moving monitors

[SCC]

Hello,

I assure you, I'm not allowed to have a sense of humor on this subject at all, so poking fun was far from my intentions.

Establishing that monitors never worked in the setting, however, was my intention.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas

Probably a good idea on both counts and hopefully the one situation where something like Monitors exist (JumpShips and WarShips having their K-F Drives replaced) is unlikely to need rules

[HABeas2]

Hello,

We simply call those "broken" JumpShips and/or WarShips. Really, the point is that a "monitor" in BattleTech simply does not exist as a viable or in any way functional concept. The Word of Blake JumpShip that got herself stranded in the Coventry system was stuck there for years before any form of repair effort could be made, and spent most of her time hiding because a WarShip that can't jump is ultimately just prey for a hostile force that can bring enough fighters, DropShips, and other spacecraft to bear on her--especially if they can jump as well.

Thanks,

- Herbert Beas

[SCC]

I was actually talking about the brief period of time during fixing a broken JS or WS when it has no drive, thankfully rules aren't likely to be need to cover that (I thin)

[Kamose]

Can anybody tell me where the original monitor rules can br found?
Thanks,
Kamose

[HABeas2]

Hello,

What original monitors rules? There never were any official monitor rules. That was the point of the entire exercise with XTR: Boondoggles; explaining why there never were any.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas

[Kamose]

Mr. Beas,
I know some rules or stats were published in Mechforce Quarterly Volume 4 Issue 2; I assumed those were the ones being mentioned earlier in the thread (I was able to answer my own question with some research).  I know MFQ is non-canon; I just wanted to review what the earlier posters were (I assume) referencing.  Thanks for responding to my post.
Kamose

[HABeas2]

Hello,

Oh, those? 'Fraid I don't know about them.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas

[SCC]

And that's probably for the best

[Stormlion1]

And so monitors are once again relegated to seacoasts and large rivers.  ;)

[Kamose]

Hello,

Oh, those? 'Fraid I don't know about them.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas

That's probably for the best... I've seen enough WarShips die so far, I have no desire to give your nukes additional targets!  :)
Thanks,
Kamose

[SCC]

That's probably for the best... I've seen enough WarShips die so far, I have no desire to give your nukes additional targets!  :)
Thanks,
Kamose

No, we want his nukes to have additional, higher piroity targets so the WarShips don't get nuked.

[HABeas2]

Hello,

That's probably for the best... I've seen enough WarShips die so far, I have no desire to give your nukes additional targets!  :)

Well, it's true that since there is nothing there TO nuke, there's no reason to nuke it.

Fortunately, the BattleTech universe is well populated with plenty of other nuke targets.

Thanks,

- Herbert Beas

[verybad]

Really?  That must be why modern warships just use several drive systems from smaller ships.

Oh wait.  They don't.

ORLY?

Naval engines:
Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class destroyer
  Propulsion: 4 × LM2500 gas turbines (100,000 shp)

Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class frigate
 Powerplant: 2 LM2500 gas turbines; 1 shaft; 41,000 shp total power

Sa'ar 5 (Eilat) class corvette
 Powerplant: 1 General Electric LM-2500 gas turbine; 2 MTU type 12V1163 TB82 diesels; total SHP 30,000

Other LM2500 engine uses (different numbers depending on the amount of power needed)
Applications
 
Aircraft carrier:
 Italian aircraft carrier Cavour (550) (Italian Navy)
 HTMS Chakri Naruebet (Royal Thai Navy)
 Spanish aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias (Spanish Navy)
 Vikrant class aircraft carrier (Indian Navy)
 
Amphibious assault ship:
 USS Makin Island (LHD-8) (United States Navy)
 
Cruiser:
 Ticonderoga class cruiser (United States Navy)
 
Destroyer:
 Arleigh Burke class destroyer (United States Navy)
 Atago class destroyer (Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force)
 Durand de la Penne class destroyer (Italian Navy)
 Gwanggaeto the Great class destroyer (Republic of Korea Navy)
 Kidd class destroyer (United States Navy)
 King Sejong the Great class destroyer (Republic of Korea Navy)
 Kongō class destroyer (Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force)
 Spruance class destroyer (United States Navy)
 Type 052 destroyer (People's Liberation Army Navy)
 
Frigate:
 Adelaide class frigate (Royal Australian Navy)
 Álvaro de Bazán class frigate (Spanish Navy)
 Anzac class frigate (Royal Australian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy)
 Brandenburg class frigate (German Navy)
 Bremen class frigate (German Navy)
 Cheng Kung class frigate (Republic of China Navy)
 FREMM multipurpose frigate (French Navy, Italian Navy, Royal Moroccan Navy)
 Fridtjof Nansen class frigate (Royal Norwegian Navy)
 Halifax class frigate (Royal Canadian Navy)
 Horizon class frigate (French Navy, Italian Navy)
 Hydra class frigate (Hellenic Navy)
 Naresuan class (Royal Thai Navy)
 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate (United States Navy)
 Sachsen class frigate (German Navy)
 Santa María class frigate (Spanish Navy)
 Shivalik class frigate (Indian Navy)
 Valour class frigate (South African Navy)
 Vasco da Gama class frigate (Portuguese Navy)
 Ulsan class frigate (Republic of Korea Navy)
 
Fast Combat Support Ship:
 Supply class fast combat support ship (United States Navy)
 
Littoral combat ship:
 Independence class littoral combat ship (United States Navy)
 
Corvette:
 Niels Juel class corvette (Royal Danish Navy)
 Sa'ar 5 class corvette (Israeli Navy)

[Alexander Knight]

Ya Rly.

