Necessity of Launch Tubes
- Thread starter Sevain
- Start date
phavoc said:
Given the length of a "turn", if all craft were ready, there's no reason they couldn't all leave a hanger through a large open hatch within that time frame.
Whoever wrote/copied these rules didn't actually think it through. Or, had about the worst spacial ability, visualization wise that I've ever encountered.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In Merchants and Cruisers, there is the Centaur Class Mercenary Carrier which uses two grappling arms for recovery of damaged or unfueled craft, though not quite sure how that works if each arm has a two ton capacity, and the light fighters weigh in at ten tons.
According to the description, the fighters are double stacked in the hangar, with the wings closed. One suspects a TIE fighter style launch here.
According to the description, the fighters are double stacked in the hangar, with the wings closed. One suspects a TIE fighter style launch here.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
Many space fighters are often doubling as ground support so wings add atmosphere stability. The folding wing is aerofins from High Guard.
I highly doubt a repair and storage hangar is going to explosively decompress to launch craft, part of the time for launch is evacuating personnel, sealing the work areas, moving vessels to launch position then the time to decompress the launch area which is a huge volume.
Actual launch *tube* allow for evacuating a small portion of the unit for loading a craft rapidly. Same for the other section of the unit to recover vessels. These tubes are probably a form of mass accelerator both to launch and to arrest incoming craft. The volume isn't just the tube, it's all the machinery to run the beast. And launching 10 craft per round (six minutes) is damn good! Take a look at launch and recovery operation on wet navy carriers to compare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations
I highly doubt a repair and storage hangar is going to explosively decompress to launch craft, part of the time for launch is evacuating personnel, sealing the work areas, moving vessels to launch position then the time to decompress the launch area which is a huge volume.
Actual launch *tube* allow for evacuating a small portion of the unit for loading a craft rapidly. Same for the other section of the unit to recover vessels. These tubes are probably a form of mass accelerator both to launch and to arrest incoming craft. The volume isn't just the tube, it's all the machinery to run the beast. And launching 10 craft per round (six minutes) is damn good! Take a look at launch and recovery operation on wet navy carriers to compare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
You could have as many launch facilities as there are cargo hatches, cargo holds themselves can be used as hangars.
Recovery looks a little more dicey.
Recovery looks a little more dicey.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
An empty cargo hold with doors is still a hold, not a hangar. A form-fitting or a full hangar has facilities to store, launch and recover its vehicles. Seriously, you want craft held in place with straps treated as combat ready? If it was that easy, the world's wet navies would save a fortune using freighters with lots of holes in their side as carriers.
If you are building a military ship, it will be built to military specs. The light (i.e. 'jeep') carriers of the US Navy from WW2 were built on Liberty ship hulls, did not have armored decks like their mainstream counterparts, but were still built with the idea they were carriers.
In the Falklands the Brits used some container ships as 'light' carriers. They were a temporary stopgap measure, and while they sorta, kinda worked, they had their faults.
In Traveller it's slightly different, but navies are still going to prefer using real warship designs and methods rather than "how many fighters can I stuff into this ship using non-standard means". And the rules being debated back and forth come from an RPG gaming book, NOT from a "real" naval architecture book that has to take into account ammunition, LHyd distribution, parts, removal of engines, personnel, etc, etc, etc. There's a reason for centralizing some things - i.e. there's a reason that hangars exist, and they need so much extra space if you expect to actually DO anything while the ship is docked.
Having one hangar to launch from makes some sense. Except when you bring in the ideas of damaged ships trying to land, or worse, trying to accommodate inbound and outbound ships under combat conditions. So yes, you could launch in a neat, perfect pattern because nobody is shooting at you and nobody is running around the flight deck towing ordnance behind them, or trying to hook up LHyd fueling lines, or do emergency repairs on a damaged ship.
The best example of a modern wet-navy would be something like an LHA or other helicopter-carrying ship. They could cram more onto one of them, but operationally it doesn't work out. If they were in ferry mode it would make more sense, but otherwise nope. And while gravitic-equipped craft of the future don't need rotor safety zones, they still need safety zones. Nothing about Traveller suggests accidents or pilot error have been eliminated.
I still think launch tubes are a viable reason. Poorly explained, and not well thought-out (recovery down a launch tube??), but nonetheless conceptually they make a lot of sense when you absolutely, positively need to launch your fighter contingent as fast as possible (and you aren't docking them externally).
Now, the 30min to launch/recover a small craft from a hangar? Jeez.... that deserves it's own thread.
