Necessity of Launch Tubes

[Condottiere]

You could have a secondary use for the tubes, as ortillery and a really short range railgun spinal mount.

 

[Reynard]

The rules will also need to make exterior craft highly vulnerable to be both fair and 'realistic'. There should be a chance to disable or destroy the docking clamps thus rendering craft unable to return. During combat, any successful fire on the host vessel would also remove what's hanging outside the armor protection which bays, hangars and tubes do provide. Craft would take damage as normal but have no defense since they are effectively immobile. Also, docking clamps should follow the same time frame for launch and recovery as bay and hangar craft as they run through the same procedure. Yes, you launch a lot at once but it would still be 30 minutes. The rules have launch tubes maximized for launch efficiency. You get nothing for tonnage hanging them outside; they still count as part of the ship overall displacement.

Repair drones do not do routine maintenance or fix a vessel, they jury-rig in combat which is wasteful and useless for the time to bring craft in and secure it, process repairs and relaunch. Once combat is over, repairs are gone and that's not good for craft away from the ship. That's also a lot more expense and tonnage to have a separate supply of drones, and the operators to control them, for those craft as well as drones and operators for the host ship. Drones hanging on the outside of a fighter would also make them vulnerable to fire.

The rules do work.

 

[Condottiere]

I think no one's ever disputed the vulnerability of clamped craft, except possibly, battleriders. I vaguely recall AHL pointing this out.

Also, it's been understood that clamped fighters or dispersed structure was the way to go if you want a mass launch without launch tubes.

Cycling the craft into an internal hangar for maintenance, and reloading of ordnance seemed logical.

 

[Reynard]

Also remember external craft can't be cycled into a hangar during jump. You better have won the battle and secured the space or you have lots of damaged craft hanging useless until you return to friendly space.

Having a hangar merely for repairs is wasteful since it's size will determine how many craft can be housed inside during repair and maintenance. You're burning up tonnage for external craft plus the clamps to hold them plus internal tonnage to access each of those vehicles (forgot that, didn't you all?) AND you plan to also have enough tonnage to service a reasonable number at a time. All this and it still take 30 minutes to launch in combat while your opposition has their units coming at you at a rate of 10 per six minutes per tube.

Battlerider capital ships with their own repair and maintenance capabilities makes more sense for external conveyance.

 

[F33D]

So, by most considerations hangers with large external bay doors are the best. Faster launching that tubes (and less tonnage used) but far better protection than external stowage.

 

[phavoc]

Dispersed structures with docking clamps sounds cool and neat and definitely appeals to the min/max crowd. But if any of those ships needs servicing it's gotta come inside. If they need re-arming it's going to take additional machinery and space to add in XX number of reload stations per docking zone.

So the more practical situation is to integrate all those functions with hangars. Even in Traveller ships need constant maintenance, even more so when they are flying and fighting. With onboard space still a constraint you need to do it in the most efficient way possible - and that means centralization via hangar.

Now, one other option that side steps some of the limitations of hangars vs. launch tubes is that of having internal hangar's, but also combining that with the idea of an external flight deck. Then you can have one or more hangars that do the servicing and everything else that use a hangar to raise the small craft to the 'top' of the ship and there they can be staged to take off in groups, or immediately take off.

This stays within the existing framework of rules by adding in the small craft lift. Here's a possible example:

Small craft lift - MCr 15, 40 tons + tonnage for largest small craft to use it. Allows launching of 2 craft per turn (includes time to cycle airlock, lift/lower craft to hangar deck and move craft into or out of lift). Crewing is not necessary (maintenance built into normal crew estimates based on tonnage). Doesn't cover flight deck personnel, but that's a different thread.

Probably should have some sort of cost for a 'flight deck', but costing is pretty amorphous, so screw it and just declare it as such and move on. The flight deck should be sufficiently 'sized' to accommodate 2-3 times the number of lifts present, to allow for staging and such.

For example, a launch tube for 10ton fighters would take up 250 tons (25 x tonnage of the smallest craft). Can launch, I think, 12 craft a turn? For the same tonnage you could have 5 small craft lifts (40 + 10 tons for size) that could launch ten craft a turn. It would be a lot cheaper option too.

I guess the name needs a little more thought though.

Whaddya think?

 

[Reynard]

The addition of a lift to a hangar actually adds time as you still have the 30 minute prep and launch time of the hangar plus the time, say one turn, to raise the craft to the deck while the hangar or a combination of hangars allows simultaneous launch once prepped. Would the launch deck also be a feature, adding tonnage dedicated to the launch process, that can't be done from the hangar itself? If you hand wave this of course it becomes more efficient and gives a big write off. If its just lifting craft outside the hull, you do a better job opening the hanger door and releasing a craft which I assume is part of the 30 minute window of launch operations.

F33D, hangars are based on one craft each at a particular tonnage. Whether individual or combined. They can be clustered together but they're still separate units for service, prep time and launch. 10 fighters will occupy 10 hangars and can simultaneously launch BUT they are all affected by the rule in High Guard stating it takes 30 minutes for each hangar to prep and launch their craft.

I think everyone is misinterpreting the meaning of launch tube as only the actual tube. Looking over some of the carrier deck plans, the entire assembly includes maintenance areas, ready racks, a fast load track system AND lifts. The tubes themselves are not that big. That means a 'launch tube' is a highly optimized all in one system for rapid launch and recovery. That's not wasted tonnage.

 

[F33D]

F33D, hangars are based on one craft each at a particular tonnage. Whether individual or combined. They can be clustered together but they're still separate units for service, prep time and launch. 10 fighters will occupy 10 hangars and can simultaneously launch BUT they are all affected by the rule in High Guard stating it takes 30 minutes for each hangar to prep and launch their craft.

Yes I know about those illogical rules. I don't use em. Once craft are prepped and large enough bay doors are open. Launching is a matter of seconds. To impose artificial constraints on the mundane, based on nothing real, is stupid. I don't do stupid in my games.

 

[Reynard]

Nothing real... must be how modern aircraft carriers prep, move and launch their entire flights in mere minutes.

 

[phavoc]

The addition of a lift to a hangar actually adds time as you still have the 30 minute prep and launch time of the hangar plus the time, say one turn, to raise the craft to the deck while the hangar or a combination of hangars allows simultaneous launch once prepped. Would the launch deck also be a feature, adding tonnage dedicated to the launch process, that can't be done from the hangar itself? If you hand wave this of course it becomes more efficient and gives a big write off. If its just lifting craft outside the hull, you do a better job opening the hanger door and releasing a craft which I assume is part of the 30 minute window of launch operations.

For a min/max sort of thing, I agree with you and F33D. Open the pod bay doors and you can flood your HAL's right out. But carrier operations aren't like that. You have craft constantly launching and being recovered - CAP, strikes, rescue, escort, etc, etc. Not to mention that requires you to keep your entire hangar deck depressurized whenever you have your doors open. The hangar lift option allows for normal pressurization to take place. The 30min timeframe for launching makes not much sense, because that time is the same for 1 or 1,000. Fighters need to be launched/recovered by turns, since that is how all other space activity works. Even the launch tubes work on a turn basis.

As to the launch deck, technically all you have to do is keep it free of turrets, sensor housings and any other external protuberances. If you start out with that in mind it shouldn't be a big deal. There are things you could add if you wanted, for example recessed docking clamps to carry additional strike craft, but for the most part it's just hull space clear of things you can put elsewhere on your ship. I didn't want to do too much hand wavium.

F33D, hangars are based on one craft each at a particular tonnage. Whether individual or combined. They can be clustered together but they're still separate units for service, prep time and launch. 10 fighters will occupy 10 hangars and can simultaneously launch BUT they are all affected by the rule in High Guard stating it takes 30 minutes for each hangar to prep and launch their craft.

That's not how I've read the rule. Your's makes more sense, but the rule is hangar based, not groupings of hangars. Unless I've missed reading that somewhere.

I think everyone is misinterpreting the meaning of launch tube as only the actual tube. Looking over some of the carrier deck plans, the entire assembly includes maintenance areas, ready racks, a fast load track system AND lifts. The tubes themselves are not that big. That means a 'launch tube' is a highly optimized all in one system for rapid launch and recovery. That's not wasted tonnage.

Launch tubes have never had a good explanation associated with them. The deck plans and descriptions from AZL tell us these sorts of things. However the book descriptions do not. Plus I've never read anywhere if craft accelerate using their own thrusters or are somehow catapulted out. Even the BSG launch tubes the craft launched using their own thrusters, not catapults. If I recall, the fighters in Buck Rogers 2522 were launched at higher than normal thruster speed. I'm running a blank on other examples of space fighters being launched (tv wise). If anyone ever played Starfire the carriers used catapults to get fighters off the decks really fast (they also had assault carriers that dumped their fighters out and then ran, but that's not really possible with jump drives vs. warp point transits).

 

[phavoc]

Nothing real... must be how modern aircraft carriers prep, move and launch their entire flights in mere minutes.

Doesn't that really depend on how you define "mere minutes"? From what I've read a carrier can launch an assault strike (about 40 planes) in about 15 minutes or so. They can't use all four catapults because there isn't enough deck space to maneuver the planes. I think it averages about 1 minute or so between planes with a humping crew, and no equipment failures.

From time of launch the jet backwash plate has to come down, the plane has to move forward, be hooked up on the catapult (while the jet backwash plate gets raised), then the area cleared and then the plane can be launched. And carriers can't recover aircraft while they are prepping for an alpha strike because there is no room on the flight deck.

 

[Condottiere]

This is complex.

1. Placing a clamped smallcraft into a hangar while in transition - depends on the nature of the universe inside the jump bubble, and if you can get a crane to to do it.

2. Launching from a clamp - once the crew is in and performed the usual flight checks, I'd say it takes a turn; reclamping probably does take longer.

3. Hangars - can be any size.

4. Flight deck - you could bracket and park the smallcraft there, though directly prepping the smallcraft in the hangar and then elevating it through an airlock (presumably) would take longer.

5. Misinterpretation of launch tubes - unlikely

6. Difference between traveller and real life - carrier operations take place in an atmosphere, and operational experience indicates everyone is happier with more space (per aircraft), which is why thirty percent might be a tad too tight; also, have to clear at least two sets of doors, unless it's actually a garage.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[F33D]

This is complex.

1. Placing a clamped smallcraft into a hangar while in transition - depends on the nature of the universe inside the jump bubble, and if you can get a crane to to do it.

Stupid to use a crane on a craft that can float around as directed. Magnetic skids.

2. Launching from a clamp - once the crew is in and performed the usual flight checks, I'd say it takes a turn; reclamping probably does take longer.

Bizarre set up. Once the crew is in the craft and ready you simply fly out of the hanger door with all the rest of the craft. 30 seconds max unless you decide to use TL 2 computer systems.

4. Flight deck - you could bracket and park the smallcraft there, though directly prepping the smallcraft in the hangar and then elevating it through an airlock (presumably) would take longer.

Bad, BAD idea to use pressurized hangers. No need to have elevators unless the naval architect was a Short bus rider.

5. Misinterpretation of launch tubes - unlikely

True. Tubes are tubes. They aren't NOT tubes.

6. Difference between traveller and real life - carrier operations take place in an atmosphere, and operational experience indicates everyone is happier with more space (per aircraft), which is why thirty percent might be a tad too tight; also, have to clear at least two sets of doors, unless it's actually a garage.

Other than names there is very little similarity. Trav ships can move about the deck and not hit anything as well as take off as one unit. No jet blast. No folding wings as they don't need wings. No catapults, No high speed, dangerous landings. No fuel to explode (unless an idiot decides to add oxygen to the environment). The major dissimilarities are almost endless.

Start from scratch. Using present day ocean going ships for design analogy puts you behind from the get go. Just look at the capabilities of the items in Trav that you are working with. KNOW that technology does NOT go backwards as you in crease TLs.

Go from there.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Why and how often do fleets meet up in deep space?

Even where the space station orbits there is .9G keeping it from drifting off. Do battles only occur once fleets are in gravity canceling orbits?

Wouldn't a carriers craft help land troops or attack land targets? How far off would the carrier sit?

My point is shouldn't carriers be capable of operating within gravity and atmosphere?

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Launch Tubes

I've always thought that launch tubes would be excellent to fire off either missiles or torpedoes, which at around thirteen tons or seventy five tons respectively at six rounds per round without requiring a hardpoint, seems an excellent weapons system(s).

You can certainly use it to launch kamikaze drones.

And yes, launch tubes should require hardpoint allocation.

And drawing from the Honorverse, missile podlayers and fast minelayers.

 

[F33D]

Why and how often do fleets meet up in deep space?

I'll answer the completely obvious "why". Because a fleet HAS to jump no closer to a planet than 100D and the opposing Gov wants them kept as far from the planet as possible to protect its citizens. Also, jumping ships fairly often end up days away from the target planet.

So, that tells one that deep space encounters are FAR more likely than orbital encounters between fleets.

As to the "0.9G's at the altitude of a very low orbit space station. Being in orbit mean almost the equivalent of zero G.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'll answer the completely obvious "why". Because a fleet HAS to jump no closer to a planet than 100D and the opposing Gov wants them kept as far from the planet as possible to protect its citizens. Also, jumping ships fairly often end up days away from the target planet.

So, that tells one that deep space encounters are FAR more likely than orbital encounters between fleets.

Going to open a new thread for this.