Something big

[fractalsponge1]

Not the double tower on the Relentless, but some modules here and there as different fighter control centers.

Some more:

[fractalsponge1]

[Alan Bolte]

What's that bit sticking out of the trench? Can I get a close-up of that?

[fusion]

What's that bit sticking out of the trench? Can I get a close-up of that?

You mean near the rear the back of the vessel? That is a medium turbolaser.

[fractalsponge1]

Some work on the hangar complex. Not quite enough detail, but adding a bit.

[fractalsponge1]

Starting to fill in the mandible areas now. More detail to the previously shown area, fiddled with some greeble scales. Looks better, imo.

[fractalsponge1]

And now for some updates:

[Knife]

Why so many 'bridge' stations? You have three in the 'tower' and what? Four more forward on the 'bunker' like structure before the hangars. I get they're for space traffic control or whatever, but why so many?

[fractalsponge1]

Well, consider what will deploy off this ship:

(current estimate):
Moderately-sized complete fighter Command, 4 groups of 6 wings, >1700 snubfighters.
Corps-level ground complement (when embarked). 4 battlegroups/legions.

Not counting that it's a natural squadron flagship, if only for its escorts.

Of the modules in now, I have earmarked one large (Bellator-scale) module as a flag bridge (middle one, bridge tower face). Plus one for ship control. One courtesy bridge for the EMF commander/backup ship control, and that leaves 4 additional modules. I have no idea how centralized "ground" tactical control would work for such a large aerospace formation, but I'm willing to bet you're not going to have very close control over more than one group at a time in each spot. So 4 of those modules to Group-level tac coordination.

In addition to that, there needs to be at least one primary flight traffic control center, and one for primary traffic control for the ground units, but those can be internal/off the hangar walls like on an ISD.

I envision this ship as carrying the scale of ECM fit as a Bellator, considering both kinds of ships might find themselves in major fleet action and act as flagships. The control for that kind of com/scan would take up a fair amount of space as well, and I figure that can probably go into the mini-cortex I've built up along the dorsal spine.

Once you start adding all this up, and consider that an Executor likely routinely deploys much more than that and might coordinate for a sector group, you start thinking maybe that huge cityscape is worth it after all...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I really like the way the angles come together in the third and especially the first picture in your last update. They really give off a sense of solidity and density that helps offset the large gap in the front of the vessel.

[fractalsponge1]

Some updates:

[fractalsponge1]

Updated the ceiling rack system and added a bit more details to the mandible hangars, which are basically done. Integration into the rest of the ship will happen...eventually.



To get an idea of the scale, I've done a very sloppy comparison shot:



Shitty lighting and everything, done very quickly, with some incomplete models to boot. I tried to fit in the AT-SE, but for some reason my max installation simply refuses to merge it properly without crashing. I'll keep trying later, but for now imagine it a head/turret taller than the AT-AT in scene.

[Knife]

Hmm, maybe I'm just too big a military geek but a Fleet Carrier combined with an gator navy assault ship just seems weird.

[fractalsponge1]

Not to overstate the obvious, but in modern terms, yes, it's an odd mix (though there are exceptions, i.e. sea control configuration for an LHA/LHD, or some Sea Basing ideas, or, one imagines, mixed configurations for the STOVL CVF). In star wars, though the equivalents of amphibious assault and fixed-wing aviation is much more compatible. Basically you just need hangar space, no bulky catapults or runways or floodable decks. Everything, from air superiority to company-scale and larger assault vehicles, is VTOL. As I see it, once in orbit, this carrier would be the equivalent of one of those massive offshore base ideas. I've tilted it a bit more towards operating as a fleet carrier, but it can multirole as well (probably reconfigure/remove the rack systems for some of the fighter bays). The volume and space available give it the flexibility to do either or a little of both if necessary, or specialize in larger formations.

And by the comparison between carrier and gator, wouldn't you think the ISD is rather odd in and of itself? Or, even worse, the Venator?

[Knife]

Not to overstate the obvious, but in modern terms, yes, it's an odd mix (though there are exceptions, i.e. sea control configuration for an LHA/LHD, or some Sea Basing ideas, or, one imagines, mixed configurations for the STOVL CVF). In star wars, though the equivalents of amphibious assault and fixed-wing aviation is much more compatible. Basically you just need hangar space, no bulky catapults or runways or floodable decks. Everything, from air superiority to company-scale and larger assault vehicles, is VTOL. As I see it, once in orbit, this carrier would be the equivalent of one of those massive offshore base ideas. I've tilted it a bit more towards operating as a fleet carrier, but it can multirole as well (probably reconfigure/remove the rack systems for some of the fighter bays). The volume and space available give it the flexibility to do either or a little of both if necessary, or specialize in larger formations.

And by the comparison between carrier and gator, wouldn't you think the ISD is rather odd in and of itself? Or, even worse, the Venator?

Not really, the ISD puts down a garrison with it's gear and a relatively small air wing compared to the Venstar. The Venstar has a high airwing and smaller ground component. Yours takes that away and combines them. That's why I think it is weird.

[Captain Seafort]

This ship's also far bigger than either the ISD or VenStar. It's also a good deal weaker, size for size, as a gun warship, so the trade-off can be interpreted as "fighters, troops, firepower, pick two".

[fractalsponge1]

Sorry Knife, I must be missing your point, what do you mean I am taking away? This ship has a massive amount of volume for carriage, which confers massive flexibility in carrying pretty much whatever you want, be it dropships or TIE wings. You don't have to carry both, but you can, and even if you do, SW dropships and fighters can be operated out of pretty much the same hangar. A "carrier" in SW then is pretty much both assault ship and fighter carrier. The price is it gets outgunned by an Allegiance, which is much smaller but carries pretty much nothing and trades that space for a much more efficient package for pounding another ship to pieces. And yes, the fighters, troops, firepower paradigm is pretty much what I have in mind. Internal volume for carriage traded for power systems/weapons, depending on what the ship is designed for. Though total stowage vs firepower vs speed, pick two, might be a better way to put it, since, again, dropships/landers and fighters can cohabit the same available space.

If you think mixing troops and fighters is odd, the Venator is considerably odder than an ISD. Consider that the Venator has a much smaller volume than an ISD. Then consider it carries a large number of troops (7k ish vs ~10k), and six times the fighter complement.

The best modern parallel for this ship would probably be the LHA6 America, with JSFs and Ospreys operating off the same space.

[Knife]

Sorry Knife, I must be missing your point, what do you mean I am taking away? This ship has a massive amount of volume for carriage, which confers massive flexibility in carrying pretty much whatever you want, be it dropships or TIE wings. You don't have to carry both, but you can, and even if you do, SW dropships and fighters can be operated out of pretty much the same hangar.

Well sure, in a modern carrier you can put all sorts of fighters or tanks in the hangar but that's hardly the test is it? Rather it is the shit you don't see. Remember you rant on all the bridge components? Imagine that with all your gear you are putting in a hangar for show and tell. You made a healthy post about CCC, but with actual equipment, times by 10. You have to store those those things, plus maintence, plus all the gear to provide maintence, plus it's maintence. Then you have to house the people to do that, then the people to service them. For fucks sake, it takes 5000 people on an air craft carrier to make an Air group fly. You want to make quite an improvement on tha.t with a couple extra bridge moduals and call it the day. Hello? volume? Takes more than the actual hangar to do that.

But that's ok, you also have all that weaponry that takes up space too.

A "carrier" in SW then is pretty much both assault ship and fighter carrier.

No it is not, view fighter capability of an ISD and Venstar. ISD has better weapons and lower fighters.

The price is it gets outgunned by an Allegiance, which is much smaller but carries pretty much nothing and trades that space for a much more efficient package for pounding another ship to pieces

Yeah, pretty much my point.

