Solomani Confederation (Military)

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

A. I'm going to say that if only for infrastructure reasons, the Confederation Navy caps it's smallcraft at thirty five tonnes.

B. Commercial interests are free to do as they wish, but a lot find it convenient to follow this guidance.

C. Non fighter thirty five tonne designs tend to be convertible to gunboats.

D. Canon has sketched out niches for shuttles, cutters, ship's boats, launches, pinnaces, and gigs.

E. From five to forty nine tonnes, there are no tonnage differences to leverage for advantages.

F. Except for hull armour, and you only really need that for anticipated combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

G. Oh yeah, firmpoints, hence why I'm always going on about thirty five tonnes.

H. It's sort of the best of all possible worlds.

I. Two firmpoints, doubled percentaged hull armour, cockpitted, agile.

J. We'll gift the designation of shuttle to thirty five tonne non fighter smallcraft.

K. Armed and assault adjectives, if used as gunboats, and/or troop transports for frontal attacks.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

L. If armoured streamlined smallcraft is a requirement, but not necessarily firmpoints, twenty six tonnes.

M. Hull armour percentage is doubled, which may or may not be considered worth it.

N. As a ship's boat, the pinnace is a light boat, propelled by oars or sails, carried aboard merchant and war vessels in the Age of Sail to serve as a tender. The pinnace was usually rowed but could be rigged with a sail for use in favorable winds. A pinnace would ferry passengers and mail, communicate between vessels, scout to sound anchorages, convey water and provisions, or carry armed sailors for boarding expeditions.[1] The Spanish favored them as lightweight smuggling vessels while the Dutch used them as raiders. In modern parlance, "pinnace" has come to mean an auxiliary vessel that does not fit under the "launch" or "lifeboat" definitions.

O. Communications smallcraft between twenty six to thirty four tonnes.

P. If I had to speculate, it would supplant the ship's boat at thirty tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

Q. Thirty tonnes, since that does seem the capacity of a docking clamp/India.

R. And, you probably want some interoperability with your potential opponents, and commercial shipping.

S. You could do twenty six tonnes, since that would be below the thirty tonne threshold.

T. Though, I can't quite figure out how to leverage that twenty six over thirty tonnes.

U. And, you can stuff thirty tonnes into a thirty five tonne hole.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

V. Which leaves us with sub twenty six tonne smallcraft.

W. At three and four times percentaging hull armour, cementing that on seems somewhat wasteful.

X. Under what circumstances would the preference be for a sub thirty tonne smallcraft?

Y. Five tonnes certainly, since that's the smallest a spacecraft can be designed.

Z. And I can't think of anything that really can be leveraged between five and thirty tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

1. The Confederation Navy definitely has a wide range of five tonne smallcraft.

2. I suppose we could have one with only a manoeuvre factor/zero, and call it a coracle.

3. Since the Navy would be dependent on Army supplied gravitational transport dirtside, they have developed their own spacecrafts that can perform similar functions.

4. Which mostly leaves them not depending on the Army for air transportation.

5. And, surprisingly, their spacecraft are (currently) cheaper than gravitational vehicles.

6. The Confederation Army is not allowed to own or operate any form of spacecraft.

7. Even chartering one, has to be done through the Navy.

8. Clear separation of powers, between Army, Navy, and Security.

9. Though, Security have their own fleet of spacecraft, though their apparent envy of the Navy communications network indicates not a comprehensive one.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

A. Since thirty five tonnes isn't that far from thirty tonnes, thirty tonne smallcraft may be more pronounced along the Imperium border.

