Fighter Carrier?

[AnotherDilbert]

While I'd argue that there's not automatically anything wrong with requiring more time to decompress a hangar and launch a craft from tight confines than launching a plane via catapult within atmosphere (and it could be argued the aircraft carrier is designed along launch tube-like reasoning (the ship is designed to launch - and recover - several planes in swift succession, kinda like launch tubes))...

I agree completely.

isn't the time to launch a small craft in traveller including everything from powering up the craft, to pumping out the atmosphere in the bay, and finally flying off?

How long does it take to launch a plane from a carrier, if we count every step from moving it out of storage and up until the actual launch?

If you want to launch one craft occasionally, that is what you are interested in. If you want to get all your craft launched for a strike, you prep the craft simultaneously. The question becomes how quickly can I get them off the flight deck / out the hatch, i.e. how many can I launch every 6 min?

Uhm, anyways, I don't like the idea to limit the number of craft launch-able per turn to a fraction of the mothership's tonnage, wether it's one craft per 1,000 dtons or per 10,000. If my 400 dton ship has two hangars, I expect to be able to launch small craft from both of them simultaneously.

With the current rules you can launch them in D2 rounds, about 12 min. With my appended rules you can launch 2 craft in 2 rounds, around 12 min. Isn't that good enough for a simple, arbitrary system?

Minimum hangars take 110% of the carried crafts tonnage, and I can get all of them airborne in 2 rounds. How could launch tubes improve on that?

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Well, they could allow more craft to launch per turn, as in 1st edition,

Or they could be the only option to launch and act in the same turn,

Or they could allow the launched craft to be launched at a distance of up to, say, medium range - as in actually be launched, not slowly drift and start traveling by their own power - this could alternatively be seen as the launched craft counting as +10 g (or suitable number) m-drive for the first round only,

Or several of the above

And the suggested 1 per 10,000 dton would work for my example with two small craft, but what if I have a freighter with 10 cutters? Ten rounds to launch them all, from ten different hangars?

Look at the various Aslan ships, often with a couple small craft and a number of fighters. Why shouldn't they be able to launch a pinnace in the same round as a fighter, from different hangars?

Actually, there's a semi-related question: several Aslan ships carry multiple fighters within a single large-ish hangar. How many of them can launch per turn, as per current rules? One per hangar per turn, or all of them? In a way, once the hangar is emptied and opened, they should be able to exit quite rapidly after one another, without having to wait a full six minute turn for the next to launch. After all, rules-wise, is there any difference between five separate small bays and one large carrying five craft?

On the other hand, if I can have a huge hangar filled with hundreds - or even thousands - of fighters and launch them all in the same turn, how silly could that become..? Tricky.

With the above-mentioned suggestions however, tubes could still be superior. With an acceleration boost, being able to act normally in the launching round, and/or... I don't know, something. It's late, time to sleep - and dream of carriers

 

[phavoc]

It's a solution, but I wouldn't say it's a good solution. It is simply a rule being imposed that has no logical basis because no effort is being expended to actually make the rule logical AND to fit within the scales of the other rules (such as launch tubes). It's lazy game ruling at it's best.

I think we basically agree, but you want much more detail. I want a rule that means that to launch a lot of craft quickly we need something more than minimal hangars, e.g. launch tubes.

Nothing in this system is very detailed, not even TNEs Fire, Fusion, and Steel was even remotely as detailed as you seem to be suggesting.

No, I don't want detail. But I DO want a rule that makes common sense, is logical, and defendable using common sense and logic based on the parameters. If it turns out to be per 10,000 turns, then at least it needs to make sense. As it stands right now, it doesn't.

Why 10,000 tons? Because it's an arbitrary guideline. Why not per 1,000 tons? It's just as arbitrary, but seems to make better sense, to me at least, to allow for faster deployments. To make it more reasonable there would need to be an additional rule that states a ship may only have one hangar per 10,000 (or 1,000) tons so that these two rules are in synch. Otherwise you'll have even MORE rules that don't synch and don't make any logical sense.

Yes it is a completely arbitrarily limit (taken from an previous edition). Any limit will of course be completely arbitrary. It's there simply to give all ships some launching capability, even if they have not invested in good launching capabilities, aka launch tubes.

The rule was broken in the previous edition. We've already stepped over all kinds of rules from the previous edition, so if you are citing it as a reason why the rule should remain, well, I call bull puckey. That's not a reasonable defense or reason to keep it. If it's broke, let's fix it. Isn't that one of the reasons for new rule sets in the first place?

I'm not saying we need to go to the other end, either (i.e. your hangar holds 1,000 ships, it can launch them all in one round). It's easy enough to tie launch/recover rates to the size of the hangar AND the size of the craft using it. How? Well, if we can do it with launch tubes...

In regards to how much time it is supposed to represent, I would say this directly relates to LAUINCH, and RECOVERY. You could actually make two different rates because LAUNCH is pretty basic. RECOVERY can tend to be a bit more chaotic. The rule could be as simple as you can LAUNCH 50 tons of small craft per 100 tons of hangar per turn. That scales up easy enough if you have larger craft, or larger hangars. And you can RECOVER 25 tons of small craft per 100 turns of hangar per turn. Again, scales up, scales down. Example: You have 500 tons of hangar. You could launch 10 50 ton small craft per turn, but it would take you two turns to recover them all. IF you had 20 ton craft the launch rate would be 25/turn, and the recovery would be 12 (rounding down).

See, it isn't hard. And yeah, that's arbitrary because I just made it up. But it's a bit more reasonable than 1 per 10,000 tons, it seems to make more sense, and still fits within the rules without breaking anything else.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, they could allow more craft to launch per turn, as in 1st edition,

Or they could be the only option to launch and act in the same turn,

Or they could allow the launched craft to be launched at a distance of up to, say, medium range - as in actually be launched, not slowly drift and start traveling by their own power - this could alternatively be seen as the launched craft counting as +10 g (or suitable number) m-drive for the first round only,

Or several of the above

With current rules I can launch all craft from minimal hangars in 12 min. For ten times the tonnage (and cost of the carrier) I can launch them in 6 min instead. Sorry I'll go with the cheap carrier, rather than the ten times costlier one (or even twice costlier).

And the suggested 1 per 10,000 dton would work for my example with two small craft, but what if I have a freighter with 10 cutters? Ten rounds to launch them all, from ten different hangars?

Look at the various Aslan ships, often with a couple small craft and a number of fighters. Why shouldn't they be able to launch a pinnace in the same round as a fighter, from different hangars?

Actually, there's a semi-related question: several Aslan ships carry multiple fighters within a single large-ish hangar. How many of them can launch per turn, as per current rules? One per hangar per turn, or all of them? In a way, once the hangar is emptied and opened, they should be able to exit quite rapidly after one another, without having to wait a full six minute turn for the next to launch. After all, rules-wise, is there any difference between five separate small bays and one large carrying five craft?

The current system isn't detailed enough to say you have two hangars with three craft in each. Each craft is assumed to have it's own hangar, with it's own exit. My suggestion can be role played as all craft share a hangar with a single exit, unless you have invested in launch tubes.

Each system contains arbitrary limits. I would imagine on military ships it goes something like "Battle Stations! Launch all fighters!", people start running, a few minutes later things happen, quickly. On a civilian ship it would be more like "We will arrive in an hour, go wake up the shuttle crews..." and an hour or two later the crew is awake, showered, fed and going through the corporate preflight Health&Safety checklists, or as my suggested system would call it: You can launch 10 craft in 10 rounds. Ok, that was a massive stretch...

On the other hand, if I can have a huge hangar filled with hundreds - or even thousands - of fighters and launch them all in the same turn, how silly could that become..? Tricky.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to avoid...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In regards to how much time it is supposed to represent, I would say this directly relates to LAUINCH, and RECOVERY. You could actually make two different rates because LAUNCH is pretty basic. RECOVERY can tend to be a bit more chaotic. The rule could be as simple as you can LAUNCH 50 tons of small craft per 100 tons of hangar per turn. That scales up easy enough if you have larger craft, or larger hangars. And you can RECOVER 25 tons of small craft per 100 turns of hangar per turn. Again, scales up, scales down. Example: You have 500 tons of hangar. You could launch 10 50 ton small craft per turn, but it would take you two turns to recover them all. IF you had 20 ton craft the launch rate would be 25/turn, and the recovery would be 12 (rounding down).

