IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ship Design with Rigger 3, & Naval Combat in the 2060s
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 12:22 AM
Post #1


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I could only find this, where the problems of creating a tanker ship is discussed. Has anyone designed military ships? Ships useful for pirates or shadowrunners with maritime interests?

I'm only now reading through the ship-specific rules in Rigger 3, but I've already run into several silly issues there-in. For example, all SR ships need an Engineering Crew of (Hull + 1)^2 men. The Sea Shadow is ancient (80 years old in SR times) and displaces 560 tons (and is thus Hull 3), so it should need an Engineering Crew of well over the minimum of 16, because clearly the automation in the 2060s is at a far more advanced level than it is now, or was 20 years ago.

The Sea Shadow has a total crew of 10. Thus I will probably take several liberties when deciding on crew sizes for ships I design.

That said, are there significant issues with designing ship communication and control networks, weapons networks and rigger circuits? Yes, I'll read through those sections myself, preferably several times with thought, but it would be hear about possible problem areas.

I'll try to use the canon ships described in R3 when determining several things about my designs -- are there any problems with the canon ships that I might not easily spot? Glancing at them, they seem really light on C&C gear, Remote Control Networks etc. that I would think are extremely important aspects of naval combat in the 2060s.

Finally, how do you personally view naval combat in Shadowrun? I'm certainly no expert in that area, but it seems that the current trend is towards smaller, faster, more stealthy and cheaper ships, with a few large carrier fleets doing backup. Maybe the largest ships in most fleets would be about the size of small destroyers today, with full displacements well under 10,000 tons (about the size of an Arleigh-Burke)?

Would fast & stealthy missile frigates serve as the backbones of navies in the 2060s? Or would the advances in technology make even smaller ships prevalent, leading to navies arming themselves mostly with ships like the Streetfighter Littoral Combat Ship? Do you think carrier groups would still depend on supercarriers, or would the majority of carriers be smaller and carry mostly VSTOL aircraft?

Looking at the US Navy's plans for the CVN-21, it seems supercarriers will be around for at least the next 50-60 years. Large navies, such as the Japanese Imperial, Aztlan and perhaps some Norther American ones, would probably still have these in SR times. Most of the navies of current world powers might make do with smaller carriers, perhaps reminicent of the Corsair. Somehow I'd like to think Destroyer-sized ships would still be around in plenty, but maybe that's just wishful thinking -- I have no idea how naval combat in 2060s would actually work.

How dependent on air power would navy fleets be? Would all ships of necessary size utilize a large number of strike VSTOLs and UAV scouts, or would strike aircraft be kept out of the airspace because of advances in sensor and missile technology? Large ship groups, carrier groups mostly, would probably make use of extensive command networks, but perhaps smaller units (most groups with most ships under 1,000 tons) would keep networking to a minimum for fears of enemy Electronic Warfare?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blakkie
post Apr 15 2004, 12:25 AM
Post #2


Dragon
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263



Well you could count each Autopilot system as a crew member. So it costs you cash up front, but then you don't need all that passe meat-help cluttering up your deck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 12:37 AM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



You mean the AutoNav system, with 1 rating = 1 crew member? Or do you mean buying extra Robotic Pilots to act as crewmen? The latter actually sounds quite reasonable, especially if the whole ship works in a closed-circuit rigger system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cray74
post Apr 15 2004, 12:49 AM
Post #4


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,428
Joined: 9-June 02
Member No.: 2,860



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
I'm only now reading through the ship-specific rules in Rigger 3, but I've already run into several silly issues there-in. For example, all SR ships need an Engineering Crew of (Hull + 1)^2 men. The Sea Shadow is ancient (80 years old in SR times) and displaces 560 tons (and is thus Hull 3), so it should need an Engineering Crew of well over the minimum of 16, because clearly the automation in the 2060s is at a far more advanced level than it is now, or was 20 years ago.

The Sea Shadow is a short-haul proof-of-concept vehicle, not a functional warship. It is really a singular vessel that is, IMO, a poor start to compare to other vessels. Try several frigates from various nations, and look at tonnage and crewing. Andrew Toppan's Navies of the World is a good place to start.

QUOTE
Glancing at them, they seem really light on C&C gear, Remote Control Networks etc. that I would think are extremely important aspects of naval combat in the 2060s.


How many "front line" or "first rate Navy" ships are in R3? IIRC, they're all pretty much corporate gun boats and things runners might run into, not something the UCAS or IJN would use to smack down another nation.

Megacorps in SR do not buy front-line military equipment. They buy second-hand fighters like the decades-old EFA variants, old tanks that are lightly armored by the standards of the day, and are more concerned with suppression of "assymmetric forces" (locals with assault rifles), not cutting edge hypersonic fighters and TBirds. It follows that their ships will be pop-gun boats that would be beaten like a kettle drum in combat by real warships.

QUOTE
Finally, how do you personally view naval combat in Shadowrun? I'm certainly no expert in that area, but it seems that the current trend is towards smaller, faster, more stealthy and cheaper ships, with a few large carrier fleets doing backup.

That was not the trend exemplified by the USN through the Cold War. Bigger, badder, meaner was the trend. Today's frigates and destroyers can be literally eight times the size of their pre-WWI counterparts.

Yes, battleships have gone away. But the little ships - frigates and destroyers - kept inflating from WWI to the present day, even though they aren't packing on much extra armor or bigger cannons. Further, the carriers are bigger than ever, and they do not do backup. They are the primary striking arm of a fleet. Destroyers, frigates, and cruisers provide point defense around a carrier, with weapons only reaching out (against other warships) about 100 miles, while a carrier denies a 1000-mile radius to enemy navies.

Shadowrun's navies show a period of contraction, economic collapse, and reduction in funds that goes with the balkanization of the big nations. Interests and worries are not titanic battles between super power navies, but rather pirates raiding corporate ships and shadowrunners. What you need to deal with that is, yes, numerous, light, small ships.

QUOTE
Would fast & stealthy missile frigates serve as the backbones of navies in the 2060s?

Fast and stealthy missile frigates would be leetle beetches for a fast and stealthy carrier's drones and fighters. Frigates would do better as guardians for carriers.

The backbone of the Navy would depend on the Navy in question. A megacorp would have large (~300-ton) gunboats looking to put the skeer into pirates, to protect its tankers and freighters. The UCAS would still have US-holdover delusions of grandeur and field carriers able to lay the smack down on other navies, not just assymmetric pirate threats.

The fleets that field such supercarriers are mentioned in R3, IIRC. The UCAS has them, the IJN has fewer, and...I believe the Confederates passed on their chance to field big boats like super carriers.

Imagine 70 years of post-Cold War military contraction, the sort that has contracted and shrunk the US military. Then dice up the US into smaller chunks. There won't be a lot of big boats around. But they will be around, because there hasn't been the big, advanced 2060's-era Super Power kind of threat to make them go away. What's the saying? "Generals always plan for the last war"? Well, there hasn't been any big war in the SR world since...1991? 1945?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Apr 15 2004, 01:04 AM
Post #5


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



Imagine the carrier that relies on uav attack craft. some of the combat fliers are pretty nasty when compared to the combat helos and the LAV's.
Or, send a single rigger up in a fast fixed wing, with his own squadron of UAV's flying wing for him. perfect unison formations, and the planes always cover each other, much less human error in telling where your compadre is. now imagine 20 of these riggers going up, each in command of 9 other smaller UAVs, now you have 10 pilots, 100 fighting aircraft, or 90 fighters, 10 utility bombers, the force multiplication is insane. that and you can store probably 20 or more UAV's per manned craft, so there would be less cycle time between missions as damaged or lost drones are immediately added to the subscriber list or simply set into the active list, and the repair crews work on the ones left behind
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Backgammon
post Apr 15 2004, 01:18 AM
Post #6


Ain Soph Aur
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,477
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 600



Corps use military assets to perform quick strikes. The order of they day is sending in a Spec Ops team or sending in a squadron of fighter-bombers to take out a facility or something. Holding objectives, in the sense of kicking the enemy out and keeping what used to be his terrain, doesn't happen much with corp forces. They hold their own assets with sec forces, and go out and hurt the other guy with with precision strikes.

Now, that being said, the role of Navies would be either A) a base of operation for quick strikes, B) a quick strike in itself or C) Defending one of the corps own assets.

Furthermore, Naval warfare, as detailed in R3, consists of shooting missles at ungodly far-away enemies.

So I see carriers as being pretty usefull to corps. But they are very, very expensive, so unfortunatly probably not cost-effective. I figure the most military minded corps have at most 1-2 small ones and maybe 1 medium one, while the less military minded probably make due without one.

Alos, the size of a boat can only do so much against the extremely effective anti-naval missles used, so making Big Ships isn't really gonna help you. Having Lots of Little Ships armed with missles seems like the best strategy. You have the same base firepower (a missle is a missle, right) with multiple platforms.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents, although keep in mind I have no special knowledge whatsoever and am pretty much making this up as I go along.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 09:22 AM
Post #7


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Cray74)
The Sea Shadow is a short-haul proof-of-concept vehicle, not a functional warship.

The particular rule regarding Engineering Crew size is not specific to warships. Brief Googling suggests that requiring 30,000-40,000 ton oil tankers to have a 64-man crew dedicated to engineering alone is far too much. However, using a RC Network with Drone engineers seems like a sufficiently canon-ish way of dealing with the problem.

QUOTE
How many "front line" or "first rate Navy" ships are in R3?

The only aircraft mentioned is currently the flagship of the Japanese Imperial Navy, and "similar" designs are reported to be the USS Powell-class supercarrier (mainstay of the UCAS fleet?) and SKS Seemacht-class Supercarrier. The latter might be a "corporate gunboat", but both the Akihito and the Powell sound like front line carriers, and the Japanese Imperial Navy is pretty much the only first rate Navy in the SR world -- I dunno what state the Aztlan Navy is in.

The Aohana-class frigate seems to be a cheap escort-ship and is well described as "corporate gunboat". The last warship in R3, the Stuart-class corvette, appears not to be a front line ship, but it does appear in support fire and anti-sub roles for several serious Navies -- CAS, UCAS at the least.

For the Aohana, then, it's understandable that it lacks most expensive electronic gear. But for the Akihito it's pretty silly, and the only excuse is probably that the designers were lazy and didn't want to dwell into all the stuff that a supercarrier might really have in the 2060s.

QUOTE
That was not the trend exemplified by the USN through the Cold War. Bigger, badder, meaner was the trend.

Like I said, I'm no expert. :) You could even say that I know absolutely nothing about naval warfare, past or present. I do in fact say that. But several Cold War trends in weapon research have since stopped and turned backwards -- consider M60A3 - M1A2 - the current push for a light wheeled or tracked "Mobile Gun System" that could be parachuted or at least deployed rapidly with airborne troops.

It did not seem like much of a stretch to consider a similar trend in naval warfare, especially since most of the new technology being developed seems to be related to making smaller, faster and more stealthy ships. There are a few larger ships developed by/for the USN, such as the CVN-21, and even the DD(X) project aims at a ship with a full displacement of 12,000 tons. So for all I know, ship sizes could stay exactly the same for the next 60 years. It was just an uneducated guess. :)

QUOTE
Shadowrun's navies show a period of contraction, economic collapse, and reduction in funds that goes with the balkanization of the big nations.

This was part of the reason for my earlier assessment, I just couldn't and didn't put it into words. So the "superpowers" (mainly Japan and Aztlan, and UCAS) have the carriers, but the rest simply have no need or resources for ships that big? And so go for ships closer to the Littoral Combat Ships or similar low-tech vessels. (And then you pretty much answer this later on. Uhh, I need to go to sleep some time.)

Navies with large carriers: There is the SKS Seemacht-class supercarrier mentioned as similar to Akihito. Who would you wager has that/those? It seems extremely unlikely that any German state or Saeder-Krupp would have it, unless Lofwyr is having a really bad middle-age crisis.

I gather from your comment on the carriers that you would expect the important battles to be fought within massive C&C networks? And if carriers are still by far the most important ship in a large navy interested in conventional warfare, I also assume that you think airpower is just as if not more important in naval warfare in the 2060s as it is now?

And since I really don't know crap about the issue: How important is that, exactly? Does a larger, more advanced fleet of smaller ships without significant air support stand any chance of destroying a carrier group, now or in the foreseeable future?

BTW, even the Stuart-class corvette in R3 is listed as Hull 3, or 501-1,000 tons. Maybe, then, I should first concentrate my efforts on designing a few patrol boats in the 200-500 ton range.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 09:46 AM
Post #8


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Nikoli)
you can store probably 20 or more UAV's per manned craft

The kind of UAVs there are in R3, you certainly can. But those are really small as aircraft go, and probably won't be of much use for applications other than "scouting" and defense against enemy aircraft -- or even enemy air-defense missiles. Striking against ships will require significantly larger aircraft, and I don't think it matters much, size-wise, whether a such an aircraft is manned or unmanned.

The aircraft might never go so close to enemy ships that Electronic Warfare would be a major problem, so it could indeed be worthwhile to use significant RC Networks in air operations from carriers. Destroyers and carriers would probably carry a large number of smaller scout and air defense drones that would do many of the jobs now given to helos carried by such ships. Utility helicopters or tilt-wing designs would still be necessary in some cases, but most of the subhunting and radar-extension operations would be done with the drones.

Backgammon:
That is largely what I was thinking. I hadn't thought much about the roles of ships, especially for corp Navies, and those seem about right.

Excluding carriers, are there inherent advantages in having a few, larger warships over having large numbers of small ones? Looking at the costs of a Streetfighter and an Arleigh Burke, you could get maybe 9 Streetfighters for the price of one AB.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Apr 15 2004, 10:28 AM
Post #9


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Apr 15 2004, 05:46 AM)
Excluding carriers, are there inherent advantages in having a few, larger warships over having large numbers of small ones? Looking at the costs of a Streetfighter and an Arleigh Burke, you could get maybe 9 Streetfighters for the price of one AB.

Aside from intimidation, prestige, and a platform for heavy guns, no. And since modern (and likely future) naval combat is now missile based, this is why we don't use battleships anymore. They're now basically missile boats hitting hard and hitting fast. They lack the ability to sustain a fight, but with a large infrastructure, those 96 missiles go a long way. Taken 60 years further and the concept is only more effective. Guns aren't even carried for shipboard defense, anymore, not counting the racks of M16s kept for the very unlikely event of personnel combat.

The one advantage of traditional naval combat is that it is much, much cheaper, and with modern computers and ballistics, still very long range and very accurate. It may be an option for specialized roles or poorer navies, but I find the latter much less likely.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusher Bob
post Apr 15 2004, 10:48 AM
Post #10


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,598
Joined: 15-March 03
From: Hong Kong
Member No.: 4,253



There is a sustainability and on station time that you need a certain ship size to do. The 600 ton corvettes can't hang around in the pacific or atlantic for several weeks, they don't carry them food, spare parts, and so on for those kinds of deployments. For a country whose navy is into power projection (rather than local defense), you need ships that can stay on station for a long time.

I would expect the carriers or SR to be in the 40-60,000 ton range and carry 40-60 multirole aircraft. I don't think any of the powers have the funds to maintain several super carriers.

The carriers would likely have an escort group of 6-8 ships along with possibly 2-4 submarines. Shrinking the escort fore much more that that makes it impossible to cover all avenues of apporach around the carrier (mostly from sub threats).

I would expect plenty of attention in design to be made to reducing required personel, increasing station time, and simplyfying maintenance and upgrades.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 11:28 AM
Post #11


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I thought myself about the scenario of a larger fleet of small surface ships vs a carrier group, and I think I can see how it might be nearly impossible to sink the carrier without extremely heavy losses. I hadn't really thought about the speeds involved: If the carrier can start hitting the approaching ships with aircraft strikes 1,000 miles away, the approaching ships will be under constant fire for at least ~10-15 hours before they get into range, by which time they will be in pretty bad shape. And even before they get to the carrier they'll face the escort group, a serious power in it's own right.

Supposing the balance of power between aircraft and ships remains nearly the same as it is now, I'm starting to really see Cray74's point.

QUOTE (Arethusa)
Guns aren't even carried for shipboard defense, anymore

The DD-21 and DD(X) projects were at least supposed to be armed with the 155mm Advanced Gun Systems, but those were to "provide high-volume, sustainable fires in support of amphibious operations and the joint land battle". Phalanx-like systems might get replaced by ANDREWS-like and MetalStorm systems. Many of the Littoral Combat Ship models have guns in the 57mm range, some with 30mms, apparently for close-up work against boats and other threats that you don't need missiles against -- a large AC in a remote pop-up turret is the SR equivalent, I suppose.

A large number of ships in development IRL do not have any guns apart from CIWS, that's for sure.

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
There is a sustainability and on station time that you need a certain ship size to do.

I was thinking along these lines, but I wasn't sure. I figure the only Navies which might want to be prepared for force projection are those of Japan and Aztlan, so they might still have a significant number of cruisers and destroyers. When the intensity of conflict is low, or there is no conflict, smaller ships can probably "extend their stay" with the help of support ships, so the corp and small national Navies will not have any real need for large ships.

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
I would expect plenty of attention in design to be made to reducing required personel, increasing station time, and simplyfying maintenance and upgrades.

That seems reasonable, and does seem to be the trend even now. I will try to keep this in mind once I start designing the ships, although it might mostly come up with the fluff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Arethusa
post Apr 15 2004, 11:35 AM
Post #12


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,901
Joined: 19-June 03
Member No.: 4,775



Phalanxes have already gotten replaced by missiles, by and large, actually. And, while I do see a place for Metal Storm and the like, conventional munitions are really secondary to missile combat. And, as Cray pointed out, missiles are secondary to carriers, which are really what do the dirty work.

As for force projection, you can still support a large carrier group with smaller ships. Not exclusively, of course, but a fleet that is primarily small, fast ships can still hold out for quite a long time, assuming support networks work properly. Crusher does have a very valid point, though; bigger ships do this better. It's just that the need isn't really there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 12:32 PM
Post #13


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (Arethusa)
Phalanxes have already gotten replaced by missiles, by and large, actually. And, while I do see a place for Metal Storm and the like, conventional munitions are really secondary to missile combat. And, as Cray pointed out, missiles are secondary to carriers, which are really what do the dirty work.

I've always thought that when it comes to close-in defense against enemy ASMs and SSMs, projectile or directed energy weapons are more effective than missiles. That's not really based on much anything apart from a hunch, so I may well be totally wrong.

How do others feel about that issue? Do you think that, 60 years in the future, it will be commonplace to shoot down missiles with missiles of your own? What is the situation now, how reliably can the most advanced missile protection systems IRL shoot down enemy missiles with missiles of their own?

[Edit]Or better yet: Has someone ran naval combat and can thus say whether the rules in R3 allow for reliable defence against missile threats with missiles of your own? If so, how would you say the effectiveness of ANDREWS, projectile weapons and missiles compare against missiles?[/Edit]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grendel
post Apr 15 2004, 04:49 PM
Post #14


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,763
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Special Hell
Member No.: 284



This will be the fourth or fifth discussion of this nature that I've been involved in since I joined the boards. To save myself having to go over what's already been said, I've provided some links to the previous thread. It pretty much covers it all, despite the fact that we came to no real conclusion. In the end, the state of SR Naval Forces is based upon how the GM views the world, and its pretty much evenly divided between those of us who think Corporate and National navies are still a threat to be reckoned with, and those who think that the massive collapse in land based national security means virtually no funding is available for naval assets beyond a limited coast guard force. And I don't even want to get into the missile vs. gun, sub vs. ship, battleship vs. carrier argument. We can go around and around on that until the Seventh Age and never see eye to eye.

If, on the other hand, you're interested in just talking tactics and what I think a Corporate or National Navy would look like in SR, then I think I can accommodate you.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 15 2004, 05:25 PM
Post #15


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Thanks for the links. I tried the Old Forums, but you know the Search function there. The Old Old Forums never even crossed my mind. Reading the thread through now.

QUOTE (grendel)
And I don't even want to get into the missile vs. gun, sub vs. ship, battleship vs. carrier argument. We can go around and around on that until the Seventh Age and never see eye to eye.

OK. If there is no agreement on the issue, then I'll just go with what is effective by canon and make up stuff for my own game.

I finished reading through most Remote Control and Drone rules, but I've still got a lot of reading to do before I can design my first ships. Once I've done that, I can try and run some example combats. And perhaps then I can seriously start discussing the tactics and the specifics of what the Navies will look like.

I've got several ideas about possible, uhh, I suppose you could them "rule abuses" to make ships more interesting. Drone networks to handle maintenance is one, "sensor arrays" that are basically separate drones built-in to the ship are another. Again, I won't know how they'll work out until I've designed the first ships. [Edit]And it seems this, too, was touched in the thread. Good stuff.[/Edit]

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Apr 15 2004, 06:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 16 2004, 11:27 AM
Post #16


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I'm now designing my first ship, the SKS Habicht-class missile boat, ~350 ton mid-level tech patrol craft.

The first significant problem: With vehicle Design Options and Customizations with a nuyen, load or CF cost given as a multiple of Body, what does a ship use? Is the (Body x Body + 4) used for firmpoints valid for all such cases? Until I get a negative answer, I'll use that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nath
post Apr 16 2004, 01:34 PM
Post #17


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,756
Joined: 11-December 02
From: France
Member No.: 3,723



UCAS has Powell-class heavy carriers in the 75-100,000 metric tons range (R3 p.107) including the USS Leonard Koontz replacing the Lincoln in Everett naval station (Seattle Guide) and I guess a USS Powell (Colin ? he as in the Army IIRC...) somewhere. they also have at least one light carrier, the Wolverine, based out of Staten Island (NAGNA).

Japan has 6 Akihitos supercarrier in the 75-100,000 tons commissioned (R3 p.107,187)

Saeder-Krupp has a Seemacht supercarrier class.

In 2054 (NAGNA) CAS had a single heavy battle group organized around the carrier "Atlanta". In 2063 (SoNA) they have two 50,000 tons carriers, in Mobile and Charleston (nothing in Norfolk, which might have become one big demilitarized zone since the secession). They have the "largest submarine fore in the world" and unique new "SSVN", submarine 35,000 tons carrying and alunching as much as 6 airfighters. But the CAS Navy stays mainly a "brown-water navy" facing Aztlan inthe Gulf and using a great number of corvettes of the Stuart-cless (built by Ares).

Aztlan has a "frigate navy" with no carriers, no strategic submarines (but still some nuclear attack submarines like the BAA Zacatecas quoted in the example in R3 p.34) or any large battleships. Aztechnology addition stays in the same category, frigates, corvettes and fast-attack vessels. The analysis in Aztlan SB is that nor Aztlan or Aztechnology really got interested in naval ops. According to Seattle Guide, the most SOTA ship of Aztechnology in 2050 was the Tezcatlipoca.

Great Britain, France, Russia and Canton Federation are among the countries maintaining medium carriers in the 40-50 thousand metric tons range. Canton Federation also commanded six Soohong-class destroyers to Wuxing (R3).

Yamatetsu has a fleet of forty ships patrolling maritime routes (one of the oldest branch of the corporation is shipping co Tsuruga International). After the move to Vladivostok they got transfered to the authority of freshly created Yamatetsu Naval Technologies (Corp DL).

Wuxing also has storng shipping business. It has Zhen Wu-class frigate, and maybe some of its Soohong-class designs destroyers (R3).

Shiawase was one of the first corp to get military vessels after getting extraterritoriality. The Aohana-class frigate s thus a relativvely old design (R3).

Mitsuhama as one ship called the Izanagi (Seattle Guide).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Apr 16 2004, 01:54 PM
Post #18


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I used B^2 + 4 throughout the design progress, but now for a new question: Is there a table somewhere that lists what Signature modifications affect a watercrafts Sonar Signature?

Obviously Thermal Baffles or RAMs shouldn't help, but I figured the Signature Improvement probably should.

