Solomani Confederation (Military)

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Aesthetics

L. There probably would need to be four types of platforms that need to be stylized.

M. The current production model of the ship of the line.

N. Battlecruisers, for obvious reasons

O. Current fleet space fighter, for that Top Gun effect.

P. And the patrol ship, since that would be the most common Confederation Navy starwarship that would come into contact, whether dirtside when visiting a member world, or in outer space, especially if there's a need to inspect suspicious spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

1. The thing about podularization, is that the design rules haven't been fleshed out.

2. To be fair, that and thought out, covers quite a number of aspects within Traveller design rules, besides podularization.

3. Which means, sometimes, you just need to make an educated guess how they actually would, or should, work.

4. For podularization, I only see two possible examples to draw from, modularization and breakaway hulls.

5. Modularization would indicate maximum volume utilization would be seventy five percent.

6. A pod could be treated as a semi permanent breakaway hull, without the quicklock dock clamps.

7. That means, there's no need for two percent allocation for such, nor the need to pay for them.

8. How long does it take and cost to attach or detach them - who knows, but it seems weeks, rather than days, for kilotonne plus hulls.

9. Also, being considered a hull, minimum size is five tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

A. Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship.

B. I think that was added more than to ensure that you can't add more hard or firm points, rather than trying to leverage the extra hull points that accrue at twenty five and a hundred kilotonne markups.

C. Personally, I wouldn't have ruled it that way, but I don't think it matters sufficiently to necessitate changing it, to emphasize that breakaway hulls are still subject to markups, separately, not collectively.

D. Not that that aspect really is relevant below twenty five kilotonnes, which the space fighter category would be placed.

E. Hard or firm points distribution is the real point, to prevent breakaways from littering the complete hull with them, beyond the ones that are allocated by the rules.

F. And you need complete hundred tonne chunks to qualify for a hardpoint, otherwise it can only support firmpoints.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

G. While a balance is maintained between protection, mobility, and firepower for the frontline fighter spacecraft, maximum protection is generally applied.

H. This is due to a number of factors, but most importantly, ensuring the survival of the crew, since a veteran pilot requires eight years of expensive training, and another eighteen years before that.

I. It also gives confidence to the pilot, allowing him to carry out (and press) his missions, knowing he has that protection.

J. There also less armoured variants of fighter spacecrafts.

K. These tend to be termed Zeroes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

L. Does reflec coating have any utility?

M. It's plus three to armour class against lasers.

N. The most damaging laser so far is the pulse laser barbette, at three dice times three (nine to fifty four, average thirty one and a half).

O. That would not be my first choice, if I had a barbette, especially since it lacks point defence.

P. You're adding a hundred kilostarbux per tonne for three armour points, which may be disproportionate to the overall cost of the fighter spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

Q. If you take armour factor fifteen as an example, at fifty tonnes, that takes up twelve tonnes, the same as it would at a hundred tonnes.

R. At ninety nine tonnes, armour factor fifteen would take up a tad more than twenty three and three quarters tonnes.

S. At twenty five tonnes, armour factor fifteen would be nine tonnes, twenty six tonnes would be a tad under six and a quarter tonnes.

T. At sixteen tonnes, it's a tad over five and three quarters of bonded superdense; at fifteen tonnes, it's seven and one fifth tonnes.

U. At some point, it might just be more efficient to avoid getting hit.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

V. There seem to be three alterations that would help protect the pilot.

W. Placing the cockpit into a vault (titanium bathtub).

X. Armouring the bulkhead.

Y. Ejectable/detachable bridge.

Z. Unfortunately, the rules that are somewhat unclear.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

1. Can you make the cockpit detachable?

2. Making a bridge detachable adds +50% to its cost and consumes +20% more tonnage. If deck plans are created for a design with a detachable bridge, include a compact battery array and manoeuvre drives adjacent to the bridge.

3. A (single) cockpit consumes 1.5 ton of space and costs Cr10000.

4. That would be one and four fifths of a tonne, and fifteen kilostarbux.

5. Life support is twenty four (man) hours.

6. The bridge has two weeks of life support and battery power, while emergency thrusters give it basic manoeuvring capabilities, equivalent to Thrust 0. A detachable bridge is even capable of soft-landing on a planetary surface.

7. Seems unlikely.

8. Though adding a thrust factor one manoeuvre drive independently to the detachable cockpit may be plausible.

9. I tend to think a factor one thruster is more likely to accomplish a soft landing, rather than a factor zero.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

A. A vault has a minimum of four tonnes.

B. Armoured bulkhead is ten percent, which would be three twentieths of a tonne, at thirty kilostarbux.

C. I suppose you could bulk up a vault.

D. To make the cockpit detachable, the cockpit would need to envelope the vault.

E. Armoured bulkhead vault would be four and two fifths tonnes.

F. Detachable four and two fifths tonne bridge would be 5.28 tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

G. Since the vault is an empty space, you could internalize the armoured bulkhead.

H. That leaves three and three fifths tonnes.

I. Armoured cockpit would be one and thirteen twentieths tonnes, balance 1.95 tonnes.

J. Detachable armoured (single) cockpit would be 1.98 tonnes, balance 1.62 tonnes.

K. In theory, if you add a firmpointed fixed mount, that takes up no tonnage.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

L. In theory, if you have a detachable cockpit, with presumably thrust/zero, that turns it into an independent spacecraft.

M. Given the formula printed in High Guard, that would be one and four fifths tonnes naked.

N. My take on the minimum tonnage, or considered opinion actually, is that a spacecraft has at a minimum one hull point to qualify, otherwise it would be a vehicle chassis.

O. That, in theory, would default to two and a half tonnes.

P. Modified by hull configuration, and hull options, mostly reinforced or enlightened.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

Q. And yet, High Guard states that for two hundred tonnes and less hulls, the minimum size for a detachable bridge is fifteen tonnes.

R. The detachable bridge necessitates a fifty percent premium, at default, three quarters of a megastarbux per hundred tonnes of hull.

S. The twenty percent increase in (bridge) tonnage is somewhat obscure as to how that's calculated.

T. Unless that means that if the twenty percent exceeds the listed minimum tonnages, then the higher tonnage is used.

U. In that event, it becomes questionable whether attaching a fifteen tonne detachable bridge on a thirty five tonne hull becomes a tad questionable.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

V. We can assume that the fifteen tonnes consists of the ten tonne bridge, batteries/generator/fuel, life support, and manoeuvre drive factor/zero.

W. Replace the ten tonne bridge with either one of six tonnes, three tonnes, single or double cockpit.

X. That gives you spare capacity of four tonnes, seven tonnes, eight and a half, or seven and a half tonnes, respectively.

Y. Potentially, also a free fixed mounted firmpoint with weapon system.

Z. You could also clear out the attached spacecraft equipment, and replace them with alternatives, with more concrete statistics.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

1. The cost of detaching a bridge is a quarter of a megastarbux per hundred tonnes.

2. That being the difference between it a a default non detachable bridge.

3. That doesn't make sense, since the docking clamps and the attached plumbing is somewhat restricted to the actual volume of the detachable bridge.

4. Not stretched out throughout the entire spacecraft.

5. The alternative is a breakaway hull.

6. The breakaway hull's downside is that you have to allocate two percent of the entire hull to the breakaway option, and pay two megastarbux per tonne consumed.

7. That would be a negative difference of one and three quarters megastarbux.

8. Unless the complete hull was a series of breakaway hulls, which might make it worth it.

9. Certainly would be faster to switch out subhulls than podulzarization.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

A. Ejection seats are designed to blast a Traveller clear of a vehicle in demise, then deploy a parachute to bring him safely to the ground.

B. High TL ejection seats use grav chutes to bring the Traveller to rest.

C. An ejection seat consumes no Spaces and costs Cr5000.

D. Presumably, you'd have to breach the hull, in order to clear the spacecraft.

E. Alternatively, small cargo hatch can be detonated off.

F. Or, the traditional transparent canopy.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

G. You probably would need to wear a spacesuit, in order to survive in vacuum, if ejected.

H. A vacuum suit is going to give you six hours air supply.

I. Add a ten kilogramme rebreather, presumably at technological level fourteen, providing another fourteen hours.

J. Twenty eight hours, if minimal movement.

K. Costs two hundred fifty starbux, which sounds like a bargain.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Fighters

L. Similar to an ejection seat, the cocoon is a lightly-armoured shell that provides a limited, pressurised environment.

M. It is used in very high-speed aircraft and grav vehicles, where ejection could be dangerous, or when ejection is expected within hostile environments.

N. An ejection cocoon consumes 3 Spaces for each crew member and costs Cr10000 per Space.

O. That's three quarters of a tonne, at thirty kilostarbux.

P. I suppose you could make it larger, and add life support.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Torpedo Launchers

1. I'm going to say that the primary difference for torpedoes manufactured for the Confederation Navy, is that they are all modified to be able to use Combination Missile/Torpedo Launcher.

2. They are the same size as default torpedoes, but cost twenty five percent more.

3. Let's call default torpedoes Imperium standard.

4. Whether other polities, interstellar or otherwise, follow the Imperium standard, I wouldn't know.

5. CoCoMisT is, as far as we know, exclusively a Confederation standard.

6. What the Confederation Navy does, however, is use a modified torpedo launcher, that costs the same as a default launcher, but can only use CoCoMisT torpedoes.

7. Member navies are free to use either Imperium or CoCoMisT standard torpedoes, but since the Confederation arsenals only manufacture the CoCoMisT torpedoes, they either have to manufacture them themselves, or source it externally.

8. Modified CoCoMisT standard torpedo launchers cost the same as default (Imperium) torpedo launchers, but can only fire CoCoMisT torpedoes.

9. CoCoMisT standard torpedo launchers cannot fire missiles, CoCoMisT standard or otherwise.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Torpedo Launchers

A. So far, the only obvious torpedo launchers that can't fire Imperium standard are those with different sizes.

B. I don't think customization rules allows the actual shrink of the torpedoes themselves.

C. Just the components of the launcher itself, and then, only those in bays, not turrets, and presumably, nor fixed mounts.

D. Increased size have no restrictions.

E. No mention is made whether increased size only applies to the launcher.

F. Though, one would assume that if you have an enlarged torpedo, you need a bigger launcher.

 

[Condottiere]

Confederation Navy: Torpedo Launchers

G. If you want the budget brand, you can take the option to make them larger, once, for that twenty five percent discount.

H. There's no controversy in increasing the size of bays.

I. With turrets, that would indicate that the normal one is now one and one fifth tonnes.

J. While a barbette would now be six tonnes.

K. CoCoMisT it, and the turret would be, assuming all three slots are used, four and one fifth tonnes, and (missile) barbette would be, with five launchers, eleven tonnes.