| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 06/30/09 05:53 PM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Code:
AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Class/Model/Name: Akira (Destroyer)
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3067
Vessel Type: WarShip
Rules: Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set: AeroTech2
Mass: 450,000 tons
Hull: Victory Akira
K-F Drive System: Luthien Naval Works 450
Length: 571 meters
Sail Diameter: 1,005 meters
Power Plant: Triple Victory N1200 Plasma Pulse Drives Standard
Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Armor Type: Star Slab Lamellor Ferro-carbide
Armament:
14 Lord's Judgement Heavy NPPC
63 Victory Drumbeat Large Pulse Laser
63 Victory Throb Small Pulse Laser
Manufacturer: Luthien Naval Works
Location: Luthien, New Samarkand, Dieron
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
In 3060, the Tatsumaki Destroyer programme shut down forever. Though Combine
naval engineers had learned much from the little ship, it had been too
problematic and its resulting construction schedule too slow for it to be
really practical.
The Tatsumaki was to be replaced nine years later by another wedge-shaped
Destroyer, the 450kt Akira. Elegant in their simplicity, the Akira-class
Destroyers could be produced in enormous volumes and were still powerful
enough to engage other destroyers in defense of the combine's commerce, the
programme's primary design objective.
==Capabilities:==
While they may look minimalistic when placed next to destroyer offerings by
other powers, the Akira-class vessels succeeded spectacularly in their primary
goal. They are simple, inexpensive, and trouble-free.
Akira's single naval battery is made up of forteen Lord's Judgement Heavy
Naval Particle Cannons. A component common on other DCA warships, these heavy
cannons are one of only three weapon systems aboard the Akira.
The remaining systems adress two other threats: 63 Victory Drumbeat Large
Pulse Lasers protect the ship from fighters while 63 Victory Throb Small Pulse
Lasers protect the vessel from enemy missiles.
Arguably a weakness is the Akira's failure to carry any missile systems of its
own. The Akira also lacks any turrets capable of firing directly aft, where
the massive Victory N1200 Plasma Pulse-Drives make traverse from the aft-most
turrets impossible.
Still, the ship is inexpensive, effective, and reasonably well-armored. Much
beloved by engineering crews and admirals alike, the Akira class looks likely
to be a mainstay of the DCA fleet for decades to come.
==Battle History:==
In April of 3079, DCS Akatsuki was laid up in shipyards after a hard-fought
battle with an unknown pirate force. Armed with Clan technology and at least
one Warship, they nevertheless failed to prevail against Akatsuki's dedicated
and well-trained crew. Only one of the seven jumpships under escort at the
time was lost. In exchange, the enemy Essex-class Destroyer was destroyed with
all hands aboard, while Akatsuki's fighters and turrets accounted for all
twenty enemy fighter craft. No survivors were found.
DCS Ikazuchi is believed lost with all hands after engaging an unknown pirate
force along the coreward periphery in September of this year. Though it
reported destroying at least one enemy vessel (believed to be a Lola-class
destroyer,) transmissions from the vessel ceased shortly afterward. At least
two other destroyer-type vessels are believed to have been engaged with
Ikazuchi at the time of her destruction. The six transport jumpships under
Ikazuchi's escort were able to escape the battle without casualties.
==Notable Vessels & Crews:==
3069 - Akira (Dieron, Prototype)
3071 - Akatsuki (Dieron)
3072 - Kawakaze (Dieron)
3073- Hibiki (Dieron)
3074 - Umikaze (Dieron)
3075 - Ikazuchi (Dieron, presumed lost 3099), Akebono (New Samarkand)
3076 - Suzukaze (Dieron), Sazanami (New Samarkand)
3077 - Ariake (Dieron), Ushio (New Samarkand)
3078 - Fubuki (Dieron), Mutsuki (New Samarkand)
3079 - Hatsushimo (Dieron), Kisaragi (New Samarkand)
3080 - Shirayki (Dieron), Yayoi (New Samarkand)
3081 - Shikinami (Luthien), Nenohi (Dieron), Uzuki (New Samarkand)
3082 - Asagiri (Luthien),Hatsuyuki (Dieron), Satsuki (New Samarkand)
3083 - Sagiri (Luthien),Wakaba (Dieron), Minazuki (New Samarkand)
3084 - Oboro (Luthien), Miyuki (Dieron), Fumizuki (New Samarkand)
3085 - Minekaze (Luthien), Yugure (Dieron), Nagatsuki (New Samarkand)
3086 - Sawakaze (Luthien), Murakumo (Dieron), Kikuzuki (New Samarkand)
