Non OTU: Military Ships and Crewing

[BytePro]

Re: fast drug - something akin to hibernation?

Nature does a lot of quirky stuff along the lines of 'hibernation' - so can see drugs mimicking such (bears, for example, recycle their urine, IIRC). Bed sores surely have some correlation with circulation and sweating (I'm only speculating here - my clinical knowledge of such being almost zero ) - so again, the 'drug' could allow avoiding such.

I recall a documentary on a record free diver whose heart rhythm/rate mimics a dolphin's (3 bpm or something) and circulation mainly is largely reduced to the heart and brain (for surviving pressure differentials and avoid nitrogen toxicity/bends) - and that is done with no drugs, so I image drugs can do related things.

 

[Garyius2003]

WWII Fletcher class destroyer needed over 300 crew.

Modern tri-hull LCS class needs 40 core, maybe 25 extra for most module packs.

The LCS is much faster, slightly larger, and does most things better.

70 years down the road.


At some point you will need someone on duty 24/7, a few people to direct combat systems on alert, and a few people to supervise maintenance systems. The issue won't be so much frozen watch, it will be finding things for the guys needed to supervise combat systems to do when on patrol or movement.

 

[SpaceBadger]

There was a lot of discussion of mass use of Fast drug on some thread I read recently about slavers. I think the idea was to dose them first with something to make them sleep for a day or so, then give the Fast drug; with the metabolic slowdown, they sleep for 60 days instead of one. Although I think you'd want to verify ahead of time that there would be no harmful interaction of the drugs, esp for your own crew or troops.

 

[Darkwing]

WWII Fletcher class destroyer needed over 300 crew.

Modern tri-hull LCS class needs 40 core, maybe 25 extra for most module packs.

The LCS is much faster, slightly larger, and does most things better.

70 years down the road.

Well, they're finding that those 40 core crew aren't quite enough. They can't keep up basic maintenance without yard support unless they add more core crew. It also hasn't really proved itself able to do ANYTHING better.
I'll stick to an Arleigh Burke class DDG for now. Give LCS a few more years of development.

At some point you will need someone on duty 24/7, a few people to direct combat systems on alert, and a few people to supervise maintenance systems. The issue won't be so much frozen watch, it will be finding things for the guys needed to supervise combat systems to do when on patrol or movement.

That, and hands-on preventive maintenance, admin, damage control, etc.

 

[Timerover51]

WWII Fletcher class destroyer needed over 300 crew.

Modern tri-hull LCS class needs 40 core, maybe 25 extra for most module packs.

The LCS is much faster, slightly larger, and does most things better.

70 years down the road.


At some point you will need someone on duty 24/7, a few people to direct combat systems on alert, and a few people to supervise maintenance systems. The issue won't be so much frozen watch, it will be finding things for the guys needed to supervise combat systems to do when on patrol or movement.

Hmmm, one 57mm guns with 880 rounds, verses a Fletcher's five 5"/38 caliber guns with 400 rounds per gun. Presumably, this ship is NOT going to engage in any shore bombardment, and a 57mm round is borderline against a wooden junk. Cost looks like a 450 million Dollars apiece. Range is 3,800 nautical miles at 18 knots, so legs are a bit short. Four .50" caliber machine guns, and a pair of 30mm Bushmasters. Twenty-one Rolling Air Frame missiles. Personally, I think I would take a Fletcher with a modernized AA armament.

 

[Timerover51]

With respect on how many people you could put into a transport, I thought that I would interject the following historical emigrant ship from 1874, the Suavia. The ship's dimensions were length of 361 feet, beam of 41 feet, and height to spar deck of 34 feet. Assuming the ship was a rectangular box of that size, it comes out at 1057 Traveller displacement tons. On that size of ship, it carried the following: 92 first-class passengers, 82 second-class passengers, 930 third-class passengers (read emigrants to the US), a crew of 120, and 2000 tons of cargo. Note, this does not include any space for boilers or engines, not any space for coal bunkers. The trip to the US from Europe would take a minimum of 7 days. Enjoy.

The specifications for the ship come from the book, History of Merchant Shipping and Ancient Commerce, by W. S. Lindsay, volume IV, page 290. The book was originally published in 1874.

My Great-Grandparents on my Father's side came to the US on a ship like that. My Great-Grandmother was 6 months pregnant at the time.

 

[mike wightman]

It's a matter of how many the life support can actually accommodate - not how many bodies you can cram into the space (unless you are a mortuary ship...)

Then there's the fact you can walk on the deck - bit tricky to do that in jumpspace.

The total life-support capacity of a nuclear sub is a better guide to how many you can get on a Traveller starship.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

He's just giving a comparison, Mike. And, it's a valid one: in some cases, caveated with life support limitations and such, you might cram a whole lot more people into a space than you would think.

Air would be the biggest issue. The Suavia has at least some air circulation from outside to below decks. Other than that, a lot of the "crewing" issues that have been discussed have been based on 1) living on board, rather than merely getting from point A to point B, and 2) a very modern, western comfort level. Even that nuclear attack sub is still built around modern, western notions of human factors, and generally not filled with crew until the life support is at capacity. We also tend to build in safety margins of 20% or more.

It's a good thing to keep in mind, for those times when you're desperate, or you have a culture that has a different outlook on that sort of thing.

 

[Timerover51]

The comparison was and is intended to show that Traveller's ideas of space needed onboard a ship is incredibly generous. You could design a transport to carry the maximum number of men, minimal accommodations, with enough life support for maximum number carried plus crew plus 20% cushion, troops eating iron rations, no showers onboard, sanitary facilities, recycle all water, carry water for electrolysis to oxygen, react the excess hydrogen with CO2 to get methane and more oxygen, dump the methane into an empty fuel tank, and hot-bunk the troops. Comfortable, no, but when you put on the uniform, you better assume that things are not always going to be comfortable.

 

[Garyius2003]

I rode the old New Orleans, the LPH, in troop berthing. Built in 1966. The space was very small.

Anything other than reading a paperback required being in a very cramped workspace, or grabbing a piece of hanger deck which most of the time was otherwise needed.

It terribly demoralizes troops. Being out for two weeks really sucks. A lot.

I see the Traveller solution as being much better, as space travel requires a lot of effort from very qualified people.

 

[Timerover51]

I rode the old New Orleans, the LPH, in troop berthing. Built in 1966. The space was very small.

Anything other than reading a paperback required being in a very cramped workspace, or grabbing a piece of hanger deck which most of the time was otherwise needed.

It terribly demoralizes troops. Being out for two weeks really sucks. A lot.

I see the Traveller solution as being much better, as space travel requires a lot of effort from very qualified people.

It depends on what you expect and are used too. On the British troop ships taking troops from England to Egypt in 1882 for the intervention there, the troops had a space of 6 feet by 16 inches to sling their hammock. There was only sufficient space for 4/5 of the troops to sleep at once, so some had to always be awake. The US naval observer reporting on this, Lt.-Com. Caspar Goodrich, thought that this was a perfectly reasonable and quite good set-up for moving large numbers of men. Note, these troops were expected to engage in combat the day that they were landed, via small boats.

The Traveller solution works only if every species or group follows it. If someone does not, all bets are off.

 

[Darkwing]

I rode the old New Orleans, the LPH, in troop berthing. Built in 1966. The space was very small.

Anything other than reading a paperback required being in a very cramped workspace, or grabbing a piece of hanger deck which most of the time was otherwise needed.

sounds about right. It's that way due to efficiency. Just as Traveller assumes a Battle Rider or SDB outperforms a jump-capable ship of similar tonnage, a ship with naval berthing outperforms a cruising hotel with Traveller deluxe accommodations.

It terribly demoralizes troops. Being out for two weeks really sucks. A lot.

