Prototype UNSC designs

Well, I finally put digit to keyboard and hacked out my first draft of some
UNSC ship designs. The designs have a certain amount of modularity inspired by
the castings.

Things to bear in mind - UNSC ships of destroyer and larger in size use
standard sized drive modules, which come in two sizes, to simplify production
and maintenance. However, bolting these on to different sized
hulls can lead to odd (literally) thrust ratings ;-).
The other standard modules incude a slot in weapons module, (as seen
on the DD, CH, SDN, and SDN-X figures - there are two versions - three
cylinders side by side, or a 2-aperture turret) as well as standard
sized cargo and fighter hanger modules.

These have the following MASS and COST:

Module MASS COST Medium Thrust 12 24
Large Thrust   25	   50
Weapons 6 varies
Cargo           5           2   (adds +1 hull boxes, 4 cargo space)

Cargo modules are usually fitted in groups of 4.

I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours
next week) :-)

Typical weapons modules:
3-arc Class-3 Beam battery COST: 18
3-arc Pulse Torpedo COST: 18
ADFC + 4 PDS' COST: 20
3x MT-Missile racks: COST 18
EW module - Superior sensors + area ECM system (pending revised EW
rules): COST 60

The three-tube molding looks like it could be a SMR/SML - but I get
unused space if I make it a SMR, and I have to increase the module size
to 7 to fit in a SML - which gives unused space in some of the others!
(I'm still thinking about this one).

Note: most of the weapons layouts are for the 'fully tooled up' version, UNSC
ships assigned to 'peacekeeper' duties usually replace some of
their 3-arc Class-2 batteries with needle beams, and load MT-missile
modules loaded with EMP missiles (or maybe SMR/SML modules loaded with
SM-EMP's - how you know why I suggested them :-) for political reasons,
the theory being that governments are less likely to whine if you simply
disable their ships, rather than destroying them (yes, I know, its a
_theory_).

So now the ships - in all cases I've attemped to base MASS and weapons
layout on the figures (I compared figures with an FSE BDN and various small
NAC ships for size comparison purposes).

#Patrol Cutter/Frigate type I

Displacement: 2000 tonnes (MASS factor 20) Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity
5) Crew: 5 officers, 15 ratings (Crew Factor 1)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 1 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
Drive systems: Main Drive rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 20 NPV: 68

The above statistics are for the military Frigate version, a quick
re-fit to swap out the Class-2 battery for a needle beam, and replace
one of the PDS with an extra FireCon gives the Patrol Cutter version, which
costs 1 extra point. (Needle Beam as a 'less than lethal' alternative for
patrol duties,
extra firecon to _use_ the needle beam).

#Lake class destroyer

Displacement: 3400 tonnes (MASS factor 34) Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity 8)
Crew: 8 officers, 26 ratings (Crew Factor 2) Armanent: 2 x Class 1 batteries,
1 x weapons module Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 1 Fire-control system
Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 7, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 34
NPV: 98 + cost of weapons module

A bit flimsy, and rather heavier than I'd like - the thrust rating of 7
demonstates a disadvantage of the modular drive system :-(

#Mountain class Light cruiser

Displacement: 5000 tonnes (MASS factor 50) Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity
14) Crew: 13 officers, 37 ratings (Crew Factor 3)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 3 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level 1 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: Medium Drive module, rating 5, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 34 NPV: 167

Again it demonstates a disadvantage of the modular drive system :-(

#River class Heavy cruiser

Displacement: 9000 tonnes (MASS factor 90) Hull type: Average (Hull Integrity
25) Crew: 23 officers, 67 ratings (Crew Factor 5)
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 3-arc Class 2 batteries, 2x weapons modules
Defences: 2 Point Defence Systems, Grade 4 Armour, Level 1 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 2 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive

TMF: 90
NPV: 263 + 2 weapons modules

Bit heavy, but the model is rather large :-)