B. Thirty five tonne fighters have an integrated forced linkage apparatus, that they refer to as the tailhook.

C. This allows Confederation fighters to land on any hull.

D. It also allows a thirty five tonne smallcraft to attach itself to an upto seventy tonne hull, and manoeuvre with it.

E. Hence, why the Confederation Navy doesn't bother with modular cutters.

F. The secondary hulls usually have integral landing gear, since the tailhook is positioned on the bottom of the thirty five tonne hull.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

G. The next range of smallcraft would be seventeen and a half tonnes.

H. This would allow them, if they have a tailhook, to transport thirty five tonne loads.

I. Probably the best compromise between ten, fifteen, and twenty five tonnes.

J. Capability and hull configuration would provide the smallcraft designation.

K. A seventeen and a half tonne streamlined smallcraft, with a minimum acceleration factor/five, would be considered a gig.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

L. Canonically, light fighters (and ultralite) tend to dominate sub twenty tonnes.

M. So, I cracked open the Small Craft Catalogue.

N. I don't think I got it wrong making it primarily thirty five tonnes, and halving it to seventeen and a half.

O. Anything extra can be add on, and forced linkage apparatus is certified to five kilotonnes.

P. Half of seventeen and a half is eight and three quarters.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

Q. Half of that is four and three eighths tonnes.

R. Minimum tonnage being five, so rounds up.

S. I tend to think a spacecraft needs a minimum of one hull point.

T. It's quite possible to reduce that below one hull point at five tonnes, through the use of alternate materials and hull options.

U. You probably will end up with something quite fragile, and unlikely to survive atmospheric reentry.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Amphibious Landing

1. Hot landing zone.

2. Protected forces.

3. Fusion rockets.

4. Tow cable.

5. Drop pod.

6. Engineering vehicles.

7. Collateral damage.

8. I'm guessing a kilotonne, with a reinforced company.

9. Interesting if it's actually feasible for a somewhat protected region.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

V. Smallcraft specifically designed to haul cargo pods, externally, would be termed Transporters.

W. Seventeen and a half tonne smallcraft would be termed launches, if principally used for passenger traffic.

X. If acceleration factor/three and below, could also be called a boat.

Y. Instead of forced linkage apparatus, we could use a towing cable.

Z. Suspect that we'd run out of rocket fuel before landing, so a more cooler manoeuvre drive.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

1. Towing cable has a fundamental flaw, in that the size is based on the tower, not towee.

2. Also, exactly how much cable can you lay out.

3. A little coordination, can have multiple towing vehicles pulling something along.

4. A safer option is just using a docking clamp.

5. This fixes the propeller hull on the towed hull, and would prevent towing cable entanglement.

6. You get a tugboat about one fiftieth of the volume of the towed hull, and you should be able to tow it along at around acceleration factor/one.

7. A towing cable would be one percent of volume, which at two percent of hauled volume, would be point zero two percent of hauled volume.

8. Let's take a hundred kilotonne barge and a two kilotonne tugboat.

9. That would be twenty tonnes of towing cable, at a hundred kilostarbux.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

A. The advantage of a winched drop pod is that the smallcraft doesn't have to land.

B. Chances are, the release of the cable can be achieved within six seconds.

C. The drop pod wouldn't need separate propulsion system, nor, likely, a parachute.

D. Without inertial compensation, weightlessness could be a consequence of dropping straight down.

E. If you don't want to vomit comet, you could keep it as fast elevator speed.

F. Which does require knowing exactly how fast each is, and how long landing would take.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

G. A ship without a functioning gravitic drive attempting re–entry without heat shielding will burn up.

H. The drop pod would be attached to a smallcraft with a manoeuvre drive.

I. Re-entry and landing operations require a reverse of this Thrust, although a ship equipped with a heat shield may utilise the shield to overcome Thrust 3; any greater amount will result in dangerous heating (see page 12 of High Guard for Heat Shielding re-entry and apply DM-1 for each additional Thrust beyond 3 that is shed via re-entry).

J. Which means what?

K. Unless it's about atmospheric friction and breaking, way beyond hypersonic, assuming hypersonic is achieved one complete gravitational acceleration beyond the local gravity.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Gig Economy

L. Towing cable, and net, in a gravity well, would droop downwards.

M. In theory, you could use them to transport stuff.

N. Atmospheric reentry tends to complicate the issue with the possibility of burning up.

O. Freefalling, terminal velocity is between fifty five and ninety metres per second.

P. I would guess that attached to a cable or in a net, you don't want the transport craft exceeding that speed, otherwise it would bump into the cargo below.