Flight Section Launch Tubes Crew question

[snrdg082102]

Per Book 5 page 33 the Launch Tubes should have a crew of at least 10, which will include a flight supervision officer and a preponderance of petty officers.

What percentage of the launch tube crew should be pety officers to meet the definaition of preponderance?

Would 70 or 80% be a good figure?

How about 50%?

 

[Carlobrand]

I'm honestly not sure it matters unless you're doing salaries or something. The thing should be crewed with people experienced in handling the tech. As with many things tech, that's going to lean to folk with a bit more exerience and education, aided by assistants doing jobs that might require a bit less skill and training. However, I don't know that it precisely translates as exactly 5 or exactly 6 or exactly 7 petty officers. I'd expect some flexibility - skilled ratings nearing promotion, for example.

Unless you've got some house rule setting limits on the number of available petty officers for your fleet - which would be unusual - I wouldn't worry about being precise.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning again Carlobrand,

I'm honestly not sure it matters unless you're doing salaries or something. The thing should be crewed with people experienced in handling the tech. As with many things tech, that's going to lean to folk with a bit more experience and education, aided by assistants doing jobs that might require a bit less skill and training. However, I don't know that it precisely translates as exactly 5 or exactly 6 or exactly 7 petty officers. I'd expect some flexibility - skilled ratings nearing promotion, for example.

Unless you've got some house rule setting limits on the number of available petty officers for your fleet - which would be unusual - I wouldn't worry about being precise.

In the overall design sequence you are probably correct, however for me the crew rules are inconsistent. Of the eight crew sections, Book 5 lists seven and the Consolidated CT Errata lists the Medical section varying degrees of requirements from no details to details on the number/percentage of officers, percentage of petty officers, and that there should be 50% enlisted to officers.

Engineering, Gunnery, and Medical provide clear requirements for officers and petty officers.

Command and Flight provides minimum requirements for officers and nothing about petty officers. For the Command Section I have been using the Engineering officer/petty officer requirements. For the Flight section I've been using the following process.

A. One officer required when there are any carried craft
B. Carried craft require 1 officer per craft and the excess crew uses the Engineering officer/petty officer requirements.
C. Maintenance crews also use the Engineering officer/petty officer requirements.
D. Launch Tubes have at least 10 crew members with 1 officer required and the remaining personnel using the Gunnery officer/petty officer requirements. My reason for using the Gunnery requirements came about from the preponderance of petty officers and a book in which the hero's ship's only way to fire missiles which by using small craft launch tubes. Not to mention the magnetic rail guns used for kinetic kill weapons in other universes.

Service Crew and the Frozen Watch don't list any requirements for officers and petty officers. I've been using the Engineering officer/petty officer requirements.

Ship's Troops I was using the Engineering officer/petty officer requirements until I recently went to Mercenary Book 4. A mercenary outfit organization has the basics of the professional military however from the various books, science fiction and real world, they are a usually are less rigid in the command structure. Not to mention there are differences between ground forces employed by a country not to mention how the possible outside allies/enemies set-up their troop structure.

Most designers and players can get by with the rules. For my part I'd like to get the fluff closer to the rules, but I can with reservations just use the rule. However, I just don't feel like the finished product is complete.

 

[Carlobrand]

...In the overall design sequence you are probably correct, however for me the crew rules are inconsistent. Of the eight crew sections, Book 5 lists seven and the Consolidated CT Errata lists the Medical section varying degrees of requirements from no details to details on the number/percentage of officers, percentage of petty officers, and that there should be 50% enlisted to officers...

...Most designers and players can get by with the rules. For my part I'd like to get the fluff closer to the rules, but I can with reservations just use the rule. However, I just don't feel like the finished product is complete.

If it makes you happy, go with it. Nothing hurt by it. However, we've discussed the complexity thing before. For role-playing purposes, no player is going to care whether the launch tube is staffed with 5 petty officers or 7. For High Guard fleet combat, there's no rule that ties how fast you launch ships in with how many petty officers you have. The crew damage rules are plenty vague - either you've got the bodies to run the thing or you don't, no specificity about how many POs were hurt verses how many ratings. Even tournament rules don't count petty officers - the only crew limits they set are on number of pilots.

People aren't machines. Vacancies occur and the work team squeeks by with 8 or 9 instead of 10; lower-ranked folk get slotted in temporarily or even semipermanently if they have the skills; this guy gets a non-judicial-punishment for mouthing off to an officer and finds himself reduced in rank but doing the same job as before ... So, this really comes down to a "counting the bolts" kind of situation. The game doesn't need it, and to be honest even real life "fluff" is often fluffy and nonspecific.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Carlobrand,

Even in role-playing numbers and very often quality count when player characters are trying to do something depending on how many factors get involved to resolve combat. The 5 or 7 petty officers, depending on the rules, probably have DMs that can influence the combat rolls, in my case most of the time, in their favor.

I can't refute the statement about the number of petty officers affecting the number of craft launched per turn in CT, unless the Gm wants that level of detail.

If the number of officers and petty officers aren't important for the Flight Section why are they important to Engineering, Gunnery, and Medical sections?

I admit to liking details, especially when the rules provide them. Had the Engineering, Gunnery, and Medical section left out the 10%, 20%, and 30% I wouldn't be asking my questions concerning the five section that don't provide the same level of detail.

Thank you for the response Carlobrand.

If it makes you happy, go with it. Nothing hurt by it. However, we've discussed the complexity thing before. For role-playing purposes, no player is going to care whether the launch tube is staffed with 5 petty officers or 7. For High Guard fleet combat, there's no rule that ties how fast you launch ships in with how many petty officers you have. The crew damage rules are plenty vague - either you've got the bodies to run the thing or you don't, no specificity about how many POs were hurt verses how many ratings. Even tournament rules don't count petty officers - the only crew limits they set are on number of pilots.

People aren't machines. Vacancies occur and the work team squeeks by with 8 or 9 instead of 10; lower-ranked folk get slotted in temporarily or even semipermanently if they have the skills; this guy gets a non-judicial-punishment for mouthing off to an officer and finds himself reduced in rank but doing the same job as before ... So, this really comes down to a "counting the bolts" kind of situation. The game doesn't need it, and to be honest even real life "fluff" is often fluffy and nonspecific.

 

[BlackBat242]

As in my post on the Flight section, I'll draw from my real-life Naval Aviation experience.

I was part of a USMC "Headquarters & Maintenance Squadron", which handled all the mid-level maintenance for a Marine Air Group (6 squadrons).

I can't remember how many senior enlisted (E-6 & up) we had... but I think they and the officers combined (we did have 6 aircraft of our own) were about 50 of each.

There were (in 1986) 375 E-4 & E-5 (Cpl & Sgt in the USMC, PO3 & PO2 in the USN), and 365 E-3 and below*.

Therefore, counting the senior enlisted, about 55% of our enlisted personnel were NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers... the equivalent of Petty Officers).

Aboard the carrier Ranger CV-61, the proportions were very similar... perhaps shaded a touch more in favor of PO numbers ~60%.


So between half & 2/3 of the enlisted personnel should be "petty officers"... the higher number in a peacetime "volunteer-only" force and the lower number in a wartime "draft-using" force.




* This came up when we got a new Squadron Sergeant major (ex-infantry) who thought we NCOs were not "supervising" the E-3 & belows enough off-duty. One of the admin people looked up the numbers, and we were joking about how to assign each of us our single "junior" to supervise... and that 10 of the "juniors" would have 2 NCOs each to look after them.

Word got back to the SgtMaj, but we never found out what he thought of it, because he got relieved shortly thereafter... he was having us do so much "Marine work" (running, infantry Marine book study, etc) that the equipment we were there to repair wasn't getting fixed... aircraft couldn't fly, and we weren't able to supply the expected number of aircraft for exercises!

The Air Wing CO had him replaced, and put him off in a corner as the assistant to another Sgt. Maj. so he couldn't mess things up any more.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening BlackBat242,

Thanks for providing some numbers that are much better than a preponderance of petty officers aka non-commissioned officers.

My background is an Air Force brat that grew up near an Army base then joined the Navy and volunteered for submarine duty as a sonar tech. I've got some books on carriers, one of them is by Tom Clancy and another is a condensed version of a program shown on the history or some similar type TV channel. Unfortunately, I seem to have packed all of them away and can't remember where I put the box.

Have a good one and thanks for the information.

As in my post on the Flight section, I'll draw from my real-life Naval Aviation experience.

I was part of a USMC "Headquarters & Maintenance Squadron", which handled all the mid-level maintenance for a Marine Air Group (6 squadrons).