3087 - Okikaze (Luthien), Shiratsuyu (Dieron), Mikazuki (New Samarkand)
3088 - Shimakaze (Luthien), Usugumo (Dieron), Mochizuki (New Samarkand)
3089 - Nadakaze (Luthien), Shigure (Dieronj), Yuzuki (New Samarkand)
3091 - Yakaze (Luthien), Marusame (Dieron), Kamikazi (New Samarkand)
3092 - Hakaze (Luthien), Shirakumo (Dieron), Asakaze (New Samarkand)
3093 - Shiokaze (Luthien), Yudachi (Dieron), Harukaze (New Samarkand)
3094 - Akikaze (Luthien), Isonami (Dieron), Matsukaze (New Samarkand)
3095 - Yukaze (Luthien), Samidare (Dieron), Hatakaze (New Samarkand)
3096 - Tachikaze (Luthien), Uranami (Dieron), Oite (New Samarkand)
3097 - Hokaze (Luthien), Harusame (Dieron), Hayate (New Samarkand)
3098 - Nokaze (Luthien), Ayanami (Dieron), Asanagi (New Samarkand)
3099 - Namikaze (Luthien), Yamakaze (Dieron), Yunagi (New Samarkand)
==Deployment==
Wherever the DCA Warship Corps is found, an Akira-class Destroyer is probably
in the lead. Defenders of commerce as well as escorts for large vessels, the
Akira Class is as ubiquitous as it is inexpensive, and as powerful as it needs
to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name: Akira (Destroyer)
Mass: 450,000 tons
Equipment: Mass
Power Plant, Drive & Control: 135,000.00
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 5
Maximum Thrust: 8
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 10) 203,625.00
Lithium Fusion Battery 4,500.00
Jump Sail: (Integrity = 4) 52.00
Structural Integrity: 50 22,500.00
Total Heat Sinks: 1,953 Double 1,389.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 3,060.00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters: 1,125.00
Fire Control Computers: .00
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide (480 total armor pts) 450.00
Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: L / R
Fore: 84
Fore-Left/Right: 85/85
Aft-Left/Right: 83/83
Aft: 60
Cargo:
Bay 1: Fighters (12) with 6 doors 1,800.00
Bay 2: Small Craft (6) with 2 doors 1,200.00
Bay 3: Cargo (1) with 24 doors 31,415.00
Grav Decks #1 - 2: (90-meter diameter) 100.00
Crew and Passengers:
30 Officers (29 minimum) 300.00
105 Crew (105 minimum) 735.00
35 Gunners (35 minimum) 245.00
54 Bay Personnel .00
Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV Heat Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Heavy NPPC Nose 30 30 30 30 450 6,000.00
9 Large Pulse Laser Nose 8(81) 8(81) -- -- 90 63.00
9 Small Pulse Laser Nose 3(27) -- -- -- 18 9.00
2 Heavy NPPC FL/R 30 30 30 30 900 12,000.00
9 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 8(81) 8(81) -- -- 180 126.00
9 Small Pulse Laser FL/R 3(27) -- -- -- 36 18.00
2 Heavy NPPC L/RBS 30 30 30 30 900 12,000.00
9 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 8(81) 8(81) -- -- 180 126.00
9 Small Pulse Laser L/RBS 3(27) -- -- -- 36 18.00
2 Heavy NPPC AL/R 30 30 30 30 900 12,000.00
9 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 8(81) 8(81) -- -- 180 126.00
9 Small Pulse Laser AL/R 3(27) -- -- -- 36 18.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Heat: 3,906 450,000.00
Tons Left: .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 4,886,002,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 67,228
Cost per BV: 72,678.08
Weapon Value: 40,644 (Ratio = .60)
Damage Factors: SRV = 2,681; MRV = 2,445; LRV = 1,517; ERV = 608
Maintenance: Maintenance Point Value (MPV) = 302,832
(51,409 Structure, 166,562 Life Support, 84,861 Weapons)
Support Points (SP) = 378,000 (125% of MPV)
BattleForce2: Not applicable
| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 06/30/09 05:53 PM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
It had been too long since we had a design around here, and I had this sweet little gal ready to go. Enjoy.
| Venom |
| (Sergeant Major) |
| 07/05/09 02:25 AM |
| 207.191.200.101 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
I like WarShips bu t I love TROs that do not take forever to read. I particularly like the simplicty of the designs weaponry. I hate having 37 different weapons in each arc to try and figure out. Very Combine, very simple, I like it.
| His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey |
| (Lieutenant) |
| 07/05/09 06:28 AM |
| 24.4.97.143 |
|
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Against swarms of fighters and there drop ships its a good ship. But when it comes to another capital ship it has a lot to desire. I would want at least some real firepower, even if that is a couple of capital missals in the nose. Maybe in the tail to give the enemy something to dodge so the ship can run away.
