Re: UNSC beta and FB3

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jared Hilal" <jlhilal@yahoo.com>
> 
> >  It would have been nice if we could get away from the
> > "two largest capital ships have a couple of fighter groups no
> > matter the background blurb" and the "collection of ships rather 
> > than a coordinated fleet" syndromes which afflict all human, KV and
> > Phalon ship designs.
> 

--- Star Ranger <dean@star-ranger.com> wrote:
> I did the designs based off of what is seen on the mini, some input
> from Jon, and base ideas from Derek Fulton.

Well, you matched the "feel" of the FB1 designs well enough that I
couldn't tell the diff. :)

> Yes, a fighter group was included in the largest ships because these
> ships were supposed to be from the same universe as the ships from 
> FB1 so naturally they would be similar in some ways.	The SDNs only 
> have one group unlike most of the other FB1 races though ;-)
> 

The fighter thing is kind of a hold-over gripe from FB1.

For example: 
the NAC blurb says: "Fighter operations doctrine is to base them on
specialized carriers which rely on supporting escort ships for their
defence" 
and the NSL blurb says: "Fighter operations are based around small
numbers carried on the largest general combat ships rather than
specific carrier designs".

Reading these two lines, I would expect that the NAC Excalibur and
Valley forge would have no fighters, while the NSL would have fighters
on the BB and maybe a BC as well.

When we initially got FB1, the first thing we wanted to do was put
together a couple of small battle squadrons and test the changes to the
existing rules.  We wanted to start simple, and looked to avoid
fighters and SMs until the second or third game.  Instead, we found
that all of the -dreadnought classes carried fighters an several also
carried SMs, even for powers that generally don't use SM's.

--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> What, to your mind, is the difference between a "coordinated fleet"
> and a "collection of ships"? How would this be reflected in the 
> set of ship designs? 

---and Dean wrote:
> Like others have said, I'm interested in your take on how you define
> a 'coordinated fleet'.

A "collection of ships" ship designs are ships designed to operate
independently and which can be grouped together to make operational
units.

A "coordinated fleet" is one were the different ships fulfill different
roles, so that together they complement each other, the whole being
greater than the sum of its parts kind of thing.

Real world examples would be that a fleet carrier is primarily designed
to operate aircraft, and a battleship to directly project firepower. 
Both are vulnerable to anti-shipping missiles and submarines.  Even
though they have basic capabilities in these areas (sonar, ASROC,
CIWS), they are not capable of surviving a concentrated attack by these
means.	However, when operated in concert with dedicated ASW and SAM
ships, the CV and BB are capable of taking care of any "leakers" that
get through the heavy defense provided by these other ships.

For the AF types, a similar analogy can be made to fighters escorting
bombers or strike fighters.  The fighter/interceptors and Wild Weasels
provide cover against enemy fighters and ground threats while the
bombers and/or strike fighters conduct their operations. 

Essentially, ships can be divided into six basic categories.

1) Capital Ships.  These are designed to project power by engaging and
destroying enemy ships in squadron and/or fleet actions.

2) Fleet Escorts.  These are designed to escort capital ships,
providing specialized capabilities to protect both themselves and other
ships from threats.  This includes Anti-fighter and anti-missile
capabilities as well as speed and weapons to drive off enemy Escorts
and Fast Attack types which threaten their charges.  Might come in a
range of sizes (small, medium, large) as well as a variety of
specialties.

3) Space Escorts/Patrol Ships.	These are designed to escort merchant
ships and convoys as well as to patrol trade routes and system spaces. 
They may be less capable than Fleet escorts as they are not intended to
keep pace with battle groups.

4) Cruising Ships.   These ships are designed to cruise independently
or in concert with a few escorts.  They are used to "show the flag"
where a battle squadron is not warranted, for scouting, harassment, and
commerce raiding.  Due to the expectation of longer periods of
independent operations, they must be more general in design than
Capital or Escort types.

5) Fast Attack.  These ships are generally smaller, but pack a heavy
punch in the form of missiles, sub-munition packs, MKPs, pulse torps,
etc.  They fill the roles of wet navy TB, MTB, PT, PCG, etc.

6) System defense/offense.  Heavy armament and defenses, but not
necessarily capable of fleet actions.  Def. types includes STL monitors
and system patrol ships, while off. types include older or less capable
capitals, bombardment ships, etc.

I did not include carriers as a separate type.	Instead, carriers fit
one (or more) of the above categories but simply have fighters as their
main weapon system rather than beams, guns or missiles.  With this in
mind, fighters on any other type of ship are also just another weapon
or defensive system helping the ship fulfill its mission.  E.g. a
capital with a group or two of interceptors could use them as an
additional active defense system, i.e. protecting it from incoming
fighters and ordnance.

Almost all of the FB designs are either Capital, Cruising, or Fast
Attack.  Even there, the Capitals and Cruising ships are not designed
for group (squadron) operations.  Take any FB Capital design (BC, BB,
BDN, SDN, CV) and include a single ADFC on each ship.  A squadron of
these becomes much more effective than a squadron of the same number of
unmodified designs.

There is no FB ship really designed for the Fleet Escort role.	Such a
design needs either significant PDS/ADFC/class 1 capability for
fighter/ordnance defense and/or medium weapons for dealing with other
escorts and FA designs.

--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
>Could you sketch a "coordinated" UN fleet?

Depending on how the UNSC is envisioned, this is probably the only
Fleet that would not use Space/Escort types, leaving that to the
individual powers.

The next question is does the UNSC operate its ships as a conventional
battle fleet or as small cruising squadrons?  If the latter, then it
would consist of Cruising Capitals, Cruising Escorts, and Independent
Cruisers, all of various sizes.  Cruising ships should avoid ammunition
based weapons like missiles, but need to provide their own fighters. 
If they operate in battle groups, then the designs would consist of
Capitals, Fleet Escorts, and Fleet Cruisers.  Munitions can be used
more freely as they have regular access to tenders and make frequent
calls at fleet bases.

I envision a "Cruising Squadron" to be 1-4 cruising capitals with 4-8
cruising escorts, while independent cruisers would operate as singles
or pairs.

A "Battle Group" would consist of squadrons of capital ships (4-8 each)
with 1-3 squadrons of fleet escorts assigned to each battle squadron. 
One or more squadrons of fleet cruisers might be assigned to the group
as needed as scouts or long range picket ships.

J