Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:54 pm

Muzzle velocity probably becomes relevant.

Which reminds me.

Close range is dogfighting territory; a boarding party is looking at being machine gunned down at six second intervals if exposed on the hull.

Probably a good idea that you can't use sandcaster variants to directly penetrate the hull, since sheer attrition should have sand blasted a hole within six minutes.

Which leaves us with actual machine guns to consider, railguns.

Torpedoes and missiles as well, in theory, but awfully expensive.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:06 am

A VRF gauss gun has a muzzle velocity of 4.5km/s, mass drivers could be even greater. CPR guns struggle to achieve much over 1.5km/s
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:15 am

You only need two thousand metres per second, which would get you to ten klicks in five seconds.


Image

You could replace the glitter dust with a warhead.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:32 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:06 am
A VRF gauss gun has a muzzle velocity of 4.5km/s, mass drivers could be even greater. CPR guns struggle to achieve much over 1.5km/s
[/quote

The point of a mass driver is more to do with the mass of the projectile rather than the kinetic force. ( Gauss and Railguns are for more kinetic work.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:20 am

Dirtside, they'd work as mortars or howitzers, depending on actual muzzle velocity.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:28 am

Mass Drivers are brutal for orbital bombardment with the destructive trait and not losing effectiveness like particle beams / meson guns. ( Lose radiation trait and 1/2 damage when fired from orbit.)
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:54 pm

baithammer wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:32 am
Sigtrygg wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:06 am
A VRF gauss gun has a muzzle velocity of 4.5km/s, mass drivers could be even greater. CPR guns struggle to achieve much over 1.5km/s
[/quote

The point of a mass driver is more to do with the mass of the projectile rather than the kinetic force. ( Gauss and Railguns are for more kinetic work.)
Nope, it's the kinetic energy that does the damage. Here is the real world massdrivers - or railguns as they are better known as - ar being designed to reach the highest velocity they can. If you want hypersonic then electomagnetic is the way to go since CPR rounds can not achieve the velocities of railguns.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:55 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:20 am
Dirtside, they'd work as mortars or howitzers, depending on actual muzzle velocity.
This is actually how several systems in the real world are being implemented.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:55 pm

Muzzle velocity tends to be the primary difference.

Whatever power requirements the sandcaster launcher has, it's too insignificant to register.

But in a triple turret, you could have a rate of fire of three times ten per minute.

I'm going to assume that you can empty the racks in two minutes before you have to reload, for sixty rounds.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 22, 2018 10:11 pm

Speaking of reloading, how many sand canisters does a firm point hold?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:38 pm

Spaceships: Anti Missile Tactics and Cantabrian Circle

The Cantabrian circle (Latin: circulus cantabricus) was a military tactic employed by ancient and to a lesser extent medieval light cavalry armed with javelins. As Flavius Arrianus[1] and Hadrian[2] relate, this was the most habitual form to appear in combat of the Cantabri tribes, and Rome adopted it after the Cantabrian Wars.
A group of mounted javelin throwers would form a single-file rotating circle. As the archers came around to face the enemy formation they would let their missile fly. The effect was a continual stream of javelins onto an enemy formation.

The tactic was usually employed against infantry and bowmen. The constant movement of the horsemen gave them an advantage against the less mobile infantry and made them harder to target by the enemy's missile troops. The manoeuvre was designed to harass and taunt the enemy forces, disrupt close formations and often draw part, or all, of the enemy forces into a disorganised or premature charge. This was commonly used against enemy infantry, especially heavily armed and armoured slow moving forces such as the legions of the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire.

The advantages of the Cantabrian circle is that the mounted javelinmen do not have to make a perfect circle, allowing them to keep their distance from the enemy. The slower moving infantry have little to no hope of catching the cavalry, putting them at a distinct disadvantage.


You have a fast moving squadron of fighters that fly in a racetrack pattern parallel to the course of torpedo and missile salvos, engaging them at near matching speeds at close range.

Advantage would be that you would have a steady platform that can go duck hunting, since the ordnance isn't aimed at the fighter, and you can turn around and start over with the next group of incoming ordnance.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:58 pm

Fly in a racetrack pattern lol.

This isn't Star Wars where ships can bank and turn, pull handbrake turns and the like.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:46 pm

Code: Select all

Advantage would be that you would have a steady platform that can go duck hunting, since the ordnance isn't aimed at the fighter, and you can turn around and start over with the next group of incoming ordnance.
Starships have entire batteries dedicated to dealing with small craft and incoming missile / torpedo threats, further these weapons have a longer reach than the small craft weapons outside missiles / torpedoes so a wheeling action isn't in the fighters interest. Instead the mounted archer attack / retreat model works far better outside of fusion barbette strike craft, which have their own issues but greatly benefit from the dogfight rules.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:44 am

But the fighters at close range will have all the time in the world to take pot shots at the missiles and torpedoes, as they travel parallel to the salvos.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:24 am

In which case all they do is match vectors, effective relative velocity zero,

But are the missiles coasting or accelerating? Has someone mixed some smart missiles into the swarm that can target the sitting duck fighters? Or how about a second wave of missiles that can be re-tasked to destroy the sitting duck fighters?

And don't forget the missile swarm is inbound to your capital ships - how are they maneuvering? Away from the missiles? Towards them so they can close with the enemy that launched them?

You really need a game board and a vector movement system - Mayday, Triplanetary something like those - to game out these events to find out the 'realities' of newtonian movement.
Last edited by Sigtrygg on Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:04 am

Image

Dogfighting time is relative, the opposite of near cee.

In fact, I bet that fighter pilots are juiced up on the slow drug.

As for the likely targets that you'd want to protect from incoming ordnance, namely cruisers and battleships, I'd maintain a long range at minimum.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:26 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Reflec Coating

Sure, it's going to make your fighter a shining beacon in the night, but it will protect you from lasers, and you can outrun a missile. Probably.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:05 pm

Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:08 pm

Inspiration: Millennium Falcon


Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFhp594RlU
Super cuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od6km24d1yo
Not so super cuts.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6405
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:23 am

Spaceships: Planetoids and Hull Options

I don't see that in most cases it's possible to coat the planetoid to make these effective.

The exceptions probably are Emissions Absorption Grid and Radiation Shielding, which seems more of an internal arrangement.

Maybe heat shielding?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests