HG Advanced Spacecraft - Tonnage and Upgrades

[BP]

On HG pg 53 there are technology modifiers and optional upgrades presented.

Questions for the forum -

1) Assume Tonnage refers to turrets, barbettes, and bays but not spinal mounts (as HG pg 66 gives specific and different modifiers)?

2) Don't recall seeing a TL for turrets so will use lowest TL difference of mounted weapons (hmmm.. can these be changed out at later date - possible issue addressed by requiring TL match ups on future changes)?

Ex: Beam Laser (TL-9) in triple turret at TL-11 would allow 75% tonnage for turret, with no upgrades to it, but missiles (TL-6) in same turret would have 3 upgrade slots.

(The example of the Particle Bay doesn't help when it mentions a split of one upgrade and tonnage decrease of 95% - which doesn't exist on the preceding table! Plus it is a bay weapon, not a multi-weapon turret...

HG pg 96 with a 50-ton missile bay with reduced tonnage - 1 ton not reduced. Could 1 ton be separate fire control that was not upgraded? If so, then would tonnage modifier only apply to extra ton on pop-up turrets as other ton is fire control included in tonnage [Core pg 111]?)

3) Sandcasters aren't mentioned - at all! Torpedoes and missiles are. Assume that 'munition' tonnage is not affected - but turrets are?

And that TL of munitions don't count (not in reference tables - Torpedo is listed as TL-9, but can be 7,8,9 by Torpedo types on HG pg 49) - otherwise sandcaster drums at TL-5 can get quite a boost!

Of course, range upgrades would refer to targeting hit DMs and not making, say, missiles cruise longer.

4) Black Globe (TL-15) is not mentioned in the reference table - if TL-16 BG was 'available' should 90% tonnage or optional upgrades apply [1 slot]?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

1) Assume Tonnage refers to turrets, barbettes, and bays but not spinal mounts (as HG pg 66 gives specific and different modifiers)?

Turrets, barbettes, and bays are not weapons they are mounts to put weapons in, however a triple beam laser turret's size could be decreased from 1 dton to .75 dtons. Per HG pp. 48 and 49 my impression is that a barbette is a large turret that mounts only a single railgun, particle beam, or torpedo launcher.

The Spinal Mount is a weapon which could, in my opinion, use the prototype table and the upgrade lists on p. 53 in addition to the rapid fire option on page 66. I'd say that the PA and Meson weapons in bays and turrets could use the rapid fire option. I feel that lasers, if they use capacitors, could also use the rapid fire option.

(2) Don't recall seeing a TL for turrets...

The TLs for turrets are found on Core p. 111 below shows the first two columns:

Weapon    TL 
Single     7
Double     8
Triple     9
Pop-up    10

(The example of the Particle Bay doesn't help when it mentions a split of one upgrade and tonnage decrease of 95% - which doesn't exist on the preceding table! Plus it is a bay weapon, not a multi-weapon turret...

I'm of the opinion that a line of text was left out that may have stated that tonnage can be increased or decreased in 1 or 5% increments. Which would allow for 95%.

My impression from Core p. 112 is that at least two of the bays mount multiple weapons of the same type:
Missile Bank Bays fire flights of 12 missiles at a time.
Particle Beam Bays are larger versions of turret-mounted weapons.

HG pg 96 with a 50-ton missile bay with reduced tonnage - 1 ton not reduced. Could 1 ton be separate fire control that was not upgraded? If so, then would tonnage modifier only apply to extra ton on pop-up turrets as other ton is fire control included in tonnage [Core pg 111]?)[/color]

Per text on Core p. 111 50 dton bay + 1 dton fire control = 51 dtons if the ship is a TL 9 design then the tonnage can be reduced by 60%.

round(51 x .6,0) = 30.6 = 31 dtons.

3) Sandcasters aren't mentioned - at all! Torpedoes and missiles are. Assume that 'munition' tonnage is not affected - but turrets are?

Since turrets are either 1 dton or 2 dtons I'd say sandcaster is covered, even if not specifically mentioned. My opinion, until the Powers That Be say otherwise, is that the prototype and upgrades can be applied to the muntions too.

4) Black Globe (TL-15) is not mentioned in the reference table - if TL-16 BG was 'available' should 90% tonnage or optional upgrades apply [1 slot]?

