Ship Frigate USN Rusulka - Revision history

Sudazima at 19:05, 14 July 2020

2020-07-14T19:05:19Z

Sudazima at 19:03, 14 July 2020

2020-07-14T19:03:35Z

Sudazima at 00:56, 14 July 2020

2020-07-14T00:56:38Z

Sudazima at 20:05, 13 July 2020

2020-07-13T20:05:33Z

LegionDD: Pywikibot v.2

2015-07-09T08:00:08Z

Pywikibot v.2

New page

In the time before the Great Betrayal, the United Space Navy was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective Alfazard class Frigate. While rival shipyards from Mourncreek, Cinnabar, and Poliaris collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "Ranger" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusalka" class Frigate.

When the two designs were compared, USN fleet command felt that the Ranger was what was needed for the fleet, and production was authorized for the versatile Ranger Frigate. The Rusalka design underwent a few post-planning modifications to the designs, but largely command felt the Rusalka was too conventional for any practical need in the USN.

Come the Great Betrayal and the Antarean secession, the Rusalka's design was reexamined in light of the new Antarean warships and battlecraft. A full test of the functional prototype revealed the Rusalka's incredible durability. The Rusalka was also capable of fleet speeds and greater, despite its thick armor and heavier mass when compared to the Ranger.

During the switch from prototype to production design, several changes were made to the demonstration prototype before the design was sealed. The forward heavy plasma cannons and the aft heavy repeater turret were traded in for the "standard" USN drum-turret which had become a favorite of USN R&D ever since the earliest of designs were first introduced on the Pride class Battlecruiser. The engines fitted to the prototype were not the designed standard ones- as those engines had been delayed during the prototype's construction. Finally, the large Whicker engine was replaced- citing that the power of the engine often caused the Rusalka to nose up when at full power. Its replacement with a Thurson 484 not only solved the thrust issue but also gave the Rusalka limited atmospheric capability when operating at full power.

Production was authorized for the new Rusalka design and the first batch of craft were deployed to Fleet 42 during their flanking maneuver on the Antarean lines. Problems with production, however, resulted in two separate designs under the same "Rusalka" class name. The finished product featured an under-tail kinetic turret to provide turret coverage in an area otherwise unreachable by the ship's main guns. However, when dispatching the plans to the various shipyards scattered across the USN, the mine-laying variant of the design was dispatched to a few yards accidentally, resulting in two ships of the same class name.

Since the design saw favor with border commanders (due to it fitting the role needed for a heavy patrol frigate), the USN maintained the deviant design. Crews came to discriminating the variations as "male" (the gun armed version) and "female" (the minelayer version). This is in light of the ancient tradition of naming similar variations of vehicles after genders, starting with the ancient World War One "Mark I" tank. Currently, the design holds a 3:1 ratio between male and female variants.

Other variations that were considered, but ultimately dropped, included a top-mounted Vertical-Launch Rocket System (discarded due to space requirements), a NOAR sensor array (mounted on the Loki DD), a Syex Radar system, and the option of Ackerson missiles replacing the ion cannons. Most of these variations were discarded due to space and power requirements.

The Rusalka came as a shock to Antarean commanders when faced with the frigate's incredible durability. Though conservatively armed with only ion cannons and kinetic weapons, the Rusalka can absorb a phenomenal amount of punishment before being put out of action. For this reason, the Rusalka was classed as an 'assault frigate' for its role as the vanguard of a strike force. If nothing else, the Rusalka provides an alternative to the otherwise Ranger-dominated selection of frigates in the USN fleet.

The Rusalka is not without drawbacks however. Despite its speed, its mass makes it slow in turning. Its armament is also nowhere near as revolutionary as that of the Ranger, and unlike the Ranger the Rusalka's armament is not centered on one fixed weapon. The Rusalka design also traded in a significant hanger for greater armor and ammunition storage capabilities- turning her more into a combat vessel than a casual carrier as the Ranger was. The Rusalka's armament as an assault frigate also precludes any standoff ability, and Rusalkas need to perform within enemy combat formations or as screening units to be effective within fleet operations.

Still, despite its flaws, the Rusalka is seeing an increasing deployment among USN fleets, especially in defense garrisons where range and supplies are not a problem. The Rusalka is also seeing increasing deployment in squadrons as a screening force or shock unit. As of December 987 AE, the Rusalka and Ranger share a 1:5 ratio among the USN.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 }}
-In the time before [[Category_History_of_the_Universe#The_Great_Betrayal|the Great Betrayal]], the [[United Space Navy]] was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective [[Alfazard]] class Frigate. While rival shipyards from [[Mourncreek]], [[Cinnabar]], and [[Polaris]] collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "[[Ranger]]" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusulka" class Frigate.
+In the time before [[Category_History_of_the_Universe#The_Great_Betrayal|the Great Betrayal]], the [[United Space Navy]] was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective [[Alfazard]] class Frigate. While rival shipyards from [[Mournecreek]], [[Cinnabar]], and [[Polaris]] collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "[[Ranger]]" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusulka" class Frigate.
 When the two designs were compared, USN fleet command felt that the Ranger was what was needed for the fleet, and production was authorized for the versatile Ranger Frigate. The Rusulka design underwent a few post-planning modifications to the designs, but largely command felt the Rusulka was too conventional for any practical need in the USN.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 }}
-In the time before the Great Betrayal, the United Space Navy was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective Alfazard class Frigate. While rival shipyards from Mourncreek, Cinnabar, and Polaris collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "Ranger" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusulka" class Frigate.
+In the time before [[Category_History_of_the_Universe#The_Great_Betrayal|the Great Betrayal]], the [[United Space Navy]] was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective [[Alfazard]] class Frigate. While rival shipyards from [[Mourncreek]], [[Cinnabar]], and [[Polaris]] collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "[[Ranger]]" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusulka" class Frigate.
 When the two designs were compared, USN fleet command felt that the Ranger was what was needed for the fleet, and production was authorized for the versatile Ranger Frigate. The Rusulka design underwent a few post-planning modifications to the designs, but largely command felt the Rusulka was too conventional for any practical need in the USN.
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 Come the Great Betrayal and the Antarean secession, the Rusulka's design was reexamined in light of the new Antarean warships and battlecraft. A full test of the functional prototype revealed the Rusulka's incredible durability. The Rusulka was also capable of fleet speeds and greater, despite its thick armor and heavier mass when compared to the Ranger.
-During the switch from prototype to production design, several changes were made to the demonstration prototype before the design was sealed. The forward heavy plasma cannons and the aft heavy repeater turret were traded in for the "standard" USN drum-turret which had become a favorite of USN R&D ever since the earliest of designs were first introduced on the Pride class Battlecruiser. The engines fitted to the prototype were not the designed standard ones- as those engines had been delayed during the prototype's construction. Finally, the large Whicker engine was replaced- citing that the power of the engine often caused the Rusulka to nose up when at full power. Its replacement with a Thurson 484 not only solved the thrust issue but also gave the Rusulka limited atmospheric capability when operating at full power.
+During the switch from prototype to production design, several changes were made to the demonstration prototype before the design was sealed. The forward heavy [[plasma cannons]] and the aft heavy repeater turret were traded in for the "standard" USN drum-turret which had become a favorite of USN R&D ever since the earliest of designs were first introduced on the [[Pride]] class Battlecruiser. The engines fitted to the prototype were not the designed standard ones- as those engines had been delayed during the prototype's construction. Finally, the large [[Tech_Sublight_Engines|Whicker engine]] was replaced- citing that the power of the engine often caused the Rusulka to nose up when at full power. Its replacement with a Thurson 484 not only solved the thrust issue but also gave the Rusulka limited atmospheric capability when operating at full power.
 Production was authorized for the new Rusulka design and the first batch of craft were deployed to Fleet 42 during their flanking maneuver on the Antarean lines. Problems with production, however, resulted in two separate designs under the same "Rusulka" class name. The finished product featured an under-tail kinetic turret to provide turret coverage in an area otherwise unreachable by the ship's main guns. However, when dispatching the plans to the various shipyards scattered across the USN, the mine-laying variant of the design was dispatched to a few yards accidentally, resulting in two ships of the same class name.
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Since the design saw favor with border commanders (due to it fitting the role needed for a heavy patrol frigate), the USN maintained the deviant design. Crews came to discriminating the variations as "male" (the gun armed version) and "female" (the minelayer version). This is in light of the ancient tradition of naming similar variations of vehicles after genders. Currently, the design holds a 3:1 ratio between male and female variants.
-Other variations that were considered, but ultimately dropped, included a top-mounted Vertical-Launch Rocket System (discarded due to space requirements), a NOAR sensor array (mounted on the Loki DD), a Syex Radar system, and the option of Ackerson missiles replacing the ion cannons. Most of these variations were discarded due to space and power requirements.
+Other variations that were considered, but ultimately dropped, included a top-mounted Vertical-Launch Rocket System (discarded due to space requirements), a NOAR sensor array (mounted on the [[Loki]] DD), a Syex Radar system, and the option of [[Ackerson]] [[missiles]] replacing the ion cannons. Most of these variations were discarded due to space and power requirements.
 The Rusulka came as a shock to Antarean commanders when faced with the frigate's incredible durability. Though conservatively armed with only ion cannons and kinetic weapons, the Rusulka can absorb a phenomenal amount of punishment before being put out of action. For this reason, the Rusulka was classed as an 'assault frigate' for its role as the vanguard of a strike force. If nothing else, the Rusalka provides an alternative to the otherwise Ranger-dominated selection of frigates in the USN fleet.
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 The Rusulka is not without drawbacks however. Despite its speed, its mass makes it slow in turning. Its armament is also nowhere near as revolutionary as that of the Ranger, and unlike the Ranger the Rusulka's armament is not centered on one fixed weapon. The Rusulka design also traded in a significant hanger for greater armor and ammunition storage capabilities- turning her more into a combat vessel than a casual carrier as the Ranger was. The Rusulka's armament as an assault frigate also precludes any standoff ability, and Rusulka's need to perform within enemy combat formations or as screening units to be effective within fleet operations.
-Still, despite its flaws, the Rusulka is seeing an increasing deployment among USN fleets, especially in defense garrisons where range and supplies are not a problem. The Rusulka is also seeing increasing deployment in squadrons as a screening force or shock unit. As of December 987 AE, the Rusulka and Ranger share a 1:5 ratio among the USN.
+Still, despite its flaws, the Rusulka is seeing an increasing deployment among USN fleets, especially in defense garrisons where range and supplies are not a problem. The Rusulka is also seeing increasing deployment in squadrons as a screening force or shock unit. As of late 987[[AE]], the Rusulka and Ranger share a 1:5 ratio among the USN.
 {{Navbox_ships}}
 [[Category:Ship]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{Infobox ship
 |name=Rusulka
-|image=[[Image:shp-Rusulka.jpg|300px]]
+|image=[[Image:Rusulka.jpg|300px]]
 |caption=Rusulka
 |type=Frigate