Destroyers missions are to defend a convoy or battle group from small craft like torpedo boats or aircraft with there small guns, or from larger ships with torpedoes WWII, WWI or with missals today.
| Cray |
| (General) |
| 07/05/09 03:01 PM |
| 173.168.115.68 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Very efficient design. Like Venom, I appreciate the simple but effective weapons selection.
Incidentally, AT2/TW/SO make AMSs much more effective for point defense than small pulse lasers, even if they are ammo design.
| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 07/05/09 11:01 PM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
It's a 450kt ship. It's not going to be able to challenge a Battleship, but compare it to the canon destroyers before you write it off for a lack of firepower. The HNPPC is the most powerful energy weapon available, and the Akira has fourteen of them, and can muster a potent six-gun broadside, in thirty-point hits that can force critical hits on most canon battleships at the longest engagement ranges.
Space isn't an ocean, and not every war is World War II. Capital missiles aren't torpedos. They're not a significant threat to large vessels, but are instead primarily of concern to fighters. Their firepower ratios are only comparable to energy weapons, and then only until fire-control limits are reached or longer missile magazines employed.
No lone destroyer represents a lethal threat to a Battleship, and that was the case in WWII as well.
| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 07/05/09 11:02 PM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
I know, and I usually prefer AMS, but I had sort of a theme here.
| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 07/05/09 11:03 PM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Thanks for the kind words, Venom. I appreciate your attention. Would you like to see some more of my designs?
| Cray |
| (General) |
| 07/06/09 05:38 AM |
| 147.160.136.10 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Quote:
I know, and I usually prefer AMS, but I had sort of a theme here.
Ah, the independence of energy weapons. Yes, I felt awkward nominating the AMS because it would mess up the energy-only weapons theme.
| His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey |
| (Lieutenant) |
| 07/06/09 05:41 AM |
| 24.4.97.143 |
|
|
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
A 50' PT boat was a threat to a WWII battleship, if the battleship was close enough to be hit by the PTs four torpedoes. Destroyers where meant to protect Battleships and Aircraft Carriers for attacks from such boats.
With the weight that the Naval PPC takes up you can have 120 Killer Whale missals. That would be one massive attack even a battleship would take knottiest of.
| Cray |
| (General) |
| 07/06/09 05:48 AM |
| 147.160.136.10 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Quote:
A 50' PT boat was a threat to a WWII battleship, if the battleship was close enough to be hit by the PTs four torpedoes. Destroyers where meant to protect Battleships and Aircraft Carriers for attacks from such boats.
Donkey, do you understand the problem of trying to impose 1910s oceanic naval thinking on a 3060s vehicle that:
1) Is a spacecraft, not a watercraft
2) There have been radical changes to the role of "destroyers" in the past century (to the point they are often used as independent cruisers), let alone 1100 years later
3) Bob's Combine fleet doesn't necessarily have battleships that need protection
4) The Akira had very specific duties described in its second fluff paragraph that do not necessarily involve attacking battleships
Quote:
With the weight that the Naval PPC takes up you can have 120 Killer Whale missals. That would be one massive attack even a battleship would take knottiest of.
The Akira is meant to kill merchant ships and other destroyers, not be a one-shot missile rack that battleships would notice.
| His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey |
| (Lieutenant) |
| 07/06/09 09:40 AM |
| 24.4.97.143 |
|
|
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
More war changes the more it stays the same.
The Strategy and tactics of navel combat has not really changed in centuries. The only thing that has really changed is the range weapons can reach and the distance that the enemy can detect the enemy.
The only difference between naval combat and space combat is a third dimension. Other than that there is no difference.
| Cray |
| (General) |
| 07/06/09 12:27 PM |
| 147.160.136.10 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Quote:
More war changes the more it stays the same.
The Strategy and tactics of navel combat has not really changed in centuries.
Two questions:
1) What submarine hunting tactics did Nelson use at Trafalgar to prevent his ships-of-the-line from being torpedoed, and do they differ from today's submarine hunting tactics?
2) Do European navies today still deploy their battleship squadrons in line formations, or have naval strategies changed such that they no longer have active battleships?
While pondering the answer to those questions, I recommend you read Friedman's "U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History," and the associated Carriers, Cruisers, and Battleships books. The extremely rapid change in naval tactics through the 20th Century are discussed in those books as equipment, technology, and fleet composition changed.
