New carrier design idea - Can this work?

[JAFARR]

In brief this is an idea I have had for some time that another post reminded me of. Can this be done IOTU?

Typical to the carrier idea, all jump engines are mounted on the carrier. The basic carrier has just enough maneuver drives to do 1g on it's own. Can the ferried crafts' maneuver controls be linked to the carrier maneuver controls when docked with the carrier so that they add to the manuever capability of the carrier.

My tenative guidlines were TL 14+, double the maneurver drive control points (MT) with extra CPs installed on the carrier.

Will this work? Why or why not?

 

[Border Reiver]

Nice idea but with one possible fatal flaw. I had thought about this for a battlerider tender design and ran into the problem of added mass. I was using the MT design sequence at the time and could not rationalise the figures.

Either there was insufficient additional thrust produced to make a significant difference or we had a battlerider design that was ridiculously overpowered and more fuel than threat.

For example a 100kton tender carries 5 20kton riders. For 1G there is a 2000 manoeuvre unit requirement. With rider mounted it is now a 200kton vessel needing 4000 units at 1G.

If all riders packed 6G drives the total units if linked with the mothership would only be rated at a max output of 3G ([5x3400]+2000 or 4000 units =19000 or 21000 less than the 22000 required for milstandard 4G)


But if you can get a working design, no reason I can think of for it not to work.

 

[JAFARR]

I had a lot more time when I first got the idea, but if I can find my paperwork I'll look at it again. My attack craft had 5g, not the 6g I wanted. The carrier had 2g or 3g with all assigned craft attached. Some of the battle riders were mainly flying spinal mounts. Don't remember if fully loaded carrier was 300,000 tons or 500,000 tons. The carrier had a spinal mount, but it was only intended for planatry attack. This design gave my 5 usable spinal mounts instead of the one I would have gotten in a dreadnaught the same size. It also had some larger escort type craft and lots of fighters.

Found the rough plans.
500,000 tons J4, M2; Battle ferry at 365,000 tons; 1 cruiser rider 50,000 tons M5; 14 frigate riders 5000 tons M5 (1000 ton factor J meson gun); 13 1000 ton tankers M2; 2 1000 ton shuttle/transports
Make that 15 spinal mounts. Notes did not say if there was room for fighters included on the ferry. If there are none, I will reduce the frigates and add fighter squadrons. I know I built the flying spinal mounts before and in play testing I could take out one of the canon dreadnoughts with 5 of them while only losing 1 of mine. Question is were they that good, or was my opponent that bad a big ship fighter? He was good at small ship battles.

 

[Starviking]

I'm not sure if we are talking about Battle Riders/Tenders here or just something closer to a 'Fighter' Carrier - but for the latter using the fighters to boost the thrust of the Carrier would be problematical in the 'real world'.

Each fighter would either need access to an airlock in the 'thrust' grapple area or be capable of being remotely being docked to the grapple. Each grapple would need to be plumbed to ensure an adequate fuel supply to the fighter.

The fighters are going to need bracing so they can transmit their thrust to the carrier without buckling.

If the fighter's thrust is being used to increase the manouverability of the carrier then in addition to using the fighters to perform it's offensive mission, the carrier commander is always going to have to consider how any unsuccesful mission is going to effect the capabilites of the carrier i.e. - we've lost half our fighters - can we run away now?

The real show stopper is that whilst the fighters are being docked and diagnostics run to ensure they're fully functional the carrier is going to be very limited in its manouvering options - leaving it a sitting duck.

With Battle Riders this thrust augmentation is probably more likely. However, if any of the riders have battle-damaged thrusters it's comrades may have to lower their thrust to match, possibly giving a lower thrust than a conventional loaded Tender. Symmetrically berthed Riders would reduce this problem - i.e. if Rider 1 is damaged, power down Rider 6 to match.

Where this could really work would be with the 'Jump Spines' mentioned in Hard Times (IIRC). A megacorp could design a massive, low thrust freighter that uses externally carried High-thrust barges to offload and load cargo containers at port and provide thrust augmentation in flight.

Starviking

 

[mike wightman]

Well, if the Annic Nova can be pushed around by its small craft...

