General Military ship Hull Config

[Proneutron]

Given the fact that in a TRUE 3D combat environment, barring the need of fast atmospheric performance, military ships should be designed as spheres. This is because it creates the smallest cross section for active and passive sensors and it means the smallest amount of armor needed for a given ship volume. I have wondered on and off for decades why people who design Mil ships for publication never really realized these facts.

Have you designed mil ships like this?

 

[atpollard]

Attack Helicopters are not spherical, they are slender to present the smallest area in the direction of attack.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Spheres are perfect targets for mesons.

Spheres are not streamlined, which limits refuelling hence strategic movement.



Flattened spheres are popular in CT as a cheap and streamlined configuration, but not for warships trying to avoid being hit by mesons.

 

[McPerth]

Fully agreed with AnotherDilbert, when you talk about capital ships.

Most Traveller military ships are needle/wedge configuration, in the case of capital ones,as he says, to defend against mesons, and in case of fighters to give them better atmospheric performance.

Nonetheless, in the middle of those niches, for escorts and light ships not worth a meson attack nor thought to need atmospheric performace, spherical (or flattened sphere) config might be worth it.

 

[mike wightman]

Given the fact that in a TRUE 3D combat environment, barring the need of fast atmospheric performance, military ships should be designed as spheres. This is because it creates the smallest cross section for active and passive sensors and it means the smallest amount of armor needed for a given ship volume. I have wondered on and off for decades why people who design Mil ships for publication never really realized these facts.

Have you designed mil ships like this?

In a true 3d environment with true physics then you want your ship to be as thin in the aspect it presents to an enemy - a cone or needle shape is preferable.

Atomic Rockets does a pretty good job of explaining this.

 

[Proneutron]

Attack Helicopters are not spherical, they are slender to present the smallest area in the direction of attack.

Um, yes. However they don't fight in a true 3D environment.

 

[Proneutron]

In a true 3d environment with true physics then you want your ship to be as thin in the aspect it presents to an enemy - a cone or needle shape is preferable.

Atomic Rockets does a pretty good job of explaining this.

That ONLY works if you know the ONE direction the enemy IS and will REMAIN in. Otherwise craptastic.

 

[Proneutron]

Nonetheless, in the middle of those niches, for escorts and light ships not worth a meson attack nor thought to need atmospheric performace, spherical (or flattened sphere) config might be worth it.

Yes, the ONE in game reason I forgot about. Mesons...

 

[Proneutron]

Atomic Rockets does a pretty good job of explaining this.

I've read that site through a few times. That isn't in there. Unless you are talking about where he compares the radar cross section of a flat steel plate vs. a sphere. Where the sphere has a cross section about 6% of the plates...

 

[GypsyComet]

Yes, the ONE in game reason I forgot about. Mesons...

And in fact the old Vilani capital ships were often spheres. They went up like grapes in a microwave once the Terrans developed and deployed the meson spinal. What the modern era of Traveller's Imperium is showing us is navies that have responded to the existence of meson weaponry.

 

[Timerover51]

Given the fact that in a TRUE 3D combat environment, barring the need of fast atmospheric performance, military ships should be designed as spheres. This is because it creates the smallest cross section for active and passive sensors and it means the smallest amount of armor needed for a given ship volume. I have wondered on and off for decades why people who design Mil ships for publication never really realized these facts.

Have you designed mil ships like this?

H. Beam Piper agrees with you with his starships, especially in Space Viking. I have not yet designed any ships for the sector I am working on, but I should be doing so in the new few weeks. I have sort of sketched out a small Space Viking ship which is not spherical, using something more like a stretched 400 dTon Subsidized Merchant, allowing for atmospheric operation.

The problem with spheres if you are hauling cargo in a civilian ship is getting access to the cargo easily, and then getting it in and off of the ship. My civilian ships will look more like submarines or cargo planes than spheres.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Fire Fusion Steel - Armour thickness calculation is simplified.

2. Perry Rhodan introduced the concept to me.

3. Generally speaking, the Imperium Navy prefers to build close structured warships, compromising on streamlining and mesonic vulnerability with cost savings.

4. Tigressii probably inspired by Project Stardust.

5. For the Imperium Navy, gas giant fuel skimming isn't their favoured mode of refuelling, which explains the prevalence of fleet tankers.

6. And yes, were flattened spherical flying saucers still an option, it would be a more popular configuration.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Back in the CT days, the ref I worked with had an ATU in which "non-streamlined" meant sphere, "streamlined" meant 2:1 prolate spheroids ("American Football") for 100Td+, or 2:1 oblate spheroids (smooshed "everywhere-else football") for small craft.

