Missiles in traveller combat systems?

[aramis]

As far as missile interception, we've been able to do effective missile interception via terminal point defense for quite some time using volume of accurate fire kinetic projectile systems since the late 1970's. CIWS, the infamous "R2D2" systems on naval vessels. By the mid 80's, they were field deployed quite effectively. THe current generation are frightfully effective.

Note that the Harpoon board game is much the same as the USNA Surface Warfare Simulation (Same author, even... Cdr. L. Bond), and has slightly more details (3 didgit precision rather than 2, a few other issues)... and assumes slightly less accuracy. It takes 2 Osa-II's to challenge a single US destroyer... and if the CIWS is hot, it works out to their full volley barely being able to penetrate.

And that's using mid 1980's data.

 

[pendragonman]

I try to think of Traveller missiles not as missiles for flight plan purposes or intercept purposes, but as torpedoes.

Yes, the missiles are smaller, but given the ranges we are working with using the torpedo model gives several advantages:

1) Torpedo guidance, IRL, is able to have the fish come in from several different angles to the target and not just the "direct path".

2) Relative speeds of RL torps are not that much greater than the targets. Note I said speed, not acceleration. G's, remember, are a scale of acceleration. Torps have much greater acceleration than their targets.

3) Noisemakers and such will distract a torp. I am reasonable sure someone will/has develop a method of destructive intercept.

And I agree with aramis. Harpoon rocks, and has many good parralels to "modern" naval combat, which is pretty much what we are discussing.

So, while thinking of the missiles as 50 kg things with high thrust in combat treat them like torps and the mechanics will make more sense.

As a reference to how torps behave, see "Hunt for Red October" (which was co-written by Mr. Bond of "Harpoon" fame), "Blind Man's Bluff", "Crimson Tide", etc.

 

[BetterThanLife]

a "hit" only means that it does damage- not literally that it must physicaly impact the target. also any projectile weapon fired from a distance where time in flight becomes a factor will have a much higher chance of not interacting with its target in a meaningful way if the time in flight is too long. sidewinders had a good long range (20 miles in an atmosphere is pretty good) and were frequently launched from within 5 miles to reduce time in flight and pilot reaction time. just because it HAS a long range doesnt follow you will USE all that range. And aa and sams are EXTREMELY difficult to shoot down in flight, but by no means impossible. OUR technology precludes it, OTU tech may not. and our technology precludes it because our engineers have lost a great deal of ability (due to $$$ from funding sources more than any other cause) to think outside the box and find out "what if". just like DARPA's new boss shutting down viable fusion reasearch (which may or may not have panned out, but wth it was WORTH looking into) simply because "DARPA doesnt do fusion research" in his opinion. never drop yourself into the mold of "we cant do it therefore it cant be done". many times things are not done because people cannot accept doing them, rather than because it is impossible.

At typical AA Missile speed 20 miles is nothing. The AIM-9 has a maximum speed of about Mach 2.5, that means that it covers its maximum range of around 22 miles in roughly 43 seconds. (Only if the Aim-9X has the same max speed of earlier models, according to Raytheon the max range of earlier models is less than 10 miles.) That isn't even close to long range for anything.
In most games that is less than a combat round and makes it effectively, for game purposes, a direct fire weapon.

The AIM-54 has a max range, from various sources of in excess of 100 miles, and a max speed of Mach 5. (The longest range Air to Air missile in anyone's inventory.) At typical combat altitudes that is not over the horizon. (5500 feet altitude gives you a horizon of about 100 miles.) At Mach 5, 100 miles is approximately a 103 second flight time, with a combat round of one minute it arrives in the middle of the next combat round. Starship combat rounds are a bit longer and ranges are quite a bit higher. In Traveller the AIM-54 is an extremely short ranged direct fire weapon.