#Gaia class Superdreadnought

Displacement: 24000 tonnes (MASS factor 240) Hull type: Average (Hull
Integrity 60) Crew: 60 officers, 180 ratings (Crew Factor 12) plus fighter
pilots
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 6-arc Class 2, 2 x 2-arc Class 3, 2 x 3arc
Class 3 batteries, 2x weapons modules Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade
12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 4 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: 2 x Large Drive module, rating 4, FTL (Jump) Drive Hanger bays:
2 bays holding 12 fighters

TMF: 240
NPV: 782 + 2 weapons modules + 12 fighters

Yup, it is rather big, so is the model :-)

#Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought

Displacement: 32800 tonnes (MASS factor 328) Hull type: Weak (Hull Integrity
64) Crew: 82 officers, 246 ratings (Crew Factor 16) plus fighter pilots
Armanent: 2 x Class 1, 2 x 6-arc Class 2, 2 x 2-arc Class 3, 2 x 3arc
Class 3 batteries, 2x weapons modules Defences: 6 Point Defence Systems, Grade
12 Armour, Level 2 Screens
Sensor suite: Standard sensors, 4 Fire-control systems
Drive systems: 4 x Large Drive module, rating 6, FTL (Jump) Drive
Hanger bays: 1 bay holding 6 fighters, 1 capacity 6-MASS hanger bay
Cargo bay: 4 x Cargo modules (capacity 16 MASS)

TMF: 328
NPV: 1015 + 2 weapons modules + 6 fighters + 1 MASS-6 small craft

Yup, its' huge, in fact it is _too_ big, but I hit a snag with modular
ships designs - its called Screens - and its been discussed on this list
before :-( From the model, I'd like to cut it down to aboit 300-310
MASS, while keeping the 'SDN with cargo and extra drives added' feel.

The MASS-6 hanger bay that replaces a fighter hanger on the SDN houses
a MASS-6 landing craft. Part of the cargo module houses barracks for
troops for groud operations - usually :-)

Well, these are very much 'first draft' I'll probably try and tweek things
like module sizes in order to fix some of the snags I've listed above.

Any thoughts, suggestion, comments, etc.

Oh, and I almost forgot to say - thanks for the various people who have
mentioned modular systems on this list before for additional inspiration.

> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:

> Well, I finally put digit to keyboard and hacked out my first draft

Um... yes :-/

> The other standard modules incude a slot in weapons module, (as >seen

> These have the following MASS and COST:

Hm. Why do the cargo modules add hull boxes when none of the other types do?

> I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours

The UNSC fighter bay "modules" aren't as much a module as a new main hull,
though.

> Typical weapons modules:

The EW module only uses 5 Mass?

> Note: most of the weapons layouts are for the 'fully tooled up'

Why not have a couple of "peace-keeping modules" - the weapons *not*
carried in modules would seem to be harder to refit quickly? That'd leave the
patrol cutter with no integral armament (not even PDS), only a single
module... could get problematic with the single FCS since it can't fire any
other weapons while also firing the needle beam, but OTOH it might not be
entirely politically correct to fire standard
anti-ship weapons while trying to "disable" a ship anyway <g>

> and load MT-missile modules loaded with EMP missiles (or maybe

The option to capture rather than destroy is more important when you're
fighting pirates/smugglers, though - their friends and protectors are
extremely likely to claim that the UNSC "murders innocent civilians" if a
pirate or smuggler ship is destroyed (witness what happened when NATO aircraft
bombed Kosovar refugee columns believing they were Serb armour columns... or
the furor over the Serb civilian casualties in the same
war - some media have called the NATO bomb campaign a "genocidal war"
and likened it with the Nazi treatment of Jews (!) because over a
thousand Serb civilians died in the bomb raids...). The pirate-friends
will find this a lot harder to do if the UNSC captures the ship (relatively)
intact and with (relatively) small casualties on the
smuggler side :-/

> So now the ships - in all cases I've attemped to base MASS and

OK, though see the comments above.

> #Lake class destroyer

TMF 96 + cost of module, unless you've charged an extra cost of 2 pts
for the ability to swap modules.

