The Warmonger-Class Battle Tender

[Terry Mixon]

A few extra clamps would allow you to carry more stuff, at lower jump.

Being able to jump out a damaged battleship, or a few cruisers, seems like a nice thing to have for a fleet?

The ship is already covered with jump riders and fitting a ship that was never designed to go into the mix would be a huge hassle and likely mean leaving battle riders behind. I can see the Navy having a dedicated recovery ship with a docking clamps for this though.

 

[J. L. Brown]

While technically within the rules I have a problem with any ship of a 1M DT attempting to skim a gas giant, or attempt a water landing to wilderness re-fuel (personally I cut the line at 5000DT but that is a different discussion).

Personally, I always have a BT Jump while carrying support / refueling assets among the riders. I have a 50k dTon Fuel-pig built design on the same hull as a Hadrian (30 armor, 6H M-drive, 27800 dTons of fuel/cargo). Four of those is enough to get J-1 (for just the Tender) in about 4 hours.

Also without a launch tube or a recovery deck those fighters are of no use in screening a hot entry or retreat.

Good point; fighters seem like a serious waste of volume. It is better to build that capability into a Battle Rider, and just carry a few when or if it seems necessary. The primary concern of the Battle Tender is to carry Riders; the Riders defend the Tender.

At 1M DT, the ship would consume 10,000 SU per day or 100 Dt per day of supplies - Per pg53 of HG2022 capital ships carry 100 days worth of supplies which would be 10,000DT.

That is a good point, and something I did not consider in my design. Happily, I ended up with 11044 dTons of extra space used as cargo.

Replacing some of the Laser/Sandcaster turrets with Point defense batteries may reduce the number of Gunners needed - or allow some turrets to become Fusion Turrets/barbettes which can supply a more effective fighter defense.

Plasma or Fusion as fighter defense is a good point.

A force size of 16 Hadrians gives us 4 Squadrons of 4 Battleriders which is a nice round number.
A Second Bridge acting as flight operations, and a dedicated command bridge might be something to consider if the ship was to operate as a fleet command for an Admiral (or three)

A secondary bridge is essential; but a command bridge is a waste -- the Tender is NOT intended to be present in the combat zone. Better to have a Command Bridge on a Rider -- or on a cruiser that jumps along with (or rides on) the Tender.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Good point; fighters seem like a serious waste of volume. It is better to build that capability into a Battle Rider, and just carry a few when or if it seems necessary. The primary concern of the Battle Tender is to carry Riders; the Riders defend the Tender.

But they aren't a waste of volume. They are, in fact, the exact opposite.

The battle riders aren't there to protect the tender. They go off and attack things. Fighters hang back to protect the mothership. Holding a battle rider back for self-defense is a much larger waste than 50 fighters.

A secondary bridge is essential; but a command bridge is a waste -- the Tender is NOT intended to be present in the combat zone. Better to have a Command Bridge on a Rider -- or on a cruiser that jumps along with (or rides on) the Tender.

The difference in cost and tonnage to make the secondary bridge a command version is negligible. 40 tons and MCr 30. I'll splurge and make it capable of taking over for the main command bridge if needed.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Remember that Battle Tenders do not jump into a system alone. They jump in with a fleet of other ships such as Light Cruisers and Fleet escorts to defend them. I fighter screen isn't going to do much good since anything that is attacking a 1Mdton ship is not going to be small enough for a fighter to damage. Even ships with small bay weapons are not going to be a credible threat to a Battle Tender unless they are big enough to have a lot of them and ships that size are not going to be threatened by a fighter screen.

Remember, continuing with My WWII landing craft analogy, Battle Tenders are not designed to fight. They are just designed to drop off and recover their cargo as fast as possible. Point Defense Laser Batteries will do far more to defend your Battle Tender than any other single weapon system. Each one takes out an average of 21 missiles per round. No other system is that effective with the exception of Missile Bays with anti-missile missiles.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Remember that Battle Tenders do not jump into a system alone. They jump in with a fleet of other ships such as Light Cruisers and Fleet escorts to defend them. I fighter screen isn't going to do much good since anything that is attacking a 1Mdton ship is not going to be small enough for a fighter to damage. Even ships with small bay weapons are not going to be a credible threat to a Battle Tender unless they are big enough to have a lot of them and ships that size are not going to be threatened by a fighter screen.

Remember, continuing with My WWII landing craft analogy, Battle Tenders are not designed to fight. They are just designed to drop off and recover their cargo as fast as possible. Point Defense Laser Batteries will do far more to defend your Battle Tender than any other single weapon system. Each one takes out an average of 21 missiles per round. No other system is that effective with the exception of Missile Bays with anti-missile missiles.

The Gorte-Class Imperial Battle Tender in JTAS 12 has 10 fighters and is 1/5 the size, so I included them. I can see instances where a battle tender might be deployed without larger cohorts and where some small craft could be helpful. In this case, it doesn't keep them from deploying a full load of Hadrians and might prove tactically useful.

The Warmonger isn't armored or even reinforced. Keeping threats far away is prudent. The fighters can also keep overwatch while the tender is refueling.

Bottom line, I hear what you're saying but the added tactical flexibility seems useful.

 

[MasterGwydion]

The obsolete Imperial Battle Tender in JTAS 12 has 10 fighters and is 1/5 the size, so I included them. I can see instances where they might be deployed without larger cohorts and where some small craft could be helpful. In this case, it doesn't keep them from deploying a full load of Hadrians and might prove tactically useful.

This battle tender isn't armored or even reinforced. Keeping threats far away is prudent. They can also keep overwatch while the tender is refueling.

Bottom line, I hear what you're saying but the added tactical flexibility seems useful.

On the obsolete design, what can 10 fighters do that 50 Type-III point Defense Laser Batteries and other weapons you have added cannot, if all they are being used for is a defensive screen. Your description of what you are using your fighters for is strictly defensive. Can that not be better accomplished a different way? Anything less than a Spinal Mount can't critically hit the BT and anything big enough to carry a spinal mount isn't going to care about 50 fighters attacking it. One missile rack and one beam laser, only one of which can be fire per round. Oh no! The horror they can inflict on a cruiser-sized ship! lolz.

 

[Terry Mixon]

On the obsolete design, what can 10 fighters do that 50 Type-III point Defense Laser Batteries and other weapons you have added cannot, if all they are being used for is a defensive screen. Your description of what you are using your fighters for is strictly defensive. Can that not be better accomplished a different way? Anything less than a Spinal Mount can't critically hit the BT and anything big enough to carry a spinal mount isn't going to care about 50 fighters attacking it. One missile rack and one beam laser, only one of which can be fire per round. Oh no! The horror they can inflict on a cruiser-sized ship! lolz.

I'm not sure that a defense in depth isn't worthwhile. Fighters can go out to engage smaller ships at range.

In any case, I'll let the others chime in, but I'm inclined at the moment to leave them in. If enough people tell me I'm wrong, I'll relent.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I'm not sure that a defense in depth isn't worthwhile. Fighters can go out to engage smaller ships at range.

In any case, I'll let the others chime in, but I'm inclined at the moment to leave them in. If enough people tell me I'm wrong, I'll relent.

In the end, it is your design, so it doesn't matter what I or other people think. You know the old adage about opinions and arseholes. lol

 

[Terry Mixon]

In the end, it is your design, so it doesn't matter what I or other people think. You know the old adage about opinions and arseholes. lol

As I'm trying to make it something that the larger community can get use out of, I want to hear dissenting views. I'll follow my own tune when I disagree, though.

 

[ChrisJ]

I envision a smoke filled room somewhere in the heart of the Impirium with a bunch of Admirals, their aides, and several cigars - arguing over the practicalities of adding fighters to the 1M DT ton Battle rider design.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I envision a smoke filled room somewhere in the heart of the Impirium with a bunch of Admirals, their aides, and several cigars - arguing over the practicalities of adding fighters to the 1M DT ton Battle rider design.

Actually, it might be arguing over removing fighters from BTs, since the obsolete design had them as well... lol

 

[Terry Mixon]

I envision a smoke filled room somewhere in the heart of the Impirium with a bunch of Admirals, their aides, and several cigars - arguing over the practicalities of adding fighters to the 1M DT ton Battle rider design.

And you would undoubtedly be right. One of them would point out that a large fighter order could get megacorporation XYZ to build this other ship cheaper and save money on the whole.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Actually, it might be arguing over removing fighters from BTs, since the obsolete design had them as well... lol

Or this.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Or this.

If I ever write this up for JTAS, you can be sure you will be the curmudgeonly admiral wanting to dump them.

 

[J. L. Brown]

But they aren't a waste of volume. They are, in fact, the exact opposite.

What else can you have in that volume?

The battle riders aren't there to protect the tender. They go off and attack things. Fighters hang back to protect the mothership. Holding a battle rider back for self-defense is a much larger waste than 50 fighters.


The difference in cost and tonnage to make the secondary bridge a command version is negligible. 40 tons and MCr 30. I'll splurge and make it capable of taking over for the main command bridge if needed.

