Intelligence Corvette

[Tellon]

In the read world, intel drive cars that look a lot like ours, thus common civilian craft to not attract attension. "hiding in plain sight" kinda thing

Or an EMM "mother-ship" which can easily launch say many satillites to orbit the plants, take LOTS of pics -- that way the satillites look like a small network of com-sats ..

And you you are forgetting a real-world tactic -- insert agents onto planets/ships to be watched and do undercover surveillence from there.

---

So you can easily have a whole 'network' working a planet, ship or system -- a few ships, lots of sats, a few undercovers -- and a few 'doubles' who of course cant be trusted as they are working for the fat paycheck.

 

[Dragoner]

All great ideas for ships, thanks guys. Even with the 2J1 if you could boost it to 2J2 you are getting a 100% increase in range, with diminishing returns the higer you go, very interesting.

IMO, a better analog for the fishing trawlers would be belter ships, traders would be searched automatically I would think. Trade also has a way of dropping off in warzones.

The Lysander was also used extensively in ww2 intelligence operations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lysander

But everyone used all sorts of ways to do missions, subs, trawlers, lysanders, etc., etc.. Which makes sense because you don't want to have just one SOP which the enemy will develope counter-measures for fairly quickly. I am also relatively leery of the idea that a ship could hide in a big body of water, cover yes, but not concealment. Even subs today can be spotted by satelites and I think in the future you might be able to "listen" to a whole world and any un-authorized spacecraft sounds will draw attention.

The ship I'm looking for/designing is more closely akin to the Riverine patrol boat from "Apocalypse Now" and less a trawler from Hovarth's "We Die Alone" (which is a very good book imo, worth the read).

Though this thread is filled with all sort of great ideas: picket ships sitting in deep space as pickets (you really see what all those scoutships do), refueling and supply fleets, deep space supply depots just outside a system (esp as targets and the focus of battles), J1 Battleriders with their tenders just outside the system (jump them in with a tanker and then refuel them and jump the tanker back out before they go into battle). Just a ton of Good stuff.

-Robert

 

[Whipsnade]

Even with the 2J1 if you could boost it to 2J2 you are getting a 100% increase in range...

Dragoner,

You can't do 2J2 in a 100 dTon hull without all sorts of trade offs and without a bigger hull which immediately adds crewmen.

IMO, a better analog for the fishing trawlers would be belter ships...

Yes, they'd be another way to achieve the "Stealth & Misdirection" angle.

The Lysander was also used extensively in ww2 intelligence operations...

Yes. The Lysanders were able to do what they did because they were "low and slow", the exact opposite of the requirements you originally posted.

Which makes sense because you don't want to have just one SOP which the enemy will develope counter-measures for fairly quickly.

Exactly. You won't rely on one insertion technique. However, there are many more ways to "sneak" in when compared to "sprinting" in.

I am also relatively leery of the idea that a ship could hide in a big body of water, cover yes, but not concealment. Even subs today can be spotted by satelites and I think in the future you might be able to "listen" to a whole world and any un-authorized spacecraft sounds will draw attention.

Traveller ships, SDBs in particular, routinely hide in large bodies of water. Hide as in remain relatively stationary. Satellites detect moving submarines by a variety of means, one of which is a moving displacement wave on the surface.

The ship I'm looking for/designing is more closely akin to the Riverine patrol boat from "Apocalypse Now"...

The best analogies for such a boat are the small craft we all suggested at first. Ships capable of jump have a minimum size which cannot be avoided.

It's also worth noting that riverine craft do not cross oceans.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Dragoner]

I originally posted a ship of about 400-800 tons, I knew 100 tons would probably be too small.

Lysanders were used for their STOL virtues mostly, everything was slow back in ww2. It wasn't a fighter, but neither is the Intelligence Corvette.

I think sensors have improved over the last 2000 years so that hiding in bodies of water give cover, not concealment. Gas Giants give concealment as well, but oceans, no. Plus the position seems untenable as you would be pretty slow getting up out of the water and that would be your vulnerable point when you would get hit. Make for an interesting battle scenario though. IMTU SBD's often use concealed planetary positions from all sorts of places, vis the Tarantula from the TTA books.

PT's, S-boot's, all pretty small but ocean going from ww2 era and both of those were used in intelligence operations. S-boot's could move fast too, that is their name the "Schnellboot" or "Fast Boat".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnellboot

Between 1949 and 1956, Operation Jungle, a joint operation of MI6, the CIA, and the Gehlen Organization, to infiltrate agents into the Baltic states and Poland by sea, was established. Royal Navy Commander Anthony Courtney was struck by the potential capabilities of former E-boat hulls, and John Harvey-Jones of the Naval Intelligence Division was put in charge of the project.


Interesting.

 

[Whipsnade]

I originally posted a ship of about 400-800 tons, I knew 100 tons would probably be too small.

Dragoner,

And, given the various size DMs, 400-800 dTons in too big. Even 100 dTons is most likely too big. That's why most people have been proposing small craft for planetary insertions.

Lysanders were used for their STOL virtues mostly, everything was slow back in ww2.

STOL and the ability to ghost along the treetops.

It wasn't a fighter, but neither is the Intelligence Corvette.

True, the "intelligence corvette" isn't a fighter. It isn't a boat either, so the historical analogies we use must be limited.

Too many people select a historical naval analogy and then try to shoehorn all Traveller naval concepts into that analogy instead of examining Traveller naval concepts and then choosing which historical naval analogy best suits the single concept under consideration.

This we have depictions of all Traveller naval concepts as purely "Age of Sail" or purely "Age of Dreadnoughts" or purely some other age when in fact only a certain concept is "Age of Whatever" while other the other concepts are "Ages of Something Else".

I think sensors...

What you think only applies to your personal Traveller universe. In the OTU, SDBs and other craft hide in oceans. There are many canonical statements to that fact, Invasion:Earth has rules to that effect, and there are stories about Solomani SDBs with crews in low berths being found in Earth's oceans over a century after the Rim War.

What works IYTU can only be determined by you. Sadly, the rest of us can only suggest what works in the OTU because we're wholly ignorant of the details of YTU.

PT's, S-boot's, all pretty small but ocean going...

Ocean going but not ocean crossing due to concerns about sea keeping ability and endurance among others. I, and many others, use the difference between ocean going and ocean crossing as a very rough analogy for jump incapable and jump capable.

Will there be a need for a relatively large, fast, jump capable vessel which can place an intelligence team on a planetary surface? Most certainly.

Will such "Sprint & Speed" assets be used anywhere near as often as "Stealth & Misdirection" assets? Most certainly not.

Are Sprint & Speed" assets "kewler" than "Stealth & Misdirection" assets? Undoubtedly.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Dragoner]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I am looking at something fast, not to say the other ships aren't useful and interesting and very usable. I do appreciate all of that input.

Though this just gets better and better, drawing from that S-boot wiki, now I have the idea of using a captured Zhodani hull outfitted with higher tech Imperial stuff. Stealth inside the stealth, nice, perfect really.

As per SBD's, of course if you are going to go sit at the bottom of the Mariannas Trench, you will definitely gain a measure of concealment as well as cover, also you can hide in a underwater cave or use some sort of cover ala the Tarantula I mentioned. Finding the odd pond to sit in won't give you either and is rather a dubious position to be in.

I have to say though that everything is IMTU for everybody, the rules merely exist as a framework, a skeleton for us to flesh out with our imagination and breathe life into. Solely to appeal to canon without logic could be called an "appeal to authority" and as such is not proper debate form as I was taught in university. Logic must rule, but gameplay is formost and rules are supporting to this, otherwise things become too dry IMO. Rules lawyering always spoils a game I find.


Best Regards,
-Robert

 

[Whipsnade]

Solely to appeal to canon without logic could be called an "appeal to authority" and as such is not proper debate form as I was taught in university.

Dragoner,

You've completely misunderstood me.

I'm not saying "Hurr Durr Canon Is Right Yor Are Wrong Derp Herp" nor am I appealing to authority.

What I am saying is that any conversation must have common ground, a common group of assumptions held by all parties in the conversation, in order for that conversation to be intelligible to all parties.

Canon is the common ground in this conversation because canon is something we all know. The various peculiarities of your personal []iTU[/i], of my personal TU, or of the personal TU anyone else do not matter and can only hinder our comprehension of each others statements.

We can only approach you in conversation from the common ground of canon, answer your questions from that commonality, and make suggestions based on same. If what we write, answer, and suggest have no utility IYTU due to the specific peculiarities of YTU, there is nothing else we can do. It's up to you to translate our responses from the commonality of canon into the specificity of YTU. We can't do that because we no nothing of YTU. SDBs are an example of this.

What you believe about SDBs hiding in bodies of water IYTU is of no consequence to what the OTU sates about the same. More importantly, what the OTU states about SDBs hiding in bodies of water is of no consequence to YTU unless you decide it to be.

Do you understand me now?


Bill

 

[Dragoner]

Of course, but it is better to find some logic behind it, than to merely state: "there are so many so and so canonical references..." In a way that degrades canon as well. There are many reasons why canon can work in that scenario (btw how long can one live in low-berth?), but ships do not magically disappear once underwater. Then you have to start creating rules for depth and so on, which IMO, is boring. I wouldn't let players just hide their ships in any body of water, too un-realistic.

 

[Whipsnade]

Of course, but it is better to find some logic behind it, than to merely state: "there are so many so and so canonical references..." In a way that degrades canon as well. There are many reasons why canon can work in that scenario (btw how long can one live in low-berth?), but ships do not magically disappear once underwater. Then you have to start creating rules for depth and so on, which IMO, is boring. I wouldn't let players just hide their ships in any body of water, too un-realistic.

You still don't understand, do you?

Well, I'm done here.

Have fun.


Bill