Alternate Design Rule - VLS Launchers for Missiles

[phavoc]

Okay, so here's my 2nd attempt at creating VLS technology for Traveller. It's still incomplete as far as some of the damage tables go, but thus far its all I've been able to do (damn you life!). Anywhoo, comments welcome:

Overview
Any starship or spaceship over 40 tons may be equipped with a VLS launching system. VLS launchers do away with the need to use up
valuable turret space to mount missile systems. The primary drawback to a VLS system is that any hit on a VLS cell has a high likelihood of disabling the remaining unfired cells. This is due to the fact that VLS cells are closely clustered together and damage to the surface of the launching mechanisms renders the cell unable to launch. To get around that problem, multiple cells may be installed on the ship to minimize the chance of a single hit disabling your VLS systems.

A dozen standard missiles take up 1 displacement ton in storage. A VLS launcher displaces 1 ton for every 10 cells. The slight difference is due to nature of a VLS system – every cell needs to be self-contained, and hence the amount of space used for storing a missile is slightly increased. Spaceships are limited to a maximum of 40 cells and must be at least 30 tons to mount a VLS system. Starships may mount 20 cells per 100 tons displacement. Civilian ships are limited by Imperial law to no more than 100 cells. Any non-warship mounting more than 100 cells must either have concealed launchers or obtain legal authorization and licensing from the Imperium. It is very unusual for ships over 20,000 tons to mount heavy VLS armament due to the fact that standard launchers, while slower at launching, have the advantage of using armored magazines. And standard doctrine normally calls for the ability for a capital ship to be able to engage in a longer battle. A VLS-armed ship, once it has exhausted its cells, must withdraw to re-arm.

Weapon Mounts
No hardpoint is required to mount a VLS launcher. Each 10 VLS canisters displace 1 ton. Canisters may be broken up into smaller sets, though generally they typically are never seen smaller than a grouping of 4 cells. VLS launchers may be installed at build time or retrofitted at a later date (for the cost of the launcher plus 25% for retrofitting).
VLS mounts come in two variations. The standard, as listed above, and a quick-reload version (see Operations below). Any launch cell may be modified to provide concealment from normal view and scans. A standard launch cell protrudes out of the hull slightly and has a noticeable protective covering over the entire launch cell that slides away prior to combat. Concealed launchers are designed to fit flush with the hull and to blend in as closely as possible to the normal contour of the ship. It is not uncommon for concealed launchers to have additional fake mountings and fixtures to help blend the launcher into the hull.

Firing
VLS missiles may be launched in one of two ways – hot and cold. A hot launch involves launching the missile directly from the launcher, the missile’s guidance system then fires attitude thrusters to align the missile to its target. A cold launch involves the missile being ejected from the magazine where it can be commanded to lay dormant until pre-programmed conditions occur or the missile is activated remotely by the launching ship. The advantage of a cold launch is that the chance of detection is very low, and only increases the closer an enemy gets with active scanners.

The fire control software controls automatically selects the proper cell from which to fire a missile based upon pre-programmed fire selection rules. When launching multiple missiles from a single cell, the fire control program will stagger the missiles appropriately to ensure missiles do not interfere with each other.

Reloading
VLS cells may not be reloaded in combat conditions, extremely hostile environments, or underwater. Reloading is a moderate-difficult task, and is much easier done in a zero-g environment or where there is reloading equipment available in a gravity well. Reloading a single cell takes approximately 10 minutes to place the missile in the cell, secure it, test the command links, and then to seal the tube with a sturdy break-away cap.

Quick reload mounts are designed to take a 4-cell pre-loaded canister. The empty launching canister is ejected (takes approximately 1 minute in a zero-g environment) and the preloaded 4-cell pack is inserted in its place (approximately 5 minutes). A quick reload mount costs the same but each canister costs Cr5,000. Used canisters may be stored and reloaded if time permits.

Operation
Using VLS launchers requires specialized fire control software. Launching large numbers of missiles requires military-grade sensors and control systems. If the missiles are “smart” missiles and require no ship-board control, then only the normal launching limits are applicable.