Both of these seem to imply that you envision the Tender staying in the battle zone. That is a mistake; a strategic-mobility Jump-ship is most valuable when it is in Jump-Space. A Tender jumps in, drops the payload, and jumps out as fast as possible. It is far more valuable to have that Tender return with another load than it is to have it sitting around where the enemy can shoot at it.

 

[Terry Mixon]

What else can you have in that volume?

Both of these seem to imply that you envision the Tender staying in the battle zone. That is a mistake; a strategic-mobility Jump-ship is most valuable when it is in Jump-Space. A Tender jumps in, drops the payload, and jumps out as fast as possible. It is far more valuable to have that Tender return with another load than it is to have it sitting around where the enemy can shoot at it.

The write-up for the battle riders indicates they may indeed stay in the combat area.

Once deployed, the Hadrian is designed to do battle while its tender refuels or seeks refuge among the fleet.

That being the case, I don't see the fighters as a waste of space. Yes, it should be covered by other ships, but the lost capacity for 50 fighters isn't going to change much on a million-ton vessel.

What else would you use the volume for? 2,200 tons for the hanger space and launch tubes. 25 double-occupancy cabins for the pilots adds another 100 tons.

The ship already had 26,201 in cargo space, so that's not lacking. Part of it could be used for other things, yet no further suggestions have been made. Sounds like the additional space wouldn't be used for anything either.

 

[J. L. Brown]

The write-up for the battle riders indicates they may indeed stay in the combat area.

I think that reflects authors who don't really understand the material more than anything else. There is a huge bias towards Battleships over Battle Tenders in most of the fleet write-ups; and I suggest that a misunderstanding of Battle Tenders at large is the reason for that.

That being the case, I don't see the fighters as a waste of space. Yes, it should be covered by other ships, but the lost capacity for 50 fighters isn't going to change much on a million-ton vessel.

What else would you use the volume for? 2,200 tons for the hanger space and launch tubes. 25 double-occupancy cabins for the pilots adds another 100 tons.

The ship already had 26,201 in cargo space, so that's not lacking. Part of it could be used for other things, yet no further suggestions have been made. Sounds like the additional space wouldn't be used for anything either.

I like your trick with fusion barbettes for fighter defense; with 'Very High Yield' and 'Energy Efficient' they average a one-shot kill against max-armor 70 dTon fighters. Too bad that 'Intense Focus' is not allowed.

I think you are overlooking the tonnage for the recovery deck as well. Each Launch Tube deploys 10 craft per round, but a Recover Deck of the same size only recovers 1 craft per round. Ten 20 dTon fighters (with 1 crew assigned to each) require:
220 dTons of 'Docking Space' (or 400 dTons of Full Hangar);
200 dTons of 'Launch Tube':
2000 dTons of 'Recovery Deck';
20 dTons of double-occupancy staterooms.

A flight of 50 of these nigh-useless 20 dTon fighters occupies 12200 dTons. Bump the fighters up to 70 dTons to carry 'barbette equivalent' weaponry and you are talking about 42450 dTons. Fighters are a whole lot less effective than (for example) an equal tonnage of Meson Spinal Mount, or Heavy Weapon Bays.

Also -- I think assigning just one person per fighter is a bit unrealistic; fighers will need dedicated ground-support personnel for repairs & re-arming.

A Tender is intended to be a minimal-sized 'Tail' to carry maximal 'Teeth' to engage the enemy; just use that tonnage to carry more Riders. If you need a fighter screen, base it on a Rider -- and then the screen can stick around after the Tender bugs out, to screen the fleet that is actually engaging the enemy. Or -- use some of the tonnage to convert dedicated Jump-Fuel tankage into fuel/cargo containers; which allows use of the tender during peace-time for shorter hops with increased cargo capacity in addition to the exterior load.

Also a good use for some of the tonnage: an UNREP system for getting fuel on board from skimmers. Or, secondarily, for transferring supplies & consumables to and from Riders.

 

[MasterGwydion]

If I ever write this up for JTAS, you can be sure you will be the curmudgeonly admiral wanting to dump them.

jajajajaja!

 

[MasterGwydion]

The write-up for the battle riders indicates they may indeed stay in the combat area.

If they are designed to fight, then you'll need to add a spinal mount.

 

[J. L. Brown]

If they are designed to fight, then you'll need to add a spinal mount.

Exactly; nothing in a fleet action can be taken seriously as a combatant without a Spinal Mount Weapon. However, my philosophy is that Tenders are never supposed to be combatants -- which is why armor is usually a waste of volume.