Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

95. Could have gone with the Soviet Navy, with their tendency to over missile pod every square inch of their ships, have trawlers follow every NATO ship and send raiders to break the Atlantic line of communications.

96. But hindsight indicates that their ships were built to hold together just long enough that within a generation they'd fall apart, which jerry built option while amusing isn't yet part of the design process: maybe an understandable version of QREBs could be implemented in HG2?

97. The IJN did go for Long Lancing available deck space, though that was superseded by air power.

98. While the temptation is to try to stuff as many fighters as possible into the carriers, this may be a fallacy, as you want the fighter to be as survivable as possible with as much firepower as possible, especially when you calculate in the cost of maintaining and training the pilot

99. While this may not seem relevant in Traveller, command and control is simplified with fewer fighters, and there will be more space in the hangar to maintain them.

100. Having a standard size for the smallcraft helps with stowage.

101. The standard modular cutter is the most iconic of smallcraft, but if the Solomani Navy consolidates around the forty ton launch tube, it would make sense for them to standardize even non fighter smallcraft assets be sized at forty tons. This would include the normal launch facility on ships that have no launch tubes.

102. This makes docking clamps a tad awkward, as you'd need at least a five-tonner.

103. But Solomani dropships suddenly have double fire power, making their interception a bit more dangerous and should result with their payload more likely to arrive at their destination.

104. I was actually advocating a thirty ton dropship based on their capability of using a one ton docking clamp, but the need to load and unload large cargos, not just personnel, seems to make an interior transfer a more attractive option, plus with the thirty minute launching/recovery rule, the capability of having a landing window every thirty six seconds seems more efficient.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers Air Group

1. The Tigress lists three hundred forty-tonners, with three launch tubes.

2. The fleet carrier has two hundred forty-tonners and a hundred seventy-tonners but with only one tube for the forties, and two tubes for the seventies.

3. The strike carrier has fifty each, together with their respective tubes.

4. The Lightnings have eighty twenty ton fighters and two tubes.

5. The light carrier has a hundred twenty-tonners, thirty forties and two launch tubes for forties.

6. The planetoid monitor has eight forties and a launch tube.

7. The Tigress one seems to have a pretty specific function, to prevent an up the kilt shot.

8. The fleet carrier seems configured for a fast strike, since it has two tubes for a hundred seventies, compared to one for the forties.

9. The Lightnings, while fun to have around, always seem like one of those ambiguous legacies, like the Kinunir. Probably meant to deal with system defense forces, space planetary guard weekend jockeys and lightly defended industrial estates.

10. The light carrier does seem optimized for to keep away light forces from the task group it's assigned to.

11. Once you pick the launch tube, it dictates the majority of craft that the carrier carries.

12. I'm a little dismissive of vessels between 20-39 tons, except for a thirty ton utility craft, and anything above sixty is too slow (unless it turns out that inertial compensators scale up slowly, in which case, welcome back).

13. Which makes forty-tonners ideal, as they are small enough to need only one crew, larger enough to take two weapon slots and fast enough to intercept any manned vessel.

14. While it's true you can't launch a seventy ton craft from the tube, you can do so through normal launch facilities. So it would be possible to deliver a strike supported by one or two seventies.

15. One tube dedicated to just twelve craft isn't really worthwhile, one tube to a eighty seems to indicate a sort of rotating roster keeping up a continuous presence or pressure.

16. Forty forties, plus some odds and ends, seem an ideal number, easy enough to control, large enough to patrol.

17. And if acting as a platform for planetary assault, sufficient numbers to support a brigade.

 

[Condottiere]

Capital Ship Construction

1. If capital ships are sectionalized, it's quite possible to build those sections separately, and then welded together. It's almost modular.

2. If we take the 7'500 ton ship as an example, the rear section would be mostly engines and fuel tanks, extra space on the front section for fuel can be added as needed, but all other systems would be placed there.

3. Could speed up construction, as well. For military vessels, the front could be configured for specific roles.

 

[AndrewW]

1. If capital ships are sectionalized, it's quite possible to build those sections separately, and then welded together. It's almost modular.

3. Could speed up construction, as well. For military vessels, the front could be configured for specific roles.

That's done now, some cruise ships and military vessels are constructed in sections then assembled.

 

[Condottiere]

Watching the QE come together gave me the idea to mention it. While the LCS concept made me try to figure a way for the navy to try and utilize it effectively.

 

[locarno24]

I don't think the rate of fighter launch/recovery has ever been given for ships without a launch tube.

Certainly for an escort carrier protecting a merchant convoy, which might find itself playing high guard against a surprise attack, might need to know this. Unfortunately, it's got to be dependent on a lot of things; fighters on multiple external docking clamps should be launchable simultaneously, but if they're externally mounted, getting the pilots to them and readying them for launch may take quite some time.

 

[sideranautae]

I don't think the rate of fighter launch/recovery has ever been given for ships without a launch tube.

Certainly for an escort carrier protecting a merchant convoy, which might find itself playing high guard against a surprise attack, might need to know this. Unfortunately, it's got to be dependent on a lot of things; fighters on multiple external docking clamps should be launchable simultaneously, but if they're externally mounted, getting the pilots to them and readying them for launch may take quite some time.

If you design a fighter so as to have its dimensions it would be easy to design a large hatch in the side of a ship where 10, 20 or whatever amount of fighters can fly out at the same time. This would EASILY outpace launch tubes on cost/tonnage basis. Trav stuck with launch tubes because of the cool factor. Not because of any logical reason. It isn't like the craft have a minimum flying speed. :lol:

 

[phavoc]

I don't think the rate of fighter launch/recovery has ever been given for ships without a launch tube.

Certainly for an escort carrier protecting a merchant convoy, which might find itself playing high guard against a surprise attack, might need to know this. Unfortunately, it's got to be dependent on a lot of things; fighters on multiple external docking clamps should be launchable simultaneously, but if they're externally mounted, getting the pilots to them and readying them for launch may take quite some time.

It's in the book, but it's incredibly slow (same rules as launching a small craft, which I think are slower than they would be assuming you had trained military pilots).

Launch tubes are supposed to recover craft as well, which has always seemed odd to me. Launching ships will be undamaged and loaded with ordanance, so giving them a push to be at max velocity upon launching makes sense. Returning fighters are (or can be) damaged, along with injured pilots. I'd think you would want a recovery bay, especially if you have damaged ones. One mistake upon landing with a failing system or injured pilot and you've just jammed up your launch tube.

Also, the rules don't cover what it takes to maintain, service and re-arm fighters under combat situations. You may have only one pilot, but you'll have dedicated crews doing the re-arming, somebody to do the fueling, deck and launch crews, between sortie repairs and then crews who work on things like pulled engines. A modern carrier has a flight crew in the thousands to support the air-wing. Assuming between aircraft and helo's, there are 250 pilots and flight crew, there are nearly 2,500 air wing support personnel. So I would suspect there would be a 5 or 6-to-1 ratio of deck crew per carried small craft.

 

[Condottiere]

Droids.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Docking clamp launch - docking clamps have airlocks, so it will be a matter of distance from the pilot lounge. I would cluster squadron size numbers around a hub.

2. I would also first recover a fighter in the hangar for routine maintenance refueling, and re-arming, before launching it again for it to attach to it's designated clamp.


3. Launch tube recovery - I'm sure I've expressed my doubts previously in this regard, that's it's like trying to thread a needle at supersonic speed.


4. Launch bays - you could have bays act like garages, sealed off from the primary hangar, and all maintenance for the fighter performed within, then the hatches can open exposing the entire bay to vacuum, but not the main hangar.


5. Simultaneous hangar launch - I'm fairly sure it has to do with traffic control, so that the fighters and their pilots don't get in each other's way.

 

[sideranautae]

5. Simultaneous hangar launch - I'm fairly sure it has to do with traffic control, so that the fighters and their pilots don't get in each other's way.

Automated. Google could do the programming today. I doubt whether programmers will be required to have IQ's <20 in the far future. :lol:

 

[phavoc]

1. Docking clamp launch - docking clamps have airlocks, so it will be a matter of distance from the pilot lounge. I would cluster squadron size numbers around a hub.

The problem with that is you have to cut lots and lots of holes in your hull to add more airlocks. Also means you have that much more maintenance, security and all the other associated issues related to having multiple egress points.

2. I would also first recover a fighter in the hangar for routine maintenance refueling, and re-arming, before launching it again for it to attach to it's designated clamp.

BSG is the closest analogy. In SW they simply float over the other ships and land vertically (though occasionally they've come in hot and slammed into waiting ships). BSG (revised) also had the Ceylon ships docked externally, though the pilots were not really removed from the ships, so that would be something a little different.

3. Launch tube recovery - I'm sure I've expressed my doubts previously in this regard, that's it's like trying to thread a needle at supersonic speed.

Yeah, sounds good, but in practice I think it might leave a lot to be desired. I've never seen any tables for either launch or recovery mishaps.

4. Launch bays - you could have bays act like garages, sealed off from the primary hangar, and all maintenance for the fighter performed within, then the hatches can open exposing the entire bay to vacuum, but not the main hangar.

Like BSG again, where you had bays exclusively for recovery, and storage. But you could separate off the two.

5. Simultaneous hangar launch - I'm fairly sure it has to do with traffic control, so that the fighters and their pilots don't get in each other's way.

A staggered launch would be the way it happens. Sort of a last in, first out sort of thing. Wet navy does it based upon where you are in the queue. But with anti-grav (and assuming your bay was big enough) you could re-arrange the craft as you saw fit. Though not under combat conditions I suspect. You would have to not have on-going operations to do that. I think the AHL class cruisers had two separate launch bays for their fighters, don't recall if they had two different recovery areas (though according to the rules you could use the same tube...ugh).

Automated. Google could do the programming today. I doubt whether programmers will be required to have IQ's <20 in the far future. :lol:

I don't see that happening. We've already dumbed down code (ney Visual Basic) and it shows in a lot of applications. It takes an intelligent programmer, not a smart monkey to design good software. Fifth generation languages like VB CAN work... but the compiler is written in C++ (C# these days). Companies got away from better development languages like C++ but it WAS harder to master, but you can do so much more with it. And it runs faster when compiled too.

Parallel programming is still in it's infancy as it's harder than fuck to get trained people that can write code in it. Nothing thus far has changed that trend in programming. I'm a big fan of making it easier to do simple stuff, but I sure as hell don't want my astrogation, ECM or piloting software written by the 3rd Imperium equivalent of a <20IQ code monkey. No thanks!

 

[sideranautae]

Automated. Google could do the programming today. I doubt whether programmers will be required to have IQ's <20 in the far future. :lol:

I don't see that happening.

Google has already done MUCH better. Automated cars for the road. MUCH more difficult than what is needed to launch small craft out a huge bay alongside each other craft.

We've already dumbed down code (ney Visual Basic) and it shows in a lot of applications. It takes an intelligent programmer, not a smart monkey to design good software. Fifth generation languages like VB CAN work... but the compiler is written in C++ (C# these days). Companies got away from better development languages like C++ but it WAS harder to master, but you can do so much more with it. And it runs faster when compiled too.

Yep. Been over 1 1/2 decades since I coded. Started with C, Forth (in which I wrote a compiler myself), some IBM assembler & Fortran.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Cylon fighters - If I recall correctly, they're little doggies with implanted brains, so they are one with their ship, and therefore always on board and on call. Probably easier for them to do a kamikaze run than go in for maintenance.


2. Launch tube size - So why do we need launch tube that occupy twenty five times the size of the largest smallcraft? Maybe we only want to give a small push to get them out of the nest?


3. Turret universal launcher - for both sandcasters and missiles; size must be comparable, perhaps larger and more effective sandcaster canisters to make up the 66& increase in size.


4. Docking clamp airlocks - security would be a secondary consideration, since this wouldn't be a configuration you'd inflict on your capital ships, though apparently the Solomani did for their 150KT Midway Carriers.


5. Staggered Launch - We saw that in Star Wars, though I'll agree with sideranautae's google autopilot programme slaved to the ship's tower control, but that would be in staggered formation in perfect conditions, which might be less ideal on a moving ship.


6. Recovery depends on approach speed, or relative approach speed, and that effects the number of fighters recovered within a given period. BSG's rear recovery bay seems ideal for rapid recovery.

 

[sideranautae]

5. Staggered Launch - We saw that in Star Wars, though I'll agree with sideranautae's google autopilot programme slaved to the ship's tower control, but that would be in staggered formation in perfect conditions, which might be less ideal on a moving ship.

Unless the carrier is doing barrel rolls (Pilot + LSD?) there is no "motion" per se for the ships launching. They accelerate out at between 6-10 G's. 60 - 100 meters away from the mother ship in the 1st second. (which again begs the question of why launch tubes.)

 

[phavoc]

Google has already done MUCH better. Automated cars for the road. MUCH more difficult than what is needed to launch small craft out a huge bay alongside each other craft.

The cars are limited to 20mph for now. We also haven't seen them in real traffic, let alone an environment that is rapidly changing. I do think they are neat, but only time will tell if the programming holds up in real-world situations. LOTS of things work great in controlled test environments but not so much in reality.

1. Cylon fighters - If I recall correctly, they're little doggies with implanted brains, so they are one with their ship, and therefore always on board and on call. Probably easier for them to do a kamikaze run than go in for maintenance.

The "pilots" could actually be removed from the fighters. There was one episode where they had a pilot in medical and it was having brain surgery to eliminate free will. Seems the humanoid cylons had no compunction about keeping the mechanical and bio-cylons away from free will. Oh, the irony!

2. Launch tube size - So why do we need launch tube that occupy twenty five times the size of the largest smallcraft? Maybe we only want to give a small push to get them out of the nest?

Launch tubes are designed to allow fighters to be moving at their maximum speed upon launch from the ship. Which would explain their length. Magnetic catapults could work too, but those aren't present in the game.

3. Turret universal launcher - for both sandcasters and missiles; size must be comparable, perhaps larger and more effective sandcaster canisters to make up the 66& increase in size.

The Brits actually have a self-defense turret that can do flares, chaff, or anti-torpedo noisemakers depending on the threat level. But sand barrels and missiles are different dimensions and wouldn't easily fit together. Now if you went to a VLS system you could actually have X amount of tons allocated to the cells, and in some cells you had a missile, and others you had sand barrels. I forgot which US Navy system has stacked missile capability in the cells.

5. Staggered Launch - We saw that in Star Wars, though I'll agree with sideranautae's google autopilot programme slaved to the ship's tower control, but that would be in staggered formation in perfect conditions, which might be less ideal on a moving ship.

Wouldn't that, be default, be the norm? Ships closest to the exit would launch first, then those behind them. Recovery would be, potentially, messier, especially with damaged ships coming in, or if you were in a hurry.

 

[sideranautae]

The cars are limited to 20mph for now. We also haven't seen them in real traffic, let alone an environment that is rapidly changing. I do think they are neat, but only time will tell if the programming holds up in real-world situations. LOTS of things work great in controlled test environments but not so much in reality.

You are WAY out of date on your info. http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-self-driving-car-turns-out-to-be-a-very-smart-ride/

They have been PROVEN in the real world. What I'm talking about for ship launching is baby play compared to this TL 7 stuff.

 

[phavoc]

The cars are limited to 20mph for now. We also haven't seen them in real traffic, let alone an environment that is rapidly changing. I do think they are neat, but only time will tell if the programming holds up in real-world situations. LOTS of things work great in controlled test environments but not so much in reality.

You are WAY out of date on your info. http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-self-driving-car-turns-out-to-be-a-very-smart-ride/

They have been PROVEN in the real world. What I'm talking about for ship launching is baby play compared to this TL 7 stuff.

Yeah, you're right. The last thing I saw (and it was just last week) had the little Google cars being 2-seaters and controlled through your phone. Though they do admit for now they rely on mapping of specific routes in Mountain View, but are trying to wean themselves off that for the next round of tests.

 

[sideranautae]

Yeah, you're right. The last thing I saw (and it was just last week) had the little Google cars being 2-seaters and controlled through your phone. Though they do admit for now they rely on mapping of specific routes in Mountain View, but are trying to wean themselves off that for the next round of tests.

I just saw one in SoCal. The California gov passed a law allowing them to run around the State.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Launch Tubes - Obvious analogue to catapults, which makes sense that you want to throw the smallcraft away from the carrier faster than the possible forward speed of the carrier.

2. Launch facilities - which brings us to the normal launch facilities, who obviously don't do this, and presumably require blast shields to shield either the separate launch bay, or the rest of the hangar from the engine blasts.

3. Slower smallcraft - those would have to be launched laterally or excreted backwards.

4. Staggered launch - Star Wars have awfully high hangar ceilings, so 130% doesn't cover that, so it's LIFO in most cases, and traffic would be one way at a given time period.

5. Google autopilot - more important for air/rafts and smallcraft entering urban airspace.


6. Universal launcher - sandcaster canisters would be easier to shape in conformity with the missile launcher, and would give the operator the option to launch any combination of upto three sand canisters or missiles, as opposed to having dedicated launchers for each weapon type.