Author Topic: Independent Cruiser  (Read 5508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Borealis4x (OP)

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Independent Cruiser
« on: July 05, 2020, 10:07:07 PM »
I want my cruisers to stand apart from my destroyers, frigates and corvettes by being able to operate independently. That means giving them beam, sensor, missiles, AMM, and perhaps even limited hangar capacity. Oh, a standard troop bay for a company of marines. 

Is this doable or even advisable assuming you're working with a ship of 50-90k tons?
 

Offline Lord Solar

  • See above
  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 28 times
  • Everlasting Glory to the Imperium
  • Discord Username: Lord Solar
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2020, 10:19:57 PM »
Here's what I have for a similar idea as a sort of generalist cruiser.  I've built these but they haven't seen combat yet, only on patrols and other missions.
Code: [Select]
John Paul Jones class Light Cruiser      30,000 tons       670 Crew       4,057.9 BP       TCS 600    TH 3,000    EM 1,200
5000 km/s      Armour 7-86       Shields 40-333       HTK 197      Sensors 6/8/0/0      DCR 25      PPV 108.72
Maint Life 1.34 Years     MSP 2,110    AFR 464%    IFR 6.5%    1YR 1,253    5YR 18,802    Max Repair 500 MSP
Troop Capacity 100 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 1,338   
Captain    Control Rating 2   BRG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Morale Check Required   

Stichus & Faustinianus Elite  Ion Drive  EP1000.00 (3)    Power 3000    Fuel Use 17.68%    Signature 1000    Explosion 10%
Fuel Capacity 2,705,000 Litres    Range 91.8 billion km (212 days at full power)
E-MAG Defexor 2 Beta S20 / R333 Shields (2)     Recharge Time 333 seconds (0.1 per second)

Chiles Quad "Shredder" Turret Quad Chile Ordinance Tribarrel PD Gauss Cannon R100-17.00 Turret (6x16)    Range 10,000km     TS: 14000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 10,000 km    ROF 5       
RapidTrac M1 Beam Fire Control R16-TS16000 (1)     Max Range: 16,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cortreas Assault Sytems Launcher Mk 2 Size 6.00 Missile Launcher (75.00% Reduction) (13)     Missile Size: 6    Rate of Fire 40
Thunderfire M2 Missile Fire Control FC88-R120 (50%) (1)     Range 88.4m km    Resolution 120

Fallis Watchmaster M6 Active Search Sensor AS80-R120 (1)     GPS 12600     Range 80.7m km    Resolution 120
Drumstick 3 Active Search Sensor AS2-R1 (1)     GPS 3     Range 2.3m km    MCR 251.8k km    Resolution 1
Drago-Dilbert M3 Thermal Sensor TH1.0-6 (1)     Sensitivity 6     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  19.4m km
AG Celedon M3 EM Sensor EM1.0-8 (1)     Sensitivity 8     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  22.4m km

ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2020, 11:02:22 PM »
I'd suggest that being able to operate independently doesn't mean being able to do absolutely everything at once.

An independent warship needs to be able to defend itself from missiles (and maybe gun fighters), to take a hit, to see what's happening, and to engage the enemy somehow. But is building 2-3 missile suites and a beam arsenal really the best way to do that? Does your ship really need two different kits each for attack and defense? Why not just pick one each of offensive beams or missiles and defensive beams or missiles? (I'd tend to not lean hard on missiles for an independent cruiser, since operating alone means not having a collier handy, but YMMV.)

My tiny 8000 ton battleships have all the features they'd strictly need to operate solo. They'd be toast if they ran into a serious opponent that way, of course, because they've only got one spinal laser and a dozen gauss shots per tick. But they can spot an enemy, weather a light missile bombardment, and kill something that they get to grips with without relying on anything outside their own hull.

Sticking a boarding bay and a hangar on is obviously taking tonnage you could use for other things, but I wouldn't argue against it - having a boarding/landing force and a few parasite craft can certainly come in handy. And at the size you're talking about dropping 3-4 ktons on bays isn't a killer.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2020, 05:08:20 AM »
I would agree with the above...