I said drive system.  Not engines.  See, the engine on an Arleigh Burke doesn't move the ship.  It turns the screw shaft.

So unless our DDGs use forty or fifty screw shafts from a tugboat or a yacht......

[BirdofPrey]

If you want to see the hazards of trying to move something big with a bunch of smaller engines, take a look at the Soviet N-1.
Plumbing issues abound (though, admittedly, it had other problems which also contributed to it's failure)

[Cik]

the anti-monitor folks are probably right tbh. the only real function for monitors would be to be built by someone who can't make KF drives IMO. and instead they should probably just make spinal killsats or massive laser installations on planetsurface instead, more defensible and maybe even easier to build.

even easier, might just be a better idea to make a ridiculous macross missile massacre style barrage of nuclear ordinance, from ground or orbit, doesn't matter.

[verybad]

Ya Rly.

I said drive system.  Not engines.  See, the engine on an Arleigh Burke doesn't move the ship.  It turns the screw shaft.

So unless our DDGs use forty or fifty screw shafts from a tugboat or a yacht......

An engine on a spacecraft is unlikely to have a screwshaft. In fact, other than thrust mass handling parts, it's probably got no moving parts at all.

As warship engines expand linearly in mass related to the overall ship's mass and acceleration, it's a power/mass equation, there's no reason a number of smaller engines providing the same overall thrust wouldn't work. The FASA story regarding the engine for the Fox being provided from Earth is nice, but really doesn't have a good base in either physics or even game rules.

Realistically, a number of Dropship or Jumpship engines should do the work just as well. Might be more complex for engineers to work on and set up, but that's about the only problem.

[evilauthor]

Realistically, a number of Dropship or Jumpship engines should do the work just as well. Might be more complex for engineers to work on and set up, but that's about the only problem.

Game rules wise, a Jumpship station keeping drive uses the exact same mass formula as a Warship transit drive, only using 0.1 G (ie, 0.2 MP) as the plug in value to calculate engine mass. So arguably, the station keeping drive is the exact same technology as the transit drive.

Dropship engines can be explained the same way, with the extra mass being due to adaptations needed for atmospheric operations.

Not only that, quite a few Dropship and Warship engines are fluffed as actually being MULTIPLE engines. It's just that whether the ship has one or many engines, the construction system treats them all as a single engine block.

[sillybrit]

The FASA story regarding the engine for the Fox being provided from Earth is nice, but really doesn't have a good base in either physics or even game rules.

The same can apply to much of the rest of the game universe, whether it be the magic armor, magic engines, weapon ranges, equipment mass, superiority of 'Mechs, economics, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Like with most such issues, and to paraphrase Leonidas, the answer is that this is BattleTech.

[Alexander Knight]

An engine on a spacecraft is unlikely to have a screwshaft. In fact, other than thrust mass handling parts, it's probably got no moving parts at all.

okay. 
Modern naval warship engine = BT starship power plant
Modern naval warship screwshaft = BT starship engine.

See the comparison now?

[verybad]

okay. 
Modern naval warship engine = BT starship power plant
Modern naval warship screwshaft = BT starship engine.

See the comparison now?

Hrrm. Except they aren't separate items in BT. You're declaring they are, but there aren't any rules, or even fluff to support that.

[Alexander Knight]

Hrrm. Except they aren't separate items in BT. You're declaring they are, but there aren't any rules, or even fluff to support that.

You can arm a space station and a McKenna with the exact same guns.  One can generate 1.5 G of safe thrust.  The other has a station-keeping drive.

You telling me they both have the same power plant?

[guardiandashi]

no but the power plant is a small sub portion of the drive system

[Alexander Knight]

no but the power plant is a small sub portion of the drive system

Says who?

[verybad]

Says who?

Says the fact that it doesn't have a place in the construction rules. Just the drive, not the engine. As far as we know, there's a hamster in a running track providing the power for the drive and the weapons, and his name is Fusion Engion.

It stands to reason that the power plant would be a part of the drive in any case, and secondary power would be provided by excess from the drive.

[Alexander Knight]

Why can't the power plant be part of the station's internal structure?

You know, we have a canon example of strapping one Dropship's engines onto another.  The Fortress-class had to use "less powerful" engines from another Dropship, and that caused issues.

EDIT:  The inferior engines "ran hot" and consumed more fuel than normal.

Scale that up to a Warship using DS engines and imagine the problems.

[Gaiiten]

The flufftext perfectly and reasonably expalined why the Monitor concept of the warship class has been considered as being not efficient enough.
While construction alone looks cost-efficient, the maintenance of an extensive separate logistic network gets you deep in the red.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Why can't the power plant be part of the station's internal structure?

You also forgot that the heat sinks in the large crafts/structure tend to stand in for the "power" system. So they could be considered a part of the powerplant if not in entirety.

[Korzon77]

The flufftext perfectly and reasonably expalined why the Monitor concept of the warship class has been considered as being not efficient enough.
While construction alone looks cost-efficient, the maintenance of an extensive separate logistic network gets you deep in the red.

And the strategic immobility of the monitor requires you to purchase a lot of them.

[ANS Kamas P81]

And the strategic immobility of the monitor requires you to purchase a lot of them.

One for every system you want to defend, versus a smaller number of strategically mobile ships that can overcome any local defense.  Take the Pentagon cluster; five stars that all need Monitors - while three WarShips make individual mincemeat of them one by one.

Monitors exist in Battletech.  They're 75 ton Demolishers with water wings.