Page 3 of 5

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:21 pm
by AnotherDilbert
phavoc wrote: I don't think the "no armor" concept is a good idea Another Dilbert.
A few points of armour only protects against small-arms, it does very little against spacecraft weapons, yet the tonnage cost is not insignificant.

Carrying more fighters would be a better defence.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:34 pm
by phavoc
That concept fits with out reality. You can't have 0 or 15 armor as your only choices.

And that sort of armor factor is fine for tangling with light fighter strikes, standard missiles, or pirates. It's not so much useful against torpedoes or cruisers and up.

But it should run from cruisers and not from fighters.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:49 pm
by AnotherDilbert
phavoc wrote: That concept fits with out reality. You can't have 0 or 15 armor as your only choices.
They can be the most efficient choices.

Even the damage from a light fighter is barely hindered by light armour. Even heavy armour does not make you immune, but it significantly reduces damage.

I'm arguing on the basis of the MgT2 combat system. It does not work the way you seem to think it should.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:32 pm
by phavoc
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:49 pm
They can be the most efficient choices.

Even the damage from a light fighter is barely hindered by light armour. Even heavy armour does not make you immune, but it significantly reduces damage.

I'm arguing on the basis of the MgT2 combat system. It does not work the way you seem to think it should.
The point of armor is to hinder damage. Your position is the one that is currently at play with most naval architects today - why bother with any armor if you can't really protect yourself. Indeed, if you can eliminate the chance of anyone hitting you by keeping them away (or intercepting the incoming fire), there is no need for armor. But experience tells us that this idea isn't always the wisest of choices. Whether the incoming fire is from missiles, or shells (or lasers), armor does have value, and it can effect the course of battle.

I believe we've had this discussion before about whether or not having screens was any value. And we agreed that we had different views and left it at that. We probably should keep that going with this one. :)

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:44 pm
by AnotherDilbert
phavoc wrote: And we agreed that we had different views and left it at that. We probably should keep that going with this one. :)
Very well.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:31 pm
by Condottiere
Defense, and/or armour, depends very much on the importance and/or cost of what it is protecting.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:32 am
by Linwood
Probably goes to the overall philosophy the navy follows. A navy that favors toughness might have some level of armor as a standard design requirement for all vessels. Other navies may trade toughness for more range, weapons, sensors, etc.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:44 am
by AnotherDilbert
For me this is very simple. I'm not discussing the philosophy of armour, but this particular case.

In this case we can choose between slight armour or another 4 fighters (33% more), the choice between something that might be slightly useful maybe or something that is very useful every day and critical in combat.

I choose 33% more fighters.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:03 am
by Condottiere
I forget, exactly why does the Scout have armour factor four?

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:00 am
by baithammer
Another Revision.

+2 Amour Points
+2 Fighters
+2 Double Occupancy Staterooms

-fighter missile reloads
-11t cargo

Image

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:22 am
by AnotherDilbert
I assume the two 30 Dt hangars are for utility craft? I would make that 35 Dt for flexibility, perhaps one 35 Dt hangar and one docking space?

The ship has space for 18 craft yet only crew for 16?

Very tight accommodations and little cargo space makes for very short mission endurance?

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:02 pm
by baithammer
3x Pilots for the ship, 14 fighters (Single Seaters) with 2 pilots each to allow for rotations and 2 30t Auxiliary / Escape craft, 2 Pilots each to cover rotations.

The hangars for the Auxiliary allow for loading / unloading not to mention space to do checks / repairs.

The two 35t hangars are for checks and repairs for the fighters. ( Docking Spaces aren't ideal for this.)
Very tight accommodations and little cargo space makes for very short mission endurance?
Most ships at this scale are 8 weeks tops and can be extended by dromedary ships if needed.

And accommodations are for those trying to get there ticket to a better posting so endure the crapped environment.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:29 pm
by Condottiere
In a way, you have to figure out the rest of your eco system.

Thirty five tonnes is the optimum size for a medium fighter, but with one or two hangars, if you have larger smallcraft, you might make one larger.

One of the faults of older aircraft carriers was, an inability to cope with size inflation of the individual components of their air wing.