In the Falklands the Brits used some container ships as 'light' carriers. They were a temporary stopgap measure, and while they sorta, kinda worked, they had their faults.
In Traveller it's slightly different, but navies are still going to prefer using real warship designs and methods rather than "how many fighters can I stuff into this ship using non-standard means". And the rules being debated back and forth come from an RPG gaming book, NOT from a "real" naval architecture book that has to take into account ammunition, LHyd distribution, parts, removal of engines, personnel, etc, etc, etc. There's a reason for centralizing some things - i.e. there's a reason that hangars exist, and they need so much extra space if you expect to actually DO anything while the ship is docked.
Having one hangar to launch from makes some sense. Except when you bring in the ideas of damaged ships trying to land, or worse, trying to accommodate inbound and outbound ships under combat conditions. So yes, you could launch in a neat, perfect pattern because nobody is shooting at you and nobody is running around the flight deck towing ordnance behind them, or trying to hook up LHyd fueling lines, or do emergency repairs on a damaged ship.
The best example of a modern wet-navy would be something like an LHA or other helicopter-carrying ship. They could cram more onto one of them, but operationally it doesn't work out. If they were in ferry mode it would make more sense, but otherwise nope. And while gravitic-equipped craft of the future don't need rotor safety zones, they still need safety zones. Nothing about Traveller suggests accidents or pilot error have been eliminated.
I still think launch tubes are a viable reason. Poorly explained, and not well thought-out (recovery down a launch tube??), but nonetheless conceptually they make a lot of sense when you absolutely, positively need to launch your fighter contingent as fast as possible (and you aren't docking them externally).
Now, the 30min to launch/recover a small craft from a hangar? Jeez.... that deserves it's own thread.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
I think the biggest factor is that the media, authors, movies and others keep making space combat carriers and the idea keeps perpetuating.
That's cool! Let's shoehorn it into Traveller!
I'm no science whiz, but the swooping fast turning fighters of most sci-fi is just plain fiction, isn't it?
So now you are trying to manipulate the rules for the sole purpose of it seams fun. No problem with that. Isn't that why we play games, to have fun?
Isn't trying to analyze it with science and logic doomed to failure?
Not saying there is no need for fighters in Traveller. Just suggesting that if you are going to go at it with science and logic you should start at the beginning - which is a topic for another thread as the purpose of a carrier based on Traveller game mechanics in a specific Traveller setting and the best ways to implement those missions needs to be discussed before addressing the tube/hanger issues.
----------------
For those that like getting more technical, the specs are in the rules and I support each individuals attempt to interpret, extrapolate, debate and house rule any details from those basic mechanics so that it fits their play style and they can have fun.
That's cool! Let's shoehorn it into Traveller!
I'm no science whiz, but the swooping fast turning fighters of most sci-fi is just plain fiction, isn't it?
So now you are trying to manipulate the rules for the sole purpose of it seams fun. No problem with that. Isn't that why we play games, to have fun?
Isn't trying to analyze it with science and logic doomed to failure?
Not saying there is no need for fighters in Traveller. Just suggesting that if you are going to go at it with science and logic you should start at the beginning - which is a topic for another thread as the purpose of a carrier based on Traveller game mechanics in a specific Traveller setting and the best ways to implement those missions needs to be discussed before addressing the tube/hanger issues.
----------------
I agree with somebodySevain said:
To me, Traveller is a role playing game and not a simulation ship building game or strategy war game so what you get with launch tubes, for some, is the opportunity to role play a favorite book or movie where such exists.Somebody said:
For those that like getting more technical, the specs are in the rules and I support each individuals attempt to interpret, extrapolate, debate and house rule any details from those basic mechanics so that it fits their play style and they can have fun.
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
The rules have aerofins (High Guard pg. 45) for use with the core book rule Atmospheric Operations (CR pg. 137). That is for M-drive vessels and space borne fighters are M-drive so they can use aerofins. In no way do the rules say the ship is slowed down. Even today, ground forces have support from naval air units when necessary and Traveller had that an option forever.
As to safety zones, only movie cinematics have flight crew and craft dashing around each other flawlessly. Traveller units may have gravitic lift but they are still massive, blind moving vehicles, no different than a tractor trailer or a tracked tank in tight, busy places, that need time and space for safety and efficiency.
As to safety zones, only movie cinematics have flight crew and craft dashing around each other flawlessly. Traveller units may have gravitic lift but they are still massive, blind moving vehicles, no different than a tractor trailer or a tracked tank in tight, busy places, that need time and space for safety and efficiency.
Reynard said:
Add drag and you slow down. INESCAPABLE physics. I don't see in the rules where that part of physics has been suspended in the game. Pls show us.
Reynard said:
We have the tech to do it today (TL 7) just not with craft that use wings for lift. SO, unless you think that tech level goes down as TL goes UP. They will have it too.
F33D said:
Then, make your case.[/quote]
Alas, I cannot. For I have left my Flight Deck Safety Manual for Smallcraft back in the future.
I'm assuming that your brought yours, however. So please quote us, chapter and verse, on why safety zones are unnecessary in the future. I'm interested in hearing your logic on defending your point (since you mostly seem to attack others without providing logical and reasonable explanations showing why your viewpoint is more correct over any else's).
MY point is that the GAME of Traveller is not so different than our own reality. Yes, tech has changed, but human nature does not seem to have. Otherwise it would be more Star Trekian and the Imperium would be full of peaceloving tree-huggers. But it's not. It's just a gee-whized-up version of today, with the same human motivations that we've had since, well, humans. None of this is germane to the discussion of launch tubes, so let's get back to that, shall we?
Reynard
Emperor Mongoose
"Add drag and you slow down. INESCAPABLE physics. I don't see in the rules where that part of physics has been suspended in the game. "
So, you're saying the space shuttle has a serious design error with all those fins? Where did NASA go wrong?!
Without it's aerofins, the standard configuration shuttle is near uncontrollable in the atmosphere especially in any bad weather. Must be that DM+2 and a skilled pilot that helps. Inescapable physics say atmospheric control surfaces greatly improve a vehicle in flight.
Not all space borne craft will have or need aerofins if their main purpose is non-terrestrial. On the other hand, planetary defenses can have space fighter elements that are surface based and those fins are a given to deal with weather conditions when a threat decides to attack on a bad day. Same should go for those surface concealed SDBs lurking in bodies of water or hidden launch pads.
So, you're saying the space shuttle has a serious design error with all those fins? Where did NASA go wrong?!
Without it's aerofins, the standard configuration shuttle is near uncontrollable in the atmosphere especially in any bad weather. Must be that DM+2 and a skilled pilot that helps. Inescapable physics say atmospheric control surfaces greatly improve a vehicle in flight.
Not all space borne craft will have or need aerofins if their main purpose is non-terrestrial. On the other hand, planetary defenses can have space fighter elements that are surface based and those fins are a given to deal with weather conditions when a threat decides to attack on a bad day. Same should go for those surface concealed SDBs lurking in bodies of water or hidden launch pads.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Launch tubes need to be wider to accommodate different configurations based on a maximum tonnage, assuming the catapult has a maximum weight capacity.
Storing smallcraft in a cargo bay isn't an issue, it would just slow down handling and maintenance, since the specialist shops, stores and equipment aren't integral.
But if a ship can have x number of cargo hatches, you could easily substitute there a launch facility.
As regards to CAS, besides availability, it probably comes down to cost benefit analysis.
Storing smallcraft in a cargo bay isn't an issue, it would just slow down handling and maintenance, since the specialist shops, stores and equipment aren't integral.
But if a ship can have x number of cargo hatches, you could easily substitute there a launch facility.
As regards to CAS, besides availability, it probably comes down to cost benefit analysis.
middenface
Cosmic Mongoose
F33D said:
No he does not.
Those fighters are from the Core Rules. For simplicity I used them.
Wings are useful things. In vacuum you don't use them for aerial maneuvering, but they are awful handy to hang things on, like missiles. Course the rules don't really cover external hard points for things like that, but that's only because fighters and small craft in Traveller have never been seen as much more than a nuisance to capital ships. In the PC world of sub-1000 ton ships a squadron of fighters can (or should at least) ruin the day of a free trader.
In atmosphere having anti-gravity AND physical maneuvering surfaces makes the most agile of craft. More so than a craft using one or the other.
In atmosphere having anti-gravity AND physical maneuvering surfaces makes the most agile of craft. More so than a craft using one or the other.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
An X-wing would need ninety tons of volume to mount four lasers (and an oversized power plant).
Also, ten tons of ballast.
Also, ten tons of ballast.
Annatar Giftbringer
Emperor Mongoose
Condottiere said:
So, I guess that means small craft can't have double or triple mounts? I've been unsure about how to interpret that, but it does say weapons, not mounts...
One way to make a small x-wing could be to arm it with a single pulse laser but draw it with four small barrels, and explain that the four small guns count as a single pulse laser when firing together
Similar threads
