Prototype UNSC designs

Well, I finally put digit to keyboard and hacked out my first draft of
some UNSC ship designs. The designs have a certain amount of modularity
inspired by the castings.

Things to bear in mind - UNSC ships of destroyer and larger in size use
standard sized drive modules, which come in two sizes, to simplify
production and maintenance. However, bolting these on to different sized
hulls can lead to odd (literally) thrust ratings ;-).
The other standard modules incude a slot in weapons module, (as seen
on the DD, CH, SDN, and SDN-X figures - there are two versions - three
cylinders side by side, or a 2-aperture turret) as well as standard
sized cargo and fighter hanger modules.

These have the following MASS and COST:

Module	      MASS	  COST
Medium Thrust  12	   24
Large Thrust   25	   50
Weapons 	6	 varies
Cargo		5	    2	(adds +1 hull boxes, 4 cargo space)

Cargo modules are usually fitted in groups of 4.

I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours
next week) :-)

Typical weapons modules:
3-arc Class-3 Beam battery COST: 18
3-arc Pulse Torpedo COST: 18
ADFC + 4 PDS' COST: 20
3x MT-Missile racks: COST 18
EW module - Superior sensors + area ECM system (pending revised EW
rules): COST 60

The three-tube molding looks like it could be a SMR/SML - but I get
unused space if I make it a SMR, and I have to increase the module size
to 7 to fit in a SML - which gives unused space in some of the others!
(I'm still thinking about this one).

Note: most of the weapons layouts are for the 'fully tooled up' version,
UNSC ships assigned to 'peacekeeper' duties usually replace some of
their 3-arc Class-2 batteries with needle beams, and load MT-missile
modules loaded with EMP missiles (or maybe SMR/SML modules loaded with
SM-EMP's - how you know why I suggested them :-) for political reasons,
the theory being that governments are less likely to whine if you simply
disable their ships, rather than destroying them (yes, I know, its a
_theory_).

So now the ships - in all cases I've attemped to base MASS and weapons
layout on the figures (I compared figures with an FSE BDN and various
small NAC ships for size comparison purposes).

#Patrol Cutter/Frigate type I

Displacement: 2000 tonnes (MASS factor 20)
Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 5)
Crew: 5 officers, 15 ratings (Crew Factor 1)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 1 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
Drive systems: Main Drive rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 20
NPV: 68 

The above statistics are for the military Frigate version, a quick
re-fit to swap out the Class-2 battery for a needle beam, and replace
one of the PDS with an extra FireCon gives the Patrol Cutter version,
which costs 1 extra point.
(Needle Beam as a 'less than lethal' alternative for patrol duties,
extra firecon to _use_ the needle beam).

#Lake class destroyer

Displacement: 3400 tonnes (MASS factor 34)
Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 8)
Crew: 8 officers, 26 ratings (Crew Factor 2)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1 batteries, 1 x weapons module
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 7, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 34
NPV: 98 + cost of weapons module

A bit flimsy, and rather heavier than I'd like - the thrust rating of 7
demonstates a disadvantage of the modular drive system :-(

#Mountain class Light cruiser

Displacement: 5000 tonnes (MASS factor 50)
Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 14)
Crew: 13 officers, 37 ratings (Crew Factor 3)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 3 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level 1 Screens 
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 5, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 34
NPV: 167

Again it demonstates a disadvantage of the modular drive system :-(

#River class Heavy cruiser

Displacement: 9000 tonnes (MASS factor 90)
Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 25)
Crew: 23 officers, 67 ratings (Crew Factor 5)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries, 2x weapons modules
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level 1 Screens 
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 90
NPV: 263 + 2 weapons modules

Bit heavy, but the model is rather large :-)

#Gaia class Superdreadnought

Displacement: 24000 tonnes (MASS factor 240)
Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity 60)
Crew: 60 officers, 180 ratings (Crew Factor 12) plus fighter pilots
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 6-arc Class 2, 2 x 2-arc Class 3, 2 x 3arc
Class 3 batteries, 2x weapons modules
Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade 12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 4 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: 2 x Large Drive module, rating 4, FTL (Jump) Drive
Hanger bays: 2 bays holding 12 fighters

TMF: 240
NPV: 782 + 2 weapons modules + 12 fighters

Yup, it is rather big, so is the model :-)

#Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought

Displacement: 32800 tonnes (MASS factor 328)
Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 64)
Crew: 82 officers, 246 ratings (Crew Factor 16) plus fighter pilots
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 6-arc Class 2, 2 x 2-arc Class 3, 2 x 3arc
Class 3 batteries, 2x weapons modules
Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade 12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 4 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: 4 x Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive
Hanger bays: 1 bay holding 6 fighters, 1 capacity 6-MASS hanger bay
Cargo bay: 4 x Cargo modules (capacity 16 MASS)

TMF: 328
NPV: 1015 + 2 weapons modules + 6 fighters + 1 MASS-6 small craft

Yup, its' huge, in fact it is _too_ big, but I hit a snag with modular
ships designs - its called Screens - and its been discussed on this list
before :-( From the model, I'd like to cut it down to aboit 300-310
MASS, while keeping the 'SDN with cargo and extra drives added' feel.

The MASS-6 hanger bay that replaces a fighter hanger on the SDN houses
a MASS-6 landing craft. Part of the cargo module houses barracks for
troops for groud operations - usually :-)

Well, these are very much 'first draft' I'll probably try and tweek
things like module sizes in order to fix some of the snags I've listed
above.

Any thoughts, suggestion, comments, etc.

Charles
--