And yes, the fighters, troops, firepower paradigm is pretty much what I have in mind. Internal volume for carriage traded for power systems/weapons, depending on what the ship is designed for. Though total stowage vs firepower vs speed, pick two, might be a better way to put it, since, again, dropships/landers and fighters can cohabit the same available space.

Sure, you have ATAT's in the hangar, where are they when not in the hangar? Where are the spare parts? Where is the fuel, the ammo?

Where are the troops? The gear for the troops? The ammo, the food, the supply chain for the troops?

Boxes?

Where is the logistics to put them out on ship? In route? On the surface? Where is the maintence of those ships? The fuel for those ships? Space for those pilots?

I applaud your designs and love the artwork.

You have fuck all thinking to how much logistics is involved in these things. In something the size of a US super carrier, it takes 5000 people (according to the cannon, about half a crew of the Dreadnoughts) to run it. You want to upscale it? Cool, you have to upscale it all.

If you think mixing troops and fighters is odd, the Venator is considerably odder than an ISD. Consider that the Venator has a much smaller volume than an ISD. Then consider it carries a large number of troops (7k ish vs ~10k), and six times the fighter complement.[e /quote]

and according to the ICS is mostly hangar space, not in the little squares in the hull type, but overall volume.

The best modern parallel for this ship would probably be the LHA6 America, with JSFs and Ospreys operating off the same space.

lol, I love your designs but you really have no fucking clue.

[fractalsponge1]

I'm going to run over a few things then, since you seem to have a good practical knowledge of how modern ships are actually run. See if this makes sense; I want to make sure I'm working under the correct assumptions when I design how something looks. Please pick out any logical errors if you see them.

First, a few more minor points:

A "carrier" in SW then is pretty much both assault ship and fighter carrier.

No it is not, view fighter capability of an ISD and Venstar. ISD has better weapons and lower fighters.

You missed my point. I'm saying that in SW, dropship and fighter assets can make use of a very similar space, rather than having catapults and well deck space complicating space allocation. You don't necessarily have to have very specialized spaces to stage assaults (unless there's really heavy equipment) or operate fighters, the example of this being the Venator especially, which operates fighters and LAAT class vehicles from the same spaces.

"The best modern parallel for this ship would probably be the LHA6 America, with JSFs and Ospreys operating off the same space."

lol, I love your designs but you really have no fucking clue.

I really don't see how this analogy does not work for a mixed fighter/troop vessel like a Venator.

Now, for some actual numbers. Emphasis mine from your previous post:

Hello? volume? Takes more than the actual hangar to do that.
...
Sure, you have ATAT's in the hangar, where are they when not in the hangar? Where are the spare parts? Where is the fuel, the ammo?

Where are the troops? The gear for the troops? The ammo, the food, the supply chain for the troops?

Where is the logistics to put them out on ship? In route? On the surface? Where is the maintence of those ships? The fuel for those ships? Space for those pilots?
...
You have fuck all thinking to how much logistics is involved in these things. In something the size of a US super carrier, it takes 5000 people (according to the cannon, about half a crew of the Dreadnoughts) to run it. You want to upscale it? Cool, you have to upscale it all.

OK, let's do some upscaling then.

We know that a Venator managed to maintain a near division-sized EMF and 6 times the fighter complement of an ISD in a ship that's much smaller. It does this by trading some firepower and probably structural strength, but that's what's going on with this carrier.

Let's continue with the example of the Venator, as the ICS gives us a very good idea of the internal arrangements of the hangar bay. I estimate that the total space available for the fighter and troop/vehicle complement on the Venator is ~5e6 cubic meters, by a very generous allocation of space for a Venator's total hangar area (including basically everything from the hull surface in, for the first 700m of the entire ship). The extra margin I've given by this approximation basically includes the non-reactor bulb half of the tower volume as well, which presumably also includes the space for the crew dedicated to hangar operations. This also includes all the maintenance bays, actual storage space for the fighter complement, the total volume of the hangar cavity and the ventral bay, and barrack and garage space for troops and their vehicles.

