Missle Storage

[phavoc]

I was perusing my FFE DVD's and ran across Special Supplement 3 - Missiles (revised). In there it actually had a more detailed explanation of on-mount missile storage. Here's what it says:

MISSILE STORAGE
Each standard missile rack can hold one missile ready to fire and two additional missiles
ready for future game turns. The role of the gunner in the turret is to aim and fire the
weaponry in the turret; once the missile racks and ready missiles are exhausted, the gunner
must reload them with new missiles. A gunner can load new missiles into the racks
and still operate the weaponry in a game turn.

The standard turret has room to store an additional 12 missiles in it. Once these missiles
have been used, the turret must be restocked with missiles carried elsewhere in the
ship (usually in the cargo hold).

Restocking a turret with missiles is accomplished during the game turn interphase. If
the gunner participates in restocking, he may not operate weaponry in the turret in the next
game turn. It is possible for non-gunner crewmembers who are not otherwise engaged to
perform restocking instead. One person can restock a turret in one game turn.

In summary:

1) a standard missile masses 48kg, or 105lbs (this is actually located in a different section).

2) a single missile rack can hold one missile in the tube and two in the mount storage magazine.

3) a missile hardpoint can store 12 additional missiles

4) a single crewmember can restock a turret in one turn.

The questions:

1) A standard missile is somewhat analagous to an AIM-9 sidewinder missile. Though a sidewinder outweighs a standard missile by about 75lbs / 34kg. It seems standard missiles are quite small.

2) The one in the tube / 2 in the ready position makes sense. But the 12 in the hard point storage area doesn't jive with the other description of the 1 ton set aside for a hardpoint being fire control machinery. Those explanations seem to contradict one another.

3) The explanation says the "turret has room to store" 12 additional missiles. But the turrets you see in all the illustrations are tiny domed things. In order for this description to make sense the turret itself would have to be much roomier, more like a old-school 5inch gun turret.

4) How in the heck do weapon safety protocols work when you are just stacking missile in the turret and hand loading them? I totally get how a person could lug these things around - control of gravity makes a huge difference in a person luggability - even for something silly like this. Have they not heard of magazines and automated loading machinery? Maybe now we understand why there are so many gunners....

Any comments?

 

[Condottiere]

1. The three in the can seems canon.

2. Size tends to be an effect of TL and/or capabilities, if you go by Mongoose.

3. I've always gone by that half a ton is operator space, and that by kilos they mean fourteen cubic metres divided by one thousand times the value.

 

[locarno24]

Size tends to be an effect of TL and/or capabilities, if you go by Mongoose.

Indeed. Bay and spinal weapon mounts miniaturise as tech level goes up.

It's not stated - but is logical - that for missiles and torpedoes the cost and benefit of miniaturization upgrades or things like "high yield" should be paid on the ammunition rather than the weapon - so that a high-tech missile would cost 200% of standard price but you could pack 20, not 12, per dTon of magazine space.

 

[Infojunky]

2) The one in the tube / 2 in the ready position makes sense. But the 12 in the hard point storage area doesn't jive with the other description of the 1 ton set aside for a hardpoint being fire control machinery. Those explanations seem to contradict one another.

In CT, Fire control machinery is the internal bits for directing fire of a turret, the turret it's self is outside the volume calculation of the ship itself. Note Popup turrets take 2 tons, a ton for fire control and a ton for the concealment of the turret.... It is one of the Classic Traveller online discussions/arguments.

3) The explanation says the "turret has room to store" 12 additional missiles. But the turrets you see in all the illustrations are tiny domed things. In order for this description to make sense the turret itself would have to be much roomier, more like a old-school 5inch gun turret.

DING! Give that man a cigar!

Traveller Turrets are modeled after classic Navel mounts for guns in the 3 to 5 inch range...

4) Have they not heard of magazines and automated loading machinery?
Any comments?

Yes, and someone still needs to feed the autoloader's magazine while said mount is in operation. Also Note, even mounts that are fired from a central location will generally have a couple of operators at the mount to take over operations if the lines of communication get broken.

 

[simonh]

In CT, Fire control machinery is the internal bits for directing fire of a turret, the turret it's self is outside the volume calculation of the ship itself. Note Popup turrets take 2 tons, a ton for fire control and a ton for the concealment of the turret.... It is one of the Classic Traveller online discussions/arguments.

It doesn't make a huge amount of sense, and as has been pointed out it doesn't fit with the art, but this is the way to go.