At the grossest, most handwaving level, you can say strategy hasn't changed in centuries because navies still attempt to blow each other up. However, at a slightly lower level, strategies are very different because of the capabilities of modern technology - nuclear weapons, aircraft, and telecommunications have allowed fleets to achieve very different effects than their predecessors. A 1940s, 1900s, or 1800s fleet could never have participated in a war in Afghanistan because they couldn't lob shells more than a few miles inland (and Afghanistan is landlocked), while now US Navy carriers are able to act as mobile air fields. (And, indeed, with the closing of Central Asian bases to US forces, the US Navy provides key air fields for US forces in Afghanistan.) The ability of essentially every single US ship to be nuclear-armed (via Tomahawks) caused a radical shift in Cold War naval strategies, because the USSR no longer "simply" had to worry about US carriers and SSBNs, but every single surviving US ship.
Tactics usually change every 5 to 10 years as new equipment and capabilities come on line, and warfare can change tactics on a time scale of months. WW2 is a case study in how rapidly tactics can change as new radar, new sonar, new anti-submarine weapons, and new anti-aircraft weapons came on line. Friedman's "Destroyers" book captures this in with descriptions of the endless, rapid cycle of new destroyer upgrades, modifications, and deployments in WW2. The tactics of US destroyers in 1945 were vastly, vastly different than those of 1941, and much different than the "torpedo destroyer boats" of 1915. The tactics of US destroyers in 1989 were...well, by then about the only thing US destroyers were incapable of doing was carrying a sizable air wing or large marine force. They could shoot down aircraft, engage submarines, deploy rescue helicopters, and launch nuclear cruise missiles at targets over 1000 miles away.
So, I really have to take exception to the idea strategies and tactics haven't changed in centuries.
Quote:
The only difference between naval combat and space combat is a third dimension. Other than that there is no difference.
That's another unsupported statement that I'd have to take exception to. It's particularly contradicted the instant you review the sensor and detection rules.
| Venom |
| (Sergeant Major) |
| 07/06/09 11:25 PM |
| 207.191.200.101 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Sure, I would love to see more action on all these boards.
| Venom |
| (Sergeant Major) |
| 07/06/09 11:35 PM |
| 207.191.200.101 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
For the designs intended mission and thus potential targets the weapons load is apt. If anything I would move one HNPPC from each aft side and into the corresponding broadside to give them a little more bite. As for the rear being undefended, the destroyers should be able to manuver in such a way as to deter rear attack.
| Bob_Richter |
| (General) |
| 07/07/09 12:13 AM |
| 66.191.9.99 |
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
Quote:
A 50' PT boat was a threat to a WWII battleship, if the battleship was close enough to be hit by the PTs four torpedoes.
A threat, yes, but not a lethal one.
Contemporary battleships had not insignificant defenses against torpedos and routinely dodged them. They also had the capability to sink a PT Boat before it could bring its own weapons to bear at well beyond its range.
Interestingly, a Destroyer would have been in about the same boat (so to speak.)
For reference, here is a complete list of every battleship ever destroyed by a PT Boat acting alone:
-----
-----
Destroyers (and torpedo boats) were a meaningful threat to Battleships only when acting in groups.
Quote:
Destroyers where meant to protect Battleships and Aircraft Carriers for attacks from such boats.
Such vessels do not exist in Battletech, which means that the purpose of whatever we call a Destroyer can't be to destroy them.
Quote:
With the weight that the Naval PPC takes up you can have 120 Killer Whale missals. That would be one massive attack even a battleship would take knottiest of.
120 Killer Whale tubes is 18,000 tons, and requires an internal store of 1200 Killer whale missiles which themselves mass 60,000 tons. The total of 78000 tons is not only more than the mass of the Akira's primary battery (42,000 tons) but is 17.3% of the ship's design mass, far more than I had available for weaponry.
Had I discarded every other weapon system, I could have built a short-magazine missile array with similar performance, but it would have had only ten volleys. Ironically, it would have represented LESS of a threat to a Battleship than the Akira does, because the chances of reducing a well-armored warship that quickly with that little firepower are quite small, especially given that there exist significant active defenses against missiles, but not against energy weapons.
| His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey |
| (Lieutenant) |
| 07/07/09 07:31 AM |
| 24.4.97.143 |
|
|
|
Re: The Skies Aflame: Akira Destroyer
|
I have very limited accsess to stats for most everything other than construction of mechs and vehicles . *I lost all of my BT books do to theft when I was fired from the OTR trucking company. I did not have much of a choice but to leave all of my stuff out where others could get accsess to it and I was else where dealing with having to travel half the way across the country to get home.* I have only replaced BT Compendium so far. What I did find said that a NPPC was 6,000 tons and a Killer Whale was 50 tons. My response was based on thous numbers.