Let's assume that an equivalent proportion of the total length in this carrier at the bow is devoted to all the things a carrier/assault ship needs to do (this is discounting all terraces, the volume of the center spine, or the tower itself). Using similar principles as above (i.e. estimating the total internal volume of the hull in the forward ~50% of the hull, not counting the space between the mandibles but including all the hangar space within the envelope of the primary hull surface), I estimate the available internal volume at roughly 1.6e8 cubic meters. Increase of ~30x. The Venator carries 6 wings and 1 large mixed brigade/light division (half the vehicle capacity of an acclamator, so ~8000 troops+support staff). By that standard this carrier has the volume available to deploy 180 wings and about 240000 troops and support staff (~3.5-4x Corps by Imperial Sourcebook), using the same fighter/troop density as the Venator. Please note I only guessed that there would be space for 24 wings and 1 Corps. Again, also note that this estimate does not include any of the terraces, or the bridge tower, or the large dorsal spine and associated cortex.

Caveats: 1) I only have what's published in the ICS to go on. We know the Venator is able to maintain the published troop and fighter numbers, unless you want to assume that that can only be carried for short hops/single assaults. 2) I, and pretty much everyone else, I suppose, have no idea what the logistical requirements are for SW troops and fighters. Therefore, I can only say that given the equivalent volume and stowage/operational density, this carrier can safely maintain a substantially higher complement of fighters and troops for the same amount of time as a Venator. That statement, of course, presupposes a somewhat ridiculous sounding 180 wings and 4 Corps, not the 24 wings and 1 Corps of my previous estimate.

[Knife]

Fuel for those air wings, ammo magazines.

Ground equipment storage, cool. Maintence, ammo storage, fuel. Assuming storage for dropships, dropship fuel and ammo magazines, ground weapons fuel and magazines, maintence equipment, storage of equipment, storage of storage equipment. Long term fuel and weapons magazines, long term weapons and ammo and BBB stores for ground troops.

Med evac equipment for ground to orbit. Ground SAR, Air SAR, Space/orbit SAR. SAR maintence, storage, fuel, pilot space and support services.

Emergency services for crashes and missed landings, storage for equipment, maintence for equipment, space and fuel and what not for personel for equipment.

Food and kitchens for all those people, administration services for those personel, chaplins, medics, people to clean their litrines, people to polish the floor they walk on.

Again, huge open square space for the ships to sit on right before they take off...cool. They need way more space for that and all that space they take up is less space for fighters, or weapons, or logistics.

[fractalsponge1]

Note I said all the space for operation. Everything that the Venator carries for its complement, including all of that that you've just mentions (assuming the Venator carries that), I've included in the calc. The actual open hangar space is a tiny fraction of the 1.6e18. Did you actually read the part where I went over my assumptions for the calc?

1.6e18 m3 is on the order of 20-30x the total volume of an Acclamator, and that includes space to deploy and maintain a full division and its aerospace and armor assets, plus everything necessary to run a ship. And is about the same volume as the hangar space on a Venator.

[Knife]

Note I said all the space for operation. Everything that the Venator carries for its complement, including all of that that you've just mentions (assuming the Venator carries that), I've included in the calc. The actual open hangar space is a tiny fraction of the 1.6e18. Did you actually read the part where I went over my assumptions for the calc?

1.6e18 m3 is on the order of 20-30x the total volume of an Acclamator, and that includes space to deploy and maintain a full division and its aerospace and armor assets, plus everything necessary to run a ship. And is about the same volume as the hangar space on a Venator.

It's your design man. Just seems a bit much to me.

[fractalsponge1]

Hangar integration and extra prow and trench detail.



And playing around with Remnant's superlaser boat suggestion:

[Raesene]

Nice carrier, but was there also any progress on the customs corvette:-) ?

[fractalsponge1]

^Well that's almost done. Just need a few more touches to the ventral side and the roof of the bridge. I will finish it though, no fear.