It's a shame this wasn't thought through better back in the 1970s, but at this point we're stuck with it. In these discussions I always fall back on the premise that the design system is only approximate. In the grand scheme of things turrets not having realistic amounts of space assigned for them is a couple of percent error on the design of a ship. It's not really any more or less of a problem than ship designs not really, properly allowing for corridor space, airlocks, non-fuel consumables, etc.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Not to muddy the waters, but if I remember correctly, one system (GURPS I think...) stated a normal turret had a volume of 3 tons. (I think a large turret was 5 tons) And if no weapons were installed in the turret, you got 3 extra tons of storage. (I can't remember though on a 100 ton hull if you got 3 tons "free" by adding a turret, or if you actually had to design a 97 ton hull with the assumption a turret would be added...) Anyway, each normal weapon system, pulse, beam, missile rack, etc... took up a "slot" (1 ton) inside a normal turret. ( a 1/2 ton fire control station was included) For instance a plasma cannon, not in the Mongoose rules ... took up 1.5 slots, so you could have two in a normal turret. There was also specific rules on the actual weight, diameter, and length of normal missiles, and how many you could store in turret, depending on how much free space was left over...
Anyway, if you want to house rule something tike this for Mongoose, might want to check out GURPS for some ideas. That system tried to get as detailed as possible.

 

[phavoc]

Not to muddy the waters, but if I remember correctly, one system (GURPS I think...) stated a normal turret had a volume of 3 tons. (I think a large turret was 5 tons) And if no weapons were installed in the turret, you got 3 extra tons of storage. (I can't remember though on a 100 ton hull if you got 3 tons "free" by adding a turret, or if you actually had to design a 97 ton hull with the assumption a turret would be added...) Anyway, each normal weapon system, pulse, beam, missile rack, etc... took up a "slot" (1 ton) inside a normal turret. ( a 1/2 ton fire control station was included) For instance a plasma cannon, not in the Mongoose rules ... took up 1.5 slots, so you could have two in a normal turret. There was also specific rules on the actual weight, diameter, and length of normal missiles, and how many you could store in turret, depending on how much free space was left over...
Anyway, if you want to house rule something tike this for Mongoose, might want to check out GURPS for some ideas. That system tried to get as detailed as possible.

That's GURPS you are describing, but according to my Classic Starships you are getting a couple of ideas bunched together. Instead of a turret, you can have 3 tons of turret weapons installed internally. Later on the books goes to state that a turret comes with a weapons station for a crew member. A turret has three spaces available externally for weapons, and one space is taken up internally for machinery and the crew work station.

GURPS has 2 classes of missiles, the 250mm standard one and a 500mm heavier one. 500mm missile launcher are strictly military (law level zero). According to GURPS specs, a 250mm missile is 11 ft long, masses 700lbs, is 6 cubic feet, and displaces .012 Dtons. A 250mm missile rack has magazine space for 70-77 missiles (increases at TL increases). The missiles seem awful big for such a small displacement though.

The 500mm ones are 4,000 lbs, 30 cubic feet and displace .06 dtons and magazine space for between 8-10 missiles. They are 15 feet long.

GURPS missile bays are quite different. a 50 ton bay has 50 launchers and magazine space for over 3000 missiles. 100 ton bays mount 500mm weapons, 100 launchers and space for 800-1000 missiles. The size differential doesn't quite make sense. If the missiles are twice as big, I would think you'd have half the number of launchers. But at least the onmount missile storage capabilities makes more sense.

 

[AndrewW]

For instance a plasma cannon, not in the Mongoose rules ...

Plasma Guns and Plasma Torpedoes are in Trillion Credit Squadron.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

@ phavoc... you know I think I may have gotten the 3 tons turret size from T20? I played both systems around the same time, 2001-2004ish. I think think the larger missiles in GURPS equate to torpedoes in Mongoose. But that's just an assumption.
@ Andrew... cool! Are they turret/barbette weapons or bay-only weapons?

 

[AndrewW]

@ Andrew... cool! Are they turret/barbette weapons or bay-only weapons?

Turret or barbette.

 

[dragoner]

CT missiles are small, iirc, 1 dton could hold 750 or so, doing the math by the tubes. IMTU, I use cassette style launchers, which technically would have a higher rate of fire, imo.

 

[steve98052]

On the general subject of missiles, one point that the physics-savvy folks in the GURPS Traveller world observed was that given the huge distances Traveller missiles have to travel, and their high acceleration, their velocity when they reached their targets would be so high that their kinetic impact damage would be far higher than any possible non-nuclear warhead.

For example, after one six-minute Mongoose Traveller turn at 1 G, a missile would be moving 5.9 km/s, over three times the muzzle velocity of a kinetic penetration tank gun, and over 11 times the kinetic energy. For a decent-sized missile, that's a huge amount of kinetic energy. "Distant" range and maximum acceleration is ten turns at 5 G, it's 294 km/s, almost 170 times the tank gun velocity and 28000 times the kinetic energy. (Mongoose High Guard missiles can do 10 G acceleration, doubling the peak velocity and quadrupling the kinetic energy, but ten turns at 5 G is tough enough.)

If a missile has a mass of 48 kg and uses thrusters instead of rocket engines (which seems necessary if they're supposed to maintain that kind of acceleration for that long), the impact energy at 294 km/s will be 1/2(48 kg)(294 km/s)^2, or about 2 terajoules. In the TNT-equivalent terms typically used for nuclear weapons, that's about a half kiloton. For comparison, the US deployed a 0.42 TJ (0.01 kiloton) warhead in nuclear artillery during the Cold War.

