HG 2e Crew questions

[snrdg121408]

Hi Condottiere,

Risk tends to work on statistics, which is where commercial departs from military.

Routine voyages don't have anything catastrophic happening to them, and if it does, it's usually calculated in on how preventative measures are executed in terms of cost effectiveness, as well the cost of consequences, when it does happen. It's the reason corporations are more willing to pay fines, than letting individual executives face actual incarceration, so that future decision makers understand that there are no consequences to themselves for acting for the maximum benefit of the corporation, outside of some sacrificial lower rung lambs.

In one of the Disasters At Sea episodes, the owners of the ship that sank did indeed try to throw the crew, both the dead and survivors , under the bus by blaming them for failing to do proper maintenance. Luckily, one of the survivors had kept documentation in his home office. The documents nailed the butts of the corporation's executives for the failures, of course the same documents showed that the USCG also hand failed to follow their own rules and regulations.

The military knows that during hostilities, the enemy will actively attempt to incapacitate ship systems, so keeping them online during hostilities as long as possible is a high priority.

Keeping a ship fully operational goes far beyond hostilities, the military likes to keep the ships in active service for as long as possible because of the cost to build them. In that aspect the military in my opinion has some corporate traits.

 

[Condottiere]

It becomes a question of critical mass, that would make building more hulls more economic than fiddling around with old ones.

One reason that building medium sized aircraft carriers seems attractive, as they cost less and can be launched faster; their primary weapon system is independently mobile and can be slotted in wherever there is space.

Building large destroyer hulls with plug and play slots, which is what I aim at with the modern Confederation Navy, probably would make sense, since you can easily transfer around sensor suites and weapon systems from decommissioned vessels, or upgrade them.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello yet again Condottiere

It becomes a question of critical mass, that would make building more hulls more economic than fiddling around with old ones.

One reason that building medium sized aircraft carriers seems attractive, as they cost less and can be launched faster; their primary weapon system is independently mobile and can be slotted in wherever there is space.

Building large destroyer hulls with plug and play slots, which is what I aim at with the modern Confederation Navy, probably would make sense, since you can easily transfer around sensor suites and weapon systems from decommissioned vessels, or upgrade them.

A medium sized carrier can not handle the same number of aircraft as a larger carrier. The aircraft are effectively plug and play weapon systems.

To some extent I agree that plug and play slots offer flexibility and faster repairs for damage caused by mother nature or combat. At some point parts for decommissioned vessels are routinely used to keep other vessels going provided they have the same equipment. Of course at some point the spare parts run out or the hulls that are compatible have all been decommissioned.

Another item is that as newer systems come out the old systems are probably going to be recycled. IIRC Traveller has a way to refit a vessel and sell the old parts at a discounted price.

 

[Condottiere]

Pretty much aware of the economies of scale for nuclear powered super carriers, which currently only America can afford to field a large enough number of them.

The question arose, by better qualified analysts than me, as to whether having more platforms can be better leveraged in power projection, as current air wings are certainly not at maximum capacity, and air operations are more affected by fuel and stores onboard.

The Royal Navy took a pragmatic approach for the Queen Elizabeths (considering the political environment and limited financing) considering their primary deployment would be in the Atlantic, compared to the French, who decided to go their own way and built what appears to be the equivalent of a hangar queen, which at some point they'll have to decommission and properly dispose of.

At some point, manned aircraft will become obsolete in warfare by all indications, and you're likely to have glorified drone tenders.

Next stage would be extended range aircraft.

 

[phavoc]

The USN had a similar view in the 1950s when they had the larger CVA, but also the smaller Essex class as anti submarine carriers. The USN found that they could not afford all the toys they wanted, so they decommissioned all the smaller carriers.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Condottiere,

Pretty much aware of the economies of scale for nuclear powered super carriers, which currently only America can afford to field a large enough number of them.

The question arose, by better qualified analysts than me, as to whether having more platforms can be better leveraged in power projection, as current air wings are certainly not at maximum capacity, and air operations are more affected by fuel and stores onboard.

Nothing to say on this one, since the only contact I had with them was during an exercise and my boomer (SSBN) was supposed to try and sink the LGT (Large Gray Target).

The Royal Navy took a pragmatic approach for the Queen Elizabeth (considering the political environment and limited financing) considering their primary deployment would be in the Atlantic, compared to the French, who decided to go their own way and built what appears to be the equivalent of a hangar queen, which at some point they'll have to decommission and properly dispose of.

I stumbled onto and watched the BBC documentary on the HMS Queen Elizabeth and I liked what I saw.

At some point, manned aircraft will become obsolete in warfare by all indications, and you're likely to have glorified drone tenders.

Next stage would be extended range aircraft.

Funny, that comment and other similar ones seem to have not ever really occurred.

 

[Condottiere]

There's less political capital involved if drones are shot down, than if the aircraft have human crews.

On the physical level, the aircraft are lighter if they don't need to accommodate for human crews, and more acrobatic.

 

[AndrewW]

There's less political capital involved if drones are shot down, than if the aircraft have human crews.

On the physical level, the aircraft are lighter if they don't need to accommodate for human crews, and more acrobatic.

Also smaller.

 

[Condottiere]

There's that, and in MongoTraveller, demonstrated by the complete virtualization of the bridge.

In my case with the Confederation Navy, it's trying to find an economic model to retain the bridge and it's manned complement.

Now that I reflect on it, I don't recall an obligation to account for the cost of the bridge, half a megabux per hundred tonnes or part thereof, for the complete virtualized variant.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning Pacific Daylight Savings time Condottiere,

There's that, and in MongoTraveller, demonstrated by the complete virtualization of the bridge.

In my case with the Confederation Navy, it's trying to find an economic model to retain the bridge and it's manned complement.

Now that I reflect on it, I don't recall an obligation to account for the cost of the bridge, half a megabux per hundred tonnes or part thereof, for the complete virtualized variant.

IIRC in some CT source there is a Third Imperium requirement that ships have at least one crew member onboard. MgT does allow virtual crew and virtual gunners that, in theory, is used to reduce crew requires but not totally replace the crew. The Fessor autonomous 49-ton pods does replace the crew and gets rid the cockpit or bridge, but through remote ops a pilot can still take control.

 

[Old School]

. MgT does allow virtual crew and virtual gunners that, in theory, is used to reduce crew requires but not totally replace the crew.

This is incorrect. The virtual crew software description is clear that the ship can operate with no crew.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The virtual crew software description is clear that the ship can operate with no crew.

Some crew positions can be taken over by Virtual Crew:

Virtual Crew: While ships are vastly complicated to
run, requiring highly trained crews, relatively simple operations can be performed by this software package. Virtual Crew can replace up to five pilots, gunners or sensor operators on board a ship, potentially allowing the ship to act completely autonomously if all crew
can be replaced in this way.

But not all, e.g. not astrogators or engineers.

So, basically, small craft can be automated by Virtual Crew, but not ships.


Then there is Expert software and robots...

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning from the Pacific Northwest AnotherDilbert and Old School,

The virtual crew software description is clear that the ship can operate with no crew.

Some crew positions can be taken over by Virtual Crew:

Virtual Crew: While ships are vastly complicated to
run, requiring highly trained crews, relatively simple operations can be performed by this software package. Virtual Crew can replace up to five pilots, gunners or sensor operators on board a ship, potentially allowing the ship to act completely autonomously if all crew can be replaced in this way.

But not all, e.g. not astrogators or engineers.

So, basically, small craft can be automated by Virtual Crew, but not ships.

Then there is Expert software and robots...

I checked my e-mail when shutting my computer down for the night and saw Old School's reply. Thank you AnotherDilbert for making a clear and concise reply.

The Foreven Worlds Single Ships: Fessor Cargo Multipurpose Ship PDF by Dale C. McCoy, Jr published by Jon Brazer Enterprises 2019 has a 49-ton autonomous pod that uses Virtual Crew.

 

[Ursus Maior]

But not all, e.g. not astrogators or engineers.

You good use an astrogation droif from CSC for that.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi again Ursus Maior,

But not all, e.g. not astrogators or engineers.

You good use an astrogation droif from CSC for that.

The droid would be considered crew since it is a separate machine from the computer with the virtual crew software the computer, itself is handling the functions of pilot, gunners, and sensor operators.

Somewhere in the combined back story is a comment that the Third Imperium requires at least one living body onboard starships, which is why X-boats have a crew of 1. Okay, the rules as written requires a minimum of 1 pilot.

 

[Condottiere]

Maintenance tasks and repairs would be performed by drones controlled by virtual engineers.

Astrogation, at it's most basic, would be distilled into tape form.