Here's another thought, why can't battle riders fire their weapons when docked - that's another way to get a battleship with more than one spinal

 

[veltyen]

Getting back to the original idea, isn't this just an inverted iteration of having a detachable jump drive?

If you really wanted to strip it down then don't even have the basic drive, just have a jump drive and fuel bladder with attachment points on the outside.

Power, thrust, sensors all supplied by the riders. You'd need extra engineers on the riders as well, to babysit the jump drive while in operation.

Once in the target system detach all the riders, leave a couple nearby to cover a potential retreat, and have the rest go cause havoc. The powered down jumpdrive and fuel tank should be relatively hard to spot.

Refueling is the sore spot. Getting that massive fueltank somewhere to refuel could be painful. Especially if it's only generating minimal thrust from attached riders. The other option is having all the riders go and fetch fuel, which in someways is just as ugly.

 

[Scarecrow]

I see it as a Jump Drive, Maneuvre Drives, Fuel tanks and attachment points. That's it (oh, and some crew quarters).
It would be based at a big Imperial naval base near a gas giant. It would have enough fuel for three level 6 jumps. One out and one back and one just in case.
It would also house a fuel cable several hundred thousand kilometers long so that it could extend into the upper atmosphere of a gas giant for field refuelling.
I see what you mean about sublight navigation to a Gas Giant, though. It would defiantely need some sort of M drive I think. I imagine the rider vessels being completely redundant whilst being carried. I really don't like the idea of using them as M Drives. How accurate is predicting the co-ordinates of jump emergence? Can you drop out near a gas Giant or do you tend to arrive randomly anywhere within several dozen AU's of the destination star?
I could see these things being roughly the same volume as a Star Destroyer (about 5million dTons) if not much larger.

Crow

 

[JAFARR]

No, I did not intend fighters to use their maneuver drives to move the carrier, just the battle riders. Fighters would be needed to provide cover while battle riders are docking. Starviking's mention of symmetrically berthed riders is sort of what I had in mind, with the "big boy" 50 kton mounted in the stern. What I was looking for with the question was why or why not this idea would work. I think you have answered some of the why not part.

Maybe it would be more feasable to reduce the number of frigates to 10 and come up with 2 10,000 ton riders of another type.

Also would my refueling tankers and transports need to have the same M drive rating as my battle riders to make this work?

Thanks for your input.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
It would have enough fuel for three level 6 jumps. One out and one back and one just in case.

I may be mis-remembering here, but doesn't fuel for a jump-6 take 60% of a ship's overall volume? In that case, one jump-6 is about the most you can get out of any ship.

EDIT: Yup, just checked High Guard.

 

[far-trader]

Yup, but Scarecrow is a heretic

He uses a house rule, much like the optional T20 rule, requiring only half as much fuel for jump, so his 3 x J6 is possible, with drop tanks for the 1st jump and the 2nd and 3rd jump carried.

Of course it wouldn't need to be J6, J4 is the IN standard and a J1 fallback would be enough. So you could get away with J4+1 aboard, or J4 drop tanks and J4 aboard, or any other combination.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Andy, I would say you would need to balance your drives, but they wouldn't have to be the same all around. So, your M-1 tankers could be set opposite each other, with your M-4 Battle Riders matched between them. Of course, you will want to manuever gingerly, as you are always going to be "off-balance" in some fashion - always manuever (not accelerate, but turn) at the lowest rating of any ship attached.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Yup, but Scarecrow is a heretic

He uses a house rule

Half right. I am a heretic but I don't use a house rule. I just say, 'I want a fleet carrier the size of Alabama that can do ten level 6 Jumps before refuelling.' and it just works. I don't care how.

I know it's irrelevant to you guys and, well, this thread in general but when a ship is bigger than, say 1000 dTons, for me, the rules go out the window. My players will never own or control anything that big. They're really only plot devices. Especially when they get to Star Destroyer and Death Star size. Then they're little more than dangerous scenery and don't really require construction rules.

Anyway, back to the rules...

Crow

 

[Fritz_Brown]

But, but, but.... Without the construction rules, how will you know where to put the reactor core that can be shut off without a key or biometric password (much less, 2-factor authentication!), so the defensive grid will drop and.......

