Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby HalC » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:40 am

Hi Guys,
Just wondered if any one on this forum has ever created a standard system for determine what a registration value should be for any given hull in their campaign(s).

What I'm doing a little at a time, here and there, is coding for my own enjoyment, an application that will let me (in text mode only) have a GM assistant for tracking details of Traveller Universe activity on either the behalf of the player character(s) or on behalf of the GM. The idea was to have something that would allow me to start up a campaign log for ship activities, freight manifests, freight spot market contracts, passenger manifests, and the like. Each "campaign" would require that I be able to add a "Ship" for the player character in question - detailing its specifics such as hull class (dTon displacement), Jump capability, maneuver drive thrust, power plant output, etc.

Then I saw the one "field" in the JTAS form that almost never gets filled in by myself...

Ship's Registration Number

As I thought about it, and the idea that the registration number, once assigned, never changes - I started to think in terms of Standardization. How would some flunky in the Third Imperium government have set this up so that no ship could ever have the same registration value for their ship.

This is what I devised and the thinking that went into it.

Sector ID value - I am thinking of using either the first two letters of each word for a sector name, or the first four letters of the sector if there is but one word.

World Name - First four letters of the World name

Shipyard Number - in case any given world has more than one shipyard in system. For instance, if Earth had 2 shipyards in orbit around Earth, one shipyard at a down port on Earth, 1 shipyard on a down port at Mars, and a shipyard in orbit around Mars - we would have a total of 5 shipyards.

Contract Type - generally speaking, the first letter of this code would be either C for Civilian, S for Scout, or N for Naval. The Second single letter code would be either S for Star ship, or B for Boat. If instead, it has an X, it stands for Experimental prototype.

Contract Year - the year the contract was drawn up. This is usually earlier than the time the ship's hull is laid down.

Contract Number - Unless we have massive star ports out there building thousands or millions of hulls per year - the contract number value for any given hull is likely going to be less than 6 digits.

As an idea, any GM can simply use a spreadsheet to get a list of all of those worlds whose worlds have a capability for building star ships or boats - and then take it from there. If they had access to a computer program, they could even set it up to randomly generate the age of the ship, subtract the age of the ship from the current campaign year, and generate the year aspect of the contract by making the year the contract was signed/ratified as being 2d6 months earlier than when the ship's hull was laid down.

If there was a table of all possible starports within a region, you might be able to simply randomly generate the Registration number for any given randomly encountered ship as just one more detail possible. Part numbers of various equipment manufactured for use with this ship might have the ship registration ID stamped into the metal or etched into the circuit boards, or micro-laser burned into various locations as anti-theft traps or what have you.

Just thinking aloud and sharing ideas. If anyone can think of any other details that should be included, let me know. For instance? I thought about using an identifier for whether or not the ship was built in the boarders of the Third Imperium or outside the borders, but realized that if anyone is using the standard as outlined, it would be an Imperial compliant ship in the first place. Each "nationality" or race would have its own unique method for assigning registration numbers. This I figure, might be what the Starport Authority would mandate for any ships built within its sphere of influence, or would look closely at for any ship that calls in port.

Ideas? Criticisms?
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4215
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby AndrewW » Tue Apr 30, 2019 6:31 am

Maybe the hex number within the sector instead of the world name? With the shipyard number narrowing this down further to a given world, moon, asteroid belt whatever and just where.

Where it's built would already determine if it is within or outside the Third Imperium boarders.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby locarno24 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:03 am

So, for an example:

SPMC-REGI-1-SS-1106-000001

Would be the first Scout Service scoutship laid down by the primary Regina shipyards, the year before the Fifth Frontier War.

My thoughts:

1) Jumping directly from Sector Name to World Name might be too big a leap - Sectors often have 400+ worlds, so whilst a 4-letter code should be unique, 3 letter subsector/3 letter world makes more sense to me.

2) Identifying a military-build ship makes sense - but I suspect, since this is essentially 'pennant number', that the Military would expect to code it by class as well (and to be fair, the scout service do operate occasional capital vessels). The Third Imperium does, if I remember, use a two-letter code for both military and civil starship class types (DD for destroyer, BC for Battlecruiser, and so on) - I can dig out the list if need be?


the full imperial code supposedly includes the following:

a) Supraclass - e.g. Free Trader (Code ML)
b) Superclass - e.g. Type A Free Trader (Most ships classes are referred to are a Type 'letter' so I'd normally anticipate that letter being in the ship serial number)
c) Ship Class Code - e.g. Beowulf-class Free Trader
d) Ship Model Code - Supposedly this is generally 'flagged' by TL-number
e) Individual ship identifier - which is where your 'place and date of manufacture' would come in.


