[Snail]

I think that if TrashMan was a real designer, all his ships would overheat when they did anything else other than move.

If I were a designer my ships would actually work and be good at what they do.. Your's would just aspolode when you look at them the wrong way.
[/quote]

Your doctrine of putting as many weapons as possible onto a ship and just increasing the reactor size would hardly work in-universe, IMO.

[General Battuta]

Your's would just aspolode when you look at them the wrong way.

You mean...lasciviously?

Also, all y'all are crazy. There's an easy and obvious way to take down those pesky Sathani: relativistic kill vehicle impacts.

Sure, you usually use subspace for long-distance travel -- but why not build a powerful fusion torch instead, stick it on a heavy penetrator, station a few in every system, and wait? When you spot one of those big clumsy Sathani coming in from a neighboring system, ignite the RKV's drive, accelerate it up to some ludicrous percentage of lightspeed, and time it to arrive at the node just as the Sathanas is emerging.

Boom! The RKV whaps into the Sathanas with much more kinetic energy than any piece of drifting debris. It's going so incredibly fast by Freespace standards that there's no real chance of intercepting it or slowing it down -- and even if you did, the debris cloud would still do the job.

Now, to be fair, it has a couple weaknesses: the Shivans might see it coming if they have a superluminal sensor system, or they might make another subspace jump before the RKV could arrive.

But still, if it worked, cheap and reliable way to take them down.

[Snail]

That's too easy and that'd no be fun.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

It really doesn't sound 'Freespacey' to me.

[TrashMan]

Your doctrine of putting as many weapons as possible onto a ship and just increasing the reactor size would hardly work in-universe, IMO.

If you think I EVER said, then you are crazy and seeing things.

[karajorma]

Okay, can it the pair of you. If you're not arguing about something actually in-universe you're simply just arguing which means split and lock.

[TrashMan]

We are arguing about FS and the future of warship..that's on topic.

[General Battuta]

We are arguing about FS and the future of warship..that's on topic.

Ooh, you guys are so frakked now.

It really doesn't sound 'Freespacey' to me.

You're right, it's not. It's more of a hard SF concept.

And actually, I think you and Snail are right -- it'd probably be impractical in the Freespaceverse. There's no evidence to suggest that Freespace drives can propel anything up to those speeds in any reasonable period of time.

Y'know what'd be cool? A beam drive. Instead of a big messy fusion torch, apply the focusing mechanics of a beam weapon to the drive output. Maybe it'd be a good concept for a capital-ship afterburner.

[Kie99]

The design that merges the capabilities is known in Freespace as a Destroyer.

Oh, really? And what about the Colossus?

The Colossus was an anomaly, a one of a kind ship.  It's never given a designation, it's just an extremely large, powerful destroyer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your idea is for a ship which houses and deploys fighters, and has significant anti-warship capabilities, exactly the same as a destroyer.

[Snail]

Yeah. So there's no point separating the two cause if they're far apart then I could attack a carrier with my Fenris and pawn it, and then I could attack the battleship with a bomber wing and pawn it.

[karajorma]

We are arguing about FS and the future of warship..that's on topic.

I'm referring to the whole I'm a better starship designer than you are nonsense.

The rest of the topic is fine. Hence the split and lock threat rather than a simple lock.

[Snail]

I'm referring to the whole I'm a better starship designer than you are nonsense.

Sorry then, Karajorma.

[TrashMan]

Yeah. So there's no point separating the two cause if they're far apart then I could attack a carrier with my Fenris and pawn it, and then I could attack the battleship with a bomber wing and pawn it.

It does make sense to separate them.. but it all depends on the situation.

It's not that simple as many here would like it to be.

Having them separate you can do the following: launch all fighters from a carrier and let the fighters and the BB jump and attack the enemy. The carrier is in no danger of being destroyed in the battle, the fighters have somewhere to return to in case the BB is destroyed. At the same time the BB has better survivability and firepower than a regular destroyer and can dish out more damage to the enemy.

If you are on the offensive, Cr + BB is often the best option
If you are on the defensive a collie mk2 is often better.

but this is just a generalization. I say again - it's not that simple. the factors are many.

[karajorma]

I still reckon that the GTVA probably tried to build a carrier with the Hecate and realised that they could simply stick some beams on it and call it a destroyer without massively changing its primary function.

[mr.WHO]

Hecade doesn't even deserve a destroyer title: she never engage anything bigger than corvette and even against it, we saw her running away, not attacking - she would fit a carrier designation.

[Snail]

Hecade doesn't even deserve a destroyer title: she never engage anything bigger than corvette and even against it, we saw her running away, not attacking - she would fit a carrier designation.

She still needs to defend herself. There's not point making a carrier with no guns on it simply so you can fit 5 more fighters in it, when it'll just get destroyed, and you won't even get the chance to launch those extra 5 fighters.

Carriers need guns. Battleships might not need fighters, but carriers will ALWAYS need guns.

[karajorma]

Hecade doesn't even deserve a destroyer title: she never engage anything bigger than corvette and even against it, we saw her running away, not attacking - she would fit a carrier designation.

So now imagine how horrifically vulnerable anything with smaller or even no anti-cap weapons would be.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Carriers need guns. Battleships might not need fighters, but carriers will ALWAYS need guns.

Definitely true. I think most of us agree that the Hecate was designed as a carrier, with minimal anti-capship weapons. The question is: what would the GTVA fight other capships with? Fighters and bombers? Imagine 'Slaying Ravana' without the corvette... It would take ages.
The Orion is too old, the Deimos is severly outgunned by the Sobek, the Colossus is not omnipresent, and let's just not start talking about cruisers at all.

I know I'm probably boring you with this, but the Iceni neatly fills the gap. That's the reason why I think that the Iceni was the one and only prototype of the future GTVA battlefrigate. It has no fighterbays (the Hecate has), and it can wipe out any Shivan vessel the GTVA knew about during the Interbellum. It's even a serious threat to a Sathanas, especially if deployed in groups. (I think a production Iceni would cost about half the price of an Orion).

[karajorma]

I personally suspect that the Iceni was the result of Bosch simply throwing lots of time and money at the problem. The result was a powerful, fast, compact ship which probably cost more than a destroyer.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

I personally suspect that the Iceni was the result of Bosch simply throwing lots of time and money at the problem. The result was a powerful, fast, compact ship which probably cost more than a destroyer.

What would Bosh get the money from? Charity? Military payments have never been high and they probably will never be (that's why nobody who is actually smart wants to be in GTVA Command  ).