A Proximity weapon, with the exception of the Bomb Pumped Laser, is pretty much useless against a starship. Fragmentation and radiation from a 50kg missile is going to cause less damage than typical micro meteors and/or Stellar Radiation, which a starship is shielded from. My guess would be for a 50KG HE missile to do damage to a Starship you are looking at more than a direct hit but a direct hit from a shaped charged weapon, or equivalent. Especially since an AIM-9X is 85kg and is one of the smallest and lowest mass missiles in anyone's inventory. (An AIM-54 is over 450 Kg.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

As far as missile interception, we've been able to do effective missile interception via terminal point defense for quite some time using volume of accurate fire kinetic projectile systems since the late 1970's. CIWS, the infamous "R2D2" systems on naval vessels. By the mid 80's, they were field deployed quite effectively. THe current generation are frightfully effective.

Note that the Harpoon board game is much the same as the USNA Surface Warfare Simulation (Same author, even... Cdr. L. Bond), and has slightly more details (3 didgit precision rather than 2, a few other issues)... and assumes slightly less accuracy. It takes 2 Osa-II's to challenge a single US destroyer... and if the CIWS is hot, it works out to their full volley barely being able to penetrate.

And that's using mid 1980's data.

This is true, you can intercept Air to surface missiles, yet nobody has a system that works against the higher velocity missiles that are used to shoot at aircraft. Anti-Surface missiles don't all travel in a straight line. Especially the Harpoon and the Tomahawk which can both execute pop-up attacks, making them more difficult to shoot down. (A Tomahawk can even, theoretically, attack a ship with a guided cluster payload and little warning from outside the engagement range of the CIWS system.) While a cluster payload is unlikely to sink even a frigate, it can rip up anything on the deck, to include the CIWS system, the missile launchers, ASROC launchers (causing all sorts of secondary explosions) and only the old armored sections of the retired Battleships are likely to not be penetrated.

The Tomahawk is also capable of being programmed to fly a route before settling in on its attack run which means a single ship or sub equipped with Tomahawks can attack another ship simultaneously from several different vectors, none of which are the vector from the attacking ship.

Harpoon is definitely an excellent game. Though it doesn't cover ammunition expenditure for the CIWS. The CIWS only carries roughly 20 seconds of ammunition. So it has enough ammo for roughly 4-7 (Depending on burst size and how many bursts it takes to shoot down a missile.) interceptions. Against those two Osa-IIs, you better hope the rest of your air defense systems are effective.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Actually systems like RAM work against supersonic seaskimmers considerably beyond fragmentation range as do some of the bigger CIWS (the US system is actually the smallest)

And we even can intercept ICBM warheads (Skyguard). At the same time the AA/SAM model is NOT the right one for Traveller since the very long flight times leave enough time to calculate flight pathes for attack and intercept.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually systems like RAM work against supersonic seaskimmers considerably beyond fragmentation range as do some of the bigger CIWS (the US system is actually the smallest)

And we even can intercept ICBM warheads (Skyguard). At the same time the AA/SAM model is NOT the right one for Traveller since the very long flight times leave enough time to calculate flight pathes for attack and intercept.

A smart cluster munition attack isn't the same as a fragmentation attack. The last ditch point defense systems have a maximum range of around a Nautical Mile. You can get hit by a cluster munition attack from quite a bit further out. AFAIK the same sub munitions from a JSOWS can be loaded into a Tomahawk. (Cluster munition attack was one of the design options on the Tomahawk.) The Smart Pig is designed to take out armor units on the battlefield with guided submunitions. Comparatively a ship at sea is an easier target. Like I said it is unlikely to sink it, but it would have a tendency to give you a mission kill and seriously degrade air defense for follow on attacks. The really neat option would be if a Tomahawk could be programmed for a lob attack. (I don't know that it can, but I don't see a reason that it couldn't.)

HARM and Alarm Missiles are very effective against ships at sea as well. (And are very difficult for point defense to shoot down, owing to both size and speed of those weapons.)

As for tracking inbound missiles in Traveller, remember in Traveller even Artillery shells don't follow predictable flight plans a Missile with an onboard guidance system is likely to be better at it.

 

[Ptah]

Actually systems like RAM work against supersonic seaskimmers considerably beyond fragmentation range as do some of the bigger CIWS (the US system is actually the smallest)

And we even can intercept ICBM warheads (Skyguard). At the same time the AA/SAM model is NOT the right one for Traveller since the very long flight times leave enough time to calculate flight pathes for attack and intercept.

I'd agree. Traveller missile defenses (lasers) travel at the speed of light, current missile defenses travel much slower and except for the masses of lead approach, require intercept. A continuous beam laser can be dithered over a significant fraction of a missiles probability cone of travel very rapidly. Given that it seems laser power in Traveller is orders of magnitude greater than current, it wouldn't take much contact to destroy the missile at range. What is public about current laser based anti-missile systems is they have no trouble hitting the target, they just need to stay on target long enough to hurt it. All in all, the GT way seems about right to me.


On CT computers, I'll just pip up for the camp that assumed the "computer" tonnage and power also included sensors, which should be failry large and power hungry.

 

[mbrinkhues]

A smart cluster munition attack isn't the same as a fragmentation attack. The last ditch point defense systems have a maximum range of around a Nautical Mile. You can get hit by a cluster munition attack from quite a bit further out. AFAIK the same sub munitions from a JSOWS can be loaded into a Tomahawk. (Cluster munition attack was one of the design options on the Tomahawk.) The Smart Pig is designed to take out armor units on the battlefield with guided submunitions. Comparatively a ship at sea is an easier target. Like I said it is unlikely to sink it, but it would have a tendency to give you a mission kill and seriously degrade air defense for follow on attacks. The really neat option would be if a Tomahawk could be programmed for a lob attack. (I don't know that it can, but I don't see a reason that it couldn't.)

HARM and Alarm Missiles are very effective against ships at sea as well. (And are very difficult for point defense to shoot down, owing to both size and speed of those weapons.)

As for tracking inbound missiles in Traveller, remember in Traveller even Artillery shells don't follow predictable flight plans a Missile with an onboard guidance system is likely to be better at it.

Actually the RAM (RIM-116) has a range of around 8km (4-5 nautical miles) so the intercept point is a tad farther out. And modern SAM from Vertical Launch Arrays can be used to intercept missiles.

And cluster systems must be delivered over/near the target. Not a job for a slow fat target like subsonic Tomahawks.

ALARM/HARM are of limited usability today against the modern radar systems with their LPI designs and don't exist at all in Traveller IIRC.

====================

Aside from that we are talking SPACE COMBAT not NAVAL COMBAT. There is no equivalent to a sea skimmer or a Beyond Sensor Range attack. And we are not talking 500+ kg missiles here, we are talking 50kg Traveller missiles. While Guidance packages have gotten a lot smaller and at least some systems use controlled missiles, we are still talking rather stupid systems operating in an environment where backscatter, territory and NOE are not part of the equation.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually the RAM (RIM-116) has a range of around 8km (4-5 nautical miles) so the intercept point is a tad farther out. And modern SAM from Vertical Launch Arrays can be used to intercept missiles.

And cluster systems must be delivered over/near the target. Not a job for a slow fat target like subsonic Tomahawks.

Which is why I suggested a lob attack.

ALARM/HARM are of limited usability today against the modern radar systems with their LPI designs and don't exist at all in Traveller IIRC.

LPI are still emitters, (by definition), if you use a spread spectrum receiver it should still be effective. In Traveller it is just one more aspect of the abstract ECM/ECCM rules.

====================

Aside from that we are talking SPACE COMBAT not NAVAL COMBAT. There is no equivalent to a sea skimmer or a Beyond Sensor Range attack. And we are not talking 500+ kg missiles here, we are talking 50kg Traveller missiles. While Guidance packages have gotten a lot smaller and at least some systems use controlled missiles, we are still talking rather stupid systems operating in an environment where backscatter, territory and NOE are not part of the equation.

Absolutely. The reason we got talking about attacking ships at sea was because someone tried to compare Traveller Starship Missiles to Air to Air missiles, because Air to Air missiles take the shortest route. Since there is no way to shoot down an air to air missile that same person attempted to compare Traveller Point defense to CIWS. It isn't a good parallel between Air to Air Missiles and Traveller ship to ship missiles, and even comparing anti-surface warfare to anti-aircraft warfare is not a good parallel.

