Game Warden Forums

Hosted => Battlestar Galactica: Beyond the Red Line => Topic started by: Jangiri on May 22, 2008, 04:23:46 AM

Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 22, 2008, 04:23:46 AM
what really confuses me is why so many people get all of the battlestar classes mixed up
there is a columbia class (galactica is one)
and then there is mercury class
and i am confused whether it is valkyrie class or bezerk
someone please list the rest
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 22, 2008, 04:35:42 AM
Pegasus is a Mercury Class.
Galactica is an unknown class.
The first Columbia was the same unknown class.
Valkyrie is a different unknown class.

We don't know the rest.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 22, 2008, 05:06:52 AM
What I can tell.

     Name   -                        Class
---------------------------------------
Athena         -                    Unsure (most likely Galactica class)
Alantia         -                    Unsure (CNP) (Flagship)
1st Columbia  -                   Galatica
2nd Columbia   -                  Unsure (CNP)
Galactica       -                   Galactica
Mercury        -                    Mercury (CNP)
Pegasus       -                     Mercury (CNP - but not integrated)
Solaria         -                     Unsure (CNP)
Triton          -                     Unsure (CNP)
Valkrie          -                    Unsure (It kinda looks like a mercury but smaller) as seen in Hero.

There are some others not named, just seen destroyed (as far as i can tell)
CNP = Baltar's Command Navigation Program (others might have had it too) These were named by Adama in the miniseries. The Columbia(1) was destroyed in the 1st cylon war. The Columbia(2) was lost during the attack of the 12 colonies.

Edit - The ships with CNP are probably Mercury class but AFAIK it was never mentioned.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 22, 2008, 08:56:19 AM
There was the ship in the mini-series cut in half over Caprica. That was a Galactica-type. It was probably one of the few remaining Galactica types built, possibly a newer one and obviously upgraded with the CNP. So we know that the Mercury and perhaps Galactica type battlestars (except for the Galactica herself) had the CNP.

We have at least 3 classes of Battlestar. What I'd like to know are the classes of warships that were at the Scorpion shipyards in Razor. Are there any pics?
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 22, 2008, 09:01:55 AM
Quote from: Foundry;100710
There was the ship in the mini-series cut in half over Caprica. That was a Galactica-type. It was probably one of the few remaining Galactica types built, possibly a newer one and obviously upgraded with the CNP. So we know that the Mercury and perhaps Galactica type battlestars (except for the Galactica herself) had the CNP.

We have at least 3 classes of Battlestar. What I'd like to know are the classes of warships that were at the Scorpion shipyards in Razor. Are there any pics?


Those ships kinda looked like the Valkyrie. Mercury class but half the size, maybe like a carrier support or Battlecruiser.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 22, 2008, 09:13:08 AM
I take that back. They are Battlestars with flight pods and all just smaller but similar in design to the Mercury class.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 22, 2008, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;100699
what really confuses me is why so many people get all of the battlestar classes mixed up
there is a columbia class (galactica is one)
and then there is mercury class
and i am confused whether it is valkyrie class or bezerk
someone please list the rest


Aye, theres the Mercury Class, but no other class names are known. People just refere to the other classes as Galactica Type and Valkyrie Type when its required.

Also for the Bezerk, Its not even known if its a battlestar, Escort, Cruiser, Supply Ship, etc. All we do know is that the original design was fan made, and about 1/3 the size of Galactica, it was an escort ship, and carried i think it was 10 vipers. Also generally referred to as the Bezerk type, i guess.

Ship classes generally arent used in BSG, as there not required for the story to progress
Title: ship classes
Post by: P-90_177 on May 22, 2008, 04:42:56 PM
I thought since Galactica was known as a Columbia class Battlestar in the old series, it was generally known as a Columbia class in this new series too.
Title: ship classes
Post by: kvitske on May 22, 2008, 04:49:46 PM
It's never officially been known as a Columbia class, not in the original series nor in the new series.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 22, 2008, 04:49:51 PM
It isn't known as a Colombia class in either series the whole concept is fanwanking.

EDIT: Got there a little late.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Echilles on May 22, 2008, 05:11:43 PM
Are we about to witness the first ship class debate in the history?:nervous:
Title: ship classes
Post by: Josh_88 on May 22, 2008, 05:46:01 PM
no we arent lol, "what has happened before will happen again"
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 22, 2008, 11:16:42 PM
are their warstars or firestars in the new series
we haven't seen enough other militar ships other than battlestars
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 22, 2008, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: Jangiri;100754
are their warstars or firestars in the new series
we haven't seen enough other militar ships other than battlestars


nope, but then again, there not canon either

The only canon military ships in Battlestar Galactica that arent battlestars are the Tiger Destroyer from a TOS Encylopedia, but thats not totally considered canon i dont think.

Also, theres the Bezerk, but noone knows if its a warship or a freightor. Hope we see some form of flashback which shows it with more of a description of what its for... probally wont though
Title: ship classes
Post by: Angreifer on May 23, 2008, 03:26:22 AM
Quote from: Foundry;100710
There was the ship in the mini-series cut in half over Caprica. That was a Galactica-type. It was probably one of the few remaining Galactica types built, possibly a newer one and obviously upgraded with the CNP.


It's been stated that that Galactica-type was only there because the folks at Zoic didn't have the time or budget or something to render a new ship to have destroyed, so they just took their Galactica model.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 23, 2008, 02:51:45 PM
Quote from: Angreifer;100773
It's been stated that that Galactica-type was only there because the folks at Zoic didn't have the time or budget or something to render a new ship to have destroyed, so they just took their Galactica model.


Yeah I guess so. Still, it's on screen now so might as well make an excuse for it. Using that Battlestar is the same as the RAF using Nimrods. Heck, the Galactica AFAIK is only 50 years old. Comets have been around for 60 years and the Nimrod variant around 40 years. The Galactica type over Caprica is probably just a new build of an old design same as Nimrod to Comet.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on May 23, 2008, 05:55:18 PM
War ships escpecially large ones (take CV-67 the JFK) even by todays standards was just recently decommisioned. Not that it wasn't effective, just costly to operate.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 23, 2008, 11:22:43 PM
can someone post a picture of a bezerk i have never seen one
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 24, 2008, 12:07:48 AM
Here ya go--
[ATTACH]4356[/ATTACH]
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 24, 2008, 12:08:28 AM
during the first night of the miniseries aaron doral said that their were twelve galactica type battlestar created during the original cylon war. that proves galactica, is a galactica type battlestar
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 24, 2008, 12:18:24 AM
that pic was very interesting
needed more turrets
proves adama wasn't the only commander not to network computers
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 24, 2008, 12:19:45 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;100849
that pic was very interesting
needed more turrets
proves adama wasn't the only commander not to network computers


LOL - Only thing I know called Bezerk. (besides ex-girlfriend)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 24, 2008, 01:31:26 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;100848
during the first night of the miniseries aaron doral said that their were twelve galactica type battlestar created during the original cylon war. that proves galactica, is a galactica type battlestar


No, it just proves there were twelve of that type ship produced.  He also said it was the last one in service, yet the model was used to be broken in half as another battlestar, so be careful about absolute pronouncements by a known Cylon.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 24, 2008, 11:16:02 AM
There's also another Galactica type seen in Razor.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 24, 2008, 12:10:28 PM
Quote from: Cl1nt;100871
There's also another Galactica type seen in Razor.


which somehow manages to be massive in compariosn to the Pegasus 0_o
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 24, 2008, 01:15:22 PM
Steroid abuse.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 24, 2008, 06:19:06 PM
the one split in half over caprica was the second columbia.
the one in the scorpion shipyard was battlestar triton me thinks
Title: ship classes
Post by: Prutus on May 24, 2008, 08:24:30 PM
What makes you think that?
There was 120 battlestars in colonial fleet. So its 1/120 that ship seen near Caprica is 2nd Columbia. Same for shipyard triton.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 24, 2008, 11:11:57 PM
Quote from: Jangiri;100902
the one split in half over caprica was the second columbia.
the one in the scorpion shipyard was battlestar triton me thinks


yeah, if your going to make random facts, you need to suply supporting evidence
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 25, 2008, 04:41:04 AM
if you look closely at the flight pod on the one exploding over caprica it says columbia

in the comm chatter in the miniseries it talks about battlestar triton and atlantia by the scorpion fleet shipyards. im not sure if thats what it said but thats what i heard
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 25, 2008, 04:45:21 AM
look closely
(http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/1/1f/Col1.jpg)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 25, 2008, 05:08:29 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;100940
look closely
(http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/1/1f/Col1.jpg)



That picture is from razor.  You can also see the flight pod of the galactica off to the left hand side.  that right there is the deathscene of the first columbia from razor.  check out the wibosides, you can see the same scene there.  the ship split in half in the mini series is so degraded even on super zoom and HD, I cant make out the writing at all.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 25, 2008, 10:36:02 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;100939
if you look closely at the flight pod on the one exploding over caprica it says columbia

in the comm chatter in the miniseries it talks about battlestar triton and atlantia by the scorpion fleet shipyards. im not sure if thats what it said but thats what i heard


The shipyards where never mentioned in the miniseries, im pretty sure the only fight location was "Over Virgon", going to check the miniseries DVD now
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 25, 2008, 11:56:02 AM
I just checked, Adama says "Atlantia, Triton, Solaria and Columbia, The list continues, have all been destroyed"

You dont here anything about them in background chatter, however in the original Battlestar Galactica, while the opening fight is in progress you here in background chater from the above mentioned battlestars
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 25, 2008, 04:29:42 PM
I don't think there's even the need for anything more than Battlestars anyway. With a fighting force of a battleship and a complement of fighters and utility craft that can get to places quickly there's really no need for any kind of escort/fast attack ship. I mean to say that in the BSG universe they don't need any Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers etc. It's because the armed forces in the BSG universe are so advanced. It's becoming the same in the real world too. In the real world the Aircraft carrier reigns supreme. The only other vessels that are used regularly by real-world navies are submarines and destroyers. The latter of which is only really used for escort, patrol and on occasion assault and the former of which is to destroy vessels using stealth and to provide a hard to detect mobile missile base.

In BSG ships and fighters are not restrained by different mediums such as water and sea; they're all in space. A group of fighters or Raptors (the latter probably seeing as how they can board vessels) can just as easily run down pirates and criminals as destroyers/patrol boats can today and more effectively as they are small and nimble and most importantly they operate in the same medium as any ship: space.

A Battlestar is the Colonial's ultimate answer for a jack-of-all-trades military vessel. It can do anything it wants whether the vessel itself is used or it's complement of Vipers and Raptors. Unless there is a good, solid argument for having warships in the BSG universe other than a Battlestar then I can't see the need for anything further.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 25, 2008, 05:33:38 PM
Personally, i like the idea of there being other military ships, for jobs that dont require the size/power of a battlestar.

Also, in a mdoern naval fleet, you obviously have the Carrier, which can deffend its self to a certain extent, but they do have Escrots such as Submarines, Frigates and Destoryers. In the Royal Navy, Destroyers are Anti-Air (so in space, they would be responceible for defence from fighters and missiles, working with a battlestars FLAK, that would make an almost impenitrable defence), Frigates are Anti Submarine, so not required in space, Submarines are used to attack surface ships, so in space they would be used to attack a target, presumably while being covered by a destroyers flak or missiles for defence.

After that, theres theres Patrol ships, but Raptors fit that role, as they also fit the Transport, EWAR and Bomber roles. While Vipers fill th role as a fighter.

I just dont see the point in havign a fleet full of battlestar, which probally cost alot to build/maintain, when you can have smaller faster ships capable of doing roles
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 25, 2008, 07:27:37 PM
Quote from: Wolfy;101019
Personally, i like the idea of there being other military ships, for jobs that dont require the size/power of a battlestar.

Also, in a mdoern naval fleet, you obviously have the Carrier, which can deffend its self to a certain extent, but they do have Escrots such as Submarines, Frigates and Destoryers. In the Royal Navy, Destroyers are Anti-Air (so in space, they would be responceible for defence from fighters and missiles, working with a battlestars FLAK, that would make an almost impenitrable defence), Frigates are Anti Submarine, so not required in space, Submarines are used to attack surface ships, so in space they would be used to attack a target, presumably while being covered by a destroyers flak or missiles for defence.

After that, theres theres Patrol ships, but Raptors fit that role, as they also fit the Transport, EWAR and Bomber roles. While Vipers fill th role as a fighter.

I just dont see the point in havign a fleet full of battlestar, which probally cost alot to build/maintain, when you can have smaller faster ships capable of doing roles


That's my point though. A modern carrier of our water navies has to have escorts because it isn't capable of defending itself to the same extent a dedicated vessel such as a destroyer can. Take the modern naval carrier: it's main role is to function as a moving airbase but because that is it's main function defences are limited to how much else you can fit onboard; which is not very much. A Battlestar is just so freaking huge that it can have anything you want to stick on it.

