Aquarius gunboat - 200t, TRO3026R
Originally posted 9 Aug. 2006. All proposed fan-variants should be posted in the corresponding “FotW Workshop†thread.AFAICT: Aquarius in the foreground, with the Lyonesse beyond.
Like the slightly smaller
Lyonesse, the
Aquarius was originally intended for the surface/space escort of early DropShips during their passage through atmo - arguably the most hazardous phase of flight - and was eventually rendered obsolete by the advent of heavy ASFs like the
Thunderbird and
Stuka. Why exactly that was, I’m not sure - perhaps the jokers with egg on their hats decided that the small-crafts’ endurance wasn’t a winner when compared to the ASFs’ demonstration of better tactical performance in a smaller package, not to mention lower crewing and support requirements. That being said, the
Aquarius is so eye-openingly potent that that one has to wonder at that decision just a little; were those long-ago generals/admirals actually paid off by the nascent heavy-ASF industry? We’ll probably never know... but of such things are born myriad conspiracy theories and raising the question was probably enough to keep the kooks busy (and out of our way) for quite some time, so we’re all good. ;D
Topping the SC mass-bracket at the full two hundred tons, the
Aquarius turns out a relatively blistering 5/8 thrust curve that actually lets it turn-and-burn with the very same heavy ASFs which supposedly rendered it obsolete, and its five-ton fuel allocation means that it enjoys a similar amount of fuel-endurance to boot. Its SI of 8 is mandated by its engine performance, but also allows a heavy dose of armour - some thirty-six tons of conventional composites, in fact, laid out 183/162/101; it is interesting to note that this is precisely the maximum amount of protection permitted by its SI, suggesting that First Star League-era WarShip designers probably would’ve done well to take a few pages out of the small-craft industry’s design manual. ::)
The
Aquarius’ internal mass allocations are gratifyingly compact, though the proportions are a little curious. The pilot gets only two tons of accommodations-space, with each of his two enlisted crewmen getting three(!) tons and the two gunners only getting 1.5 tons; a single ton allocated to food-and-water provides far more space than is needed, but there isn’t much you can do on that score, and I doubt the crew really mind having that capacious on-board beer-cooler anyway. :P But the warload... well, while an
Aquarius isn’t likely to run down a
Stuka, it could make a pretty good go at killing and eating the thing. }:)
Twin large lasers in the nose give the
Aquarius a nice, solid introductory clout, and offer good ‘getting-home’ capability when/if the ammunition stocks are depleted. Each wing mounts an LRM-15 and an SRM-6 forward, with a ton of ammunition per launcher per wing, and a single ML aft; coupled with twin MLs in the tail, the aft sector of an
Aquarius isn’t all that much safer for an attacker than the forward. And the heat-capacity? Well, though ‘only’ singles, 35 HS nonetheless gives the
Aquarius enough capacity to use
all of its forward ordnance at once! :o That’s a hair more throw-weight than an old-school
Stalker can generate, which is no mean achievement, and unlike the STK- an alpha-strike is a viable combat option for those who want/need/just plain
like to break out the economy-sized beating stick. >:/!
Like its stablemate the
Lyonesse, the
Aquarius is suitable for most escort operations which require a little more endurance than the (arbitrarily) limited life-support of starfighters would normally permit - and for picquet duty off the flanks of WarShips with lacklustre point-defence fits. However, the
Lyonesse mounts only a single LRM-20 for Long-range punch and bulks up the rest of its arsenal with Short-range MLs; the
Aquarius complements that Short-range hitting power with primary systems which reach into Medium range and beyond, including half-again as many LRMs, rather making it a sword to the
Lyonesse’s shield. Such a barrier of
Archer-like
Lyonesse and
Stalker-like
Aquarius can give a WarShip enough defensive
oomph to take it ‘fighter-bait’ to ‘tough nut to crack’. [legal]
They also have enough of a speed advantage over most capital ships to range ahead of them and act as a light forward screen/reconnaissance element (neoBSG fans: think
Raptor), keep pace with the notoriously fleet-of-foot
Kimagure pursuit cruisers as added defences to free the fighters for offensive assignments - or to run down and hammer some of the faster ’Ships out there in a customs-enforcement or pirate-hunting context. Unfortunately, they don’t carry Marines themselves, but then again, that’s when you make a few judicious called shots to the engines and a radio-call for some Mk.7s, right? ;) Their armour would certainly stand them on good stead in such unfriendly skies: few things short of a capital missile are going to seriously inconvenience an
Aquarius without chewing through all of that protection the hard way, so I wouldn’t expect combat damage to take an
Aquarius out of action too soon.
Are there any serious faults in the
Aquarius? Given what it’s designed to be, not really. Okay, a
Stuka or a
T-bird will generate more one-point
tactical striking power, and carry external ordnance to boot; on the other, the SCs have the ASF(s) beat cold on
operational loiter-time. Other than the curiosity of its accommodations (wish fulfillment by an ex-non-com, perhaps? Since when do ossifers sleep in roughter conditions than the guys who actually do the work? ??? :P), there’s no real cause for complaint, especially under IS1 rules. Of course, if you want to see how much IS2 tech can do for the thing, as always the Workshop awaits....
[VARIANT PROPOSAL(S) REDACTED] All proposed fan-variants - including my own - belong in the corresponding “FotW Workshop†thread: http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6377.0.html Be advised: the attached .txt transcript of the previous run of this thread may contain numerous reader-proposals for variants. I’ll try to change it out for a ‘sanitised’ version of that thread when I can, but I can’t promise it’ll be soon - that’s a lot of ground to cover. ;)
