AndrewW said:snrdg121408 said:I do not agree that the Engineers who are specialists trained in the operation of the power plant, MD, and JD are also responsible for life support.
Ones with a specialty in Power,M-drive or J-drive no, it is a separate specialty.
Traveller Core Rulebook page: 65 said:Life Support: Covers oxygen generators, heating and lighting and other necessary life support systems.
Safely Reducing Power to Life Support to Prolong a Ship’s Battery Life: Average (8+) Engineer (life support) check (1D minutes, EDU).
Condottiere said:Life support maintenance doesn't require engineering certification, at least not at technological level twelve.
This is basically plumbing and keeping an eye on the filters.
Possibly some knowledge of chemistry and ideal air mixtures.
Unless, they're also responsible for artificial gravity and inertial compensators.
Condottiere said:It's become an interwoven mixture of electronics and mechanics, with the bias towards removing any moving parts.
For fortnighly excursions within civilized space, it's probably cheaper to run diagnostics at the starport, and immediately replace suspect equipment, than keep technicians onboard, beyond the minimum to supervise the equipment.
Condottiere said:There's a slight difference between commercial ships cutting corners, and warships having to be able to keep functioning under all conditions while on patrol.
Having said that, it was tried with the Littoral Combat Ship concept, and I believe they ended up with almost permanently stationed civilian contractors onboard, trying to keep everything working.
Condottiere said:One obvious way of cutting corners, besides ordering ships from Chinese yards, and previously Korean, is by registering the ships under flags of convenience, whose host nations neither charge a great deal for the privilege, have rigid safety standards, nor bother to enforce those they have.
For a Five Kay starship, the primary concerns would have to be intact hull, life support, power generation, and propulsion.
Technology level nine makes the hull self sealing, though I suspect glue and a steel cap would work as well.
Life support has to be dead simple by this time.
Power generation requires a functioning fusion reactor, be default - what could go wrong in a fortnight between inspections?
The manoeuvre drive either works or it doesn't: it would be pretty clear as to which if the spacecraft can't move out of it's cradle.
The tricky part is the jump drive, since none of us actually know how it works, but I'd say all it needs is certification for the next jump; for larger drives, an engineer who ramps it up to the necessary level to execute a jump and understands when the fecal matter is revving itself up to strike the ventilator, when he would shut it down.
snrdg121408 said:Hello all,
Since I have not received any feedback about bay crew/gunner requirements I asked about earlier here is what I will be using.
Commercial: 1 gunner per turret, 1 gunner per small bay, 2 gunners per medium bay, 4 gunners per large bay, and 1 gunner per screen
Military: 2 gunner per turret, 1 gunner per small bay, 2 gunners per medium bay, 4 gunners per large bay, 2 gunners per screen, and 1 gunner per 100 tons of spinal weapon.
phavoc said:snrdg121408 said:Hello all,
Since I have not received any feedback about bay crew/gunner requirements I asked about earlier here is what I will be using.
Commercial: 1 gunner per turret, 1 gunner per small bay, 2 gunners per medium bay, 4 gunners per large bay, and 1 gunner per screen
Military: 2 gunner per turret, 1 gunner per small bay, 2 gunners per medium bay, 4 gunners per large bay, 2 gunners per screen, and 1 gunner per 100 tons of spinal weapon.
I was Army, but the principle of manning the equipment/weapons remains the same, so whatever is required to fully man all weapons and stations during combat is your basic crew complement. Manning things like auxillary control, damage control and other things would be considered basic crewing.
For larger ships people like mechanics and machinists would not necessarily have a weapons mount to crew. They would be the ones who handle the damage control issues and such. For your active gunners you really wouldn't need that in a modern combat ship. They aren't physically aiming the turrets or loading the missile tubes. But they do need to be on-mount in case of a problem.
The number of actual gunners for something as large as a spinal mount would be relatively small. What you would want is mechanics and engineers to fix the widgets when they didn't work. Pushing the button to fire requires only a few people (one to push, half a dozen to order the rating to push the button).
Condottiere said:1. Commercial shipping is different from military concerns, in that you plan for the routine, rather than the exception, so if you can offboard maintenance and maintenance personnel, you will, or better, outsource it.
2. Gunner requirements in Traveller are for the operation of the weapon systems in combat; arguably, you can train the gunners to maintain and repair weapon systems during off peak hours, otherwise, you're going to need another subdivision, or more if they have to specialize for each weapon system.
snrdg121408 said:Howdy phavoc,
Off topic: Did you ever get stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington which is now Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington? (The state not DC)
The ship's complement is everyone onboard the vessel. The Marines onboard their amphibious ships are part of the ships complement. The ship's company or crew are all the bodies needed to operate, maintain, and repair the ship and its equipment. The ship's company/crew handle damage control by drawing from the bodies that are not on watch during casualties and at battle stations.
For larger ships people like mechanics and machinists would not necessarily have a weapons mount to crew. They would be the ones who handle the damage control issues and such. For your active gunners you really wouldn't need that in a modern combat ship. They aren't physically aiming the turrets or loading the missile tubes. But they do need to be on-mount in case of a problem.
Just about everyone not directly involved with weapons or the systems used to track and designate targets are on damage control. Some of the bodies will be stationed at critical points with other stationed on the mess decks to be routed where they are needed.
The number of actual gunners for something as large as a spinal mount would be relatively small. What you would want is mechanics and engineers to fix the widgets when they didn't work. Pushing the button to fire requires only a few people (one to push, half a dozen to order the rating to push the button).
A Mk 4 5-inch 54/62 caliber gun mount has a crew of six which are stationed below deck and not in the turret. They are responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the gun. If a mechanical part breaks that is not in stock they can and do get help from the departments/divisions that have the people that can machine the part.
Scaling up a spinal weapon has the bodies to operate, maintain, and repair the systems.
phavoc said:Nope, never made it that far west. Ft. Swill, Germany (Graf) and Ft. Hood.
For individual weapons we (Army crew) were responsible for basic maintenance. We did things like hydraulic maintenance, track pads, stuff like that. If the launcher, engine, gyroscope, or firing electronics failed we had to call specialized people who had the expertise and the spare parts. We could have probably done some of the work, but for the most part it was easier to have specialists. Each of our firing platoons had a dedicated mechanic for three launchers, and our HQ platoon had the regular mechanics and POL teams. The more specialized mechanics were congregated in different units.
Ships, of course, being away for port have to carry more of their own people. But navy ships rely a lot on port personnel for heavy maintenance. Used to be there were destroyer and submarine tenders who also fulfilled the same mission for those ships away from port. Larger combatants usually have to return to port because most major damage requires equipment that is not very portable.
Condottiere said:Routine maintenance is running diagnostics, making sure that the stuff is in working condition, and detecting anomalies and indications of future faults.
Cruises are possibly four months or more, and I'll assume that homeports certify the stuff will continue to work at least until a warship is scheduled to return, though crew will be trained and spares carried for equipment they could repair on their own, should the need arise.
