Roug concept: Mobile anti ship guns, with illustration

[wbnc]

Working on a rough idea for a mobile, and self-propelled gun for use against starships.

Since yu can wedge a starship weapon onto a vehicle, and vehicle weapons can't really do much significant damage to a starship under most circumstances. I went about trying to create a mobile gun to be used to keep a starship on its toes. Basically, a heavy duty land vehicle with its own reactor and command center fitted with a Barbette type weapons mount.

with the self propelled version you park it near a likely target preferably under some sort of overhead cover. when a ship enters its engagement area it drives out deploys its gun and fires. Assuming it isn't instantly vaporized by return fire it can scoot to a new position, or reverse into its protective bunker. iin the field even a highway underpass might e a potential shelter for the vehicle since it is sturdy enough to provide some hard cover, and is large enough to provide concealment fro overhead observation.

IN an industrial area the vehicles could be parked in warehouses or factories where the factories heat signature might provide concealment from orbiting ships, and its reactors might be mistaken for industrial reactors.

the mobile version could be set up ahead of time, around a vital location, the guns could be dug into a protected pit/bunker, and the command/power supply vehicle placed under a protective bunker multiple guns could be linked to the central vehicle under the control of the gunners in the command center.


either choice would pose problems for an attacking force. resources and tie would have to be dedicated to locating and destroying the guns, and it would be hard to predict where they would be set up.

The concept could be used for turret weapons for a light duty gun, or missile launchers for indirect fire and forget defenses.

 

[phavoc]

Is the gun a starship-class laser weapon?

For the deployed version you might want to show it's portable power source. It might not need to be a reactor, just some power cells, perhaps with an MHD or fuel-cell generator to give it local recharging capabilities over time. The weapon operators could always swap out power packs for quick reloads just like a laser rifle user does.

Or you could have self-contained laser 'rounds' that act as ammunition. Kind of like how the powerguns work in the Slammers universe. Being connected to a reactor means unlimited power, but having ammunition means you can deploy these off the grid.

 

[wbnc]

Is the gun a starship-class laser weapon?

For the deployed version you might want to show it's portable power source. It might not need to be a reactor, just some power cells, perhaps with an MHD or fuel-cell generator to give it local recharging capabilities over time. The weapon operators could always swap out power packs for quick reloads just like a laser rifle user does.

Or you could have self-contained laser 'rounds' that act as ammunition. Kind of like how the powerguns work in the Slammers universe. Being connected to a reactor means unlimited power, but having ammunition means you can deploy these off the grid.

Te currnt rules require a fuson reactor to use Starship grade weapons...

The concept is to be able to deploy the weapons off grid to enhance their effectiveness. Not being able to accurately track or predict where the guns are placed is about the only advantage they have over fixed guns....if they are tied to a supply network they can be taken out by simply taking out the supply depots.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Missiles don't need power, just the turret, so a 1 ton battery and a missile turret on the back of a truck could launch a starship grade missile at a ship. And turrets only cost 1 point of power, so a battery would last for 6 hours without a need to plug into anything.

 

[wbnc]

Missiles don't need power, just the turret, so a 1 ton battery and a missile turret on the back of a truck could launch a starship grade missile at a ship. And turrets only cost 1 point of power, so a battery would last for 6 hours without a need to plug into anything.

Good idea I'llplay around and see what I can do with that

 

[steve98052]

The main planetary defense installation described in canon is the deep meson gun, built so deep that even a nuclear bomb isn't going to hurt it worse than sealing one of its heat dissipation outlets and blind one of its sensor arrays. Counter measures for that include meson screens, sensor blinding, espionage to locate the deep site, threatening civilian populations into surrender, and overwhelming defenses with huge salvos of ortillery.

Lacking meson technology, missile trucks (or trains), system defense boats, and big system defense non-starships are probably the best planetary defenses.

 

[Condottiere]

You're down a gravity well with an atmosphere.

 

[wbnc]

The main planetary defense installation described in canon is the deep meson gun, built so deep that even a nuclear bomb isn't going to hurt it worse than sealing one of its heat dissipation outlets and blind one of its sensor arrays. Counter measures for that include meson screens, sensor blinding, espionage to locate the deep site, threatening civilian populations into surrender, and overwhelming defenses with huge salvos of ortillery.

Lacking meson technology, missile trucks (or trains), system defense boats, and big system defense non-starships are probably the best planetary defenses.

For any system with the credits and tech to build a Meson gun, these truck would definitely be part of the final defense line. For threats that get past thefighters and SDBs. or to protect against threats that somehow manage to avoid those defenses. For a world withotu te ability to put up a meson site. they'd be part of an integrated system. more for area denial, and point defence than general counter assault protection..A low orbiting cruiser could ingore them but the landing craft or a raider/merc would have to tread lightly.

I'll add the missile bus to the to-do list, being able to park the launcher on the reverse slope of a potential landing zone and lob missiles across a mountain range at landing craft or small starships attempting to make landfall would be a great tactical and strategic advantage.

You're down a gravity well with an atmosphere.

That would pose an issue for missiles, but considering the raw power of a starship grade missile, not a serious one. at worst it means it looses a few Gees acceleration to compensate for the planetary gravity well. a layer of protective material could be added to protect fro frictional heating as well. Both very minor modification in the grand scheme of things. Both modificationscould be done locally if the system ahs access to the right hardware...or thought ahead and bought one of PsiTravellers fabrication ships.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

I really like the renderings.
What software program is this?

And I second the concept of a power source via batteries or small fusion power plant in a separate vehicle sitting off to one side of the weapon, with power cables.
If it's a missile launcher, then the second vehicle can store extra missiles.

 

[AndrewW]

I'll add the missile bus to the to-do list, being able to park the launcher on the reverse slope of a potential landing zone and lob missiles across a mountain range at landing craft or small starships attempting to make landfall would be a great tactical and strategic advantage.

Or do what the Japanese did in the movie Halls of Montezuma and put them on the forward slope instead.

 

[AndrewW]

What software program is this?

Blender:

https://www.blender.org/

 

[wbnc]

I really like the renderings.
What software program is this?

And I second the concept of a power source via batteries or small fusion power plant in a separate vehicle sitting off to one side of the weapon, with power cables.
If it's a missile launcher, then the second vehicle can store extra missiles.

I use blender and sometimes tweak an image using gimp. not the best programs out there but its free.

The separate weapon and vehicle combination does have its advantages. You can put the gun out, and dig the vehicle in away from the weapon to protect it fro counterbattery fire. A command vehicle supply hauler and a couple of prime movers could set up a hasty firebase in a fairly short period of time.

in an urban setting you could park the truck under an overpass, or in a subway tunnel opening with only the gun exposed.

 

[wbnc]

Okay here is the missile version of the mobile weapons carrier

it carries two separate canisters. It can fire either ship killers, or conventional surface to air missiles. as needed. An ammunition carrier or multiple vehicles travel with the firing vehicle to keep it supplied with additional canisters.

I am working on the ammo carrier which has a rail system to transfer the canisters to the firing vehicle

 

[Condottiere]

If the rate of fire is one missile every six minutes, counter battery fire makes the remaining ordnance superfluous.

 

[phavoc]

Can you move the rocket image further forward, so the tubes are at the edge of the launcher? Look at the rocket pods on a MLRS, or other cannister-type rocket launchers. Some of it is just to see the pods, but also from a rocket exhaust issue, that crevice isn't desirable. Not sure how much effort that is to alter the image.

 

[steve98052]

If the rate of fire is one missile every six minutes, counter battery fire makes the remaining ordnance superfluous.

There are several components to a ship type missile system:
- the missiles
- the laser communicators between gunners and missiles
- the launch equipment
- equipment to reload the launch equipment
- sensors to track the target
- the gunners

On a ship, the first three or four are consolidated in the turrets' missile racks. Gunners may be adjacent to be on hand for repairs, or in a separate fire control room. The sensors may be in the launcher, use ship's sensors, or a combination.

But in a ground based system, things can be arranged a bit differently. The missiles can be launched from very simple, possibly disposable, launch equipment that doesn't do much more than keep off the weather until time to fire, open the door on command, and give each missile its initial course through a data link. The initial course can be as little as the route to a point with line of sight to a laser communicator. The equipment could be just a box car with a bunch of missiles stacked at an angle that lets them fit without making the cars too tall, with launch ports; gravitic missiles don't need to deal with rocket exhaust.

The laser communicator is a much more complicated device, because it has to maintain aim on the missile to maintain contact. It also needs a way to re-acquire contact if it's lost -- that's particularly likely around six second after launch (assuming a 6 G missile in Earthlike atmosphere) as the missile goes supersonic, because the sonic boom shock wave might refract the laser communication beam off the missile.

Sensors are also complicated, and wouldn't have ship's sensors' assistance.

Gunners would be hidden in bunkers or inconspicuous offices.

In a system defense situation, the defender could launch all of its missiles on warning, not at the attacker, but into orbit to conserve endurance -- and when the time is right, activate a salvo large enough to overwhelm attackers' point defenses. The constraint would be having enough gunners to command all the missiles to the point where their terminal guidance takes over.

 

[wbnc]

If the rate of fire is one missile every six minutes, counter battery fire makes the remaining ordnance superfluous.

That is when things like camouflage, pre-sited revetments, forward observers and indirect fire come into play. a starship has nowhere to hide. a missile truck has hundreds of square kilometers of cover and concealment to take advantage of. a starship grade missile could be fired fro hundreds of kilometers over the horizon and still hit a target. the target would have to locate it, fix its position to within few dozen meters then fire. thats if the driver didnt hit the gas and scoot out of there before the ship can get into firing position.

using recon drones, point defense batteries and other tactics a ground-based vehicle can make itself a REAL nuisance..and if you manage o za one its doen or so buddies are gonna be really upset with you next round.

Can you move the rocket image further forward, so the tubes are at the edge of the launcher? Look at the rocket pods on a MLRS, or other cannister-type rocket launchers. Some of it is just to see the pods, but also from a rocket exhaust issue, that crevice isn't desirable. Not sure how much effort that is to alter the image.

altering the model is not much trouble at all..thanks for the feedback. I also added some communications antenna a satellite link dome phased array radar and a point defense laser for those pesky incoming missiles. I am going to do a basic version wwich is just a truck with launch box, and a remotely deployed launcher to go with the command/launch vehicle.

If the rate of fire is one missile every six minutes, counter battery fire makes the remaining ordnance superfluous.

There are several components to a ship type missile system:
- the missiles
- the laser communicators between gunners and missiles
- the launch equipment
- equipment to reload the launch equipment
- sensors to track the target
- the gunners

On a ship, the first three or four are consolidated in the turrets' missile racks. Gunners may be adjacent to be on hand for repairs, or in a separate fire control room. The sensors may be in the launcher, use ship's sensors, or a combination.

But in a ground based system, things can be arranged a bit differently. The missiles can be launched from very simple, possibly disposable, launch equipment that doesn't do much more than keep off the weather until time to fire, open the door on command, and give each missile its initial course through a data link. The initial course can be as little as the route to a point with line of sight to a laser communicator. The equipment could be just a box car with a bunch of missiles stacked at an angle that lets them fit without making the cars too tall, with launch ports; gravitic missiles don't need to deal with rocket exhaust.

The laser communicator is a much more complicated device, because it has to maintain aim on the missile to maintain contact. It also needs a way to re-acquire contact if it's lost -- that's particularly likely around six second after launch (assuming a 6 G missile in Earthlike atmosphere) as the missile goes supersonic, because the sonic boom shock wave might refract the laser communication beam off the missile.

Sensors are also complicated, and wouldn't have ship's sensors' assistance.

Gunners would be hidden in bunkers or inconspicuous offices.

In a system defense situation, the defender could launch all of its missiles on warning, not at the attacker, but into orbit to conserve endurance -- and when the time is right, activate a salvo large enough to overwhelm attackers' point defenses. The constraint would be having enough gunners to command all the missiles to the point where their terminal guidance takes over.