That'd be greenhorns who haven't done it before; they haven't learned to deal with it yet. Sailors do it all the time, and often for far longer than two weeks. Back in the day, it was worse, and for longer periods, with even fewer distractions - hence some amazing scrimshaw and woodworking.

I see the Traveller solution as being much better, as space travel requires a lot of effort from very qualified people.

For cruise liners, large merchants, etc, maybe. For army troop transports, naval vessels, Scouts, and small tramp freighters, I disagree. Efficiency saves money, performance, and cargo space.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

One thing probably worth considering is that there are likely trade-offs involved that may not be readily apparent. Although I wasn't a big fan of much of the starship related stuff in 2300AD, one part I did specifically like was how they related crew performance to a kind of "quality of life onboard factor" which took into account available space and whether the ship had spin-induced artificial gravity etc.

Based on the stuff that I've read (and in parts have previously posted about) I don't really believe that the space requirements of Traveller are really all that out of line (at least in comparison to modern naval vessels) especially if double berthing is allowed.

 

[Darkwing]

Not out of line for civilian ships, yes. But for military ships, it's an awful lot of wasted space. Yes, I'd love better accommodations on a ship, but the idea of a full-sized bedroom shared with only one other sailor, while distasteful on shore, is an extravagance on a ship, one I can't see any serious military accepting. Aside from the space issue, there's also the matter of the privileges of rank. If junior officers get a cramped stateroom shared with one other J.O. today, and I live in an open bay with up to 120 other enlisted, what sort of living conditions will the senior officers require in a navy where I can get a stateroom the size of an apartment bedroom, with only one other sailor? The captain's going to want a penthouse suite for his in-space cabin, and a whole hotel floor for his in-port cabin!

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

I disagree. If you look at the accommodations configurations on many newer naval vessels, such as theLCS's and DD1000 etc you will see that efforts have been made to improve the ship's habitability to try and help improve retention rates for the skilled sailors. Specifically, this CRS Report to Congress on "Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress" notes the following:

"Habitability Features for Crew. On the DDG-51, enlisted crew berthing spaces accommodate 20 to 60 sailors each. On the DDG-1000, every sailor would have a stateroom, and each stateroom would accommodate four sailors. The Navy believes these features would improve crew quality of life, which can improve retention rates."

As for the LCS's (and also the new USCG Cutters, if I am recalling correctly) an attempt has been made to try and accommodate crew into something along the lines of single staterooms for senior officers, double staterooms for junior officers and I think CPOs and four man staterooms for most everyone else. (I'll try and see if I can find a source on the internet for this).

Considering this, plus added spaces for galleys, messes, and other common spaces I'm not convinced that Traveller rules are really all that far off of what you might see on modern warships.

 

[Timerover51]

Hi,

I disagree. If you look at the accommodations configurations on many newer naval vessels, such as theLCS's and DD1000 etc you will see that efforts have been made to improve the ship's habitability to try and help improve retention rates for the skilled sailors. Specifically, this CRS Report to Congress on "Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress" notes the following:

"Habitability Features for Crew. On the DDG-51, enlisted crew berthing spaces accommodate 20 to 60 sailors each. On the DDG-1000, every sailor would have a stateroom, and each stateroom would accommodate four sailors. The Navy believes these features would improve crew quality of life, which can improve retention rates."

As for the LCS's (and also the new USCG Cutters, if I am recalling correctly) an attempt has been made to try and accommodate crew into something along the lines of single staterooms for senior officers, double staterooms for junior officers and I think CPOs and four man staterooms for most everyone else. (I'll try and see if I can find a source on the internet for this).

Considering this, plus added spaces for galleys, messes, and other common spaces I'm not convinced that Traveller rules are really all that far off of what you might see on modern warships.

You are basing your assessment on what the US Navy is doing. US Navy design criteria are far more crew-centered than any other navy. The US Navy is worried about peacetime retention rates, not whether or not the ships are more combat capable. I am looking at the possibility of someone using totally different criteria for housing crew and troops.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

what sort of living conditions will the senior officers require in a navy where I can get a stateroom the size of an apartment bedroom, with only one other sailor? The captain's going to want a penthouse suite for his in-space cabin, and a whole hotel floor for his in-port cabin!

Definitely.

I am looking at the possibility of someone using totally different criteria for housing crew and troops.

There's the key. timerover is asking that great scifi question: what if? What does it do to the paradigm if you have a culture willing to pack in troops like sardines, and string hammocks in a bay for the crew? (Hmmmm.... 0-g hammocks? Could you pack in more or fewer?)

 

[Ishmael]

Two books that might give some insight are

"Sensory Deprivation; Fifteen Years of Research" by John P. Zubek
http://www.amazon.com/Sensory-Deprivation-Fifteen-years-research/dp/0390973424

and

"Man in Isolation" by John E. Rasmussen
http://www.abebooks.com/MAN-ISOLATION-CONFINEMENT-Rasmussen-John-Aldine/316377034/bd

Both books go into some detail about individuals and groups operating in isolation, such as submarine crews and Antarctic explorers. Both have excepts in books.google.com that can show if they would be useful or not.

 

[Garyius2003]

A friend is a former navy submarine nuke ET, he ran the reactor. His berthing bunk space was about twice as large as mine on the New Orleans, with under rack storage, a privacy curtain for the bunk, and a lamp. He had to hot rack (timeshare the space with another guy) until he qualified (got a bunch of sign offs that he was familiar with systems and passed an exam).

He really dislikes the navy and officers because of the experience. His training pipeline length and complexity is what I would expect most 3I navy people and marine TL14 troops have.

 

[PFVA63]

You are basing your assessment on what the US Navy is doing. US Navy design criteria are far more crew-centered than any other navy. The US Navy is worried about peacetime retention rates, not whether or not the ships are more combat capable. I am looking at the possibility of someone using totally different criteria for housing crew and troops.

Hi,

I believe most European and Western navies are proceeding along similar paths, in vessels such as the Type 45 and Horizon Guided Missile Destroyers, the FREMM class frigates and the latest German vessels.

As I tried to highlight earlier, I believe that there is a trade-off going on between crew quality of life and crew retention. As the skill set required to service and maintain modern vessels at sea has increased the need to retain qualified crew (as opposed to having them serve a term and leave the service leaving the navy to have to retrain new cew) has greatly increased. If a crewmember who has been taught to maintain and operate a complex piece of computer control hardware finds that he can get a fairly well paying IT related job shoreside once his term is up, there is a good chance that the trade-off between "being crammed into a ship sardine style" an/or "having to hotbunk" versus "having his/her own house or apartment plus the ability to go out with friends every weekend drinking and meeting other people" may lead to many choosing the later option.

As such, as warships have become more complex standards of accommodations typically increase and if you want to assume that you can get away with a significantly lower level of accommodations than in the rules as written it would probably be worthwhile to consider what negative impacts such a move may impart on your vessels and crew in comparison to a Traveller based navy that is designed around the rules as written.

As a ocean going naval analogy I had the opportunity to ride on a high-sped naval small craft on and off for several days as part of its builders trials. On board the temperature was kept very low. When I asked why I was told it was to try and help prevent riders onboard from becoming sea sick. In general it was apparently found that low ambient temperatures can help delay the onset of sea sickness while higher ones can help bring it on quicker.

In this example I suppose one navy coud see air conditioning as a necessity while another can view it as unneeded (because since it wasn't necessarily available during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam why should they go to the extravagance of installing it now, etc). However, once you start trying to use this craft to transport troops and such I would greatly suspect that the navy that opted for air conditioning on its craft may have an advantage over the navy that has decided the same old austere concepts that worked decades ago are perfectly still suitable now, and if repeatedly getting sea sick drives some people to not want to re-enlist we'll just replace them with newer recruits that we'll have to pay to train to bring up to the level of those that have left, etc.