Since even Traveller Artillery shells dodge, Traveller Starship Missiles are not going to travel in a straight predictable line. Further even though you can shoot down ballistic missiles (again not a good parallel) that does not mean you can shoot down incoming Traveller Missiles all that easily. Remember you are dealing with extremely long ranges, small stealthy targets, targets and firing platforms maneuvering radically in 3 dimensions in a hostile EW environment. If Missiles in Traveller were very easy to shoot down, nobody would carry them.

 

[aramis]

Actually, BTL, someone said we can't hit targets that small reliably.

Current CIWS consistently hit targets with a cross-sectional surface area of 4cm^2. Often with multiple rounds, at ranges to half a mile. (The real problem with the US CIWS is shooting pieces which are no longer viable threats and thus wasting lots of ammo.

Further, the ability of a missile to dodge is much reduced in vaccum, since it must use a thrust agency to turn and to actually produce side vectors, instead of being able to use atmospheric friction to turn the main thrust and to alter the vector.

Given current CIWS Radar, and TL9 presumed lasers, shooting missiles before terminal vector should be, while not trivial, quite doable, at some range.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually, BTL, someone said we can't hit targets that small reliably.

Current CIWS consistently hit targets with a cross-sectional surface area of 4cm^2. Often with multiple rounds, at ranges to half a mile. (The real problem with the US CIWS is shooting pieces which are no longer viable threats and thus wasting lots of ammo.

Further, the ability of a missile to dodge is much reduced in vaccum, since it must use a thrust agency to turn and to actually produce side vectors, instead of being able to use atmospheric friction to turn the main thrust and to alter the vector.

Given current CIWS Radar, and TL9 presumed lasers, shooting missiles before terminal vector should be, while not trivial, quite doable, at some range.

So missiles are not a viable starship weapon and should be eliminated from the possible choices.

 

[mbrinkhues]

So missiles are not a viable starship weapon and should be eliminated from the possible choices.

Nonsens. You just need enough of them to flood the enemies Point Defence. And at 50kg per missile any bay-equipped ship should be able to do that.

They also make nice killers for smaller crafts that simply don't have all that much point defence as well as decend weapons for lower-tech craft that lack the power for beams.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Nonsens. You just need enough of them to flood the enemies Point Defence. And at 50kg per missile any bay-equipped ship should be able to do that.

They also make nice killers for smaller crafts that simply don't have all that much point defence as well as decend weapons for lower-tech craft that lack the power for beams.

Why, just carry lasers or PA's they are more likely to hit, get to the target faster and do damage. Missiles are too easy to shoot down, especially at the ranges used in Traveller Starship combat, take too long to get to the target. They require resupply, and you can only carry a finite number of them. If they are as easy to shoot down as implied then they are combat ineffective and only for special use, not general use ships.

The simple canon fact that they are in general use implies that they are fairly difficult to shoot down.

 

[mbrinkhues]

a) Standoff range

I can lob missile salvos at you from longer ranges than my beam weapons can hit you

b) Less effected by sand

c) Power-Plant size/output

Missiles don't need power

d) Nothing says "Stop at once, don't use wireless" like a nice explosion

Lasers and PA are invisibel

e) Not every target is military

Civies don't have the gunners/guns/computers for effective AM work. Neither do they have all that great attack options so dropping a few missiles might be the best choice to occupy the attacker.

f) Ground attack

PA's don't work through athmosphere and lasers don't airburst/produce fragments

h) Mass attacks

Missile defence in most system is close range (that still means thousands of kilometers in Traveller) so the cruise phase is the smallest problem. A target can use a turret only against one target/round in most Traveller systems. So fire 30 missiles at him. And the military can always use Nukes


And quite a few rules system MAKE it easy to gun down a missile or three if you are in a military ship.

 

[pendragonman]

I also remind you that PA's aren't available until tech 15 for turret weapons, and bay weapons imply ships >> than 1000 dtons, so PA's are not viable on lower tech small ships. Great for the battle line of the Navy but not for corvettes and such. I remind you that the Gazelle/Fiery barbettes are tech 14. (CT tech levels).