Does that matter in Traveller? Probably not, since we have a very clear view of the upgrade path.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:58 am
by baithammer
Considering the navy rarely dumps all the older designs to chase the new hotness, if the design no longer functions for a new doctrine you'd move it to 2nd or 3rd grade and work on a replacement that works with the new designs.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:39 pm
by Linwood
An escort carrier might be the perfect place to dump obsolescent fighters as the latest and greatest come online. And as the carriers themselves age out of the inventory they become great gifts to system navies. Or maybe get sold off to megacorps or other private customers.

Imagine the yacht you could turn one of these into.... 🙂

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:41 pm
by Condottiere
Fighters tend to become more complex and larger.

I assume under Tee Five rules, this is more plausible, since you can manipulate technology by making it more complex and expensive within the same technological level, whereas with Mongoose, it's more linear, and you could conceivable cram the same performance within a tighter frame at the next technological level.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:20 am
by baithammer
Wasn't referring to dumping obsolete fighters on to the Sub-Cap Escort Carrier, but dumping the Sub-Cap carrier for newer model if the displacement changes for the replacement fighter. ( System fleets would be happy.)

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:02 pm
by baithammer
A bit more tinkering with a different sort of fighter at 20t. ( Carrying 24 of them.)

Image

Image

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:43 pm
by AnotherDilbert
More fighters are nice.


The fighter is a bit lacking in focus? It's clearly mostly a sensor platform, but has very little combat value alone. They have to spread out alone or in small groups for sensor coverage, but they have to concentrate in a squadron to fight.


Nitpicks:

It can't use three advantages on a 9 G drive (TL13) at TL15.

Overpowered? You could save 0.2 - 0.3 Dt on the PP and still have enough power. A bit of extra armour would be handy.

It could save some space and money with a TL12 PP with 3 × Reduced Size.

It could get much better sensor performance (+1 to +5) by exchanging the Countermeasures Suit for a Enhanced Signal Processor, and even get better ECM performance, although at a cost of MCr 4.

A 35 Dt fighter with a missile barbette would launch more missiles per Dt or per MCr, so have higher combat value.

Does it even need a reaction drive? With only missile armament it does not need to get into close range. Without R-drive you could shrink the fighter to ~13 Dt and carry ~32 fighters.

With Virtual Crew/0 software the pilot can let the auto-pilot handle the craft, to concentrate on the sensors, or vice versa. It could even launch missiles without penalty.


I might go with something like this:
Image
10 Dt, MCr 23, Sensor DM +4.
Fixed mount with Missile rack (power for any laser). Armour 15.
Removed R-drive, Aerofins, and extra ammo; smaller sensor and computer.

Re: Sub-Capital Escort Carrier

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:15 pm
by baithammer
Good catch on the systems, was toying around with a fair number of configurations.
It could save some space and money with a TL12 PP with 3 × Reduced Size.
I hate the cheese that comes with this, would be nice to fix the calculations to prevent this sort of thing.
It could get much better sensor performance (+1 to +5) by exchanging the Countermeasures Suit for a Enhanced Signal Processor, and even get better ECM performance, although at a cost of MCr 4.
Another peeve of mine is the general application of the Enhanced Signal Processor to Ewar situations, as both ecm and signal processing should be specializations.

Also the ECM should count as a passive system rather than an active one. ( Should also add a bonus to sensor detection in compensation as it blooms ones footprint.)
A 35 Dt fighter with a missile barbette would launch more missiles per Dt or per MCr, so have higher combat value.
I tend to favour that weight class, but I was trying to see if I could pack more launchers available within the constraints of the carrier platform.

It took a fair amount of willpower to go against the vietnam lessons about relying on missiles as the sole weapon system
It could even launch missiles without penalty.
Since the missile's electronics handle the attack roll and not the pilot, its not even needed.
Does it even need a reaction drive?
Allows interception further out from the fleet and the ability to disengage, not to mention can trade thrust for defense. ( Also the reason for evade/3)

The barbette on the 35dt platform would make an interesting interceptor concept, thanks for suggestion.