Smaller faster ships such as destroyers, frigates and the like are only really required by the navy because you can't get the same amount of equipment in the air (unless you're using lots and lots of aeroplanes). The Aircraft carrier is really the only naval power that means anything anyway. The seas are all ruled from the air, space is ruled from...space. Therefore Vipers, Raptors and Battlestars are all equal components. The only naval unit that can really compete with air units are advanced anti-air destroyers such as the Type-45 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer) (built near where I live. Supposedly can shoot down a golf ball several miles away. Fat chance if it's true).

Still, what you've said about the fleet of Battlestars is more or less true. They do look bloody expensive. I suppose the only reason they were kept around is because they're the best known defence against the Cylons. Since the Cylon basestar is the only Cylon warship we've seen so far it's possible that-whether or not you forego all arguments about smaller warships-the best defence the Colonial's had were Battlestars and that they kept them exclusively in case of another Cylon invasion. Given time Battlestars may have become redundant given the lack of action they had seen since the First Cylon War.

Don't forget also that the impact of massive space-faring warships on the Colonial's economy is probably only equal to the impact Carrier Groups have on the US economy since the Colonies are a group of 12 united planets.

If the Cylons themselves had smaller warships then I'd say it would be a necessity for the Colonials to build counters to those as well i.e. their own smaller warships. I can't see why this would come about though as anything smaller than a battlestar would be shredded if it came close and anything smaller than that, while being able to out-run a Battlestar, would get bee-hived by Vipers and Raptors. Again it's rapidly becoming the same situation today as any naval vessel, carriers and anti-air units included, can be significantly damaged by air attack. There's no perfect defence. This is a problem when dealing with US Carriers. They believe there's no need for armoured decks because in theory a missile launched by a Fighter-Bomber shouldn't be able to get through. It doesn't matter how robust defences become there's always a way to get through. Even a Battlestar, with it's huge size owing to it's effective defences, can be fragged by a bunch of Raiders.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 25, 2008, 11:14:17 PM
many smaller enemies can overcome one great foe
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 25, 2008, 11:17:37 PM
ever try smacking a beehive?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 26, 2008, 01:43:26 AM
well said
battlestars or basestars don't have enough weapons to take out four or five smaller vessels. it takes too long to target one ship and kill it. it is not efficient enough. they should have fire support vessels
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 26, 2008, 05:59:54 AM
Ever try smacking a beehive with a shell that's more than twice the size of a human?

A battlestar can attack as many ships as it wants. Every turret can individually target a ship. Small ships would get torn up in one or two shots.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 26, 2008, 06:07:16 AM
I love how these armchair admirals proclaim one thing or another about Naval Combat, be it in space or afloat, and how the ships are designed.  Especially when some of the comments are flat out wrong.

Foundry, you should have left well enough alone.  Your first post was overall reasonable, just a few minor inaccuracies, but nothing to really get wound up over.  The last one though though...  very rough with good and wrong freely mixed together.   You were OK until you started with the escort roles and ship designs.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 26, 2008, 06:13:24 AM
I think when talking about small ships attacking a battlestar, people need to remember the main guns on Galactica fire shells about the same size as a Viper. I'd say Peggy's guns were even bigger.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 26, 2008, 06:26:29 AM
The U.S. Navy considers an aircraft carrier vulnerable, thats why it is deployed as part of a Carrier Battle Group. The Battle Group varies depending on the circumstances but always with - Carrier - Air wing - at least 2 destroyers - at least 1 missile cruiser - at least 1 submarine and a supply ship. So in the water the air group provides basic protection for the battle group and the battle group provides logistics and protection for the carrier.

like this -
[ATTACH]4364[/ATTACH]

The point is if a carrier battle group is deployed with at least 5 or as many 19 ships, It would seem logical that a space based carrier would be deployed in a similar fashion.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Tikey on May 26, 2008, 05:41:38 PM
The only reason I've ever seen logical to have smaller vessels are for missions in which a battleship with the firepower and size of a battlestar would be over the top.
Smaller crafts for peacekeeping, patrol and other small duties.

Just my two cents.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 26, 2008, 07:31:28 PM
that is one of the other reasons
vipers and raptors can't be the only support ships
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 26, 2008, 07:39:12 PM
What Tikey said combined with the comment on economy would be the only reason smaller vessels would be needed.

Sometimes sending a Battlestar would be far more than needed, and thus the cost for running it would be greater than needed.

Also, I think people are taking the Carrier/Battlestar comparison too far. Sorry but the modern Carrier is helpless compared to the Battlestar (speaking in equivalents obviously).
Perhaps we should narrow down the exact reasons the modern Carrier needs extra defense and then compare that to the Battlestar.

Subs: You can't hide underwater in space. That weak point is irrelevant in space.
Destroyers: Its really the firepower they deliver thats the weakness. We've seen Battlestars take nukes to the side and keep fighting, not to mention that they could be shot before they reach the hull by turrets or vipers. A Carrier has similar defenses, but is not tough enough to take the hit if just one slips through. Battlestar wins again. Plus the Battlestar's own firepower against the Destroyer class is greater than a Carrier's.
All of the above is also made somewhat irrelevant by the fact that direct ship to ship warfare is pretty much obsolete and cruise missiles or fighter launched air to surface missiles are how one ship kills another from a distance too far for turrets. BSG navel warfare seems to have closed that gap again and we're back to direct volleys (one area I think BSG sacrifices realism for drama/action).

I got a bit carried away and you may disagree with some of my finer points, but I think we need to remember that the Battlestars are not Carriers, they are Battleships with fighter bays.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 26, 2008, 08:55:51 PM
Here is quote from Ron D. Moore's Blog.

"I always thought that the Colonial Fleet would have a variety of vessels for various purposes. The battlestars formed the nucleus of fleet, with battlegroups around them, much like modern day carrier groups. Battlestars are different in that unlike carriers, they also carry heavy weapons of their own and fight other opposing capital ships -- in a sense, they are a combination carrier/battleship. But there might also have been dedicated heavy gun ships and smaller carriers as well."
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 26, 2008, 09:07:47 PM
Quote from: Enki;101084
I love how these armchair admirals proclaim one thing or another about Naval Combat, be it in space or afloat, and how the ships are designed.  Especially when some of the comments are flat out wrong.

Foundry, you should have left well enough alone.  Your first post was overall reasonable, just a few minor inaccuracies, but nothing to really get wound up over.  The last one though though...  very rough with good and wrong freely mixed together.   You were OK until you started with the escort roles and ship designs.


Yeah I guess so, you're right about the armchair Admiral I'm only an amateur until I get my commission from Uni. Rauko if you think you got carried away then just take a look at my post and feel better about yourself! I'm sorry if I seemed a little arrogant or self-righteous it's just the thing when reading text; the reader makes up the tone of voice not the writer.

I still maintain though that the seas are ruled from the air and have been since Taranto, sinking of the Bismarck, Pearl Harbour, Midway, Yamato etc.

As Rauko put it the Battlestar is a Battleship with fighter bays. They don't need a battle group like the modern carrier because they are the Battlegroup.

I only recall mentioning specific ship design when referring to armoured flight decks. As far as I know the US Nimitz class does not have an armoured flight deck or at least not one that would withstand any guided missile with sufficient yield launched from a fighter-bomber or any other platform. I don't recall the exact defence the Carrier Battle Group employs exactly but I know that in the event of an incoming missile it includes a layered defence that I think (not 100% certain) begins with AWACS attempting to remotely jam the warhead.

I know I'm generalising here but it's the best I'll be able to do 1000 of miles away from the US Navy. I'll leave the mechanics of real-world naval warfare to more qualified individuals. Still, even an amateur can make an assesment of the Colonial Fleet, it is a fictional one afterall.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 26, 2008, 09:16:21 PM
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood...

I DO think there were/should be smaller vessels. For both smaller missions and to compliment a battlestar.
A battlegroup would be more effective than a lone battlestar, possibly a couple. Smaller vessels are more mobile and if they can survive heavy firepower they would be able to outmaneuver larger vessels.
Just don't think a Battlestar NEEDS it.

The Colonial Fleet, as we know it in the series, gained its current form during the first Cylon war, right? Well from what we've seen the Cylons use Capital ships and Raiders with the occasional heavy Raider thrown in (Rapter equivalent?)
Well you build your army to oppose your enemy. If the enemy doesn't use smaller ships, then you don't really need them either. Maybe that could be an explanation for the lack of smaller ships?

But yea, its all conjecture. Even if you are an expert on modern navel warfare, you'd still be simply guessing when it comes to space warfare.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 26, 2008, 09:38:52 PM
Of course there is this quote as well.

"you see, the Cylon double-talk sensors tracking the Olympic Carrier's nonsense drive signature needed 15 minutes to relay the made-up data wave through the pretend continuum, then the Cylon navigational hyper silly system needed another 10 minutes to recalculate the flux capacitor"
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 26, 2008, 10:46:12 PM
Quote from: Rauko;101142
But yea, its all conjecture. Even if you are an expert on modern navel warfare, you'd still be simply guessing when it comes to space warfare.


Why would it be guessing? The principles of killing ships is much the same, just in a slightly different environment.  Warfare principles are still much the same as they were for Sun Tzu, and he is quite applicable to modern day navies, not just ground combat.  You can't breath in space and you can't breath underwater.  Equivalent enough for me.  Also the phrase, what is old is new again is ignored far too often at the peril of those doing the ignoring.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 26, 2008, 10:55:06 PM
Quote from: Foundry;101139
Yeah I guess so, you're right about the armchair Admiral I'm only an amateur until I get my commission from Uni..


Get good at your engineering but take some classics too.  

Be a geek and play Harpoon on the gymnasium floor. You will get innate insight to the scale of modern ship combat.

Every unit needs experts. Make your goal to be the guy everyone asks about something.  Preferably tactics, but systems geeks are needed too.  You cannot tell them you are that guy, you just need to be that good. And the ability to do that tactical/systems magic when the computer is broke-assed will make everyone want you either flying with them or on watch when it gets interesting.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on May 27, 2008, 12:41:14 AM
Well I do know the EA6B's with the massive RF transmitter/jammers were replaced by FA-18 Hornets rigged for the duty for handling that role in carrier battle groups.
Needless to say a considerably faster long range replacement.
Sea Whiz supposedly had adaptations for Anti Missile uses, but thats a stretch.
Of course I always read about "potential" DARPA projects for handling these items including the 747 based plasma laser turret and that one is a reality. But what is actually deployed right now?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 28, 2008, 03:21:02 AM
i think we are all thinking on the perspective of having one or two battlestars.
we all want more big canon ships but remember the colonial fleet consisted of hundreds of battlestars. early on the fleet might have needed more smaller craft but the colonial fleet had so many battlestars they were decomissioning them. different battlestar classes probably were the support ships.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 28, 2008, 09:40:39 AM
to be honest, the reason you decomission a battlestar is because its old.

The older a ship gets, the more maintenance time is required, the more faults it gets, etc. In the end its porbaly going to be cheaper to decomission a battlestar and build a newer replacement. Or so i think.

Having said that, the Galacticas doing just fine, give or take some holes in the hull where there shouldnt be any
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 28, 2008, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: Enki;101155
Why would it be guessing? The principles of killing ships is much the same, just in a slightly different environment.  Warfare principles are still much the same as they were for Sun Tzu, and he is quite applicable to modern day navies, not just ground combat.  You can't breath in space and you can't breath underwater.  Equivalent enough for me.  Also the phrase, what is old is new again is ignored far too often at the peril of those doing the ignoring.


Uhh...I can agree to some point. So an expert would be making "Educated guesstimates"

But I'm sorry, the physics in space are completely different than anything we have on earth. Water is close, but not exact. Not to mention that in BSG they have these nifty things called FLT drives, which would drastically change the way war is waged. There has never been near instant long distance travel.

If you wanted an Atlantic Carrier group to get to the Indian Ocean you can bet its not happening overnight. But in BSG it does (the equivalent)

That alone could be the reason for not many smaller combat vessels. I'm not sure how it would play out.

I agree Jan on the idea that the different smaller and larger classes of battlestars could be the way they did it.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 28, 2008, 01:00:52 PM
I agree that there are probably larger and smaller Battlestar classes, in fact we have the evidence for it when looking at the Beast and Bucket and to a lesser extent the Valkyrie although it only looks small; there's no reference. Rauko, you've given as good a reason as any for dismissing smaller warships: they don't need faster ships because they can all FTL.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Josh_88 on May 28, 2008, 03:39:38 PM
they don't need  faster ships thanks to FTL making them cover long distances fast, but once you've reached an encounter a faster ship still has benefits because speed helps cover the small distances faster. Just an example a raptor and a battlestar both have FTL but if they were going to move in to attack a basestar the raptor could move in launch a missle and move back out (assuming it had the survivability to do so) much faster then a battlestar could move in close to attack and we havent seen a battlestar make a short distance jump to cover that gap. not trying to argue either way, just saying faster ships have benefits after you reach encounters which could just as easily be an argument for varying sizes and speeds.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 28, 2008, 04:43:17 PM
I hate to say it, but we dont really know if a raptor is faster than a battlestar.

then again, its a faster acceleration you need, overall speed is quite unimportant in space i beleive
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 28, 2008, 09:11:06 PM
Well speed is important, but it's relative speed that counts rather than the absolute speed.  Acceleration would be a component of that.

RDM has said in his blog he would imagine that there were other smaller types of ships for specific tasks.  That only makes sense.  What those tasks are and how they would play in large scale combat are left totally to our imaginations.  Beyond that, until we see one in the show, we can assume it is canon that they were all destroyed via the CNP back door trick and follow-up attacks.

BtRL and BtRL fans should just let those go for now, and let those folks outside the team play with that concept to their hearts content.  Then new fan ideas can be subject to community scrutiny and voting by how many 3rd party FRED missions use them.  This game will have legs and those who fell strongly enough about their ideas will have plenty of time to test them out to their hearts content.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 28, 2008, 10:25:32 PM
I know this is going back a bit. I can't recall how much damage the galactica sustained when it was hit with a nuke, but it seemed that some very small explosives caused a lot more damage in episode "water". I assume there is a physics argument in there or maybe it was just dramatic license.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 28, 2008, 10:35:17 PM
hmm, the nuke seemed to cause alot more internal damage to the flight pod, so the interneal fires caused decomressions it seems

not sure how reallistic that would be or not however, probally quite. howeverm, i dont do phsics, let alone space physics.

the small explosions in Water did very small amounts of damage in comparison, probally similar to what would happen if a missile exploded internally
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 28, 2008, 11:01:22 PM
Quote from: wiley;101356
I know this is going back a bit. I can't recall how much damage the galactica sustained when it was hit with a nuke, but it seemed that some very small explosives caused a lot more damage in episode "water". I assume there is a physics argument in there or maybe it was just dramatic license.


The physics difference is the incompressibility of water.  I have seen video, which I cannot unfortunately link to because of where it is hosted, of small black cat fire crackers used as an example of what the waters incompressibility can do.

Now mentally imagine a black cat taped to a standard fired clay brick.  Light the fuze and stand back.  Bang, it leaves a black spot, but no other damage.

Now do the same thing but put the firecracker/brick into a bucket of water.  Bang!  Water flying everywhere!!  Now reach in for the brick.  Don't pull out a brick, pull out what is now essentially gravel.

Quite illuminating and makes you really not want to have a torpedo go off under your ship.  2000# bomb on flight deck, yeah big problem, but manageable after.  2000# torp warhead, how long can you tread water.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 28, 2008, 11:01:42 PM
Nukes landed on the armored outside while the "water" bombs were inside?...
Didn't think they did a lot of damage as far as quantity of damage...it was just to more critical areas. Quality, not quantity.
We could make up some fancy reason about water amplifying the force of the bombs if that doesn't work for you though :)

EDIT: So Enkei posted above me while I was writing this...and I guess he likes my water + bomb explanation :)
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on May 28, 2008, 11:19:38 PM
Well that does makes a lot of sense to me. After reading that, I recalled an episode of Mythbusters where they blew up a safe from the inside out (after filling it will water) and it WAS completely destroyed.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on May 28, 2008, 11:46:08 PM
the explosions also need oxygen so if it is on the outside the result would be minimal
no wonder atom smashers use a vacuum to blow stuff up
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 29, 2008, 12:04:46 AM
I know its mostly TOS and mostly non-canon, but it still is interesting:

http://ravensbranch.allen.com/colonialshipdescriptions.html

Especially what he says about the "Defender" is interesting.
I'll have to rewatch the Season 2 finale to check it out.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 29, 2008, 12:22:58 AM
Quote from: Rauko;101360
Nukes landed on the armored outside while the "water" bombs were inside?...
Didn't think they did a lot of damage as far as quantity of damage...it was just to more critical areas. Quality, not quantity.
We could make up some fancy reason about water amplifying the force of the bombs if that doesn't work for you though :)

EDIT: So Enkei posted above me while I was writing this...and I guess he likes my water + bomb explanation :)

Your first paragraph is also quite appropriate.  The "outside" factor does make a HUGE difference.  In space there is no medium to propagate or magnify a shock wave as there is in an atmosphere.  This drastically reduces nuclear weapons effectiveness against hardened targets in space.  The firecracker and brick metaphor fits this perfectly.  This is not new, it is a several decades old known issue.  Nuclear Nike Zeus missiles didn't try to destroy the warheads of incoming nuclear missiles in space, they just tried to render them dud's from the Nike's neutron wave output.

Space detonated nuclear weapon effects will be restricted to expanding gas of the weapon itself and the instantaneous heat output of the fission reaction. Not much oomph there in comparison to an atmospheric blast.  Various types of composite armor are already available which can give quite acceptable survivability against a single indirect nuclear blast within an atmosphere.  It isn't that big a stretch to move that from tanks and personnel carriers to battlestar type ships with far advanced manufacturing tech.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 29, 2008, 04:02:35 AM
Well, as a tin can sailor I'll put in my two cents on what I've seen/done:

1.) A carrier is no less vulnerable without her escorts as she is with, especially in a nuclear exchange, but thatís neither here nor there, and Crossroads is still shaping naval theory.  God damn cruise missiles havenít made things any easier, especially when the hostile in question knows the fleets relative angle and distance from launch.  But thatís nukes, not conventional firepower.

2.) The firepower of an Arliegh Burke is god damn impressive, especially those newer models.  With the added CIWS coverage of a Burke, as well as her sub killing abilities, a battle group gets god damn scary.

3.) The Carriers do a shit ton more to protect those destroyers than the other way around.  in a Horizon based engagements (for those of you who arenít tin cans, that means VISUAL RANGE) a carrier definitely benefits from the destroyers cannons, but at extreme ranges, one has missiles, and the other offers multi platform support (lift, Air to Ground support, air superiority, a much longer range sensory input, longer range ELINT and EA/EP, as well as all the other strange and immensely useless things Jet Jockies do :p )


Now as a tin man, I'd say that a Battlestar is pretty stand-alone.  It has the fighter cover, and it has the firepower, which reduces the overall need to supply several ships.  Granted, I think it fanciful to combine both into one massive structure, and its one thing that always bothered me about TOS.  But thatís neither here nor there.  Why not have dedicated carrier, with a shit-ton of armor, and dedicated firepower?  Personally, it strikes me as odd that the Colonial would invest that much of BOTH resources in something that didnít require the separation of dedicated firepower.  But hey, that might just be me, I think the idea is ďdramaticallyĒ coo, but Iím not convinced on the practicalities.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on May 29, 2008, 04:25:33 AM
Don't worry Barid, you just need a heart. ;)
Title: ship classes
Post by: karajorma on May 29, 2008, 07:37:50 AM
Funny thing about this sort of discussion is that everyone always looks at the military angle and no one mentions that there might be other considerations.

For example cost. If a destroyer with 1/3 the power of a battlestar costs 1/2 as much to build and run I doubt they'd build that many. It's simply more cost effective to build another battlestar most of the time.
 The Colonials had 40 years of peace, which is plenty of time for short-sighted governments to cut military spending in favour of vote-winning domestic policies.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on May 29, 2008, 12:27:03 PM
I object...I brought up the economical/logistical reason already :P

But yea, that 40 years thing is a good point.
Though...logistically, isn't it easier to keep smaller ships for basic patrol instead of scrapping little ones and just keeping big ones? Unless their greed was still underlined with fear and the battlestars were such an icon of power and protection that they couldn't bear getting rid of them...
Title: ship classes
Post by: karajorma on May 29, 2008, 02:31:00 PM
Or politically they couldn't get rid of them without seeming to weaken the fleet. I can easily see a situation where a politician gets away with decommissioning 30 or 40 destroyers and justifies it by saying that they're building 7 or 8 new Battlestars. :)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 29, 2008, 04:11:38 PM
Plus on top of those Battlestars you get Vipers.

I'll have a Battlestar please.
Would you like an Air Wing with that? :p

Assuming that the only vessel the modern Cylon fleet has is the Basestar and that the best defence against that Basestar is a Battlestar; is there still any argument for having smaller warships? Vipers and Raptors do the job anyway...this looks familiar, I haven't got anything to say! :blah:

What you've said kara is more or less what the Royal Navy is doing. They're downsizing on most of the Destroyers and Frigates AFAIK but they're pretty much justifying that with the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers and the Astute class submarines.
Title: ship classes
Post by: SFM Hobbes on May 29, 2008, 04:20:45 PM
I would agree with Kara. We're only likely to find older-style support ships, possibly refitted, if any are left in service by this time.  It would be favourable to instead fund the operation of a fewer number of battlestars, and even many of these were becoming smaller and more specialized.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 29, 2008, 04:26:06 PM
that remids me, have we had any word on what a Battlestar Group actually consists of?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 29, 2008, 04:35:27 PM
RDM says it's supposedly based on a Carrier Battle Group. That's all we've got. Either it's a single Battlestar with a bunch of support ships, a group of multiple Battlestars, or a single Battlestar serving as a flagship of a bunch of smaller warships. We've got no idea.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 29, 2008, 06:00:27 PM
Who knows, especially since the term was made up AFTER primary filming for the miniseries.  

Seems the Art department put BSG on the BSG-75 insignia when they were supposed to have just put BS-75.  Since it was already on the patches and background in film, RDM approved of a made up Battlestar "Group" term to cover the gaffe.  His blog comments on being similar to a carrier battle group came well after that.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 29, 2008, 06:04:48 PM
Quote from: Foundry;101421
RDM says it's supposedly based on a Carrier Battle Group. That's all we've got. Either it's a single Battlestar with a bunch of support ships, a group of multiple Battlestars, or a single Battlestar serving as a flagship of a bunch of smaller warships. We've got no idea.


Hem, he might be confused on that.  Since the term is now Carrier Strike Group, and Carrier Air Wing.  Lets consider what they have, 2 Tico's, 3 Burkes, 2 Strike Subs, 1 Carrier, 1 Carrier Air wing, and 1 Tender.

Examining the Air Wing Squadrons, we have 3 Fighter and 1 Attack, 1 lift, 1 AWAC, 1 Sub Hunter, 1 Electronic Warfare.

So, lets translate that into BSG equivalents…

Galactica has:  Raptors, Vipers, (room for 80 fighters?  How many Raptors?) several point defense guns, several (I think 12 dual over/under) main guns, several missile launch silos.  Again, how many on each?

Now, judging the size of the nukes seen over the algae planet, I personally estimate between 5 Kilotons and 2.3 megatons.  Then there’s the potential for tactical nukes, which sadly we’ve yet to see in colonial hands :(.  Those ship launched missiles look ICBM quality to me, so I supect they are pretty damn potent.  So, we have the “Horizon Warfare” capability of “Escorts”, the fighter capability of a carrier, the lift ability of a carrier, I swear they have a MEU on there too, with the rate Marines die and are replaced, so lets add that one just for kickers, and as for logistics, the damn clunker was built to be tender in her own right.  The whole sub screen becomes moot.

In my estimation, again this is me theorizing on what little BSG info I have at my disposal, a battlestar is meant NOT to have the escorts.  So, taking that a step further, here’s what I suspect a Battlestar Group is:  1 Battlestar and it support craft (all internal).  I also suspect that the squadrons are seperated in to Fighter/Attack, Bomber, Lift, and Early Warning/EA/ED.  Again, my personal estimation is a BSG consiting of 4 Fighter Squadrons, 1 Bomber Squadron, 2 Lift squadrons, and 1 EWAR squadron, each at 8-12 air craft.

Of course, considering the nature of space warfare, (and if you want a damn fine feel for it, play Eve Online,) with that much area, you need to split up resources.  As the Guide says: space is BIG.  So, you need a recon element, a central element, and home base for logistic support.  A battlestar carries Raptors, which presumably fill for early warning and electronic warfare support to the fighter squadrons.  By combining multiple Battlestars under the command of one admiral, you can extend your eyes and ears by increasing the overall presence.  I suspect that it is most feasible to project the early warning in a 8 point sphere around the battlestar, thus the supportable distance is increased by creating an overlap of battlestars.

