UW-4400 MIL VARIANT

[Jericho Winters]

STATS/ WEAPONS LOADOUT FOR: UW-4400KM-MIL Variant:
Visual Description: (Same image as above, just blackish paint to help assist its Insertion goals):

Name/Type:UW-4400KM-MIL
NOT FOR SALE
Designer/Manufacturer: Sienar Tech Industries/ NIF
Crew: 1 - 2.
Personnel: 10 aquatroopers for UW ops, or 10 spacetroopers, 30 standard troopers
Length: 39m
Speed: 120 MGLT, 1000 km/h; *120km/underwater
Acceleration: 20 MGLT/s
Maneuverability: 85 DPF
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 200 SBD + Modulated UW shield
Hull Rating: 60 RU
Weapons: (1)Retractable Top mounted Dual Turret turbolaser Cannon ~2300 km depth range, 1 Dual GPWL modified to allow underwater torpsn (22 rockets, 14 missiles, 12 torpedoes, 12 aquatorpedoes, 8 heavy rockets, 4 bombs) (1)Retractable Bottom mounted Single Turret turbolaser Cannon ~2300 km depth range

1- tractor beam.

Countermeasures:
Personnel Space for troops and equipment: 95 metric tons


Special: This ship could potentially fit ONE of the UW-250's or a U-TIE with a pilot in its cargo hold. Held down by magnetic docking clamps. HOWEVER: THIS WOULD BE AT EXPENSE OF being able to deploy personnel, Advisable only on scouting forays of a planetary ocean as two 'vessel's might cover more ground than one in essence using the 'parasite' ship as a runabout during patrols or searches.


SPECIAL SYSTEMS: : sensor shroud, baffled engines, stealth armor- lets go all three

STRENGTHS: The 4400 military transport, is capable of both underwater and EVA dissemination of troops.
Weaknesses:
1. Same as Civilian model and like most other transports: Fighters may harry its progress and pose a danger to it.
2. Turbolasers and shields are inoperable or ineffective in certain chemical compositions of liquid substances.



Projected Upgrades: Strengthened Repulsor propulsion system for asteroid insertion routes. May be modified further to ensure deployment of SF forces to a variety of long term missions; It just needs a nearby body of water to hide itself under. Limited Production is expected.

[Tom Saint]

Personnel: 10 aquatroopers for UW ops, or 10 spacetroopers

Could be increased since the AT-AT Swimmer carries 50 troopers and the UW is ~73% larger than it. Unless you're planning for it to carry a lot of supplies standard.

1 Dual GPWL modified to allow underwater torps

Magazine capacity?

Projected Upgrades: Strengthened Repulsor propulsion system for asteroid insertion routes.

Somewhat confusing, if its headed for an asteroid, it'd be in space and could use main ion engines without worry.

Limited Production is expected.

More likely extremely limited. Only mission i see for this craft is Spec Ops insertions, anything else could be better covered my other vehicles.

[Jericho Winters]

Personnel: 10 aquatroopers for UW ops, or 10 spacetroopers

Could be increased since the AT-AT Swimmer carries 50 troopers and the UW is ~73% larger than it. Unless you're planning for it to carry a lot of supplies standard.

1. This is not the AT-AT swimmer: the swimmer is incapable of hyperspace travel or functioning as a transport vessel, might be interesting to ask if this thing if it is larger might deploy an extra swimmer from a magnetic grapple on the hull if the swimmer is capable of being modified to survive entrance through an atmosphere by itself, *file this away to look at as a separate possibility.

As for numbers: Sure thing, I figured the fact that as a transport we had to take out personnel room for hyperdrive engines, the main weaponry and ship systems, as technically this is more like a shuttle that's much better then simply saying a 'lamda' modified for underwater transport, but I can certainly see upping the numbers in an assault stance. Unless the mission it was needed for was geared towards a long patrol or scouting duties- aka 4-6 weeks possibly more: ^50 troopers is a lot to accomadate for weeks on end. As it is: if it was a direct assault mission I'd say pack as many in as possible include waveskimmers or even some form of airspeeders or mission specific equpiment necessary.

What's a good number that you think here? sixty? in rows and crash restraints, etc?

1 Dual GPWL modified to allow underwater torps

Magazine capacity?

Same as your Dual GPWL in your Int Mark III, I assume such a loadout of weaponry would be standard- unless underwater torps are larger then normal ones for some reason or you could fit more into the larger frame.

Projected Upgrades: Strengthened Repulsor propulsion system for asteroid insertion routes.

Somewhat confusing, if its headed for an asteroid, it'd be in space and could use main ion engines without worry.

All ships have repulsor systems. This idea was more for quick manuevering acting as bow thrust to radically alter course as need be from close collisiion warnings. There was also a particular asteroid belt that airspeeders hopped along in SW canon that gave me this idea in the first place to assist in high risk insertions, or hiding in hostile territory to get away I'm still trying to refind the Wookie link. Such a system might also assist in sweepig asteroid belts more efficiently for any hidden dangers when were searching for pirate bases and suchlike: let's face it: asteroid bases are much cheaper than whole space stations with turbolitfts and such are a pirate's paradise. There's more use for such a system that you originally believe: especially if you're trying to sneak in without your ships drives being 'hot'. And don't want to spend money on a cloaking device

Limited Production is expected.

More likely extremely limited. Only mission i see for this craft is Spec Ops insertions, anything else could be better covered my other vehicles.

Sorry tom by I think you're almost completely incorrect on this point: we have no dedicated shuttle transports for Underwater Use: mainly ones that were 'simply modified' for UW capability yet not possessing any airlock or function for Underwater deployment... while I didn't include a schematic diagram you'll notice on the Civ one I have listed underneath the picture another dedicated airlock not shown as a half floor. Quite simply: this fits the role to a tee that has been glitzed over in task force submersible since noone else has brought forward an actual shuttle mod.

Though yes, outside of that task force SF would be the most other group capable for using such a versatile craft.

as such : with that task force submersible requirements amounts of shuttles and needs in mind limited production means limited production, not extremely limited. Since you brought up the aspect of minituarization of tech once before that may also allow a viable increase in metric ton transport capactiy: though with the lamda it's capacity vs: troop needs. The way I remember Aner explaining it to me during my first SM : If you fill the thing (shuttle) up to the brim with supplies there's almost no room for troops. Though as stated before it would be interesting if we could drop a Swimmer off this thing if it was magnetically grappled to the hull and the engines *And repulsor systems(like briefly mentioned in upgrades) would need to be strengthened enough to overcome such a burdensome external load's drag. Even better if afterwards it could then act in a support role for dispersing troops in a marine operation.

Greater repulsor strength = potential greater external load to shuttle in our submersible fortifications and vehicles. (though the set of each load would have drag on the vessels atmospheric speed as a whole. Of course it's a good idea to keep in mind to assess for viability... Think of this as a general more amphibious based idea of deployment and combat support- hence, somewhat lighter armament in exchange for more versatile potential as a whole.)

[Tom Saint]

might be interesting to ask if this thing if it is larger might deploy an extra swimmer from a magnetic grapple on the hull if the swimmer is capable of being modified to survive entrance through an atmosphere by itself, *file this away to look at as a separate possibility.

Probably not just because of the mass of the AT-AT, the Theta landing barge only carries two and has cargo capacity listed at 4500 tons. That puts a single AT-AT at 2250 tons, the swimmer is likely somewhat less since it doesn't have legs or as heavy armor.

What's a good number that you think here? sixty? in rows and crash restraints, etc?

The direct assault role, sure. For gp mission(bout a week) i'd say 35-40 to give them some room to spread out.

Same as your Dual GPWL in your Int Mark III, I assume such a loadout of weaponry would be standard- unless underwater torps are larger then normal ones for some reason or you could fit more into the larger frame.

There's nothing stated i can find about S-4 or hydrotorpedoes being different sized than regular ones. You probably could have slightly larger mag cap since this is a subcap not a fighter.

