Proposed Ship mission codes

[tjoneslo]

In doing some research I think the best thing is to reverse the order of the size classification system.

The values for each rank are from the suggestions by AnotherDilbert from earlier in the thread.

The TL rankings associated with each rank come from the CT High Guard Computer table. None of the other Ship Makers seem to have a matching build limitation (MT sort of enforces this via the same method).

The great thing is these match relatively well. The only break down is the break point between second rank and third rank: The TL rank is 4k tons. The T5 ship maker would be 2600 tons. According to the analysis by AnotherDlibert, the break point based on critical hits from turret weapons ends up around at 2k or 3k.

; First rank : under 1000 tons. TL-7
; Second rank : 1,000 tons to 3,000 tons TL-9
; Third rank : 3,000 tons to 10,000 tons TL-10
; Fourth rank : 10,000 ton to 50,000 tons TL-11

; Fifth rank : 50k tons to 100k tons TL-12
; Sixth rank: 100k tons to 1m tons TL-13
; Seventh Rank: over 1M tons TL-14+

The hand-wave is, of course, derived form a first Imperium system adapted through the millennia to the shifting standards of ship building. The original system only had the first four ranks, as they were not building anything larger. And most ship building societies do not need the fifth to 7th rank, as they simply don't build ships of that size. It's only the Third Imperium, the Zhodani, and the Solomani which build fleets of the enormous sized ships, given they have the Technology, the ship building capacity, and the war capacity to require them. So the 5th to 7th ranks are acknowledged, but rarely used.

 

[tjoneslo]

The other half of the (semi-)automated classification system works by defining the mission or role based upon what is installed in the ship.

For this, divide the components in a ship into two groups: Engineering and Component Payload. Engineering contains the drives (Jump Drive, Maneuver drive, Power Plant), the fuel required to operate the drives, control systems, and the crew to safely operate the drives. The component payload is all of the remaining modules and stuff installed. Main or major component payload is 50% or more of the component payload devoted to whatever the defining list of

From this we end up with the following definitions (somewhat refined from earlier editions in the thread):

Warships: The default warship role is "Fleet", with some additional specialties. Fleet role defined by major component payload being: Weapons, Screens, Armor, Gunners (to operate said weapons and screens), Additional power plant (oversized or additional) for weapons. Increased comptuer systems and sensors for weapons targeting. Quick launch facilities for carried ships (HG fighter launch tubes for example), carried ships explicitly noted as also Fleet ships (i.e. armed and armored) like fighter or battle riders.

The T5 shipbuilding system does note a whole set of weapons useful for attacking planets (vs space weapons for attacking other ships): These would include the rail guns, otillery, dead-fall ordinance. It may also include Plasma and Fusion weapons, and some missile launchers. According to the T5 classification these are "Siege" ships, used for planetary assaults. I would also add carrying military vehicles and troops into this category as well.

Based upon notes Rob sent me from Marc, there is the idea of finding the balance of Attack power to Defense power in ships. Marc referred to this as equipoise, where ships in equipoise are defined as having the ships primary weapons with an average chance of penetrating their own defense (mostly armor). The evaluation is always of the ship against itself. Ships with more armor (or defenses) than their weapons are capable of penetrating are "Defender" or "Armored". Ships with more weapons than their armor (or other defenses) can stop are termed "Assault".

So four classes: Fleet, Siege, Defender, and Assault. With Fleet being the default if not fitting into the specific other categories.

Commercial: From the previous notes I've collapsed the commercial and non-commercial/NGO/Private categories into this one "not-warship" category. We've previously discussed several of these but here are the more precise definitions.

Liner: Major component is Passengers space: Staterooms and extra space dedicated to passenger comfort. Carried craft also defined as Liners (passenger carriers). Life support system for passenger comfort.
Trader: Major component is a combination of Cargo space and Passenger space. Include low berths, mail safes, information storage, etc.
Freighter: Component payload is almost entirely cargo space, with little or no passenger space.

There is some overlap between these. The ratio should be >50% passenger space is a liner, less than 50% passenger space is a Trader, and no passenger space is a freighter.

Resource management: Major component is modules for managing raw materials and resources. This specifically is for the Type J Seeker (with the mining laser and ore processor) and the many variations on the Fuel tugs/barges used for fuel skimming and refining. The T5 ship maker doesn't include these as explicit options, there are a few in the MtG High Guard book (Bio sphere, construction deck). The best list I know of is in the GT:Starships book.

Explorer: Major component is scientific research equipment. Enhanced sensors and computer equipment. Laboratory space, specialty cargo for biological capture. Medical facilities, Crew space to operate the same.

This gives us five non-combat categories: Liner, Trader, Freighter, Resources, and Explorer.

Anything missing?

 

[Condottiere]

I've been reflecting on this:

The Tigress can be defined as a hybrid battleship, being uncompromisingly both battleship and carrier.

But what is a carrier is the naval sense? And the difference between that and a tender?

A transport and a ferry would convey (ferry) smallcraft, or bigcraft, we don't judge; in the days when aircraft carriers were plentiful, special maintenance ones were established that could repair damaged carrier aircraft, which was a force multiplier.

They are not meant to be on the frontline.

Tenders were ships that had the facilities to maintain and repair smaller craft, like destroyers and seaplanes, and also could convey them to deployment areas, like torpedo boats and aforesaid seaplanes. I don't think I've ever heard of a cruiser or battleship tender.

In the Traveller sense, the difference between a carrier and a tender is how fast you can deploy the smallcraft, and reembark them.

 

[aramis]

I've been reflecting on this:

The Tigress can be defined as a hybrid battleship, being uncompromisingly both battleship and carrier.

But what is a carrier is the naval sense? And the difference between that and a tender?

I'd put the distinction on where the subcraft crew sleep. If they sleep on the rider, it's a tender. if the sleep on the mothership, it's a carrier. But there also is the resupply vessel meaning of tender as well

As for carrier types... based upon WWII-Korean War era...

Size	Fleet Speed?	Aircraft	Sqdn	Coded
Casual	Usually	1-4	-	(not usually)
Escort Carrier	No; under	6 to 24	1/2-2	CVE
Light Carrier	Yes, over	20-50	1-4	CVL
Fleet Carrier	Yes, Over	30-96	2-8	CV, CVF
Attack Carrier	Yes, Over	72-96	3-8	CVA
Heavy Carrier, Battle Carrier	Yes, over	96-120	4-10	CVH CVB

The CVH/CVB proposals never got built... but the USN proposed some in the 1980s.
There were proposals for CVFs... carrier speed CVEs, but the supporting doctrine wasn't widely held.

note typical squadrons are 12-24 birds...but exactly how many variesby time and place

Note that many WW I CA, CB, and BB were casual carriers.
Some hybrid CVL/CA have been built in WWII and later.

 

[Condottiere]

Ships tend to carry boats, or smallcraft, so in that sense most of the larger craft will have that facility. I'm not sure I would say that for cruisers and battleships (I believe they tried for destroyers, but it didn't really work) the intent was to extend over the horizon sensing and scouting, which worked in peacetime and precombat, but became a liability during.

In that sense, having seaplanes onboard would be casual, as it's not, necessarily critical, but a useful feature.

However, and this is where I think my point about speed of launch and recovery comes in, a helicopter and it's landing pad, can become critical.

It's also about the location of the facilities, whether it's external, like clamping docks, or internal, which gives it the benefit of all the defences of the mothership.

In the Great Patriotic War, hybrid battleships cannot be considered successful, because you compromise capabilities in both roles, and hybrid cruisers, as I understand it, were to move scouting functions from the carrier air group, letting them concentrate on the strike role.

Sleeping arrangements is a valid point, though I suspect they may turn out to be cramped, especially if their deployment is considered to be short term.

Carrier design and doctrine reflects on how they were expected to be used, made during peacetime, and escorts, conversions and lights during the first phase of the war, when anything that could float and wasn't essential doing something else was considered. Fleet is meant to be able to keep up with the line of battle, but Fighting Ships tends to list them at acceleration factor two.

The size of the air group tends to be capped at a hundred, due to control bottlenecks, which in Traveller shouldn't be an issue; the largest that I can remember is the two hundred kilotonne Midways, with fifteen hundred fighters, grappled externally, the Imperium may be sticking to three to four hundred. In our reality, the cost of the air group seems to be now the limiting factor.

Specialization, which I believe was mentioned in the original Fighting Ships, is probably the better solution, with the hybrids like the Azhantis, attack and/or strike cruisers and/or carriers really having only niche usefulness.

The closest we may have had to battle carriers would be the British armoured deck ones, because they made the calculation that their area of operations would be in the Mediterranean, an enclosed sea, and being in range of land based strike aircraft; the compromise was the size of the air group in favour of additional hull armour.

 

[McPerth]

The CVH

It's curious... I've always seen CVH standis as Helicopter (not heavy) Carrier, meaning a carrier for VTOL aircraft (as the Spanish Principe de Asturias or the British HMS Invencible (Flakland War, not WWII)...

I guess another example of ships' coding changing with time...

 

[Condottiere]

It comes down to either catapult or ski jump.

The Americans bribed the British not to design a successor to the Harrier, and the Russians were bankrupt.

Without a catapult, and we know that the Chinese had gotten hold of a British designed steam one, they haven't made copies of it but seem to be working on the magnetic successor, you're stuck with light fighters or medium ones with light loads.

The alternative is developing a more powerful engine.

It seems that compromising with the weapon systems and platform tends to lead to diminishing returns in downscaling, which is why nuclear super carriers are still being built.

 

[McPerth]

Without a catapult, and we know that the Chinese had gotten hold of a British designed steam one, they haven't made copies of it but seem to be working on the magnetic successor, you're stuck with light fighters or medium ones with light loads.

With VTOL aircrafts I also meant helicopters, so a helo carrier is also usually coded as CVH (even while not too powerful as carriers, they are nice anti-sub platforms)

That's what I meant

 

[robject]

Note that there are exceptions, and that exceptions don't make the rule -- but note that they exist.

The big example: the Loeskalth planetoid starship. Perhaps TL 9, Jump-1... and 50 000 000 000 tons.

Say it like Sagan: fifty beeeellion tons.

Built around -4300, during the First Imperium, by the Loeskalth in Gushemege, to cross the Great Rift and "escape from the Vilani conquest".

 

[aramis]

It's curious... I've always seen CVH standis as Helicopter (not heavy) Carrier, meaning a carrier for VTOL aircraft (as the Spanish Principe de Asturias or the British HMS Invencible (Flakland War, not WWII)...

I guess another example of ships' coding changing with time...

Yep. Post 1970 or so, the US formally used CVH for pure helicopter carriers. During Korea, all the carriers I've seen documented were mixed air wing, usually with fighters, a utility, and during the Korean War, a couple helicopters. Note, how
Given that no carriers were ever so coded, most don't list it. I found out about it going through the Archives, in a proposed categorization. (I spent a couple years working for the US National Archives and Records administration.)

During Korea and 'Nam wars, the H suffix for "Helicopter" was used to designate casual carrier surface combatants, as well, without the carrier V, while also suffixed H being used for heavy in some other contexts... It's enough to drive one crazy.

History and Technology - USN Ship Designations - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

General Order No. 541 (1920) Standard Nomemclature for Naval Vessels

Navy Department, Office of Naval Operations, Washington, D. C., July 17, 1920 STANDARD NOMENCLATURE FOR NAVAL VESSELS 1. In order to provide a standard nomenclature for types and classes of vessels comprised in the United States Navy, as well as a standard system of identification numbers which...

www.history.navy.mil

The 1920 list isn't a good match to Bk5, but A for Auxiliary is a good fit in a SSU's role for the Type A.

 

[Condottiere]

I think there was a trend post Great Patriotic War, to attribute capabilities within the designation, though you could see it during, especially with the auxiliaries.

It's almost a certainty that drones, sea and air, are going to get crammed onboard ships; I was informed that propeller planes can't use the ski jump, since I thought that would be a cheap alternative to the current crop of increasingly expensive jet powered models, so drones so motivated are going to need actual flattops.

I think the British may have been pioneering in the helicopter field, with light carriers converted to commando ones, for air assault troops. And then everyone else, Soviets, French, Italians building specialized helicopter carriers. The through deck cruiser was a sleight of hand by the Admiralty to retain carrier capability with a rather new gimmick, short take off and vertical landing, and even that was scheduled to get sold off, when history intervened and reemphasized a minimum of naval strike capability was a requisite for power projection.

It was pretty obvious what the Japanese were doing, despite denials, that only a minimum of conversion was necessary to make their helicopter destroyers Lightning compatible.

In the Atlantic, helicopter "carriers" would be used mainly for anti submarine warfare in the commerce protection role. The British tried converting Tiger and Blake as command cruisers to undertake this, with the back half for helicopter operations, but I think no one was happy with the results.

With carriers, it seems to be all or nothing approach.

Speaking of which, as Midway shows, this doesn't matter if the carriers are expendable, which the Japanese carriers were not; their crews and aircraft certainly weren't.

Currently, I think only the Indians, Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, French, Italians, British and Americans can build (and afford) new carriers. The Thais have the world's smallest, which seems permanently docked, the Spanish don't have any customers, and the Russians have lost the capability; Brazil seems to wait for the second hand market, and outside of the British Great Patriotic War relics, those never seem to have worked out well for anyone.

 

[McPerth]

Yep. Post 1970 or so, the US formally used CVH for pure helicopter carriers

(...).

That's what I mostly meant: those codes change with time, and what may mean something now may well mean something different in a time, and 3I had plenty of time for them to change (not to talk about the other various entities in the chartered space)...

 

[aramis]

I think there was a trend post Great Patriotic War, to attribute capabilities within the designation, though you could see it during, especially with the auxiliaries.

It's almost a certainty that drones, sea and air, are going to get crammed onboard ships; I was informed that propeller planes can't use the ski jump, since I thought that would be a cheap alternative to the current crop of increasingly expensive jet powered models, so drones so motivated are going to need actual flattops.

Ski-jumps can work with prop planes, but the angles useful are different.
There are several factors, tho', that make it less than ideal.
1) Prop planes have to ensure the prop doesn't hit; front engine taildraggers have issues.
1.1) tail strike of the deck is a second impact concern
2) depending upon acceleration, the ramp may be too soon or too far
3) depending upon speed at ramp, specific conformation, and configuration, the extra angle can cause a stall.

Note that many jets sit higher, and most are tricycles, while most prop fighters are tail-draggers.
For example, while not a fighter, the DHC-2 Beaver, in land configuration, has 12" of clearance for the prop when at flat posture; 15" or so when tail grounded. since the props are ahead of the tires, any significant resistance will attempt to pivot on the front wheels, which will drive the propeller down and into the ramp. A good pilot can compensate, but there's also the issue that the take off roll distance...

Which brings to mind a serious ObTrav: launch tubes are going to be pretty shape specific... unlike deck catapults. They really don't make much sense, either, (save the BSG and BR influences from late 70's TV, as rule of cool,) and drop racks á la B-5 would be much faster in practice.

 

[Condottiere]

1. A ramp may be somewhat different from ski jump; you can always bring back the gull wing to add height.

2. One difference between now and then, which we do observe with Traveller designed combat smallcraft, is that electronics is potentially the big ticket item, so that part of the cost remains same whether you have a cutting edge jet powered airframe, or a turbo prop.

3. Regarding Traveller launch tubes, I remember commenting, maybe a decade ago, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a fighter at speed to re enter the launch tube; I like to think my whining got that changed to the addition of the recovery deck.

4. The other aspect is, despite same or of smaller tonnage, not all fighters are going to fit in what one can only imagine is a rather tight circular tube, especially since they could be of nine hull configurations, and even then configurations can have variations.

5. As for racks, presumably current rules for docking clamps make it more of a drawn out process.

 

[tjoneslo]

The reason aircraft need a catapult is they require a specific velocity to fly from a standstill. Space fighter craft don't. You can just drop them off with minimal cataput force and it works just fine.

This depends partly on how the maneuver drive and the internal G compensation works. If you are launching under acceleration you want to make sure the fighter craft clears the ships before the acceleration smashed them into the lip of the launch tube or craft holding.

I know Carriers need to face into the wind and be moving at specific speeds to best (or at all) launch aircraft. This in turn causes specific tactical dangers in that it makes the ship predictable in positioning, making it a target. There may be similar restrictions for launching and recovering fighter for Traveller ships.

 

[aramis]

The reason aircraft need a catapult is they require a specific velocity to fly from a standstill. Space fighter craft don't. You can just drop them off with minimal cataput force and it works just fine.

This depends partly on how the maneuver drive and the internal G compensation works. If you are launching under acceleration you want to make sure the fighter craft clears the ships before the acceleration smashed them into the lip of the launch tube or craft holding.

Just have the launch racks face "down" withing the ship's AG field. No fling needed.

 

[Condottiere]

If an aircraft is overladen, gravity would force it downward after it leaves the flight deck; this would accelerate it, and could provide just enough lift to avoid a crash.

There's a sort of a question of how the acceleration and velocity of the mothership effects the launch or recovery of a spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

It occurs to me that internal gravity can be adjusted, presumably upto six times Terran norm.

You could let the fighter drop down to the open cargo hatch while generating a local gravity field of six gees.

 

[Rigel Stardin]

In space, Cataputs are only useful if you want to save fuel (early tech) or get the fighter up to combat speed in a hurry. Or just like @Condottiere say, use the hanger's gravitronics to launch the vehicle.

 

[Condottiere]

I think one reason you do have tubes, is that it's prevent the launchee from crashing into one of the sides of the hangar.

Also, I've always thought that if the carrier is accelerating forward, you might want to launch out the rear, with or without a tube.