3) Also - you would, I guess, have the alternative of "place of registration" - if I acquired a salvaged Drinaxi Harrier by totally legitimate methods and had no real idea of its place or date of origin except "somewhere in the Trojan Reaches during the reign of the Empire of Sindal", I imagine that when I brought it back into Imperial Space I would be required to register it with the Imperial Government, and the border world where it was first registered would take the place of 'manufacture'.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby locarno24 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 9:24 am

here we go....

A - Military Auxiliaries

AC: Casuality Vessel, Hospital Ship, Medical Frigate
AD: Medium Transport
ADA: Heavy Transport
ADL: Light Transport
AE: Fleet Tug
AEA: Heavy Fleet Tug
AEL: Light Fleet Tug
AF: Medium Tanker
AFA: Heavy Tanker, Supertanker
AFL: Light Tanker
AM: Medium Replenishment Vessel
AMA: Large Replenishment Vessel
AML: Light Replenishment Vessel
AO: Medium Ordinance Carrier
AOA: Heavy Ordinance Carrier
AOL: Light Ordinance Carrier
AO-F: Medium Ordinance Carrier (Fast)
AS: Salvage/Recovery Vessel
ASA: Mobile dock
AT: Ship Tender
ATP: Figher/SDB Tender
ATC: Cruiser Tender
AU: Medium Utility Vessel
AUL: Light Utility Vessel
AUA: Heavy Utility Vessel
AX: Medium Refinery Vessel
AXA: Heavy Refinery Vessel
AXL: Light Refinery Vessel
AZ: Medium Tanker/Replenishment Vessel Hybrid
AZA: Large Tanker/Replenishment Vessel Hybrid
AZL: Light Tanker/Replenishment Vessel Hybrid
AZT: Rift Tanker, Long jump tanker

B - Battleships

BA: Heavy Battleship, Superbattleship, Dreadnought
BB: Battleship
BL: Light Battleship, Pocket Battleship
BM: Monitor
BMS: Small/System Monitor
BR: Battle Rider
BS: Strike Battleship
BZ: Battle Rider Hybrid

C - Cruisers

CA: Heavy Cruiser, Cruiser, Armored
CAB: Heavy Bombardment Cruiser
CAM: Heavy Missile Cruiser
CAP: Heavy Provincial Cruiser
CAR: Heavy Cruiser Rider
CB: Battlecruiser
CL: Light Cruiser
CLB: Light Bombardment Cruiser
CLM: Light Missile Cruiser
CLP: Light Provincial Cruiser
CLR: Light Cruiser Rider
CS: Strike Cruiser, Scout Cruiser, Rift Cruiser, Fleet Intruder
CSM: Strike Missile Cruiser
CY: Mercenary Cruiser

D - Destroyers

DA: Destroyer Leader, Heavy Destroyer
DD: Destroyer, Corvette
DDM: Missile Destroyer, Missile Corvette
DE: Destroyer Escort, Sloop
DEM: Missile Destroyer Escort
DL: Light Destroyer
DP: Pursuit Destroyer
DS: Strike Destroyer, Fast Destroyer

E - Escorts

EA: Heavy Escort, Fleet Escort
EE: Escort, Corvette
EEM: Missile Escort, Missile Corvette
EL: Close Escort, Light Escort, Escort Corvette
ELM: Light Missile Escort
ES: Strike Escort, Escort Raider, Pursuit Escort

F - Frigates

FA: Heavy Frigate
FF: Frigate
FFM: Missile Frigate
FL: Light Frigate
FS: Strike Frigate

G - Civilian Commercial Craft

GC: Construction Vessel
GCA: Mobile Construction Plant
GCL: Repair Vessel
GE: Tugs, Towing Vessel
GEA: Heavy Tug/Towing Vessel
GEB: Beacon Maintenance Vessel
GEL: Light Tug/Towing Vessel
GF: Fuel Cutter, Medium Gas Skimmer
GFA: Large Fueler, Large Gas Skimmer
GFL: Fuel Pinnace, Light Fueler, Light Gas Skimmer
GM: Miner Craft, Asteroid Miner
GMA: Heavy Asteroid Miner, Asteroid Processor
GMC: Prospector's Cutter
GR: Mercenary Cruiser
GT: Medium Tender
GTA: Mobile Repair Dock, Large Tender
GTL: Ship Repair Vessel

