A word about Modular ships.
A lot of Frigates bumming round these days (including the German F-124,
a VERY capable vessel) are made to a Blohm und Voss GmbH family of designs.
These have one characteristic: the weapons, and to a lesser extent sensors,
are not exactly "plug n play", but are designed as somewhat interchangeable
modules. This means you can get your basic hull, and (later on) stick upgraded
weaponry on it, with a minimum of
fuss/cost/time. The Danish Modular Corvette takes this to an extreme,
having different modules to make it a minesweeper, patrol boat, attack craft
etc.
Yeah, in SFB the Romulan Sparrowhawk had the same idea.
ANYWAY....
I've been thinking about the OUDF, and the idea of the OU having a
zillion M-type stars that it "claims" provided it can patrol them. This
means the OUDF, like the current RAN (Royal Australian Navy) must have a
lot of long-range patrol boats. Just enough armament to call them a
warship (ie Junk-bashers to all Grey Funnel Liners), but with the
ability to become at least partly capable warships in time of need.
Hence the following design: The Freemantle Class Patrol Vessel.
Mass 32
FTL ( 4 mass ) - run at 3/4 power for long-term reliability
Thrust 5 ( 8 mass) Strong (50%)Hull (16 mass) 2 Armour ( 2 mass) 1 Type 1 (1
mass) 1 FC ( 1 mass)
Cheap, reliable, rugged, and not effective vs any but the smallest opponents.
Put it in a shipyard for a week though, and it turns into:
Mass 40
FTL -4
Thrust 4 -8
Average Hull(40%) -16
2 Armour -2
1 Type 1 -1
1 FC -1
and 1 ER SML Disposable Launcher (5)
1 PD -1
1 Type 2 Beam (Fwd arc) or sometimes 1 Type 2 (2) 1 ADAF (1) 5 PD (5) or in a
few experimental vessels
3 Type 2 (L,R,F) -6
1 PD -1
1 Type 1 -1
but sometimes in peacetime, 4 Cargo (2 each)
I tend to think modularity in military ships would have some negative effect
on
hull strength, at least the simple 'plug-n-play' that some envision.
Ease-of-refit should be a part of all new designs, so I'm not certain
I'd be expecting to see that much difference in a modular ship. Of course,
part of this humble opinion is that I'm assuming a military space craft would
be experiencing stresses that the Danish ship's unlikely to.
However, you are obviously aware of the dangers of letting this go to
extremes, so, if I can get a game up to give your designs a try showing no
glaring cheese, I'd have no big objections to limited implimentation in my
group.
Interestingly, this feeds to the work I've been doing on the Corporate Wars
that led up to the formation of the Texaco Corporate States (trying on yet
another name). In trying to come up with simple con games, especially that
allow
walk-up/drop-in participation, I wanted an ongoing battle with small,
simple ships sliding on and off the table.
Having first tried cut-out images on card, I decided to use Evil Empire
(tm) Ork (tm) Bolt Pistols (??) with the handle cut off to represent modified
independent commercial ships with strong company ties, fighting small border
disputes. I
liked the idea that the bolt pistol muzzles were actually add-on
military engineering sections (engines) the corporation kept on hand for just
such an occasion, and weopen systems dropped in whatever available cargo
opening.
The ships themselves have various firing arcs; imagine flying a ship with a
single beam that fires only on the right aft bearing.
I know the above doesn't make a lot of sense, but I have fleshed it out a bit,
given the bits and pieces from FT and MT of a parallel military history in a
gritty corporate universe.
The_Beast
> Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote:
> Mass 40
I wouldn't let a modular ship change it's engines or hull boxes. But swapping
out weapons seems like a good idea to me.
The basic idea is sound, but what can actually be changed isn't. Hull, MD &
FTL are all integral to the structure of the ship. Everything else can be
moduled or slabbed to the outer hull. Therefore, this should work slightly
better.
Fremantle class Modular Destroyer (DDM) Mass: 32 Hull: Average FTL: Std Main
Drive: 4
Damage Track: 10; [ooo/o*o/oo/o*]
1 x Firecon
1 x Class-2 (FP/F/FS)
2 x PDS 8 mass modular cargo space.
These modules fit the cargo splits (2/2/2/2);
SMR variant - add 2 SMR (std)
Aegis variant - add 2 armour, ADFC & 4 PDS
Patrol variant - add Pulsetorp (F), 2 x class-2 (AP/FP/F, F/FS/AS)
Carrier variant - add 2 armour & 4 fighters with launch bay (6 mass)
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]
Armor should be integral to the ship structure also. I don't see how a module
with armor in it would be help protect the ship in most instances.
IAS
> "Robertson, Brendan" wrote:
> The basic idea is sound, but what can actually be changed isn't.
Hull,
> MD & FTL are all integral to the structure of the ship. Everything
This
> means the OUDF, like the current RAN (Royal Australian Navy) must have
> John M. Atkinson wrote:
Agreed. 16 Hull is Strong(50%) for the mass 32 base, but only average(40%) for
the mass 40 "Fitted With, not just For" version.
I might add that just before HMAS Brisbane went to the Gulf War, she got all
the goodies that she'd been fitted for, but not with. A brace of CIWS, RAM
panels, decoys, additional guns etc etc.
FWIW, the current RAN practice is to rotate the scarce CIWS systems
For these I was thinking more along the lines of 'ablative' style armour which
is simply welded over any weak sections exposed due to the modular
construction, etc...
'Neath Southern Skies
http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
*****
They seek him here, they seek him there; Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven or is he in hell? That damned elusive, Pimpernel.
- 'The Scarlet Pimpernel', Baroness Emma Orkzy
[quoted original message omitted]