:23 am

The design packs 12x35t fighters, launch facilities and extended range sensors at 5,000t. ( MGT 2ed Capitals are over 5,000t in the definitions.)

Basically gives enhanced sensors and fighter patrols to supply convoys and sub-capital fleets.

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:30 pm

I think ye escort carrier probably doesn't need more than a jump three and thrust three. possibly five if escorting old battlewagons.

Even the Solomani termed these pocket carriers, though with an increased aerospace wing.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3205
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Reynard » Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:50 pm

Carriers like tenders should not have to employ tremendous speed. Their job is to transport fighting craft near a battle front but still well away, launch their vessels then stay in the rear lines either in the protected shadow of a planet and/or base or near a designated jump point. Riders and fighting ships will return to the rear if necessary to flee or regroup.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2973
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:44 pm

Condottiere wrote: I think ye escort carrier probably doesn't need more than a jump three and thrust three.
Reynard wrote: Carriers like tenders should not have to employ tremendous speed.
If fleet standard is J-4/M-6 then that is what the carrier needs to escort regular warships.

I would argue the primary job of the carrier is to deploy fighters where needed and survive. You need speed to do both.

A carrier that can only hide behind bases (where you can base fighters anyway) is just a transport.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:28 pm

Its meant to augment lower tier fleets and extend the fleets sensor perimeter, as such it needs to match standard warship thrust and jump scores.

Military supply ships honestly should have fleet thrust / jump profiles as they operate close to the battle lines, whereas the bulk supply vessels tend to be well behind the battle lines and are meant to supply bases rather than fleets.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2973
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:06 pm

baithammer wrote: The design packs 12x35t fighters,
It can carry 14 fighters? Or perhaps 12 fighters and 2 utility craft?

Quad turrets and 6 G? Curious choice, what is the campaign?

At GCr 3.5 it is a very expensive way of deploying GCr ~0.5 worth of fighters. It has quite an investment in arms and armour, yet it is still not a survivable fighting ship itself. A basic clamp carrier would be less than half the cost (GCr ~1.3?)

It's perhaps overkill for only 12 fighters, but a Flying Control Room (extra bridge) and a few extra crew might be called for.

I would carry more spare parts, ordnance, and fuel for flight operations, especially if the fighters use reaction drives.



A three day purifier limits mobility.

10% more hull points for ~6% total ship cost (reinforced hull) is hardly worth it.

You can have another advantage on the manoeuvre drive, saving 30 dT, albeit at a cost.

You could save some by having Reduced Size (& hence cost) on the Jump Drive, and making the ship a little bigger to compensate the increased fuel.

Crew areas are very tight, I would expect to carry more flight crew, say Pilot + Gunner + Maintenance for each carried craft. I would really like to have some common areas and escape pods.

You could carry 38 fixed mounts with missile racks and a sandcaster (chaff dispenser) at no tonnage cost. It can be very effective both offensively and defensively (anti-missiles).

The turrets should probably have a few advantages (e.g. Accurate, Long Range, Intense Focus).

The software loadout is light. I would at least carry max Evade and Fire Control. (Cores don't need extra Jump Control.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:03 pm

Identify the likely opposing forces.

You're not forced to cap your design at five kay tonnes, compared to my attempts at max minimizing.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:27 pm

Hangars are to allow space for working on fighters as docking spaces don't allow enough access.

The quad turrets allow better penetration against armor 12+ as well as a slight uptick for point defense.

Thrust 6 allows the ship to keep up with both warships and support ships.

Clamp carriers have the following restrictions.
It takes three full rounds to
release or clamp a ship of less than 2,000 tons, during
which time neither ship can expand any Thrust or make
any attack rolls
.
Which the launch tube /recovery deck don't have.

Anything above 5k dt is considered a capital ship and has a very different intention behind it.
Capital Ship: A military ship of more than 5,000 tons.
This escort carrier is for augmenting non-capital fleets and supply convoys through increased sensor range ( Both through the distributed array which requires the ship be 5,000t or more / shallow penetration sensor and the fighters at the perimeter.) and freeing up capital class ships for other operations.

The fighter in question is the following.

Image
At GCr 3.5 it is a very expensive way of deploying GCr ~0.5 worth of fighters. It has quite an investment in arms and armour, yet it is still not a survivable fighting ship itself. A basic clamp carrier would be less than half the cost (GCr ~1.3?)
Considering the similar sized Sloan Fleet Escort is at 2,442.3399 Mcr and has armour 5 as well only 2,000 Hull Points also has no built-in fuel processor.
and escape pods.
The bridge is the escape pod as this ship is rather compact design.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2973
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:21 am

baithammer wrote: Hangars are to allow space for working on fighters as docking spaces don't allow enough access.
You don't need both hangars and docking space for the same fighter. OK, with both you could probably move the fighters into the maintenance area without exiting the ship, but I would still carry more fighters.

baithammer wrote: The quad turrets allow better penetration against armor 12+ as well as a slight uptick for point defense.
Sure, quad turrets are superior, but not a part of the OTU 3I background, I think.

baithammer wrote: Clamp carriers have the following restrictions.
Sure, but why would you wait until you are under fire to launch the fighters? Launch the fighters at Very Distant or Distant range and that is not a problem.