VLS Software
Type Cost Control Rating Computer Size
VLS Fire Control-1 MCr 2 10 Missiles Model 1
VLS Fire Control-2 MCr 5 25 Missiles Model 1
VLS Fire Control-3 MCr 10 50 Missiles Model 2
VLS Fire Control-4 MCr 20 100 Missiles Model 3
VLS Fire Control-5 MCr30 150 Missiles Model 4
VLS Fire Control-6 MCr50 250 Missiles Model 5

Cost of Launcher (standard configuration)
A single VLS cell costs MCr 100,000 and displaces .1 tons.
A quick-launch VLS 4cell costs MCr 600,000 and displaces .5 tons.
Add concealment to any launch cell – double the cost, must be performed by an expert (hard difficulty).

To Do still:
Create torpedo version
Create damage table for launchers/fraticide launches
Create costs and rules for concealed launchers (levels of concealment)
Alternate rules for mounting on smaller ships
Rules for larger cells / multi-missile loadouts

Additional Designs:
Anti-fighter missiles
Missile pods
Missile bus
Box launchers

 

[phavoc]

Here's what I've come up as a pro/con for VLS launchers. On the plus side:

1) frees up hardpoints for things like defensive weaponry to shoot down the hordes of missiles that are going to be flying towards you!
2) makes smaller ships into potentially devastating missile platforms - at least at the initial attack. VLS ships don't have the staying power as bay-armed ships do with their magazine space
3) from a PC approach, makes it possible to have many "fun" surprises for pirates and other ships in smaller PC-owned vessels


On the con side:
1) more expensive than regular missile launchers
2) potentially overpowering missile swarms, maybe unbalancing the game.
3) gonna be some broke PC's when they have to buy reloads.

Traveller always seemed to me based on the gun-cruiser philosphy prior to WW2. Modern combat occurs at long range with stand-off weapons. Where are the missile swarms? Where are the cheap missile frigates that navies employ to offset opponents stronger "regular" warships?

 

[locarno24]

Suggestions:

Not sure why it doesn't take a hardpoint. It's not dissimilar to a missle bay - just bigger. 'Hardpoints', as much as they physically are anything, are a measure of the availible surface space on a ship, which a VLS bin takes up in spades.

A dozen standard missiles take up 1 displacement ton in storage. A VLS launcher displaces 1 ton for every 10 cells. The slight difference is due to nature of a VLS system – every cell needs to be self-contained, and hence the amount of space used for storing a missile is slightly increased.

Fine. A 16% increase in size for a containerized missile is about right.
In practical terms, instead of a 100 cell launcher, you could have 100 rounds firing through eight triple turrets - 1/4 the rate of fire, but you can 'back-fill' that system with enough ammo to sustain that for as long as you like.

Spaceships are limited to a maximum of 40 cells and must be at least 30 tons to mount a VLS system.

I don't get why the limit wouldn't be a displacement-based one, just the same as with starships. The fact that non jump-capable ships tend to be smaller anyway should make this self-limiting.

Starships may mount 20 cells per 100 tons displacement.

As I said, personally I'd still make it take up hardpoints, but allow a large number of cells in a hardpoint.

As a practical equivalence, I'd make each launcher take a hardpoint (the disadvantage of spreading missiles between launchers, with the resulting decrease in weapon degradation when under fire), but the maximum number of cells per launcher is going to be faintly ridiculous. Assuming the maximum volume that can be considered '1 hardpoint' is the 100 dton bay, then flattening that out into a 100 dton VLS launcher allows 1000 cells (or 990, as you should probably allow for the inevitable '1 ton for fire control').

Civilian ships are limited by Imperial law to no more than 100 cells. Any non-warship mounting more than 100 cells must either have concealed launchers or obtain legal authorization and licensing from the Imperium.

Fair enough.

It is very unusual for ships over 20,000 tons to mount heavy VLS armament due to the fact that standard launchers, while slower at launching, have the advantage of using armored magazines. And standard doctrine normally calls for the ability for a capital ship to be able to engage in a longer battle. A VLS-armed ship, once it has exhausted its cells, must withdraw to re-arm.

True. It's the ability to pack big internal magazines that wins it.

VLS mounts come in two variations. The standard, as listed above, and a quick-reload version (see Operations below). Any launch cell may be modified to provide concealment from normal view and scans. A standard launch cell protrudes out of the hull slightly and has a noticeable protective covering over the entire launch cell that slides away prior to combat. Concealed launchers are designed to fit flush with the hull and to blend in as closely as possible to the normal contour of the ship. It is not uncommon for concealed launchers to have additional fake mountings and fixtures to help blend the launcher into the hull.

Suggestion - just a flavour thing, really, but you have two options here; either 'slide back' panels (which are fine for smaller launchers) or 'blow-off' covering panels. The latter are faster to jettison, and much more practical for something like a 100+ cell launcher, but obviously once fired, it's blatantly obvious that they're there. Carrying a replacement hull panel, or retreiving the jettisoned one, is quite feasible (it's not like it's bonded superdense plate, after all, it's just scan-reflective plastic painted to look like it!), but additional space would be required. Not much, but enough to be worth keeping track of (and to stop an inquisitive customs official noticing the stack of portside hull panels in the back cargo bay!)

Additional suggestion - A lot of USN ships equipped with VLS systems often sacrifice a number of cells for an integrated crane arm, to improve reloading processes (probably a worthwhile option, in the same vein as your 'quick reload packs')

VLS missiles may be launched in one of two ways – hot and cold. A hot launch involves launching the missile directly from the launcher, the missile’s guidance system then fires attitude thrusters to align the missile to its target. A cold launch involves the missile being ejected from the magazine where it can be commanded to lay dormant until pre-programmed conditions occur or the missile is activated remotely by the launching ship. The advantage of a cold launch is that the chance of detection is very low, and only increases the closer an enemy gets with active scanners.

Cold launch is a nice idea, but you're going to need a launcher specifically configured for this - with a low signature 'swim out' engine, and enough passive sensors to potentially do targeting for itself. Not difficult, but I'd suggest making a 'cold launch VLS missile canister' a specific option - standard (or variant) missile, but lose one or more range bands due to the reduction in size as a significant chunk of the canister consists of sensors and cold launch drives to swim out and align the missile.

The swim-out drive probably wouldn't significantly increase the cost compared to a longer ranged missile drive, but making the canisters hard to spot will. 100,000 credits per dton is the cost for stealth fittings for a ship, so 10,000 per round. Equally, internal sensor systems (allowing you to leave them as self-targeting CAPTOR equivalents) cost 50,000 if you want the equivalent to Basic Civilian - making a Cold Launch fitted cell that you can jettison and tell to fire on hostile targets of opportunity cost 160,000, or 60% more than a standard direct-fire-only cell. Which seems okay to me.

Create torpedo version

Direct equivalent. Again, taking USN VLS tubes as your model, the system is set up that a cell can take any standard missile type, from a lightweight SAM to a massive Tomahawk cruise missile. Assume that a torpedo in a VLS canister has the same setup and options, but that it occupies 12 standard cells, which must be in a 3x4 configuration, and allow someone to potentially mix and match torps, missiles, and variants of the two, in the same launcher (provided it's big enough).

Create damage table for launchers/fraticide launches

That's going to be the big one. Some compartmentalization can be assumed, but not much. By the very nature of a VLS launcher, there's going to be a dirty huge gap in the main armour belt, filled with ordnance. This is a VERY bad thing to take hits to.

On the other hand, the Third Imperium clearly has some wicked hot Insensitive Munitions technology, as looking at the tables, there's no damage location I can see for hitting a magazine....That seems a little optimistic, but hey.

On the other hand, with no 'weapon mechanism' to take out, any surviving missiles are going to be availible until the whole thing is wrecked - it's quite possible that one half of a big VLS launcher could be a smoking crater and yet the ship still be firing from the other half.


First Hit: D6x10% of the missiles in the launcher are disabled. A -1 DM is applied to any remaining shots from this launcher or any barrages including missiles from this launcher.

Second Hit: D6x10% of the remaining missiles in the launcher are disabled. A -D6 DM is applied to any remaining shots from this launcher or any barrages including missiles from this launcher, rolled each time the launcher is fired.

Third Hit: All remaining missiles in the launcher, along with their associated fire control systems, are destroyed and can no longer be used.


Additional option: Ammunition cook-off.

Although VLS launchers are compartmentalised, and some armour is placed between the launcher and the ship, a large launcher, with armour retracted for firing, can be a dreadfully vulnerable weakness. Whilst automated systems will in theory eject damaged or burning canisters, more than one ship has been lost by a catastrophic chain reaction after a hit on its VLS launchers.