> #Mountain class Light cruiser

Says "MASS factor 50" and "TMF 34". I assume you mean 50 <g>

In order to make a TMF 50 ship thrust-5 you need an engine with Mass
50*0.25 = 12.5 rounds UP to 13. Your design only has 12 Mass of
engines, so is thrust-4 (it'd be thrust-5 if it were TMF 49, though).

If you want a thrust-4, TMF 50-52 CL and a thrust-6, TMF 32-34 DD you
could reduce the Medium Drive module to MASS 10 instead.

> #River class Heavy cruiser

The Large Thrust module is 2 Mass short for Thrust-6 (90*0.3 = 27; the
Large Thrust module is only 25). The ship only uses 89 of its 90 Mass,
but it'd need to be TMF 91/NPV 264+modules to have room for big enough
engines (or drop a hull/armour box, or be thrust-5 with oversized
engines).

> #Gaia class Superdreadnought

Uses 2 Mass more than necessary for its engines (has 50 Mass of engines; needs
only 48); apart from that it's OK.

> #Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought

Needs only 98 Mass of engines; the ship has 100 Mass of engines. Basic cost is
1023 (with the oversized engines), not 1015.

> Yup, its' huge, in fact it is _too_ big, but I hit a snag with modular

Which is the main enemy of these ships - other human forces in the 3rd
Solar War, or the Kra'Vak in the (1st) Xeno War? (Yes, I know the humans
fought both Phalons and SV as well as the KV during the Xeno War, but the
Kra'Vak were the main threat.) The above UNSC ships are
heavily slanted towards fighting humans and/or Phalons; if the Kra'Vak
are seen as the main enemy (but you still want to fight Phalons or humans with
the same ship) you don't need quite *that* heavy screens
:-/

Later,

In message <200009111921.VAA02762@d1o902.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:

Note, I'm tempted to up the Weapons Module to MASS 7, so I could fit a
SML + 2 shot magazine in it - but it gives me an extra +1 MASS for most
of the other designs to fill :-(
> Hm. Why do the cargo modules add hull boxes when none of the other

Urm, well, the answer is they don't, anymore - this was an idea I was
batting around and have discarded since last night. Any hull implicit in a
module is subsumed into the main ship hull purchase.
> >I'll do the fighter hanger when I get a carrier figure (at colours

Hmm.. I'll have a look on Saturday.
> >Typical weapons modules:
'Fraid so, in More Thrust, Superior sensors cost 2 mass, 30 pts, Area ECM
costs3 MASS, 30 pts, I havn't decided which of the new sensor rules to use, so
this bit is a bit of a placeholder. IMHO ECM mass should be based on MASS of
the ship, & area ECM mass based on the total MASS of all the ships it can
protect.
> >Note: most of the weapons layouts are for the 'fully tooled up'

Well, yes, under design ATM :-)
> >and load MT-missile modules loaded with EMP missiles (or maybe
if
> a

You got it in one!
> >So now the ships - in all cases I've attemped to base MASS and
I'm considering different types of modules - say a small mass-2 module
contents: either 3-arc B2, or needle beam, or..
as well as the larger MASS 6 modules.

> >#Lake class destroyer

Err... rats! must check spreadsheet (I've tweeked the designs a bit already
though)
> >#Mountain class Light cruiser
Argh! cut & paste error!
> In order to make a TMF 50 ship thrust-5 you need an engine with Mass
Spreadsheet error - again :-(
> If you want a thrust-4, TMF 50-52 CL and a thrust-6, TMF 32-34 DD you

Planning to.
> >#River class Heavy cruiser

Disadvantage of the modular approach - as are some of the other errors
you pointed out.
> >#Sol class Extended-Range Superdreadnought

> Later,
Thanks a lot for the comments - I've already done a bit of a re-design
- and I'll integrate your comments.

Incidentally, I've been re-reading the old thread started by A.E. Brain
when they introduced their modular OU design, and I've found some interesting
approaches, thanks people!