The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby snrdg121408 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:13 pm

Morning PDT phavoc,
phavoc wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:49 pm
snrdg121408 wrote:
Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:40 pm
I did a search on ASROC which brought up the Naval Weapons site http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMUS_ASROC.php. The system I remember is pictured as a type of box launcher and the newest system is the vertical launch type.

The vertical launch system in my opinion fits MgT Vehicle Handbook's definition for a fixed mount.

The launcher in the ASROC link and the twin rail launcher shown on the MgT Vehicle Handbook Achilles frigate on p. 92 I'm sure are not fixed mounts, however I'm not sure what mount type to select.

Update:

Nuts, I forgot about the Phalanx part but I remember seeing what I think was a Phalanx on a carrier that was close to the stern and slightly lower than the flight deck. I'll have to look through some of my books and online to see where they stuck them through the years.

Thank you for the reply.
Yeah, earlier destroyers and cruisers had a dedicated 8 (or 10) cell launcher mounted forward. Today everything is going VLS.

Nimitz class carriers have, I think, 4, phalanx launchers mounted, 2 forward and 2 aft. I know there's been a push to put the RAM (rolling airframe missile) launcher in some of the same sponsoons. The RAM's are able to intercept cruise missiles as well, just further away.
I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby phavoc » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:50 pm

snrdg121408 wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:13 pm
I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.
That's actually by design. The rocket exhaust needs to be vented away from the missile so it doesn't damage it. A launcher in space could, if you wanted, physically eject the missile. The single rail launchers on the old OHP class had the ability to 'toss' dud or activated but unfired missiles over the side via a very strong spring. You could also use gas in a space launcher, though I would think that it might be better in the long run to use a mechanical mechanism (assuming you don't want it to activate in the launcher like VLS does today) since you wouldn't need to store inert gas in the launch area.

SSBN's eject missiles using gas, then again they have to factor in buoyancy, so a fluidic environment is slightly different than a vacuum one.

The USN is also fielding a merged Phalanx / RAM launcher called SeaRAM - which has a 21 round RAM launcher combined with a CIWS gun system. I believe they are eventually supposed to replace all individual CIWS and RAM launchers in the fleet.
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby snrdg121408 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:17 pm

Afternoon PDT phovac,
phavoc wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:50 pm
snrdg121408 wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 1:13 pm
I can see the use of VLS especially since there appear to be a minimum of moving parts to break, but from the video clips I've seen I'm a bit nervous about the ones showing flames flickering out of the tube. Of course being a retired submarine sailor I'm not very happy seeing any hint of a fire onboard any ship or structure. Fire is on the same level of water inside the people tank, a.k.a. pressure hull.

IIRC the phalanx in theory is supposed to be able to knock out cruise missiles too and I agree with anything that knocks out threats as far away from a ship, especially one I was on, is something to push.
That's actually by design. The rocket exhaust needs to be vented away from the missile so it doesn't damage it. A launcher in space could, if you wanted, physically eject the missile. The single rail launchers on the old OHP class had the ability to 'toss' dud or activated but unfired missiles over the side via a very strong spring. You could also use gas in a space launcher, though I would think that it might be better in the long run to use a mechanical mechanism (assuming you don't want it to activate in the launcher like VLS does today) since you wouldn't need to store inert gas in the launch area.

SSBN's eject missiles using gas, then again they have to factor in buoyancy, so a fluidic environment is slightly different than a vacuum one.

The USN is also fielding a merged Phalanx / RAM launcher called SeaRAM - which has a 21 round RAM launcher combined with a CIWS gun system. I believe they are eventually supposed to replace all individual CIWS and RAM launchers in the fleet.
Seeing fire flicking out of the launcher after the missile is gone still makes me uneasy regardless of being by design.

One of the best memories I have of my duty on SSBNs was actually launching two dummy ICBMs while submerged. Being on watch in the SONAR shack there was a depth gauge so that we could put that information on tape. During the launches the gauge changed when the first missile left and in less than a minute was back on depth before the second one was ejected repeating the bobbing process. The other event was on SSN 591 when we did a live fire of a Mk 48 to verify that at least one actually went boom :D .

Looks like the new system is something that the surface fleet can keep hostile ordnance from doing damage is going to get my vote.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby phavoc » Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:55 am

I'm ex-MLRS. We just heard sonic booms from the cab and lots of smoke. On the outside you saw a bright flash, lots of smoke and a smoky fire zipping away from the launcher. The rockets were pretty much going supersonic before all of it left the tube.

Fun to fire, never fun to clean up the mess afterwards though. :(
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby snrdg121408 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:34 am

Evening PDT phavoc,
phavoc wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:55 am
I'm ex-MLRS. We just heard sonic booms from the cab and lots of smoke. On the outside you saw a bright flash, lots of smoke and a smoky fire zipping away from the launcher. The rockets were pretty much going supersonic before all of it left the tube.

Fun to fire, never fun to clean up the mess afterwards though. :(
There was some noise with the launch of the missiles and of course the high pitched whine of the Mk 48's propulsion system followed by the detonation of the warhead. The security escorts got great pictures of the missile breaching the surface and lighting of the motors.

For the missiles the missilers had to clean up the tubes and the torpedomen had to clean up the torpedo tubes. Being a ping jockey I missed the clean-up. :D
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)
collins355
Stoat
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:23 pm

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby collins355 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:29 am

Hopefully this will get seen amidst our little diversion into real-world naval technology.

Looking at the Light Submersible chassis on page 22 one of the options is Supercavitating Drive. A light submersible is limited to spaces 1-20. Yet under supercavitating drive it says "Supercavitating drives consume a percentage of the total number of spaces the submersible has, as shown on the Supercavitating Drive table (minimum 10 spaces)." The highest amount you could possibly get from the table is 40% (i.e. 8 spaces in a 20 space submersible).

If the minimum is 10 spaces then isn't the drive table completely superfluous? You're always going to use 10 spaces if you take supercavitating drive no matter what size light submersible and it will always cost MCr2 at TL-8-9; MCr1 at TL10-11; Cr500,000 at TL12-13 and Cr250,000 at TL14+.

What am I missing?
snrdg121408
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Roy, WA USA

Re: The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

Postby snrdg121408 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:53 pm

Hello collins355,
collins355 wrote:
Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:29 am
Hopefully this will get seen amidst our little diversion into real-world naval technology.

Looking at the Light Submersible chassis on page 22 one of the options is Supercavitating Drive. A light submersible is limited to spaces 1-20. Yet under supercavitating drive it says "Supercavitating drives consume a percentage of the total number of spaces the submersible has, as shown on the Supercavitating Drive table (minimum 10 spaces)." The highest amount you could possibly get from the table is 40% (i.e. 8 spaces in a 20 space submersible).

If the minimum is 10 spaces then isn't the drive table completely superfluous? You're always going to use 10 spaces if you take supercavitating drive no matter what size light submersible and it will always cost MCr2 at TL-8-9; MCr1 at TL10-11; Cr500,000 at TL12-13 and Cr250,000 at TL14+.

What am I missing?
Oops, sorry about hijacking the thread.

Thank you for bring this up and getting my focus returned to the VHB 2e(?).

My guess is that they built a master Submersible page probably the heavy version and then made edits to create a the light version.

Comparing the two submersibles the difference is cost. A light sub is Cr50,000 per space and the heavy is Cr100,000. My solution will probably be altering the light sub's minimum from 10 to 5 spaces for the Supercavitating Drive and include the change as part of the Description. Hopefully by the inclusion and that I followed the instructions others will be able to recreate the design without a problem. I ran through the design example and was successful in coming up with the same numbers as shown on the vehicle's record sheet. I admit to being surprised since my past efforts have frequently not matched tons and/or cost.

Based on my background in real world technology the Supercavitating Drive is something that I find very hard to suspend belief because cavitation gives notice a sub is in the area and if the hull is surrounded by a bubble how are the underwater sensors gathering information so the operator can avoid running into something.

Hopefully, Mr. Sprange or other staff member will get back to us for clarification.
snrdg121408 (aka Tom R)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], EldritchFire and 8 guests