Anyway, here she is:

SKS Habicht-Class Missile Boat

Hull: 2
Bulwark: 4
Cargo: 63 + 2,316 PS
Handling: 2
AutoNav: 4
Sensor/Sonar: 10/4
Seating: -
Entry: 4d
Load: 1,363 + 27,900 PS
Speed: 100 (35)
Accel.: 13
Sig.: 8/4 (8/5?)
Fuel: 6,000l Diesel
Econ.: 1km/l
Chassis: Patrol Craft

SI: -

Avail.: -

Cost: 12,088,050 :nuyen:

Other features: Amenities (30 Basic, 4 Improved), BattleTac FDDM & IVIS Receivers, CMC-3, ECM-6, ECCM-6, ED-3, Electronics Ports (Small Satellite Dish, Transceiver-10 + Signal Amplifier-10), Enviroseal (Gas and Water), External Reinforced Missile Mounts (3, 2 Siroccos in 2, 2 MADCAPs in 1), Fixed Internal Hardpoints (2, Vogeljägers in each with Str 6 Mechanical Arms for reloading), Life Support (340 man-hrs), Naval Weapon Control Network-2, Noisemaker Dispenser (4 Noisemakers), Power Amplifiers-10, Remote-Control Encryption Module-5, Remote-Control Interface, Retransmission Unit, Rigger Adaptation, Smart Materials (Factored In), Special Storage Area (30 Vogeljäger Missiles), Spotlights (5)

This is 1/5th the price of a Stuart-class corvette, and I'm pretty sure it could sink one easily.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fahr
post Apr 16 2004, 05:07 PM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 13-August 02
From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS)
Member No.: 3,094



I think that while the focus on surface ships is admirable, I think subs are going to play a big part in any future navy, as they have advantages vs. those big carriers that the surface ships do not.

I have a sub design around somewhere as a coastal defensive patrol type... let me find it and I'll post it here...

-Mike R.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 16 2004, 06:03 PM
Post #20


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



The whole no-cover-on-the-open-seas thing, combined with surveillance satellites, means that yes, subs do have massive advantages over surface ships. Namely, that the enemy doesn't always know exactly where they are and what they're doing.

Force 40 Vehicle Mask anyone?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fahr
post Apr 16 2004, 06:05 PM
Post #21


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 320
Joined: 13-August 02
From: Austin, Republic of Texas (not CAS)
Member No.: 3,094



how about group ritual vehicle mask, or blood magic vehicle mask !!!

-Mike R.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moonstone Spider
post Apr 16 2004, 06:56 PM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 665
Joined: 20-November 03
Member No.: 5,834



Hmm, here's an odd question.

If ship combat in 206x is all about the missiles, what're ships doing with the ANDREWS system? An LOS-only particle beam is useless, you ship will be hammered into scrap before you ever get in range. Offering this to the military would be like offering the US Marines of today a Lightsaber, sure it's better than any other commando knife (Well sort of for certain things) but that means drek when most combat involves guns at dozens to hundreds of meters?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Apr 16 2004, 07:01 PM
Post #23


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



ANDREWs systems are intended to attack incoming missiles :)

~J

Edit: reading your post again, your analogy was perfect. In Star Wars, lightsabers would be useless if it weren't for the ability to block blaster bolts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nikoli
post Apr 16 2004, 07:17 PM
Post #24


Chicago Survivor
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 5,079
Joined: 28-January 04
From: Canton, GA
Member No.: 6,033



As for on station length, the navies of SR have a huge benefit over real navies. Galley mage, force 6 Create food force 6 create water. have like 10 of these guys and you feed a crew with no supplies required.
Ships mage/doctor, heal and treat being the order of teh day, then basic recovery beds for remaining wounds.
the Fix spell, this is a huge advantage for the smaller, more oft to break components on board.
you could have a group of 10 mages all in their own initiate group with high magic ratings taking multiple spell useage rolls to reduce storage needs and overhead. That and add a few force 6 water elementals or spirits doing sub-hunts to augment the drones. Or astral perception watching the biomass of plankton part for submarines or torpedoes etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Backgammon
post Apr 16 2004, 08:46 PM
Post #25


Ain Soph Aur
******

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 3,477
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Montreal, Canada
Member No.: 600



I think it would be very unlikely to tie up 10 mages to supporting roles such as chef.. and healing mages need to be trained as medics and surgeons as well. Sure, with magic anything is possible. But magic is very rare, so you can't mount your strategy based on magical support (excluding dragon or elven armies)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:21 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.