Per HG 50 Black Globe Generators are only available at TL 15 and are either recovered Ancient artifacts or prototypes. I thought I read in one of the Mongoose books that the 3I was at TL15, maybe I read the TL in another Traveller variant. :?

However, if some race did get to TL 16 then I'd say the 90% tonnage and 110% cost applies. I really don't see any way to upgrade a BG other than
tonnage and cost. In my opinion a 1 TL difference is not gotting to make the first generation any easier to repair.

Oh yes, good questions and hopefully I'm not out to lunch :lol:

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I would not recommend reducing the tonnage of weapons. Although the rules allow it, I would recommend that you use the UPGRADES to make the weapons more powerful for the same size.

This was the philosophy followed in the HG designs. Lots of High Accurate, High Yield weapons.

Also, if you start changing the size of your turrets or bays you limit your ability to retrofit other weapons into them at a later date.

Sure you could shrink the size of the turret if you wanted to put a Pulse Laser in it, but if you later want to upgrade the weapon to a Particle Beam, then you loose that ability without changing out the turret completely and redoing all the math.

In my opinion, Turrets and Bays are a fixed size not affected by TL. The quality of the weapon put in the turret or bay IS affected by TL.

I do agree though that TL changes to the size of Spinal mounts should be allowed. Those are basically custom built into the ship anyway.

 

[BP]

Hello to you, snrdg121408!

Turrets, barbettes, and bays are not weapons they are mounts to put weapons in, however...

Since weapons in turrets have no tonnage - so that 1,2 or 3 take up the same tonnage irregardless of type - this is were the ambiguity of these rules rears its ugly head. My solution is to allow the tonnage modifiers up to the max allowed by the least upgradeable weapon mounted. (As stated this puts restrictions on future retrofits - but restrictions exist anyway - i.e. you can't mount a railgun barbette in the turret either!)

Good call on the prototype - I didn't catch that - though only the TL-1 mod counts for Meson - the rest are bested by the tables on pg 66.

And for Particle - the table on pg 51 is better for TL+2 and TL+3 (part of the reason I don't think this was anticipated).

... If one applies the upgrades to spinal weapons - that would be quite formidable (with Long Range - spinal weps would become optimal at very long).

Of course, I don't really feel this was intended - in fact even the rules on pg 66 seem a bit not thought thru - for instance the Type A Particle Spiral at TL-12 is the same 3000 tons as a TL-12 Type B, but with TL damage mod only has damage of 240 instead of the 300 that the Type B has for the same price (after TL mod)...

The TLs for turrets are found on Core p. 111

Doh! - Thanks for pointing out the TL for turrets - I must have looked at that table 20 times and missed this! To me this means that the TL of the build needs to account for this as well as the TL for the weapons... so that a TL-11 ship with pop-up turret (TL-10) would be allowed 90% (TL+1) tonnage even though the highest base tech weapon mountable is TL-9 (Beam - which would then have one upgrade 'slot' left, with any other weapon types having two or more 'slots' remaining - each losing one 'slot' for the turret upgrade).

I'm of the opinion that a line of text was left out that may have stated that tonnage can be increased or decreased in 1 or 5% increments. Which would allow for 95%.

Actually - after looking at this again - I'm of the opinion it is a mistake => the values in the example were taken from the Drives table rather than the Armaments & Screens table :wink: (so technically I was also wrong - they did exist in the preceding table - it was just the wrong preceding table!)

round(51 x .6,0) = 30.6 = 31 dtons.

Yep - except the other numbers in that ship design are not rounded that way - in fact the Total Tonnage is given as 69.3! So either it is a mistake (inconsistency) or the 'Bay Weapon' received the TL tonnage mod and the 'Fire Control' ton did not... argh!

My opinion, until the Powers That Be say otherwise, is that the prototype and upgrades can be applied to the munitions too.

Would tend to agree. Though it does place TL restrictions on acquiring compatible munitions... nice twist in some cases perhaps - and more RW.
The real question would then be - do upgraded (tonnage) armaments require smaller munitions (as part of the space savings)!

I really don't see any way to upgrade a BG other than tonnage and cost. In my opinion a 1 TL difference is not gotting to make the first generation any easier to repair.

Hmmm.. actually that one makes sense to me (curious about your logic?) - and so does the Resilient option (though that would require TL-17).