The other reason I personally suspect a battlestar group is several battlestars is partitioning.  Carrier Strike Group stays at its distance, while the destroyers close the gap and hang out in the shallows.  Thus, one battlestar stays back, one goes to point A, one goes to point B, and as such.  Of course, maybe I’m just over complicating things.  That’s also possible.  But here’s how I like to see it:  120 Battlestars is a lot.  Conservatively, that’s 120 CAWs, 10,000 air craft, 120 MEU’s, 1200 City-killer nukes, and millions of rounds of ammunition.  That’s some hefty frakkin firepower.  
If I were to conduct a war, I’d want ships at a rally point, as well as ships deployed to forward areas.  Lets give a hypothetical based on our own neighborhood.  Earth is our homeworld, so we’d want a formidable defense.  So, there’s some ships accounted for.  I’d want to defend the major mineral resources of the home systems, so that’s a small detachment at Mars, a detachment at Jupiter, and given the liability of the Belt, I’d want patrols in there, too.  
Now let us assume we have FTL, which means I’d want defenses for the interim territory, as well as out laying systems.  Ok, the numbers are now just rolling up, as each increase in space covered is an increase in needed material, and an organizational hazard (as any tincan can attest, the distance between the Pickets and CSG is a pain to keep secure.  So we send ships out to our stellar neighbors.  These systems should be locked down, and it is prudent to place supplies at those rally points, so our invest increases.
Estimated, that’s group at earth, a group at mars, a group at Venus, a group at Jupiter, a group at the belt, a group at Uranus, and several groups deployed ”abroad”.   So lets examine the battlestar universe.  Defense for the big 12 Colonies, as well as their off shoots, exploratory defenses, as well as pickets for little flair ups, defense for shipping between systems, active defense (a nice way to say attacking the pirates…), and how much area and liabity in between.  To keep logistics easy, you want every major juncture to have a manager, and we have that demonstrated in BSG with the fleet yards and Razor’s little battle in the first war.
So, the Battlestar has a commander for its affairs, which are multi-lateral in that the commander has command over the air wing (which in the USN reports more to the admiral than ship captain), as well as the marines.  That battlestar is then responsible to his group admiral, (and since RDM was a tincan, he has probably seen a destroyer’s Squadron Badge, which lists the ship’s name and squadron.  The Ship’s Heraldry is usually located Above and to the right, with a plaque listing the ships commander, XO, and CMC or LCPO’s above and to the right.  They can also be found located on the ship’s staff below the National Ensign.  Some anal retention for those of you who care.)
So, you send someone to the “Etna” system with three or four battle stars to root out the pirates.  One battle star engages the pirate’s home base, two more scour the system, and the fourth, and probably the Flagship maintains a central point of security in the event things go bad.  Said pattern allows for the whole system to be locked down, as well as a rally point to be set up for damaged ships to gather at.  Granted, such an investiture of resources is a bit over extensive.  But you get the point, each battle star is independent but the structure allows for each ship to know what the others are doing, and for them to link up and pool if need be.

Feel free to pick my thoughts apart guys.  I’m just laying my thoughts at the time out there, since we have been denied some real canon on fleet organizational structure and the grouping of battlestars.  Perhaps there are BSG’s and BSF’s (fleets?)?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 29, 2008, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Foundry;101417
What you've said kara is more or less what the Royal Navy is doing. They're downsizing on most of the Destroyers and Frigates AFAIK but they're pretty much justifying that with the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers and the Astute class submarines.


To be honest, the Royal Navy is down sizeing everything.

There weill be less Astute submarines thn the amount there replaceing. I dont think therel be as many Type 45's as the 42's there replaceing. We're already gone from 3 carriers to 2, but the 3rd can be easilly recomissioned given an emergency, and where onl getting 2 new carriers to replace the 2 remaining ones

haveing said that, the amount of aircraft on the carriers will be twice as much as curently. so at the moment its either 40 aircraft
 between the 2 carriers, on the new carriers its 40 each, so twice as many aircraft.

We seem to be relying on aircraft more...
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 29, 2008, 06:29:24 PM
Quote from: Enki;101353
Well speed is important, but it's relative speed that counts rather than the absolute speed.  Acceleration would be a component of that.

RDM has said in his blog he would imagine that there were other smaller types of ships for specific tasks.  That only makes sense.  What those tasks are and how they would play in large scale combat are left totally to our imaginations.  Beyond that, until we see one in the show, we can assume it is canon that they were all destroyed via the CNP back door trick and follow-up attacks.

BtRL and BtRL fans should just let those go for now, and let those folks outside the team play with that concept to their hearts content.  Then new fan ideas can be subject to community scrutiny and voting by how many 3rd party FRED missions use them.  This game will have legs and those who fell strongly enough about their ideas will have plenty of time to test them out to their hearts content.


I for one have several chapters worth of material that involves noting but Battlestars, since I cant for the life of me find something they dont do well, except heavy landing, but I suspect those were two types of ships normally ON a battlestar that just werent present on Bucket or Beast, do to maintenance and stand down.

On the flip side, the idea's I have work because the principle is only a few isolated, damaged, more than half dead pockets survived, with no real command structure left.

what I want to know is how many basestars the cylon's maintained?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 29, 2008, 06:36:11 PM
Quote from: Wolfy;101431
To be honest, the Royal Navy is down sizeing everything.

There weill be less Astute submarines thn the amount there replaceing. I dont think therel be as many Type 45's as the 42's there replaceing. We're already gone from 3 carriers to 2, but the 3rd can be easilly recomissioned given an emergency, and where onl getting 2 new carriers to replace the 2 remaining ones

haveing said that, the amount of aircraft on the carriers will be twice as much as curently. so at the moment its either 40 aircraft
 between the 2 carriers, on the new carriers its 40 each, so twice as many aircraft.

We seem to be relying on aircraft more...


Yeah, the USN is going in largely the same direction, but I think overall its an improvement.  the Burke is about the same maintenance cost of a Spruance, and twice the capability.  Granted, all the Sprus are out now.  the Carriers are another thing I'm not sold on.  True, the Air Force has some real issues getting ground support right, but the destroyers now carry a heavier support role with thier Missile Package.

as for carriers, I'm not impressed with the performance of the newer Clunkers, since they seem to spend more time in refit than at sea.  course, that may just be my prejudice...
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on May 29, 2008, 08:25:15 PM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101428
Hem, he might be confused on that.  Since the term is now Carrier Strike Group, and Carrier Air Wing.  Lets consider what they have, 2 Tico's, 3 Burkes, 2 Strike Subs, 1 Carrier, 1 Carrier Air wing, and 1 Tender.


Aww man, Carrier Battle Group sounds way cooler. I hate how militaries for some reason feel the need to sensitise their names. The US used to have the Department of War. The UK used to have the War Office. Now it's DoD and MoD! An organisation that kills people for a living doesn't need a PC name!

I'm tired so I'll let someone else hack up that large post.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 30, 2008, 12:10:39 AM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101428

Now, judging the size of the nukes seen over the algae planet, I personally estimate between 5 Kilotons and 2.3 megatons.  Then there’s the potential for tactical nukes, which sadly we’ve yet to see in colonial hands :(.  Those ship launched missiles look ICBM quality to me, so I supect they are pretty damn potent.  

Feel free to pick my thoughts apart guys.  I’m just laying my thoughts at the time out there, since we have been denied some real canon on fleet organizational structure and the grouping of battlestars.  Perhaps there are BSG’s and BSF’s (fleets?)?

I like how you hedge. "between 5 Kilotons and 2.3 megatons"  :lol:  Only a factor of ~500! :lol:  Personally I think the ship to ground nucs would be on the order of 50MT city busters, but that doesn't really matter. As for tactical nucs, we have seen those or at least the warhead.  Gina blew up Cloud Nine with the one Adama lent Baltar for his Cylon detector.

The rest is quite reasonable, although I wouldn't get wrapped around the CVBG/CSG difference.  That was literally an astute O-7's play to expand his commands realm of influence and make a quick jump to O-9.  It worked. :)  While I wasn't in the room when the idea was informally floated to Third Fleet and VCNO, I was tasked with visually smoothing the slideset for the follow-on presentations.

In defense of the idea there was more than a little concern over CVBG/ARG compatibility and ARG training at the time. But the names were purely to make CSG and ESG look sexy on a slide together and deflect the ARG bubbas protestations that their name was being changed since CVBG was going away too.  But CSG was just CVBG with a new name.

Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101433
I for one have several chapters worth of material that involves noting but Battlestars, since I cant for the life of me find something they dont do well, except heavy landing, but I suspect those were two types of ships normally ON a battlestar that just werent present on Bucket or Beast, do to maintenance and stand down.

On the flip side, the idea's I have work because the principle is only a few isolated, damaged, more than half dead pockets survived, with no real command structure left.

what I want to know is how many basestars the cylon's maintained?

I happen to agree with you that the fleet would likely be just battlestars, but I am overruled by RDMs own statements so I just grit my teeth and accept it.  Don't ask about the pain of accepting a single system for the Colonies though.  That is too great so I just try to ignore the whole concept.

Quote from: Foundry;101448
Aww man, Carrier Battle Group sounds way cooler. I hate how militaries for some reason feel the need to sensitise their names. The US used to have the Department of War. The UK used to have the War Office. Now it's DoD and MoD! An organisation that kills people for a living doesn't need a PC name!
Not a PC name my friend, just the different name you whisper in another mans ear as you rip out his life force, err... take away his toys with dad's permission. Also at the time of the name change "Strike" was considered the sexy name for communicating a unit that takes combat to the enemy, rather than just fighting in place.  "Strike" showed up damn near everywhere in new names for awhile.

Quote
I'm tired so I'll let someone else hack up that large post.

That's probably not gonna happen, or if someone tries they are gonna have an awful hard time of it.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 30, 2008, 12:39:53 AM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101436
Yeah, the USN is going in largely the same direction, but I think overall its an improvement.  the Burke is about the same maintenance cost of a Spruance, and twice the capability.  Granted, all the Sprus are out now.  the Carriers are another thing I'm not sold on.  True, the Air Force has some real issues getting ground support right, but the destroyers now carry a heavier support role with thier Missile Package.

as for carriers, I'm not impressed with the performance of the newer Clunkers, since they seem to spend more time in refit than at sea.  course, that may just be my prejudice...

Zoomies don't want to do air support, unless they are Warthog drivers.  That's the main problem there.  Airwing bubbas are getting pretty damn good at it now since that's almost all of what they have been doing for the past 5 years.  

And yes, the Boats have been having yard issues.  A big problem is that they are amongst the biggest most complex machines on the planet and upgrading stuff is a poorly understood science with lots of unplanned consequences and just flat out piss-poor non-componentized designs. The basic design hasn't changed since Nimitz so everything that is done now is based off decisions that were made in the early '60s.  That leads to change Widget A and find out Widget B no longer works as advertised.  Now chain that ad nauseum.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Arsenal on May 30, 2008, 01:15:44 AM
I'd have thought that there would be some small escorts for Battlestars.  The Pegasus and Glalactica both have almost no point defense or artillery in their rear arc.  I'd want a small 'destroyer' with flak autocannons and a 'frigate' with some heavy artillery covering a Battlestars rear from fighters, missiles and faster capital ships.

http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l9/TonyG2_2006/Berzerk%20Class%20Escort%20Ship/

3 images of the Berzerk class escort I found by googling if anyone is interested.  There are more shots, including orthogrpahics, on Sci Fi Meshes.  Just search for Berzerk class escort.

Quote from: Wolfy;101431
To be honest, the Royal Navy is down sizeing everything...

...We're already gone from 3 carriers to 2, but the 3rd can be easilly recomissioned given an emergency, and where onl getting 2 new carriers to replace the 2 remaining ones



From what I know of the RN we've never had 3 midget carriers on the go at a time, one has always been mothballed to reduce costs, so it won't really change anything.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 30, 2008, 01:51:59 AM
The Berzerk mesh was pitched as concept art for the re-imagined series and a version was eventually used as one of the victims in Scorpion Shipyards. We don't know how RDM intended it to be used if that was even discussed at all.  It could just be there as eye-fluff so not everything was Galactica/Peggy/Valkyrie.  

I do consider it slightly telling though that there wasn't anything that looked like an escort in Scorpion shipyards, despite what RDM said a few years earlier about imagining there were escorts. There are just a few REALLY BIG ships and some really small things that looked that looked like utility vessels/space-taxis.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 30, 2008, 04:11:23 AM
where is it canon that all 12 are in the same solor system, or is the Battlestar 40,000 where some are hive cities, too?
Title: ship classes
Post by: newman on May 30, 2008, 07:50:28 AM
That all 12 colonies are in the same system? It's been more hinted then said, several times.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Sidestep on May 30, 2008, 08:09:33 AM
Quote from: Arsenal;101464


http://s92.photobucket.com/albums/l9/TonyG2_2006/Berzerk%20Class%20Escort%20Ship/

3 images of the Berzerk class escort I found by googling if anyone is interested.  There are more shots, including orthogrpahics, on Sci Fi Meshes.  Just search for Berzerk class escort.


That's the first time I've really seen the Bezerk, pretty cool. What Viper/Raptor compliment does it have?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on May 30, 2008, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: Arsenal;101464
From what I know of the RN we've never had 3 midget carriers on the go at a time, one has always been mothballed to reduce costs, so it won't really change anything.


HMS Invinceible
HMS Illustrious
HMS Ark Royal

and to a certain extent, even though its only an Assault ship

HMS Ocean

For them, they where all comissioned at the same time, just not necersairily at sea at the same time, one or 2 will be under refit at a time. But they then essentialy decomissioned the Invinceible for no good reason, which seems odd the way the worlds going, the more carriers the better right now

but oh well, its all imaterial
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 30, 2008, 04:29:20 PM
Quote from: newman;101473
That all 12 colonies are in the same system? It's been more hinted then said, several times.