Modern antiship missiles don't need a lot of updates afer firing. theyhave on board systems smart enough to know what they are lookign for. all you have to do is get them in the general area and they can find and kill targets on their own. so theneed for a laser director isnt critcal.

Now the rest I can wholeheartedly agree with I know a few air defense systems have launchers hat are basically a trailer with a hydraulic lift and not much else. all the advanced tech is crammed into the missile. so you could set up a box on top of a buildinng and leave it for extende periods with no problems. a obie launcher might be more command and control hardware for multiple remote launcehrs than anything else.

 

[phavoc]

Cool! But I'm not sure of the scale, as there seems to be a LOT of missiles in those pods! Are they all supposed to be standard missiles?

Just to show some comparison, here's an ATACMS round next to a standard MLRS 6-pack - http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_ATACMS_and_MLRS_Pod_lg.jpg

For gaming I've always assumed that your box launcher or container is roughly the same size as whatever it is you have inside. So while the size of the standard missile is 1/12 Dton, storing it in a travel container means you get 6 per Dton. In theory a magazine is storing them pretty efficiently, so I let that size slide.

I was never a big fan of the idea from CT that a gunner is man-handling a missile into the equivalent of a breach for a missile turret. That always seemed so silly to me. If you have civilian ships they are going to have proper magazines and loading mechanisms like any other ship. Or common sense and logic dictates that at least.

 

[wbnc]

Cool! But I'm not sure of the scale, as there seems to be a LOT of missiles in those pods! Are they all supposed to be standard missiles?

Just to show some comparison, here's an ATACMS round next to a standard MLRS 6-pack - http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_ATACMS_and_MLRS_Pod_lg.jpg

For gaming I've always assumed that your box launcher or container is roughly the same size as whatever it is you have inside. So while the size of the standard missile is 1/12 Dton, storing it in a travel container means you get 6 per Dton. In theory a magazine is storing them pretty efficiently, so I let that size slide.

I was never a big fan of the idea from CT that a gunner is man-handling a missile into the equivalent of a breach for a missile turret. That always seemed so silly to me. If you have civilian ships they are going to have proper magazines and loading mechanisms like any other ship. Or common sense and logic dictates that at least.

I am still tweaking the missiles size, and number, in the canister. the final version may be a bit different. my mat is a bit rusty but I am using a 3 meter long missile with a diameter of 60cm as a rough guide to the size of a starship missile this is a little under 1/12th of a Dton but I am allowing for the shipping container for the missile to take up some space.....someone let me know if I have botched that calculation ...PLEASE

I think soe of the problem is that when the system was created launchers were fed one missile at a time, for an external store...but with modern VLS and containerized missile packs it's a bit dated to have themloaded one at a time...a modenrn launcher can ripple fire or rapid fire multiple missiles in a minute..much less in a six minute block of time

 

[steve98052]

So while the size of the standard missile is 1/12 Dton, storing it in a travel container means you get 6 per Dton. In theory a magazine is storing them pretty efficiently, so I let that size slide.

Actually, per classic Traveller, a starship missile is 25 cm in diameter and almost 3.5 meters long, or about 0.17 cubic meters -- about 1/80 dton -- but its mass is around 135 kg, or around 1/7 ton. Mongoose uses dtons and tonnes interchangeably, which is a nice simplification for game purposes, but causes all sorts of confusion when trying to convert between "tons" and either dtons or tonnes.

If you're trying to pack ship missiles into a shipping container that doesn't exceed implied cargo density limits, maybe you're limited to 12 missiles per dton, but if you're packing them into a space where density isn't limited, you can fit about 80, minus empty space (because cylinders don't fill space completely, because you can only fit three 3.5 meter long objects into a 12 meter long shipping container, and because you need spacers between them so they don't rattle around in the container).

A ground based missile carrier could pack them into something that reduces a lot of the void space. for example, they would fit nicely in a nine by nine array, 3.5 meters long, three or four of which would fit neatly into a 10.5 or 14 meter long boxcar -- no need to waste space trying to get them to fit in a 12 meter container.