Note that it will take over an hour for the recovery deck to recover all the fighters, by then the carrier will be lost if under serious fire.

baithammer wrote: Anything above 5k dt is considered a capital ship and has a very different intention behind it.
That is just semantics. Who cares if a ship is 4900 Dt or 5100 Dt? It will probably be classified as a 5000 Dt ship anyway.

You decide what ships classes you want and how to use them.

baithammer wrote: The fighter in question is the following.
I would call that a recon unit. Why not include Advanced sensors and a sensor operator (or two), it certainly has the space?

baithammer wrote: Considering the similar sized Sloan Fleet Escort is at 2,442.3399 Mcr and has armour 5 as well only 2,000 Hull Points also has no built-in fuel processor.
When benchmarking compare with the best, not a "warship" without either effective armaments nor defences.

baithammer wrote: The bridge is the escape pod as this ship is rather compact design.
That is great for the bridge crew, not so great for the engineers, who are probably far from the bridge and not likely to fit on it.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:05 am

You don't need both hangars and docking space for the same fighter. OK, with both you could probably move the fighters into the maintenance area without exiting the ship, but I would still carry more fighters.
Docking spaces are too small for maintenance or repair work. ( Hangars are maintenance areas not holding areas.)
it is installed into a form–
fitting enclosure within the hull of the mother vessel,
with barely enough room for crew and passengers to
scramble on board.
Sure, quad turrets are superior, but not a part of the OTU 3I background, I think.
Considering in the older rules you could group turrets into batteries for capital ships with similar effect.
Sure, but why would you wait until you are under fire to launch the fighters? Launch the fighters at Very Distant or Distant range and that is not a problem.

Note that it will take over an hour for the recovery deck to recover all the fighters, by then the carrier will be lost if under serious fire.
More to the point, the ship can move during either action which is where clamps don't work.
That is just semantics. Who cares if a ship is 4900 Dt or 5100 Dt? It will probably be classified as a 5000 Dt ship anyway.

You decide what ships classes you want and how to use them.
Not if your trying to go with the rules as presented, ie in the existing books in the current set.

5,000 dt is a sub-capital, any greater then would be a capital ship. ( Just like firmpoints.)

Also makes for the argument that the ship isn't taking away from the capital fleet.
I would call that a recon unit. Why not include Advanced sensors and a sensor operator (or two), it certainly has the space?
For a recon unit I would go with advanced sensors with the addition of Rapid Deployment Extended Arrays, but the design I was going for is more of an interceptor/patrol craft.

The missiles carried allow for endurance over the entire mission ( As this isn't a frontline unit.) and also allows for carrying specialist missiles.
When benchmarking compare with the best

Thats the point as there are no ships in this category of sub-capital carriers and the Sloan is an existing design at the same dt.
that is great for the bridge crew, not so great for the engineers, who are probably far from the bridge and not likely to fit on it.

Considering you can replace engineers with expert systems in the rules.

This design is a best effort within constraints. ( Not every design can be a goldstar, sufficiency is more the rule.)

At some point I'll be working on the "Hornet Nest" concept for pirates/raiders which will be a different beast using clamps and a bit different drive system.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:57 am

Five thousand tonnes is a legacy from the days of alphabet engineering and prefabricated commercial hulls.

I tend to look at the benefits and penalties of what a particular tonnage brings the design, the obvious ones being twenty five and hundred kay tonnes that multiply hull strength.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:34 am

Its still a definition in the rules.

The tonnage chosen was the closest to the capital definition while still being able to equip Distributed Array which can only be put on ships 5,000t and over as well as improved or advanced sensors.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2973
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:31 am

baithammer wrote: ( Hangars are maintenance areas not holding areas.)
Full Hangars are hangars, i.e. storage for craft, that are large enough to provide space for maintenance while the craft are stored.

baithammer wrote: Considering in the older rules you could group turrets into batteries for capital ships with similar effect.
I don't understand what that has to do with quad turrets. Quad turrets are not part of the 3I OTU (as far as I can tell).

baithammer wrote: More to the point, the ship can move during either action which is where clamps don't work.
If you're not in combat, what does it matter if you have to stop acceleration a few minutes?
A clamp carrier is much, much cheaper, allowing you to deploy many more fighters.

baithammer wrote:
That is just semantics. Who cares if a ship is 4900 Dt or 5100 Dt? It will probably be classified as a 5000 Dt ship anyway.
Not if your trying to go with the rules as presented, ie in the existing books in the current set.

5,000 dt is a sub-capital, any greater then would be a capital ship. ( Just like firmpoints.)
Yes, there are mechanics that kick in at 5000 Dt or over 5000 Dt, but that has nothing to do with whether a ship, by some random measure, is classified as a capital ship.
Note that the definitions on p4-5 also defines an Escort Carrier as a type of capital ship, so a Sub-Capital Escort Carrier would be a contradiction in terms, if you want to keep strictly to the naming conventions. Personally I think the naming conventions are mostly silly, and not consistent with earlier editions.

baithammer wrote: Also makes for the argument that the ship isn't taking away from the capital fleet.
Sorry, I have no idea what that means. Are there some limit to how many supposedly capital ships you can use?

baithammer wrote: Considering you can replace engineers with expert systems in the rules.
As far as I can see you have not done so. There are a lot of non-bridge crew on your ship, without means of evacuation.
Jeraa
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Jeraa » Sun Dec 24, 2017 11:58 am

baithammer wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:34 am
Its still a definition in the rules.

The tonnage chosen was the closest to the capital definition while still being able to equip Distributed Array which can only be put on ships 5,000t and over as well as improved or advanced sensors.
An Imperial definition with no mechanical impact (unlike the difference between small craft and larger ships). There is absolutely no reason a smaller ship couldn't be considered a capital ship, or a larger ship considered not a capital ship. You are applying the definition more strictly that anyone in the real world actually does. There is a lot of wiggle room in real world ship designations, and the same should apply to designed ships as well.

Also note that is only applies to military ships. It is a self-imposed title. A military ship may be a capital ship, but the same exact ship made for civilians wouldn't be. A 6000 ton military transport ship is a capital ship, but the exact same design but made for civilians isn't a capital ship.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:22 pm

I'd reduce your armor to around 80 tons, since carriers should normally be lightly armored unless their task is assAult (e.g. forward basing in a fight).

Increase your fuel refining to do it in 24hrs (standard for most battle fleets, you can't be tied down for days trying to get fuel ready to jump out, plus it's not a huge imposition).

Increase the number of laser turrets to improve point defense. A carrier will deploy fighters against smaller ships like a destroyer, but it will be most likely targeted by other fighters and missiles.

No need for a detachable bridge, save the credits and tonnage.

There are no small craft listed. How does the crew get anywhere? Small craft could also act as lifeboats.

Spares are ill-defined in the game. But small craft will need a constant supply to maintain high squadron readiness. Something that small can't afford to have more than 1 craft down for maintenance.

And what is the mission thus is needed for? That will drive everything. If you expect to stooge around rear areas keeping raiders and pirates at bay you don't need the tonnage for launch and recovery. Granted the hangar launch rules are woefully stupid and artificial just to make a launch tube necessary, but if you don't need to launch in combat situation you should detect any opponent a long way off, allowing you to launch even with the stupidly slow launch rates of a hangar. I'm not a big fan of clamped fighters ala BSG, bUT that's a better option for launching the bulk of your craft.
Linwood
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Linwood » Sun Dec 24, 2017 5:12 pm

I suggest looking at the ship repair rules to set a reasonable amount of cargo for spares. Maybe 1-2 tons per fighter and a few more for the ship. But as phavoc says the requirements of the mission should Guide this - if the ship is meant to operate away from bases and the fleet train for long stretches you may want more spares. Then again if the fighters are too light to survive much battle damage (flying coffins) maybe you need less....
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:43 pm

Might be the command ship of an independent or detached strike group.

But that means you'll need a couple more of destroyers and escorts.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4270
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby phavoc » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:22 pm

Some other tonnage uses - pilot briefing room, magazine storage for fighter ammo, C&C facilities for directing the fighter wing (similar to a flag bridge). And if you have an air-wing (or space in this case), then you'd need an air staff to command it. Plus their would be repair shops and other things necessary to service the fighter components once they were pulled from the fighter and swapped out. There are some books on the USN carriers and their air wing that provide a lot of thought into small craft operations.

However, fighters in the current version are kind of an after-thought really. I don't see much effort going into fleshing them out - except by people who like that sort of detail.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:00 pm

An Imperial definition with no mechanical impact (unlike the difference between small craft and larger ships). There is absolutely no reason a smaller ship couldn't be considered a capital ship, or a larger ship considered not a capital ship. You are applying the definition more strictly that anyone in the real world actually does.
The difference here is in game mechanics are at play, the definition is greater than 5,000t and a number of options and equipment require a tonnage greater than 5,000t. ( For example, A spinal Meson at TL15 requires a minimum 6,000t hull.)

Capital ships are fairly prescribed, but specific classification are where things are loose. ( Like the Colonial Cruiser.)
Also note that is only applies to military ships. I
Correct, which is why I don't apply that term to civilian vessels.
If you're not in combat, what does it matter if you have to stop acceleration a few minutes?
Get over taken by the enemy and the enemy fighters come to mind, as well as being unable to keep up with the rest of the fleet.

Clamps are fine for something like the Battle-Rider concept, but when the launching ship is to be part of the fleet it can't afford to stop.

MGT traveller 1st edition had capital ships starting at 2,000t.
Capital ships range between 2,001 and 1,000,000 tons
This design is to give sub-capital fleets and convoys additional sensor range and some fighter cover.

It isn't to replace larger vessel in the main fleet.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:31 pm

Capital ships are vessels that have a strategic and political/diplomatic influence.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests