Proposed Ship mission codes

[tjoneslo]

For the commercial side you would end up with the Trader, Liner, Freighter, plus Resource/Seekers and Explorers/Science, with modifiers for size and specific capabilities like use as military auxiliaries or jump range.

But on the military side you would have sized based Corvette, Frigate, and Destroyer with modifiers for the weapon/screens load. And above the 10k line it would be fleet ships (usually with spinal mounts), and again using modifiers specific missions.

In researching the terms used for the military side, I found in some case Frigates are larger than Destroyers, depending on which navy you are talking about. There are some other issues around determining ordering, and reliance on knowledge of current naval terminology to decipher the ordering of size.

Since the Traveller universe is, pretty explicitly, based upon the age of sail it may be useful to borrow the terms from the same time frame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy

First Rate - 10k+ tons, spinal mounts (usually); Dreadnought, Battleships, Cruisers, Carriers
Second Rate - 3k to 10K tons - Bay weapons (usually); Frigates, Destroyers, Riders, Monitors
Third Rate - 1k to 3k tons - Max Weapons & Screens; Sloops, Corvettes
Fourth Rate - <1K - Max Weapons; Brigs, Cutter, Schooners, Patrol Boats

 

[Condottiere]

If you're applying Napoleonic rating system, it's more likely:

First - dreadnoughts

Second - battleships

Third - heavy cruisers

Fourth - light cruisers

Fifth - destroyers

Sixth - frigates, corvettes, destroyer escorts, old destroyers

Unrated

Monitors and riders, in the Traveller sense, are starwarships that require towing to the operational area, and would be rated depending on the size of their main gun.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since the Traveller universe is, pretty explicitly, based upon the age of sail it may be useful to borrow the terms from the same time frame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy

The classifications in S9 Fighting Ships, that form the basis for my thinking, are from WWI-WWII.

Starting to talk about Ships of the Line, or perhaps Three-deckers, instead of battleships and dreadnoughts, would hardly be helpful...

 

[whulorigan]

Note also that in MgT: Sector Fleet, p.50-51, MJD used the terms 1st thru 6th Class/Rate in his publications to refer to the relative serviceability and/or obsolescence of Imperial Navy Ships (regardless of size/mission-classification):

• 1st Class/Rate/Line - Cutting Edge vessels - "top of the line" (always in current service)
• 2nd Class/Rate/Line - Typical fleet vessels in service (almost all in current service)
• 3rd Class/Rate/Line - Obsolescent and/or cheaper designs (Capital 3rd Class ships are usually mothballed or otherwise disposed of at this rating)
• 4th Class/Rate/Line - Very Old / Serviceable (non-Capital 4th Class ships are usually mothballed or otherwise disposed of at this rating) - includes most reactivated ships
• 5th Class/Rate/Line - Very Old / Poor-repair (usually in Colonial Fleets with some systems replaced by less sophisticated equipment)
• 6th Class/Rate/Line - Barely serviceable / Marginal - often privately owned by poor world governments or impoverished noble houses (etc).

• "7th Class/Rate/Line" - Navy slang for something so utterly useless that not even the Scouts would want
• "0-Class/Rate/Line - "Zeroed" - No Combat ability, or negligible ability within its class

 

[tjoneslo]

If you're applying Napoleonic rating system, it's more likely:

I wanted to borrow the idea of using rank/rating rather than applying the whole of the system. As written, the original isn't very applicable.

Based on the size differences, from AnotherDilbert's original, the terms might be First, Third, Fifth, and unrated.

 

[robject]

(Naval, Colonial) x (Line, Support).

 

[McPerth]

Note also that in MgT: Sector Fleet, p.50-51, MJD used the terms 1st thru 6th Class/Rate in his publications to refer to the relative serviceability and/or obsolescence of Imperial Navy Ships (regardless of size/mission-classification):

So, according this classigication, a state of the art fighter would be a 1^st class, while a Mothballed TL13 Battleship (as the Voroshilefs in MTRebellion Sourcebook) would be 3sup]rd[/sup] or 4sup]th[/sup] class ships at best...

Of course, this represents a true change of paradigma on the ship classification, as the rate does not really tell their combat power.

In age of sail, basically ships 1^st to 3sup]rd[/sup] rates were seen as SOL, 5^st rates were Frigates (4^th rates could be seen as in between, depending o nthe exact time and Navy), and 6^th rates were auxiliary

WWI-WWII ratings system was quite more Complex ,as the appearence of new techs (from Torpedoes to naval air) and doctrines required a full new system.

In all cases, you need a ship of similar rating to confront a specific ship with something near to equal terms.

This is not longer true in the rating system you refer....

IMHO, as I already said, we cannot foresee what tech and doctrine (and needs) will appear in Space Navies tha might lead to different rating systems.

As per OTU assumptions, I see the main "rating" items to be:

• Star capacity (starships vs spaceships
• Size
• Main weaponry
• Mission

From here on, the codes may change, as long as they more or less include those factors.

Examples:

1. A big (how much wil ldepend on specific universe), Spinal armed Starship with main combat line mission might be a Battleship/Drednough
2. A big, Bay armed Starship whose mission is to carry spaceship(s) so that they can fight may be a Carrier or a Tender (depending on the spaceships carried)
3. A medium to big sized, Spina larmed, Spaceship whose mission is "static system deense might be called a Monitor
4. The same ship in 3, carried as part of a squadron on a Tender might be called a Battle Rider.
5. And so on...

How all of this is codded (ive it the usual respectivelly BB, CV/BT, MT, BR or any other) may vary due to many factors, even by what navy does it...

 

[Condottiere]

Rating systems are likely only to relate to how your Admiralty views comparative combat power hierarchies, for both their own warships and that of the opposition.

The above might work for the Imperium, but when I was jigging about Confederation Navy orders of battle, not for the Solomani.

 

[whulorigan]

So, according this classigication, a state of the art fighter would be a 1^st class, while a Mothballed TL13 Battleship (as the Voroshilefs in MTRebellion Sourcebook) would be 3sup]rd[/sup] or 4sup]th[/sup] class ships at best...

Of course, this represents a true change of paradigma on the ship classification, as the rate does not really tell their combat power.

Correct. It tells their combat power relative to their nominal Class/Type.

In all cases, you need a ship of similar rating to confront a specific ship with something near to equal terms.

This is not longer true in the rating system you refer....

In the case above (by MJD), the rating could compare ships to (for example) foreign or colonial navies which may have lower TL capabilities. A 3rd Rate Cruiser may be perfectly sufficient for use against the Sword Worlds (for example), and so might be assigned to (or bought by) a Colonial (Planetary or Subsector Navy) on the Spinward Frontier.

In general, the Imperial Navy will be composed almost entirely of 1st and 2nd Rate ships (of all classes) under this scheme, with a few older 3rd Class vessels (of all types) in reserve or mothballs.

 

[whartung]

The main reason nukes (not even the smallest) have not been used is political, be it for international treaties or fear of retaliation (that helps keep with the international treaties, BTW).

But this roots from, especially today, the long term side effects of the radiation, not the yield.

Witness the development of the very large, very powerful bombs like the "MOAB", "Daisy Cutter", the "Grand Slam" from WWII (used to punch holes in Sub Pens). These are used in specialized roles. These approach the yields of small tactical nukes, but obviously don't have the lingering effects of nuclear weapons.

I'm sure anyone actually using these things would likely prefer to use tactical nukes, just for their ease of deployment.

If they could get similar yields in a similar non-nuclear package, there would likely be no hesitation to use them on appropriate targets (i.e. hardened military targets).

It's also important to distinguish a weapon tech and a "weapon of mass destruction". Much of that relates to the context of how it was used, rather than so much as the mechanic of the weapon itself.

 

[tjoneslo]

As per OTU assumptions, I see the main "rating" items to be:

• Star capacity (starships vs spaceships
• Size
• Main weaponry
• Mission

As a process of simplification I'm conflating Size and Main weaponry. That is, assuming a military ships will carry the best possible weapons for it's size (within specific limitations of possible common sense builds). Then relying on the mission modifiers to capture any variations in weaponry, Jump capability, and specific missions.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I'm sure anyone actually using these things would likely prefer to use tactical nukes, just for their ease of deployment.

If they could get similar yields in a similar non-nuclear package, there would likely be no hesitation to use them on appropriate targets (i.e. hardened military targets).

The other problem is security. A "backpack nuke"(which if memory serves actually was in the ballpark of "55-gallon drum" sized, but still...) is far easier to steal and/or smuggle than a palletized 10,000 Lb. tank of ANFO with a drogue chute and standoff fuze, all else equal.

Which is why all else is not equal. Nuclear weapons require significant security commitments beyond those for conventional weapons.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Which is why all else is not equal. Nuclear weapons require significant security commitments beyond those for conventional weapons.

The only distinction there is energy density of destructive potential.
The higher the energy density, the easier to transport/smuggle/conceal.

The main problem with "backpack nukes" (using real world TL=7-8) is that the fission decay mucks up the precision of the components pretty quickly (like within a year or two), making the engineering increasingly unreliable over time without sustained (and therefore, expensive!) maintenance.

But then ... as technology advances, energy densities of destructive potential increase ... to the point that by TL=12+ you have man portable plasma and fusion(!) guns.

 

[Condottiere]

Half life of a meson isotope.

They're also used as communicators, so presumably a controllable decay.

 

[McPerth]

That is, assuming a military ships will carry the best possible weapons for it's size (within specific limitations of possible common sense builds).

Sure, but this "best possible weapons" may vary according the mission. So ,a 10 kdton ship whose mission is mai ncombat could c arry a (small) spinal, and that would be the best weapon for its size, while another, more thought as Escort against fighters and gunboats could concentrate his weaponry in maller, but more numerous, batteries so that he can affect more (small) targets, even though it could be ineffective against larer ships.

This would be like of the CLAA concept in WWII. A cruiser thought as anti-air defense, with more weapons than a standard CL, but less effective against other ships. It could be a terrible oponent against small ships (destroyers/PTs) or airplanes, though. VOth of them carried the best possible weapons for its size and mission...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sure, but this "best possible weapons" may vary according the mission.

Quite. MgT2 has seen battleships with missiles for main armament, so no spinal, just a bunch of missile bays. It is still a battleship, a large main combatant.

 

[McPerth]

Quite. MgT2 has seen battleships with missiles for main armament, so no spinal, just a bunch of missile bays. It is still a battleship, a large main combatant.

This also depends quite a lot on the version you play..

I don't know MgT2, but in MgT1 they would be useless, as we discussed to boredoom time ago, while in CT they wil lbe quite useful. I cannot say in T5 ,as I don't know enough of it...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This also depends quite a lot on the version you play..

Agreed, hence the difficulty creating an automatic classification system for all ships on the wiki.

I don't know MgT2, but in MgT1 they would be useless, as we discussed to boredoom time ago, while in CT they wil lbe quite useful. I cannot say in T5 ,as I don't know enough of it...

In MgT2 the barrage table is long gone, and missiles (in large quantities) one of the three main ship killers. Battleships have a lot more Hull (hit points) than smaller ships, so missile armed battleships works.

In CT there is no reason to group so many weapons in an easy to hit egg, hence missile battleships don't really work.

 

[kilemall]

In CT there is no reason to group so many weapons in an easy to hit egg, hence missile battleships don't really work.

That’s a function of damage tables.

That CT/HG hybrid I’ve been working makes battleships work, through tonnage based hits, increased armor effects, and multiple spinals as an option.

Missiles are more problematic in that they are more kinetic and therefore require ‘running room’ and/or closing vee to get higher penetration values.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That CT/HG hybrid I’ve been working makes battleships work, through tonnage based hits, increased armor effects, and multiple spinals as an option.

Good point, there are also all the house-ruled ships out there, making automatic classification even more trial-and-error.