If YTU is not predominated by tech 14-15 worlds, then PA's are not viable.

Further, look at the am available to ships >100 dtons. The implication here is that you can either have am or be able to shoot beams at your attacker. If your n-space drive is slower than the aggressors, constant am is not the answer, eventually there will be a leaker, and in basic CT a leaker does a d6 of hits.

If YTU is dominated by player vessels of >> 1000 dtons, that may be your issue.

 

[Tobias]

Current CIWS consistently hit targets with a cross-sectional surface area of 4cm^2. Often with multiple rounds, at ranges to half a mile. (The real problem with the US CIWS is shooting pieces which are no longer viable threats and thus wasting lots of ammo.

Well, one other problem - applicable to Traveller - is that hitting the missile at the effective range of Phalanx ain't gonna cut it against many modern SSMs. With some of the monster SSMs the Russians have, all you are looking at is that the several tons of missile hitting you are now burning.
This applies all the more in space, where a disabled missile won't even do you the favor of hitting the ground eventually. Either you need to rip it to shreds so thoroughly that said shreds plonk off your armor or you need to shoot it at range, then evade the unmaneuverable wreck.

 

[BetterThanLife]

a) Standoff range

I can lob missile salvos at you from longer ranges than my beam weapons can hit you

Useless because it gives the point defense weapons longer to track the missile. A weapon that can't hit doesn't help that it can be fired from a longer range.

b) Less effected by sand

But it is effected by both sand and point defense energy weapons as opposed to just sand.

c) Power-Plant size/output

Missiles don't need power

Depending on the TL of the ship and the rule set involved, you are looking at a 1 ton difference between the two ssytems and the Laser is going to generate more consistent hits and never run out of ammo.

d) Nothing says "Stop at once, don't use wireless" like a nice explosion

Lasers and PA are invisibel

Nothing says stop at once as well as getting locked up by the enemy's active targeting sensors. Lasers are, in Traveller undetectable before they actually hit you. (Which is a bonus as far as I am concerned.)

e) Not every target is military

Civies don't have the gunners/guns/computers for effective AM work. Neither do they have all that great attack options so dropping a few missiles might be the best choice to occupy the attacker.

But a Laser will cut them up as easily, actually eaiser, and not be subject to needing resupply.

f) Ground attack

PA's don't work through athmosphere and lasers don't airburst/produce fragments

Use deadfall ordinance instead, if you want a carpet bombing effect, otherwise simply use the more accurate Laser. BTW Lasers, in Traveller are area effect weapons against ground targets.

h) Mass attacks

Missile defence in most system is close range (that still means thousands of kilometers in Traveller) so the cruise phase is the smallest problem. A target can use a turret only against one target/round in most Traveller systems. So fire 30 missiles at him. And the military can always use Nukes

Actually the rules don't specify at what range point defense takes place. Second the Point defense is used per battery of incoming missiles, not per individual missile. If the missiles can't get through in the first place, it doesn't matter what the warhead is.

And quite a few rules system MAKE it easy to gun down a missile or three if you are in a military ship.

While others make it more difficult, which means that missiles can't be as easy to shoot down as you are trying to imply. Besides if they are that easy to shoot down, why carry them at all?

i) Lasers can be used, effectively, both offensively and defensively. For a combat vessel, or any vessel that actually expects to defend itself on a semi regular basis, missiles are more expensive, harder to supply, and if it is so easy to shoot them down, combat ineffective.

 

[Tobias]

But it is effected by both sand and point defense energy weapons as opposed to just sand.

Which is, really, a little silly. But sandcasters are just a feature of Traveller that you accept or don't...

Use deadfall ordinance instead, if you want a carpet bombing effect, otherwise simply use the more accurate Laser. BTW Lasers, in Traveller are area effect weapons against ground targets.

Well, according to some works they are, according to others, they aren't. STRIKER-wise, starship lasers are just really big versions of vehicle lasers and those are point-effect weapons.
But I agree, Traveller missiles should have various measures to make them harder to shoot down in order to make sense (I also think they are too small at 50 kg.) Probably higher acceleration than spacecraft, armor, decoys etc.

