Maximum Viable Battleship Size

[AnotherDilbert]

CT underwent a huge personality change.

Yes, exactly my understanding.

 

[flykiller]

I don't think it's possible for a unified design policy, or aesthetic.

sure it is. it's just that everybody wants it to be their policy and their aesthetic. like I always say, anyone capable of playing traveller is capable of playing it their own way. most do.

I prefer to redesign the Imperial fleet

me too. have my own construction system, my own port system, my own fleet, my own supply system, my own rules, and my own strategy should war break out again between the imperium and the consulate. I have dreams of winning the lottery and calling together all traveller players for a week-long convention to run that war.

but I don't think anyone would be interested in the redesign. or the convention.

If you tried to call a US ship "USS Injun Killer", I guess you would get some US political reactions.

is there a uss general george custer? there should be. it would span both sets of concerns ....

The Imperium doesn't have a copy of HG2.

it has marc miller ....

 

[aramis]

Just because it isn't called a carrier by the government, does not mean it is not a carrier. I remember Invincible was called a through deck cruiser originally, but when she went to war she carried aircraft that took off from her and did everything else a carrier was required to do.

Kind Regards

David

The Japanese don't use the same designation system. They only have two sizes of ship, so everything is either a corvette or destroyer in their modern navy. They designate helicopter carriers with H, and would designate fixed wing with a V, but only in their English.

 

[epicenter00]

Just because it isn't called a carrier by the government, does not mean it is not a carrier. I remember Invincible was called a through deck cruiser originally, but when she went to war she carried aircraft that took off from her and did everything else a carrier was required to do.

Kind Regards

David

The JMSDF essentially has a single classificiation of ship. This does have a significant political component. The JMSDF refer to its larger surface combatants as "goei-kan" ("escort ship"), a term that they translate for English speakers as "destroyer." It isn't 100% to "hide" their ship sizes from the taxpayers - it also reflects Cold War doctrine - the JMSDF in event of war (presumably with the Soviet Union), was to handle the ASW duties to escort USN Carrier Groups so the USN could concentrate on offensive operations.

In the case of the Izumo "it looks like a duck" doesn't mean it is a duck. When people generically say "carrier" (even in the armed forces) they refer to a ship that has the ability to deploy fixed-wing aircraft ("jets") using a catapult launch system.

By this definition, the Izumo-class isn't an aircraft carrier.

In depth below (tl;dr'd for the sake of those uninterested)

Spoiler:

Izumo-class also lack the catapults to launch heavily laden aircraft. Perhaps most telling is that it lacks the tell-tale "ski-jump" to loft lighter aircraft off of a short runway, something that non-US carriers do routintely. Their decks lack the proper heat-resistance to vertically launch aircraft (like the VTOL F-35s) - in addition that vertically launching aircraft is extremely inefficient since it reduces your combat load a lot so it's not as easy as just laying out a bunch of heat-resistant panels. I'm sure anyone intimately familiar with carrier operations could tell us a bunch of other things - like they lack proper instrumentation for jet landings and take-offs or the below-decks support layout for operating fixed-wing aircraft which are very different from helicopters.

There's also the fact that Japan hasn't operated carriers since ... well since the Second World War. So there's the important human factor; they lack the trained crews or pilots or the organizational mindset and workflows. They'd need to develop it on their own or (more likely) ask for help from the United States Navy. The process would likely take a decade or more, less if they poured a lot of money into it and got outside help (and changed a whole slew of laws including where and when the JMSDF can train). Again, this isn't impossible, but you'd see it coming a mile away if you knew where to look (and were sufficiently interested) - in this age of Google Earth, someone would see the land airstrip to simulate carrier operations, there'd be suspicious budget items on Japan's defense bills (that's if they bothered hiding it), and so on. The Chinese are pretty much doing this thing as we speak - there's the land 'marked airstrip' for training pilots, the conning tower and CIC organizing they're doing and so on. It wasn't too long ago that they were celebrating their first carrier launch and recovery on the actual ship. It's not something you can hide.

So the Izumo is what it is - a helicopter carrier. It could be a carrier, but not without a significant amount of rebuilding. In fact, the rebuilding required might be enough to say it'd be cheaper and easier to build a new ship from the keel up if they wanted a "real" carrier. Then there's the human aspect.

 

[Condottiere]

I've been informed by people who better understand this that the hangars aren't suited to the F-35.

At the moment, their main concern is to rush an expeditionary force to contest any rocks the Chinese may want to take away from the Japanese, one reason they're interested in the Osprey, and why they're really growing their Marine component.

In a way, it's like going nuclear; the Japanese are just short of creating that capability, and they can make ICBMs, one of many reasons they're so supportive of their space programme, and why they really don't want to shut down their reactors.

Anything they don't know about building and operating a modern aircraft carrier, they can ask the Americans or British, but their shipyards could certainly manufacture a series of light aircraft carriers, unlike the Chinese, who have to figure this out mostly on their own, while trying to reverse engineer the crap the Russians designed and built.

 

[JimMarn]

I've been watching the 'What on Earth ?' show on Discovery science channel. One of the shows has the islands that China is rebuilding into a land aircraft carrier. And another shows a shoreline in China that has a large tunnel built into it. If I remember correctly, Chinese subs have been spotted going into that tunnel.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And another shows a shoreline in China that has a large tunnel built into it. If I remember correctly, Chinese subs have been spotted going into that tunnel.

If you are not absolutely certain of your air superiority naval bases must be protected from the air.

WW2 U-boot pens.

Frigate moving into the Muskö base inside a rocky island.

Soviet submarine base, near Balaclava.

 

[aramis]

One of the parks in Anchorage has a bunch of tunnels that lead to a half-water-filled room that's been bricked off... looks just like a sub base.

There have long been rumors of just such a base "near Anchorage in WWII"... and the park in question was more than 5 miles outside the city at the time, has waterfront access, and portions are still federal property.

 

[kilemall]

First, as Mike explained, AotI is set in the OTU's Classic Era; i.e. CT.

Second, HG2 is Traveller's ur-system of sorts. Not LBB:2, not Mayday, but HG2. Only HG2's concepts and mechanisms were pulled forward out of CT for the later versions.

MT's ship combat system is HG2 with the Task System bolted on. T4's ships combat system shows a definite HG2 lineage as does T5's. Even T20 follows HG2's concepts and mechanisms. In all we see the turret-bay-spinal differentiation, rolling to hit and rolling to penetrate, different damage tables for different weapons, the system heritage is undeniable.

Much like how Sixth Fleet "sired" VG's the later Fleet series of games each with slightly different and more complex rules, HG2 "sired" most of Traveller's later ship combat systems each with slightly different and more complex rules. Only GT and TNE aren't part of that "bloodline".

AotI is our first look at this more detailed OTU and what we've seen of naval combat doesn't quite fit with what came before.

Changes may be afoot. Changes which may change our perception of certain designs. Changes which may change our perception of certain weapons.

Or.

Maybe Marc has always been clear that one thing is not necessarily another, and doesn't feel a need to obsessively reconcile everything.

Like wargames are what they are, not what the RPG or a novel is.

Just like movie adaptations can be very different from the book experience, and even so-called faithful versions make alterations due to differences in media forms.

Do we HAVE to have continuity in everything?

 

[kilemall]

Don't forget those Taiwanese mountain bases-

http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/taiwan-asias-secret-air-power/

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Airbases must of course also be protected.

WW2

Cold War

Cold War wartime "airbase": A straight road and a few trucks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw
Military commercial showing landing and rearming Gripen on a road. Total crew 6 and two trucks.

 

[JimMarn]

The U-Boat pens at Brest, France are still there, well, they were there around 1970 when Navy destroyer I was stationed on visited that port. The French Navy was using it as a base for their small coastal patrol ships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Or.

Maybe Marc has always been clear that one thing is not necessarily another, and doesn't feel a need to obsessively reconcile everything.

Like wargames are what they are, not what the RPG or a novel is.

Just like movie adaptations can be very different from the book experience, and even so-called faithful versions make alterations due to differences in media forms.

Do we HAVE to have continuity in everything?

I guess we are making the most of what little information we have. You are right, of course we do not have a complete, constant, or even coherent OTU to play with.

 

[flykiller]

Do we HAVE to have continuity in everything?

it's how some people play the game.

 

[Dagrill]

The JMSDF essentially has a single classificiation of ship. This does have a significant political component. The JMSDF refer to its larger surface combatants as "goei-kan" ("escort ship"), a term that they translate for English speakers as "destroyer." It isn't 100% to "hide" their ship sizes from the taxpayers - it also reflects Cold War doctrine - the JMSDF in event of war (presumably with the Soviet Union), was to handle the ASW duties to escort USN Carrier Groups so the USN could concentrate on offensive operations.

In the case of the Izumo "it looks like a duck" doesn't mean it is a duck. When people generically say "carrier" (even in the armed forces) they refer to a ship that has the ability to deploy fixed-wing aircraft ("jets") using a catapult launch system.

By this definition, the Izumo-class isn't an aircraft carrier.

Ok, The Japanese 'Navy' is only composed of Escorts & it is officially an Escort, but is that ship an Escort in Traveller terms? (or even RW terms?)

I would guess China is higher on Japan's list of potential enemies than anyone else...

Kind Regards

David