| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:32 pm Post subject: Capital Ship Small Craft Conversion |
 |
|
We tend to treat a capital ship's WEG mandated hangar deck space as a hard limit to how many starfighters it can carry. But deck space is ultimately just a flat spot where you can park just about anything. Most capital ships also carry large numbers of troops, along with shuttles and landing barges to transport them to and from a planet's surface. In addition, there will be parking garages for various ground assault vehicles, and so on and so forth.
Suppose a capital ship off-loaded some of its troop contingent, along with their vehicles and equipment, plus the shuttles and barges used to transport them. How many additional starfighter squadrons could be fit in? Or vice versa? How many extra ground units could a ship fit in if it offloaded some of its fighter squadrons?
There are real-world parallels; the US Navy has contingency plans to off-load a carrier's air wing and use the carrier as a mobile base for air mobile units like the 101st Airborne.
Thoughts?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say as a rough estimate, that for every troop transport and 2 squads of troops that those transports support, that you could fit (depending on TYPE) possibly 3 additional fighters. So for 6 transports and a dozen troop squads, you could get two squadrons of fighters..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting.
Is there a preexisting conversion of cargo space to fighter storage? That would be the place to start. It seems to me one of the RPG versions has a retrofit hangar bay as a ship add-on, in exchange for cargo space.
From there, using Cargo Capacity as the prime unit of conversion, you could write a system that trades ship storage for cargo capacity for passenger (troop) space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are several factors I would consider in this. First, capacity does not equal functionality. The Navy carriers can actually function while carrying the 101st (as per your example). They reduce the flight deck launch and recovery capability of the carrier somewhat significantly but the fighters do remain aboard and combat capable. That said, there are also ways for them to store an additional fighter wing on the carrier deck which (iirc) prevents launching.
Also, I'm not sure why your estimate includes troops as equal to fighters. Logically, the troops aren't housed on the flight decks, instead utilizing existing facilities for bunking, messing, and refreshing. While I could see swapping troops for storage of materials (eg. I put boxes in my spare bedroom) I don't see a straight troop to fighter conversion.
Going to the one source that has this sort of conversion, the Darkstryder box, I looked at the stats between the combat shuttles and fighters. An Aegis shuttle is around 29m while an X-Wing is approximately 12.5m in length. You could probably get 2 X-Wings into the space for a single Aegis, so while specifics will vary I'd suggest that you'd get around 2 to 1 for fighters to shuttles. I'd also caveat that by saying that space conversions like that will reduce launch speed by at least 5 rounds.
Second, in addition to my above conversion, you have to consider the type of craft the hanger was designed for. Tie fighters take up a lot less space since they hang in racks generally. And while it's described in various books as possible, fitting a hanging collar to something like an X-Wing or Z-95 would probably reduce the overall number by .5 per fighter. So you could get approximately 2 X-Wings for 3 Ties in rack mounts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part of the reason i did that, was for fighters you need spare parts and tools that space given up by the troops and THEIR stuff, can be taken by new parts. Not just the actual space of the fighter vs transport itself..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Part of the reason i did that, was for fighters you need spare parts and tools that space given up by the troops and THEIR stuff, can be taken by new parts. Not just the actual space of the fighter vs transport itself.. |
Okay that makes some sense now. Maybe something like 3 fighters equals 1 squad over and above flight deck space (to accommodate a dedicated crew chief, plus whatever service personnel and additional parts are necessary)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14215
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
That would work. Now you just need to compare the landing ship to what ever fighter(s) you are going to put on.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I'd say as a rough estimate, that for every troop transport and 2 squads of troops that those transports support, that you could fit (depending on TYPE) possibly 3 additional fighters. So for 6 transports and a dozen troop squads, you could get two squadrons of fighters.. |
Two problems...
1). It doesn't take into account that there are differing sizes of troop units. An infantry squad of 9 men (the Star Wars norm) will have different storage requirements compared to, say, an armor section of 4-5 men and a heavy armored vehicle.
2). It doesn't take into account the differing sizes of starfighters. I've brought this up before here, but it never really got anywhere. IMO, for starfighters, I'd divide them into three separate general size groupings: Small, Medium and Large, with Small taking up a single "slot", Medium taking 1.5 and Large taking 2. Example types would be:Small = All basic TIE types, V-Wing, A-Wing, etc.
Medium = X-Wing, Y-Wing, TIE Bomber
Large = B-Wing
Of course, that just covers fighters. There would also need to be equivalent sizes for the larger shuttles and landing barges, as well as the bigger ground vehicles, such as AT-ATs and the like.
A big part of why I'm bringing this up is the Venator. With its massive starfighter capacity compared to models like the Victory or Imperial, one way to keep it relevant due to doctrine shifting away from starfighters to capital ships is to change out its carried starfighters for more troops or vehicles.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | Interesting.
Is there a preexisting conversion of cargo space to fighter storage? That would be the place to start. It seems to me one of the RPG versions has a retrofit hangar bay as a ship add-on, in exchange for cargo space. |
Good point. It's probably a bit too nit-picky for use in an actual game, but a general #starfighters = #shuttles = #barges = #infantry = #armor = #metric tons of cargo would be very helpful in pre-planning and conversions. For that matter, knowing a conversion ratio for metric tons would make the Cargo Capacity on capital ship stats actually useful for something other than a fill-in-the-blank.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JironGhrad wrote: | | There are several factors I would consider in this. First, capacity does not equal functionality. The Navy carriers can actually function while carrying the 101st (as per your example). They reduce the flight deck launch and recovery capability of the carrier somewhat significantly but the fighters do remain aboard and combat capable. That said, there are also ways for them to store an additional fighter wing on the carrier deck which (iirc) prevents launching. |
You are thinking too narrow. Fighter wings are not married to a particular carrier; in fact, when a carrier enters port for long periods, the entire air wing flies off to a naval air station somewhere, leaving the carrier itself empty apart from a helicopter or two. Contingency planning for carriers includes stripping all the aircraft off, using the ship as a mobile helicopter base for a battalion or so of helicopter-mobile infantry (the 101st), then flying the regular wing in from bases in the US (or elsewhere) once the 101st has flown on-shore.
| Quote: | | Also, I'm not sure why your estimate includes troops as equal to fighters. Logically, the troops aren't housed on the flight decks, instead utilizing existing facilities for bunking, messing, and refreshing. While I could see swapping troops for storage of materials (eg. I put boxes in my spare bedroom) I don't see a straight troop to fighter conversion. |
Because a fighter squadron is not just 12 pilots and their ships. There is also the ground crew and command staff for the squadron, and so on and so forth. Plus, as garhkal mentioned, troops aren't much good without a method to transport them somewhere (with the exception of marines / naval infantry whose duties are primarily aboard ship), so there will also be deck space and accommodations for troop transports of some kind.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Contingency planning for carriers includes stripping all the aircraft off, using the ship as a mobile helicopter base for a battalion or so of helicopter-mobile infantry (the 101st), then flying the regular wing in from bases in the US (or elsewhere) once the 101st has flown on-shore.
|
While it may be true that somewhere there's a plan for this, it's definitely not the SOP (standard operating procedure). The Army does have the 101st Aviation attached to the division, but in all conflicts since WW2, the Air Force has provided the deployment for the 101st to forward air bases on the ground. You might be thinking of the 1st Marines, which did some carrier-based helicopter ops into Africa a few years back.
| garhkal wrote: | | Part of the reason i did that, was for fighters you need spare parts and tools that space given up by the troops and THEIR stuff, can be taken by new parts. Not just the actual space of the fighter vs transport itself.. |
| JironGhrad wrote: | | Okay that makes some sense now. Maybe something like 3 fighters equals 1 squad over and above flight deck space (to accommodate a dedicated crew chief, plus whatever service personnel and additional parts are necessary)? |
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Two problems... |
1. In most armor units, vehicle crews are not the only part of a unit. Even if a vehicle only needs 4 guys to operate, there are still around 4-5 more guys necessary to unit function. I'd say that squad size isn't relevant as a result.
2. While fighter unit sizes were somewhat nebulous during WW2, they've been standardized since at least the cold war. I will caveat that by saying that an Air Force fighter wing can have variable numbers of units but that they are functionally built on the 12-plane-squadron/6-squadron-wing principle.
As an example, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, VA currently has 36 F-22 Raptors in service. They're slated to gain another 36 over the coming years to get the unit back to full flying strength. It took the Air Force 6 years to reach enough planes to fully decommission the F-15s that were previously in use (first F-22 was delivered in 2004, last F-15 was decommed in 2010). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2016 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | A big part of why I'm bringing this up is the Venator. With its massive starfighter capacity compared to models like the Victory or Imperial, one way to keep it relevant due to doctrine shifting away from starfighters to capital ships is to change out its carried starfighters for more troops or vehicles. |
I'm curious why you feel this needs to change. Throughout history doctrinal changes have resulted in fleet composition changes. If anything, the existence of a Venator explains certain things (like Nebulon B frigates being a dedicated anti-Starfighter platform)...
| JironGhrad wrote: | | Going to the one source that has this sort of conversion, the Darkstryder box, I looked at the stats between the combat shuttles and fighters. An Aegis shuttle is around 29m while an X-Wing is approximately 12.5m in length. You could probably get 2 X-Wings into the space for a single Aegis, so while specifics will vary I'd suggest that you'd get around 2 to 1 for fighters to shuttles. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Venator is a clone-wars era cap ship? The reference materials on Wookiepedia list it as carrying 384 little fighters and 3 squadrons of ARCs. It's almost 1/3 longer than a Victory SD, with ostensibly 12% of the defensive guns. From the same source, you're getting "roughly" 200 more people (presumably pilots) into that extra space.
Based on the above, if I were someone at Imperial Naval HQ trying to figure out relevance, I'd be looking at bulking up the offensive armament. The limited starship weaponry would be where I'd be focusing (and presumably that's what was done to create the Victory/Imperial SD lines). My assumption is that the bulk of difference between the available space in a VSD and Venator is tied up in the weapon emplacements and the batteries/charging necessary to keep the emplacements firing in combat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JironGhrad wrote: | | While it may be true that somewhere there's a plan for this, it's definitely not the SOP (standard operating procedure). |
My point was more to provide an extreme example of what could be done. From a sheer numbers standpoint (comparing the flight group of a Venator with that of an Imperial 20 years later), it's obvious that there has been a shift away from massive starfighter groups in favor of big gun capital ships operating with light (relatively speaking) starfighter groups operating in a supporting role. However, with regards to troop compliment, the Venator runs very light: enough troops for a reinforced battalion, roughly equivalent in numbers to a Marine Corps MEU (SOC).
There is little functional difference between starfighters and troop shuttles, by which I mean that everything in the SWU is a VTOL, for all practical purposes. There is no need for specialty equipment like catapults and arresting gear to operate high performance craft. As such, the main obstacle in switching from a starfighter-heavy combatant to a troop transporting combatant (ala the Victory I or the Imperial) is the degree to which the ship's carrying capacity can be converted from one to the other.
Again, my point in bringing up the contingency plan for using an aircraft carrier as a temporary heli-base was that it could be done, and is more likely to occur in the SWU due to changing doctrine when combined with the greater ease of modification.
| JironGhrad wrote: | | 1. In most armor units, vehicle crews are not the only part of a unit. Even if a vehicle only needs 4 guys to operate, there are still around 4-5 more guys necessary to unit function. I'd say that squad size isn't relevant as a result. |
In the SWU, those extra men are included at the company level and above. It's not irrelevant to the overall problem, but it ignores the fact that an armor unit will have different equipment storage needs compared to an infantry unit, as an infantry unit doesn't have to worry about where they park their tanks, along with all the supporting equipment. The area required for that is also area that could be converted into barracks for an infantry unit. As such, in terms of overall space required, an armor unit may have the same numerical strength as an infantry unit (with the lower crew numbers at the squad level counterbalanced by the higher crew numbers in the command section's support units), but could easily take up twice the volume of available space aboard ship.
| JironGhrad wrote: | | 2. While fighter unit sizes were somewhat nebulous during WW2, they've been standardized since at least the cold war. I will caveat that by saying that an Air Force fighter wing can have variable numbers of units but that they are functionally built on the 12-plane-squadron/6-squadron-wing principle. |
It was my understanding that Air Force squadrons had up to 24 planes assigned as primary assigned aircraft, not including additional units like two-seat trainers and the like. At any given time, not all of a given squadron's aircraft will be immediately available for operations, as some will be down for maintenance or major repairs.