 

[navywarlord]

Until the missile is in its terminal phase, its going to be a pain to hit/intercept/etc.. Given that its 50Kg in mass (and coming at you, thus presenting a very small target area) and most likely built with a few inexpensive stealth features (painted black with a EM absorbing layer) only the flaring engine will be a give-away and you are still looking at hitting a really small target at 1000's of km distance.

Add to this that some missiles will be fired and will "coast" to their intercept point (since fire control will plot targeting solutions based on where the target will be rather then where it is now) before restarting their engines for their terminal phase....

IMTU missiles have quite a few variations (and these are the basic civilian ones) that will give them a better chance to hit. Even a proximity blast will have the possibility of damaging sensor arrays, comm units, or any other exterior devices not inside the ship's armor (think soft kill: knock out all weapons, comms, and maneuver drives and the other crew will wave as you pass) Acquire a few "military" spec missiles (under the table, of course) and that merchant turned pirate who's attacking you might end up something for you to salvage!!

IMTU I also have torpedoes (larger then both turret and bay missiles) which have large accelerations and a huge warhead. Fired from fixed mounts, these are "smart" weapons and will do their best to evade (these have agility too) until they come in for the kill.

In any case, missiles still have their uses, either as distractions (defensive) if few in number or to overwhelm (offensive) if fired in huge numbers and can seriously damage a ship that ignores them. And while a proximity nuke may not damage an enemy, that ship WILL be blind for several turns as its sensors are effectively overloaded.

Other missile examples can be found in any Honor Harrington books, so its up to the GM to decide if missiles will exist (and at what effectiveness) in his/her universe...

 

[BetterThanLife]

Until the missile is in its terminal phase, its going to be a pain to hit/intercept/etc.. Given that its 50Kg in mass (and coming at you, thus presenting a very small target area) and most likely built with a few inexpensive stealth features (painted black with a EM absorbing layer) only the flaring engine will be a give-away and you are still looking at hitting a really small target at 1000's of km distance.

Add to this that some missiles will be fired and will "coast" to their intercept point (since fire control will plot targeting solutions based on where the target will be rather then where it is now) before restarting their engines for their terminal phase....

IMTU missiles have quite a few variations (and these are the basic civilian ones) that will give them a better chance to hit. Even a proximity blast will have the possibility of damaging sensor arrays, comm units, or any other exterior devices not inside the ship's armor (think soft kill: knock out all weapons, comms, and maneuver drives and the other crew will wave as you pass) Acquire a few "military" spec missiles (under the table, of course) and that merchant turned pirate who's attacking you might end up something for you to salvage!!

IMTU I also have torpedoes (larger then both turret and bay missiles) which have large accelerations and a huge warhead. Fired from fixed mounts, these are "smart" weapons and will do their best to evade (these have agility too) until they come in for the kill.

In any case, missiles still have their uses, either as distractions (defensive) if few in number or to overwhelm (offensive) if fired in huge numbers and can seriously damage a ship that ignores them. And while a proximity nuke may not damage an enemy, that ship WILL be blind for several turns as its sensors are effectively overloaded.

Other missile examples can be found in any Honor Harrington books, so its up to the GM to decide if missiles will exist (and at what effectiveness) in his/her universe...

Missiles are either effective or they are simple to intercept. If Missiles fly in a straight line they are easy to intercept and therefore useless. However there is nothing that says missiles fly in a straight line.

I agree that missiles are more difficult to intercept than has been implied. If that is the case then yes they have uses. If they can be destroyed in droves, then they are useless.

The missiles in the Honorverse, do not fly in a straight line, they do carry ECM and ECCM, they do "Terminal Attack Maneuvers" etc. However they are fired in smaller numbers than in Traveller. (And they are a bit more massive than the Traveller standard 50KG, or 1/20th of a DTon, or whatever size Traveller has depending on your rule set.)

Proximity Nukes will blind both sides equally. And that isn't covered in any Traveller ruleset I have read.