All ships have repulsor systems. This idea was more for quick manuevering acting as bow thrust to radically alter course as need be from close collisiion warnings. There was also a particular asteroid belt that airspeeders hopped along in SW canon that gave me this idea in the first place to assist in high risk insertions, or hiding in hostile territory to get away I'm still trying to refind the Wookie link. Such a system might also assist in sweepig asteroid belts more efficiently for any hidden dangers when were searching for pirate bases and suchlike: let's face it: asteroid bases are much cheaper than whole space stations with turbolitfts and such are a pirate's paradise. There's more use for such a system that you originally believe: especially if you're trying to sneak in without your ships drives being 'hot'. And don't want to spend money on a cloaking device

Radical course corrections are better made with main engine power or even better manuvering thrusters. In comparison to a ship's main ion engine, repulsor lifts are peanuts, case in point the V-wing. Its max atmospheric speed using only repulsorlift is a measly 1450 kph, on ion engines, it shoots up to 52,000kph (major horsepower). Additionally, repulsorlifts interact with gravity fields which is fine for planets because they create antigrav ranges on the average of 80,000 kilometers, or about 6 times the planet's diameter. The average asteroid is only a few kilometers in diameter, corresponingly creating antigrav ranges of perhaps a few dozen kilometers. In short, main ion drives are still the better option.

The "stealth" aspect is more of a tradeoff than a benefit. Sure the main ion drives are off, but you're interacting with the gravity field, thats what gravimetric sensors are for.

Though yes, outside of that task force SF would be the most other group capable for using such a versatile craft.

as such : with that task force submersible requirements amounts of shuttles and needs in mind limited production means limited production, not extremely limited.

Well, all of TF Submersible combined carries only 40 assault shuttles, and the average length for assault suttles is 23.3 meters. So every TF Sub capship would be able to carry only one UW-4400-MIL, unless they sacrifice their fighter squads. That makes a total TF Sub requirement for UW-4400s of 20 units plus maybe a few extra for training, spares. Thats why i call it very limited.

[Jericho Winters]

might be interesting to ask if this thing if it is larger might deploy an extra swimmer from a magnetic grapple on the hull if the swimmer is capable of being modified to survive entrance through an atmosphere by itself, *file this away to look at as a separate possibility.

Probably not just because of the mass of the AT-AT, the Theta landing barge only carries two and has cargo capacity listed at 4500 tons. That puts a single AT-AT at 2250 tons, the swimmer is likely somewhat less since it doesn't have legs or as heavy armor.

Well I guess this shoots this idea down unless we still want to consider other smaller submersible vehicle deployment or perhaps going 'chinook' style for a precision drop of resources in a combat zone. I wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel with this crazy idea just give us more lateral options in an assault. If a theta landing barge would have to land an armored transport (aquatic or otherwise) farther from the front lines Let's just picka random number say :15 km. I'd have guessed anything these might be able to drop such a thing within a 3 km distance from a front line, or perhaps a crash drop right into combat: thus not risking a pricier target like the theta but working in concert with them for immediate movement of resources to where they were needed.

*Jericho* files this idea away somewhere for more development.

What's a good number that you think here? sixty? in rows and crash restraints, etc?

The direct assault role, sure. For gp mission(bout a week) i'd say 35-40 to give them some room to spread out.

40 it is: especially if we removed all the passenger space the civ version had. that way the cargo capacity is for mission specific gear. *will write up another set of numbers for an assault stance*

Same as your Dual GPWL in your Int Mark III, I assume such a loadout of weaponry would be standard- unless underwater torps are larger then normal ones for some reason or you could fit more into the larger frame.

There's nothing stated i can find about S-4 or hydrotorpedoes being different sized than regular ones. You probably could have slightly larger mag cap since this is a subcap not a fighter.

Allright with greater space for use, let's just add +2 from your stats for the dual: no sense making this thing overboard on armament: it would cause too much drag- (22 rockets, 14 missiles, 12 torpedoes, 12 aquatorpedoes, 8 heavy rockets, 4 bombs)

All ships have repulsor systems. This idea was more for quick manuevering acting as bow thrust to radically alter course as need be from close collisiion warnings. There was also a particular asteroid belt that airspeeders hopped along in SW canon that gave me this idea in the first place to assist in high risk insertions, or hiding in hostile territory to get away I'm still trying to refind the Wookie link. Such a system might also assist in sweepig asteroid belts more efficiently for any hidden dangers when were searching for pirate bases and suchlike: let's face it: asteroid bases are much cheaper than whole space stations with turbolitfts and such are a pirate's paradise. There's more use for such a system that you originally believe: especially if you're trying to sneak in without your ships drives being 'hot'. And don't want to spend money on a cloaking device

Radical course corrections are better made with main engine power or even better manuvering thrusters. In comparison to a ship's main ion engine, repulsor lifts are peanuts, case in point the V-wing. Its max atmospheric speed using only repulsorlift is a measly 1450 kph, on ion engines, it shoots up to 52,000kph (major horsepower). Additionally, repulsorlifts interact with gravity fields which is fine for planets because they create antigrav ranges on the average of 80,000 kilometers, or about 6 times the planet's diameter. The average asteroid is only a few kilometers in diameter, corresponingly creating antigrav ranges of perhaps a few dozen kilometers. In short, main ion drives are still the better option.

[/quote]

Ah so engines = awesome,

The "stealth" aspect is more of a tradeoff than a benefit. Sure the main ion drives are off, but you're interacting with the gravity field, thats what gravimetric sensors are for.

I guess it goes down to a question: which is easier to detect, short quick pulses from interacting with gravity or the quick bursts of heat of ion engines. I see now where engines would be a greater means for tactical manuevers but at what portion would equilibrium between using such systems in tandem be reached?

Or should we instead consider a third option to assist in stealth insertions? Would a possible subsystem added on the vessel to help dampen any sensor readings from the engines themselves exist for a subcap?

*anything besides cloadking devices, I know we do have fighter systems to help mask engines but what would be feasible on a subcap shuttle?

TWell, all of TF Submersible combined carries only 40 assault shuttles, and the average length for assault suttles is 23.3 meters. So every TF Sub capship would be able to carry only one UW-4400-MIL, unless they sacrifice their fighter squads. That makes a total TF Sub requirement for UW-4400s of 20 units plus maybe a few extra for training, spares. Thats why i call it very limited.

[/quote]


I see, I'm still thinking in regimental terms of possibiilities so even forty assault shutles is alot to me and in the limited category. *But let's face one thing: it's pointless for TFS to carry any subcaps that would be destroyed when they had to flood their hangars. By this I mean: there probably would be something similar to the UW in an assault stance on them for transport instead of the normal lamdas as their tactical disposition would require greater flexibility. Because if they carry the the usual slew of normal transports (non assault based) and then go underwater with them: we might just have to scrap them all out afterwards if seawater gets into them.

I think the patrol option with the internal TIE/Sub would probably be the MIL /B, with the assault loadout MIL/A

Should we be considering a UW MIL/C or other modified lamda type solely for TSF cargo transport needs at this time? It seems to me that would be best to buy these wholesale, and do the mods for which role it is afterwards) *it's really only adding seats for the Assault, and opening up the inside structure a little for more cargo room capacity in a cargo only stance, Heck you could probably shorten the pure cargo transport crew into just a pilot and copilot if we had to reduce space used, even further probably bumping the cargo capacity up to 150 to 200 m tons as long as the blast doors were kept to keep the water out.

[Tom Saint]

Well I guess this shoots this idea down unless we still want to consider other smaller submersible vehicle deployment or perhaps going 'chinook' style for a precision drop of resources in a combat zone.

Smaller vehicles would probably be doable, like a wave walker somehow folded up or partially disassembled in the cargo bay. Chinook style carriage, oterwise called a slung load, doesn't let it carry heavier objects, but bulky ones that wouldn't fit in the cargo area. The UW can't carry the AT-AT swimmer because the UW's lift capacity is way short so sling loading it wouldn't help, it'd actually hurt.

If a theta landing barge would have to land an armored transport (aquatic or otherwise) farther from the front lines Let's just picka random number say :15 km. I'd have guessed anything these might be able to drop such a thing within a 3 km distance from a front line, or perhaps a crash drop right into combat: thus not risking a pricier target like the theta but working in concert with them for immediate movement of resources to where they were needed.

Landing distance from the main front line is pretty irrelevant as pertains to the fire a shuttle is exposed to. After all, it has to make it down from orbital altitude to surface level. (Think of how much of the surface of earth you can see from the ISS's relativly low orbital altitude of between 336-346 km.)

Tom Saint wrote:
Jericho Winters wrote:
Same as your Dual GPWL in your Int Mark III, I assume such a loadout of weaponry would be standard- unless underwater torps are larger then normal ones for some reason or you could fit more into the larger frame.

There's nothing stated i can find about S-4 or hydrotorpedoes being different sized than regular ones. You probably could have slightly larger mag cap since this is a subcap not a fighter.

Allright with greater space for use, let's just add +2 from your stats for the dual: no sense making this thing overboard on armament: it would cause too much drag- (22 rockets, 14 missiles, 12 torpedoes, 12 aquatorpedoes, 8 heavy rockets, 4 bombs)

Well, just take note that the launcher from the Interceptor mk3 is unique to the proposal. it isn't a canon launcher.

I guess it goes down to a question: which is easier to detect, short quick pulses from interacting with gravity or the quick bursts of heat of ion engines. I see now where engines would be a greater means for tactical manuevers but at what portion would equilibrium between using such systems in tandem be reached?

Or should we instead consider a third option to assist in stealth insertions? Would a possible subsystem added on the vessel to help dampen any sensor readings from the engines themselves exist for a subcap?

*anything besides cloadking devices, I know we do have fighter systems to help mask engines but what would be feasible on a subcap shuttle?

That would have to be considered on an individual basis, it depends a lot on local conditions. If the local space has lots of gravity distortions, like black holes, you'd be more likely to get away with the repulsors unnoticed. Conversely, its you're in a nebula or near high temp objects, the ion engines would be less noticable. They both have pros and cons depending on the situation, but ultimatly, you could likely just carry a regular repulsor lift array and not have to worry about the added weight and space requirements of a more powerful one.

Any stealth system we have for fighters: sensor shroud, baffled engines, stealth armor, could be applied to a subcap ship. Even full scale capital ships have stealth armor and engines.

Should we be considering a UW MIL/C or other modified lamda type solely for TSF cargo transport needs at this time? It seems to me that would be best to buy these wholesale, and do the mods for which role it is afterwards) *it's really only adding seats for the Assault, and opening up the inside structure a little for more cargo room capacity in a cargo only stance, Heck you could probably shorten the pure cargo transport crew into just a pilot and copilot if we had to reduce space used, even further probably bumping the cargo capacity up to 150 to 200 m tons as long as the blast doors were kept to keep the water out.

I doubt it would really be neccessary for TFS to have a dedicated space to water cargo shuttle. Reason being that TFS is needed for quick reaction but short time span underwater battles, hence the need to get directly from space to submarine. If we were looking at a long term underwater battle, it'd be in our best interest just to build a regular aquatic port.

[Jericho Winters]

"Well, just take note that the launcher from the Interceptor mk3 is unique to the proposal. it isn't a canon launcher."

I don't know if the General purpose warhead launcher is cannon either



"Any stealth system we have for fighters: sensor shroud, baffled engines, stealth armor, could be applied to a subcap ship. Even full scale capital ships have stealth armor and engines."

I'll take a look into this a little more and fnd something suitable. I agree now with the regular strength repulsor system, just making it capable of more then one a single direction (aka down) in 'thrust) a multidirection repulsor system might help docking: if this is an assault vessel should we consider a small tractor beam for mission diversity, aka: bringing back in the U-TIE or smaller parasite ship: submersible or whatever else?

Should we be considering a UW MIL/C or other modified lamda type solely for TSF cargo transport needs at this time? It seems to me that would be best to buy these wholesale, and do the mods for which role it is afterwards) *it's really only adding seats for the Assault, and opening up the inside structure a little for more cargo room capacity in a cargo only stance, Heck you could probably shorten the pure cargo transport crew into just a pilot and copilot if we had to reduce space used, even further probably bumping the cargo capacity up to 150 to 200 m tons as long as the blast doors were kept to keep the water out.

[quote='tom saint'] I doubt it would really be neccessary for TFS to have a dedicated space to water cargo shuttle. Reason being that TFS is needed for quick reaction but short time span underwater battles, hence the need to get directly from space to submarine. If we were looking at a long term underwater battle, it'd be in our best interest just to build a regular aquatic port.[/quote]

I figured that's true enough on worlds we already own. However I'm not sure if it's in question where TSF is needed on an assault against an entrenched waterworld species that suggestion might not be plausible unless we can drop a full size prefabbed aquatic port: I can only think of two planets so far in cannon where this expected resistance is applicable at this time: Dac and Naboo.

While I'm quite content of thinking of the mission role of TSF at present I'm also trying to consider future needs here in suggestion of such a thing. This is because in its present standpoint on any longer term mission underwater there'd have to be a vast relocation of resources if we move all non capable shuttles out when they start flooding a hangar for launch of subs and stuff. (and your probably going to argue magnetic containment fields here: save that a few fo the sub typess in general have to *be in water to deploy* hence why we should realistically already have floodable hangars)

This scramble of playing jenga would be downright messy in an RL stiutaion from an operational and organizational perspective: It might just be easier for a military witht that capability present to ensure their versatility to changing situations in the future by not just relying on the old "what works for now philosophy."

Basically instead: I'm suggesting this as less then an engineering perspective but more as an organizational philosophy or adminstrative platform consideration* If we know we have something already in place that can adapt to a potential future battlefield which is a strong potential future target then by all means: make sure you get the preparations on the ground level (in this case what's in the hangars themselves) done right the first time.

[Tom Saint]

if this is an assault vessel should we consider a small tractor beam for mission diversity, aka: bringing back in the U-TIE or smaller parasite ship: submersible or whatever else?

It could be handy, especially in rough seas or something.

I figured that's true enough on worlds we already own. However I'm not sure if it's in question where TSF is needed on an assault against an entrenched waterworld species that suggestion might not be plausible unless we can drop a full size prefabbed aquatic port: I can only think of two planets so far in cannon where this expected resistance is applicable at this time: Dac and Naboo.

Or we can capture/rebuild ports that are already there.

Basically instead: I'm suggesting this as less then an engineering perspective but more as an organizational philosophy or adminstrative platform consideration* If we know we have something already in place that can adapt to a potential future battlefield which is a strong potential future target then by all means: make sure you get the preparations on the ground level (in this case what's in the hangars themselves) done right the first time.

More or less, i agree. The R&D forum is to create new tech, not 100% analyse if it'll ever been needed or used. My statement about very limited production is just reflective of our current needs. If we need more in the future, we've already got it ready to go into greater production.

[Jericho Winters]

wow I forgot all about this sorry anyway- edits have been made and added to reflect IDOMIR Discussion .

[Tom Saint]

ok, only other suggestion i have is maybe a bit more weaponry. the dual TL turret gives it pretty good bang, but really limited coverage. Since its top mounted it is going to leave the bottom and quite a bit of the front, back, and sides undefended and open to easy attack. maybe make it just a single cannon turret but add another turret to the bottom?

[Jericho Winters]

Good, suggestion- but I disagree on the two singles, you see Tom many transports, civ or otherwise can be found in cannon sporting a dual turret scheme in sw- some even have Quads up top and a double on the bottom.

So two doubles isn't even close to being outside the range of possibilities of tech or power requirements, however I'd say a weakness to the 'retractable option' on the turrets themselves would to limit the type to at 'maximum' to dual mounts. so for the bottom I- added a single laser. That should do the trick nicely unless you want to add some side defenses like what is on the normal sentinel class though I'm not sure how they'd hold up in deep water.

Any thoughts ?

[Tom Saint]

civ or otherwise can be found in cannon sporting a dual turret scheme in sw- some even have Quads up top and a double on the bottom.

Typically they're just quad laser cannons though, not quad turbolasers. Though since this is a purpose built/upgraded military ship, it should have power for some above average weapons.

I don't think side weapons are really necessary since now with top and bottom turrets, the ship only has to roll at maximum 90 degrees to bring a gun to bear.

[Jericho Winters]

ok- so nix the side turrets, etc.

If the weaponry's out of the way, the stealth is out of the way- would a second look to see if there's still alot of space in this for other upgrades, hurt?

I actually think it's kind of fine as is- but if you can fit something else like better passive sensor systems into a high end military craft- wouldn't you want to?

[Tom Saint]

I actually think it's kind of fine as is- but if you can fit something else like better passive sensor systems into a high end military craft- wouldn't you want to?

There isn't much more you can do with passive sensors besides having more receivers, more sensative receivers, or more operators monitoring what the receivers pick up. Besides, this thing already has sensor shroud which is about the best passive sensor we have.

But yea, i'd agree that this seems complete.