I thought I read in one of the Mongoose books that the 3I was at TL15, maybe I read the TL in another Traveller variant.

I think the 3I has a range of TLs with 12 being the 'normal' and 15 the high end... In this section [HG pg 52], the statement is made that 'overall tech level of the resulting spacecraft is roughly TL12..'
Do note that the Sylea class battleship is stated as TL14 [HG pg 101] and takes advantage of this with its hull & structure points (1/40 tons) and with Bay and Turret weapon upgrades!

Many thanks for your time!

 

[BP]

I would not recommend reducing the tonnage of weapons. Although the rules allow it, I would recommend that you use the UPGRADES to make the weapons more powerful for the same size.

Generally I would agree - though a 40% reduction in say 2 bays on a smaller ship would be significant (40 tons available for other things!).

Part of my original thinking was to allow lower TL turrets to be retrofitted with Armoured ones (at 90% they allow for the 10%). Since this negates the first hit - that is a pretty good upgrade (and if enough slots are left - then add Resilient for double the survivability!)

However, last night I re-read the 'Armoured Bulkheads' rule [HG pg 41] and realized the wording - 'bulkheads protect any internal components' - might put a damper on my crazy plan...
Then I saw that the Sylea class Battleship actually has 'Amoured bulkheads for Turrets' listed in its 'Extras' section with the 10% tonnage!
So maybe I'll play it this way too!

Also, if you start changing the size of your turrets or bays you limit your ability to retrofit other weapons into them at a later date.

Sure - this is what I meant by 'possible issue addressed by requiring TL match ups'... for new designs I have skipped the savings (have only done non-capital ships so far - with a few turrets so savings was insignificant next to the upgrade advantages).

I do agree though that TL changes to the size of Spinal mounts should be allowed. Those are basically custom built into the ship anyway.

Yeah - the issue is that there are 2 tables that can apply to these! And the ones given on HG pg 66 seem somewhat dubious to me...

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening BP,

Glad to be of help and I've got sufficient time that I can devote to Traveller. However, I'm going to have learn to type faster and shorter answers to keep from timing out :lol: .

I'm blaming gremlins for you missing the turret TL on p. 111 of the core rulebook.

Looking back at the design rules I think that the fire control system is fixed at 1 dton regardless of TL. This may be explained by saying that the system gets better armor protection and/or better liffe support for the gunner.

I'd say that making the weapon better does not affect the size of the munitions used. The best real world example I can think of is the 5 inch naval gun mount. A WW II double mount is about 3 times bigger than
todays single mount. Even a WW II open 5 inch mount is about twice the size of a single mount. However, all the munitions could be fired by any of the gun systems.

No logic was involved with my comment about a first generation BG not being any easier to repair. Real world experience with electronic systems is how I came about my conculsion. All of the submarines I served on were built in the 1960s and had the many of the systems upgraded over the years. A piece of sonar gear had a combination of tubes, 1st generation transistor solid state circuits mounted on a large circuit board and the 1990s micoboard solid state circuit board. Now apply this to both the Ancients and experimental BGs. With the Ancients BGs there aren't technical manuals that help to repair them. The experimental BGs don't have standard technical manuals since they are prototypes being built by different facilities based on technical journals written about Ancients BGs being studied.

I think I'll head for bed, my eyes keep closing.

 

[BP]

...I'm blaming gremlins for you missing the turret TL on p. 111 of the core rulebook.

I'm blaming editors who like to spread out tables and leave more separate tables than necessary (oh - and gremlins too)!

Looking back at the design rules I think that the fire control system is fixed at 1 dton regardless of TL...

If fire control is just control circuitry (electronic/photonic/fluidic/nano/etc) - then your rationale is consistent with no bridge TL upgrades (well - other than holographic - which does not effect size, though counters the 'unergonomic' DM from a compact bridge) and no specific tonnage advantage with starship computers.
However, the 1 ton for fire control and the same one ton for turret leaves me feeling that the 1 ton is mostly mechanics in the case of the turret. In regards to the Bay weapons I would feel just the opposite (i.e. read non-solid state style electronic would could have size minimums for physics reasons) - hence why I consider the 31 vs. 30.6 ton bay weapon example possibly significant.

I'd say that making the weapon better does not affect the size of the munitions used. The best real world example ... all the munitions could be fired by any of the gun systems.

And quite rational that - at least for one country! But I think this is more a plan than a TL issue.
In Traveller terms a high tech system defense force might not give a rats for compatibility and so the higher TL could be used (and probably would be) - where as the Imperium would probably not do this.

No logic was involved ... With the Ancients BGs there aren't technical manuals that help to repair them. The experimental BGs don't have standard technical manuals since they are prototypes ...

I care to disagree - Most rational logic sir!
In fact it argues the point that first generation and Ancient BGs should have negative DMs for repair - as should all prototypes and artifacts! Also, there should be negavite DMs for high TL devices being repaired by lower TL across the board - such as the rules for surgery of augmented characters [Core pg 89]. Prototypes and alien/ancient artifacts should be further penalized.

Again, Thanks for stimulating discussion!

[P.S. - on windows machines I use Ctrl+a followed by Ctrl-Ins to copy my posts to clipboard before hitting preview or submit (copies all text in case of timeouts! - just paste back using Shift-Ins - or the context menu)]

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

As long as gremlins have a spot I'm happy .

A turret is a shell that has two functions. The primary function is to house weapons and the secondary function is to allow the weapons to target hostiles without having to maneuver the ship.

I've tinkered with designing turrets using GURPS VE2 and GT: Starships and determined that most of the turret was empty internal space to take weapons. Of course the weapons get smaller in volume if a gunner's station is included inside the turret. I'm guessing that the turret frame, armor, and rotation ring are something like 1% of the total volume.

I agree that different political entities will most probably have different standards than the 3I. I'm fairly certain that the Hivers and K'Kree have different munition and weapon sizes than the 3I. However, those worlds and stellar governments that have been allied with the 3I probably have more compatible munitions/weapon systems with the Imperial standards.

The members of NATO and to a lesser extent the UN have some capatibility in weapons and munitions for joint operations. The US M16 is an example of compatibility in munitions. Of course there are still differences too.

Please oh please don't let the powers that be read about giving negative DMs to repair prototypes and artifact weapons of advanced civilizations. See I told you I didn't use logic, if I was being logical I would have not mentioned anything about BG modifications. :wink:

I'm not up to speed on how to calculate how a character succeeds or fails when trying to use a skill to accomplish a task. I seem to recall that some DMs are based on TL and that TLs at a lower level of the character would get a postive DM and if trying to work on something higher gets a negative one.

Your welcome but turn about is fair play since you've been helpful on my topic posts.

Neat trick and thanks for the help and method not to loose my replies because of time outs.

 

[AndrewW]

I'm not up to speed on how to calculate how a character succeeds or fails when trying to use a skill to accomplish a task. I seem to recall that some DMs are based on TL and that TLs at a lower level of the character would get a postive DM and if trying to work on something higher gets a negative one.

They can be, but personaly if the lower tech level was a lot different then what they where used to working with I might give a negative DM.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AndrewW,

They can be, but personaly if the lower tech level was a lot different then what they where used to working with I might give a negative DM.

A negative DM could apply depending on the equipment being repaired. The major difference, at least from the various weapon design systems I tinkered with, between say a TL 7 and a TL 12 laser is component size. TL laser are more compact and powerful, but they both have the same basic components. Of course I could and probably are out to lunch since I'm not familiar with the system.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[BP]

Well - to relate to RW - I know my way around soldering irons - and studied and applied TTL logic and knew my way around using DIPs (chips)...

So back in the day and with working with some modern niche industrial equipment I have no problem repairing (bypassing/and paper clipping as well as soldering :wink issues on circuit boards - but I am near useless with surface mount technology (although I have been known to cut a trace with a concrete floor roughened paper clip - to bypass defective diagnostic circuits).

I understand its functions and design - but lack the tools, the know-how to use those tools and the skill. Likewise there is wire-wrap tech for prototyping - its not as much of a stretch, since one could still attempt soldering, but it too requires special tools and skills - I've done it, but lacking the tools, I would have to try and hack it with solder which might not hold.

I know enough to know that if I hit a dense surface mount board with a soldering iron I'll likely damage the components/connections with too much unfocused heat. I might be able to rig something with wires and heat sinks jury rigged to the iron and board, and a good magnifier, but it would be very tricky and the odds of success would decrease exponentially with each discreet component I had to deal with... (in other words definitely some negative DMs)

And that is today's tech TL7~8...

