Necessity of Launch Tubes

[dragoner]

IMO, the hangars would be depressurized most of the time, I can imagined some giant clamshell doors over a hangar deck.

 

[phavoc]

Might be difficult to do repairs, load ammo, and other functions while depressurizing and pressurizing the hanger for launches and recovery.

Do the rules cover retrieval of launch tube fighters and getting them back into the launcher?

MGT rules state the launch tubes launch AND recover fighters. Ugh.

I like BG launch tubes, and the recovery bays - which also doubled as hangars. The reimaged BGS had the Vipers launching from the pods, while the original had them launching from the nose. Both were pretty massive ships. I thought the bouncy-bounce landing sequence for the new series was kind of funny.

IMO, the hangars would be depressurized most of the time, I can imagined some giant clamshell doors over a hangar deck.

But why? You would only want that if you were preparing to launch. Otherwise you'd want atmo on it so your crew could work without having to be in a vacsuit. As long as it's onboard it makes more sense to make your crew's life easier.

 

[dragoner]

But why? You would only want that if you were preparing to launch. Otherwise you'd want atmo on it so your crew could work without having to be in a vacsuit. As long as it's onboard it makes more sense to make your crew's life easier.

Robots, the "crew", won't need it (if you are talking loadtoads). Though pilots and other hangar deck crew would most likely be in a vaccsuit anyways, to avoid explosive depressurization, facilitate easier take-offs and landings, etc..

 

[Anonymous]

Might be difficult to do repairs, load ammo, and other functions while depressurizing and pressurizing the hanger for launches and recovery.

Do the rules cover retrieval of launch tube fighters and getting them back into the launcher?

MGT rules state the launch tubes launch AND recover fighters. Ugh.

I like BG launch tubes, and the recovery bays - which also doubled as hangars. The reimaged BGS had the Vipers launching from the pods, while the original had them launching from the nose. Both were pretty massive ships. I thought the bouncy-bounce landing sequence for the new series was kind of funny.

IMO, the hangars would be depressurized most of the time, I can imagined some giant clamshell doors over a hangar deck.

But why? You would only want that if you were preparing to launch. Otherwise you'd want atmo on it so your crew could work without having to be in a vacsuit. As long as it's onboard it makes more sense to make your crew's life easier.

If you're going into combat, launching fighters, you wouldn't have crew in vacc suits?

 

[phavoc]

But why? You would only want that if you were preparing to launch. Otherwise you'd want atmo on it so your crew could work without having to be in a vacsuit. As long as it's onboard it makes more sense to make your crew's life easier.

Robots, the "crew", won't need it (if you are talking loadtoads). Though pilots and other hangar deck crew would most likely be in a vaccsuit anyways, to avoid explosive depressurization, facilitate easier take-offs and landings, etc..

Nah, I don't think so. The Traveller universe has never been about replacing people everywhere with robots. Sure, they do exist and are useful in many ways. But ships still have crews, and wars are still fought with flesh not metal bodies.

And yes, crew would be in vacsuits when the bay was open to space, or as necessary (I assume during combat nearly all crew are in suits because it ain't Star Trek...).

If you're going into combat, launching fighters, you wouldn't have crew in vacc suits?

Yes, during combat operations everyone should be in a vacsuit, especially those on the 'flight deck' or a hangar - as well as the flight crews. But nobody wants to be in one 24/7 or any longer than they actually have to be. Unless human nature changes in the future (and since none of the other traits of humanity seem to change, I doubt the desire to be comfortable will) vacsuits will be worn only when necessary or through an abundance of caution. But not one minute more.

 

[Anonymous]

Warning, cantankerous post follows, not a rant tho, well, I don't think it's a rant.

I think the launch tube thing is the same old hankering for a wet navy. Kinda boring really, I don't get why so many Traveller players are obsessed with limiting how a future military would work by insisting it must be done like Nimitz did it, yeah OK, I get that someone will tell me it's canon and it's written down so it must be true and I'm a heretic...

Launch tubes limit the number of fighters you can launch and are way too vulnerable, you would need multiple tubes for redundancy which takes up precious space.

On a current carrier you have to use a catapult to get the planes into the air, there's no need to get the launching fighter to a velocity where it won't drop out of the sky.

On a starship, especially a warship, the "carrier" is going to be clipping along at a fair pace already imparting it's velocity to the fighters it's launching. Now depending on the ship, it may be dropping it's squadrons and hanging back or it may be in integral part of the attack which again might determine the speed at which it is traveling as it launches.

Today there's the option of V/STOL and the number of V/STOL planes you can launch from the deck is limited by how many lifts you have to get them from the hanger to the deck and how big the deck is.

I can see fighters on docking clamps for launching and with sophisticated flight direction - a bunch of auto pilots slaved together or the launch controlled by the launching ship, you could drop the lot in a safe and coordinated way. In jump space docking clamps are useless cos you can't access the fighters to arm, fuel and maintain them so I'd mount the docking clamps to the inside of the hanger and have massive blast doors that would unveil the lot to space when it was time to launch. Depending on the number of fighters I'd want that there would be multiple hangers to enable them to open in sequence and not have the insides of the ship exposed for excessive periods of time, though it might just be better to armour the inside of the hanger. Recovery would be by autopilot. If a fighter is too damaged to link to the carrier's flight control and manoeuvre to it’s docking clamp, it's probably too damaged to get back to the carrier in the first place but maybe the ship would either have a catcher's mitt of some kind or else the fighter would simply be dumped, the crew eject and be recovered.

Fueling and rearming I can see both being automated, I don't see anyone telling us that the fusion cannon on a grav tank or the missile bay on a starship can't have an autoloader so I don't see why rearming a fighter would be any different, call it a robot if you like and call foul of the Imperium's hatred of robots but no, it's an autoloader not Will Smith's best mate.

Now, how long before this thread rehashes the old theme of "Are fighters valid in starship combat?"

:roll:

 

[Condottiere]

To reiterate, it's an abstraction, because it's based on smallcraft tonnage, rather than configuration.

The Harrier Skyhook concept would be more logical (and actually, in zero gee, more plausible.

I used to think that you could embed artificial gravity plates into the top of the hull and turn it into a flight and park deck, with elevators connecting it to the hangar.

 

[simonh]

Individual hangars don't make logistical sense.

All your arguments make a persuasive case for shared hangars, not for launch tubes. Shared hangars take 30% extra over the tonnage of the craft, just the same as separate hangars though. There's nothing to stop fighters in a shared hangar each having their own deployment hatch, and that's the default if you don't equip your hangar with a launch tube anyway.

yeah OK, I get that someone will tell me it's canon and it's written down so it must be true and I'm a heretic...

To be fair this thread has been going for over a page already and nobody's done that yet. It's not a common feature of discussions on this forum anyway. I concur with your reasoning but it's another case of MT being tied into conforming with pre-existing Traveller norms.

Simon Hibbs

 

[simonh]

To reiterate, it's an abstraction, because it's based on smallcraft tonnage, rather than configuration.

The Harrier Skyhook concept would be more logical (and actually, in zero gee, more plausible.

I used to think that you could embed artificial gravity plates into the top of the hull and turn it into a flight and park deck, with elevators connecting it to the hangar.

Why not do that on both the top and bottom of the hull?

Although, I think Traveller grav plates rely on a plate in both the floor and ceiling, and just create a field between them. Not sure if that's documented anywhere.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Sevain]

Ideally the launch tubes should provide a significant acceleration boost to small craft upon launch. That would make a basic assumption that they are in fact more catapult-like and use magnetic accelerators to provide a launch speed of say 10-14G's. The speed wouldn't technically degrade over time since there is no atmosphere, but some sort of idea would need to be applied to slow them down to their normal thrust-rated speed. Perhaps they lose 1G per turn until they reach their normal thrust. One minor issue would be getting the separate launch groups to the same speed as they formed into groups. Not difficult, but it does mean they would have to slow down to join up, thus giving thought to shedding speed.

Or give the Launch Tube a Thrust number. Every craft that launches from the tube gets to apply that amount of Thrust for movement as it launches.

 

[phavoc]

Yes, launch tubes do take up a lot of space, and you would want redundancy and all that if you had the tonnage to do so.

Their chief advantage over just launching from the hangar is that you can shit a bunch out extremely fast, much faster than say launching from your crowded hangar deck. If you are a fleet carrier doing escorting, you'll see the enemy coming before they can close the range so getting your ships out isn't as urgent. But say you are doing an assault and the battle plans call for rapid engagement as soon as you emerge from jump. An 'assault' carrier would then want to spit out it's entire complement as quickly as possible, ergo launch tubes would be justified.

This is pretty much an academic discussion, and I think we can all agree the current rules and concepts for launch tubes kinda suck. Unless you are fighting fleets its really not germane to most RPG's.

re: the Harrier Skyhook idea - This is based on tech that was developed for the old dirigibles flown by the US Navy. The pilots would use hooks to 'land' below the carrier and then be winched up into the hangar. At the time it was a pretty neat and useful idea.

The Harrier Skyhook concept would be more logical (and actually, in zero gee, more plausible.

I used to think that you could embed artificial gravity plates into the top of the hull and turn it into a flight and park deck, with elevators connecting it to the hangar.

If you look at some of the illustrations for big carriers in Traveller you'll see something similar, where it appears that large sections of the hull are a flight 'deck'. You could also look towards a number of anime shows (Star Blazers comes to mind) that show something similar.

It's not a bad idea. The biggest question would be handing and ensuring that the craft in front of you was using enough thrust to match or exceed that of the carrier (or at whatever distance your gravity field had influence - which begs another question... just how far DOES gravity extend from a deck plate?)

Or give the Launch Tube a Thrust number. Every craft that launches from the tube gets to apply that amount of Thrust for movement as it launches.

That's an idea. There needs to be a logical advantage for having launch tubes. They consume a lot of tonnage that could be better applied.

 

[dragoner]

Nah, I don't think so. The Traveller universe has never been about replacing people everywhere with robots. Sure, they do exist and are useful in many ways. But ships still have crews, and wars are still fought with flesh not metal bodies.

And yes, crew would be in vacsuits when the bay was open to space, or as necessary (I assume during combat nearly all crew are in suits because it ain't Star Trek...).

The standard uniform is a comfortable pressure/vacc suit. Part of this is "reasonable assumptions"; I was going to add even that pilots are redundant, the fighters being drones. I remember a Heavy Metal years ago that called the pilot in a helicopter gunship, it's "joy-rider". The flesh is weak, metal strong, robots are just more efficient; and easier to accept as casualties. Mong does have drone fighters on carrier design.

 

[EvilDM]

In my opinion "Launch Tube" does not necessarily mean a Galactica style tube with catapult in in but are a abstraction for any opening which possibly allows all craft to enter and leave the ship. That also means normal flight decks with an opening to space like for example in wing commander (there it just was several large launch tubes combined )

 

[Condottiere]

The easiest way to launch a smallcraft would be through the rear, and you wouldn't need a launchtube.

 

[Reynard]

For me, the launch tube concept for Traveller is the RAPID deployment of large numbers of craft and that is, more often than not, fighter craft. The image used has been the tube and the Azhanti High Lightning give the best image of a assembly line load and launch, a ship sized full automatic gun. The tubes allow simultaneous quick ejection and rapid retrieval in one efficient unit. That's one reason it's so big. Other craft need not use the system often because there are so few and not always the same configuration. That's why they often have dedicated docking facilities or shared hangars.

A variant to the launch tube would be the way TIE fighters are stored on assembly racks, set for launch then launched in wing tandem. Storage is a hangar and the 'launch tube' is shaped for a group launch.

 

[phavoc]

For me, the launch tube concept for Traveller is the RAPID deployment of large numbers of craft and that is, more often than not, fighter craft. The image used has been the tube and the Azhanti High Lightning give the best image of a assembly line load and launch, a ship sized full automatic gun. The tubes allow simultaneous quick ejection and rapid retrieval in one efficient unit. That's one reason it's so big. Other craft need not use the system often because there are so few and not always the same configuration. That's why they often have dedicated docking facilities or shared hangars.

A variant to the launch tube would be the way TIE fighters are stored on assembly racks, set for launch then launched in wing tandem. Storage is a hangar and the 'launch tube' is shaped for a group launch.

The launch tubes on the AZL could launch 40 fighters/turn. MGT changed that to a dozen. Which ain't bad considering they upped the hangar launching to 30min per craft. Talk about grandma driving the car...

 

[Condottiere]

The problem is that it's the launch tube or nothing.

As I recall, CT gave the option of a launch facility per thousand tons.

 

[Reynard]

Actually, it was for every 10,000 tons of the host. Big difference.

I guess one way to have rapid launch craft are the docking clamps, battlerider style. You would need to add dedicated airlock tonnage to the host ship for each attached vessel and the vessel adds to the host's displacement since it's not within the host. It would be vulnerable to incoming fire and using the host's Dodge reaction for defense. That should also mean destruction of a rider should cause damage to the tender. A hangar would be for repairs and service of one rider at a time but transfer is only in real space. I'd say this is for adventure sized vessels; capital sized riders are usually big enough to repair and service themselves.

 

[Condottiere]

You can cheat, of course, by having the clamps in a trench acting as a hangar looking like a long corridor exposed to space, with a series of doors isolating sections and amosphering them

 

[heron61]

You can cheat, of course, by having the clamps in a trench acting as a hangar looking like a long corridor exposed to space, with a series of doors isolating sections and amosphering them

Alternately, we have repair drones and repair robots. The 3I isn't big on robots, but they use them, and having robots that handle minor repairs, routine serving, and refueling all seems perfectly reasonable. Any fighter that needs more than this can be moved into a repair hanger.