Posted by: sadoeconomist
« on: January 14, 2021, 09:26:59 PM »Isn't the ship extremely short on ordnance capacity? If you're going to use standard-size ASM launchers, well, box launchers are 15% of their size, so if you've got fewer than 7 salvos worth of missiles onboard, it doesn't make a lot of sense to not just use box launchers, save some space, and be able to launch all your missiles at once. 90 box launchers is 2700 tons compared to the 4000 tons of 20 standard launchers, which also require 240 crew to man them, plus magazines. Even .3 launchers would be able to launch nearly all your missiles while staying in the same tonnage, and they could be reloaded from colliers instead of needing an ordnance hub. AMM launchers with only 4.5 salvos, too - you could launch all 180 of your AMMs before the first incoming salvo is even halfway through your launcher's envelope. You could cut 25 AMM launchers (along with another 125 crew) and still launch everything before anything traveling at your ASM's speed touches you. And even then, you'd only have the ammo to defend against a single ASM salvo, and then you'd be left with your pants down. Much of the tonnage taken up by those MLs is basically dead weight without the magazine space to back them up.
Also, is this meant to work totally independently or as part of a fleet? If it's part of a fleet then it can offload much of its fuel & MSP capacity to tankers and supply ships to fit more payload, and the engines could be boosted and reduced in size to add even more combat capability while keeping its speed high. And there's not much reason to put AMMs and ASMs on the same ship class instead of specializing. If it's going to function independently (as a scout? a commerce raider? what could it really do solo?) then it probably needs better sensors, some beam PD, and a jump drive. A ship that can run through all of its offensive ordnance in 75 seconds and then be left completely toothless isn't a good fit for an independent long-range ship though - it needs support from an ammunition transport at least, and if you're giving it one support ship you might as well give it the full set. It'd work better independently if it had a primary beam armament instead of the ASMs - then it could go on a long-distance cruise, kill multiple targets along the way, and be able to defend itself while heading home for an overhaul.
My rule of thumb for maintenance costs is to shoot for about 10% AFR for each 1000 tons, and at 400% AFR for 50000t this ship is a little heavy on engineering spaces, but if it's also got a chief engineer then its AFR will be even lower. Also, if its AFR is 400% and it deploys for 9 months, it's likely to have about 3 breakdowns per deployment, and its max repair is 450, so the MSP requirement is about 1800 for a worst case scenario of only your most expensive components breaking 1 more times than expected. It's got almost 6 times that much MSP capacity onboard though. In reality it probably won't even use a tenth of that, especially with a skilled chief engineer - there's no reason for it to be carrying anywhere near that much MSP.
Also, is this meant to work totally independently or as part of a fleet? If it's part of a fleet then it can offload much of its fuel & MSP capacity to tankers and supply ships to fit more payload, and the engines could be boosted and reduced in size to add even more combat capability while keeping its speed high. And there's not much reason to put AMMs and ASMs on the same ship class instead of specializing. If it's going to function independently (as a scout? a commerce raider? what could it really do solo?) then it probably needs better sensors, some beam PD, and a jump drive. A ship that can run through all of its offensive ordnance in 75 seconds and then be left completely toothless isn't a good fit for an independent long-range ship though - it needs support from an ammunition transport at least, and if you're giving it one support ship you might as well give it the full set. It'd work better independently if it had a primary beam armament instead of the ASMs - then it could go on a long-distance cruise, kill multiple targets along the way, and be able to defend itself while heading home for an overhaul.
My rule of thumb for maintenance costs is to shoot for about 10% AFR for each 1000 tons, and at 400% AFR for 50000t this ship is a little heavy on engineering spaces, but if it's also got a chief engineer then its AFR will be even lower. Also, if its AFR is 400% and it deploys for 9 months, it's likely to have about 3 breakdowns per deployment, and its max repair is 450, so the MSP requirement is about 1800 for a worst case scenario of only your most expensive components breaking 1 more times than expected. It's got almost 6 times that much MSP capacity onboard though. In reality it probably won't even use a tenth of that, especially with a skilled chief engineer - there's no reason for it to be carrying anywhere near that much MSP.