P.S. - speaking of universal standards, those keyboard shortcuts hark back to the days of the IBM mainframe keyboard and the CUA/SUA compliancy requirements IBM placed on Microsoft when they created Windows.. er.. OS 2 for them :wink:

 

[AndrewW]

P.S. - speaking of universal standards, those keyboard shortcuts hark back to the days of the IBM mainframe keyboard and the CUA/SUA compliancy requirements IBM placed on Microsoft when they created Windows.. er.. OS 2 for them :wink:

And then went their own way with OS/2 when they wanted to do it right.

 

[BP]

And then went their own way with OS/2 when they wanted to do it right.

Actually MS denied the license renewal - and they still paid MS for most of the development of Warp. IBM was too big to understand that you never pay the foxes to watch the chicken coop! And they never have truely grasped the concept that software rules the market not the other way around (if it weren't for OS-400 - the software tech they originally shelved over a decade previously - they wouldn't be around today)!

Of course, this has nothing to do with this post topic - unless we can somehow work it into why the ancients actually left Black Globes laying around for the 3I to find :wink:

 

[AndrewW]

And then went their own way with OS/2 when they wanted to do it right.

Actually MS denied the license renewal - and they still paid MS for most of the development of Warp. IBM was too big to understand that you never pay the foxes to watch the chicken coop! And they never have truely grasped the concept that software rules the market not the other way around (if it weren't for OS-400 - the software tech they originally shelved over a decade previously - they wouldn't be around today)!

True but it still amounted to them going their own way with it. Original plan was for OS/2 to be the upgrade from mickysoft windoze but when a certain company saw how popular mickysoft windoze was they bailed leaving behind broken promises. But we don't need to get into that.

Of course, this has nothing to do with this post topic - unless we can somehow work it into why the ancients actually left Black Globes laying around for the 3I to find :wink:

Because they found the black globes where based on an inferior os and didn't want them anymore?

 

[BP]

...Original plan was for OS/2 to be the upgrade...

'Marketing Plan' :wink: - since the original licenses had built-in expirations and no provisions for viability of 'upgrade path' I don't believe it was ever really 'The Plan' and it worked flawlessly because IBM didn't really care enough about software... (looking at the kernel and the extensions only supports this further, but that is a whole 'nother story - as is how IBM sunk Berkley Softworks with that whole PM Lite prank)!

...

Of course, this has nothing to do with this post topic - unless we can somehow work it into why the ancients actually left Black Globes laying around for the 3I to find :wink:

Because they found the black globes where based on an inferior os and didn't want them anymore?

:lol: Because they built them not to perform as expected - the consequences just haven't been observed yet (wait until its license renewal time)! :twisted:

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello BP,

The USN was a good teacher at keeping electonics type handy at fixing
a wide range of circuits. One piece of sonar equipment was an upgraded
system developed from the captured U-boat sitting in, I think, Chicago.
The equipment had a mix of tubes and 1st through 3rd generations of
solid state boards. Another piece of gear had a huge crystal for timing
that cracked while on patrol. The replacement was not quite right and
one of the sonar tech had to jury rig a fix, which happened to break
a couple of rules. But we kept the system running until returning to port.

Of course there were some failures when we made repairs to our modern
equipment. Come to think of it all 4 subs and 1 surface ship I sreved on
were commissioned in the 1960s. I did work on the newer fast attacks,
aka Los Angeles class, when stationed a the Submarine Support Facility
in Groton, CT and then on the USS Simon Lake in the Med. I don't recall
that they had any tube electronics, but they did have circuit boards that
made repairs easier. Unless the replacement part was brokne, then they
had to break out the soldering tools and make repairs if at sea. In port
they'd order replacement parts.

So the suggested BG negative DMs are probably a good idea.

 

[BP]

...The equipment had a mix of tubes and 1st through 3rd generations of solid state boards.

What - no fluidics? :wink:

I did work on the newer fast attacks, aka Los Angeles class, when stationed a the Submarine Support Facility in Groton, CT and then on the USS Simon Lake in the Med. I don't recall that they had any tube electronics, but they did have circuit boards that made repairs easier.

So only LCDs, Plasma, Micro-mirror or Vector displays?

Just kiddin' - remember repairing a tube radio (or maybe it was the TV) as a kid... (my dad built our color TV and that is what I learned on originally - used to have to fix it occasionally - don't think it had tubes other than the display - so must have been a radio).

Last year I was talking to my dad (he can do surface mount - in fact, I've watched him with a microscope putting down hundreds of solid state 'dots' on a board) when he was at a hotel on business (repairing some space equipment) and he mentioned he was laying out the control circuitry for his new vacuum chamber - I asked him if work had given him a laptop for that and he just laughed - his chamber controls are all discrete components not solid state! Doh - I had to laugh at myself!

To bring this full circle (and back on topic) - in the 80's Electronic Digital CAD apps moved to the PC level, by the 90's most technicians were unable to design analog circuitry (something the CAD apps generally didn't handle). So, in Traveller not only should there maybe be DMs for dealing with higher TL, but perhaps also dealing with older ones as well!

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening again BP,

Nope, the only fluidics was when someone spilled coffee or something
similar into the equipment.

Nope again just small CTRs that displayed shades of gray, but they did
have a joy stick and a thumb wheel to move the cursor around the
screen.

Cool about the radio and tv. My Dad was in the Air Force and I'd go with
him occassionally and help troubleshoot the little black, actually more
military gray, boxes and run a toggle switched testing computer.

Now your Dad is really cool I've only seen surface mounting on a
training film.

Good point on how the computer and associated drafting applications
have taken away the fun of hand drawing circuits. Unfortunately, I'm
not very good at using either method :lol: . I'm one of the people who
can't draw a straight line even when the ruler is already setup.

So, I agree that there should be a wider range of DMs to handle the
different ranges of equipment TLs.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Well - to relate to RW - I know my way around soldering irons - and studied and applied TTL logic and knew my way around using DIPs (chips)...

So back in the day and with working with some modern niche industrial equipment I have no problem repairing (bypassing/and paper clipping as well as soldering :wink issues on circuit boards - but I am near useless with surface mount technology (although I have been known to cut a trace with a concrete floor roughened paper clip - to bypass defective diagnostic circuits).

I understand its functions and design - but lack the tools, the know-how to use those tools and the skill. Likewise there is wire-wrap tech for prototyping - its not as much of a stretch, since one could still attempt soldering, but it too requires special tools and skills - I've done it, but lacking the tools, I would have to try and hack it with solder which might not hold.

I know enough to know that if I hit a dense surface mount board with a soldering iron I'll likely damage the components/connections with too much unfocused heat. I might be able to rig something with wires and heat sinks jury rigged to the iron and board, and a good magnifier, but it would be very tricky and the odds of success would decrease exponentially with each discreet component I had to deal with... (in other words definitely some negative DMs)

And that is today's tech TL7~8...

P.S. - speaking of universal standards, those keyboard shortcuts hark back to the days of the IBM mainframe keyboard and the CUA/SUA compliancy requirements IBM placed on Microsoft when they created Windows.. er.. OS 2 for them :wink:

How are you working with Vacuum Tubes and such (TL5-6)?

 

[BP]

How are you working with Vacuum Tubes and such (TL5-6)?

Not very proficient - haven't done it since I was a kid! :shock:

Oh - actually not sure how to take this question...
How am I at working with them?
How does one actually work with them?
How do you use them in traveller?

For the first two sounds like snrdg121408 has worlds more experience and knowhow than I do! I probably only ever replaced power rectifiers. (I do remember my dad had a old military vector oscilloscope I used that probably used tubes - though I don't recall ever having to do anything to it = now I'm wondering what happened to it!)

For the last - well tubes are still in use today = CRTs, of course, by audio buffs (there was even a computer some years back that offered a tube for 'improved' sound), maybe still in TV stations, perhaps still in military devices (for enhanced resistance against EMP/certain power amplification apps/maybe even fuses) and of course in microwave ovens (magnetron) and - especially from the standpoint of Traveller - in particle accelerators!

While for logic circuitry, tubes could be considered low-tech (TL5-6?) they would still have application in higher TLs. And higher TL could perhaps overcome some of their limitations in circuitry (micro-miniaturization, better materials) which would allow for some of there benefits - such as high power RF and inherently better EMP and radiation resistance (important things in space craft and sensors/communications)...