"Warheads? We don't need no stinkin' warheads!"

 

[phavoc]

On the general subject of missiles, one point that the physics-savvy folks in the GURPS Traveller world observed was that given the huge distances Traveller missiles have to travel, and their high acceleration, their velocity when they reached their targets would be so high that their kinetic impact damage would be far higher than any possible non-nuclear warhead.

For example, after one six-minute Mongoose Traveller turn at 1 G, a missile would be moving 5.9 km/s, over three times the muzzle velocity of a kinetic penetration tank gun, and over 11 times the kinetic energy. For a decent-sized missile, that's a huge amount of kinetic energy. "Distant" range and maximum acceleration is ten turns at 5 G, it's 294 km/s, almost 170 times the tank gun velocity and 28000 times the kinetic energy. (Mongoose High Guard missiles can do 10 G acceleration, doubling the peak velocity and quadrupling the kinetic energy, but ten turns at 5 G is tough enough.)

If a missile has a mass of 48 kg and uses thrusters instead of rocket engines (which seems necessary if they're supposed to maintain that kind of acceleration for that long), the impact energy at 294 km/s will be 1/2(48 kg)(294 km/s)^2, or about 2 terajoules. In the TNT-equivalent terms typically used for nuclear weapons, that's about a half kiloton. For comparison, the US deployed a 0.42 TJ (0.01 kiloton) warhead in nuclear artillery during the Cold War.

"Warheads? We don't need no stinkin' warheads!"

I've always wanted someone with mad math skillz (not the fact checkers for supplements though) to run through a Trav missile scenario. Standard missile? Meet collapsed matter hull plating/armor.

Bueller? Bueller??

 

[dragoner]

The kk missile isn't new, imo the he missile is actually a heap; though if a nuke doesn't automatically toast a ship, the damage from a kk probably wouldn't be much.

 

[locarno24]

The problem with Kinetic Kill weapons is that for some reason the Higher velocity long range missiles do less damage, despite kicking up to a faintly ridiculous 15G.

Although, whilst it's still doing faintly ridiculous damage, logically a missile can't be doing its max acceleration point-to-point the whole way, because it's having to correct for the target's manouvres. Some amount of 'sprint to terminal engagement point', maybe, (which is what the gunnery check represents) but there has to be some period where you aren't accelerating in a straight line as fast as possible or it'd be night impossible to hit the target.

 

[Condottiere]

An up the kilt shot would probably destroy the engine room and run the length of some smaller ships.

 

[locarno24]

Possibly. As the rules stand, you can strike an engine without taking out the ship's ablative hull.

One issue with the starship combat rules is that the target's profile has no bearing on the systems which suffer damage; a hit from the prow is as likely to kill engines as sensors.

In terms of causing a 'through-and-through' hit; I don't see why not - though there's no indication on how a ship is internally braced and armoured once you've punched through the 'skin'.

Also - whilst I approve of Honorverse stuff, there are few direct parallels; there is no wedge so no throat or kilt per se, and the big warships 'o' doom tend towards spherical lumps of armour and guns.

Whilst I have many issues with it as a wargame, I personally think that B5Wars had one of the best damage mechanics and would happily encourage players to consider it for an RPG or detailled skirmish game - it avoids many of the cardinal sins of space wargames; a hit which can't penetrate the main armour belt can still take out weapons or sensors which have to sit above it, hits will take out systems on the side of the ship facing the firer, most hits do something other than 'generic structural damage' (one thing Traveller also does well), and you have the option of things like raking damage (sweeping across several locations), or piercing damage (punching 'through-and-through' and running the entire beam or length of the ship).

 

[phavoc]

Does anyone remember the old FASA capital ship game Leviathan? I really liked their weapon systems damage rules. Weapons either peeled off layers of armor, or punched holes in the armor. It made for some interesting strategies.

 

[Condottiere]

Missile speed is 10 gees; the faster it is, the less time the opposing pilot has to get out of it's way.

 

[steve98052]

If a missile is capable of higher acceleration than its target, no amount of maneuvering on the part of the target can dodge the missile, unless the range is long enough that the missile's endurance is exhausted before it reaches the target. If a missile can conserve fuel by switching off its engine and restarting it after a period of coasting, it can extend its endurance, making dodging even more difficult for a target.

To avoid damage by a missile, the target needs to either use ECM to fool the missile's targeting sensors or active defense such as point-defense laser fire, anti-missile missiles, etc. Dodging is not going to do the job.

Also, point-defense fire isn't going to help if the missile is on a collision path to the target and the target can't dodge, because at that point it becomes a high-velocity dumb bullet rather than a high-velocity smart missile. After shooting a missile with a point-defense weapon, it still needs to be able to maneuver to get out of the way of the blob of high-velocity slag.