See, it isn't hard. And yeah, that's arbitrary because I just made it up. But it's a bit more reasonable than 1 per 10,000 tons, it seems to make more sense, and still fits within the rules without breaking anything else.

I could go with that. It's short, simple and workable. It's also almost exactly like Full Hangars in the current rules. It eliminates Launch Tubes and Recovery Decks.

Perhaps it should be a bit slower? Launch everything in 6 min seems a bit optimistic.

 

[phavoc]

The current system isn't detailed enough to say you have two hangars with three craft in each. Each craft is assumed to have it's own hangar, with it's own exit. My suggestion can be role played as all craft share a hangar with a single exit, unless you have invested in launch tubes.

Each system contains arbitrary limits. I would imagine on military ships it goes something like "Battle Stations! Launch all fighters!", people start running, a few minutes later things happen, quickly. On a civilian ship it would be more like "We will arrive in an hour, go wake up the shuttle crews..." and an hour or two later the crew is awake, showered, fed and going through the corporate preflight Health&Safety checklists, or as my suggested system would call it: You can launch 10 craft in 10 rounds. Ok, that was a massive stretch...

It makes sense that a ship, especially a large one, is going to have multiple hangars. You can assume a ship the size of a Tigress has multiple boat bays (it actually has fighters too, but lets not go down that path). EACH bay would have to be run independently and operated independently. If Boat bay #1 was located dorsally, and bay #2 was located ventrally, how do you justify having only one craft depart every round (using the 10,000 ton rule it would be 50, but lets run with the idea here). Or say you have a 2,000 ton trader with a port and starboard hangar bay for cargo. It should only be able to launch one shuttle per turn? That rule isn't logically defensible, it's just arbitrary for no good reason. THAT'S the point I'm making. Arbitrary is fine IF IT MAKES SENSE and fits within the overall system.

In regards to how much time it is supposed to represent, I would say this directly relates to LAUINCH, and RECOVERY. You could actually make two different rates because LAUNCH is pretty basic. RECOVERY can tend to be a bit more chaotic. The rule could be as simple as you can LAUNCH 50 tons of small craft per 100 tons of hangar per turn. That scales up easy enough if you have larger craft, or larger hangars. And you can RECOVER 25 tons of small craft per 100 turns of hangar per turn. Again, scales up, scales down. Example: You have 500 tons of hangar. You could launch 10 50 ton small craft per turn, but it would take you two turns to recover them all. IF you had 20 ton craft the launch rate would be 25/turn, and the recovery would be 12 (rounding down).

See, it isn't hard. And yeah, that's arbitrary because I just made it up. But it's a bit more reasonable than 1 per 10,000 tons, it seems to make more sense, and still fits within the rules without breaking anything else.

I could go with that. It's short, simple and workable. It's also almost exactly like Full Hangars in the current rules. It eliminates Launch Tubes and Recovery Decks.

Perhaps it should be a bit slower? Launch everything in 6 min seems a bit optimistic.

Could be. I made that up as I was typing. But it's really going to be more a limitation on your hangar space footprint I would say. The limitation here would be how you defined a "hangar". We already have conformal docking spaces that have speed limitations, and I'm ok with that because it really IS a tiny fit. Standard hangars are, what, 130% of craft tonnage? Those are cramped, but workable, and they should have restrictions based off their tinier size. Not as much as a conformal, but some is fair. A "full" hangar might be 200% (maybe 225% for safety margins) of the tonnage to get that kind of launch/recovery rates. So you don't have to pay for launch tubes (which unless they grant you a speed boost, they are pretty much a waste of tonnage UNLESS you artificially restrict standard launching), but you still are going to pay something to get that kind of activity. Again, reasonable and defensible.

 

[Chas]

I think you are under estimating the abilities and designs of high technology ships that are fighter carriers, specifically to launch as many fighters as possible as quickly as possible, without constraints on the design like a current aircraft carrier.

