Re: Prototype UNSC designs

Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:

>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 ;-).

Um... yes :-/

>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.

Hm. Why do the cargo modules add hull boxes when none of the other
types do?
 
>I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours
>next week) :-)

The UNSC fighter bay "modules" aren't as much a module as a new main
hull, though.
 
>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 EW module only uses 5 Mass?

>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, 

Why not have a couple of "peace-keeping modules" - the weapons *not*
carried in modules would seem to be harder to refit quickly? That'd
leave the patrol cutter with no integral armament (not even PDS), only
a single module... could get problematic with the single FCS since it
can't fire any other weapons while also firing the needle beam, but
OTOH it might not be entirely politically correct to fire standard
anti-ship weapons while trying to "disable" a ship anyway <g>

>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_). 

The option to capture rather than destroy is more important when you're
fighting pirates/smugglers, though - their friends and protectors are
extremely likely to claim that the UNSC "murders innocent civilians" if
a
pirate or smuggler ship is destroyed (witness what happened when NATO
aircraft bombed Kosovar refugee columns believing they were Serb armour
columns... or the furor over the Serb civilian casualties in the same
war - some media have called the NATO bomb campaign a "genocidal war"
and likened it with the Nazi treatment of Jews (!) because over a
thousand Serb civilians died in the bomb raids...). The pirate-friends
will find this a lot harder to do if the UNSC captures the ship
(relatively) intact and with (relatively) small casualties on the
smuggler side :-/

>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).

OK, though see the comments above.

>#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 :-(

TMF 96 + cost of module, unless you've charged an extra cost of 2 pts
for the ability to swap modules.
 
>#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

Says "MASS factor 50" and "TMF 34". I assume you mean 50 <g>

In order to make a TMF 50 ship thrust-5 you need an engine with Mass
50*0.25 = 12.5 rounds UP to 13. Your design only has 12 Mass of
engines, so is thrust-4 (it'd be thrust-5 if it were TMF 49, though).

If you want a thrust-4, TMF 50-52 CL and a thrust-6, TMF 32-34 DD you
could reduce the Medium Drive module to MASS 10 instead.

>#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

The Large Thrust module is 2 Mass short for Thrust-6 (90*0.3 = 27; the
Large Thrust module is only 25). The ship only uses 89 of its 90 Mass,
but it'd need to be TMF 91/NPV 264+modules to have room for big enough
engines (or drop a hull/armour box, or be thrust-5 with oversized
engines).

>#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 B1, 2xB2-6, 2xB3-2, 2xB3-3, 2xWpn module
>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

Uses 2 Mass more than necessary for its engines (has 50 Mass of
engines; needs only 48); apart from that it's OK.
 
>#Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought 
>Displacement: 32800 tonnes (MASS factor 328)
>Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 64)
>Armanent: 2 x B1, 2xB2-6, 2xB3-2, 2xB3-3, 2xWpn module
>Defences: 6xPDS, 12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
>Sensor suite: 4 Fire-control systems
>Drive systems: 4 x Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL 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

Needs only 98 Mass of engines; the ship has 100 Mass of engines. Basic
cost is 1023 (with the oversized engines), not 1015.

>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 :-(

Which is the main enemy of these ships - other human forces in the 3rd
Solar War, or the Kra'Vak in the (1st) Xeno War? (Yes, I know the
humans fought both Phalons and SV as well as the KV during the Xeno
War, but the Kra'Vak were the main threat.) The above UNSC ships are
heavily slanted towards fighting humans and/or Phalons; if the Kra'Vak
are seen as the main enemy (but you still want to fight Phalons or
humans with the same ship) you don't need quite *that* heavy screens 
:-/

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry