StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Would a large landing deck really be necessary for space carrier? Spacecraft don't have a stall speed. A returning strike craft could just match velocity with carrier and descend back in a launch tube. You may want some other means of recovery to get onboard damaged craft that have limited maneuverability, but a large airlock with some grappling arms leading to repair facilities should be enough. Battlestar landing decks always have felt to me like huge waste of space when zero G environment would allow much more volume efficient layout

What you say is perfectly true except for something that BSG demonstrated in it's opening miniseries - combat landings. Usually ships fly in, land on an elevator directly and get taken into the hanger. But when the ship needs to bug out, you need a large deck to get as many planes as possible landed in the shortest span of time.

And I did say that the Kobolians would have some influence on the designs. The main differences between the Yorktowns and Battlestars is that the planes land from the front and the landing decks don't run the whole length of the ship.

What is the projected carry capacity of the Yorktowns?

Given that they're the same length as Lionhearts but have both a higher volume and a much larger percentage dedicated to fighters, I'm thinking something in the region of 500-550, given that Tau'ri fighters are larger than Vipers and Cobras. A mix of F-302B Lightnings, F/A-308 Thunderbolts and B-309 Marauder bombers, plus a EW/AWACS version of the Marauders that I'll call, um, E-309 Sentinels.

To keep things distinct, I'm going to have the USN operate twelve-plane squadrons in contrast to the twenty-plane units in the Kobolian forces. So probably something like 240 Lightnings, 192 Thunderbolts, 72 Marauders and 24 of the Sentinels, for a total of 528 strike craft.

The trade-off for this increased fighter/bomber capacity is the Yorktown is less maneuverable, slower accelerating and much more lightly armed - probably just the same 500/80 mix of laser cannons and coilgun turrets that Dreadnought has and perhaps a single, forward twin heavy coilgun turret (the ~1.3 megaton a shot version, not the hypervelocity guns on Jupiter). Combine that with powerful shields and very powerful sensors, ECM and ECCM gear.

So maybe we will be seeing Tau'ri escorts hulls soon then. Gotta protect that investment.

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2019-10-24 04:31pm The main differences between the Yorktowns and Battlestars is that the planes land from the front and the landing decks don't run the whole length of the ship.

ok scenario, your carrier is running like hell to avoid destruction by what ever. your fighters need to out run the carrier they should be protecting to land rather than landing from a stern chase, yeah that makes a lot of sense

Since you don't have enough shout outs (</sarcasm>), how about Charlie Davenport as Yorktown's captain? (in The Hunt For Red October movie, at least, he drove Enterprise).

jayel wrote: ↑2019-10-24 09:03pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2019-10-24 04:31pm The main differences between the Yorktowns and Battlestars is that the planes land from the front and the landing decks don't run the whole length of the ship.

ok scenario, your carrier is running like hell to avoid destruction by what ever. your fighters need to out run the carrier they should be protecting to land rather than landing from a stern chase, yeah that makes a lot of sense

Hmm..good point. I'll need to rethink some of the design elements then.

My suggestions for the Yortown model.

Keep the general shape of the Poseidon.

Drop the engine block and gravity spin section.

Mirror the forward superstructure (minus the bridge stack, unless you want the bridge stack at the back) in place of the engine block and gravity section. This would line up the stacked oval openings as the ends of full length tunnel decks.

Fighters can land from either end and the tunnels should be spacious enough for emergency combat recovery. Add some internal shields and blast doors as safety features of course. Tracks and elevators move recovered fighters from the tunnel(s) into the appropriate hanger section.

Engine vents should fit nicely into the open areas to either side of the aft tunnels.

Point defense weapons would cover the tunnels to prevent sucker-punches and kamikaze runs. Same goes for the lateral launch tubes.


Thoughts?

Certainly thought-provoking. I'll mull it over this weekend, hopefully I should have another actual chapter up soon as well.

DKeith2011 wrote: ↑2019-10-24 08:12pm So maybe we will be seeing Tau'ri escorts hulls soon then. Gotta protect that investment.

Would said escorts simply be Tau'ri-built Legends? Design is battle-proven, systems integration has already been done, some lessons have already been learned, etc. Or would they be too much ship for the escort role if your mob ain't Kobolian?

iirc, EF has said that that the Tau'ri will be building their own designs rather than adopting the Kobolians.

Indeed. I am toying with the idea of the Brits converting their 304's into pure gun boats, mostly by swapping out the hangers for another four plasma beams, an extra pair of coilgun turrets and some more missile cells. I'm thinking there would be "escort carriers" built as well, that only carry Lightnings and maybe Thunderbolts but no bombers.

Gonna need a speadsheet to keep track of all these designs...

I just have a long list, and a good memory

E_F, how's the next chapter coming?

So, if this is Book II, where might I find Book I?

If the Brits go all gunboat will there be a Thunderchild in the fleet? Just finished a re-read of War of The Worlds.

Actually I was thinking that if the Brits build a second battleship it'd be called Thunder Child. As for the next chapter, it's coming. Hopefully should have something this weekend.

What about calling the new dreadnought HMS Implacable or Indefatigable? I guess HMS Embuggerance would be taking too much of the piss.

@dxe131, The Thirteenth Tribe

Implacable is a good option, but as much as I love Indefatigable it hits the same issue as using Invincible, namely that whole "blowing up from a single salvo at Jutland" thing. Besides, I can always drop in a mention of a public petition to use the name Thunder Child after a highly-successful BBC series was aired in-universe between Book II and Book III

DKeith2011 wrote: ↑2019-11-05 10:29am @dxe131, The Thirteenth Tribe

Thanks.

Minor point of order - hangErs are for clothEs, and hAngArs are for AirplAnes (and other things that fly).

Eternal_Freedom wrote: ↑2019-11-05 11:41am Implacable is a good option, but as much as I love Indefatigable it hits the same issue as using Invincible, namely that whole "blowing up from a single salvo at Jutland" thing. Besides, I can always drop in a mention of a public petition to use the name Thunder Child after a highly-successful BBC series was aired in-universe between Book II and Book III

Not Boaty McBoatface?

Somewhat more seriously, recycling the names of one of the Resolution-class SSBN? (Resolution, Repulse, Renown, Revenge)

Haven't gotten a response from AdamKop on the Dreadnaught project in almost 2 months.

I just sent a final status request message, if there is no response by Dec. 14 I will consider the project abandoned and start shopping it around again.

Who knew it was so hard to get an artist to take your money...