I've said it once and I'll say it again:  Battlestar 40k
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on May 30, 2008, 04:38:19 PM
Quote from: newman;101473
That all 12 colonies are in the same system? It's been more hinted then said, several times.


I've said it once and I'll say it again:  Battlestar 40k
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on May 30, 2008, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101469
where is it canon that all 12 are in the same solor system, or is the Battlestar 40,000 where some are hive cities, too?
Quote from: newman;101473
That all 12 colonies are in the same system? It's been more hinted then said, several times.

RDM's Blog  Jan 30, 2005 (http://blogs.scifi.com/battlestar/2005/01/).  It's long, I quote the depressing paragraph below.

Quote
The mythology of the new Galactica is heavily influenced by that established in the original. I've always approached this project with an eye toward taking the original material and making it work in a new context. I still try to do this whenever possible. Does it make sense that there would be a star system with 12 inhabitable planets? Not really, but that was in the original and at some point I decided to run with that as another nod to the old show. The mythology of the old show centered around Kobol and the thirteen "tribes of man," so I've kept it as the centerpiece of ours. Not every single element is the same and not every element is even intact, but the roots are there. The point was to make another version of Battlestar Galactica, not just use the name.

Realize I just killed several million brain cells with the effort of trying to suppress actually looking at the text...
Title: ship classes
Post by: Arsenal on May 31, 2008, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: Sidestep;101474
That's the first time I've really seen the Bezerk, pretty cool. What Viper/Raptor compliment does it have?


If you look at the left most of these images, you can see the loading bays for the Viper tubes.  I count 5 alcoves on 1 side, so I assume only 10 Viper tubes in total.  Looks like 5 artillery turrets and 10 PD battereies per side too.

Virgon and Caprica, as well as the Ragnar gas-giant, are in the same solar system.  Galactica could have moved from behind Virgons moon to Ragnar at sublight in 3 days according to Tigh.  Boomer makes it from the Galactica to Caprica without FTL also.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 01, 2008, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: Wolfy;101357
hmm, the nuke seemed to cause alot more internal damage to the flight pod, so the interneal fires caused decomressions it seems

not sure how reallistic that would be or not however, probally quite. howeverm, i dont do phsics, let alone space physics.

the small explosions in Water did very small amounts of damage in comparison, probally similar to what would happen if a missile exploded internally
Think of the Dambusters - the whole point of the bouncing bombs, which were exceptionally difficult to make and deliver, was to put the charge up against the dam structure under high pressure water - the concussion of the water exacerbated the blast.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 01, 2008, 09:11:09 PM
Quote from: Wolfy;101481
HMS Invinceible
HMS Illustrious
HMS Ark Royal

and to a certain extent, even though its only an Assault ship

HMS Ocean

For them, they where all comissioned at the same time, just not necersairily at sea at the same time, one or 2 will be under refit at a time. But they then essentialy decomissioned the Invinceible for no good reason, which seems odd the way the worlds going, the more carriers the better right now

but oh well, its all imaterial


Invincible has been paid off prematurely - the RN now only have two carriers.  Brown has single handedly destroyed more RN vessels in the past decade than anyone else did in history.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 01, 2008, 09:20:28 PM
For those that continue to argue that the entire Colonial Fleet would have comprised of Battlestars, you are very mistaken.  As Enki and others have stated, any fleet needs a range of vessels with a mix of capabilities.  It's also very expensive to make carriers, so smaller, cheaper vessels have to be used to make up the numbers.  Their abscence from the Sporpian yards means nothing - those yards were for very large vessels, and the frigates, cruisers and destroyers probably have yards with smaller berths.  They may also have escaped, beingt smaller and nimbler (and maybe needing less time to secure and launch than a big Battlestar).

As for the arguement that one Battlestar is powerful enough not to need a picket or supporting battle group - have you never heard of flanking maneouvers?  Or blocking an enemy's line of escape?  How about being able to shoot at both sides of an enemy vessel simultaneously?  Did you consider that it may be an advantage to be able split your forces to engage on separate targets?  Or to have the ability to cricle planets in opposite directions to prevent the enemy form hiding on the other side in a matching orbit?  No ship makes a major engagement alone unless it has to.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 01, 2008, 11:52:50 PM
please no one make more long arguments that involve evidence from some fraking navy textbook. i don't give a &(#! its a sci-fi show
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 02, 2008, 01:06:12 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;101712
please no one make more long arguments that involve evidence from some fraking navy textbook. i don't give a &(#! its a sci-fi show


Then capitulate. Because if you want to throw away a couple centuries of consistent Naval Science then you just have fiction.  If that's the case, supermarkets have whole display racks full of books with covers that sport a shirtless Fabio that fit that bill nicely.:lol:
Title: ship classes
Post by: YIIMM on June 02, 2008, 01:37:25 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;101712
please no one make more long arguments that involve evidence from some fraking navy textbook. i don't give a &(#! its a sci-fi show


Then don't read them. Simple :)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 02, 2008, 02:20:37 AM
the ocean isn't space
space isn't the ocean
their is no reference for space combat
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 02, 2008, 02:58:20 AM
Umm. No.

First principles are first principles and as much as YOU don't think Naval Combat is 3 dimensional, it most definitely is. And it can actually be harder when the ship is restricted to the surface because aircraft and submarines that fight aren't.  Oh yeah, those aircraft and submarines take each other on too, across the medium exchange of surface tension.  And all those first principles of 3D combat are the same, even though there are some specific weaponry and sensor effects different in detail.

Space combat between fleets is just modern Naval Combat without the sea-air interface getting in the way.  Remove that handicap and there you are!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 02, 2008, 03:09:28 AM
and as somebody who used to play with said electronics and coordinate firepower, lemme be a bit more specific:
the average Burke has to hit Subs, Land Targets and Air Targets, all the while maintaning electronic supperiority over the enemy (yeah, I was an ELINT spec'ing EW2 when I left).  in space, the onoy difference is you get to use the same firepower for ALL your targets, after that, 3D aweness still a hasnt changed.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 02, 2008, 03:59:29 AM
Quote from: Snagger;101694
For those that continue to argue that the entire Colonial Fleet would have comprised of Battlestars, you are very mistaken.  As Enki and others have stated, any fleet needs a range of vessels with a mix of capabilities.  It's also very expensive to make carriers, so smaller, cheaper vessels have to be used to make up the numbers.  Their abscence from the Sporpian yards means nothing - those yards were for very large vessels, and the frigates, cruisers and destroyers probably have yards with smaller berths.  They may also have escaped, beingt smaller and nimbler (and maybe needing less time to secure and launch than a big Battlestar).

As for the argument that one Battlestar is powerful enough not to need a picket or supporting battle group - have you never heard of flanking maneuvers?  Or blocking an enemy's line of escape?  How about being able to shoot at both sides of an enemy vessel simultaneously?  Did you consider that it may be an advantage to be able split your forces to engage on separate targets?  Or to have the ability to circle planets in opposite directions to prevent the enemy form hiding on the other side in a matching orbit?  No ship makes a major engagement alone unless it has to.



Yeah, I've thought about that, but I still keep coming back to square 1.)  Battlestars, as we've scene them, are prone to being out numbered, but donít seem prone to being out flanked.  the other benefit of going all battlestar, and I'm sure the colonials would have learned this the hard way, is that high firepower, less armored warships are easier to pop.  Concentrated firepower from the basestars would end a picket very quickly.  With a more flexible 3D environment, the pickets would be easier to target and engage, thus rendering them, well, useless.  In order to make the kind of armor and armament worth the cost, it has to be pretty sizable indeed, and at that point, your crossing into a construction vs maintenance curve.  Fixed costs vs long-term variable costs really get brass and senators motivated.  Now, what I can see is a ALL gun ship, about 2/3 the size of galactica minus her flight pods being used as a support ship, do to the armor needs and the point defense needs.  In an age of guided missiles, size isnít an issue anymore (trust me, with current tech, you really can hit Folgersís can from 172 miles away.  Donít ask, it isnt a funny story, just dumb.  On a side note, why the hell dontthe Cylons AIM for the water valve and hyrdo-berth?  MUCH more bang for the buck nukewise if they hit that!)  So, Size becomes a relevant issue.  Logistically, what I can see is various sizes of battlestars, but none of them being particularly small, just smaller than some super heavies.

the main issue I see is a parallel of sorts to world war 2.  For the most part, fleets didnít see each other, so the race was to field carriers.  However, in the event fleets did meet each other, battleships were present.  The real value of cruisers today is their firepower, and the same goes for destroyers, and if it were logistically feasible to get a carrier to wield the kind of weaponry a destroyer can, and get in the places the average tincan can, you bet your ass the admirals would refocus the fleet.  Thatís essentially what a battle star is, the firepower, and the air cover.

As for blocking lines of maneuver:  FTL.  A ship that can't jump is pretty much toast.  That, more than anything else, is the tactical issue.  Fighting an enemy that can bring in reinforcements in an instant, or leave at will.  in the old days, fleets didnít chase each other because of Horizon Based Warfare (whatís over the horizon), and now, in the age of planes, horizons have just expanded, and space, the Guide says, is BIG.  So, a battlestar doesnt really have to stay and fight, but it does have to be capable of holding its own till it can jump.  That i think does require a fleet, but I'll get to that in a moment.

Now, as to fighting alone, again, itís a matter of logistics, and that I agree with you on.  I'd suspect its an issue of more battlestars, where one is good, 3 is better.  But because of replacement costs, i'd suspect very few lighter craft would be used.  Most of the roles filled by other craft in "modern" conventional warfare are protection from air, horizon directed barrage, and under water.  Since the ocean isnít an issue, the subs are out, and their easy kills to a destroyer assisted by a buoy chopper anyway.  Since the sky is still an issue, they have their birds, so that brings the carrier component into the prime...  horizon based warfare, well, without gravity to fight you, you have a full 3D environment to maneuver in, allowing you pick the angle you like the best, and with FTL, well, recon wins there...  which means lighter heavy hitters are out, since they are easier to kill and present the biggest threat over all.  In fact, given the combat environment demonstrated in galactica, I see no reason at all for mixed unit fleets.  Battlestars do it all, and are economical.  Sure one is expensive, but it is a lot more expensive to replace 4 lesser ships, the peacetime maintenance costs are a drag down (hence the reason the USN retired the Sprues and Big John, even though they were still viable, and arguably, still needed.)

Now, thatís not to say your wrong, in a peacetime environment, you get a lot of crappy, worthless ships (the Reagan Years Navy peeps?) that look good on paper but donít hold up in the least to more effective, well rounded ships (the Spruance and Ticonderoga Classes as a prime examples of a superb design compared to a much more numerous fleet of Aluminum hulled recycling candidates).  I just personally cant find a tactical fault in the battlestar, aside from it needs a crew, it needs birds, and it needs fuel and ammo.  It takes a punch well, it dishes one to boot, has superb point defense, has "Shore to Land" capabilities and long distance patrol capability to boot.  The only non battle stars I can imagine are supply ships, and I can maybe see those being escorted by a token support fleet, but I can more see them being escorted by a smaller battlestar.

To give a hypothetical, if I was a Cylon, I'd want to hit the fleet first and early, I'd have a ranged recon group observe (raiders), then I'd jump in with the firepower needs to pop the primary targets.  I'd arrange by grid and priority ranking just incase comms are lost.  lets say the colonial fleet I'm tracking has a battlestar, 3 lighter escorts just for popping fighters, and 3 big gun ships.

I'd jump in with 4 basestars, swarm the big guns with raiders, with the sole intent of stripping the main guns, while concentrating all my missiles on the fighter killers, one after the next.  Once the fighter-killers are down, missiles get directed at the big gun ships, then finally all guns concentrate on battle star, assuming it hasnít jumped by now.  So, it jumps, and Iíve killed how many humans?  Now the story is not terribly different if they had 3 battlestars instead... except for a shit ton more birds in the air.  If I was a colonial strategist, I'd remember that, and instead of building more escorts, Iíd spend the money on battlestars, also remembering the money I've saved on fuel and supply.