H - Civilian Non-Commercial Craft

HC: Customs Boat
HG: Any government vessel without other designation
HM: Messenger, Commercial Courier
HP: Law Enforcement Vessel
HPA: Heavy Law Enforcement Vessel, Armed Law Enforcement Vessel
HR: Revenue Cutter
HS: Settlement Ship, Colony Ship, Settlement Transport

I - Assault Transports

IA: Heavy Assault Transport
IAI: Heavy Assault Intruder
II: Assault Transport
IL: Light Assault Transport, Assault Shuttle, Marine Cutter
ILI: Light Assault Intruder, Assault Lander
IM: Medium Assault Transport
IMI: Medium Assault Intruder
IS: Small Assault Transport, Assault Gig, Marine Gig

L - Civilian Research vessels

L : Laboratory Ship
LE : Experimental Ship
LS : Survey Ship

M - Merchants

MA: Large/Heavy Merchant
MAS: Large/Heavy Subsidized Merchant
MM: Medium Merchant
MMA: Medium Armed Merchant
MMJ: Medium Merchant Frontier Trader
MMS: Medium Subsidized Merchant
MC: Merchant Cruiser
ML: Light Merchant
MLA: Light Armed Merchant
MLF: Light Merchant Free Trader
MLJ: Light Merchant Far Trader
MS: Small Merchant
MSF: Small Merchant Free Trader
MSJ: Small Merchant Far Trader

P - Fighters

PA: Heavy Fighter, Gunned Scout
PAM: Heavy Missile Fighter
PF: System Defense Boat
PFA: Heavy System Defense Boat
PG: Gunboat/Gunship
PI: Interface Fighter
PL: Light Fighter
PLM: Light Missile Fighter
PP: Medium Fighter
PS: Strike Fighter

Q - Military Specialty Craft

QE: Experimental Vessel
QM: Mine Dispensing/Mine Retrieval Vessel
QP: Military Prison Vessel
QS: Surveillance Vessel
QT: Q-Ship

R - Civilian Merchants Liners

RA Large Merchant Liner
RL Small Merchant Liner
RR: Medium Merchant Liner
RT: Long Liner

S - Military Smallcraft

SA: Heavy Scout
SAF: Heavy Fleet Scout
SC: Courier
SCL: Long Range Courier
SF: Fuel Cutter, Medium Gas Skimmer
SFA: Large Fueler, Large Gas Skimmer
SFL: Fuel Pinnace, Light Fueler, Light Gas Skimmer
SG: Gig, Pinnace
SGR: Recon Gig, Recon Pinnace
SL: Light Scout, Dispatch Boat
SS: Scout
SSF: Medium Fleet Scout
SSM: Medium Medevac Scout
SSR: Armed Scout, Scout Raider
SSX: Medium Recon Scout
ST: Shuttle
STA: Heavy Shuttle
STL: Light Shuttle
STM: Medevac Shuttle

T - Merchant Transport

TBA: Large/Heavy Bulk Cargo Transport
TBL: Light Bulk Cargo Transport
TBM: Medium Bulk Cargo Transport
TFA: Large/Heavy Tanker
TFL: Light Tanker
TFM: Medium Tanker
TOA: Large/Heavy Ore Transport
TOL: Light Ore Transport
TOM: Medium Ore Transport
TV: Agricultural Transport

U - Civilian Utility Craft

UCA: Cutter, Pinnace
UC: Launch, Ship's Boat, Ship's Shuttle
UCL: Gig
UCS: Lifeboat

V - Carriers

VA: Heavy Carrier
VE: Escort Carrier, Pocket Carrier
VL: Light Carrier
VI: Assault Carrier
VS: Strike Carrier
VT: Carrier Tender
VTB: Battle Rider Carrier Tender
VTC: Cruiser Rider Carrier Tender
VTF: Fighter/SBD Carrier Tender
VTI: Interdiction Carrier Tender
VTM: Mixed Rider Carrier Tender
VV: Fleet Carrier

W - Orbital Complexes

WA : Armored station
WG : Government station (unspecified)
WHP: Prison hulk or prison orbital complex.
WM : Merchant / commercial station
WMD: Floating Dock/Repair facility
WMI: Orbital industrial facility
WR : Residential orbital habitat
WS : Sensor platform
WSA: Armed Sensor Platform
WSB: Sensor/Beacon Platform
WSM: Manned Sensor Platform
WV : Agricultural orbital
WY : Private orbital habitat

X - Experimental/Prototype Design

Y - Privately owned craft

YA : Large Yacht
YY : Medium Yacht
YYG: Gunned Medium Yacht
YR : Racing Yacht

Z - Unclassified
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Moppy
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby Moppy » Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:45 am

On structured ID codes:

A thing to consider is that computer systems are more secure and efficient when they use random numbers and just look up the data for it in a database, rather than encode it into the number directly with digits for origin, year and so forth. An example of this is the unique 12(?) character URL of every YouTube video or how government systems are gradually adding more randomisation. Because of the communications lag in 3I you would likely need separate non-overlapping codes for each region. YouTube almost certainly has this (they have a number of separate upload servers where new videos are registered and they won't want to have to synchronise them all) but you don't notice it from their URLs.

On navy ship classification codes:

Traveller probably copies US Navy. Under US navy codes, battlecruiser is BC and not CB as it's capital sized. If CB was a surface combatant it would be up-armed cruiser.

Not surprisingly the categorisation of ships is culture specific. The new Spanish surface combatants are destroyers in US classification but the Spanish call them frigates as "destroyer" is too warlike a name. As far as I remember, the British are the only western EU navy who uses "the d-word" in modern day. Modern Japan is the opposite - every important combatant warship is a destroyer so that thing with a flat top that operates aircraft? That's a "helicopter destroyer". (I'm uncertain what they would call a full carrier if they had one).

edit for typos.

edit There was a category table in the old High Guard but it was incomplete.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3060
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby locarno24 » Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:17 pm

Moppy wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:45 am
Traveller probably copies US Navy. Under US navy codes, battlecruiser is BC and not CB as it's capital sized. If CB was a surface combatant it would be up-armed cruiser.
For the most part it does (where the equivalent concent exists), but it is CB and not BC - a Third Imperium Battlecruiser is a 90-100,000 dTon ship depending on class - it's a cruiser built around a battleship-calibre spinal mount, not a battleship with 'only' cruiserweight armour to increase speed (Battleships weigh in at about 150-500,000 dTons with the biggest dreadnought classes being up to a megadTon), so it basically is an up-gunned cruiser.

By comparison, the 'light' and 'heavy' cruiser definition (which in WWII mostly talked about the size of the main armament rather than the ship itself) defines the size of the ship, with Imperial 'light' cruisers being about 30,000 dTons and 'Heavies' and 'Battlecruisers' being the same size at about three times that displacement.



Moppy wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:45 am
Not surprisingly the categorisation of ships is culture specific. The new Spanish surface combatants are destroyers in US classification but the Spanish call them frigates as "destroyer" is too warlike a name. As far as I remember, the British are the only western EU navy who uses "the d-word" in modern day. Modern Japan is the opposite - every important combatant warship is a destroyer so that thing with a flat top that operates aircraft? That's a "helicopter destroyer". (I'm uncertain what they would call a full carrier if they had one).
It's also by perceived role. Some navies categorise by displacement, some on tactical role. The French Marine Nationale also operate Destroyer-class ships - and along with the British Royal Navy are pretty much the only 'expeditionary' fleet in the EU; if you're primarily interested in securing the Baltic, North Sea and Mediterranean the ship type is less relevant.

Which is why the Type 45 Daring-class Destroyer is a 'destroyer' not a 'cruiser' despite being pretty much the same size as a Ticonderoga-class CG Cruiser.

The whole 'warlike' thing is because the 'front end' of the name "fell off" - for the same reason writers for Star Wars and Babylon 5 assumed a Destroyer had to be the nastiest ship because, well, 'Destroyer'. The name started as Torpedo-Boat Destroyer - i.e. a ship whose primary purpose was killing things other than an enemy ship of the line. These days, that's evolved into a role of killing Aircraft and Submarines.

You're right about the Japanese, but again the same logic applies. The Japanese JMSDF Hyuga-class is badged as a destroyer, at least in part because whilst it's a 'carrier' it only carries Anti-Submarine Warfare aircraft. Equally, the Maya-class, despite being bigger than most cruisers, doesn't carry any ship-to-ship missile armament - it has a naval gun for general purpose work, and it's freaking loaded with anti-air and anti-sub weapons but it lacks an equivalent of Harpoon, MdCN or Eagle Strike to let it engage a battlegroup of enemy surface warships.

