[Snail]

My bad, I forgot 3 or 4 = 500 and that 2 = 79001024093789327382974328943^(32388383999). Tell me, why exactly is 500 (read 3 or 4) impossible for an 800 to 1000 meter long warship? Do we have canonical size restrictions, canonical beam power usage, and canonical power plant output?

It's a hyperbole.

I think it goes by common sense. If no Terran ships of a certain size have 4 BGreens, it stands to reason that the reason there isn't one is because it's not bloody possible.

[Droid803]

The only Terran ship with 4+ BGreens is the Colossus.
Not even the Orion has that much firepower. The Iceni does have three, so it is possible to mount three on a corvette sized ship and still retain a 35ms^-1 top speed with multiple redundant engine systems to avoid getting disabled.

If the Iceni had its weapons rearranged so that all three of its primary weapons can be pointed at a single target, it'd work pretty well at this role already.

[Krelus]

The Bellerophon from Stratcomm's pack could do well in that role. It has an offensive shivan-style forward configuration with three beam cannons on the front.

And for a small carrier, also from Stratcomm's pack, the Sparta frigate would do swimmingly.

[Polpolion]

My bad, I forgot 3 or 4 = 500 and that 2 = 79001024093789327382974328943^(32388383999). Tell me, why exactly is 500 (read 3 or 4) impossible for an 800 to 1000 meter long warship? Do we have canonical size restrictions, canonical beam power usage, and canonical power plant output?

It's a hyperbole.

I think it goes by common sense. If no Terran ships of a certain size have 4 BGreens, it stands to reason that the reason there isn't one is because it's not bloody possible.

Not true. It's possible for aircraft carriers to mount 14 inch guns that shoot nuclear shells, but none of them do. Why? Because they're effective without them. Are fighters incapable of using flak guns? By your logic yes, but in this case, you'd be a bit suspicious. The size and damage of flak shouldn't be too big you mount on a fighter, though you wouldn't be able to load too many shells. Is an Orion capable of mounting Morning Stars to fend away bombers? By your logic, it isn't. Think up a more logically sound argument other than "it doesn't balance, and it hasn't already been done".

It's not a common sense thing that this is impossible. If you want to have a balanced game, then it is. If you're actually going to use this concept to make a ship for the game, then by all means, disregard my idea. But if you're honestly trying to think up an extension to the GTVA fleet, with a relatively realistic military design strategy, then shouting "YOU CAN'T HAVE 3/4 BGREENS ON A CORVETTE BECAUSE IT WOULD WORK TOO WELL" has no place here.

A hunter-killer craft that I described is a highly specialized warship. As I said before, it wouldn't be used for normal combat. If they were, they'd be slaughtered by any wing of bombers  that looked at it wrong.

A Deimos or Sobek is not a specialized craft. They're meant to be used against fighters, cruisers, other corvettes, and many other numbers of things. And they're effective at that. The things that they're not effective at is quickly dealing with them.

The hunter-killer that I described wouldn't be a cheap ship, as evident by the 4 Bgreens. There wouldn't be many of them, mainly because of the expense and that not too many are needed. More than likely, they'd be used by SOC. But it's effective at the one thing that not too many other crafts are: Quick, highly lethal, and relatively uncounterable attacks.

Why not use this tactic on all of our ships, then if it can decapitate a fleet so quickly? Because it's expensive and ineffective against certain tactics. For a populated area as large as the GTVA, you need a fleet of a certain size to be able to defend it and maintain order. With ships this expensive, you wouldn't be able to do that. But let's say for a moment that you magically do manage to get enough to do that, through some evil manipulation of FRED. The enemy counters that move with similar ship types of it's own, except with a higher dedication to electronic warfare and early detection and bomber ability. Now the enemy has a fleet of cruiser/corvette hybrids that have double your ship's sensor range, a squadron of interceptors, a squadron of bombers, and no guns, all for half the cost. Now it's them mounting the raids on your ships, because our hunter-killer fleet is incapable of defending itself from such amounts of fighters and bombers. Now let's say that your ships can effectively do everything really well, and you magically can afford everything to have a satisfactory fleet size. Hurrah for you! You have a highly effective space-borne navy. Give your R&D team a cookie.

But that doesn't happen because we're assuming the GTVA will be in a near economic-paralysis after the SGW. So they won't be able to afford any of these ships for a long time, because they need to rebuild their economy and regular fleet first. Eventually they would be able to afford it; I'd give it 10 or 15 years, seeing as how quickly they managed to do things after a 14 year-long war against each other and then against the Shivans.

EDIT: BTW: If we all defined rules beforehand that govern things like power output, weapon size, and logistics, would anyone be interested in creating a fleet for the GTVA for 30+ years after the SGW? I figure we make a thread to define the rules and once that's done, we make a thread to actually start. If people are interested, then I'll write a template to begin discussing the rules.

[Snail]

TL;DR

[Polpolion]

TL;DR

counter-argument, elaboration

[HawkW]

I'm guessing if such a hunter-killer warship was constructed, it's fighter compliment would probably consist of a wing of GTF Pegasus fighters for recon, and possibly one or two wings of  GTF Perseus for defense against enemy bombers, since the warship's weaponry would be focused towards anti-cap beams as opposed to AAAf.

[Mobius]

There could still be effective AF beams. The super AF beams used by the Colossus can inflict significant damage to a warship in prolonged combat. I guess mounting such weapons for a two-roles task is not a bad idea.

Nearly three years ago I FREDded a mission in which an Iceni with super AF beams passed near a Sathanas. The Iceni fired its beams on the Sathanas(if there were no Shivan fighters in the immediate vicinity) and after a few shots it reduces the Sathanas' hull integrity from 100 to 99. It continued to fire, reducing it to 97-96. That was quite impressive, IMO.

[Dilmah G]

There could still be effective AF beams. The super AF beams used by the Colossus can inflict significant damage to a warship in prolonged combat. I guess mounting such weapons for a two-roles task is not a bad idea.

Nearly three years ago I FREDded a mission in which an Iceni with super AF beams passed near a Sathanas. The Iceni fired its beams on the Sathanas(if there were no Shivan fighters in the immediate vicinity) and after a few shots it reduces the Sathanas' hull integrity from 100 to 99. It continued to fire, reducing it to 97-96. That was quite impressive, IMO.

On a rare occasion, I saw an Orion broadsiding the Sath take out one of the forward beam turrets

Which was the player's objective in the mission.


And how long did the Iceni survive?

[Commander Zane]

My bad, I forgot 3 or 4 = 500 and that 2 = 79001024093789327382974328943^(32388383999). Tell me, why exactly is 500 (read 3 or 4) impossible for an 800 to 1000 meter long warship? Do we have canonical size restrictions, canonical beam power usage, and canonical power plant output?

It's a hyperbole.

I think it goes by common sense. If no Terran ships of a certain size have 4 BGreens, it stands to reason that the reason there isn't one is because it's not bloody possible.

Yes, because my tube of chapstick can shoot a BFRed exactly 87 times back-to-back before overheating, a 800 / 1,000m ship can EASILY hold 500 of them.

Not true. It's possible for aircraft carriers to mount 14 inch guns that shoot nuclear shells, but none of them do. Why? Because they're effective without them. Are fighters incapable of using flak guns? By your logic yes, but in this case, you'd be a bit suspicious. The size and damage of flak shouldn't be too big you mount on a fighter, though you wouldn't be able to load too many shells. Is an Orion capable of mounting Morning Stars to fend away bombers? By your logic, it isn't. Think up a more logically sound argument other than "it doesn't balance, and it hasn't already been done".

Uh...no. Carriers don't mount extremely large cannons because that would greatly reduce it's efficency as a CARRIER.

A hunter-killer craft that I described is a highly specialized warship. As I said before, it wouldn't be used for normal combat. If they were, they'd be slaughtered by any wing of bombers  that looked at it wrong.

Hmm...let's look at the Sathanas and the Lucifer shall we and how easily they're taken down by bombers.

A Deimos or Sobek is not a specialized craft. They're meant to be used against fighters, cruisers, other corvettes, and many other numbers of things. And they're effective at that. The things that they're not effective at is quickly dealing with them.

I'd consider them support warships since they're super-large Cruisers that can more effictively take on other large ships.

EDIT: BTW: If we all defined rules beforehand that govern things like power output, weapon size, and logistics, would anyone be interested in creating a fleet for the GTVA for 30+ years after the SGW? I figure we make a thread to define the rules and once that's done, we make a thread to actually start. If people are interested, then I'll write a template to begin discussing the rules.

I'd vote for StratComm's fleet.

[Polpolion]

My bad, I forgot 3 or 4 = 500 and that 2 = 79001024093789327382974328943^(32388383999). Tell me, why exactly is 500 (read 3 or 4) impossible for an 800 to 1000 meter long warship? Do we have canonical size restrictions, canonical beam power usage, and canonical power plant output?

It's a hyperbole.

I think it goes by common sense. If no Terran ships of a certain size have 4 BGreens, it stands to reason that the reason there isn't one is because it's not bloody possible.

Yes, because my tube of chapstick can shoot a BFRed exactly 87 times back-to-back before overheating, a 800 / 1,000m ship can EASILY hold 500 of them.

Are you trying to say how the Sathanas' arms were so thin that they could still mount BFReds, indicating the size of the beam components?

Not true. It's possible for aircraft carriers to mount 14 inch guns that shoot nuclear shells, but none of them do. Why? Because they're effective without them. Are fighters incapable of using flak guns? By your logic yes, but in this case, you'd be a bit suspicious. The size and damage of flak shouldn't be too big you mount on a fighter, though you wouldn't be able to load too many shells. Is an Orion capable of mounting Morning Stars to fend away bombers? By your logic, it isn't. Think up a more logically sound argument other than "it doesn't balance, and it hasn't already been done".

Uh...no. Carriers don't mount extremely large cannons because that would greatly reduce it's efficency as a CARRIER.

That kind of my point. 

A hunter-killer craft that I described is a highly specialized warship. As I said before, it wouldn't be used for normal combat. If they were, they'd be slaughtered by any wing of bombers  that looked at it wrong.

Hmm...let's look at the Sathanas and the Lucifer shall we and how easily they're taken down by bombers.

I recall saying that my concepted ship had weak armor. If you think 800,000 hp is weak, then what you're implying is true. I thought more of that the 20,000 to 25,000 range was weak for a corvette sized craft, but if you want to make a super ship here, go ahead. I also recall saying that the total non-anticap beam armament would be 2 AAAf beams and 3 flak guns, compared to the myriad weapons on the Sathanas or Lucifer.  Hmm...

A Deimos or Sobek is not a specialized craft. They're meant to be used against fighters, cruisers, other corvettes, and many other numbers of things. And they're effective at that. The things that they're not effective at is quickly dealing with them.

I'd consider them support warships since they're super-large Cruisers that can more effictively take on other large ships.

Regardless of what you think their specific role is, they're obviously much less specialized than the ship I described. The Deimos, for example, harbors 4 anti-cap beams, 4 AAAfs, and a buttload of other guns. A pretty well rounded ship overall.

EDIT: BTW: If we all defined rules beforehand that govern things like power output, weapon size, and logistics, would anyone be interested in creating a fleet for the GTVA for 30+ years after the SGW? I figure we make a thread to define the rules and once that's done, we make a thread to actually start. If people are interested, then I'll write a template to begin discussing the rules.

I'd vote for StratComm's fleet.

So I take it that you do not wish to participate?

[Commander Zane]

My bad, I forgot 3 or 4 = 500 and that 2 = 79001024093789327382974328943^(32388383999). Tell me, why exactly is 500 (read 3 or 4) impossible for an 800 to 1000 meter long warship? Do we have canonical size restrictions, canonical beam power usage, and canonical power plant output?

It's a hyperbole.

I think it goes by common sense. If no Terran ships of a certain size have 4 BGreens, it stands to reason that the reason there isn't one is because it's not bloody possible.

Yes, because my tube of chapstick can shoot a BFRed exactly 87 times back-to-back before overheating, a 800 / 1,000m ship can EASILY hold 500 of them.