Actually, Iíve kinda described a scene from razor there.  3 battle stars vs some basestarsÖ
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 02, 2008, 04:23:19 AM
stop with posts like that they are too long
i know i will never finish reading that
Title: ship classes
Post by: Fish on June 02, 2008, 04:27:52 AM
The internet is not for your viewing pleasure. If you see something you dislike, ignore it.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 02, 2008, 04:28:45 AM
just to let you know i am very aware that space combat is very similar to ocean combat but just the fact that in space any thing can change pitch roll and yaw without changing which direction you are going changes about 2/3 of the tactics making any textbooks almost useless. the only relative thing is theory
now read the first post on this thread and get more on topic.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on June 02, 2008, 04:31:10 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;101738
stop with posts like that they are too long
i know i will never finish reading that


In that case you can forget about that book report.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 02, 2008, 07:37:28 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;101727
the ocean isn't space
space isn't the ocean
their is no reference for space combat
Look at any form of land, sea or air combat and you will see a range of units, equipment, tactics and strategies based on using a combination of multiple assets.  No type of warfare is waged with a single unit, not even nuclear.  Even terrorists operate in multiple cells made up of several people.  Your argument that ocean warfare is not parallel to space warfare is limited - the details will be different, but the overall principles of all forms of combat are the same.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 02, 2008, 07:52:15 AM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;101737
Yeah, I've thought about that, but I still keep coming back to square 1.) Ö
All very well reasoned.  However, a battlestar has several problems:  it has vulnerable flight pods/landing decks; it is to big to maneouver quickly in a fight; is just too costly to build enough of to have numerous battle groups of.  A supporting group of heavily armoured and heavily armed destroyers with no vulnerable landing decks would be able to protect the carrier ship better than another battlestar could.

The comparison to naval ships is good here - pickets are still needed for basically the same reasons (concentration and dispersal of fire, protection of vulnerable spots...), and even the US can't afford seven fleets made up of three or more carriers each.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 02, 2008, 11:11:44 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;101738
stop with posts like that they are too long
i know i will never finish reading that


I read it al, didnt take that long to read it.

Also, the basic theory for space combat, as has already been stated, is essentially the same, except for Carriers and support ships, they now also have 3d movement

although, im now getting to a point i dont want to discuss this any more, everything being said now si pretty similar to whats already been said
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 02, 2008, 02:36:51 PM
Yea I'm with Wolfy. People's opinions are set in stone by now and discussion won't do much more good.

I'm just annoyed that people continue to identify the Battlestar as a carrier more than a battleship.
And that someone actually suggested that fast maneuvering ships could block a larger, slower ship's escape...coughftlcough

Smaller ships for support, patrol and smaller missions, not to mention troop transports: I'm good with that.

Smaller warship trying to take on Base Stars side by side with the Battlestars: Not ok with.

FTL lets you pick your fights. If on the offensive you jump into the position you want, you don't have to be fast to get there. And if on the defensive, you want big ships like the Battlestars which can take a beating, cover the retreat of other ships (those support, partrols, transports and any civs) and still survive long enough to jump out themselves.
No other fleet configuration would be able to do that without losing ships.

If the Cylons used a different fleet configuration then the Colonials could too, but their military was completely designed to fight Cylons. Their configuration is going to be based on countering the Cylon fleets. Not on some antiquated idea of what a battle group should be like.

EDIT: Small example: I'm guessing most of you have played some kind of large scale space combat sim or strategy game? You're probably thinking about how you often make lots of smaller ships to overwhelm big enemy ships? Yea, I do it too...in games. Think back again, when you overrun the enemy, you beat them but you lose several small ship. Probably the cost of losing several small ones is far less than one big one. But thats a game. Real life warfare isn't (or shouldn't) be about simple numbers and trying to kill more and lose less, let alone look at it from financial point of view while people are dying. As I said above, a Battlestar has a high level of survivability. That means far less casualties even if it may not be as offensively effective. Because you'd have many more ship losses (more loss of life) with lots of smaller ships than just big ones that can retreat in the blink of an eye, after surviving a couple of minutes to get the FTL ready..
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 02, 2008, 03:26:30 PM
You've made some good points there Rauko, nobody has yet brought up the topic of survivability. It's getting to the point where we're all recylcing things that have been said numerous times already. As you said though, most people here have their opinions set in stone. I still believe in the one almighty Battlestar, but the fact is the arguments for either side are too strong to eliminate the other. We've thrown in our Acid and Alkali and ended up with neither, just salt and water. (cheap metaphor I know)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 02, 2008, 06:36:27 PM
A destroyer wouldn't neccessarily be small, though it would be significantly smaller than a battlestar.  It could have the same firepower and armour strength but measure half the size, not needing the lading decks, catapults, hangars, fuel and parts, pilots' and engineers' quarters, rations and catering, mess halls...

I'd estimate you could have a ship every bit as powerful as a battlestar but literally half the size if you got rid of the air wing.  That'd be a useful ship in fleet engagements, especially since it'd be tougher, less likely to be boarded and much quicker than a battlestar.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 02, 2008, 06:50:56 PM
But..it doesn't have an Air Wing. Speed is nothing in space, acceleration yes but that's a minute advantage considering all major warships would have FTL.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 02, 2008, 07:00:08 PM
lol
Lets be fair. Space warfare probably just plain wouldn't have small fighters like Vipers to begin with :P
At least not to the extent that BSG uses them. Fleets probably WOULD be more like the battle group that people are talking about. But thats not what we're given in the BSG universe.

So we're all trying to find the most probable compliment of an already improbable configuration.

There comes a point where we have to accept what we're given (Battlestars and Vipers) and accept it, as flawed as it may be.

On the bright side, episodes with fighting are much more fun thanks to those fighters.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 02, 2008, 07:15:19 PM
realiticlly, a space battle would be held over such a huge distance, hundreds of times more than u see in any sci-fi on tv. unfortuneatly, that doesnt make very good viewing on tv.

in space, a projectile travels untill it collides with somthing, or untill gravity takes hold of it and pulls it into whatevers produceing the gravity, which is also a collision.

so in a realistic space battle, tracking is the most important part of a battle, you wouldnt be able to point in the general direction and shoot. so really, battlestar isnt realistic in any sence
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 02, 2008, 07:47:54 PM
Quote from: Wolfy;101796
realiticlly, a space battle would be held over such a huge distance, hundreds of times more than u see in any sci-fi on tv. unfortuneatly, that doesnt make very good viewing on tv.

in space, a projectile travels untill it collides with somthing, or untill gravity takes hold of it and pulls it into whatevers produceing the gravity, which is also a collision.

so in a realistic space battle, tracking is the most important part of a battle, you wouldnt be able to point in the general direction and shoot. so really, battlestar isnt realistic in any sence
Fighting with projectiles would mean the ships would want to get in close to shoot, otherwise the target could easily out maneouvre the projectile.  At the same time, the shooter wouldn't want to be in range for long to take return fire.  The tactics would be slash and dash.

Energy weapons, on the other hand, would not be possible to evade, even over long distances, unless you were at long range and continually jinking, and that would make shooting the enemy difficult.  You most certainly wouldn't be in close, though.  That's one of Trek's many silly flaws.
Title: ship classes
Post by: SFM Hobbes on June 02, 2008, 08:30:27 PM
Snagger is correct.  The battlestar ain't broke, so there's no sense trying to fix it. The closer you get with ballistic weapons, the more hits you will score and the more damage you will do.  The strategic and tactical importance of fighters also cannot be overlooked.  They force the enemy to spend resources to defend against and counter them, let alone their offensive values.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 02, 2008, 09:13:46 PM
You could say missiles don't have this problem since they can actively change course, speed and direction. You can counter that though by pointing out that the enemy then has more time to shoot it down i.e. Colonials have more time to shoot down Cylon missiles. In any case it isn't unlikely that ships would get in up close and personal.

I disagree on Vipers being improbable. It's already been shown that they can shoot down the equivalent of a transport or supply ship (Olympic Carrier), they can make tactical strikes (Hand of God) and a single small craft can pose a threat to even a Battlestar (Raider nukes, mini-series and yes I know Galactica had no ammo). They're also a great complement to shooting down incoming ordnance such as missiles. Raiders are especially important to the Cylons as Basestars have no other form of defence afaik. Imagine a group of Battle-Raptors charging down a basestar with missiles, how the hell would the Cylons stop them without Raiders? Same goes for the Colonials simply to a lesser extent because of the robust defences Battlestars sport in the form of flak and chainguns.

The only ships that are relatively safe from fighter sized craft are Battlestars and even they need their Air Wing. An excellent example of the vulnerability of ships lacking fighter protection can come from the Resurrection ship (Raiders lured away) and the sub-light ships in the mini-series. Even if you ignore all battlefield examples of the value of fighter craft the characters in BSG hold them in high esteem. Does anyone recall how worried Adama was when he lost half his Vipers on the basestar?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 02, 2008, 09:53:31 PM
not to wine but this seems to be going back into the direction of an argument about whether or not fighters are important.
i think most of us agree that they are hugely important.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 02, 2008, 10:10:05 PM
Sorry jumping the gun a little bit there. Jangiri, don't mean to be rude but if you want to get back on topic then I'll be more than happy to reply to anything you post that is related to the original topic.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 02, 2008, 10:26:49 PM
Close fighting are primary assault tactics to maximize the percentage of damage for every single resource used. Long range space fights would work against civilian or scientific craft but military design would undoubtedly require up close and personal ranges for efficient targeting.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 03, 2008, 12:19:36 AM
An accurate railgun fired at a quarter speed of light would rip right through all Galactica's armor and shred it as it passed through much like a bullet to a stomach. You want to talk physics, thats physics. Small object at high speeds don't really care about armor. Such a rail gun could be shot from the other side of a solar system if the ship doesn't change course. Just takes the correct math and precision technology and they'd never know what hit them.

You all really need to read more hard sci-fi...thats all I'm sayin :P
Title: ship classes
Post by: ghaleon on June 03, 2008, 01:49:33 AM
That's if the ship doesn't change its course. And assuming you can build relativistic railguns, which so far there's been no indication of. But yeah, if the shot is going close enough to the speed of light then they wouldn't be able to detect it significantly before they got hit.

However, even a railgun firing at 0.999c probably wouldn't work well against a  target if they were expecting someone to shoot at them from that far away. They'd just change their course periodically - the amount of time it takes for you to detect that change in course would be several minutes, and then your bullet would take another several minutes to reach them, by which time they'd already have altered course again.

While I agree that vipers are important in BSG for their capabilities, that doesn't prove that they're efficient - it might be more useful to throw additional point defence turrets on the battlestar and basestar, in order to fulfill those roles. You'd get more guns for the same price, at least, than having those vipers in the air.

I think the main practical role of vipers would be limited to policing and tactical strikes (and for that, maybe FTL-capable craft like Raptors would be better - at least so that they can leave in a hurry if something goes wrong).

Speaking of FTL, it kind of changes everything. For this I'll draw on the wisdom of the Ninja Turtles.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=QAu3VgdsPI8&feature=related

Fast forward to 5:40 :P
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 03, 2008, 02:02:08 AM
Quote from: Rauko;101832
An accurate railgun fired at a quarter speed of light would rip right through all Galactica's armor and shred it as it passed through much like a bullet to a stomach. You want to talk physics, thats physics. Small object at high speeds don't really care about armor. Such a rail gun could be shot from the other side of a solar system if the ship doesn't change course. Just takes the correct math and precision technology and they'd never know what hit them.

You all really need to read more hard sci-fi...thats all I'm sayin :P


Well, your equation there does beg a few questions:  how dense is the battlestar's armor?  If its some obcene alloy like tungston and uranium, it might prove extremely resistant
 
(on a related note, that kind of manufacture would limit a fleet size considerably).

Theres an important question, what the hell is a battlestar's construction?  if we do a poor mans formula of one half the mass and the square of the velocity, then we get several exponential slopes forming.  so we have an very dense object, moving very fast.  If we want to assume that said object is very small, then its acceleration needs will be relatively small, and it recoil on the ship firing it will be less than if it is pretty big.  remember guys, the forces required to FIRE a weapon like that require the equal displacement of said forces.  So, two positions start to form:  will it be small and turreted, or will it be large and fixed?  If its small, then the difficulty by which the ship over comes the incoming object mass is lessened, and if its large... well, at least you have time to get the frack out of the way, cause you know where its pointing...  this does not obsolve missiles from being very efficient.  that just requires the same acceleration problem, only this one becomes an internal issue rather than external.

ok, with all that said, what the hell is a battlestar's passive defense like?  is that armor thick...  how thick, and made of what?  And does it have other nifty little things like "gel-passes" that make it more viable to obsorbe and redistribute the force of an impact over a greater area, as well as create drag for incoming object that are very fast and pretty damn hard...
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 03, 2008, 02:54:18 AM
See this guy, I like.
Now you're asking the important questions.
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on June 03, 2008, 03:09:23 AM
The reality is - It's made of Styrofoam, Wood, Plastic and drywall.

A Bic lighter could take it out.
Title: ship classes
Post by: SFM Hobbes on June 03, 2008, 03:33:20 AM
The vipers?  All styrofoam, nothing else.  No frame, no wood, just styrofoam
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 03, 2008, 03:55:18 AM
Quote from: Rauko;101832
An accurate railgun fired at a quarter speed of light would rip right through all Galactica's armor and shred it as it passed through much like a bullet to a stomach. You want to talk physics, thats physics. Small object at high speeds don't really care about armor. Such a rail gun could be shot from the other side of a solar system if the ship doesn't change course. Just takes the correct math and precision technology and they'd never know what hit them.

You all really need to read more hard sci-fi...thats all I'm sayin :P


Sure, If monkeys whizzed alien acid the Galactica wouldn't stand a chance....