 

[JAFARR]

Here are the stats for the flying spinal mount battle riders. They are armored to factor 5 and streamlined with fuel scoops and purifiers. They have a 6fib computer as well as an auxiliary bridge with a 5fib computer. They also have 30 triple beam laser in 3 batteries that are re-configurable to 30 batteries for point defense purposes. There are also 10 triple sandcasters in 1 battery, also re-configurable to 10 batteries. Each sand caster has a 1/2 ton magazine with an autoloader assigned to it. With 10 extra gunners to allow breaking lasers into smaller batteries for point defense against fighters and / missiles, it has a crew of 71. It has 50 staterooms worth of berthing space so it can support an additional 24 crew (5 staterooms are for command officers leaving room for 90 additional crewmembers). It also has 15 emergency low berths.
FR-1001 FR-E0525F2-580000-900J0-0 MCr 4216.232 5000 Tons
Batteries Bearing 1 3 1 Crew = 71
Batteries 1 3 1 TL = 15
Passengers = 0 Low = 0 Cargo = 0 Fuel = 1250 EP = 1250 Agility = 5 Troops = 0

Corrections:
FR-1001 FR-E105RF2-580000-900J0-0 MCr 4216.232 5000 Tons
Batteries Bearing 1 3 1 Crew = 71
Batteries 1 3 1 TL = 15
Passengers = 0 Low = 0 Cargo = 0 Fuel = 1250 EP = 1250 Agility = 5 Troops = 0

 

[mike wightman]

Shouldn't the power plant code be a bit bigger - 25?
Also, the USP gives a configuration of 0, a jump of 5, and a maneuver of only 2?

 

[mike wightman]

Another thought.

This ship will suffer at the guns of any TL15 warship equiped with a model 9 computer - the +/-3 DM to hit and penetration really works against you in High Guard combat, especially with an agility of only 5 compared to a maxed out 6.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
But, but, but.... Without the construction rules, how will you know where to put the reactor core that can be shut off without a key or biometric password (much less, 2-factor authentication!), so the defensive grid will drop and.......

Y'know, in 30 years, I'd never ever thought of that...

Crow

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Shouldn't the power plant code be a bit bigger - 25?
Also, the USP gives a configuration of 0, a jump of 5, and a maneuver of only 2?

Sorry, I seem to have a glitch. Was about asleep when I posted this and did not double check. Yes power plant is 25. I'll re post when I get the spreadsheet corrected.

 

[JAFARR]

In response to your comments, I have re-worked it a bit. I dropped the 2nd bridge, but kept the backup computer and upgraded both to 9fib. Armor is down to 2 from 5, and beams are at 21 triple turrets for a factor of 8 vs 9. M6 and agility 6.
FR-1001 FR-E106RJ2-280000-800J0-0 MCr 4397.8328 5000 Tons
Batteries Bearing 1 3 1 Crew = 73
Batteries 1 3 1 TL = 15
Passengers = 0 Low = 0 Cargo = 0 Fuel = 1290 EP = 1290 Agility = 6 Troops = 0

Should I drop the 2nd computer and some spare staterooms to add more armor?

FR-1001 FR-E106SJ2-380000-900J0-0 MCr 4326.348 5000 Tons
Batteries Bearing 1 3 1 Crew = 74
Batteries 1 3 1 TL = 15
Passengers = 0 Low = 15 Cargo = 0 Fuel = 1305 EP = 1305 Agility = 6 Troops = 0
This version has armor 3 and fewer staterooms. It also loses the 2nd computer and regains the beams back to 30 for 3 batteries at factor 9. It also has 15 low bearths instead of emergency low bearths.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I see it as a Jump Drive, Maneuvre Drives, Fuel tanks and attachment points. That's it (oh, and some crew quarters).

Sounds like a jumpship from Battletech. I've played with this idea for my ATU. The idea is that they would serve as civilian ferries over popular J3+ gaps.

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I just say, 'I want a fleet carrier the size of Alabama that can do ten level 6 Jumps before refuelling.' and it just works. I don't care how.

... and swallows half a Gas Giant on every refill of the tank.