Imagine like a vast delta wing, with fighter pods all over the wing. The pilots hop in, the ships declamp or get shoved out, and they're away.

Even in a larger capital ship it would be conveyer belt like with the only speed limitation being how quickly the pilots can actually get in the ships. If the pilots are waiting in the cockpits like they would be on the expected arrival from a combat jump, or preprimed by long range scouts/sensor drones, they would be spat out like bullets from a gatling gun.

Computerized launch programs would take care of whatever was beyond the pilot's manual dexterity. Anti grav takes care of the acceleration.

I think the intended launch times are far too cumbersome and slow, excepting you are trying to get a crew physically into a ship and launched from a typical all systems turned off mode. If the launch is preplanned the situation should be totally different.

 

[phavoc]

I think you are under estimating the abilities and designs of high technology ships that are fighter carriers, specifically to launch as many fighters as possible as quickly as possible, without constraints on the design like a current aircraft carrier.

Imagine like a vast delta wing, with fighter pods all over the wing. The pilots hop in, the ships declamp or get shoved out, and they're away.

Even in a larger capital ship it would be conveyer belt like with the only speed limitation being how quickly the pilots can actually get in the ships. If the pilots are waiting in the cockpits like they would be on the expected arrival from a combat jump, or preprimed by long range scouts/sensor drones, they would be spat out like bullets from a gatling gun.

Computerized launch programs would take care of whatever was beyond the pilot's manual dexterity. Anti grav takes care of the acceleration.

I think the intended launch times are far too cumbersome and slow, excepting you are trying to get a crew physically into a ship and launched from a typical all systems turned off mode. If the launch is preplanned the situation should be totally different.

Conceptually docking clamps seem cool. But now you have to add an airlock for every externally docked craft. And then how do you refuel them? Re-arm them? Again, if you do that then you have 100s of additional things to take into consideration (fuel lines, ammunition supply lines, airlocks, etc). Plus you totally toss out the very well-proven ideas regarding centralization.

And I'm not underestimating anything, at least I don't think so. I used naval carriers as an example of how you could launch more craft faster that require LIFT and don't have the advantages of outrageous thrust-to-weight ratios or the miracle of anti-grav. If you want a more Traveller-esque example, then launching VTOLS off a LHA is a better equivalent. You can easily launch them all at once, or in even/odd movements for added safety. Still beats Traveller launching rules for hangars. Carriers are, in my opinion, better off having a hangar storage deck for craft storage and maintenance, and banks of lifts to move the small craft to the external hull portions where they can launch without the needed tonnage wasteage required through multiple external clamps. Then your craft are just sitting there waiting to launch. And that visual aid is replicated in a number of older designs, showing external portions like flight decks.

Launch tubes are stupid waste of tonnage unless they provide some actual benefit (like acceleration). There are other ways to provide the same capabilities with less tonnage. You could easily argue a small craft simply sitting on the external hull is the equivalent of a docked craft and all of them can launch at the same time.

 

[Chas]

I think you are under estimating the abilities and designs of high technology ships that are fighter carriers, specifically to launch as many fighters as possible as quickly as possible, without constraints on the design like a current aircraft carrier.

Imagine like a vast delta wing, with fighter pods all over the wing. The pilots hop in, the ships declamp or get shoved out, and they're away.

Even in a larger capital ship it would be conveyer belt like with the only speed limitation being how quickly the pilots can actually get in the ships. If the pilots are waiting in the cockpits like they would be on the expected arrival from a combat jump, or preprimed by long range scouts/sensor drones, they would be spat out like bullets from a gatling gun.

Computerized launch programs would take care of whatever was beyond the pilot's manual dexterity. Anti grav takes care of the acceleration.

I think the intended launch times are far too cumbersome and slow, excepting you are trying to get a crew physically into a ship and launched from a typical all systems turned off mode. If the launch is preplanned the situation should be totally different.

Conceptually docking clamps seem cool. But now you have to add an airlock for every externally docked craft. And then how do you refuel them? Re-arm them? Again, if you do that then you have 100s of additional things to take into consideration (fuel lines, ammunition supply lines, airlocks, etc). Plus you totally toss out the very well-proven ideas regarding centralization..

I'd disagree for a high technology system Phavoc. Airlocks? There'd be one built into the docking clamp, you'd just drop through it. Rearm? Refuel? These would all be systems in place in place automatically linking up and working as soon as the ship connected. Maintenance run by robots. You'd only need a bunch of actual workshop hangers in a carrier to undertake significant repairs.

 

[phavoc]

You are missing point. You'd have to run fuel lines all over the ship, just as you would ammunition resupply pathways. I realize Traveller has never bothered conceptually with a magazine, but in the real world you don't store explosive munitions all over the ship. Or do you out hazardous tunes of hydrogen all over either, cause at some point there is going to be an accident or battle damage and you are going to have a problem. Hell, cities can't keep people from digging up utility pipes and wires when the damn things are clearly marked.

And you are surely going to have airlocks built into each docking clamp. How else do you get to your ship? It's a vacuum, nobody is going to build a ship in space where if you open a door you depressurize an entire section. Space craft are going to have compartments just like any submarine or the ISS does today. That's just common sense. Especially if someone is going to be shooting at it.

 

[Chas]

For a high tech system I don't see the issue. Heck, you could design the guts of such a system using today's technologies, quite seriously. Drone missile deliveries and reload, fuel lines that expand out and lock on, a thin slide through air lock, core system metrics monitored remotely, computerized imaging and detection of bulkhead integrity followed with ultrasonic re-weld of non-self sealing parts. You could have a ship in, scrubbed, refueled and rearmed in minutes.

 

[phavoc]

For a high tech system I don't see the issue. Heck, you could design the guts of such a system using today's technologies, quite seriously. Drone missile deliveries and reload, fuel lines that expand out and lock on, a thin slide through air lock, core system metrics monitored remotely, computerized imaging and detection of bulkhead integrity followed with ultrasonic re-weld of non-self sealing parts. You could have a ship in, scrubbed, refueled and rearmed in minutes.

yeah, you could easily have drone 'buses' that flew towards the enemy from long range, then dumped out their missile load. Tech-wise it's totally possible, even with today's tech.

This is where I'm ok with not going too far down the drone path. Everything in the future would be drone-based because it's just credits, and you can throw a lot against a target. But since this is an RPG-universe, putting people in harm's way is ok with me! Sorry to all the future casualties out there...

 

[Chas]

Heh. I've got to get the drone torpedo bombers I did up actually posted.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Conceptually docking clamps seem cool. But now you have to add an airlock for every externally docked craft. And then how do you refuel them? Re-arm them? Again, if you do that then you have 100s of additional things to take into consideration (fuel lines, ammunition supply lines, airlocks, etc).

I have generally provided a breaching tube for every docking clamp. That gives the ship something like a heavy duty umbilical to the craft for access and refuelling. Obviously not required by the rules.

According to HG p21 a ship appears to have up to ( Hull / 100 ) airlocks for free, so airlocks will rarely be a limitation.

 

[phavoc]

Conceptually docking clamps seem cool. But now you have to add an airlock for every externally docked craft. And then how do you refuel them? Re-arm them? Again, if you do that then you have 100s of additional things to take into consideration (fuel lines, ammunition supply lines, airlocks, etc).

I have generally provided a breaching tube for every docking clamp. That gives the ship something like a heavy duty umbilical to the craft for access and refuelling. Obviously not required by the rules.

According to HG p21 a ship appears to have up to ( Hull / 100 ) airlocks for free, so airlocks will rarely be a limitation.

Conceptually there should be no real limitation to it. But practically it doesn't make tons of sense. And it still requires additional tonnage devoted to access and passageways. A distributed ship would be better able to accommodate that issue. But by the rules the distributed ship would be penalized by the hangar rule.

 

[wbnc]

Conceptually docking clamps seem cool. But now you have to add an airlock for every externally docked craft. And then how do you refuel them? Re-arm them? Again, if you do that then you have 100s of additional things to take into consideration (fuel lines, ammunition supply lines, airlocks, etc).

I have generally provided a breaching tube for every docking clamp. That gives the ship something like a heavy duty umbilical to the craft for access and refuelling. Obviously not required by the rules.

According to HG p21 a ship appears to have up to ( Hull / 100 ) airlocks for free, so airlocks will rarely be a limitation.

Conceptually there should be no real limitation to it. But practically it doesn't make tons of sense. And it still requires additional tonnage devoted to access and passageways. A distributed ship would be better able to accommodate that issue. But by the rules the distributed ship would be penalized by the hangar rule.

I believe that docking clamps do include a means of access to the docked ship, as for refueling and rearming that would be best achieved by rotating clamped fighters through a hanger, then back out to the clamps for storage during transit.

Fighters or drones on clamps would primarily be a rapid deployment group along the lines of maintaining alert fighters on the flight deck, or already at the catapults... they are there to respond to sudden attack..once they take off they have to come back rotate through the flight, or hanger deck to be refueled and rearmed....not sure how that works outside of movies, and documentries...Never served on a carrier...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Interesting idea. When I tested carriers with docking clamps I included Full Hangars for 10% of the fighters, to at least be able to pretend that maintenance and repairs could be done.

 

[wbnc]

Interesting idea. When I tested carriers with docking clamps I included Full Hangars for 10% of the fighters, to at least be able to pretend that maintenance and repairs could be done.

I'd go with 20% which means 5 fighters sharing one hanger space for rearm, refit, and basic maintenance.

actually what I worked out was..


hanger space requirements could be figured up by

1)setting service requirements for a single small craft....i went with 1 hour a week for basic checks when not in use, and one hour per 3-4 hours of flight time. this is basic preventative maintenance, diagnostics, and repair.
2) each hanger can provide 40 hours worth of service time per week, with one shift, with multiple shifts up to 120 service. That's allowing for some basic down time to take care of the hanger itself and give the crews some time off.
3 Divide number of service hours a hanger can generate by the number of hours each small craft would need( with a minimum of 1)
4) ..I went with 4 hours per ship per as an average during active flight....and 1 hour per hour of combat flight.
5) refeul and rearm time I went with 30 minutes + 20 minutes to rotate a craft from docking space/clamp to hanger.
6) to fully rearm and refuel all fighters in 8 hours you would need at least 1 hanger per 8 fighters, one hanger per five allows for total rearm and refuel with hanger space left over for repair.

So what I came up with was
20% fighter tonnage in hangers
25% Fighter tonnage on clamps for rapid response
50% fighters tonnage in docking space

add
one workshop per 4 hangers

The add construction deck/manufacturing facilities for up to 50 displacement tons of manufacturing capacity per day...at TL-14 it takes around 8-10 toons of manufacturing facility to manufacture 1 dton of advanced weapons from scratch...so a carrier could assemble 1 ton of missiles and torpedoes per 10 tons of manufacturing capacity if it needed to do so..cargo ships int eh support group could carry the parts needed and the carrier can bulk assemble them to rearm fighters. Those same facilities could build spare engines, spare components, and other items instead of depending on the supply office stocking metric butt-tons of spares on the off chance they are needed....and overall savings in space and resources.

 

[Nerhesi]

Gents, let's sum up the recommendations neatly so that matt can pick the change and lock this down. I don't want this to be missed as it is critical

 

[phavoc]

As it stands there are still many questions dogging the concept of small craft storage, hangars, recovery, etc. Here's just a few:

What about the very simple idea of using your external hull as a launch/recovery deck, with elevators to a hangar below for storage, repairs and such? Nowhere in the rules is even the concept for an elevator.

How long does it take to re-arm a craft with missiles?

What about combat repairs?

How long does it take to refuel?

For armaments can we use say disposable 6-missile rocket pods that just snap on to your craft?

What about a torpedo re-loading?

How many flight crew are necessary for full-on combat operations?

How many flight crew are necessary for basic operations?

How many Dtons of spares need to be carried for "normal" combat deployments and operations? How long would that last under battle conditions?

What are the rules regarding monthly maintenance (similar to ship maintenance) that you have to follow before your small craft start suffering minor maintenance failures?

If a small craft isn't used during a month, do you still pay life support costs? (okay, that was a pick at the still-broken life support cost rules)