Be that as it may, there is a big difference between operating aircraft from a massive concrete airfield and having to cram as many as you can into the confines of an aircraft carrier, where parking space is at a premium.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | There is little functional difference between starfighters and troop shuttles, by which I mean that everything in the SWU is a VTOL, for all practical purposes. There is no need for specialty equipment like catapults and arresting gear to operate high performance craft. As such, the main obstacle in switching from a starfighter-heavy combatant to a troop transporting combatant (ala the Victory I or the Imperial) is the degree to which the ship's carrying capacity can be converted from one to the other.
|
Not to be argumentative, but the Darkstryder core book states that they use engine deflectors, like you'd see on catapults, in at least some configurations...
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | It was my understanding that Air Force squadrons had up to 24 planes assigned as primary assigned aircraft, not including additional units like two-seat trainers and the like. At any given time, not all of a given squadron's aircraft will be immediately available for operations, as some will be down for maintenance or major repairs. |
I asked my cousin, who used to be the commander of the Thunderbirds and who commanded the Air Force fighter wing in Korea about it. 12/72 were the numbers he gave me for fighters. You're correct that they don't count training aircraft and whatnot.
I think, functionally, it's easier to use open space (of hangars) for troop transport vs the opposite. I've seen Air Force hangars converted for deployment and they often just install rows of bunks with makeshift walls for showers, toilets and even mess tables.
You've gotten me thinking about something however. What types of dropships/shuttles do they use for things like AT-ATs? Are there stats for those someplace? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JironGhrad wrote: | | I'm curious why you feel this needs to change. Throughout history doctrinal changes have resulted in fleet composition changes. |
As I said above, it is clear that, over the twenty years separating ROTS and ANH, the Empire has shifted away from a Clone Wars-era emphasis on large numbers of starfighters. Going from around 420 starfighters on a Venator to 72 on an Imperial is a blatant shift in thinking. However, it is also clear that a lot of Clone Wars era craft are still in use (the Dreadnaught and Carrack cruisers, in particular), with the Empire showing a penchant for upgrading older ships wherever possible. Since the Venator is still a formidable platform, and its contemporaries remain in service, I see no reason that it would not also be upgraded and modified to better fit the newer, capital ship centered doctrine of the Empire.
| Quote: | | If anything, the existence of a Venator explains certain things (like Nebulon B frigates being a dedicated anti-Starfighter platform)... |
The Nebulon was less of a continuation of the Venator's design than it was a reaction to the failings of the Empire's emphasis on big ships. It wasn't a dedicated anti-starfighter platform (that was the Lancer), but a dedicated escort ship, with a weapons suite built around holding off light combatants such as starfighters and corvettes, which would be the most common threats that the Alliance and pirates could throw against Imperial convoys
| JironGhrad wrote: | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Venator is a clone-wars era cap ship? The reference materials on Wookiepedia list it as carrying 384 little fighters and 3 squadrons of ARCs. It's almost 1/3 longer than a Victory SD, with ostensibly 12% of the defensive guns. |
That's part of what I'm getting into here. At the moment, I'm thinking of giving the Venator 30-40 turbolaser batteries in addition to the heavy dual turbolaser cannon. During the broadside duel with the Invisible Hand, cannon can be seen firing through mag-shielded hull ports, yet are represented nowhere in the stats.
| Quote: | | From the same source, you're getting "roughly" 200 more people (presumably pilots) into that extra space. From the same source, you're getting "roughly" 200 more people (presumably pilots) into that extra space. |
It's a mistake to assume that the extra 200 crew are all pilots, as we have no way of knowing what sort of operating requirements SWU ships may have.
| Quote: | | Based on the above, if I were someone at Imperial Naval HQ trying to figure out relevance, I'd be looking at bulking up the offensive armament. The limited starship weaponry would be where I'd be focusing (and presumably that's what was done to create the Victory/Imperial SD lines). My assumption is that the bulk of difference between the available space in a VSD and Venator is tied up in the weapon emplacements and the batteries/charging necessary to keep the emplacements firing in combat. |
That's the way I'm planning on going with this, making it a big-gun companion to the Venator (but throwing out the Veragitor name and making it a Venator II). However, I'm hesitant to simply allow ships to swap out their hangar decks for gun batteries without requiring major modification. But that is best suited for a different topic.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