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In the time before the Great Betrayal, the United Space Navy was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective Alfazard class Frigate. While rival shipyards from Mourncreek, Cinnabar, and Poliaris collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "Ranger" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusalka" class Frigate.
+{{DISPLAYTITLE:Rusulka Class Ship}}
-When the two designs were compared, USN fleet command felt that the Ranger was what was needed for the fleet, and production was authorized for the versatile Ranger Frigate. The Rusalka design underwent a few post-planning modifications to the designs, but largely command felt the Rusalka was too conventional for any practical need in the USN.
+{{Infobox ship
-Come the Great Betrayal and the Antarean secession, the Rusalka's design was reexamined in light of the new Antarean warships and battlecraft. A full test of the functional prototype revealed the Rusalka's incredible durability. The Rusalka was also capable of fleet speeds and greater, despite its thick armor and heavier mass when compared to the Ranger.
+|used_by=[[United Space Navy]]
-During the switch from prototype to production design, several changes were made to the demonstration prototype before the design was sealed. The forward heavy plasma cannons and the aft heavy repeater turret were traded in for the "standard" USN drum-turret which had become a favorite of USN R&D ever since the earliest of designs were first introduced on the Pride class Battlecruiser. The engines fitted to the prototype were not the designed standard ones- as those engines had been delayed during the prototype's construction. Finally, the large Whicker engine was replaced- citing that the power of the engine often caused the Rusalka to nose up when at full power. Its replacement with a Thurson 484 not only solved the thrust issue but also gave the Rusalka limited atmospheric capability when operating at full power.
+|length=
-Production was authorized for the new Rusalka design and the first batch of craft were deployed to Fleet 42 during their flanking maneuver on the Antarean lines. Problems with production, however, resulted in two separate designs under the same "Rusalka" class name. The finished product featured an under-tail kinetic turret to provide turret coverage in an area otherwise unreachable by the ship's main guns. However, when dispatching the plans to the various shipyards scattered across the USN, the mine-laying variant of the design was dispatched to a few yards accidentally, resulting in two ships of the same class name.
+In the time before the Great Betrayal, the United Space Navy was looking for a craft to replace the largely ineffective Alfazard class Frigate. While rival shipyards from Mourncreek, Cinnabar, and Polaris collaborated to develop what would eventually become the "Ranger" class frigate, a competitor to these private shipyards was the USN R&D developed "Rusulka" class Frigate.
-Since the design saw favor with border commanders (due to it fitting the role needed for a heavy patrol frigate), the USN maintained the deviant design. Crews came to discriminating the variations as "male" (the gun armed version) and "female" (the minelayer version). This is in light of the ancient tradition of naming similar variations of vehicles after genders, starting with the ancient World War One "Mark I" tank. Currently, the design holds a 3:1 ratio between male and female variants.
+When the two designs were compared, USN fleet command felt that the Ranger was what was needed for the fleet, and production was authorized for the versatile Ranger Frigate. The Rusulka design underwent a few post-planning modifications to the designs, but largely command felt the Rusulka was too conventional for any practical need in the USN.
 Other variations that were considered, but ultimately dropped, included a top-mounted Vertical-Launch Rocket System (discarded due to space requirements), a NOAR sensor array (mounted on the Loki DD), a Syex Radar system, and the option of Ackerson missiles replacing the ion cannons. Most of these variations were discarded due to space and power requirements.
-The Rusalka came as a shock to Antarean commanders when faced with the frigate's incredible durability. Though conservatively armed with only ion cannons and kinetic weapons, the Rusalka can absorb a phenomenal amount of punishment before being put out of action. For this reason, the Rusalka was classed as an 'assault frigate' for its role as the vanguard of a strike force. If nothing else, the Rusalka provides an alternative to the otherwise Ranger-dominated selection of frigates in the USN fleet.
+The Rusulka came as a shock to Antarean commanders when faced with the frigate's incredible durability. Though conservatively armed with only ion cannons and kinetic weapons, the Rusulka can absorb a phenomenal amount of punishment before being put out of action. For this reason, the Rusulka was classed as an 'assault frigate' for its role as the vanguard of a strike force. If nothing else, the Rusalka provides an alternative to the otherwise Ranger-dominated selection of frigates in the USN fleet.
-The Rusalka is not without drawbacks however. Despite its speed, its mass makes it slow in turning. Its armament is also nowhere near as revolutionary as that of the Ranger, and unlike the Ranger the Rusalka's armament is not centered on one fixed weapon. The Rusalka design also traded in a significant hanger for greater armor and ammunition storage capabilities- turning her more into a combat vessel than a casual carrier as the Ranger was. The Rusalka's armament as an assault frigate also precludes any standoff ability, and Rusalkas need to perform within enemy combat formations or as screening units to be effective within fleet operations.
+{{Navbox_ships}}
-Still, despite its flaws, the Rusalka is seeing an increasing deployment among USN fleets, especially in defense garrisons where range and supplies are not a problem. The Rusalka is also seeing increasing deployment in squadrons as a screening force or shock unit. As of December 987 AE, the Rusalka and Ranger share a 1:5 ratio among the USN.
+[[Category:Ship]]