I can't remember how many senior enlisted (E-6 & up) we had... but I think they and the officers combined (we did have 6 aircraft of our own) were about 50 of each.

There were (in 1986) 375 E-4 & E-5 (Cpl & Sgt in the USMC, PO3 & PO2 in the USN), and 365 E-3 and below*.

Therefore, counting the senior enlisted, about 55% of our enlisted personnel were NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers... the equivalent of Petty Officers).

Aboard the carrier Ranger CV-61, the proportions were very similar... perhaps shaded a touch more in favor of PO numbers ~60%.


So between half & 2/3 of the enlisted personnel should be "petty officers"... the higher number in a peacetime "volunteer-only" force and the lower number in a wartime "draft-using" force.




* This came up when we got a new Squadron Sergeant major (ex-infantry) who thought we NCOs were not "supervising" the E-3 & belows enough off-duty. One of the admin people looked up the numbers, and we were joking about how to assign each of us our single "junior" to supervise... and that 10 of the "juniors" would have 2 NCOs each to look after them.

Word got back to the SgtMaj, but we never found out what he thought of it, because he got relieved shortly thereafter... he was having us do so much "Marine work" (running, infantry Marine book study, etc) that the equipment we were there to repair wasn't getting fixed... aircraft couldn't fly, and we weren't able to supply the expected number of aircraft for exercises!

The Air Wing CO had him replaced, and put him off in a corner as the assistant to another Sgt. Maj. so he couldn't mess things up any more.

 

[snrdg082102]

Flight Section and Ordinary Launch facility

Who is in charge of the ordinary launch facilities and is there any crew assigned?

Yes, I have a feeling this is probably classed as another one of my too much detail questions adding complexity that isn't needed.

When working through the carried craft section I realized that the only time I had launch facility officer and crew is when the launch tube is installed.

HG 2e requires a Flight Control Officer when a ship has any launched craft, who I've always thought was responsible for the flight crews and maintenance personnel.

Launch tubes, at least to me, are add-ons to the ordinary launch facilities to speed up launching of carried craft. I'm not sure how the tube works to speed up recovery but my impression is that the system does that too.

I've checked the errata without seeing anything, which doesn't mean that the information isn't their just that I can't find the text.

 

[aramis]

Who is in charge of the ordinary launch facilities and is there any crew assigned?

Yes, I have a feeling this is probably classed as another one of my too much detail questions adding complexity that isn't needed.

Senior small craft pilot, Flight Control Officer, and/or XO would be good choices. note that the command section would include an FCO if more than one or two small craft were routinely operated.

There are areas where HG glosses over player-relevant data.... this is one

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Aramis,

Senior small craft pilot, Flight Control Officer, and/or XO would be good choices. note that the command section would include an FCO if more than one or two small craft were routinely operated.

There are areas where HG glosses over player-relevant data.... this is one

I've found one of the copies of the Blue Jacks Manual and checked out the Air Department which appears to be similar to High Guard's Flight Section. The Air Department Officer, again similar to the Flight Control Officer position, supervises and directs launchings, landings, and handling of aircraft and aviation fuels. Which appears to me matches your choice of the Flight Control Officer.

I'm not sold on the senior small craft pilot being in charge since the individual is probably also flying one of more of the small craft on board. Of course having more positions than bodies to fill usually means more responsibilities to the bodies you have. So this position I'd put as the second choice.

The Executive Officer, in my opinion and knowledge, is only going to be in charge if everybody in the Flight Section is out of action.

That is a relief to know since for years I have only included the Flight Control Officer and when installed the launch tube officer and crew.

 

[Carlobrand]

... Yes, I have a feeling this is probably classed as another one of my too much detail questions adding complexity that isn't needed. ...

The boundaries of what constitutes "too much detail" are notoriously fuzzy. Elsewhere, we're eagerly discussing Naval Infantry and how many of the crew might have sufficient arms training to be drafted into an impromptu landing force - an issue of absolutely no relevance to anyone unless someone plans to roleplay a group as ship's officers on a destroyer (or plans to confront the PC's with such a force). So, as you see, the rest of us are not immune to the lure of interesting minutae.

I might point out that the issue of the flight department applies only to ships of over 1000 tons. Book-2 rules apply to the smaller ships. Under Book-2 rules, all you need is a pilot for each boat - someone who'll have ship's boat skill. You don't need a flight officer or maintenance person aboard - those roles are assumed to be "double-hatted", most likely to the XO (who in my TU is most often the navigator) and one of the engineers.

Under some circumstances, you could argue someone wearing two hats for boat-pilot too. If there's only one boat and it's only intended for ground-to-orbit errands or as a lifeboat - if it's not going to be flying when the ship itself is being flown, or during space combat - then you could arbitrarily declare that the pilot or the navigator or one of the gunners operates the boat when needed. (It's not specifically in the rules, but I doubt there's be much complaint.) On the other hand, if it might be used for scouting or to support the ship in combat, then it should have its own pilot.

Keep in mind that the crew size of a 1000dT escort (about the size of a WW-II light cruiser) is about the same as the crew size of a WW-II PT-boat. Future tech allows that the crews of these warships can handle a lot more machinery than they could manage at TL-5/6, but it also dictates that a lot of the ship is the machinery and fuel for same.

Larger than that, and Book 5 stipulates one flight officer, with no additional personnel other than the boat pilots and maintenance techs unless the ship has launch tubes. Book-5 doesn't stipulate how many "ordinary launch facilities" a ship has or what precisely they are (whether it's referring to the boat bays themselves or some sort of "control tower"-esque traffic control station somewhere within the ship, or a combination of both), but does stipulate they can collectively launch one craft per 20-minute turn per 10,000 tons of ship - which tends to imply more a "control tower" type traffic control station. The launch rate for ships without launch tubes is low enough that the flight officer should be able to handle the traffic control by himself (or herself) - again, as implied by the lack of additional staff.

Launch tubes, of course, require greatly expanded traffic control capability to handle 40 times as much traffic as the ordinary facilities handle (thus the preponderance of petty officers), not to mention the maintenance personnel to maintain the tube itself.

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon Carlobrand,

The boundaries of what constitutes "too much detail" are notoriously fuzzy. Elsewhere, we're eagerly discussing Naval Infantry and how many of the crew might have sufficient arms training to be drafted into an impromptu landing force - an issue of absolutely no relevance to anyone unless someone plans to roleplay a group as ship's officers on a destroyer (or plans to confront the PC's with such a force). So, as you see, the rest of us are not immune to the lure of interesting minutae.

When I was on submarines, three boomers and one old fast attack, carried 45-caliber pistols, 12-gauge pump action shootgun, and an M-14. At minimum we qualified on the 45 and shotgun since they were standard issue for standing topside watch while inport. The M-14 and shotgun were used by the security detail during missile handling evoluations on the boomers. On the tender I was quailified on the shotgun while standing the brow watch in port. Figure every enlisted watch stander, with the exception of the medical staff, probably is quailified on basic hand and/or long arms.

I might point out that the issue of the flight department applies only to ships of over 1000 tons. Book-2 rules apply to the smaller ships. Under Book-2 rules, all you need is a pilot for each boat - someone who'll have ship's boat skill. You don't need a flight officer or maintenance person aboard - those roles are assumed to be "double-hatted", most likely to the XO (who in my TU is most often the navigator) and one of the engineers.

Under some circumstances, you could argue someone wearing two hats for boat-pilot too. If there's only one boat and it's only intended for ground-to-orbit errands or as a lifeboat - if it's not going to be flying when the ship itself is being flown, or during space combat - then you could arbitrarily declare that the pilot or the navigator or one of the gunners operates the boat when needed. (It's not specifically in the rules, but I doubt there's be much complaint.) On the other hand, if it might be used for scouting or to support the ship in combat, then it should have its own pilot.

Keep in mind that the crew size of a 1000dT escort (about the size of a WW-II light cruiser) is about the same as the crew size of a WW-II PT-boat. Future tech allows that the crews of these warships can handle a lot more machinery than they could manage at TL-5/6, but it also dictates that a lot of the ship is the machinery and fuel for same.

My apologies if I gave the impression I was talking about hulls <= 1,000 tons which I usually have the crew covering two or more positions.

My take of Book 2 is similar to yours in that automation has down-sized the crew, which means that launching and docking small craft are automated. If the automated systems are down, then who ever is on board with piloting skill directs controls the launching and landing.

Larger than that, and Book 5 stipulates one flight officer, with no additional personnel other than the boat pilots and maintenance techs unless the ship has launch tubes. Book-5 doesn't stipulate how many "ordinary launch facilities" a ship has or what precisely they are (whether it's referring to the boat bays themselves or some sort of "control tower"-esque traffic control station somewhere within the ship, or a combination of both), but does stipulate they can collectively launch one craft per 20-minute turn per 10,000 tons of ship - which tends to imply more a "control tower" type traffic control station. The launch rate for ships without launch tubes is low enough that the flight officer should be able to handle the traffic control by himself (or herself) - again, as implied by the lack of additional staff.

I may not be understanding the bit from the post about

no additional personnel other than the boat pilots and maintenance techs unless the ship has launch tubes

Book 5 page 33 states: If the ship has any launched craft, if should have a flight control officer, crew for each craft, and at least one maintenance person per craft.

Launch tubes, of course, require greatly expanded traffic control capability to handle 40 times as much traffic as the ordinary facilities handle (thus the preponderance of petty officers), not to mention the maintenance personnel to maintain the tube itself.

I could be wrong that a launch tube is a form of mass driver cannon which would mean that my idea that the required crew is also doing the maintenance is in error.

 

[far-trader]

I could be wrong that a launch tube is a form of mass driver cannon which would mean that my idea that the required crew is also doing the maintenance is in error.

Or you could be right. I've toyed with the idea of gravitic catapult launchers (gravipult?) myself modelled after aircraft carrier steam catapults. And the same gravitic system working like the cable traps of course for landing. However...

...there's no evidence of it in the rules.

No altered launching delta-v as one would expect, though HG doesn't really handle any delta-v or maneuvering in it's scope of rules so that's not conclusive.

No makeshift weapons rules for it, though that may be an oversight or considered too ineffective. I can see cause and argument for putting a couple dtons of garbage in a can and launching it at high velocity. Of course it would be unguided, and probably quite ineffective against any kind of warship. I think it would be a cheap and effective way to ruin a Trader's day though. Again, below the scope of HG combat.

So, launchers may well be powered assist in some way, the specifics of which may make for great detail and fun but is not significant enough to merit mention in HG rules.

 

[far-trader]

Actually, come to think, did I just go with the gravipult on my own or did I see it somewhere in Traveller? The AHL writeup maybe?

 

[sabredog]

I took launch tubes to be like the ones in shows like Battlestar Galactic and Robotech: that they assisted betting the fighters launched as quickly as possible and up to full thrust right away. Why that needs to happen in the strictures of HG rule - I dunno, but it follows the Rule Of Cool.

Obviously something like that must be going on since using the tubes allows one to launch a lot of fighters (or other small craft) very quickly, the only faster way to do it is to use a dispersed structure and then launch everything at once.

As for landings, though, I think a small repulsor turret located at the retrieval point could be used to slow down fighters as they come in if the pilot hasn't bled off enough speed. Lock on, hit the fighter with a low power beam to help slow him down, and then the fighter comes down on it's own power to a trapped stop. Under more relaxed conditions the repulsor wouldn't even be needed, but combat operations might mean fighters coming in pretty hot and regularly for reloads or damage repair.

But coming in a even 1G is awfully fast, and throwing up a net or rolling a crane in front of the incoming fighter wouldn't be enough. But a repulsor would do it, and it low enough power it would just knock the fighter spinning off into pace like the ones used for missile defense.

 

[sabredog]

Actually, come to think, did I just go with the gravipult on my own or did I see it somewhere in Traveller? The AHL writeup maybe?

I just checked Supplement 5 and while they describe the racetrack design of the launch tube hangers there wasn't anything about the tubes being "launchers" of any kind. I think you, like I always have were channeling Galactica.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Dan,

Something has to push the small craft down the bore of the launch tube Gravitics is the most likely. Looking at the decks plans in Supplement 5 Lightning Class Cruisers the thickness of the launch tubes could be set-up to channel gravitic pulses to move the small craft along the tube.

Of course as mentioned there is some detail that was hand waved as not being needed, like how does the jump drive work.

Of course I'm also thinking about the launching systems for the Vipers on Battlestar Galactica which supposedly uses electromagnets and thrust from the Viper's drives and I think was mentioned in the blue prints, which I have stored somewhere safe and now forgotten.

Then of course I have GT Starships which details the CT launch tube as a launch catapult electromagneticc or gravitic) that can be installed in any vessel intended to launch spacecraft (such as a carrier).

Thanks Dan.

Or you could be right. I've toyed with the idea of gravitic catapult launchers (gravipult?) myself modelled after aircraft carrier steam catapults. And the same gravitic system working like the cable traps of course for landing. However...

...there's no evidence of it in the rules.

No altered launching delta-v as one would expect, though HG doesn't really handle any delta-v or maneuvering in it's scope of rules so that's not conclusive.

No makeshift weapons rules for it, though that may be an oversight or considered too ineffective. I can see cause and argument for putting a couple dtons of garbage in a can and launching it at high velocity. Of course it would be unguided, and probably quite ineffective against any kind of warship. I think it would be a cheap and effective way to ruin a Trader's day though. Again, below the scope of HG combat.

So, launchers may well be powered assist in some way, the specifics of which may make for great detail and fun but is not significant enough to merit mention in HG rules.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Sabredog,

I seem to recall from my Galactic blue prints each of the launch bays has six catapults, of course I'm using my memory which might be wrong.

Where did I put them? With the blue prints for the original Starship Enterprise, oops that doesn't help since I can't find them either.

My thought is that the gravitic pulses do the resverse of the launch under the control of the computer.

I took launch tubes to be like the ones in shows like Battlestar Galactic and Robotech: that they assisted betting the fighters launched as quickly as possible and up to full thrust right away. Why that needs to happen in the strictures of HG rule - I dunno, but it follows the Rule Of Cool.

Obviously something like that must be going on since using the tubes allows one to launch a lot of fighters (or other small craft) very quickly, the only faster way to do it is to use a dispersed structure and then launch everything at once.

As for landings, though, I think a small repulsor turret located at the retrieval point could be used to slow down fighters as they come in if the pilot hasn't bled off enough speed. Lock on, hit the fighter with a low power beam to help slow him down, and then the fighter comes down on it's own power to a trapped stop. Under more relaxed conditions the repulsor wouldn't even be needed, but combat operations might mean fighters coming in pretty hot and regularly for reloads or damage repair.

But coming in a even 1G is awfully fast, and throwing up a net or rolling a crane in front of the incoming fighter wouldn't be enough. But a repulsor would do it, and it low enough power it would just knock the fighter spinning off into pace like the ones used for missile defense.

 

[sabredog]

I'm not too sure that treating the launch tube as a giant mag-rail launcher would be healthy for the crew in the launched craft - but I think there could be a catapult system with hooks and tracks using a mag-lev system for throwing the craft out at high speed would be workable.

And even is you didn't have anything like that - just a rack of fighters, say, that rotate into position to shoot off down the tube to launch would get a lot of them out of the carrier than launching form hangars. If you look at the arrangement in Supplement 5 AHL that arrangement allows for both launch and recovery.

Now I'm now one of those canon-munchkin types who will cry "heresy" if you say the AHL supplement (which is the only example there is) doesn't show anything more than a tube and racetrack arrangement to get the fighters lined up and out the door quickly so therefor there is lots of room for interpretation. I go with the Galactic (shudder) example only because of timing - it was out in 1978 and had launch tubes...HG came out in 79 and had launch tubes. Hmmmmm.....

So naturally I have gone with the Galactica model ever since and just assume mag-lev catapults shoot the suckers out to clear the fighter hangars as fast as possible.

 

[Carlobrand]

Book 5 page 33 states: If the ship has any launched craft, if should have a flight control officer, crew for each craft, and at least one maintenance person per craft.

"no additional personnel other than the boat pilots and maintenance techs unless the ship has launch tubes": the boat pilot - i.e. a person with Ship's Boat skill, the skill required for piloting craft of under 100 tons - is indeed the crew for the craft.

I could be wrong that a launch tube is a form of mass driver cannon which would mean that my idea that the required crew is also doing the maintenance is in error.

I have no idea how the launch tube itself works. That's as good a way as any. However, if you're going to have large numbers of craft leaving (or return to) the ship and forming up in a short period of time, you need good control of the space in the near vicinity of the ship to prevent accidental collisions, not to mention whatever coordination goes into getting the thingies into the launch tube. Think in terms of an aircraft carrier: there's a bit of coordination getting the jets to the catapult, and the crew's job doesn't end when the fighter gets catapulted off.