Yep, lots of H. Beam Piper influence there. The rationale seemed to be minimum hull surface area combined with the drive effects being a radiated field from a central point. One could also get some nicely strange hull shapes from looking at antenna radiation patterns...

I'm thinking that "streamlined" ought to also have included Sears-Haack Bodies (wikipedia) to optimize supersonic operation, but that looks a lot like "needle".

 

[Matt123]

That ONLY works if you know the ONE direction the enemy IS and will REMAIN in. Otherwise craptastic.

Until you get to dogfight range, you will always know the direction of your opponent, plus their current velocity, rate of acceleration and the range of alternate positions they can occupy with their maneuver or agility ratings by the time your weapons reach their position. Knowing the direction of your enemy is a certainty in the cold depths of space.

To take advantage of 3D space you have to utilise that third dimension, this means dividing your forces into at least three to avoid presenting in either one dimension (as a pack) or two dimensions (as two packs). A valid defence for that multi-dimensional attack will be to accelerate to the smallest 'flanking' force to defeat it in detail before the others arrive in range. If the forces are too close to allow that to work, retreat until the multi-dimensional attacks in chasing you, converge to a one dimensional attack.

Consequently there is potentially mileage in narrowing your cross section in your primary offensive facing and armoring it heavily (maybe your tail as well). With that said, neither of these is reflected this way in HG.

 

[McPerth]

IIRC, in Purnell/Niven book "The Mote in God's Eye" (and subsequents) military ships are spherical to better accomodate to the forcé field that protects them.

I've read the BG is derivated from this forcé field, but in Traveller it seems ships don't need to be spherical to accomodate to it.

In fact, spherical ships are a rarity, even mong those bearing BG ,as some Azhanties, the Kinnunir, etc. The only shoerical capital military ship I remember is the Tigris, and, surprisingly, it does not have BG (at least as described in CT:S9)...

 

[Topaz172]

I would think that the traditional flying saucer is optimal.... assuming you have good agility one the one aspect you have maximum area for turrets on the other aspect you have a very stealthy profile.

A spindle is better for just being very stealthy

 

[whartung]

To take advantage of 3D space you have to utilise that third dimension, this means dividing your forces into at least three to avoid presenting in either one dimension (as a pack) or two dimensions (as two packs).

Traveller engagement ranges are quite high.

10s of thousands of kilometers.

That's why there's no "3D" in traveller. Just projected, arbitrary planes between starships.

Separating the forces just ends up getting the forces destroyed in piecemeal. Even with varied armor configurations, the defending force is going to engage the most substantial threat first.

We have flanks and lines on land because of the limited nature of land and things being on it.

These are not problems in space.

Old Timey wargames have "stacking limits" on spaces (hexes) as a mechanism for modeling that phenomenon. Space has no stacking limits. So, unless the ships start being a threat to each other due to fratricide, may as well bunch them all up in to a blob of bees where they can mutually support each other most efficiently and concentrate their attacks on their targets.

In Traveller, you point your ship at the target, turn the lasers on and close until you or the target are destroyed.

In Ouray, CO, on the 4th of July, teams grab fire hoses and pummel each other with water streams until one of the other succumbs.

https://www.mountainphotographer.com/ouray-water-fights/

That's what Traveller ship combat is like, whether it's water hoses, lasers, meson beams or whatever.

 

[GypsyComet]

...but in Traveller it seems ships don't need to be spherical to accomodate to it.

In part because the Black Globe is very easy to make whatever diameter you need.

 

[aramis]

That ONLY works if you know the ONE direction the enemy IS and will REMAIN in. Otherwise craptastic.

Long and thin Needle is good from most angles... and it's also good for minimizing interplanetary medium drag. (which isn't much, but it does add up.)

 

[McPerth]

There's another reason most Traveller capital ships are needle configuration: spinal guns are particle accelrators (even meson guns, albeit another kind of particle), and, as such, they must be long.

For a needle config, this means the lenght of the ship, for a spherical one, this means the diameter, and so they'd need to be quite bigger (in tonnage) to have the same longitude accelerator.

Of course, you could make those particle accelerators circular, as current cyclotrons, but this would make them quite more vulnerable, as any damage would deviate the particles, and so stop its acceleration, while a longitudinal one does not have this problem.

(NOTE: this reasoning is taken from the articles Charged Particle Accelerator Weapons (JTAS 13, page 6) and Spinal Mounts Revised (TASJ #20 ), not that I'm an expert in the matter)