Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Vessel Idea: CVL

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221

    Arrow Vessel Idea: CVL

    I was thinking . . . for the thread I've contributed to recently in the N room, and for a future game of my own . . . during the Dominion War keeping supply lines open and running would be vital. Now . . . during the Cold War there were two theories regarding this in the North Atlantic. (For all you old Harpoon Fans I am sure that you've read this) One calls for the Convoy System in which we are all familar with. For it is one that is most depicted in the series and in World War II movies. The second was thought up due to the advant of newer technologies and faster ships. Furthermore, during the beginning stages of war, supplies would need to be rushed into the effected theater of operations (in most, if not all, scenarios this was Western Europe). Thus the idea of maintanance and defending of supply lanes . . . basically a designated track of sea from point A to point B which would be given a buffer area on either side that is defended, once the lane was deemed cleared.

    Either way though, you'd need vessels to defend either the convoys or the lane. They would attempt not to pull first rate vessels of the line, however design more cost effective vessels to provide convoy escort. Of which there were DEs and at times CVE/Ls.

    And during the Dominion War the supply needs are no different. You aren't going to use a Galaxy Class Explorer as a supply vessel . . . but you need to get supplies to the front . . . thus large bulk transports. And again they need to be protected . . . or their lanes defended.

    Now what I was thinking of designing was a CVL. For the role of DDEs could be assumed by Mirandas or Sabres.
    The design specifications would be as follows:
    Size 4
    Minimum Max Warp of 6
    Capable of carrying/servicing 1-2 Squadrons of fighters
    Heavy Armor
    Superior Long Range Sensors
    Slightly better then adequate medical facilities
    Crew no greater then 130
    Large cargo capacity
    Once I find the time I am thinking of writing this up myself . . . but if there are any designs out there that match . . . let me know. Thanks. Or if you're interested in helping let me know.

    The nominal name for this new class would be one of the following:
    USS St. Lo
    USS Gambier Bay
    USS Princeton
    USS Hoel
    USS Johnston
    USS Samuel B. Roberts

    All these were lost during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Battle of Surigao Straight (a Sub-Battle), except the USS Princeton which was not lost during the Battle of Surigao Straight. The first two are CVEs. And the last three are DDs or DDEs.
    Last edited by JALU3; 01-15-2005 at 08:17 PM. Reason: additional information

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Calgary, AB Canada
    Posts
    868
    Interesting idea. I may give this a crack next week when I have a bit more time. Though for the most part if one allows for information from various magazines, the Akira-class fulfills a number of these requirements.

    Though as you say, I doubt they would pull Akiras off the front lines.

    Regards,
    CKV.
    "It is our mission to push back the darkness from the light and expand the boundaries of knowledge and understanding. That doesn't mean exploring every pleasure planet between here and Andromeda XO."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Various
    Posts
    9
    Would a Size 4 ship be able to hold a squadron or two of fighters?

    Assuming size two fighters, would be 16-32 sizes of carried craft. Looking at the dimensions available for size 4, and the fact I serve on a CVN, it would be awfully tight conditions.

    Also, not sure about whether the SU requirments would be too much for that and the other requirements.

    Am putting one together myself. Will post it once I get it worked out.

    R/
    Captain Archr

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Calgary, AB Canada
    Posts
    868
    Check the dimensions of the fighters in Spacedock.

    As mentioned in another thread, I ran into an issue designing a carrier that could hold 12 Hideki-class fighters. After a fair amount of squeezing and other considerations, I managed to work it down to a size 7.

    I still find that too large for what I want so I may give it another go but I think I may be stuck with this starship at that size.

    Fortunately, for you size 2 is a fair amount smaller but I think you will find you still have issues with your carrier at Size 4 based upon dimensions and the fact that you will need a flight deck, maintenance bay and docking berths.

    Regards,
    CKV.
    "It is our mission to push back the darkness from the light and expand the boundaries of knowledge and understanding. That doesn't mean exploring every pleasure planet between here and Andromeda XO."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    182
    I like the CVL concept. Interested in seeing some purpose-designed fighters to go along with these ships, too!

    From a strategy perspective, however, I think that the convoy system would be the only one feasible, unless the supply lane to be protected was between two planets within the same star system. I speculate that even keeping ships permanently on station protecting a supply land from Sol to Alpha Centauri would probably be prohibitively expensive, just because the vast distances involved would require too many ships, and I don't think that the effective bubble of control of these ships would be measured in light-years. Just a thought.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    Yes, I have been thinking about this myself . . . I may have to upgrade this to a size 5-6. Five I can handle, but 6 would be to costly to warrant a new class, IMHO. Furthermore due to the constaints of the Federation during the second year of the DW (which I envision the first ship of this class to be commissioned), a new class would put an additional strain on the shipyards who already have enough ships that need repairing or to be built.

    I haven't started on the SD portion of the desigining phase, but have worked out an ideal billeting matrix and vessel shape. These may need to be tweeked of course, but I shall post them both up later. The more feed back we get on this, the more use I think this vessel shall make.

    As for the Fighters, I was thinking going with a two squadrons of Peregrine (24), or you can mix and match . . . replacing one squardon with a Banzai Squadron (10) later down in the War . . . or a Valkarie (I believe they are size 1, I am not sure) Squadron (14) earlier in the war.

    Here is the scetch I did last night @ work . . .
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by JALU3
    Yes, I have been thinking about this myself . . . I may have to upgrade this to a size 5-6. Five I can handle, but 6 would be to costly to warrant a new class, IMHO. Furthermore due to the constaints of the Federation during the second year of the DW (which I envision the first ship of this class to be commissioned), a new class would put an additional strain on the shipyards who already have enough ships that need repairing or to be built.
    Nice sketch.

    This may be why designing your own fighters might be a better idea. If the idea is to overwhelm an enemy, they don't have to be very large. Perhaps a bunch of size 1 fighters with one good weapon each?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    But why design a new fighter, when you have the Valkarie (Size 1?)(as seen on the video game), and Peregrine (Size 2) fighter classes already on the board and being produced? Furthermore, as time passes and they see the potential of fighters in the force multiplier role they develop the Banzai Class Fighter (Size 3) (fan created).

    That is why this project is being undertaken. To make a cost effective carrier design that could be well enough to defend a convoy, but not expensive enough to warrant it being a Ship of the Line like a full size CV. Think of the CVEs of WWII. Built to provide effective cover for Convoys and Amphibious Task Forces. But definatly not strong enough, or fast enough, to be in a CTF. Of course, the middle of the two is the CVL . . . which were found at times in CTFs, providing CAP.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221

    Crew Billeting Matrix

    Here is what I have come up with: 178 Persons (66 Officers, 22 Warrant Officers, 90 Enlisted Personnel).

    The attached file is a MS Excel Document.
    Last edited by JALU3; 05-19-2008 at 06:20 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    I'm not 100% sure on the sizes in Spacedock, but the Valkieie is not a small vessel, it's only about 3 meters shorter than a Runabout and over a meter wider.. that's a LOT of space, considering the Intrepid class couldn't really fit a Runabout in it's shuttlebay!

    there's a limit on how far you can take the 'points' value, because it is an abstract, you do need to be able to physically fit it in there !
    Ta Muchly

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Calgary, AB Canada
    Posts
    868
    The Valkyrie is a size 2 vessel with the following dimensions:

    Length 30.2 meters
    Beam 28.5 meters
    Height 12.7 meters
    Decks 2
    Mass is a little over 29 metric tonnes.

    Regards,
    CKV.
    "It is our mission to push back the darkness from the light and expand the boundaries of knowledge and understanding. That doesn't mean exploring every pleasure planet between here and Andromeda XO."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    OK . . . so I was wrong on that part . . . but the other two vessels are correct, and we already have a solution for the Peregrine . . . with the folding wing concept. However, just cause I have one fact wrong regarding a possible fighter to station on this proposed design, doesn't mean that this design doesn't have merit.

    That's like saying that we shouldn't look at a study on reducing water usage because the consumption rate of one of the areas in question is wrong.

    I am sorry if I sound defensive . . . it's just that I am beginning to devout time into this project . . . I know that you all are just trying to help . . . and these size statistics will help in the rough size estimations of the Carrier Pods.
    Last edited by JALU3; 01-18-2005 at 07:19 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by JALU3
    But why design a new fighter, when you have the Valkarie (Size 1?)(as seen on the video game), and Peregrine (Size 2) fighter classes already on the board and being produced? Furthermore, as time passes and they see the potential of fighters in the force multiplier role they develop the Banzai Class Fighter (Size 3) (fan created).
    Just suggesting that from a war economy perspective, the whole idea behind this ship and its mission is its cheapness. The point is to have these baby carriers and small fighters (the descendants of MiGs and other "cheap/simple-to-maintain" fighters,) do escort duty so that the more expensive capital ships and multi-role fighters can perform their duties on the front lines.

    Maybe they wouldn't even have to be newly-built fighters, but perhaps ones that were 30-40 years old, perhaps reaching the end of their service life.

    Just some random thoughts....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    3,462
    I guess the problem is that everyone seems to want to design 'fighters' with great big wings and big long streamlined noses, which makes them so big! streamlining is NOT an issue in space! From the looks of it most 'fighter' type designs would really have to come under size 2 vessels, purelly because size 1 vessels are so small you wouldn't have space to put things like... phasers, shields etc You just aren't going to get a high powered spacefighter out of something the plansize of Mr Scott's engineering inspection pod

    The design you have there should be able to store allot of fighters (SHOULD) but the size of vessel you have is not ever going to be a major carrier, and you may have to sacrifice some numbers.. no matter how hard you try you can't ACTUALLY fit 4 Elephants in a mini (Unless it's for joke purposes! )

    Startrek ships don't really need a long launch tube (ala Battlestar galactica) as they seem fine accelerating on their own, but landing is going to be a pain if they squeeze in to a tiny shuttlebay to land.. not easy on the pilots.. I.e. Notice how you never saw Star Fury's dock back into that tiny launch bay!
    Ta Muchly

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    11S MS 9888 1055
    Posts
    3,221
    This is true . . . even in BG (Battlestar Galactica) you see their Raptors land within that large landing bay . . . and then (we haven't seen yet, but logic dictates) they are moved down to a maintanance bay which is adjacent to a launch bay that launches them perpendicularly to the direction of travel of the Battlestar. This way you have a large entrence for your Pilots to manuever into, and with their catapult system, a small 'exit'.

    As for the dimensions I am working with the SAF "Peregrine" from the DW source book . . . and these two PDFs, which I shall attach here. OK, I was wrong about the size of the Valkarie, but the stats I have are different from yours . . . and they seem fan boyed . . . so I will have to find another version of it.

    But back to the topic. I was thinking . . . a launch system that launches the fighters to the side, although you decrease your possible structural strength because of the multiple opennings, you also add the ability to launch while the CVLX is manuevering. For a front launch system creates the situation that during most manuevers, and the location of the carrier pods, you may end up hitting the CVLX on the fighters way out. Where as with the side launch system you don't have that problem . . . especially with Up/Down movement.

    Another thing that I am thinking about, since I have reached the Tactical systems portion of SD for the CVLX, I was wondering if there is a CIWS out there for Starfleet, and if not . . . would you use just really accurate phasers, or something like what BG have?
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by JALU3; 01-19-2005 at 04:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •