Author Topic: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?  (Read 2528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NuclearStudent (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« on: December 23, 2016, 04:58:25 PM »
I have two prospective designs for beam-fighter carriers, both of which can be built from the same shipyard.  One of them is a fast strike carrier, and the other is a slower more back-line oriented carrier.

Right now, I have an obsolete Anti Ship Missile Cruiser, an obsolete AMM destroyer, and three crappy 2000km/s beam frigates I started with. My tech level is uneven-my sensor and fire control tech is behind, but my engine and missile tech is very good. That is why I'm doing carriers and missiles.

My overall doctrine plans for a couple of backline ASM Cruisers doing scanning work and billion km range missile work, and a fast strike group of AMM destroyers and beam frigates escorted by rail PD fighters. I'm not doing laser fighters, because in the past, I found them incredibly fragile. Also, you can't fit ECM onto a fighter.

This is a design for a fast carrier. It would need continuous tanker supply, but it would be able to keep up with the group fairly well...I think. It's decently armoured, but I'm considering throwing a few CIWS on it. I'm not sure if I need a fast carrier for anything, though.

The fighters have a range of about 2 billion, including the tankers. Without any fighter tankers, the range of a PD fighter is one billion.

   Agincourt class Carrier    39 650 tons     828 Crew     6199.8 BP      TCS 793  TH 3300  EM 0
4161 km/s     Armour 8-103     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 100     PPV 0
Maint Life 4.51 Years     MSP 5886    AFR 251%    IFR 3.5%    1YR 469    5YR 7037    Max Repair 825 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 36 months    Flight Crew Berths 0   
Flag Bridge    Hangar Deck Capacity 20000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 1000   

MIL-TEC 1650 EP Internal Fusion Drive (2)    Power 1650    Fuel Use 104.91%    Signature 1650    Exp 16%
Fuel Capacity 1 010 000 Litres    Range 4.4 billion km   (12 days at full power)

MILTEC-GDR-AS S250TN RES 8250tn R-148m (1)     GPS 17325     Range 148.4m km    Resolution 165
MILTEC-GDR-AM S250tn R 1.25m (1)     GPS 105     Range 11.6m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1

ECM 20

Strike Group
38x   Kirusu PD-T4M1 Rail Fighter   Speed: 12000 km/s    Size: 10
2x Jimbob Tanker Fighter  Speed: 12000 km/s    Size: 10

This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes
   
This second design is one I think might be more sensible. It's about half the speed, but the range is far better, and it is significantly cheaper. I would keep this design back, with the ASM Cruiser. I give up tactical speed, but hopefully this carrier won't get shot at in the first place.

The fighters have a range of about 2 billion, including the tankers. Without any fighter tankers, the range of a PD fighter is one billion. Even though I plan to use these fighters to escort my beam destroyers, I'm including a sensor fighter just in case I want to do an independent fighter mission.

  Agincourt-Wiseman class Carrier    43 500 tons     739 Crew     4764.8 BP      TCS 870  TH 2000  EM 0
2298 km/s     Armour 6-110     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 100     PPV 0
Maint Life 5.19 Years     MSP 4423    AFR 302%    IFR 4.2%    1YR 274    5YR 4106    Max Repair 125 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 60 months    Flight Crew Berths 1   
Hangar Deck Capacity 20000 tons     Cryogenic Berths 1000   

HAULER 50HS 500 EP Commercial Internal Fusion Drive (4)    Power 500    Fuel Use 5.3%    Signature 500    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 1 010 000 Litres    Range 78.8 billion km   (397 days at full power)

MILTEC-GDR-AM S250tn R 1.25m (1)     GPS 105     Range 11.6m km    MCR 1.3m km    Resolution 1
MILTEC-GDR-AS S250TN RES 8250tn R-148m (1)     GPS 17325     Range 148.4m km    Resolution 165

ECM 20

Strike Group
37x   Kirusu PD-T4M1 Rail Fighter   Speed: 12000 km/s    Size: 10
2x Jimbob Tanker Fighter  Speed: 12000 km/s    Size: 10
1x Phillipines Sensor Fighter  Speed: 12000 km/s    Size: 10


This design is classed as a Military Vessel for maintenance purposes


Any general thoughts?
 

Offline NuclearStudent (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2016, 05:00:35 PM »
For good measure, I'll include my PD fighter design-

  Kirusu PD-T4M1 class Rail Fighter    500 tons     9 Crew     113.4 BP      TCS 10  TH 120  EM 0
12000 km/s     Armour 4-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 9    5YR 131    Max Repair 20 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.17 months    Spare Berths 0   

FGT 40 EP Internal Fusion Drive (3)    Power 40    Fuel Use 336.02%    Signature 40    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km   (24 hours at full power)

PD 10cm Railgun V1/C3 (1x4)    Range 10 000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 1    ROF 5        1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PD FC R24k TS12 000(FTR) (1)    Max Range: 48 000 km   TS: 12000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
T4 FGT Reactor PO:3.2 S20TN (1)     Total Power Output 3.2    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2016, 07:09:04 PM »
In another thread, the ship concept of a slow, heavily armored, beam and PD armed carrier that relied on fighters for long range combat was called a Battlestar.  As in Battlestar Galactica.

A theory behind it is that the carrier is tough enough so that its entire complement can be used offensively, instead of having to keep half the force back for defense.

Why the cryogenic berths, btw?
 

Offline NuclearStudent (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2016, 11:47:07 PM »
In another thread, the ship concept of a slow, heavily armored, beam and PD armed carrier that relied on fighters for long range combat was called a Battlestar.  As in Battlestar Galactica.

A theory behind it is that the carrier is tough enough so that its entire complement can be used offensively, instead of having to keep half the force back for defense.

Why the cryogenic berths, btw?

I did see that thread, but I didn't design a Battlestar at all. Neither of these carrier designs have independent fighting abilities. I don't have the energy weapon tech to build a beam Battlestar. I considered putting Gauss turrets or AMM on the carrier, but I decided to reserve that for the missile destroyer escorts.

I like the idea of dedicated carriers, because I splurged on Damage Control to be able to repair my fighters quickly. Each one of my fighters is tough enough to eat a 16 damage missile or quite a few AMMs. Mostly, the repair ability to deal with wear by AMMs, because in the past I found that quite a problem.

The berths are for POWs and rescuing people from blown-up fighters.

I'm considering having a dedicated "Red Cross" pseudofighter purely for rescue missions. For the moment, I've put some cryo berths on all of my ships.
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2016, 12:10:10 AM »
I saw a post a while ago by a player who had lifeboats on their capital ships.  125 ton craft with 200 cryo berths.  It seemed a good concept, especially for ships on the frontier.  If an exploring ship is suddenly destroyed, odds are that the attacker will be at a range for attacking ships, not small craft, and the life boat might entirely escape detection.

Upon some consideration, I think that a carrier of beam fighters is better off with a fighter barge design than a missile fighter carrier.  A missile fighter deployment relies on the fighters going out for repeated strikes, rearming, while the carrier stays at range.  Beam fighters have higher dps, and will be able to wipe everything in range if there are enough of them, without going back to the carrier.

All things being equal, a carrier that has missile fighters will need much more fuel for them.  Of course, if fighters are flying CAP intercepting missiles that could use up a lot of fuel too.

I like having the forethought to deal with prisoners w/o over crowding the life support.
 

Offline NuclearStudent (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 8 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2016, 01:15:54 AM »
I saw a post a while ago by a player who had lifeboats on their capital ships.  125 ton craft with 200 cryo berths.  It seemed a good concept, especially for ships on the frontier.  If an exploring ship is suddenly destroyed, odds are that the attacker will be at a range for attacking ships, not small craft, and the life boat might entirely escape detection.

Upon some consideration, I think that a carrier of beam fighters is better off with a fighter barge design than a missile fighter carrier.  A missile fighter deployment relies on the fighters going out for repeated strikes, rearming, while the carrier stays at range.  Beam fighters have higher dps, and will be able to wipe everything in range if there are enough of them, without going back to the carrier.

All things being equal, a carrier that has missile fighters will need much more fuel for them.  Of course, if fighters are flying CAP intercepting missiles that could use up a lot of fuel too.

I like having the forethought to deal with prisoners w/o over crowding the life support.

What's' a fighter barge design? You mean a long range, slow design?
 

Offline Michael Sandy

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • M
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 83 times
Re: Carrier Design: Long Range or Short Range?
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2016, 01:55:49 AM »
A fighter barge is essentially building to get as many fighters in the hull as possible, as cheaply as possible, on the theory that the fighters are both the offense and defense arm, and should kill stuff as far from the carrier as possible.

It is unquestionably the right choice in certain circumstances, and horrible in others.

For example, if you control the warp point into an enemy system, a fighter barge that launches, ducks for safety back out of the warp point, and only comes back to retrieve the fighters can be very effective, if the target is within their strike range.

However, when moving through an enemy held system, where you do not know what is in the system or where stuff will come from, it would be easy to have one entire strike force away after stuff detected but not identified on passives, when something ugly and fast pops within range.  At that point, being durable enough to survive to make other mistakes may seem the better option.

I am of the theory of present a target to the enemy that they think they can hit.  And the big target will be armored and/shielded and definitely protected by point defense.  Sort of why Batman has his batman crest on his chest armored.  He can't protect everything, but he can protect what is the focus of attention.  At least that was his rationale in the comic book, and please, ignore for the moment that by any standard Batman is totally insane.