No Rail guns in neither universe exist?
Title: ship classes
Post by: TripRussell on June 03, 2008, 04:08:09 AM
what is this hard sci-fi??
all i read is pre-print papers from arxiv and some texts i brought back for "lite" summer reading :-p
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on June 03, 2008, 04:21:18 AM
Quote from: TripRussell;101848
what is this hard sci-fi??
all i read is pre-print papers from arxiv and some texts i brought back for "lite" summer reading :-p


LOL - Lite reading indeed - LOL
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 03, 2008, 09:39:41 AM
Hard Sci-Fi, i beleive is what hes calling Space Opera (and possibly a ew other scifi genres.

essentially, its much more realistic in alot of cases, and doesnt have much in the way of aliens. infact, it normally doesnt have aliens at all. However, it does usually involve a number of good fights (be them space battles or ground battles) in every book. Also theres alot of politicts to it nromally as well

reading advice:
The Serrano Legacy
Honnor Harrington
Vattas War
The Lost Fleet (Im readin g these at the moment, there quite good once u get past a hsakey start in the 1st book)
Halo novels to a certain extent as well, more classic sci-i, but the depiction of space battles is really quite realistic as far as im concerned
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 03, 2008, 04:09:21 PM
Well...the realistic and no aliens part was right...

Hard sci-fi is not space opera by definition (well it can be, but you can have a space opera that isn't hard sci-fi, get it?).
Its fiction with more emphasis on the science part than the fiction.

A recent book I read "Risen Empire" by Scot Westfield displayed military technology in a way and to an extent that I hadn't seen, it was excellent. Getting the 2nd book soon (2 books series I believe).

Anything by Alistair Reynolds, especially in his Revelation Space universe, is excellent. The guy has a Ph.D in astronomy and worked for the European Space Research and Technology Centre for like 12 years. He knows his stuff.

Arthur C. Clarke would be one of the forerunners I guess and Stephen Baxter is kind of his protege, he has some good things too.

Anyway, yea, yea, yea BSG doesn't have railguns I know.
Actually I've always found it odd that BSG has a few things that are far more advanced than us (FTL at the foremost) and yet in some ways they aren't very far ahead, just seems like improvements upon things we already have.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 03, 2008, 04:44:48 PM
OK, with the ranges you were speaking of, have we seen any form of actual sensor systems in place to pinpoint aim the weapon you are describing in space? Well sure we have all sorts of spectrum type imaging systems. No atmosphere to get in the way or distort the systems ability to target. You could try to target items with this sort of weaponry, but again range does have its limits. Of course an FTL nuke could be just as devastating and less dramatic as well. Purposely making an object of any type FTL into another vehicle is just dirt simple logical weaponry. Even a rock FTL'd into the right place would pretty much waste the target area.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 03, 2008, 05:01:44 PM
Uhm as far as the show has shown us obects coming out of FTL retain their original momentum (forgive me if I'm not using the correct erm I'm still only in standard grade physics). FTL in the show seems to be nothing more than a long-range transporter, nothing more.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 03, 2008, 07:09:44 PM
Quote from: Foundry;101887
Uhm as far as the show has shown us obects coming out of FTL retain their original momentum (forgive me if I'm not using the correct erm I'm still only in standard grade physics). FTL in the show seems to be nothing more than a long-range transporter, nothing more.
Agreed - it's a propulsion system that seems to use some kind of hyperspace, paralled diension or warping/folding, but does no accelerate the ships in normal space.  However, fitting a missile with FTL should be possible.  It's a matter of whether you trust the guidance system - Colonials wouldn't.

As for the point about using railguns to accelerate projectiles to near light speeds, that just impossible.  It is possible to accelerate sub-atomic particles to these sorts of speeds, but we need enormous particle accelerators to do it, and they're annular, not linear.  If you could do it in a practical gun, though, you'd only need a projectile the size of a dust grain travelling at 0.5C to vaporise a capital ship, it'd have so much energy.  The trouble is, where do you get the energy to accelerate the dust grain to that speed in the first place, and what happens to the hypothetical launch platform?

The limiting factor for space weapons is not the energy of the weapons or their direct ranges, but their effective ranges for targetting.  Projectile weapons would have to be used close-in because of their relatively low speeds allowing the targeted veseel to move - they'd see the enemy firing on them well in advance, maybe even days before the projectiles became a concern.  Energy weapons would travel at the same speed as thedetection/ targetting information, but at long ranges you'd be firing at where you calculate the enemy to have moved to, not where you presently observe them.  That means that even energy weapons would have to be used a comparitively short range (no more than a few light-seconds for cap ships).
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 03, 2008, 09:51:57 PM
Quote from: Snagger;101800
Fighting with projectiles would mean the ships would want to get in close to shoot, otherwise the target could easily out maneouvre the projectile.  At the same time, the shooter wouldn't want to be in range for long to take return fire.  The tactics would be slash and dash.

Energy weapons, on the other hand, would not be possible to evade, even over long distances, unless you were at long range and continually jinking, and that would make shooting the enemy difficult.  You most certainly wouldn't be in close, though.  That's one of Trek's many silly flaws.

Quote from: SFM Hobbes;101809
Snagger is correct.  The battlestar ain't broke, so there's no sense trying to fix it. The closer you get with ballistic weapons, the more hits you will score and the more damage you will do.  The strategic and tactical importance of fighters also cannot be overlooked.  They force the enemy to spend resources to defend against and counter them, let alone their offensive values.

Yup.  Not allowing beam weapons into the BSG universe dramatically alters the required engagement distances to knife-fight distances and limits the vulnerability of fighters to their actually being quite useful.  

Quote from: Foundry;101813
You could say missiles don't have this problem since they can actively change course, speed and direction. You can counter that though by pointing out that the enemy then has more time to shoot it down i.e. Colonials have more time to shoot down Cylon missiles. In any case it isn't unlikely that ships would get in up close and personal.

I disagree on Vipers being improbable. It's already been shown that they can shoot down the equivalent of a transport or supply ship (Olympic Carrier), they can make tactical strikes (Hand of God) and a single small craft can pose a threat to even a Battlestar (Raider nukes, mini-series and yes I know Galactica had no ammo). They're also a great complement to shooting down incoming ordnance such as missiles. Raiders are especially important to the Cylons as Basestars have no other form of defence afaik. Imagine a group of Battle-Raptors charging down a basestar with missiles, how the hell would the Cylons stop them without Raiders? Same goes for the Colonials simply to a lesser extent because of the robust defences Battlestars sport in the form of flak and chainguns.

The only ships that are relatively safe from fighter sized craft are Battlestars and even they need their Air Wing. An excellent example of the vulnerability of ships lacking fighter protection can come from the Resurrection ship (Raiders lured away) and the sub-light ships in the mini-series. Even if you ignore all battlefield examples of the value of fighter craft the characters in BSG hold them in high esteem. Does anyone recall how worried Adama was when he lost half his Vipers on the basestar?
While many folks think missiles are great weapons, in space they must ALWAYS be thrusted or they are just predictable objects to avoid, where in an atmosphere missiles continue to maneuver because of aerodynamics.  So even missile effective ranges are greatly reduced in space combat.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 03, 2008, 10:25:32 PM
There are a whole host of dead simple "game over" combat ideas in this thread, but for some reason we have to agree that in the BSG universe they are excluded for some unknown reason.  Even some of the tactical things we would think are brain-dead simple are not done, like multi-axis Raider attacks, or jumping into Galactica, surely a Raider could compute that quite easily.  We can talk ourselves silly with these extrapolations and nobody will ever be proven to be right or wrong because the universe is as the writers wrote it, not as we discuss it.

The only "safe" area for discussions really falls into blind acceptance of the limitations we have seen on screen and then discussing why that limitation seems to be there, or extrapolate what may have been that honors those limitations.  Fleet composition falls into the latter.  We can come up with consistent arguments both for and against capital ship exclusive fleets that fit within the known BSG universe.  

Much beyond that we are working against unpublished writer/producer continuity decisions which probably have more to do with artistic scene direction than actual potential tactics.  So just about anything we come up with quickly violates the BSG universe as it stands and pulls the discussion away from the show into virgin territory.  Once a discussion gets there, everyone can pull out a bigger, badder, gun that theoretically works if you can harness the energy output of half a galaxy and on and on.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 03, 2008, 11:14:09 PM
Well it's obvious that BSG space battles are orchestrated from an artisitc viewpoint, as you put it, than a tactical one. I don't think pointing out the futility of the hours of time spent writing and reading of this thread will stop anyone, this post sort of props itself up to that idea as well as your own post Enki!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 04, 2008, 02:25:01 AM
The futility isn't in talking about it.  The futility is in ignoring basic limitations to the BSG universe.  That's old ground covered several times over the last couple years here on the boards and there is no possibility of getting those conversations to go anywhere useful to the BSG universe because there is no common set of assumptions and/or ground rules.  The participants tend to get pissy and eventually somebody snaps


I'm all for discussions, but when the topic starts talking about how BSG weapons system X is obsolete because fantastical weapons system y can make phenomena not seen in the show which place the holder in an omnipotent position, the fun is gone.  It like my kids saying I like ice cream! no I like ice cream more! no I like ice cream  plus one! no I like ice cream plus 100! no I like ice cream plus infinity! no I like ice cream plus infinity plus one! ...

I raise everyones beam weapons and railguns by a 13th dimension string snapper powered by string convolution from the 10 dimensional planar surface revolute. Toss one of those with a light year of a bad guy and don't worry, the dimensional contraction will take them right out.  Who needs horseshoes, hand grenades or atomic bombs?  :nod:  :p

I was actually enjoying the cap ship vs distributed fleet discussion since both sides tended to have legitimate reasons and for once I didn't feel a need to wield tactical doctrine myself because it was already relatively well handled on both sides.  But now we have seriously devolved towards fantasy land.
Title: ship classes
Post by: ghaleon on June 04, 2008, 03:50:05 AM
Well... FTL kamikaze weapons are not out of bounds in the same way that relativistic railguns and god-lasers are, because we have seen that Raptors can FTL. But you're right, we can pretend that there's a good reason nobody uses them, even if that reason is not clear.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Ishii-kun on June 04, 2008, 04:02:45 AM
the scary part of this discussion is, some of the things we are ruling out as too advanced for the colonials to be using have already been invented. atomic partical colliders are basically railguns that fire really small projectiles at eachother. and the US military has already made a prototype super laser that can down enemy missiles. some of these things arnt as far fetched as one might think
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 04, 2008, 04:42:01 AM
Microwave plasma lasers. Like the nose cannon on the Galactica perhaps?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 04, 2008, 12:24:02 PM
Oh and just a quick reply to the idea of railgun what happens to the launcher, why isn't it destroyed by firing:
A common and simple theory is a slingshot. You point at what you want to shoot and fire, but you don't fire just one. You fire 2. One in each direction. Think of an elevator's counter-weight.
And even though I use the word "firing" there wouldn't really be any fire at all, not like a gun is fired. The backward force you get from propelling any object is negated by the second equal object being shot in the opposite direction. This keeps the launcher in an equilibrium. It wouldn't get thrown in the opposite direction.
Yes you need a lot of energy to do it though, not claiming to know where that would come from, I assume some really big reactor :)

But I'm sorry that none of you seem to have picked up on the fact that my original railgun post was a bit of a joke......at least in the fact that I quite obviously knew nothing like that is possible in the BSG universe.

I agree with Ishii-Kun's concerns. Kind of what I meant when I thought BSG's level of technological advance is odd sometimes.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 04, 2008, 12:52:52 PM
to be honest, its still alot more advanced than anything we have, and its defineatly more realistic than anything like Star Trek or Star Wars
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 04, 2008, 01:39:38 PM
I don't argue that at all. Far more realistic.

What I said earlier was that its odd that they are so far ahead in some areas but not so much in others. Just an interesting dichotomy, thats all.
Though I suppose we could take a clue from Dune and perhaps having your own technology turn against you could make you shy away from advances in certain areas. Though...there wasn't nearly as much time between the Cylon's first attack to TNS as between Omni's (Dune's AI overlord) attack and the huge technological dichotomy we see in the original Dune series. The dichotomy had risen from hundreds of years of religious fear of advanced computers, no such feelings would have had time to take such strong hold.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Sidestep on June 04, 2008, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Rauko;101984
I don't argue that at all. Far more realistic.

What I said earlier was that its odd that they are so far ahead in some areas but not so much in others. Just an interesting dichotomy, thats all.
Though I suppose we could take a clue from Dune and perhaps having your own technology turn against you could make you shy away from advances in certain areas. Though...there wasn't nearly as much time between the Cylon's first attack to TNS as between Omni's (Dune's AI overlord) attack and the huge technological dichotomy we see in the original Dune series. The dichotomy had risen from hundreds of years of religious fear of advanced computers, no such feelings would have had time to take such strong hold.


I don't think it's really THAT strange that some areas are way more advanced than others. That's just the way things happen in real life.