If a sufficient number of missiles are destroyed in one hit*, then roll a D6. On a 5, the ship suffers a Hull Breach critical. On a 6, the ship suffers an Internal Explosion critical. If any further hits are caused by this damage, the first one is automatically applied to the same VLS launcher.

* I'm suggesting an equivalent to 50 cells or more.

 

[phavoc]

Suggestions:

Not sure why it doesn't take a hardpoint. It's not dissimilar to a missle bay - just bigger. 'Hardpoints', as much as they physically are anything, are a measure of the availible surface space on a ship, which a VLS bin takes up in spades.

A hardpoint is an design rule. Other weapons systems, such as fixed mounts, do not require hardpoints. A VLS installation is treated the same.

Fine. A 16% increase in size for a containerized missile is about right. In practical terms, instead of a 100 cell launcher, you could have 100 rounds firing through eight triple turrets - 1/4 the rate of fire, but you can 'back-fill' that system with enough ammo to sustain that for as long as you like.

Exactly. VLS systems offer a very heavy punch up front. They are designed to overwhelm the enemy quickly and try to win the battle decisively at the very beginning. But there are tradeoffs to it, emptying your available missle payload in just a few salvo's is one of them.

I don't get why the limit wouldn't be a displacement-based one, just the same as with starships. The fact that non jump-capable ships tend to be smaller anyway should make this self-limiting.

It's just an idea. You are right, in theory there's nothing that says you could not simply bolt on a box on a 20ton launch and make it a missile platform. But for the sake of the design rules, I was going to seperate these out and work on adding missiles to 30 ton vessels and under later.

As a practical equivalence, I'd make each launcher take a hardpoint (the disadvantage of spreading missiles between launchers, with the resulting decrease in weapon degradation when under fire), but the maximum number of cells per launcher is going to be faintly ridiculous. Assuming the maximum volume that can be considered '1 hardpoint' is the 100 dton bay, then flattening that out into a 100 dton VLS launcher allows 1000 cells (or 990, as you should probably allow for the inevitable '1 ton for fire control').

I understand where you are coming from, but it gets away from the concept of the VLS system to start. There's no reason to use up a hardpoint just to slot some launchers into the hull. The limit to the number of launchers per 100 tons is done more towards keeping things reasonable. One could say that hulls require a certain amount of structural integrity and 20 cells per 100 tons (along with all the other bits and pieces of sensors, airlocks, fueling ports, etc) is the rule of thumb that naval design engineers use. It is an arbitary ruling, much like 1 hardpoint per 100tons is.

Suggestion - just a flavour thing, really, but you have two options here; either 'slide back' panels (which are fine for smaller launchers) or 'blow-off' covering panels. The latter are faster to jettison, and much more practical for something like a 100+ cell launcher, but obviously once fired, it's blatantly obvious that they're there. Carrying a replacement hull panel, or retreiving the jettisoned one, is quite feasible (it's not like it's bonded superdense plate, after all, it's just scan-reflective plastic painted to look like it!), but additional space would be required. Not much, but enough to be worth keeping track of (and to stop an inquisitive customs official noticing the stack of portside hull panels in the back cargo bay!)

I had thought about the blow off panels, but thought that since most vessels (especially smaller ones) will enter into the atmosphere on planets, a more robust covering over the cell would be needed. Plus, with combat rounds being as long as they are, there's no real reason to have blow-off panels to cover up your cells. Thirty seconds to retract (or even 2 minutes) is still plenty of time to retrach the plates and fire.

Additional suggestion - A lot of USN ships equipped with VLS systems often sacrifice a number of cells for an integrated crane arm, to improve reloading processes (probably a worthwhile option, in the same vein as your 'quick reload packs')

I don't have experience with naval vls, but I served in the Army with the MLRS, and we used the rocket pod concept. We could quickly and easily reload in a matter of minutes. You could even do it with one person, but it took longer. I was figuring in space its all zero-G, so not much help there. And on the ground you will probably have the appropriate anti-grav vehicles to assist in the reload. It's still a good thought for an accessory though.