An independent cruiser with the role of scouting and patrolling will need a few things to be important. It need to be able to see without being seen and it will need to be able to defend against missiles and smaller craft and possible have a decent beam complement. If you try to build a cruiser to do everything then it will not really be good for the purpose you are giving it. If you are going to compare it with some other function it should be more like an escort rather than an offensive ship.

A ship that run on its own will never be able to overwhelm any decent enemy force so there really is no reason to even try to make them do that.

When I build a cruiser for this purpose I generally want it to have reduced thermal engines, especially if it is decently big like 30kt or bigger. You will need a decent hangar for scouting crafts. You probably will need to use a bit more engine space than normal too if you want both good range and speed.
For defences then decent armour and good shields would be one priority then a decently good anti missile defence with a combination of beam PD and AMM.
I would but a decent compliment of beam weapons and perhaps some smaller missile launchers to engage enemy fighter crafts or just bring a slightly bigger hangar and use interceptor crafts for that. 

I still would not put CIWS on these ships as you probably still will find it likely that you send them in pairs or with other ships as often as you send them of alone.

Sensors then passive sensors needs to be more than decent, I would put at least a size five or larger of each passive on any ship of this kind in addition to any scout ships they carry in their hangars. For active sensors I would concentrate on a good resolution 1 and perhaps a resolution 5 sensor if I have anti-craft missiles on the actual ship. If the game allowed me to switch on active sensors independently I would likely have some basic large resolution sensors on it too. But personally I would rely on a smaller sensor scout to provide that service.           

Having troops on your ships is always nice. At least in multi-faction games as you can take over enemy passive listening posts if they left them unguarded. But then also bring a fast drop ship so you don't have to reveal the cruiser every time you want to drop some troops some place. A ship also need cargo shuttles to load troops sent down to a planet while if memory serves me right a fighter sized drop capable ship don't as they can land and pick the troops up.     

To be honest I rarely build super specialist ships at all in the game unless they are pretty small like below 6-10kt or so. After this ships need to be able to perform in some capacity independently or I just need a ship of a bigger design. This is why military ships tend to grow bigger and bigger in my campaigns all the time. Smaller ships get relegated to patrol and escort duties. It also make the logistics of naval yards easier as I have fewer models of ships so it is easier to expand them to make bigger versions as time goes on.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 05:19:00 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline hubgbf

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • h
  • Posts: 83
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2020, 07:16:42 AM »
I want my cruisers to stand apart from my destroyers, frigates and corvettes by being able to operate independently. That means giving them beam, sensor, missiles, AMM, and perhaps even limited hangar capacity. Oh, a standard troop bay for a company of marines. 

Is this doable or even advisable assuming you're working with a ship of 50-90k tons?

Let's say you merge a 10ktons missile cruiser with a 10 kTons scout ship, a 10 kTons AMM ship, a 10kTons beam ship, a 10kTons carrier and a 10 kTons DCA ship.

You'll have a generalist ship as you want.

Let's compare both.

About engine/fuel : same tonnage
About weapon/sensors : same tonnage, perhaps a bit less for generalist if you have redundant sensors on your ships, yet you'll want to keep redundancies.
Bridge, auxiliary control ans so on : A lower tonnage as you'll need only one of each
Officers : less officers needed in generalist design, so perhaps you'll have better bonuses, or perhaps you'll have worst as you cannot choose the best officer for each post, depends on your officer pool.
Crew : same tonnage, or a bit less for generalist due to to less bridges
ECCM and ECM : a small gain in ECM for generalist, as you need only 1 or 2, not 6, and perhaps a small gain in ECCM too as you won't need ECCM for missile and beam weapon at the same moment most of the time.
Jump engine : same tonnage if every ship has its own jump engine, but the RP cost will be far higher as you'll need a 60 kTons jump engine, and not 6x10kTons jump engine. If you use a dedicated jump design, you'll need only a third of the HS for specialized ships (or a sixth if high tech enough).
Defense : Armor cost will be the same I think, shield will be better used if grouped, and you'll be less vulnerable to shock damage. Yet you are more vulnerable to meson, one shot to the magazine and you lost everything. Another point, when damaged, your generalist ship will loose speed, if one of your specialized ship is damaged, the rest can go full speed and has a better chance to flee.

On a tons per tons basis, a generalist design will be more costly in RP and less efficient due to jump engine HS.
If you stabilize every jup point, or play with stabilized jump point option, a generalist design cost a bit less HS and same RP.

On a strategic/economic point of view :
It will be far longer to build/refit. A 60 kTons ship is far longer to build than 6x10 kTons, at least if you have enough shipyard to avoid constant retooling and can build all ships at the same moment.
For maintenance, it will be the same cost in C# (far less in VB6).
One slipway at 60 kTons now need the same number of workers than 6x10 kTons one. No difference there.
But you'll lack flexibility. You have to fight against a heavy missile opponent? Add a 10 kTons AMM ship. You need to saturate ennemy defense without improving your defense? Add a 10 kTons missile ship. With one design, your weapon/defence mix cannot be changed.

But there is a huge difference : detection
You'll have 6x the electromagnetic and thermal strength, so you'll be seen before seing.
And who see first, fire first, and in a better position.
If you have a better tech, it won't change a lot of thing, but if you have worst tech, you'll be fired upon without being able to retaliate.

Conclusion: specialize your ships.


I prefer to put at least some defense on every ship, and minimal sensors, I even put CIWS on critical ships like jump and flag bridge to be sure to have a better protection there, but I go with specialized ships but for 2 cases :
- DCA ship who also have at least a spinal weapon to be able to be used as beam ships (or to start intercepting missile at a higher range)
- exploration ships which operates usually alone. They have CIWS for defense, and hangar for scout fighters, but also a small magazine to allow them to be used as small offensive carriers when needed. Sometimes I even put one big missile launcher in them, to be able to launch a long range missile probe. Yet I keep them small, with thermal reduction, and without shields (and slow as they do not move often, most of the time they wait for their scout fighter to perform their task).

And they are not designed to fight, they are designed to scout and flee to tell their big brother that there is a bully somewhere.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lord Solar

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2020, 08:47:11 AM »
In terms of generalist ship I do agree that trying to make a ship do everything equally well is probably not very efficient. The problem the way I see it is how you need to utilise shipyards and how you will perform upgrades etc which make ships with many systems cost less in both time and resources over time as well as being more efficient in the field as every ship can potentially be used for multiple mission types depending on their characteristics.

The bigger a ship is the more they also can incorporate multiple versions of the same ships with some small differences. While smaller ships can be built faster when that is a priority. Although I have never found myself that I can't produce more ships than I can possibly support if I produce at full capacity all the time. So the time benefit is only really important when you are pressured and on the defensive and then you probably want really small ships like FAC that can be produced very fast and be very powerful in terms of offence and scouting for it's tonnage but not so much for long range warfare (without carriers).

My generalist ships almost always have a primary function or objective to fill in the fleet but they also will have to be able to fulfil secondary roles as well. A fleet carriers primary role would be to combat enemy fleets in deep space, their secondary role is to provide aggressive or passive scouting capabilities or sometimes simply to escort an assault fleet on their way to invade an enemy planet.

Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.

The same rule as above is also try for missile combat as well, spreading out PD on many platforms means more power to stop enemy attacks as they can't just target your missile defence ships outright and make the rest of the fleet a sitting duck.

You might have some ships with the primary role of escort for example which in my world means a combination of beam weapons, PD and AMM and possibly some anti-craft missile defence systems as well. Anything that can threaten the main mission of the fleet they are suppose to protect.

If have an enemy that for some reason don't use beam weapons or missiles then obviously I would change my designs accordingly to respond to that. But that is more about adapting to the situation at hand than anything else. As I tend to play multi-faction games I will face all manner of systems not just one... I also need to defend against more sophisticated designs and doctrines than what NPRs use as well and opponents that also adapt.

Therefore I can't rely on ships i might have tomorrow as I need the ship I built yesterday today... ;)

In addition to this I want each class of ships to fill a primary purpose so I see no point if building 100 small destroyers when 20 four times as large ones are more powerful (and cheaper) as large ships can combine defences and durability and many other items and become more effective that way. Unless I want to have them in 50 places at once there is no point having that many ships unless there are some specific reasons to. Therefore I tend to increase the size and keep the number of smaller ships reasonable and then just build more of the bigger ones instead. So I might have 50 10kt destroyers and 25 40kt Cruisers... I have less half the numbers in cruisers but twice the amount in tonnage. In tonnage I tend to have allot more in the larger segment than in the smaller even if I then have more ships in smaller sizes. But the numbers completely depend on my needs and if I'm at war or not...     
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:09:06 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Borealis4x (OP)

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2020, 09:37:58 AM »
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2020, 09:39:54 AM by BasileusMaximos »
 

Offline Borealis4x (OP)

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2020, 10:25:49 AM »


Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.


You mean a primary beam weapon, not a PD right? That is an interesting take; I tired myself to make escort frigates (8k tons) with AMM and PD as well as a spinal beam but I just couldn't fit it all. But I'm glad to hear someone agrees that having primary beam ability to ward off ships that get too close is just as important as having PD ability for escorts.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2020, 10:48:53 AM »
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2020, 10:51:17 AM »
Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431

Hmmmmm  ;D
I find it a very weird way to put it. It should be, fortunately in C# that can no longer happen and PD will always shoot  ;D
 

Offline Ulzgoroth

  • Captain
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 422
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2020, 11:17:23 AM »
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?
A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?
 

Offline Borealis4x (OP)

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2020, 12:17:23 PM »
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

Unfortunately, in C# there is a change that eliminates the point-blank torpedoes that can bypass PD. http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg111431#msg111431

Thats a shame. Is it possible to make missiles so fast that they evade most PD?
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?
A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?
cuz its cool
 
The following users thanked this post: xenoscepter

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2020, 12:37:03 PM »
Thats a shame. Is it possible to make missiles so fast that they evade most PD?
If by evading you mean hard to hit for most PD, then yes, making your missile fast does that. Although unfortunately, when facing equivalently teched opponent this does not work as well as you may hope, comparing to the good old 5s torpedoes.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2020, 12:40:27 PM »
A few torpedoes won't be an 'I win' button against anything that posed a threat in the first place, and by being few will be relatively weak against point defense. You could use very short range missiles instead of offensive beams if that fits your inclination or tech base better...but what's the benefit of mixing them?

I understand the point would be to attrit hostile AMM stockpiles to prevent them from being used offensively, which in general is bad news for a pure beam-based force. This is far more effectively done with large numbers of small, fast short-range missiles, though.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: Independent Cruiser
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2020, 07:11:11 PM »
I hear people saying that diversifying a ship to use ASMs and beams is a bad idea. But what about having a primarily beam ship that carries a few short range (1m km at most) very fast and very strong missile to be used as an 'i win' button against other ships? Think of the spaceship version of a Roman Pilum javelin that is thrown right before your melee infantry hits the enemies lines.

Can missiles that can reach a target in under 15 second bypass all PD?

It is pure nonsense that combining beams with ASM is a bad idea as such a ship can act in many roles and it is not uncommon for ships to eventually end up in situation where it is deadly serious and having both will save you.

In a beam fight you rather have 20 beams on 10 ships than 25 beams on 5 ships given the same tonnage on said ships. Sure the one side have half the tonnage in the fight, but that other half is dead weight in this fight as they too have ASM ships, we are talking about specialised designs here so we have to assume there is five more ships that don't carry any beams at all either there or somewhere else.

You have to trade some flexibility for another kind of flexibility. 

You might have sent a fleet of 25 ships and did not expect to hold a jump point so you only brought 5 dedicated beam ships. The other side also brought 25 ships and all of them had beams so they had no problem sitting on that JP for 12 month guarding it.

You loose some flexibility in tailoring a fleet for a specific mission and might need to bring some extra tonnage compared with a more specialised fleet to have the same capabilities in some areas. But... this is where you see half specialised ships enter the picture. Some ship types would generally be primarily focusing on one category while being weak or lacking some category. Say an escort ship that lack any direct anti-ship capabilities but can provide it indirectly through light means such as in beam combat or AMM or perhaps Anti-craft missiles with lower yields and short range.



Every military ship a required to have some beam weapons for self defence as having beam weapons on the ship means they can't be ignored during beam combat. And spreading out the beam weapons will improve your chances in beam combat allot when it happens.


You mean a primary beam weapon, not a PD right? That is an interesting take; I tired myself to make escort frigates (8k tons) with AMM and PD as well as a spinal beam but I just couldn't fit it all. But I'm glad to hear someone agrees that having primary beam ability to ward off ships that get too close is just as important as having PD ability for escorts.

Here is an 8000t escort frigate. It's primary function is escort of the supply train and can in a pinch also bolster the anti-torpedo defence of a fleet or act as jump point guards for up to roughly nine months. They also can be deployed as scouts as they do have a small hangar where they can deploy small scouts from say 25-250t in size.

Code: [Select]
Sword class Frigate      8,000 tons       210 Crew       1,387.3 BP       TCS 160    TH 675    EM 900
4218 km/s      Armour 6-35       Shields 30-300       HTK 60      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 2      PPV 38.7
Maint Life 1.67 Years     MSP 296    AFR 256%    IFR 3.6%    1YR 126    5YR 1,891    Max Repair 112.50 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 250 tons     Troop Capacity 100 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 118   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 9 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

VanTech Corporation Class III Ion Infused Void Drive (3)    Power 675.0    Fuel Use 77.28%    Signature 225.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 374,000 Litres    Range 10.9 billion km (29 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 484-J4E  Shield Projector (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

Quasar Tech Type-15 Heavy Turbolaser Array (3)    Range 300,000km     TS: 4,218 km/s     Power 6-3     RM 50,000 km    ROF 10       
XG-17  Rapid-firing Flak System (10x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Zergon Corporation Point-defence Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mason-Branger 7085-09  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 9    Exp 20%

Inobyte Auto-loading Anti-torpedo Launch System (3)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Inobyte Rapid-fire Anti-torpedo Launch System (50)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Sienar Fleet Systems Anti-torpedy Fire-control System (2)     Range 22.3m km    Resolution 1

Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  High Resolution Sensor (1)     GPS 2240     Range 42.7m km    Resolution 80
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  Torpedo Detection Sensor (1)     GPS 28     Range 9.9m km    MCR 891.1k km    Resolution 1
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 20

To be honest an 8000t ship is a rather small ship and they should not be built for multi-tasking that much, you always will have to make too many compromises. A real fleet escort needs to be at least twice if not three times the size to make a good job as an escort with some endurance.

This could then be a Fleet Destroyer that act as a fleet escort, still a bit small for my taste but not terribly small. This one is a bit more expensive but that is because it has thermal reduced engines for scouting and patrol missions which it should also be able to perform in the empires out rim system. Their hangar deck can be loaded with a bunch of craft and anything from pure strike crafts, interceptors, multi-role fighters or scout crafts or even a combination. You could also find a few version of this ship with flag bridge, better sensors, smaller hangars larger missile capacity etc... there are allot of different configurations possible for this class.
Code: [Select]
Spear class Destroyer      16,874 tons       444 Crew       3,342.4 BP       TCS 337    TH 675    EM 2,550
4000 km/s      Armour 8-58       Shields 85-425       HTK 131      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 28      PPV 63
Maint Life 2.25 Years     MSP 1,390    AFR 285%    IFR 4.0%    1YR 370    5YR 5,555    Max Repair 337.500 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 1,000 tons     Troop Capacity 250 tons     Boarding Capable    Magazine 296   
Captain    Control Rating 4   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 20    Morale Check Required   

VanTech Corporation Class IV Ion Infused Void Drive (3)    Power 1350.0    Fuel Use 54.64%    Signature 225.000    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 1,005,000 Litres    Range 19.6 billion km (56 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 884-J4EB Shield Projector (1)     Recharge Time 425 seconds (0.2 per second)

Quasar Tech Type-20 Heavy Turbolaser Array (3)    Range 320,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 50,000 km    ROF 10       
XG-17  Rapid-firing Flak System (25x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Zergon Corporation Point-defence Targeting Computer System (2)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mason-Branger 7085-15  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 15.3    Exp 15%

Inobyte Auto-loading Anti-torpedo Launch System (12)     Missile Size: 1    Rate of Fire 10
Sienar Fleet Systems Anti-torpedy Fire-control System (3)     Range 22.3m km    Resolution 1

Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  High Resolution Sensor (1)     GPS 2240     Range 42.7m km    Resolution 80
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  Torpedo Detection Sensor (1)     GPS 28     Range 9.9m km    MCR 891.1k km    Resolution 1
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

ECCM-2 (2)         ECM 20
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 09:45:03 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 
The following users thanked this post: skoormit