New Misslie Launchers

[phavoc]

I've mentioned this before, and was jotting down some ideas and thought I would share with everyone. I haven't fully fleshed the idea out, like dice rolls and the like. And I thought about adding more detail and variations, but, yanno, not fully fleshed out and all that... Anyways, comments?


Vertical Launch System for standard missiles
Ships may mount up to 16 VLS launchers per 100 tons of displacement. A standard 4-cell launcher takes up 1 displacement ton. No additional fire control equipment is necessary, but seperate software to aim and control the launchers and tie it into the existing fire control system is required.

VLS missles are stored in pre-loaded cannisters, and the firing ports have covers built into the hull that must retract (unless the ship is a dispersed structure) on standard and streamlined vessels. Each missle has a small maneuvering thruster attached to it that allows the missile to orient itself towards a target before igniting its launch motor. This allows for a missile to be launched at a target without the launcher bearing on the target. Missiles are ejected via a mechanical mechanism (essentially a spring). This may be also be replaced with a gas-launch system which is considered to be more reliable by military forces.

VLS launchers may be installed at build time or retrofitted at a later date (for the cost of the launcher plus 50% for retrofitting). They do not take away from the standard hardpoints for turrets.

Operation
Using VLS launchers requires specialized fire control software.
Type Cost(MCr) Notes
VLS Fire Control -1 2 Launch 25% of VLS missiles at once
VLS Fire Control -2 5 50% of a ships VLS missiles
VLS Fire Control-3 10 100% of a ships VLS missiles

Cost of Launcher (standard configuration)
Number of cells Displacement Cost (MCr)
2 .5 .1
4 1 .25
8 1.5 1
12 3 2
16 4 5
Note - cost of missiles is seperate.

VLS launchers require refurbishment after launch. Each cell may be reloaded at a starport or other ships handling facility at a cost of 1,000Cr per launcher (plus the cost of a missile). This covers refurbishment, maintenance, testing and the cost of the additional maneuvering thruster). Boxed missiles require no maintenance once they are loaded and sealed inside their launch cannisters.

Missiles may be launched either "hot" or "cold". Cold missiles are ejected on one turn and may be activated the next turn. Hot missiles launch directly out of the cell and begin flight immediately towards the target. When launching missiles in "cold" mode it is possible to launch your entire compliment simultaneously. The fire control software ejects them at slightly different times allowing for each missile to eject safely and to activate its engine clear of other missiles. When launching missiles "hot" the fire control software typically ripple fires banks of missiles so that no two missiles are launched while next to each other.

 

[phavoc]

Ah, shit....stupid formatting. Tables should read:

VLS Fire Control -1 2MCr Launch 25% of a ships VLS missiles simultaneously

VLS Fire Control -2 5MCr 50% of a ships VLS missiles simultaneously

VLS Fire Control-3 10MCr 100% of a ships VLS missiles simultaneously

Launcher Costs
2 Cells - .5 tons .1MCr
4 Cells - 1 ton .25MCr
8 Cells - 1.5 tons 1MCr
12 Cells - 3 tons 2MCr
16 Cells - 4 tons, 5MCr

 

[AndrewW]

Vertical Launch System for standard missiles
Ships may mount up to 16 VLS launchers per 100 tons of displacement. A standard 4-cell launcher takes up 1 displacement ton. No additional fire control equipment is necessary, but seperate software to aim and control the launchers and tie it into the existing fire control system is required.

So rather then the usual 1 ton of fire control per bay or turret, this don't require any additonal? How many crew to operate? Does this 100 tons effect the normal weapon limits for ships or does it not count against that? With 100 tons could make this a large bay.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Very nice. I like the sound of those. It'd give small system defence boats a lot more bite, making them an economic and tactical option for poorer outlying regions.

It sort of replicates the Swedish naval transition from maintaining big cruisers and replacing them with dozens of tiny, missile armed speed boats. Massive firepower, small sensor target, small crews and ultimately cheap enough to be expendable.

 

[phavoc]

Vertical Launch System for standard missiles
Ships may mount up to 16 VLS launchers per 100 tons of displacement. A standard 4-cell launcher takes up 1 displacement ton. No additional fire control equipment is necessary, but seperate software to aim and control the launchers and tie it into the existing fire control system is required.

So rather then the usual 1 ton of fire control per bay or turret, this don't require any additonal? How many crew to operate? Does this 100 tons effect the normal weapon limits for ships or does it not count against that? With 100 tons could make this a large bay.

No, no additional fire control is necessary since the missile system ties into your existing fire control. Their firing mechanisms are all self-contained, the system uses your existing fire control software and targeting systems. The VLS fire control software is just necessary to control the launchers, determine the launching pattern and programming the maneuvering thrusters so they orient themselves correctly towards your intended target.

No crew are required to operate the system because the system itself is all self-contained. They operate on the same principle that VLS systems work today. Once the missiles are boxed up and sealed in their launch cannisters they are maintenance free for essentially years. All you need to do is push the button and they go (or fail, though the failure rate is extremely low).

I thought about making it a bay weapon, but this is different. It's essentially a one-shot system. Bay weapons have magazines while this system does not. In some ways they are exactly the same - they allow you to launch large numbers of missiles at once. However, the difference ends there. A bay allows multiple launches up to your ammo stocks. A bay is also fixed at one specific point. VLS launchers are one-shot till they are reloaded back at a repair base. They may be stuck anywhere you want on the ship in different sizes. And they are designed to allow you to engage a target from any angle while maneuvering - though traveller is pretty easy on the whole weapon-facing concept to engage the enemy.

A VLS system would give small ships a big one-time punch. It also gives small civilian ships the ability to smack the nose of a raider if they have to run away. And since they are maintenance-free for long periods, it can give a ship the ability to have a offensive/defensive punch without the accompanying crew requirement to maintain them.

 

[rust]

Reminds me somewhat of the way missiles are used in the Honorverse
of David Weber's Honor Harrington novels.

You could even load a couple of missile containers into your cargo hold,
deploy them whenever necessary, and either control them remotely or
leave it to their systems to detect an enemy and attack him.

 

[phavoc]

Very nice. I like the sound of those. It'd give small system defence boats a lot more bite, making them an economic and tactical option for poorer outlying regions.

It sort of replicates the Swedish naval transition from maintaining big cruisers and replacing them with dozens of tiny, missile armed speed boats. Massive firepower, small sensor target, small crews and ultimately cheap enough to be expendable.

Thanks. I've got some other ideas to add to this to flesh it out further. I took my queue more from the US Navy's switch to VLS systems because of their reduced maintenance requirements, reduced manning needs, and the ability to rapidly engage targets.

I also used the Harpoon, Tomahawk, Sea Sparrow and even the ASROC launchers that have been in use. Basically you just bolt on the launchers to the ship and you have instantly upgraded your firepower with very little structural changes except tying in your new missles to your existing fire control system.

 

[AndrewW]

VLS launchers are one-shot till they are reloaded back at a repair base.

Maybe allow in space reloading, this obviously wouldn't be done during combat. But it could be done by bringing the smaller ship into the bay of a larger resupply ship, or perhaps an EVA if this isn't possible.

 

[phavoc]

Looks good.

But where are the rules for the real spectacular failures. Like the one where the missile does NOT clear the cell, gets stuck and the whole VLS goes down (Happened iirc to a US Arlight Burke in Gulf II(1) or Iraqi Freedom)

And maybe rules for armoring the VLS/building it as a blowout panel (That saved the Burke above). This would add security to the small crafts using them (similar to the bold-on Harpoons) since the ammo is "outside the hull" for all practical purposes

Yah, that's the 'fleshing' out. There should be a potential for failure, a 'catastropic' failure in the launch tube that destroys the missile and the other missiles in the same group of cells, and even a 'fraticide' roll for launching them all simultaneously. Though fraticide should be almost impossible since that is what the software is supposed to take care of.

I would envision that a ship would probably deploy them in 2 or more groups spaced around the ship. That way any damage the launcher took would not wipe out all of their missiles. Naval ships can have a fore and aft launcher, so a starship could have fore and aft, and ventral and dorsal launchers.

I am also trying to tinker with "military" grade specificiations, that would allow for 24 cannisters per 100 tons, but with an additional displacemend cost due to enhanced structural support requirements.

And I'm fighting a constant battle with making them too over-powered. A dozen anti-ship missiles displace 1 ton. I thought that using the same number could potentially make a small ship way over-powered. So I cut the number down by adding in the launch cannisters. I don't want to completely take away from the game. They are supposed to be enhancements to make space combat a little more fun. Wouldn't it suck to be chasing down a free trader you think only has a single turret, and get close and get smacked in the face with 2 dozen missiles suddenly thundering at ya? Makes a wanna-be pirate quake in his spacesuit.


(1) Gulf I: Iran vs. Iraq, Gulf II: Desert Shield/Storm/Saber/Op Granby/Op Daguet/Op Damask...[/quote]

 

[phavoc]

VLS launchers are one-shot till they are reloaded back at a repair base.

Maybe allow in space reloading, this obviously wouldn't be done during combat. But it could be done by bringing the smaller ship into the bay of a larger resupply ship, or perhaps an EVA if this isn't possible.

What I plan for is for in-space reloading is to simply pull the entire "pod" out and replace it with a new one. It would be similar to what they do with the MLRS pods. Once the rockets are shot the pod is dropped and discarded. While they can be recycled, they are relativey cheap and you can reload a MLRS in just a few minutes as opposed to having to reload each tube.

But I suppose there could be an 'enhanced' version that costs more but allows for reloads like that.

 

[rust]

And I'm fighting a constant battle with making them too over-powered.

Ah, well ... just imagine a huge tender able to deploy several thousand
missile containers at once, orient them towards the enemy fleet or the
orbital facilities of an enemy system, and launches them almost simulta-
neously.

With "only" 1,000 containers of about 3 dtons each, each of the contai-
ners with 12 missiles, that 3,000 dton cargo would be sufficient for an
attack with a total of 12,000 missiles.

I think 2,000 MCr would be a fair price for the damage such an attack
would be likely to cause.

 

[phavoc]

And I'm fighting a constant battle with making them too over-powered.

Ah, well ... just imagine a huge tender able to deploy several thousand
missile containers at once, orient them towards the enemy fleet or the
orbital facilities of an enemy system, and launches them almost simulta-
neously.

With "only" 1,000 containers of about 3 dtons each, each of the contai-
ners with 12 missiles, that 3,000 dton cargo would be sufficient for an
attack with a total of 12,000 missiles.

I think 2,000 MCr would be a fair price for the damage such an attack
would be likely to cause.

I've actually got a couple ideas in mind for that. One is a missile "bus" that allows for you to maneuver your missiles to a distant launch point before firing them. Sort of like a temporary missile satellite, but with maneuvering thrusters, and the ability to program it to launch if certain parameters are met.

The other concept you are talking about would be missile pods, like from the Honor Harrington series. Which in some ways are sort of derived from WW2 where the Russians and Germans (primarily) would have trucks full of rocket tubes and just blast the shit outa stuff. They weren't all that accurate, but enmasse they were impressive.

 

[phavoc]

One (soft) restriction could be the "depth" of the VLS. The IRL Mk41 is capabel of using missiles up to 8m in length so it takes up quite a bit of space (basically 2-3 decks in a typical Traveller ship) Not sure how long SIM (Space Intercept Missiles) are in MGT but maybe this can prevent abuse of the system. Simply because you can only fit one in a common freighter/SDB design.

Yeah, I was looking at how the Mk41 could take different missiles, even packing in say 4 Sea Sparrows int the slot for one Standard. Since they also can be modified to take Harpoons and Tomahawks, the other thing I'm going to do is add in the capability to launch torpedoes, but working out how I want that to work. Again its balancing the simplicity of Traveller with game playing. I want there to be options, but not so much that you have to write an entire new set of rules to build and use them.

 

[AndrewW]

What I plan for is for in-space reloading is to simply pull the entire "pod" out and replace it with a new one. It would be similar to what they do with the MLRS pods. Once the rockets are shot the pod is dropped and discarded. While they can be recycled, they are relativey cheap and you can reload a MLRS in just a few minutes as opposed to having to reload each tube.

Yup, load up two packs and ready to strike again. That could still work with in space resupply just replace the whole pod rather then individual missiles.

But I suppose there could be an 'enhanced' version that costs more but allows for reloads like that.

More expensive initially, but the ability to carry more missiles on the supply ship and have them a little cheaper.

 

[phavoc]

What I plan for is for in-space reloading is to simply pull the entire "pod" out and replace it with a new one. It would be similar to what they do with the MLRS pods. Once the rockets are shot the pod is dropped and discarded. While they can be recycled, they are relativey cheap and you can reload a MLRS in just a few minutes as opposed to having to reload each tube.

Yup, load up two packs and ready to strike again. That could still work with in space resupply just replace the whole pod rather then individual missiles.

But I suppose there could be an 'enhanced' version that costs more but allows for reloads like that.

More expensive initially, but the ability to carry more missiles on the supply ship and have them a little cheaper.

Civies would be more concerned with cost. Military would want hitting power and would be less concerned with cost. Course I would think most navies would be using nukes for naval engagement and rarely use standard (or civiliain) missiles.

 

[AndrewW]

Civies would be more concerned with cost. Military would want hitting power and would be less concerned with cost. Course I would think most navies would be using nukes for naval engagement and rarely use standard (or civiliain) missiles.

Though smaller powers with tighter budgets (The Islands cluster comes to mind) might consider costs as well.