Posted by: Iranon
« on: July 05, 2016, 07:11:43 PM »Consider the following, all 16k tech plus Magneto-Plasma drives:
It's slow tactically, it's fragile, it's not as small as I would like for its fire control range... but it costs only twice as much as the ordnance it carries, has a very acceptable mission life and strategic mobility (a tanker variant without weapons could carry over 15 times the fuel), and it shouldn't need servicing ever.
Just the hangar space to house it would cost 2/3 of the build points, and even a barebones carrier needs some basics (hull, bridge, engines, engineering spaces and crew quarters including flight crew berths). Maybe armour and other silly defensive extravagances: hopefully useless as the carrier is not intended to get into harm's way, but you never know and it's still a big target that'd be embarrassing to lose.
Carriers are expensive because of the duplication of systems inherent to the approach. I see the benefits for parasites that become much more effective when too insanely overpowered to cover long distances themselves (boarding craft, stand-off beam vessels), but the effort seems wasted for strike groups that'd function just fine at modest speed.
Code: [Select]
Dodo class Fighter-bomber 300 tons 5 Crew 45.6 BP TCS 6 TH 24 EM 0
4000 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2.4
Maint Life 14.33 Years MSP 19 AFR 3% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 3 Max Repair 14 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 16
12 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (2) Power 12 Fuel Use 24.11% Signature 12 Exp 7%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 24.9 billion km (72 days at full power)
Size 16 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 16 Hangar Reload 120 minutes MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC58-R100 (1) Range 58.8m km Resolution 100
ASM-16a (1) Speed: 25 000 km/s End: 39.5m Range: 59.3m km WH: 49 Size: 16 TH: 166/100/50
Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
It's slow tactically, it's fragile, it's not as small as I would like for its fire control range... but it costs only twice as much as the ordnance it carries, has a very acceptable mission life and strategic mobility (a tanker variant without weapons could carry over 15 times the fuel), and it shouldn't need servicing ever.
Just the hangar space to house it would cost 2/3 of the build points, and even a barebones carrier needs some basics (hull, bridge, engines, engineering spaces and crew quarters including flight crew berths). Maybe armour and other silly defensive extravagances: hopefully useless as the carrier is not intended to get into harm's way, but you never know and it's still a big target that'd be embarrassing to lose.
Carriers are expensive because of the duplication of systems inherent to the approach. I see the benefits for parasites that become much more effective when too insanely overpowered to cover long distances themselves (boarding craft, stand-off beam vessels), but the effort seems wasted for strike groups that'd function just fine at modest speed.