Endurance Mk II-class Fleet Carrier
Name/Type: Endurance-class Mk II Fleet Carrier
Designer/Manufacturer: R.E.C. / Contegorian Confederation
Designation: Fleet Carrier
Crew: 4,295 + 166 Gunners
Length: 1040 meters
Speed: 12 MGLT, 1000 Kph
Hyperdrive: x1
Shield Rating: 6000 SBD + 6000 SBD Backup
Hull Rating: 3200 RU
Weapons: 24 Turbolaser Cannons, 24 Ion Cannons, 20 Rotary Caltrop 5 Launchers, 20 Tractor Beams, 4 Assault Concussion Missile Launchers.
Fighter Complement: 18 Squadrons (216 Medium Fighters or equivalent).
Troops: 5,625 Troopers, 25 Ares-class Heavy Tanks, 50 Sentinel-class Medium Tanks.
Support Craft: 12 Y-4 Raptor Transports.
Basic Description: The Endurance Mk II-class Fleet Carrier is a Confederation-specific upgrade to the Endurance-class Fleet Carrier, originally produced by Republic Engineering Corporation for use by the New Republic Defense Force. As it name suggests, the Endurance Mk II is designed to serve as a mobile base for hundreds of starfighters, much like its New Republic predecessor. However, the Mk II is significantly different because of different emphasis within ship based on standard Confederation Fleet doctrine.
Whereas the Mk I was solely a fighter carrier, the Mk II is essentially an assault carrier; carrying heavier armor, weapons, and significant ground forces at the expense of its fighter complement and shield strength; much like the Venator-class Star Destroyer of the Old Republic. The pride of the carrier is it three half-wings of starfighters. One half-wing is composed of fighters for close-range assault, another for long-range superiority, and another half-wing is mission specific. Also within its cavernous hold is a significant ground force of slightly over two brigades along accompanied by an armored battalion.
Technical Description: The hull of the Mk II is the largest change of the ship compared to its predecessor. In order to make it more battle-worthy and accommodate the new ground forces, heavily reinforced and armored bulkheads were installed throughout the ship. This makes the ship more difficult to damage once the main armor is destroyed and also contains internal explosions if they do occur from sabotage or an ordinance accident. The main armor itself has been essentially doubled, not a difficult task considering how the Mk I was rather thin-skinned, making the Endurance capable of withstanding far more concentrated and powerful attacks. In addition, Confederate engineers have added in Electric Reactive Armor employed by KDI built vessels, making the warship exceptionally durable against explosive attacks. Compounding its resistance to physical attacks, the carrier also employs Anti-Concussion Field generators like the Revanche Star Defenders. The armament of the Endurance Mk II is essentially the same as the Mk I, but in greater quantities. The only difference between the two has been the replacement of the Mk I’s laser cannons in exchange for Caltrop Five Flechette Launchers employed in rotary mounts of five.
Role and Deployment: Endurance Mk IIs are typically employed in larger Confederation fleets to provide extensive, and flexible, fighter support throughout the fleet. In addition, they are also deployed to ferry around ground forces whether it be invasion, simple deployment, or evacuation. It is theorized by Confederation strategists that Mk IIs will act as command ships for smaller squadrons, much like its predecessor.
Comments
#18 2:25am 20/11/07
I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that when it comes to warships and combat I am very objective and quite impartial. Battle is battle.
Now, I am willing to submit that a carrier can indeed be a ship of the line in the space-faring sense but it would require trade offs. A Carrier of anysize cannot carry the weapons of a battleship and maintain the speed of a cruiser. However, it can be a carrier and a battleship - as are the Imperial Battleships we use - but they are slow and plodding with few exceptions. They are craft one does not want to face but could easily outrun.
I submit that a carrier-cruiser is possible and would be an intriguing step in warship design given the Contegorians are nothing like the Empire. However, I submit that reality play a role. A warship of a thousand meters in the design specified with those dimensions could not carry those sort of weapons troops and fighters easily. If the ship was a thousand meters wide tall and deep akin to a Borg Cube than possibly but it would be an ungainly thing.