Are you trying to say how the Sathanas' arms were so thin that they could still mount BFReds, indicating the size of the beam components?

One would assume that most of the arm was the hull for the cannon. Maybe redundant since they also held an engine.

[Polpolion]

Are you trying to say how the Sathanas' arms were so thin that they could still mount BFReds, indicating the size of the beam components?

One would assume that most of the arm was the hull for the cannon. Maybe redundant since they also held an engine.

You figure if that were the case, the damage area for the subsystem would be a lot bigger. Anyway, why are we comparing shivan beam tech to the size of GTVA beam tech? It's not like 1 BFRed = 1 Bgreen, or even if 1 BFRed = 1 BFgreen. In all likely hood, 1 BFRed could be the same size as an AAAf, given Shivan tech. Or it could be even larger than a LRBgreen.

[HawkW]

Are you trying to say how the Sathanas' arms were so thin that they could still mount BFReds, indicating the size of the beam components?

One would assume that most of the arm was the hull for the cannon. Maybe redundant since they also held an engine.

You figure if that were the case, the damage area for the subsystem would be a lot bigger. Anyway, why are we comparing shivan beam tech to the size of GTVA beam tech? It's not like 1 BFRed = 1 Bgreen, or even if 1 BFRed = 1 BFgreen. In all likely hood, 1 BFRed could be the same size as an AAAf, given Shivan tech. Or it could be even larger than a LRBgreen.

I'm guessing a lot of Sathanas' beam machinery was hidden deep in the hull, and the arms only contained the emitter of the weapon, similar to the muscles that operate the fingers on a human hand actually being in the arm.

I could be wrong.

[TrashMan]

Not true. It's possible for aircraft carriers to mount 14 inch guns that shoot nuclear shells, but none of them do. Why? Because they're effective without them. Are fighters incapable of using flak guns? By your logic yes, but in this case, you'd be a bit suspicious. The size and damage of flak shouldn't be too big you mount on a fighter, though you wouldn't be able to load too many shells. Is an Orion capable of mounting Morning Stars to fend away bombers? By your logic, it isn't. Think up a more logically sound argument other than "it doesn't balance, and it hasn't already been done".

It's not a common sense thing that this is impossible. If you want to have a balanced game, then it is. If you're actually going to use this concept to make a ship for the game, then by all means, disregard my idea. But if you're honestly trying to think up an extension to the GTVA fleet, with a relatively realistic military design strategy, then shouting "YOU CAN'T HAVE 3/4 BGREENS ON A CORVETTE BECAUSE IT WOULD WORK TOO WELL" has no place here.

Not really the same.
Those guns use ammo, not massive amounts of power fed directly from the reactor.

Any warship in space will have 2 major things that will dominate it's design - power output and heat managment.
While you could make a hunter-killer warship that uses a load of missiles, or a compact ship with one larger beam, there are limits to just how much power it can produce and how easily it can get rid of the heat the weapon itself produces.

[AlphaOne]

I don't get it why ppl get so heated over this. I mean the Iceni IS IMO the closest thing we have to a hunter-killer warship. Sure it was no intended to be such a ship but it comes pretty close to it.

Building on that why do people believe it to be impossible to mount 3 or 4 BGreens on a 1 km long warship coupled with 2 perhaps 3 AAAF Beams and a similar number of flack guns ??

I mean we are talking her a bout a ship that would still be some years from completion 2 or 3 years max IMO. A ship that would make use of the most advanced electronic warfare tech available . Perhaps even a few that will be developed for it.

Also I'm pretty sure the vasudans can give a helping hand in providing very advanced and powerfull reactors for such a ship.

And considering the amount of investigation that has been done into subspace tech i can bet they will be more that capable of putting some sort of dual subspace jump drive on it . Meaning jump in fire jump out fast without having to wait for hours for the jumpdrives to recharge !

I mean we know ships can get up to 35 m/s so if you have a lighter ship with more powerfull engines it should also be able to give a top speed of about 40m/s easy. And with such light weapons configuration it should have plenty of power.

As for the overheat problem.....well i don't see a problem.

I mean i can understand such a problem if we were talking about prolonged battles but were talking about really fast paced battles here less then 2 minutes in lenght. At 1 km in leght having a small fighterbay 3 max 4 wings inside would be rather good and would not hinder such a ship.

[kalnaren]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned hunter-killer submarines yet, as they're probably the closest approximation of what this discussion is about in the real-world navy.

I was looking at it like this: Modern SSN's were originally designed primarily to hunt down enemy SSBN's (nuke powered ballistic missile subs), as well as other shipping. WWII U-Boats were designed to hunt individually enemy shipping, then call it's buddies, and track the shipping until they arrived, at which point the entire wolf pack would execute quite strikes to cause maximum damage and GTFO before Destroyers or PT Boats showed up.

In both cases the subs are designed for a specialised role. They rely on stealth to sneak up on a target and depend on quick, decisive hit-and-fade style of strikes to be effective. Granted, modern subs have become more multi-role, but you get the idea.

Putting this in to FS I think would involve a ship, somewhere in between cruiser and corvette sized, with a significant amount of single-shot firepower. You could put large beams on a smaller ship -they just take longer to power up and cool down, making them impractical for prolonged engagements but ideal when they only need a single salvo. The ship would have to have an advanced EW suite, as well as very powerful and specilized engine for speed and minimal sensor emmissions. I'd put it's hitpoints somewhere around the Levi, but no more -probably much less (depending on size, of course). You wouldn't want it any bigger than a corvette, at that point cost would outweigh utility and I seriously doubt something the size of a corvette is easy to mask.

Anyways, those are just my thoughts.

[Polpolion]

Not true. It's possible for aircraft carriers to mount 14 inch guns that shoot nuclear shells, but none of them do. Why? Because they're effective without them. Are fighters incapable of using flak guns? By your logic yes, but in this case, you'd be a bit suspicious. The size and damage of flak shouldn't be too big you mount on a fighter, though you wouldn't be able to load too many shells. Is an Orion capable of mounting Morning Stars to fend away bombers? By your logic, it isn't. Think up a more logically sound argument other than "it doesn't balance, and it hasn't already been done".

It's not a common sense thing that this is impossible. If you want to have a balanced game, then it is. If you're actually going to use this concept to make a ship for the game, then by all means, disregard my idea. But if you're honestly trying to think up an extension to the GTVA fleet, with a relatively realistic military design strategy, then shouting "YOU CAN'T HAVE 3/4 BGREENS ON A CORVETTE BECAUSE IT WOULD WORK TOO WELL" has no place here.

Not really the same.
Those guns use ammo, not massive amounts of power fed directly from the reactor.

Any warship in space will have 2 major things that will dominate it's design - power output and heat managment.
While you could make a hunter-killer warship that uses a load of missiles, or a compact ship with one larger beam, there are limits to just how much power it can produce and how easily it can get rid of the heat the weapon itself produces.

So it's a somewhat incomplete analogy, but idea gets its point across. Just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it's impossible.

And actually, let's look at the Iceni. Obviously, it has plenty of power for its 3 BGreens and enough power to propel a 998m long ship to 35 m/s. And its heat capacity and radiation ability is sufficient for use as quick as the weapon system will allow.

If you shrink it by 100m, remove armor down to about 20,000, remove excess weapons, and remove its equipment to be a control center for the entire NTF fleet, it has lost a lot of mass. Enough mass that the engines don't need as much power to speed it up to 35 m/s. Where would that excess power capacity go? Another anti-cap beam. And lets say that its heat dissipation isn't sufficient to fire the 4 BGreen in quick succession. Then you fire the salvo once, and you wait longer to let it dissipate. Or if you have too, you fire the beams one at a time, and use them so one beam is always firing at its target.

[Retsof]

Or (and this would make the ship rather fragile) you could devote much of the ship's surface to radiator fins.

[kalnaren]

Or (and this would make the ship rather fragile) you could devote much of the ship's surface to radiator fins.

Probably wouldn't be necessary. Radiator fins facilitate the constant and quick dissipation of heat. On a ship designed to fire at most two or three salvos before backing off, active internal cooling would probably be fine.