Difference between revisions of "Ship Frigate USN Rusulka"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Infobox ship | {{Infobox ship | ||
|name=Rusulka | |name=Rusulka | ||
| − | |image=[[Image: | + | |image=[[Image:Rusulka.jpg|300px]] |
|caption=Rusulka | |caption=Rusulka | ||
|type=Frigate | |type=Frigate | ||
| 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 | + | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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 | + | 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}} | {{Navbox_ships}} | ||
[[Category:Ship]] | [[Category:Ship]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:05, 14 July 2020
| Rusulka | |
|---|---|
 Rusulka | |
| Type | Frigate |
| Combat role | Assault Frigate |
| Service | |
| Used by | United Space Navy |
| Wars | Second Antarean War |
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 late 987AE, the Rusulka and Ranger share a 1:5 ratio among the USN.
| ||||||||||||||||||