It's a conceit, but no less ridiculous than the RN's old 'Through-Deck Cruisers' (Invincible and Ark Royal) built during a government which would have refused to allow them to commission 'carriers'. Mind you, that was the same whitehall genius minds whose defence White Paper had pronounced manned combat aircraft 'obsolete' in the 60s, so go figure.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Moppy
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby Moppy » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:03 pm

In original High Guard, fitting a battleship spinal and jump-4 to 100-kton ship meant almost no armor (if it even fits) and almost everything would be agility-5+ anyway. I suppose there's been so many different Traveller editions, any general definition would have to be vey flexible.

In the modern USN the difference between cruiser and destroyer is that cruiser has flag facilities for squadron command, and the destroyer doesn't. Which is why you see a single cruiser and several destroyers as part of the carrier escort group.

The British D-class would be a cruiser by US standards (it's got a flag bridge and more general combat capability than a Burke or Tico if only because the Burke is aging, though the D-class might currently miss some of the specialised functions like ballistic missile defense due to its newness). But the British have always tended to put more command facilities on things, prefering to do that instead of building "leader" variants.

I did forget the French. Sorry. I find their anti-submarine destroyers another example the differences in ship classificaton. Having no area AAW system you would expect it to be classed a frigate, unless you're French.
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby HalC » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:11 pm

One has to wonder how the civilian version of hull classification types would run. There is a lot of detail on hull designation for military ships - but very little on the others (including the Scout ships).

How is it that the Scout Service has only a VERY few ship classes as compared against say, the Imperial Navy? How many different Scout Ship classes are there really?

;)
HalC
Mongoose
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby HalC » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:34 pm

Moppy wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:45 am
On structured ID codes:

A thing to consider is that computer systems are more secure and efficient when they use random numbers and just look up the data for it in a database, rather than encode it into the number directly with digits for origin, year and so forth. An example of this is the unique 12(?) character URL of every YouTube video or how government systems are gradually adding more randomisation. Because of the communications lag in 3I you would likely need separate non-overlapping codes for each region. YouTube almost certainly has this (they have a number of separate upload servers where new videos are registered and they won't want to have to synchronise them all) but you don't notice it from their URLs.

The only thing I will say against using a 3 digit code etc that requires a computer (yours!!!) at the table top is this:

If you don't have a computer at your gaming table, and you don't want to have to use a database look up for information, would it not be better to have a system that is human eye compatible as well as human mind processing capable than to have to use a database lookup? *teasing grin*

That's why I went with four letters for the sector itself. If it can happen that there are two sectors with the same four digit lead in values - then it isn't unique enough, and we'd have to go to as many letters as necessary to make it unique. Some sectors have two words in their names, some have only one. It isn't likely that we'll find a sector named SpMa as its first four letters for a single word name. Mass on the other hand, could easily be the first for letters of two different sectors (hopefully it isn't the case!).

As you correctly noted, it can be hard to have a system that is decentralized, so any system has to be able to account for non-overlapping use of any given sequence of identifier codes.

In theory? That which I originally proposed could generate unique Registry Codes until the end of the Universe - since the year value is consistent, but that the other codes are limited to how many contracts any one given world's shipyard can produce. Since each shipyard gets its own number (how many shipyards can a single star system hold I wonder?) - that plus the year plus the sector plus the world name should produce perfectly unique ID values. Once the year is over, the whole thing is incremented by 1 digit for all worlds at the same time, and the thing begins anew.

Readable by the human eye, can be randomly generated by the GM if he wants to create tables to do it. Since the age of any given starship is included in its registry number, the GM can even add that minor detail to the whole aspect of his ships.

Now for the fun part...

Assigned Registry numbers that fall outside of the normal "Imperial Standard".

If you find a hull that isn't already identified within the Imperial's system - it either predates the Imperial System, or it comes from outside of it. Its registry code might be something like:

NIMP-SECTOR-WORLD-YEAR-DocumentID

Its very oddity will mark it as a non-Imperial ship. Its registration ID will have to be issued from a valid Governmental entity - likely requiring that it be issued as a function of the highest ranked "office" that is permitted to issue it.

The fact that this is being discussed in the year 2019 - some 40 years after the publication of the first Traveller books doesn't mean that this system would not have been adopted upon year 0 of the Third Imperium. Emperor Cleon clearly intended to expand his original territory from its original Sylean size to eventually regain all of the other subsectors that were out there. It is likely that he would have had this in place early on, and finding a wreck somewhere that is 400 years old is likely going to have its identifying registry values listed on equipment within its hull, perhaps stamped into the hull metal itself, etc. Bonded Superdense might even have it encoded directly in readable form via selected application of the process to make material bonded superdense.

Now, having said that? A given ship's registry may have fallen outside of the normal every day "database" lists. Having a specific year included in the "String" means that any one can determine where they have to go to find out where that ship originated, etc. Even if the world is now dead or the starport records are lost, they can read it and know it was produced at a given time, given shipyard, and know that it was a valid contract (hence its contract number being listed).

The fun begins when you have a ship hull that no one is willing to claim had a valid contract! You know - those Pirate Hulls. Perhaps someone who is good with material forensics might be able to determine based on the chemical impurities, the atomic isotopes, or what have you, that this hull was produced on a given world that matches the characteristics of other hulls also produced by that given world.
paltrysum
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby paltrysum » Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:58 pm

Whatever the registration number may be, presumably it is displayed in some alternative character set that is invented some time between now and the 57th century. Most of the art I see has cool little characters on the ship that clearly are not Arabic numerals.

Image
Image
Image
My published Traveller adventures on DriveThruRPG:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php ... %20Griffen
Epicenter
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:37 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby Epicenter » Thu May 16, 2019 12:05 am

locarno24 wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:17 pm
You're right about the Japanese, but again the same logic applies. The Japanese JMSDF Hyuga-class is badged as a destroyer, at least in part because whilst it's a 'carrier' it only carries Anti-Submarine Warfare aircraft. Equally, the Maya-class, despite being bigger than most cruisers, doesn't carry any ship-to-ship missile armament - it has a naval gun for general purpose work, and it's freaking loaded with anti-air and anti-sub weapons but it lacks an equivalent of Harpoon, MdCN or Eagle Strike to let it engage a battlegroup of enemy surface warships.
The "destroyer" thing for the JMSDF is how they chose "translate" the general term for ships in JMSDF into English. In Japanese, all JMSDF ships are referred to as goei-kan (護衛艦 - "defense warship"), though sometimes as jiei-kan (自衛官 - self-defense warship, in the same way the somewhat awkward term "Self-Defense Force" is 自衛隊 - "jieitai" in Japanese). The news media will still refer to ships as "destroyers", "cruisers", "carriers" and so on (and of course, in the way of non-experts, they won't always get the classification correct).

Modern warship classes often have more to do with various political/budgetary aims. Making things sound cheaper to pitch it to the governments who have to pay for them is a big deal in a lot of nations and five "escort ships" sounds less expensive than five "guided missile cruisers." Even the ever-increasing expense of "destroyers" is actually a result of budgets. Governments (especially representative ones) dislike huge expenditures on things; while certain voters love huge, impressive military forces they dislike paying for them. So navies kept slapping on more and more missions on to destroyers which made them larger to accommodate the equipment and more expensive until they eventually overtook and have replaced cruisers for all intents and purposes. Modern destroyers are easily the size of cruisers of the WW2 era and much more capable.

However, in the modern day, the mission and cost creep of destroyers has made them "poison" to when asking for money. Now we're seeing "frigates" start to get more and more missions assigned to them, which in turn requires more equipment, which means they grow bigger and more expensive ...

The Maya-class already carries anti-ship missiles. SM-2MRs can do the job - though not well enough in the JMSDF's eyes. They're planning to put the domestically developed Type 17 anti-ship missiles on the Maya soon enough.
Moppy
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 509
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby Moppy » Thu May 16, 2019 12:37 am

Epicenter wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 12:05 am
The Maya-class already carries anti-ship missiles. SM-2MRs can do the job - though not well enough in the JMSDF's eyes. They're planning to put the domestically developed Type 17 anti-ship missiles on the Maya soon enough.
JMSDF's view might be justifiable as the new Chinese destroyers are said to be superior to the US Burkes - or at least equal and not worse, depending on who you ask.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7075
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Supporting Details: Registration Numbers for hulls

Postby Condottiere » Thu May 16, 2019 9:21 am

Littoral Combat Ships was an attempt at specialization and size deflation, but seems to have fallen victim to mission creep, and the discovery that there is such a thing as critical mass to perform at a satisfactory level.

There are clusters of sweetspots between size, associated costs, and performance for warships; it's up to the Naval Staff to figure out how the next conflict they'll be engaged in will look like, and what they'll need to achieve their strategic goals; in the meantime, operational and political environments may change, and they'll have to account for that.

The Japanese have to walk a tightrope of preparing expeditionary naval forces, while still maintaining plausible deniability that they have the capacity to operate out of area.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], PsiTraveller and 7 guests