I might recommend the following as to increase the reality of the design.
Corise wishes to make a type of warship that veers from accepted tactical thinking -- certainly it is not my expertise. I am very supportive of new ideas. I would like to see a prototype and its misgivings and it tried and tested over time to work up to the appropriate size.
#17 2:18am 20/11/07
[QUOTE]i smell a lack of objectivity[/QUOTE]
Close your legs?
#16 2:04am 20/11/07
i smell a lack of objectivity
#15 11:19pm 19/11/07
[QUOTE]It strikes me that many older fleeters have perceptions of what a carrier should and should not be; and that most carriers are escort carriers. Perhaps that was in the past, and that would certainly be understandable since most factions seem to concentrate on having ships packed with weaponry at the expense of carrying capacity. This ship goes against those notions in its design theory to be the exact opposite: more carrying capacity with secondary regard to weapons. If you claim that this ship cannot carry any weapon heavier than that of an escort carrier, then by the same logic, your battleships and heavy cruisers cannot carry more fighters than a typical Corellian corvette. And this, of course, would be ludicrous.[/QUOTE]Which is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. We all know about the weapon-fighter-whatever trade-off. Here's the catch: you haven't made any trade-off. You've got more fighters than is reasonable (period) for the size of ship. On top of that, you've got 11 000 soldiers (and their associated living quarters, mess halls, gear storage, food storage, etc.). Then you've got a decent amount of weapons. And on top of that you've got more powerful shields than a Star Destroyer.
So - cut 12 squadrons of fighters, cut the shields, and you might have a reasonable ship. But what you've got here is a cruiser and carrier wrapped into one with [b]none[/b] of the compromises a proper Cruiser-Carrier makes.
And, and FYI: "more carrying capacity with secondary regard to weapons" is more or less the definition of what an Escort Carrier is. Even the original [i]Endurance[/i] carried (at most) 12 squadrons. Most sources say 6. You've added half again or more than the original fighter compliment without making any compromise.
Magic?
#14 9:31pm 19/11/07
oh shit
#13 9:27pm 19/11/07
[URL=http://therebelfaction.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2119]Then what about this?[/URL]
And I quote...
[QUOTE]Embarked Craft-
400 Assorted fighters/bombers (rough, 40 squadrons)
20 Various support craft shuttles/transports
- 200 TIE Interceptor
- 80 TIE Defenders
- 50 TIE Bombers
- 40 TIE Scimitars
- 30 TIE Phantoms
- 5 Lambda Shuttles
- 8 Assault Shuttles
- 7 Stealthray Blastboats[/QUOTE]
Same peopple, different opinions.
#12 9:03pm 19/11/07
I agree with Corise. Zell has spoken, that is all.
#11 8:41pm 19/11/07
I'll only deal with the portion of this post that was in reply to my argument. First, every Imperial ship I have seen or used has been fairly balanced in terms of size, speed, power, shielding, armament, and armor. Increasing size and power allows a proportional increase of shielding, armament, and armor and a decrease in speed; however, every time one of the latter four is increased something else takes a hit. (I should add carrying capacity into that, due to the nature of this thread.)
The thing is, 18 squadrons is a lot of fighters. The Executor, at its smallest estimate, was 8000 meters, and it only carried 12 squadrons. I know, it carried other stuff too, but you get the point.
#10 7:41pm 19/11/07
Beff: I was going for the difference between American and British aircraft carriers in World War II. American carriers did not have armored decks, thus, when a bomb broke through the flight deck and landed on the ordinance bay, it exploded and caused a virulent chain reaction with the stored fuel and ordinance. British carriers did have armored decks and bulkheads which prevented that kind of catestrophic damage.
Drayson:
[QUOTE]No, it carried six. Just like every other reasonable carrier does. The reason you can't have another overpowered ship is because you're wrong. As for the Venator... you have one ship that some stats say is ridiculously overpowered. But there are far more examples that show that Carriers are underarmed. These are not frontline combat ships, they're carriers.
If you want 18 fighter squadrons plus all the other shit you've got, you're going to need a bigger ship[/QUOTE]
The official statement is that it has two wings. There have been people have interpretted 3 squadrons, and people that have interpretted it as 6 squadrons per wing, such as [URL=http://www.njoe.com/index.php?id=view&sub=tech&sub2=gffatech&sub3=2]here[/URL] and [URL=http://nifrpg.net/database/rebel_capships.shtml]here[/URL]. Given the Venator Model as well, the 6 squadron wings makes sense. The 3 squadron model does not, since then it'd be much more cost-effective to use an escort carrier that is half the size.
Yes, most carriers are underarmed, I agree. I am, however, intentionally making it somewhat armed to someone can't simply send a corvette and overpower it in a single post. This is a design choice of my own that has been supported in canon by the Venerator-class. If you have a problem with it, tough cookies.
[QUOTE]That was hard to say. Nevertheless, your ship is 1000+ meters. There is no way that 18 squadrons, all those weapons, all those troops, etc, would fit comfortably in a 1000 meter space. Now, if you don't mind us RPing the common sense thing (i.e., your soldiers are poor because they are in cramped quarters, or they are angry and don't fight well, or your fighters consistently break because of the bumps and jars they've had in getting out of the hangar bay, or during the trip) then you need to either make a bigger ship or take something off.[/QUOTE]
Really. In that case, I imagine that I should RP some Imperial ships as being overarmed and thus not firing because of a power drain. I do admit, the troop quarters are going to be somewhat cramped, much like sailors are in submarines. That's intentional. Most soldiers won't be stationed onboard for long amounts of times, they'll just be there mostly for a short ride.
If you want another example, I'll give it to you: the Acclamator-class Assault Ship. It carries 16,000 troopers, 320 speeder bikes, 48 AT-TE walkers, 36 SPHAs (which are 100 meters long), and 80 LAAT gunships, all within 752 meters that is also, unsurprising, a wedge shape. If I upscaled that, I'd be carrying 22,000 soldiers, 440 speeder bikes, 66 AT-TEs, 50 SPHAs, and 110 LAAT Gunships (or 18 squadrons of 10 meter long fighter craft). In fact, I suggest you do check out those figures to see for yourselves.
Park:
[QUOTE]As a rule of thumb, ships can carry a squadron of starfighters for every one hundred meters of length, but only with armament and protection that would make it less effective than a normal combat starship of the same size. For example, the smallest combat carrier I can think of would be the CR-90 Corvette Night Caller, which at 90 meters, carried eight X-wings and 4 TIE Fighters. But, it came at a cost of crew space and quarters, consumables and cargo capacity, and escape pods for crew escape. In addition, a tractor beam cost it a twin turbolaser cannon.
Not saying it's totally impossible for a 1,000 meter ship to carry 24 squadrons of starfighters, but it's got to have some serious concessions. Oh and the ship would have to be a flying block. No way are you going to fit all that into that little sliver of a ship in the picture.[/QUOTE]
I think the Alliance Escort Carrier breaks that rule of thumb quite easily with a squadron for every 56 meters. So does the Imperial Escort Carrier, with 83 meters per squadron. I think it's also important to note that the Night Caller isn't a specifically built carrier craft, but a hybrid warship-carrier, seeing that it still carried much of its original armament. Note that that Tractor beam that replaced the twin turbolaser cannon was "capable of hauling around war frigates" according to Janson in Wraith Squadron, which implies that it was fairly hefty duty, and probably power-consuming.
I'm pretty sure I've covered size and shape issues above with the examples of the Venerator and Acclamator comparisons.
To all:
It strikes me that many older fleeters have perceptions of what a carrier should and should not be; and that most carriers are escort carriers. Perhaps that was in the past, and that would certainly be understandable since most factions seem to concentrate on having ships packed with weaponry at the expense of carrying capacity. This ship goes against those notions in its design theory to be the exact opposite: more carrying capacity with secondary regard to weapons. If you claim that this ship cannot carry any weapon heavier than that of an escort carrier, then by the same logic, your battleships and heavy cruisers cannot carry more fighters than a typical Corellian corvette. And this, of course, would be ludicrous.
You see, I don't intend to have battleships and gun-loaded cruisers to be the main focus of the Confederate fleet, in contradiction to standard fleeting convention, but instead, I plan to be like the New Republic, and put more of a focus on starfighters.
#9 5:23pm 19/11/07
As a rule of thumb, ships can carry a squadron of starfighters for every one hundred meters of length, but only with armament and protection that would make it less effective than a normal combat starship of the same size. For example, the smallest combat carrier I can think of would be the CR-90 Corvette [i]Night Caller[/i], which at 90 meters, carried eight X-wings and 4 TIE Fighters. But, it came at a cost of crew space and quarters, consumables and cargo capacity, and escape pods for crew escape. In addition, a tractor beam cost it a twin turbolaser cannon.
Not saying it's totally impossible for a 1,000 meter ship to carry 24 squadrons of starfighters, but it's got to have some serious concessions. Oh and the ship would have to be a flying block. No way are you going to fit all that into that little sliver of a ship in the picture.
#8 4:31pm 19/11/07
Corise, as much as I like you as a person, I believe I have to ...agree...with...Drayson...
That was hard to say. Nevertheless, your ship is 1000+ meters. There is no way that 18 squadrons, all those weapons, all those troops, etc, would fit comfortably in a 1000 meter space. Now, if you don't mind us RPing the common sense thing (i.e., your soldiers are poor because they are in cramped quarters, or they are angry and don't fight well, or your fighters consistently break because of the bumps and jars they've had in getting out of the hangar bay, or during the trip) then you need to either make a bigger ship or take something off.
#7 4:21pm 19/11/07
Corise, historically at TRF whenever anyone built an escort carrier it was always 600m and carried 72 fighters (back when we actually had to make a post saying "x number of y ships building for z days at 250m/day"). I believe that is what Telan is going off of.
I didn't actually read the R&D, so I'm not going to comment on that. And Beff, why would we have an accident with one of our ships which would then give the opponent the opportunity to be like "ha, you had an accident, therefore my R&Ds are all superior and yours are inferior and half your weapons will misfire in your next major battle with me and I'll pwnzor you".
#6 2:27pm 19/11/07
[QUOTE=Corise Lucerne]The Endurance Mk I carries 24 Squadrons of Starfighters...[/QUOTE]No, it carried six. Just like every other reasonable carrier does. The reason you can't have another overpowered ship is because you're wrong. As for the Venator... you have one ship that some stats say is ridiculously overpowered. But there are far more examples that show that Carriers are underarmed. These are not frontline combat ships, they're carriers.
If you want 18 fighter squadrons plus all the other shit you've got, you're going to need a bigger ship.
#5 6:50am 19/11/07
[QUOTE]...also contains internal explosions if they do occur from sabotage or an ordinance accident.[/QUOTE]
Discussing which; when was the last time any ship-of-the-line had a magazine backfire or other catastrophic event result from poor R&D at TRF?
#4 4:57pm 18/11/07
Actually, the [URL=http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/EscortCarrier.html]Imperial Escort Carrier[/URL] is 600 meters, while the [URL=http://www.galacticempiredatabank.com/QuasarCruiser.html]Alliance Escort Carrier [/URL] is 340 meters long.
And the Endurance Mk II isn't an Escort Carrier, which is intentionally cheap and small, just like the real escort carriers of World War 2. I can't see what I've done wrong here, if the ship is as equal to a real canon ship, and it does have weaknesses.
<<<123>>>