Cold launch is a nice idea, but you're going to need a launcher specifically configured for this - with a low signature 'swim out' engine, and enough passive sensors to potentially do targeting for itself. Not difficult, but I'd suggest making a 'cold launch VLS missile canister' a specific option - standard (or variant) missile, but lose one or more range bands due to the reduction in size as a significant chunk of the canister consists of sensors and cold launch drives to swim out and align the missile.

Originally I had thought of having the missiles mounted on a small thruster pack that activated first and ejected the missile from the tube, then oriented the missile towards its target and would disengage prior to the missle motor activating. Then I realized the simplest way to eject the missile for a cold launch would be mechanically or just a gas ejection system. This sort of launching mechanism would be built-into the cost of the launching cell.

Create torpedo version
Direct equivalent. Again, taking USN VLS tubes as your model, the system is set up that a cell can take any standard missile type, from a lightweight SAM to a massive Tomahawk cruise missile. Assume that a torpedo in a VLS canister has the same setup and options, but that it occupies 12 standard cells, which must be in a 3x4 configuration, and allow someone to potentially mix and match torps, missiles, and variants of the two, in the same launcher (provided it's big enough).

Yep, I was thinking the same thing for larger sets of cells. But I still need to come up with stand-alone torp launchers to let people customize their mix as necessary or desired.

Create damage table for launchers/fraticide launches
That's going to be the big one. Some compartmentalization can be assumed, but not much. By the very nature of a VLS launcher, there's going to be a dirty huge gap in the main armour belt, filled with ordnance. This is a VERY bad thing to take hits to.[\quote]

For the smaller sets of launchers (like a 4pack), I'm thinking that these are really for non-military ships looking for a quick punch. The cells are probably not going to be armored. But military ships will need to include some sort of armor belt/box to shield the ship from backblast. Something that would channel any detonation outwards. So I need to add in an armoring option, like say Cr10,000 per cell. Good catch!



I definitely want to improve on that concept. In my opinion if you manage to get a hit on an exposed weapon cell, then you are going to cause a significant amount of damage to the areas surrounding it. It's not armored like the hull. Plus I figure that's a drawback to having really large cells - a hit can take them out. Of course, a hit could also jam your cell doors, which may cause you issues later on when you can't cover up your cells. The funny thing here is that moden ships today aren't armored at all anymore. Not like ships in WW2 that were designed to take hits and keep on trucking. These days a couple of Exocets can cripple or sink a billion dollar cruiser. Go figure!




More good ideas!

Yeah, I think we are on the same track here.

 

[DFW]

What are the effects on SL & AF hulls?

 

[phavoc]

What are the effects on SL & AF hulls?

None. That's where the idea of having the coverings retract to expose the launch cells.

Would apply also to any hull type, since you are mounting them inside and taking up volume set aside for cargo, fuel, etc.

 

[DFW]

What are the effects on SL & AF hulls?

None. That's where the idea of having the coverings retract to expose the launch cells.

Would apply also to any hull type, since you are mounting them inside and taking up volume set aside for cargo, fuel, etc.

That would require a hard point. Fixed mount is external. This is like a mini bay, not a fixed mount weapon. A bay/turret by any other name, requires hard point(s)...

 

[lastbesthope]

The extra delta-vee would need to be taken into account, you need to fire the missile 'up' out of the VLS tube and then turn it onto the required heading before correcting for that delta vee and beginning the main burn. A factor that is more important in space...

LBH

 

[DFW]

The extra delta-vee would need to be taken into account, you need to fire the missile 'up' out of the VLS tube and then turn it onto the required heading before correcting for that delta vee and beginning the main burn. A factor that is more important in space...

LBH

Just spin the ship. It only takes a second and "turns" in combat rules are pretty long.

 

[phavoc]

The extra delta-vee would need to be taken into account, you need to fire the missile 'up' out of the VLS tube and then turn it onto the required heading before correcting for that delta vee and beginning the main burn. A factor that is more important in space...

LBH

On a spaceship you might fire it "up", or "down", to the sides, behind you, etc. Missiles are always faster than ships, so even firing to the front it would be able to maneuver easily enough to go behind you. With a combat turn 6minutes, you don't have to worry about maneuvering. Traveller doesn't take velocity into account like that for combat.

Today you can launch a sidewinder nearly 90degrees to left/right of the launching rail. And that's in an atmosphere. All a missile in space needs in space is to be clear of the ship, fire its thrusters and pivot in any direction and then engage the main motor.

 

[phavoc]

That would require a hard point. Fixed mount is external. This is like a mini bay, not a fixed mount weapon. A bay/turret by any other name, requires hard point(s)...

It's semantics. Fixed mounts also have internal components. There isn't any limit on how many airlocks you can have on a ship, just however many you want to pay for. Airlocks are considered internal structures, yet they don't require any structural points. The whole point of VLS armaments is to free up hardpoints that are currently being taken up my missle turrets and apply them to weapons that need to be aimed.

Missiles, unlike all other weapons, can target and fire at an enemy while the weapon system has no bearing on the target. Sure, Traveller doesn't use weapons bearings for combat, but the thought process is still valid.

 

[DFW]

Right, it's just a way to end run the limit on ship to ship weaponry. Like I said, a Turret/Bay by any other name. Seriously though, this would never be added to the official game rules as it breaks them too heavily. That was my point.

 

[phavoc]

Right, it's just a way to end run the limit on ship to ship weaponry. Like I said, a Turret/Bay by any other name. Seriously though, this would never be added to the official game rules as it breaks them too heavily. That was my point.

It's not meant to be an end-run, more of a rationalization. And it is different than a bay setup if you run the numbers - bays have magazines and VLS doesn't. A VLS system sacrifices magazine space for larger salvo's. So depending on how the fight goes, it may work in your favor or against you.

I'm fine with it not being official canon material. That's why I labeled it as alternative. As with most Traveller games, you are free to create/modify/delete from the rules as you and your players see fit.

 

[AndrewW]

Missiles, unlike all other weapons, can target and fire at an enemy while the weapon system has no bearing on the target. Sure, Traveller doesn't use weapons bearings for combat, but the thought process is still valid.

Well, unlike unguided ones such as energy weapons.

There is some bearing in capital ship combat in that only a percentage can be brought to bear on a single target.

 

[DFW]

There is some bearing in capital ship combat in that only a percentage can be brought to bear on a single target.

A glitch in the rules courtesy of a designer who didn't think the thought through.

 

[phavoc]

Well, unlike unguided ones such as energy weapons.

There is some bearing in capital ship combat in that only a percentage can be brought to bear on a single target.

You are referring to the configuration table on page 62 of the High Guard book. But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the concept that you need to be able to bring an energy weapon to bear on the target (or maneuver your ship to do so), or your sandcaster to deploy your sand between you and your target.

A missile maneuvers independently of the launching ship once launched. It's capable of changing course, and even targets, unlike an energy beam or a cloud of sand.

 

[AndrewW]

A missile maneuvers independently of the launching ship once launched. It's capable of changing course, and even targets, unlike an energy beam or a cloud of sand.

Just saying more then missiles are capable of this.

 

[locarno24]

The whole point of VLS armaments is to free up hardpoints that are currently being taken up my missle turrets and apply them to weapons that need to be aimed.

Which you can do, because you can get several hundred missiles in a single hardpoint, rather than needing four hardpoints for every hundred missiles per salvo (compared with a heavy bay). That still leaves a capital ship quite a lot of hardpoints up.

Equally, a small ship can take the effect of three or four triple missile turrets and put it through a single hardpoint, leaving you two or three hardpoints up.

As I understood it, even a fixed mount still requires a hardpoint ("A ship has one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship and each weapon system takes up one hardpoint") there's just no tonnage associated with any slewing mechanism and no tonnage for fire control.

One thing to make sure that costs and volumes line up, and that VLS systems aren't just an out-and-out 'better' solution is to make sure you have a common start point. A single fixed mount missile launcher with one round available should be essentially identical to a one-cell VLS.

What are the effects on SL & AF hulls?

As noted, probably none. I'd suggest that any other sort of hull could get away without a clamshell plate to cover the launcher, but still probably wouldn't want to.

It's just an idea. You are right, in theory there's nothing that says you could not simply bolt on a box on a 20ton launch and make it a missile platform. But for the sake of the design rules, I was going to seperate these out and work on adding missiles to 30 ton vessels and under later.

Ignore the comment - I misread and thought you'd written '300 tons'. Yes, smallcraft should be done seperately.

I don't have experience with naval vls, but I served in the Army with the MLRS, and we used the rocket pod concept. We could quickly and easily reload in a matter of minutes. You could even do it with one person, but it took longer. I was figuring in space its all zero-G, so not much help there. And on the ground you will probably have the appropriate anti-grav vehicles to assist in the reload. It's still a good thought for an accessory though.

With missiles, that's fair enough. 12 missiles per dTon is ~ 12 per 14 cubic metres in a magazine, which is (very) approximately 1 per cubic metre. 4m x 0.5m x 0.5m. That compares well with the MLRS round you're used to (4m x 0.25m x 0.25m), so in zero-g, a team of competent gunbusters can probably manhandle them into position fairly easily.

A torpedo, with a 1 dTon-per-round volume, is a different animal entirely, and I'd suggest that any replenishment-in-space (which is more likely to be common for capital ships that you don't want to have to pull out of your battlegroup to re-arm if you can avoid it!) is going to require some sort of handling cranage.

Originally I had thought of having the missiles mounted on a small thruster pack that activated first and ejected the missile from the tube, then oriented the missile towards its target and would disengage prior to the missle motor activating. Then I realized the simplest way to eject the missile for a cold launch would be mechanically or just a gas ejection system. This sort of launching mechanism would be built-into the cost of the launching cell.

Doesn't really matter - I don't feel there should be any cost penalty for using a bit of space for that rather than normal engine. As described, though, cold launch is only something to do for creating an impromptu minefield or alpha strike cloud (a la Honor Harrington missile pod laying). In either case, the big thing the missile canister now needs is sensor stealthing and some passive sensors of its own, which is what I was suggesting the cost increase for.

In terms of ejecting for an immediate off-axis launch, under full control from the firer, you probably don't need to differentiate that from a standard missile.

But military ships will need to include some sort of armor belt/box to shield the ship from backblast. Something that would channel any detonation outwards. So I need to add in an armoring option, like say Cr10,000 per cell. Good catch!

Easiest thing to do with that - if using the Ammunition cook-off rule or something like it - is to give a benefit to that roll. So, for example, a launcher with Armoured Compartments only suffers a Hull Breach on a 6 and will never suffer an Internal Explosion.

It might be worth associating some volume, as well as just cost, with that option - armour plate is definitely something that is tracked in Traveller. Granted we're not talking about a large proportion of the ship, but if it's going to contain several standard missile warheads going up in a confined space then its definitely going to be a non-trivial proportion of the volume of the launcher.

The funny thing here is that moden ships today aren't armored at all anymore. Not like ships in WW2 that were designed to take hits and keep on trucking. These days a couple of Exocets can cripple or sink a billion dollar cruiser. Go figure!

Standard modern doctrine - the best defence is not to get hit at all in the first place; hence the emphasis on chaff, ecm, SAMs and CIWS, low signature hulls and manouvres at speed rather than armour plate.

It's an advantage naval warfare always has over land warfare, and air/space warfare over both, that there's virtually no 'terrain'.

As a result you can see every contact clearly, and the ranges involved give you time to see, classify, and make several shots at shooting down, any incoming fire (so long as you're talking about missiles, not DEWs!).

By comparison, land combat will always be dependant on armour plate because 'huge sod-off bomb hidden under a rock by the road' always remains an option, no matter what TL you get to. All that changes is the nature of the bomb.

Equally, a point defence equivalent of a Phalanx anti-missile gun, set to fire at any rapidly incoming airborne object, fitted to a military ground vehicle will not win friends and influence people when patrolling though an urban environment.

"So....why did you put 30 VRF gauss rifle slugs through the mayor's windows?"

"Err....there was a pigeon?"

 

[AndrewW]

Which you can do, because you can get several hundred missiles in a single hardpoint, rather than needing four hardpoints for every hundred missiles per salvo (compared with a heavy bay). That still leaves a capital ship quite a lot of hardpoints up.

Having designed a bunch of capital ships I haven't found running out of hardpoints to be an issue.

 

[lastbesthope]

When I mentioned delta vee I wasn't talking rules wise, I was talking real world physics. I am a rocket scientist after all

LBH