Carrier Deck Crews

[phavoc]

A Nimitz-class carrier has a ratio of about 30 crewmembers per aircraft. I arrived at that figure using 85 aircraft and 2500 crew (and rounding up).

Obvious some things like catapult personnel might be dropped (though launch tubes may take the place of that requirement). How do you see this working? What do you think the number of deck crew would be for space fighters? 10-1? 20-1?

 

[Infojunky]

A Nimitz-class carrier has a ratio of about 30 crewmembers per aircraft. I arrived at that figure using 85 aircraft and 2500 crew (and rounding up).

Obvious some things like catapult personnel might be dropped (though launch tubes may take the place of that requirement). How do you see this working? What do you think the number of deck crew would be for space fighters? 10-1? 20-1?

Your numbers are kinda low, figure the fueling, deck crew, catapult crew, air traffic control are all attached to the ship (and I maybe missing some Ship's Company airedales in there as well, its been 20 years so might not be remembering all of the Air rates in the ship's company)

But the question is reasonable in wondering how many hands a subcraft might take, I think I probable would use the boat model instead of the aircraft model for Traveller's smallcraft. So maybe 5-1 or so. Figure a Coxswain or two, a couple of Machinist mates (engineers), a Gunner's mate or two depending on the armament.

 

[locarno24]

This is sort of addressed in

High Guard

in the Capital Ship crew rules:

1 maintenance crewman per fighter/small craft plus 10 per launch tube (I always work on each 'bay' having a launch tube because there's no rule how fast they launch without one), and a Battle strength crew is increased to 120% of that.

Personally I think that's still a bit light but not a bad rule of thumb. I'd imagine a carrier formation being more like two, maybe three 'per aircraft' personnel depending on type, because:

1) whilst I can see maintenance being proportionally much less as TL goes up for most things, high TL fighters are probably sat as close to the edge of performance proportionally to their TL as they are today - and there are few things, in any military or civilian field, which are as much of a maintenance queen as a superiority fighter.

2) In addition to maintenance personnel you will also want armourers, who tend to be a seperate military trade, for any missile/torpedo/etc armed fighter.

 

[Condottiere]

That's a difficult question, since diagnostic software and maintenance droids would cut down on personnel requirements, modified by mechanical/electronic complexity and tonnage.

As a general rule of thumb, the bigger it is, the more people you need to keep it running, especially modern military hardware, where the general tendency is to cram as much as possible into the smallest space available.

You also share maintenance personnel. Or you should.

 

[dragoner]

That's a difficult question, since diagnostic software and maintenance droids would cut down on personnel requirements, modified by mechanical/electronic complexity and tonnage.

I feel robots would take over a lot of the routine duties of armorers and maintenance crews, esp with smart machines (craft) that would communicate easier with other robots. Saves on staterooms and life support as well - less chance of a mutiny also.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

A Nimitz-class carrier has a ratio of about 30 crewmembers per aircraft. I arrived at that figure using 85 aircraft and 2500 crew (and rounding up).

Is there room for that many people on the runway?

 

[phavoc]

I knew HG had some rules regarding, but they seemed, overly simplistic?

I would expect a carrier of the future to have more than 1 mechanic per fighter. Yes there are many automated ways to do things, but like Condottiere mentioned, the more complex it is, the more people you'll need.

Machinery and automation can help cut down on personnel, but sometimes that's not always the best idea. Russian tanks use autoloaders (insert obligatory joke about autoloaders trying to load gunners). Western tanks keep the 4th crewmember to be a loader. In the west they decided the 4th crewmember was very handy to have when it came to maintenance and just general duties regarding the tank.

Carriers today have staff to deal with launches, refueling and re-arming. But they also have complete mechanical shops to tear down engines, repair electronics, repair aircraft skins. I don't have the info as to how many do exactly what, so I'd be guessing at a ratio.

I'd think there would still be needs for a staff of specialized personnel beyond a 1 person per craft. Deck crews should/would be swarming over a craft as soon as it landed to refuel and rearm it, service the life support system, fix any defects or damage. One person, even with robotic assistance, would probably be a bit overwhelmed.

Anywhoo, just some idle speculation here. I appreciate the thought assistance!

 

[Infojunky]

A Nimitz-class carrier has a ratio of about 30 crewmembers per aircraft. I arrived at that figure using 85 aircraft and 2500 crew (and rounding up).

Is there room for that many people on the runway?

No, especially not during flight operations, figure there is a couple of hundred people or so in and around the Deck in operation. The vast majority of the crew is doing their jobs in spaces below. The hanger deck is always packed when there are Aircraft aboard. In a lot of ways the Hanger Deck and the Main Deck just below the Hanger is where the bulk of the activity is going on, all the aircraft specific workshops, mess decks, administration offices, sick bay are in these two levels. The ship's services, berthing spaces etc.. tend to radiate around the areas devoted to Aircraft.

Also Note that there is 24hr cycle of life at sea, so the number of people are divided up into to the various watches/work shifts to cover operations.

 

[Infojunky]

I knew HG had some rules regarding, but they seemed, overly simplistic?

I would expect a carrier of the future to have more than 1 mechanic per fighter. Yes there are many automated ways to do things, but like Condottiere mentioned, the more complex it is, the more people you'll need.

Ok let's look at it from the Aircraft POV, Base crew per aircraft is one or two flight crews plus a Plane Captain (who is in charge of the aircraft while it is on the ground, and is keeping track of what said specific aircraft needs). Then there are all the maintenance/repair shops who work on the planes as scheduled by the squadron's Maintenance chief, each shop specializes in a specific aspect of the aircraft i.e. the Airframe shop, the Jet engine shop, avionics etc.. etc... And individually none of these crews are very big. So bringing this around to Traveller terms Flight Crews plus a Guy per aircraft and Engineering and maintenance based on the total Mass of the squadron. Also Note this is squadron personnel only.

 

[F33D]

I would expect a carrier of the future to have more than 1 mechanic per fighter. Yes there are many automated ways to do things, but like Condottiere mentioned, the more complex it is, the more people you'll need.

That isn't how its playing out on the newest US Naval ships. Crew requirements are dropping fast as the TL goes up.

 

[Infojunky]

I would expect a carrier of the future to have more than 1 mechanic per fighter. Yes there are many automated ways to do things, but like Condottiere mentioned, the more complex it is, the more people you'll need.

That isn't how its playing out on the newest US Naval ships. Crew requirements are dropping fast as the TL goes up.

Kinda, they have moved a lot of the administrative crews ashore which can radically reduce a crew's size, but I wonder what that does to Damage control readiness during combat operations.

 

[F33D]

I would expect a carrier of the future to have more than 1 mechanic per fighter. Yes there are many automated ways to do things, but like Condottiere mentioned, the more complex it is, the more people you'll need.

That isn't how its playing out on the newest US Naval ships. Crew requirements are dropping fast as the TL goes up.

Kinda, they have moved a lot of the administrative crews ashore which can radically reduce a crew's size, but I wonder what that does to Damage control readiness during combat operations.

No. It is a drop is operation (deck, eng, etc.) crew. NOT admin. My son was telling me about it the other day.

"The LCS employs automation to achieve a reduced-sized core crew (i.e., sea frame crew)." - Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program; Sep. 2013

 

[phavoc]

No. It is a drop is operation (deck, eng, etc.) crew. NOT admin. My son was telling me about it the other day.

"The LCS employs automation to achieve a reduced-sized core crew (i.e., sea frame crew)." - Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program; Sep. 2013

I wouldn't used the LCS as a good comparison. It's not even a carrier, though it can carry a few helo's. Closest comparison would be an LHA, which has actual aircraft instead of just helo's. Though, in hindsight, 'carriers' of the future need not be tied to flight decks. Launch tubes are nice, but not necessary if you have enough time to launch your small craft.

According to what I could find, crew requirements are dropping on average by about 800 people compared to a Nimitz class carrier. Nothing I've found thus far tells me how many, if any, of the 2500ish aircrew are being cut. Since the carrier is designed to embark the same number of planes as a Nimitz class, the assumption is the aircrew side will remain the same.

The Ford class is currently being skewered by the GAO for being over-budget, construction difficulties, technical challenges, and there are still questions regarding all the new tech they are putting into the hull. Imagine that... a new ship class experiencing teething problems before it leaves drydock! Has there been a major weapons program in the last decade or so that's been on time and on budget??

 

[F33D]

I wouldn't used the LCS as a good comparison.

I would as it is a ship class that is technologically advanced over other ship classes. When more advanced planes (drones) go on carriers, crew requirements will come down there too. So, a perfect example.

 

[Condottiere]

We don't know how many R2 units will be roaming around, and diagnostics would be predictive, so that components can be repaired or replaced before they fail, making maintenance more routine rather than crisis management.

It may be that it would just be easier in the future to pull out and replace suspect or damaged components, rather than repair them, passing them on to repair facilities in port or support ships only dealing with them onboard if the item is urgently required.

Current staffing policies are probably more the result of a personnel crunch, making efficiency and automation a solution rather than a goal. The Littoral ships are being upstaffed. In fact, HG does refer to staffing levels with skeleton upto massively overstrength (survivors don't count) with crews probably earmarked for reinforcements from the Reserves.

If Sector Fleets is to be believed, the Imperial Fleets look a little understrength.

 

[enderra]

The problem I have with the "droids take a lot of the workload" rationale is that then the rules ought to specify "maintenance of a small craft takes one human or AI/sentient droid, plus four worker droids/drones" or something like that, because those things in themselves cost money, need maintenance, and so on. Indeed, I would expect to have ONLY "human crew requirements" plus an extra rule about replacing human crew with AI/robots. That way, you can design both your Galactica class "robots? where we are going we trust no stinking robots" ships and your super-advanced rogue AI drone battlecruisers.

The Ford class will have 56 crew per aircraft, going with the minimum of 75 planes listed on Wikipedia, so if the 30 per craft for Nimitz is a correct figure I don't see how the statement of crew requirements going down holds any water at face value. Presumably the comparison "crew to aircraft" is an overly simplistic one anyway. As a minimum one should probably separate out the aircraft related crew from the crew that just operates the ships themselves.

 

[phavoc]

I wouldn't used the LCS as a good comparison.

I would as it is a ship class that is technologically advanced over other ship classes. When more advanced planes (drones) go on carriers, crew requirements will come down there too. So, a perfect example.

How so? The class can only carry two MH-60s or a single MH-60 and three Fire Scout drones. The core crew is about 40 men, and that may double depending on what types of modules are included.

There is some new tech, and they are more automated than other ships. But they are also corvette-class vessels, with short sea-legs (21 days stores). Their gun armament is tried-and-true old school, as are much of their defenses. I'm not up to speed on the radar and other electronic systems, so I'll pass that.

.

 

[dragoner]

Mong already has repair drones stated for ships, so that hurdle has been jumped, how it reconciles with earlier versions, meh. I know that realistically, in the future, human techs won't be able to compete, it is already that way on the factory floor, and now they are writing the software to make the robots fix other robots on the line. The future is most likely machines fixing the machines that fight, no humans involved except on the command level; how people want to fit that in with their TU is fine in order to have a lot of people or to not have a lot of people "on deck".

 

[Condottiere]

I suspect that you could do 3D printing of 100 ton hulls, which would explain their bargain price of 2 MCr. Actually, since there seems to be a new option for composite plastic hulls, this is probably true.

Going along this line of thought, damaged components might just be junked and a 3D printer prints out a new one, which a droid picks up and slots in.

 

[locarno24]

I wonder what that does to Damage control readiness during combat operations.

It's not great, but bear in mind LCS is not a class designed for heavy combat or rapidly changing tactical conditions. It's a local patrol and seaway control ship with some secondary functions in minehunting, ASW patrol, that sort of thing. Even with the surface warfare module (assuming they've actually got that one working, and I don't recall hearing it declared operational), it's still not really intended to fight another surface combatant. Both designs are principally aluminium - at least in the superstructure - and the damage tolerance requirements are essentially "crew survives but the ship is disabled" in the case of a major hit.

Equally, because of the relatively small number of crew, a lot of the crew members have a "double hat" - I remember one reference to the Surface Warfare officer acting as the fire team leader on the flight deck, which means that you would be short firefighters during any flight ops if the ship was at general quarters (the reasoning being that since the LCS doesn't carry strike aircraft, you wouldn't be operating aircraft when likely to be firing the ship's weapons or under fire).

That's the principle weakness of automation (at least at the moment) - it massively reduces both crew requirements and the workstrain load on those remaining but it really doesn't cope well with being shot.

That said, the argument could be made that a carrier isn't meant to come under direct attack either. The value of the cross-hairs painted on it makes it seem a relatively short-sighted view, though.

In traveller terms, the existance of of automated repair drones does help significantly; these are spare 'hands', not just functions built into systems that are as likely to be damaged as the thing they're attached to. Equally, as far more systems are dependent on distributing energy not mechanical force or fluid flow, it becomes easier to design a ship with a 'national grid' that allows you to reroute around damage.