Depends on if there's a need to advance into certain areas, funding then being put into those areas, and whether the result of the research is efficient enough to make it financially viable to put it into production.

So the Colonials may have had a huge need to create an ftl drive to move around the 12 colonies, not just the military but for corporations as well so funding for this research was readily available, but there wasn't such a great need for, or didn't have the funding to research military weaponry?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 04, 2008, 04:22:36 PM
Quote from: Rauko;101984
I don't argue that at all. Far more realistic.

What I said earlier was that its odd that they are so far ahead in some areas but not so much in others. Just an interesting dichotomy, thats all.
Though I suppose we could take a clue from Dune and perhaps having your own technology turn against you could make you shy away from advances in certain areas. Though...there wasn't nearly as much time between the Cylon's first attack to TNS as between Omni's (Dune's AI overlord) attack and the huge technological dichotomy we see in the original Dune series. The dichotomy had risen from hundreds of years of religious fear of advanced computers, no such feelings would have had time to take such strong hold.


But the Cylon's attacks were within a single lifetime. So while you are correct that there wouldn't be time to develop a blind religious fear of the Cylons, there is plenty of firsthand fear of AI in the Colonials that actually lived through the first Cylon War.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 04, 2008, 05:29:43 PM
Shadow fear. The fear of Cylons by the Colonials is probably on a multiplied scale of the fear of nuclear war in the world today. Except for the fact that the Cylons are still around and the USSR isn't, which is one more reason to bea little more anxious in their situation than ours.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 05, 2008, 03:57:06 AM
Just like Gaeta's missing leg or Tigh's missing eye issue.
The Colonials had the technology for artificial limbs and introduced enough AI for sentience.
Now they can't trust themselves to use it for fear of it being a problem in a war like this?
The Cylons have the technology for actual cloned replacements.

Just gets me speculating why they suffer the loss instead of using the tech.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 05, 2008, 09:47:59 AM
I'd imagine before the attack, the Colonials would have been able to save gaeta's leg/replace it with one better, but a rusty old battlestar most likely wouldn't have that sort of tech.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 05, 2008, 11:21:21 PM
yeah
before the attack the colonials would probably be able to do alot of things
but now they can't so i'm going with that
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 05, 2008, 11:30:51 PM
Would help if they actually had a few citizens with replacements like that in the storyline though. Everyone is in perfect shape though so far outside of colds/flu's and religious refusals for medication to stop the spread.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 06, 2008, 04:14:08 AM
????????????????????????????????
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on June 06, 2008, 04:48:19 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;102080
????????????????????????????????


Is that a question or a state of mind?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 06, 2008, 05:30:11 AM
Quote from: Rauko;101978
Oh and just a quick reply to the idea of railgun what happens to the launcher, why isn't it destroyed by firing:
A common and simple theory is a slingshot. You point at what you want to shoot and fire, but you don't fire just one. You fire 2. One in each direction. Think of an elevator's counter-weight.
And even though I use the word "firing" there wouldn't really be any fire at all, not like a gun is fired. The backward force you get from propelling any object is negated by the second equal object being shot in the opposite direction. This keeps the launcher in an equilibrium. It wouldn't get thrown in the opposite direction.
Yes you need a lot of energy to do it though, not claiming to know where that would come from, I assume some really big reactor :)

But I'm sorry that none of you seem to have picked up on the fact that my original railgun post was a bit of a joke......at least in the fact that I quite obviously knew nothing like that is possible in the BSG universe.

I agree with Ishii-Kun's concerns. Kind of what I meant when I thought BSG's level of technological advance is odd sometimes.


what?  in order to offset a railgun's recoil, the energy has to be pressed inwards.  there is no "counterweight" down the channel because the energy is released perpendicular to the "bullets" trajectory.  Its easier just to build a bigger barrel and fix it to the ship, or keep it small.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Enki on June 06, 2008, 11:00:25 PM
Quote from: Barid Bel Medar;102087
what?  in order to offset a railgun's recoil, the energy has to be pressed inwards.  there is no "counterweight" down the channel because the energy is released perpendicular to the "bullets" trajectory.  Its easier just to build a bigger barrel and fix it to the ship, or keep it small.

No.  There still is recoil, plenty of it. Sure we inject energy into the gun using the right hand rule, but that projectile is still a physical object that is accelerated and that acceleration has its counterpart in the recoil.  

A mass is being accelerated against the field supplied by the fixed rail.  The recoil is transferred back to the rail and through mounts to the mounted platform.  The benefits of railguns with respect to recoil is that the "barrel" and all it's physically moving recoil weight which needs to be physically accounted for and repositioned is eliminated as well as the acceleration ramping schedule is shaped to eliminate spikes in applied force.  This vastly reduces the mechanical wear and tear on the mount points as the knees and discontinuities from force spike impulses are largely negated.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 07, 2008, 12:28:34 AM
wiley
its both
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 07, 2008, 05:34:51 AM
Quote from: Jangiri;102136
wiley
its both


Quote
Would help if they actually had a few citizens with replacements like that in the storyline though. Everyone is in perfect shape though so far outside of colds/flu's and religious refusals for medication to stop the spread.


Quote
????????????????????????????????????????


I thought it would be interesting to see some references, possibly even from the Doc in passing about Prosthetics maintenance on some of the crew or something. The fact that prior to the attack they had a fairly modern civilization and the technology to create the Cylons to begin with. Just a curiosity with the prospect of medical advantages they had.

Back on topic, the Hub ship is a pretty tasty tidbit :D
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 09, 2008, 03:21:03 AM
omg
how the heck did this thread last this long
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 09, 2008, 09:25:07 AM
Really, you dont want to know...

And realistically, theres about 5 threads, and the rest are just copy and pasted from one of the original 5 threads

well ok, not QUITE but close enough
Title: ship classes
Post by: wiley on June 09, 2008, 12:24:35 PM
Hey Wolfy you need to lube-up your "R" key.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 09, 2008, 05:29:23 PM
Quote from: wiley;102378
Hey Wolfy you need to lube-up your "R" key.


i have a weird keyboard, always one key, always changeing, seems to not want to work unless u press it about 10 times

or you could just blame user error.

post above is fixed with added R's i beleive
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 10, 2008, 03:42:27 AM
get a new one with a viper cockpit built in
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 10, 2008, 07:10:22 PM
Nah, wire yourself to the computer Raider-style.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 10, 2008, 09:18:37 PM
Quote from: Foundry;102830
Nah, wire yourself to the computer Raider-style.


i like that idea so much, that i just have!

muahaha, i can now take over the internet Cylon style
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 11, 2008, 02:44:36 AM
Hey wolfy, open up that file I sent you called virus.exe! It's this awesome full version of btrl that leaked out!
Title: ship classes
Post by: TESLA on June 11, 2008, 01:14:58 PM
ahhhh Cl1nt and your usual tricks!!!

Take over the internet eh? Thought Bill gates already tried that.

Google is God. Its everywhere, knows everything.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 11, 2008, 03:03:57 PM
There is no google. It's a lie!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 11, 2008, 03:11:27 PM
The cake is a lie!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 11, 2008, 08:00:38 PM
Quote from: Foundry;102884
The cake is a lie!


you play eve?
Title: ship classes
Post by: TESLA on June 11, 2008, 08:22:53 PM
I believe he is referring to the great game, that is Portal. Brilliant stuff!!!!!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 11, 2008, 08:56:14 PM
Yeah I thought I'd make sure everyone was still alive. Portal, what a phenomenon!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 12, 2008, 03:00:01 AM
Anyway this cake is great, it's so delicious and moist.
Look at me still talking, when there's science to do!
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 12, 2008, 03:11:25 AM
All you base r us
Title: ship classes
Post by: Ishii-kun on June 12, 2008, 04:37:01 AM
all your bases are belonging to us, you only get partial custody of your bases, you may only see your bases on weekends
Title: ship classes
Post by: Foundry on June 12, 2008, 03:36:44 PM
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 13, 2008, 01:28:45 AM
You have no chance to survive make your black mesa... that was a joke, haha fat chance.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 13, 2008, 02:40:44 AM
Quote from: Cl1nt;102992
You have no chance to survive make your black mesa... that was a joke, haha fat chance.


Umm...you mean:

Maybe you'll find someone else to help you. Maybe Black Mesa. That was a joke. Haha. Fat Chance.

???

So....what was this topic about again?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Jangiri on June 13, 2008, 04:13:45 AM
for anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about listen to this song
funniest song ever written
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthZgszykLs)
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 13, 2008, 08:01:43 AM
Rauko if you can't recognise the lyrics to All your base, you're too young for the internet.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 13, 2008, 11:28:50 AM
Quote from: Cl1nt;103010
Rauko if you can't recognise the lyrics to All your base, you're too young for the internet.


ohhh...no I get it.

Was just a really random combination and I didn't recognize it. Played/listened to Portal a LOT more recently. Did someone make an All your Base allusion earlier to clue me into this and I missed it? Probably, huh?
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 13, 2008, 12:14:22 PM
Like 3 posts ago dude.

KewlToyZ
   
Quote
All you base r us

 
Ishii-kun
   
Quote
all your bases are belonging to us, you only get partial custody of your bases, you may only see your bases on weekends
Title: ship classes
Post by: Rauko on June 13, 2008, 02:05:59 PM
I said probably :P two posts back to back and then another quoting Portal  and so i just kind of pagedown'd over them i guess.

I'm sorry...am I supposed to start reading this thread carefully again since we've gotten on the serious subject of quoting Still Alive and All Your Base? :lol:
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 14, 2008, 12:32:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k52HCHOSpr0&NR=1
:P
Original
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qItugh-fFgg&feature=related

Nirvana Style:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU68F-0G5os&feature=related

Japanese Style
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMpCpWq0NEs&feature=related
Title: ship classes
Post by: Echilles on June 14, 2008, 10:09:34 AM
The Nirvana one was hilarious, thanks for sharing!
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 17, 2008, 06:10:25 PM
Quote from: TESLA;102904
I believe he is referring to the great game, that is Portal. Brilliant stuff!!!!!



meh,  I only ask because about 3 years ago, maybe 4, in eve there wasa big what fore over Cookies, Cake and Pie, then the cookies quit and the pie had a falling out, and there was just Cake.

Also, before they were BoB, they were C4K3, and molle was just as big a buthead then.  all hail Thol!


I figured I'd make some jokes noone would get, seems only fair.
Title: ship classes
Post by: TESLA on June 19, 2008, 01:23:20 PM
shhhh!!!!! The cake is not a lie............
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 19, 2008, 01:38:52 PM
Your face is a lie! Skinjob!
Title: ship classes
Post by: YIIMM on June 20, 2008, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Cl1nt;103603
Your face is a lie! Skinjob!


Maybe, but it's so delicious and moist.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 20, 2008, 12:48:08 PM
It's a trap!
Title: ship classes
Post by: TESLA on June 20, 2008, 01:16:14 PM
your a trap.
Title: ship classes
Post by: Cl1nt on June 21, 2008, 12:03:50 AM
you're.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 21, 2008, 02:59:20 AM
frak I stepped in it!
Title: ship classes
Post by: combat on June 21, 2008, 02:23:57 PM
not sure if anyone said or noticed this.
but the valykrie could be a valykrie class ship.
in world war one the first dreadnought warship was caled the dreadnought
Title: ship classes
Post by: Ishii-kun on June 21, 2008, 05:57:21 PM
NOOOOO, we finally killed the topic and you brought it back, curses
Title: ship classes
Post by: Wolfy on June 21, 2008, 11:19:10 PM
the Valkyrie was only the 1st ship that we, the viewers, saw of that actural class. that would be like the inviceible aircraft carriers being called "Ark Royal class" because you saw it before Inviceible.

renember, weve seen more Valkyries than we have any other class of battlestar (unless u count the destoryed ship in the mini series and the one u see in Razor).

But i here by refuse to get involved in this topic anymore, its getting old and pointless
Title: ship classes
Post by: Barid Bel Medar on June 22, 2008, 04:11:57 AM
I'm tellig you, it all comes down to Centurians in pink panties wielding sporks of doom.
Title: ship classes
Post by: KewlToyZ on June 22, 2008, 07:11:43 PM
Class dismissed :p
Due to lack of valid canon technical identification beyond conjecture.
Also due to lack of debate interest :D
Title: ship classes
Post by: Snagger on June 26, 2008, 06:42:23 PM
Quote from: combat;103707
not sure if anyone said or noticed this.
but the valykrie could be a valykrie class ship.
in world war one the first dreadnought warship was caled the dreadnought
Amazing coincidence!  It even happens elsewhere, Like HMS Invincible being an Invincible Class, HMS Queen Elizabeth being a Queen Elizabeth Class, HMS Upholder being Upholder Class, Vanguard being Vanguard Class.  Wow, it even happens in other navies too - USS Nimitz being Nimitz Class, the Perry being a Perry Class, Ohio being an Ohio Class... the coincidence is astonishing.  Of course, it could just be that the class takes the name of the lead ship...:doubtful: