Necessity of Launch Tubes

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Annatar Giftbringer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:37 pm

Condottiere wrote:An X-wing would need ninety tons of volume to mount four lasers (and an oversized power plant).

Also, ten tons of ballast.
So, I guess that means small craft can't have double or triple mounts? I've been unsure about how to interpret that, but it does say weapons, not mounts...

One way to make a small x-wing could be to arm it with a single pulse laser but draw it with four small barrels, and explain that the four small guns count as a single pulse laser when firing together
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4363
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby AndrewW » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:59 pm

Annatar Giftbringer wrote:So, I guess that means small craft can't have double or triple mounts? I've been unsure about how to interpret that, but it does say weapons, not mounts...
They can have a double or triple turret, but are only allowed to put so many ship scale weapons in it depending on size.

Note you would also be limited to 3 energy weapons using the small craft power plants.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Reynard » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:01 pm

And an X-wing has a jump drive. Explains why both X-wings and Vipers don't work in Traveller. I know because I tried to build a Viper for another thread on this forum. I wonder how the old series Star Trek shuttle would fit into Traveller construction? The maneuver drive is also the double landing struts.
User avatar
GJD
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: UK

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby GJD » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:45 pm

phavoc wrote: In the Falklands the Brits used some container ships as 'light' carriers. They were a temporary stopgap measure, and while they sorta, kinda worked, they had their faults.
They weren't used as carriers. They were used to transport replacement aircraft to the carriers. The only flight ops were to land on them before the aircraft were stowed, then fly off them to the carriers.

G.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8390
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:59 pm

For STOVL combat aircraft you really need about one hundred seventy metres of flight deck and a ski-jump, for a reasonable load.

So you can ask yourself if STOVL, which doesn't need a catapult, can be recreated in Traveller.

And in the unlikely event we end up in an extended general war, commercial ships will be reconstructed as escort carriers for STOVL aircraft or even helicopters that serve as gunships and ASW platforms.
User avatar
Rick
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1452
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Lincoln, UK

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Rick » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:35 am

Condottiere wrote:And in the unlikely event we end up in an extended general war, commercial ships will be reconstructed as escort carriers for STOVL aircraft or even helicopters that serve as gunships and ASW platforms.
More likely for them to have helicopters as ASW pickets on convoy runs than get them anywhere really dangerous. Commercial ships are just too bulky, noisy and fragile to stand in for a warship. Of course that mainly goes for the bigger navies that have specialist landing ships or heli carriers, China, USA, UK, Russia, France, Poland etc.
More likely might be to have an intelligence-gathering ship that looks completely civilian, but can launch multiple armed/unarmed drones as a light strike or recon operation.
"Understanding is a 3-edged sword" bit like a toblerone, really.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4915
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby phavoc » Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:24 am

GJD wrote:
phavoc wrote: In the Falklands the Brits used some container ships as 'light' carriers. They were a temporary stopgap measure, and while they sorta, kinda worked, they had their faults.
They weren't used as carriers. They were used to transport replacement aircraft to the carriers. The only flight ops were to land on them before the aircraft were stowed, then fly off them to the carriers.

G.
The Atlantic Conveyor was carrying the Chinook helicopters that the troops were supposed to use to cross the island. Plus it was carrying ammunition and other stores. When the Exocet's hit it it was the cargo that burned and caused the ship to be abandoned. The Chinooks would have come back to the Conveyor for servicing and resupply. Technically that makes the ship a carrier.

While they weren't light carriers in the sense of the Gambier Bay / Casablanca class, they were used as carriers. Maybe auxillary carrier would have been a more accurate description.
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby dragoner » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:40 am

Condottiere wrote:
And in the unlikely event we end up in an extended general war ...
Quoth a friend of mine who ran a F15E armory section: "In a nuclear war, there can be no winners." So today's reality doesn't really translate well to Traveller.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8390
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Condottiere » Tue Apr 14, 2015 10:36 am

If you survived, you won.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Reynard » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:42 am

Decades ago, there was a Gahan Wilson cartoon with a soldier standing in burning ruins saying "We won! I think.".
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1716
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby dragoner » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:14 pm

If you were sitting on a beach in Rio while the idiots up north blew themselves up, you win. Hell, sitting on a beach in Rio, you win all the time.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby F33D » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:54 pm

Condottiere wrote: So you can ask yourself if STOVL, which doesn't need a catapult, can be recreated in Traveller.
Why would you want to downgrade space fighters to level 6 or 7 technology levels?
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4915
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby phavoc » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:34 pm

F33D wrote:
Condottiere wrote: So you can ask yourself if STOVL, which doesn't need a catapult, can be recreated in Traveller.
Why would you want to downgrade space fighters to level 6 or 7 technology levels?
I think he's referring to the concept, not the actual tech. STOVL concepts work nicely if you replace air-fed turbines with antigravity.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby F33D » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:49 pm

phavoc wrote:
F33D wrote:
Condottiere wrote: So you can ask yourself if STOVL, which doesn't need a catapult, can be recreated in Traveller.
Why would you want to downgrade space fighters to level 6 or 7 technology levels?
I think he's referring to the concept, not the actual tech. STOVL concepts work nicely if you replace air-fed turbines with antigravity.
The "concept" means, short take-off and vertical landing. With anti-grav it is VTOL. The "short take-off" is for craft that use wings for aerodynamic lift ...
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4915
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby phavoc » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:20 pm

F33D wrote:
phavoc wrote:I think he's referring to the concept, not the actual tech. STOVL concepts work nicely if you replace air-fed turbines with antigravity.
The "concept" means, short take-off and vertical landing. With anti-grav it is VTOL. The "short take-off" is for craft that use wings for aerodynamic lift ...
Thank you for the explanation. I was aware of the acronym and it's meaning. A Harrier jump jet is capable of both STOVL and VTOL launching. I got the analogy he was making, and I don't believe it should be taken so literally. And even if you did, imagining STOVL operations and merging them with antigravity operations isn't at all a stretch of the imagination.

If you recall from Megatraveller, the VP-15 Provincial carrier illustration had a flight deck of sorts that would be totally at home in a STOVL environment. I was going to add the image but I'm getting a message the board attachment quota has been reached.
F33D
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1645
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby F33D » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:31 pm

phavoc wrote: And even if you did, imagining STOVL operations and merging them with antigravity operations isn't at all a stretch of the imagination.
I can imagine it but it makes ZERO sense. If you really understood WHY STOVL exists you would never consider it with antigrav as the lift/propulsion system.

Why do you think that it makes sense to design a flight deck for PURELY VTOL AG drive craft that uses components that only exist for craft that use wings for aeronautic lift?
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4915
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby phavoc » Tue Apr 14, 2015 6:55 pm

F33D wrote:
phavoc wrote: And even if you did, imagining STOVL operations and merging them with antigravity operations isn't at all a stretch of the imagination.
I can imagine it but it makes ZERO sense. If you really understood WHY STOVL exists you would never consider it with antigrav as the lift/propulsion system.

Why do you think that it makes sense to design a flight deck for PURELY VTOL AG drive craft that uses components that only exist for craft that use wings for aeronautic lift?
Why? You are totally ignoring the USMC use of Harriers. The Royal Navy used Harriers on carriers equipped with ski ramps in STOVL operations. The only difference between STOVL and VTOL operations is that STOVL allows for a heavier takeoff payload. The USMC operations guides and training operated from forward bases and in VTOL operations. The aircraft in question could perform both VTOL and STOVL operations, but obviously with different operating weights. How they take off is inconsequential to their mission - it only affects their loadouts.

I don't understand why you keep sticking to the idea that mentioning STOVL operations MUST include using pure aircraft concepts. It doesn't. A Harrier fighter, moved forward into Traveller, becomes a 10ton spacecraft. Both are able to perform escort, ground attack and other missions. Both are able to take off and land vertically. Depending on if you put wheeled landing gear on the Harrier spacefighter, both could equally taxi and even use a ski ramp to take off. The only difference is that a fighter equipped with antigravity would have no need to do so. So explain to me why they are so different again?
User avatar
Rick
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1452
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:13 am
Location: Lincoln, UK

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Rick » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:15 pm

Carriers that use VTOL aircraft have flight decks for fuel economy - it uses far less fuel to take-off/land conventionally than to do it by VTOL, which translates to a higher weapons loadout and/or mission length. If fuel is of little or no consequence, you may as well use VTOL all of the time.
"Understanding is a 3-edged sword" bit like a toblerone, really.
hiro

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby hiro » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:25 pm

Vertical?

You mean like up and down?

In space?

Which way is up in space?

How you get any kind of comparison with VTOL/STOL or whatever aircraft when talking about fictional space craft is a mystery to me.

Hmm, this thread seems to have wandered somewhat astray...

Let's try and bring it back a little. Given that a space craft does not need velocity to become airborne as there is no air and no lift, why would you opt to have a ship launched from another with any velocity imparted from the launching ship? It's not like you have to conserve fuel in Traveller, launching is no more fuel intensive than any other manoeuvre.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Necessity of Launch Tubes

Postby Reynard » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:39 pm

You are thinking in two dimensions. Space and aerial combat is always three dimensional though a Harrier handles it better with 'viffing'.

Ships in Traveller combat doesn't really make use of the third dimension in craft launching. Sometimes you may see a launch door ventral or dorsal on a ship. Most times fighting craft are launched in the direction of the enemy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests