> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Tom Anderson wrote:
> otoh, since the cargo bays aren't tied to the drive assembly, you
Why not? If you are transporting bulk cargo, you're going to have a big volume
freighter. Use sublight lighters to transport the material planet
side. To get it up to orbit, you use a rail gun on low grav worlds.
What about the palettized container ship concept. Small orbital shuttles
(ala the trucks) transport the cargo up to the ship, they are attached
(internal or external) to the freighter.
I don't know that a Tug would be the same as a cargo freighter. In the case of
the tug, its extending its drive field around a separate craft. A freighter
would already have the drive field emmitters placed at strategic locations
around the ship to warp the space around it and jump
to light.
Whether it had entirely internal cargo holds or attachment points, I don't see
why it would count as a tug. Its always transporting the same volume of
objects.
This has me thinking about my idea for PT boats and an associated tender
for them. Essentially a ship just like a Landing Ship Tank that trucks around
LCMs and LCIs (or what ever) for the actual interface to the surface. The PT
boats would stay in system and get shuttled about to other systems with the
tender. They'd get transported in the bays of
the tender and be size 6-8 with no FTL drive. But the tender wouldn't
have to be costed out like a tug (just like the auxillary ships that move the
interface craft around). Still it'd be merchant like and not a good combatant.
There benifit would be small, handy craft hardly worth A Batt shots at that
moved pretty fast, but not as fast as fighters. The'd have pds, a torpedo and
a 8 thrust engine to make maneuver easy. The perfect thing to operate in
systems that were in contention or that were transfer points for merchant
ships. The tender wouldn't necessarily have to be insystem all the time, just
when they needed to make a strategic move.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> This has me thinking about my idea for PT boats and an associated
Ryan, Great idea. I came up with this one a few months ago. It's the
Binghamton Class, as in Captain Wallace Binghamton<g>, Torpedo Boat (PT). I
can only get
the mass down to 10, not 6-8, and that's without the PDS that you
recommend. Maybe I'm not handling the fractions right; I don't know. Any
suggestions? Thanks.
-Michael
Binghamton Class Torpedo Boat (PT) System Mass Cost Hull 10 10 Integrity 1 2
Main Drive 4 8
Firecon 1 4
Pulse Torp 4 12
36
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Ryan M Gill wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Tom Anderson wrote:
on first reading this paragraph, i thought you were disagreeing with mne; now
i think it's support. someone agreeing with me? impossible!:)
> What about the palettized container ship concept. Small orbital
> (internal or external) to the freighter.
it would be more mass-efficient to use the shuttles to carry containers
which are loaded on the freighter, rather than attaching entire shuttles.
otoh, it is less time-efficient. this is the crux of the difference
between hold-type and tug-type frighters. otgh, if the containers are
huge (a few thousand tonnes each), they would be very quick to load and
unload.
> I don't know that a Tug would be the same as a cargo freighter. In the
> case of the tug, its extending its drive field around a separate
it's true that the freighter has a more deterministic load, and one that can
be better balanced around the ship:
#=# bits of ship * carried stuff
freighter:
******
#======#
******
tug:
#=======#
****
****
****
> Whether it had entirely internal cargo holds or attachment points, I
that's quite true - a tug's ftl drive is less efficient than a standard
ftl drive. in this case, you could probably say that the lighters were
effectively part of the ship when carried (provided they were quite small),
and claim standard ftl efficiency. there is still the cost of the lighters'
systems to deal with, though.
> This has me thinking about my idea for PT boats and an associated
> around LCMs and LCIs (or what ever) for the actual interface to the
i understand that this is essentially how the IF operate.
> There benifit would be small, handy craft hardly worth A Batt shots at
> that moved pretty fast, but not as fast as fighters. The'd have pds, a
> torpedo and a 8 thrust engine to make maneuver easy. The perfect thing
like star destroyers in star wars (at least, the computer games).
tom
> On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Tom Anderson wrote:
> on first reading this paragraph, i thought you were disagreeing with
You'd be surprised...;P
> > What about the palettized container ship concept. Small orbital
Well I'm seeing it like the container ships/trains/trucks that we have
now. The Truck (tractor) is the shuttle part. It attaches itself
to/around the container and transports it (just like now where only the
container gets pulled off the flatbed of the truck) to and from orbit.
> > I don't know that a Tug would be the same as a cargo freighter. In
True, if you need to get an odd/unusally large load from one sector to
another one would use a tug if a sufficiantly large bulk. One could concevibly
have a large auxillary craft capable of taking a corvette inside its hull were
the corvette disabled. If one needed to move a damaged battleship to a system
that could effect repairs that would make
it space worthy again, a tug would definately be needed and would necessitate
the BAD (Big Ass Drive) system.
> that's quite true - a tug's ftl drive is less efficient than a
Well, if you wanted a Freighter that did not need port facilities, it would
have to have its own cargo shuttles for ferrying material in. Otherwise you
could get more cargo bang for your buck with a Cargo only freighter (rather
than spending internal space for a Lighter bay or
two).
> i understand that this is essentially how the IF operate.
> like star destroyers in star wars (at least, the computer games).
sort of, more like PT boats in WWII and PBRs/Swift Boats/Riverine
Monitors during Vietnam. Small combatants for a particular job. Also not
that many modern navy's have small combatants like this that are really light
and fast for working in littoral waters.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Michael Sarno wrote:
> Great idea. I came up with this one a few months ago. It's the
(I'm just now getting around to this mail. I've been ignoring a block of
300 messages in my inbox from a while back....apolagies....)
Mike, I was missing the firecon and hadn't calculated things fully through. I
believe that if you drop the thrust to 6 then you can include
a PDS wich gives you the slight anti ship capability. Or you can go for a
single Class 1 batt, with a slight pds ancillary function.
> Binghamton Class Torpedo Boat (PT)
Bingo, pretty much what I thought. What have you used for the figure? I took a
bunch of the NAC scouts and trimmed down the front sides. I added
a bit of plastic round tube like bit to the bow as a nice Plasma torp emitter
and vola, 6 PT boats. I've also hacked a CVL into the Mekong Delta class APT
(PT boat Tender).
130 Tonnes, Thrust 2 Integrety 26 1 Fighter Bay 1 Hanger bay 40 Cap
2 Cargo/passerger spaces
2 PDS 457 NPV