T5 Only: Liberty Ship Development Discussion

[Selandia]

Jump frame built at A starports and modules constructed at type B should speed it up a bit.
Something like a real world container carrier but instead of containers you have 90t 'cutter modules'.

Agreed, although I favor some intrinsic fuel capability as well as 1G in the "jump frame" (as opposed to straight "Jumper" like the X-Boat). This been said, since those ships are replacement tonnage, they would probably respect the norm that offered then the best return on investment.

Another important issue you raise is the size of "containers". What most people described are LASH (Lighter Aboard SHip) module, although the container analogy works. Unlike the Lighter, the containers is readily intended to be multimodal (From ship straight onto truck/rail). The Lighter will carry 8-16 containers that will be handled individually later.

It then become a study in "lift" number and time /cost per "lift". Remember to consider intermediate transit lift. So you have to pick up aboard, move to storage, lift down to await cargo aggregation to ship out, lift up, move to Landers, lift aboard lander, do it again upon landing to storage area and break shipment for distribution through transit on rail/road. For bulk cargo things get a bit easier, the lighter is just treated like an overgrown rail car , put atop the chute, open belly doors, then move back to orbit storage were others are waiting.

The general purpose Jump frame would be ideally suited because you can design it to take brackets that fit owners' requirements given old trade. 400t
bulker "tip off" bin, 30t cutter module for "Frontier" route, a mixture of passengers accomodations and general containerized cargo, in subhull intended to be loaded on feeder liner in one lift while containing 10 ? 20 ? road containers?

The 90 ton module may be great. but without further explanation it seems to involve a lot of intermediate lifts given that it is likely to contain less load units for final distribution than a 200/400 tonners while being too large for final road/rail distribution and thus a intermediate container

My design are based on a cross frame with Eng & Crew & Bridge in center frame, intrinsic fuel in load bearing branches, along with inspection tunnels. M Tug bring (pick off) loads on a parallel above or below trajectory. No issue on the lenght of the pods, only making sure to oprimize the nesting transversally. You probably have more hook ups brackets than needed (In case some customer would use a large number of 200tonners rather than fewer 400tonners) Keep the bottom of the center frame clean for utility craft landing or tanker hook-ups.
Have fun
Selandia

 

[kilemall]

Agreed, although I favor some intrinsic fuel capability as well as 1G in the "jump frame" (as opposed to straight "Jumper" like the X-Boat). This been said, since those ships are replacement tonnage, they would probably respect the norm that offered then the best return on investment.

Another important issue you raise is the size of "containers". What most people described are LASH (Lighter Aboard SHip) module, although the container analogy works. Unlike the Lighter, the containers is readily intended to be multimodal (From ship straight onto truck/rail). The Lighter will carry 8-16 containers that will be handled individually later.

It then become a study in "lift" number and time /cost per "lift". Remember to consider intermediate transit lift. So you have to pick up aboard, move to storage, lift down to await cargo aggregation to ship out, lift up, move to Landers, lift aboard lander, do it again upon landing to storage area and break shipment for distribution through transit on rail/road. For bulk cargo things get a bit easier, the lighter is just treated like an overgrown rail car , put atop the chute, open belly doors, then move back to orbit storage were others are waiting.

The general purpose Jump frame would be ideally suited because you can design it to take brackets that fit owners' requirements given old trade. 400t
bulker "tip off" bin, 30t cutter module for "Frontier" route, a mixture of passengers accomodations and general containerized cargo, in subhull intended to be loaded on feeder liner in one lift while containing 10 ? 20 ? road containers?

The 90 ton module may be great. but without further explanation it seems to involve a lot of intermediate lifts given that it is likely to contain less load units for final distribution than a 200/400 tonners while being too large for final road/rail distribution and thus a intermediate container

My design are based on a cross frame with Eng & Crew & Bridge in center frame, intrinsic fuel in load bearing branches, along with inspection tunnels. M Tug bring (pick off) loads on a parallel above or below trajectory. No issue on the lenght of the pods, only making sure to oprimize the nesting transversally. You probably have more hook ups brackets than needed (In case some customer would use a large number of 200tonners rather than fewer 400tonners) Keep the bottom of the center frame clean for utility craft landing or tanker hook-ups.
Have fun
Selandia

Instead I use the classic 5-ton and 10-ton lots to be analogs of the real world (current world?) 20-foot and 40-foot containers. Figured out a form factor that is similar to them as well, handy for grav trucks, and so the 90 ton cargo shuttle with 80 ton capacity might be carrying 8 10-ton containers or 16 5-ton or some mix between. The C-130s of the Traveller world.

10-ton containers work out to be pretty good 'trailer offices/expedition HQ/MASH' portable facilities too.

 

[Timerover51]

Just curious, has any of those speculating on how an Imperium version of the WW2 "Liberty Ship" type actually looked as a US Army Transportation manual or Logistics manual? And before someone blasts me for being so archaic, rations are still going to be needed, as are construction materials, replacement equipment and spare parts, and depending on the tech level of the group involved, things like ammunition and fuel. I am not exactly a fan in incredibly small fusion plants that generate massive amounts of electricity directly from fusion power, with no conversion means of getting from fusion to electricity.

There is a good reason why the military likes smaller containers, even if shipped in larger containers.

 

[Selandia]

Just curious, has any of those speculating on how an Imperium version of the WW2 "Liberty Ship" type actually looked as a US Army Transportation manual or Logistics manual?
...
There is a good reason why the military likes smaller containers, even if shipped in larger containers.

Honestly I did not read todays manual (out of uniform in 76, somehow halfway between WWII and 3FW) because then as now and then, this is the difference between strategic mobility and tactical mobility.

Ultimately, much of the material provided to military end user will be manhandled, with very little mechanical help. That is why the army favor grab size enduser package. Ship full of Containers each full of pallets, each loaded with boxes each filled with ration packs get to point A, where a crane unload the 24 t container onto a truck in one 10 minutes lift, at point B the container is broken open and a forklift handle the pallets in 20 minutes, G.I. Joes or some civi workers then take one box at the time from the pallet to put it in a utility truck that proceed to a supply point most often devoid of cargo handling infrastructure were G.I.Joe take down a box for the squad were the individual apportionning is done.

Strategic mobility take place between points where tactical considerations are less important than time/volume/cost. Where is that point? That is why Military Logistic expertise often is operationnal expertise: Learned opinion about a balancing act in resources apportionning.

have fun
Selandia

 

[kilemall]

Just curious, has any of those speculating on how an Imperium version of the WW2 "Liberty Ship" type actually looked as a US Army Transportation manual or Logistics manual? And before someone blasts me for being so archaic, rations are still going to be needed, as are construction materials, replacement equipment and spare parts, and depending on the tech level of the group involved, things like ammunition and fuel. I am not exactly a fan in incredibly small fusion plants that generate massive amounts of electricity directly from fusion power, with no conversion means of getting from fusion to electricity.

There is a good reason why the military likes smaller containers, even if shipped in larger containers.

Combinations of things like

• not putting all artillery or all fuel on one ship and lose an entire capability set,
• fast immediate operational needs loaded last and unloaded first preferably in order of urgency,
• the transloading/local planet intermodal transport thing is going to be MORE strained for armed forces in a combat zone then civilian economical movement,
• stuff has to be broken down and sent to subunits rather then driving an ammo container and unloading,
• better to send packages of need on a container per subunit basis (optimally packed back at the logistics base but maybe have a mixing transload station to optimize what gets to the field by their current needs,
• once basic equipment and continuing food/fuel/ammo needs are in the chain, there will be need for replacement equipment but that would go forward with that day's normal supplies, or at a rest/refit station off the line,

• needs change with military activity type- moving fast requires a lot of fuel and possible vehicle breakdown/parts, a huge expenditure of missiles/artillery will mean a need for heavy ammo replacement, winning a battlefield area likely means a large amount of vehicle salvage and repair thus parts and tools, etc.

Anything else I miss?

 

[Condottiere]

Double estimates for combat consumption.

 

[mike wightman]

Is this meant for civilian or military use?

 

[whartung]

Is this meant for civilian or military use?

Civilian use in a military environment.

I don't know, but were the Liberty ship crews USN, or Civilian?

 

[mike wightman]

The 3FW was significant for its attacks on civilian shipping - i.e. megacorp bulk carriers.

I would think the purpose of the design would be to release a rough and ready military auxiliary transport design to civilian use for rapid replacement of megacorp losses.

To me that would be a jump tender - config 7 - to which cargo containers and the like would be attached. I suggested a 90t module because it is basically three cutter modules welded together, easy for class B starports to put together.

Allowing a military tender (obsolete) design into civilian yards would allow for the rapid construction of the jump frames.

 

[Kaeto]

Civilian use in a military environment.

I don't know, but were the Liberty ship crews USN, or Civilian?

They were Merchant Marine.

 

[Selandia]

I don't know, but were the Liberty ship crews USN, or Civilian?

Merchant plus USN Armed Guard for defensive weapons and convoy signals
In UK service DEMS gunners (Defensively Armed Merchant Ships) were sometime RN, crewmembers, even some RA from the "Maritime Regiment". In Canada it was found cheaper to train volunteers for merchant crews straight from the street into DEMS gunner rather than to train them first as RCN rating then as gunner.

While nobody seriously think that 3FW Liberty Ship are spacebound copy of the WWII Liberty, peoples seem to forget that the E in EC2-S-C1 stand for "Emergency" cargoships.

The conversation look more like the pre WWII design C1, C2, C3 designs. Intended for mass production, to be economically viable in peacetime, subject to drafting in war time, they were almost luxurious (turbine machinery, reserve of speed and strength, lot more riveting) when compared with the austere Liberty. For that reason Most conversion into military auxiliary (Repair, depot... ) were made from C1, C2 and CVE were made using C-3 hulls. The Victory were the E concept brought to the point where they could be built into front line assault transport -with speed of military auxiliairy- rather than being dirt cheap, expandable, 11 knots convoy mules (the pre-myth Liberty).

The Liberty then (and that is the basic concept behind the Legend) was a substitute for the full size economy tramp that were sunk in drove. The 3FW Liberty specs are the answers to: what was the workload of the backbone tramp starship on the Eve of 3FW? Could you built that capability in less time, greater number and if possible cheaper given Imperial overide of Corporate Feuds, commendering of yards and certification societies?

And yes I believe in the economic of config 7, therefore, replacement of those losses whould be config 7. It just so happen that it is also the best mass prod option for reason previously said

Have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, the Greek shipping magnates built up their large fleets from post war surplus freighters.

So a little schmoozing with appropriate bureaucrats and politicians may pay off.

 

[Timerover51]

While nobody seriously think that 3FW Liberty Ship are spacebound copy of the WWII Liberty, peoples seem to forget that the E in EC2-S-C1 stand for "Emergency" cargoships.

Have fun

Selandia

This is true, although in time of war or crisis, you might work on a design that can built as quickly and cheaply as possible.

For quite a while, all of the military logistic manuals were written using the "Liberty" as the standard type cargo ship. As a result, when I see the term "Liberty Ship", all of that training and associations kick in. This being reinforced by my teaching of the World War 2 class, where, if nothing else, the students will go away from the class completely aware of the headaches that logistics pose operational planners.

 

[Selandia]

As I recall, the Greek shipping magnates built up their large fleets from post war surplus freighters.

So a little schmoozing with appropriate bureaucrats and politicians may pay off.

True, the "insurance scheme" of allied shipping (actually, govt insured compensation was a self-insuring scheme based mostly on replacement from war production) provided for replacement of lost tonnage in ships rather than money as Govt were short of money and long on surplus at war's end.

Beside, Greece was in turnmoil, its shipping economy stripped by war losses, and dumping a lot of ships on owner's lap (a brand new Liberty was more than compensation for a 30 Yold 3,500 tonners 8knt rust bucket) was seen as a way to help/subsidize the pro-west faction rebuild the economy. So enjoy schmoozing.

Have fun
Selandia

 

[Major B]

Thanks again everyone for the continued discussion. I am still catching up with the posts from the weekend and yesterday and I really appreciate the depth to the content.

I was able to finish this map over the weekend but couldn't get this post done, so I am trying to catch up.



The red hexes on this map show areas that were controlled by the Imperium when the war started. I think this shows Jewell to be an obvious choke point that I am sure the Zhodani would make a significant effort to interdict. If that happened, I think that the IN might want to establish an alternate route to supply their two other forward naval bases (Mongo and Quar) from Lysen. Lysen-Mongo can be done with one J3 and Lysen-Emerald-Quar in two.

If Zhodani commerce raiding had restricted the supply of J3 shipping in the area, it seems plausible to me that the IN and the ducal government would both be interested in promoting some rapid shipbuilding. The IN would be looking short term on their logistics headache while the nobility would be interested in replacing lost ships cheaply to maintain support for the war and boost the economy (and resultant tax revenue).

I think there would even be subsidies provided (in addition to the savings associated with getting a free design with no architect's fees) in return for the ships being registered and subject to wartime callup whenever an emergency might arise.

And a clerk in the ducal public relations office (who had minored in terran history) noted the similarities in the circumstances and uses the phrase "Liberty Ship" in a press release. Eventually the class of ship comes to be known by that name.

These are all ideas that I would like to include in the backstory for the design. Does any of this stretch plausibility too far?

I will try to get an update on the design up later this afternoon.

 

[mike wightman]

As I have said - the bulk of the civilian shipping attacked by Zho commerce raiders will be megacorporation owned.

Those megacorporations - an Imperium within the Imperium - would petition the nobility to do something about those losses, so the release of an older IN tender design for civilian use makes a lot of sense to me.

TL12 and jump 3 is very old military technology by the 3FW.

 

[Selandia]

I kind of believe that the bulk of the trade would be J1/J2. However, if you subsidize the Mega Corp by providing J3 engineering at J2 price (the J-fuel being in external pods is just a matter of the route you run) you could have a standard starship with fleet auxiliary mobility.

In the 30, although the economical speed was usually 11-12 knts, (see the economy motor tramps build by Doxford or the North Sands -the "base" of the British ordered Ocean class that would "base" the Liberty-) the Japaneese govt subsidized speed 16+ for tankers (so that they could be used as oilers) and modern diesel powered cargo liner (so that they could be used as troops transport) at (first) 14 then later 15 knts. The USMarCom C-1 was also 14 knts and C-2 15.5 and meant to be competitive against Foreign flag with a little subsidy).

So your clerk wrote is major paper on Standard Wartime Shipbuilding and decided that of all such programs (since WW I) the Liberty was the most inspiring (success in production number and ships' acheivement despite an eyesbrow raising "E" design) and got a sexy name to boot.

Have fun
Selandia

 

[flykiller]

the bulk of the trade would be where the markets are. yeah, the glisten main and the mora/fornice and rhylanor/porozlo axes would be j1/2 madhouses. but routes such as lunion/strouden/spirelle/persephone and efate/roup/enope/rethe could well-reward j4. several j3 routes suggest themselves as well.

 

[mike wightman]

Canonically megacorp ships travel the x-boat routes and are jump 3-4.

 

[flykiller]

Canonically megacorp ships travel the x-boat routes

this seems grossly inefficient. unless they form the framework for vast fleets of 200-400 dton traders looking to take the cargo the last jump ....