Roug concept: Mobile anti ship guns, with illustration

[phavoc]

Did anyone else look at deckplans and realize that if a missile is 3.5M long you couldn't fire it out of a missile turret, let alone stand it up inside a ship! Missiles really would need to be stubbier and thicker to be fit inside the standard height deck (assuming you go with the idea of manually reloading a missile launcher).

VLS launchers offer rapid fire capabilities, but you can more efficiently store large numbers of missiles if they don't have launch cannisters associated with them. It's a question of ROF vs. length of time you want to be able to stay in combat. Though really missiles should truly be VLS instead of being mounted in turrets. There's no reason for them to be in turrets.

 

[Infojunky]

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.

As per CT a standard missile is 15 cm in diameter and a Meter long, with a 50 kilo mass.... The Bay Missile where 25 cm in Diameter....

Also Note, CT's Turret Missile Launcher Has 3 ready rounds per launcher, and the Turret itself can store 12 additional Missiles. Unfortunately there was no mention of the Storage volume of Missiles Magazines in terms of missiles per dTon.

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.

Can you tell me where this is explicitly stated. As it is a change from previous Editions including MgT1st.....

 

[Infojunky]

Did anyone else look at deckplans and realize that if a missile is 3.5M long you couldn't fire it out of a missile turret, let alone stand it up inside a ship! Missiles really would need to be stubbier and thicker to be fit inside the standard height deck (assuming you go with the idea of manually reloading a missile launcher).

Er? There are a bunch of assumptions there that don't Track. Notable what does Deck height have anything to do with anything? Meaning why would you need to stand a missile up?

VLS launchers offer rapid fire capabilities, but you can more efficiently store large numbers of missiles if they don't have launch cannisters associated with them. It's a question of ROF vs. length of time you want to be able to stay in combat. Though really missiles should truly be VLS instead of being mounted in turrets. There's no reason for them to be in turrets.

Note the Canister is an integral part of a VLS launch system, it also greatly eases handling as well as protecting the missile during handling.

I suspect a Missile Launching system aboard a Starship will look something like a bank of Torpedo Tubes, each cell is effectively a missile sized Airlock.

 

[wbnc]

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.

okay using a 25cm diameter missile, I can fit 12 into a container without changing much about the design. If I double stack containers I can fit 4 launchers into the existing frame with a few changes.
1 quad turret 4 spaces,
4 launch racks 16 spaces total.
4 gunnery crew ( battery commander, weapons operator, sensors/comms, and a point defense gunner) 4 spaces minimum
1 Anti-missile system laser...4 spaces
28 spaces total.

So a heavy ground vehicle with 28spaces dedicated to the weapon systems. I can still install a command center, improved sensors, and a comm sat link system. So if make it a 50 space vehicle I can afford a few layers of armor, some extra leg room, and maybe a few extras... the numbers are similar for an energy weapn armed gun truck, allowing for a fusion power plant to run it.

At 25 tons shipping volume, it is a pretty nasty suprise for the gu piloting a 50 ton cutter or that corsair coming in to try and raid a "poorly protected"" settlement

 

[phavoc]

[Er? There are a bunch of assumptions there that don't Track. Notable what does Deck height have anything to do with anything? Meaning why would you need to stand a missile up?

Storage is one reason. Loading them into the missile turret is another. If the missile length is longer than the ceiling is high, just how are you going to get that missile to fit into the launcher that sends it up vertically from the ship (and lets not even get started on how incredibly wrong the dimensions are for the turret with missiles of this size).

Note the Canister is an integral part of a VLS launch system, it also greatly eases handling as well as protecting the missile during handling.

I suspect a Missile Launching system aboard a Starship will look something like a bank of Torpedo Tubes, each cell is effectively a missile sized Airlock.

Yes, it sure is. Not just a VLS system. It's the same for the ATACMS/MLRS rounds, too. I'm quite familiar with those rocket pods.

Nothing that I'm aware of indicates that missiles are all in launch containers. As mentioned previously, CT stated that the gunner doing the reloading of the missiles. MGT v2 still doesn't break from that with discussions of magazines with missiles pre-loaded and ready to fire. It also makes some assumptions that gunners are going to be involved in missile loading. Or at least that's how I interpret it.

Good point about the VLS cells though. In theory, if a starship was using containers to do so, it could simply eject the empty pod between launches. There's certainly enough time to do so. Here's a visual breakdown of using different sized missiles in the standard Mk41 from the USN - https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm

 

[phavoc]

okay using a 25cm diameter missile, I can fit 12 into a container without changing much about the design. If I double stack containers I can fit 4 launchers into the existing frame with a few changes.
1 quad turret 4 spaces,
4 launch racks 16 spaces total.
4 gunnery crew ( battery commander, weapons operator, sensors/comms, and a point defense gunner) 4 spaces minimum
1 Anti-missile system laser...4 spaces
28 spaces total.

So a heavy ground vehicle with 28spaces dedicated to the weapon systems. I can still install a command center, improved sensors, and a comm sat link system. So if make it a 50 space vehicle I can afford a few layers of armor, some extra leg room, and maybe a few extras... the numbers are similar for an energy weapn armed gun truck, allowing for a fusion power plant to run it.

At 25 tons shipping volume, it is a pretty nasty suprise for the gu piloting a 50 ton cutter or that corsair coming in to try and raid a "poorly protected"" settlement

Based on the rules that launcher might not be able to survive long enough to launch all those missiles. You may want to think about downsizing it to accommodate something along the lines of a MLRS, or even a Patriot style battery. A crew of three would be sufficient, as the commander would have multiple duties, as could the gunner. A crew of three, with automated fire control, is more than sufficient. And your anti-missile system would be automated anyways. On the MLRS system we had three crew - commander, gunner, driver. Most likely you would be taking fire missions from an FDC or ground-based sensor network (or even satellite). In any case the comms/sensor operator is a luxury that you wouldn't really need. The gunner was almost redundant, but somebody had to watch the fire control for incoming missions. The commander got to stick his head out to see where we were going. It wasn't terribly spacious inside, but it worked for what it did.

Keeping the vehicle smaller means it's more survivable, and cheaper. Having more launchers is better than having a bigger launcher - since all of them wouldn't survive a single starship weapon attack.

 

[Infojunky]

[Er? There are a bunch of assumptions there that don't Track. Notable what does Deck height have anything to do with anything? Meaning why would you need to stand a missile up?

Storage is one reason. Loading them into the missile turret is another. If the missile length is longer than the ceiling is high, just how are you going to get that missile to fit into the launcher that sends it up vertically from the ship (and lets not even get started on how incredibly wrong the dimensions are for the turret with missiles of this size).

Why does it need to go up? (Think about this point, in terms of Starships)

Why does the Launcher need to be Above the Magazine? And if it is, what limits you from installing a missile hatch to move it up into position.

 

[wbnc]

Based on the rules that launcher might not be able to survive long enough to launch all those missiles. You may want to think about downsizing it to accommodate something along the lines of a MLRS, or even a Patriot style battery. A crew of three would be sufficient, as the commander would have multiple duties, as could the gunner. A crew of three, with automated fire control, is more than sufficient. And your anti-missile system would be automated anyways. On the MLRS system we had three crew - commander, gunner, driver. Most likely you would be taking fire missions from an FDC or ground-based sensor network (or even satellite). In any case the comms/sensor operator is a luxury that you wouldn't really need. The gunner was almost redundant, but somebody had to watch the fire control for incoming missions. The commander got to stick his head out to see where we were going. It wasn't terribly spacious inside, but it worked for what it did.

Keeping the vehicle smaller means it's more survivable, and cheaper. Having more launchers is better than having a bigger launcher - since all of them wouldn't survive a single starship weapon attack.

• This is an FDC...combined with an integrated launcher of its own.
• I am working on the smaller launcher only and unmanned launchers as I speak
• of course, if you park it in the open with no camouflage, no ECM,no use of terrain, or other ROLE PLAYING factors it won't last a single round.

From start this particular vehicle was intended t have not only a offensive role, but a command role. A three-man crew is fine for a vehicle that takes all of its fire orders from a rear area command center, but this particular crew is going to be coordinating multiple launchers, multiple vehicles and making mission critical decisions as the hub of an extended cluster of launchers/vehicles.

The Officer in charge can't be operating the systems.he's deciding which battery fires, evaluating threats, coordinating with other units, and communicating with his superiors...and for that he needs a pretty advanced comms systems and sensor data. which someone other than the commander would have to operate to keep from overloading his ability to process data and make decisions.

The way I built this (in rough) uses a quad turret as the launcher, only one gunner aboard the vehcile is firing the vehicle's own weapons. The other three gunners are also the guys who would be firing the unmanned launchers ( which are basically drone systems)

 

[wbnc]

okay here it is, latest update

Comand/Heavy launcher vehicle with an ammo carrier in reload positions
Launcher only mobile launch vehicle

I have figured out how to operate the lighter vehicles launcher from the command vehicle. Add a drone control system to the vehicle when the launch truck gets in position the vehicle crew activates its Drone controls which turns over control of the weapons to the gunner n the command vehicle. once it fires the driver of the vehicle stands on the gas and gets the heck out of dodge before the enemies missiles can get to him.

It occurs to me that a missile bus cold also carry Ortillery missiles, making it capable of providing indirect fire support, or even intercontinental strikes using starship grade missiles. which adds eh ability to engage enemy ground forces with artillery strikes.

since there aren't really rules for the following..I thought I would add them under vehicle quirks:
can not fire its main weapons on the move
can not reload under fire
possible minimum engagement range, or a delay between launch and impact inside a minimum range. the missile is vertically launched so it would have to accelrate straight up, then arc back dow to hit a target so there might be some delay.

Advantages:

• can strike at continental, or orbital ranges
• can inflict damage on starships
• can seriously damage or disable small craft
• extremely cheap compared to small craft/starships
• Massive damage potential for a vehicle
• Can hit from over the horizon.
• can fire nuclear, or other missile types without modification

Disadvantages

• Glass cannon: it can dish out a lot of damage but is gone if hit by even a light starship weapon, or heavy vehicle weapons.
• slow as molasses
• Poor mobility compared to grav or air vehicles.
• Limited self-defense weapons
• Bullet magnet: once it opens fire enemy forces will make it a high priority...thin about how much effort coalition forces put into SCUD hunting in iraq

 

[Condottiere]

A lot depends on whether the missile pack makes a return.

 

[phavoc]

• This is an FDC...combined with an integrated launcher of its own.
• I am working on the smaller launcher only and unmanned launchers as I speak
• of course, if you park it in the open with no camouflage, no ECM,no use of terrain, or other ROLE PLAYING factors it won't last a single round.

From start this particular vehicle was intended t have not only a offensive role, but a command role. A three-man crew is fine for a vehicle that takes all of its fire orders from a rear area command center, but this particular crew is going to be coordinating multiple launchers, multiple vehicles and making mission critical decisions as the hub of an extended cluster of launchers/vehicles.

The Officer in charge can't be operating the systems.he's deciding which battery fires, evaluating threats, coordinating with other units, and communicating with his superiors...and for that he needs a pretty advanced comms systems and sensor data. which someone other than the commander would have to operate to keep from overloading his ability to process data and make decisions.

The way I built this (in rough) uses a quad turret as the launcher, only one gunner aboard the vehcile is firing the vehicle's own weapons. The other three gunners are also the guys who would be firing the unmanned launchers ( which are basically drone systems)

Generally speaking, at least with artillery and air defense systems, your C&C vehicle is not part of the launcher system. You typically want multiple launchers, but you only need one C&C. That's why you see artillery batteries with separate C&C. Your vehicle here is like the MLRS (or Tornado-S or Smerch Russian equivalent). Or perhaps more equivalent, the Patriot / THAAD from the US, or the S-300/S-400 with Russia). All of these have multiple launchers tied into a central C&C vehicle, or even sometimes groups of vehicles). The nature of the battlefield is that the launchers are the ones that get found first (usually). Knocking out the C&C severely reduces the effectiveness of the launcher component.

Your commander would need subordinates for commo, analysis, and basically doing all the work. The commander just has to say 'fire'.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[phavoc]

Why does it need to go up? (Think about this point, in terms of Starships)

Why does the Launcher need to be Above the Magazine? And if it is, what limits you from installing a missile hatch to move it up into position.

Oh, it certainly doesn't have to go 'up' on a starship. I was referring more to the deckplans of ships. Since the launchers don't provide any sort of increase in velocity they can fire 180 degrees off-bore without issue. But think about how the deckplans have been drawn. The class Serpent-class scout has the turret at the upper level, on the dorsal portion of the ship (i.e. it's top). The Type A has it's turrets mounted dorsally and ventrally. The Mercenary crusier has it's missile turrets either at the top, or mounted on the sides. There's certainly a lot of variations in the standard ship examples.

I keep going back to the two types of starships that have classically been the ones that players start out with - the Scout and the Free Trader. Using the two most common examples shows us that the missile dimensions don't work with the layouts of the deckplans.

 

[Condottiere]

Trying to making sense of turreted missiles is mostly a waste of time.

But fixed mounts really do break the laws of physics.

 

[Condottiere]

One thing that may have been overlooked is whether the missiles are smallcraft or large craft, and the pictured launcher doesn't appear to be fourteen hundred cubic metres of volume.

 

[wbnc]

One thing that may have been overlooked is whether the missiles are smallcraft or large craft, and the pictured launcher doesn't appear to be fourteen hundred cubic metres of volume.

?????? Huh ????

 

[PsiTraveller]

I think Condottiere is looking at things this way. Minimum hardpoint is 1 per 100 tons, or 1400 m3. Or small craft with firm points. Firmpoints only hold 4 missiles. Looking at your truck as a ship would mean it would need to be 1400 m3 in size to hold 12 missiles.

 

[Condottiere]

Actually, it can hold as many missiles as can be emplaced.

The issue is that you can't wedge starship, or large craft, weaponry anywhere, that isn't at least fourteen hundred cubic metres in volume.

Otherwise, we'd wedge them into smallcraft, and that is explicitly not allowed.

I understand why that rule was made, though it's inexplicable.

Does it matter?

Yes, since your missiles are going to be on a very short leash, or range, and cannot be smart.

 

[wbnc]

In the interests of maximum destructive power, there have been many warlords and vehicle designers who have looked at the practical applications of mounting spacecraft scale weapons onto vehicles. They have enjoyed mixed successes, but the effect is always destructive, to say the least.
Any spacecraft weapon (see High Guard for a full range) can, in theory, be mounted upon a vehicle. In order to do this, a vehicle needs two things – enough room to physically fit the weapon and sufficient power to operate it.
To place a spacecraft weapon into a vehicle, simply multiply the tonnage of the weapon by four. This is how many Spaces it will consume, to a minimum of 1 Space. Unless it is to be placed in a fixed mount, it will also need a spacecraft style turret which, at one ton on a spacecraft, will mean another 4 Spaces is required.
Any vehicle of TL15 or below will require a dedicated fusion plant (see page 49) to provide enough power to use a spacecraft weapon. Vehicles of TL16 are assumed to be able to produce power in sufficient quantities to not require an additional plant.

Nothing says to treat a vehicle as a small craft, no mention of firm points instead of hardpoints, or any other indicator you treat them as small craft.

Since at best you can only squeeze a barbette into a vehicle without going to a vehicle that can house a 200 space object (50 ton small bay) it is not overly powerful. Especially since even a large vehicle is going to pop like a grape when hit by starships or small craft returning fire. All arming a vehicle with starship weapons does is give a ground force a decent chance to inflict damage on a starship. even then to seriously threaten a warship you would have to invest a LOT in vehicles.

 

[Epicenter]

I'm actually a fan of a starship-class laser being put on the back of a vehicle and being used for warfare even moreso than missiles.

I'm sure you'd actually see these things show up, and extremely often, in a Traveller universe where the implications of technology are played out. They'd sort of be like the system-defense version of technical trucks today; you'd find them on a lot worlds and "real" militaries don't consider them effective, but they do consider them a threat. A lot of them would be locally produced; often from kitbashing other existing vehicles and weapons.

They'd have certain advantages, real and perceived, over other weapon systems that'd fulfill the same tasks.

* If you work from the basis that free-trader size starships are reasonably common in the TU, then the lasers that are used to defend them are pretty common. Lasers seem to be the weapon of choice over missiles on such vessels so there's going to be a lot of these lasers around. That means that lasers from them are relatively cheap and easy to get a hold of. Getting second-hand, salvaged, or rebuilt lasers would be easier than getting missiles. In other words, they're cheaper than the alternatives, perhaps easier to maintain, so you can have a fleet of such vehicles, which likely helps many poorer colonies/settlements feel more secure (or warlords feel more powerful).

* Lasers don't need to be "reloaded" - if you have a fusion reactor (which again, seem to be stupid common in the TU), it appears that lasers can be operated quite inexpensively. Missiles require reloads, which both take up room and have to be bought. (In reality, I'd think that lasers would have some sort of cost associated with firing that makes them not much cheaper than using missiles, but even then the perception they can just "run off the wall current" would be prominent in the minds of a lot of people.)

* They're dual-purpose. You can always level that laser at ground targets and use it as fire support. Really powerful fire support. While it doesn't have the advantage of shooting in ballistic arcs, it'd have a long range compared to other line-of-sight weapons. In local conflicts where the adversary doesn't have long-range missiles and so on, such weapons could be used burn down snipers in high-rise buildings and so on. This fire support option would be extremely alluring to precisely the kind of organizations that can't afford dedicated SDBs, deep site meson guns and perhaps begrudge the expense of missile reloads or might be barred from getting missile reloads for political reasons.

I'd imagine arms manufacturers would make a range of these, fulfilling roles like those ZU-23-2s on the bed of trucks that the Soviets once had in their TO&E as legitimate AA vehicles to those aftermarket "AA turrets" they put on all kinds of light armored vehicles these days. At the other end of the scale, you'd have a few "boiler room" engineers from far traders getting together and putting starship lasers on the backs of whatever vehicles they think can bear the weight and using them to defend some frontier colony from slavers or whatever (or perhaps just to allow some local warlord power).