Turret Missiles Revisted

[PinkSplice]

On certain topics Yes, especially being a retired boat (submarine) sailor.

Small missiles in Traveller have always bee a sticking point for me. Both of us have had experience with guided weaponry. Yours would be Mk 48's and Tomahawks, mine would be AIM-9L's, AGM-65's and AIM7's.

Where are the missile tubes? I *do* understand my external stores would burn off going through atmosphere...

Traveller missiles, not counting bay weapons (VLS, box launchers), seem too have too much punch for their size. They are one-man lifts, pre-packaged, costing, IIRC, Cr 5000. Value City!

A type S scout might well have preloaded fore/aft tubes. What I think happened is that the designers did not want to create ships that were too powerful for small ship campaigns. Hence, the 100 DT limit.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning PinkSplice,

Small missiles in Traveller have always bee a sticking point for me. Both of us have had experience with guided weaponry. Yours would be Mk 48's and Tomahawks, mine would be AIM-9L's, AGM-65's and AIM7's.

I was a sonar tech on three old SSBNs and one old SSN so my experience is limited the torpedoes and SLBMs. The closest I got to Tomahawks was when I worked in a submarine support facility.

Where are the missile tubes? I *do* understand my external stores would burn off going through atmosphere...

Traveller missiles, not counting bay weapons (VLS, box launchers), seem too have too much punch for their size. They are one-man lifts, pre-packaged, costing, IIRC, Cr 5000. Value City!

A type S scout might well have preloaded fore/aft tubes. What I think happened is that the designers did not want to create ships that were too powerful for small ship campaigns. Hence, the 100 DT limit.

Good question about the missile tube and I think that the lack of details on the tubes extends to the other weapons as well. Anyway, like many things in Traveller the tubes, missile or other weapons, are left to the designers imagination. Being a sailor I imagine Traveller turrets looking and functioning like those on warships.

Book 2, not sure what page off the top of my slightly lop-sided and dented head ;-), says that there is a magazine that holds three missiles inside the turret. Now storing things that go boom on the outside of a hull re-entering atmosphere doesn't sound like a good idea.
The designers of Traveller made space weapon combat relatively easy to resolve which, in my opinion, really doesn't tell me how powerful any of them are. Book 2 lists missiles as weighing 50 kg and costing Cr 5,000. CT Book 5 major change is that missiles either are equipped with HE or nuclear warheads. My take is the civilians are restricted to HE and the military gets to play with both HE and nuclear. In Mayday and Special Supplement 3 the cost of missiles vary depending on how one builds the missile. Special Supplement 3 also changes the mass of missiles.

Small Craft less than 100 DT carrying the same weapons cause the same damage as craft greater than or equal to 100 DT. What skews the equation is a small craft's computer and that larger ships can carry more armor and weapons to counter the attacks.

Thanks for the reply

 

[Carlobrand]

...Where are the missile tubes? I *do* understand my external stores would burn off going through atmosphere...

Why? Traveller provides oodles of power and drive systems that could conceivably let you "feather-fall" down from orbit if you so choose. Traveller grav tanks and APCs, in Striker at least, have the option of mounting missiles on external rail mounts, and they're also designed to fly from orbit to ground. There might be a tactical advantage in a meteoric descent - in which case they probably wouldn't mount external munitions - but it is by no means the only method of coming down from orbit, certainly not if the particular planet being attacked lacks planetary defense batteries. If a tank is capable of flying several hundred kilometers per hour through air with external munitions on rails, there's no reason it can't descend at the same speed with external munitions on rails.

 

[aramis]

Traveller grav tanks and APCs, in Striker at least, have the option of mounting missiles on external rail mounts, and they're also designed to fly from orbit to ground. There might be a tactical advantage in a meteoric descent - in which case they probably wouldn't mount external munitions - but it is by no means the only method of coming down from orbit, certainly not if the particular planet being attacked lacks planetary defense batteries.

Meteoric is the fastest way to shed orbital velocity if there is a thick enough atmosphere... take mars... Phobos, at 1.5 diameters (3 radii), give or take a fraction, is 2.138 km/s, which, at the 6G rate, would take 36 sec to shed; escape velocity is under 6km/s... earth orbit is much higher speed.

And most grav vehicles don't have more than 3G's...

 

[Carlobrand]

Meteoric is the fastest way to shed orbital velocity if there is a thick enough atmosphere... take mars... Phobos, at 1.5 diameters (3 radii), give or take a fraction, is 2.138 km/s, which, at the 6G rate, would take 36 sec to shed; escape velocity is under 6km/s... earth orbit is much higher speed.

And most grav vehicles don't have more than 3G's...

Agreed, but

1. far from the only means;
2. given the available power, there's no need for a transport coming in from jump to take on orbital velocity - it can simply arrive and maintain position on drives; and
3. there are a lot of worlds out there that don't have the necessaries to contest a naval transport unloading tanks and APCs in their orbital space.

Unless someone's going to be shooting at you as you make re-entry, or unless your plan absolutely requires surprise and suddenness, there's not much need for urgency. A drop from 100km up at mere near-sonic speeds should take no more than 10 minutes or so, and I suspect any potential surprise would be lost when an Imperial troop transport exited jump space and started heading for the planet, not to mention when it began disgorging tanks. You can get there a few minutes sooner without your rail-mounted missiles or a few minutes later with your rail-mounted missiles - which option is best depends on what you're going into, but both options are available.

 

[PinkSplice]

Why Traveller Missiles Are The Way They Are

Unless someone's going to be shooting at you as you make re-entry, or unless your plan absolutely requires surprise and suddenness, there's not much need for urgency.

Assuming you have *total* airspace superiority, that is. In all other cases, there is every need for urgency. Speed is life.

External stores, especially those that are fully "plumbed" (wiring, fuel, etc) make for HUGE radar cross sections (RCS's). In Real Life, they also have airspeed, load, drag, and G limitations. There's also limitations on when and where external stores can be jettisoned (recently a USN F-18 had to dump it's stores off the Great Barrier Reef, setting off a diplo storm). If you're in a furball, you're stuck with 'em. Big agility limitations.

Aboard spacecraft, storage and cube are eternal problems. I would imagine launch tubes would have problems, if the stores were over the 20% rule. From personal experience, I can tell you that hardpoints, when mounted, tend to *stay* mounted. The CC/Plane captain and the weapons grunts would have to spend crucial turnaround time to change configurations. I count conformal stores to be part of the aircraft itself. See the evolution of the F-15's Fast Packs. Physically, tubes for missiles, sand (Traveller's DDS) would count against a craft's total tonnage and cost requirements. My submerged friend is correct is saying that there is a 3 msl ready rack/mag, in addition to the 3 msl's in the launcher.

May I introduce you to Firefox, AKA the 40 ton Pinnace? Think in *Russian*. It *does* have a four ton bridge; all the stock CT boats do (I've run the numbers). It's fire control that's the problem- hence the need for a gunner or really big computer. More likely, both. A computer-controlled, aft-firing sand tube is almost a given for point defense. Should be a gimmee from the ref. See the Real Life torpedo nixie. Or a submarine's countermeasures. My chaff/flare/DDS racks count, too.

External stores would be much more common for surface-based craft. Carrying spacecraft weaponry, without the need to enter space, or launch/recover from a ship.

And here's where things get out of control. Really. Out. Of. Control.

Planets that are One Big VLS. Or One Big Meson Gun. Or, both, with One Big Meson Screen and Nuke Damper. (Did that in TCS. I had the German Planet in the Island Clusters Campaign)

Or, Fleets That Are All Drones/Rocks. Did that, too.

Big Surprise: The *game* designers did not want missile "porcupines". A humble 20 ton ship's launch would have 13 tons of missiles- making it an SFB Scatterpack. Think of a cutters' scatterpack module, and you'll have combat nightmares. What type of drones does it carry, and on *which* impulse did it launch? It should be able to cripple a 5 ktn escort, and eat smaller craft for lunch. This is why Traveller does not have Long Lance Torpedoes, etc. I've designed lots of drones in the 4 ton range, and up. (1 ton of engine, fuel, computer, and payload each). Launch hundreds, or thousands of them beyond 100 D. Or, the system could have them on standby.

SFB or Harpoon make great wargames. An RPG? Not so much.

NIEN! Verboten! Ein, EIN veapons mount per hundert tonnen! Ein boat, ein mount!

Otherwise, the game is rapidly distorted. "Broken", one might say.

 

[Carlobrand]

Assuming you have *total* airspace superiority, that is. ...

And a review of the Spinward Marches reveals you are likely to have total airspace superiority over a majority of worlds. More than half have populations in the millions or less. More than half have tech levels under 9. In those instances when you are landing on the Imperial equivalent of Somalia, taking on some TL7 rebellion on an underpopulated world or some such oddity, you go in loaded as you see fit. In those instances where you do not, or you are uncertain - as when landing on an Imperial world occupied by Zhodani invaders of unknown strength - you go in without the external hardware. What decides your speed, and therefore your load, is the tactical situation.

...
Big Surprise: The *game* designers did not want missile "porcupines". A humble 20 ton ship's launch would have 13 tons of missiles- making it an SFB Scatterpack. Think of a cutters' scatterpack module, and you'll have combat nightmares. ...

And now apparently we change the subject. As I recall, the subject was the physics of bringing something with external ordnance from orbit to ground, not game balance. I'm not really interested in arguing game balance since I'm not trying to introduce scatterpacks into space combat.

However, may I introduce to you Striker, a GDW product which explores tactical ground warfare in the Imperium - including vehicles. Including grav vehicles such as grav tanks and grav APCs, said vehicles fully sealed and able to move from orbit to ground on their own. Said vehicles, by rule, permitted to carry external ordnance - specifically tac missiles.

Now perhaps, instead of changing the subject, we can discuss why someone might think a canon combat vehicle equipped with canon-approved external ordnance should not carry that ordnance when inserting in a controlled descent onto a TL5-8 world without orbital defenses.

 

[PinkSplice]

And a review of the Spinward Marches reveals you are likely to have total airspace superiority over a majority of worlds. More than half have populations in the millions or less. More than half have tech levels under 9. In those instances when you are landing on the Imperial equivalent of Somalia, taking on some TL7 rebellion on an underpopulated world or some such oddity, you go in loaded as you see fit. In those instances where you do not, or you are uncertain - as when landing on an Imperial world occupied by Zhodani invaders of unknown strength - you go in without the external hardware. What decides your speed, and therefore your load, is the tactical situation.



And now apparently we change the subject. As I recall, the subject was the physics of bringing something with external ordnance from orbit to ground, not game balance. I'm not really interested in arguing game balance since I'm not trying to introduce scatterpacks into space combat.

However, may I introduce to you Striker, a GDW product which explores tactical ground warfare in the Imperium - including vehicles. Including grav vehicles such as grav tanks and grav APCs, said vehicles fully sealed and able to move from orbit to ground on their own. Said vehicles, by rule, permitted to carry external ordnance - specifically tac missiles.

Now perhaps, instead of changing the subject, we can discuss why someone might think a canon combat vehicle equipped with canon-approved external ordnance should not carry that ordnance when inserting in a controlled descent onto a TL5-8 world without orbital defenses.

You're a bit late on introducing me to Striker. About three decades, or so.

I'll get back to you on the low tech conundrum.

 

[PinkSplice]

It looks like we're going to disagree.

Yes, you could indeed insert, at very low velocities, your canon-approved vehicles into the airspace of a low tech world. Your mission objectives could be completely accomplished.

Until the other guy shows up. See the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, or, our own with Viet Nam, or IED's in the Middle East. There's always a counter-tactic. It then turns into an infantry war. A nasty one. You'll have to destroy the planet, to save it.

That's why High Guard rapidly transitions to Striker, for a brief time, then down to individual combat. My take is that these very expensive, heavy MBT equivalents will have the lives of mayflies (relatively). Up high, they're going to get killed by space weapons. Down low, dedicated anti vehicle weapons/asymmetric warfare takes it's toll.

 

[Carlobrand]

It looks like we're going to disagree.

Yes, you could indeed insert, at very low velocities, your canon-approved vehicles into the airspace of a low tech world. Your mission objectives could be completely accomplished.

Until the other guy shows up. See the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, or, our own with Viet Nam, or IED's in the Middle East. There's always a counter-tactic. It then turns into an infantry war. A nasty one. You'll have to destroy the planet, to save it.

That's why High Guard rapidly transitions to Striker, for a brief time, then down to individual combat. My take is that these very expensive, heavy MBT equivalents will have the lives of mayflies (relatively). Up high, they're going to get killed by space weapons. Down low, dedicated anti vehicle weapons/asymmetric warfare takes it's toll.

Umm, OK. Is there a factual basis for disagreement, or is this more a philosophical stance? The core question was whether combat craft inserting from orbit would be equipped with or carry external ordnance. Combat missions are and have always been circumstance-specific. The idea that a strategy is unworkable because it is unworkable in a specific circumstance against a specific well-equipped enemy - when there are large numbers of targets that don't fit that profile - doesn't make much sense to me.

Canon gives us a little Broadsword fighter at MCr7, an armed gig at anywhere from about MCr8 to MCr27 depending on design, a 10 dT fighter at around MCr18, and a 50dT fighter at a whopping MCr131. As you point out, High Guard transitions to Striker: the Striker Marine Grav APC runs MCr5.6. In other words, budget doesn't seem to be a problem - a TL15 grav tank design tends to come in around the cost and performance of the light fighters: more heavily armored, not as fast, and using battlefield-range weapons instead of space weapons.

"The other guy show[ing] up" is potentially an issue in nonaligned space, although him showing up a la Afghanistan with weapons capable of contesting orbital space around a low-tech world would be an interesting feat: these aren't helicopters facing shoulder-fired Stingers. Shifting technology tends to open up new strategies and close old strategies: the give-the-locals-Stingers bit wasn't an option against WW-II Stukas, when the best available defense was large rapid-fire weapons and decent quantities of flak shells, and it stops being an option when the flying vehicles start being heavily armored, equipped with point defense systems, and coming in from altitudes that require missiles almost as big as a man. In High Guard, high tech armor makes it difficult for even conventional space missiles to do much good against a well-armored foe, and Striker's no different - unless you're talking about the Zho handing out clandestine nukes, something which is likely to have a very negative effect on both the recipient and the Zho.

Heavier weapons, you're basically talking about some superpower sneaking a ship or boat or maybe a heavy vehicle of some sort in for the locals to use, 'cause the weapons are power-hungry and need to be mobile if they're not going to be wrecked in the first counterattack. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of credits invested for each one, so short of finding some way to insert them in battalion strength, their numbers are going to be small. While their presence may be tragic for the crew of the occasional descending tank, it's not going to be enough to adversely affect the operation as a whole unless the Zho show up with a PD battalion.

As to asymmetric warfare - that's an issue for the ground strategy, not an issue for the descent from vacuum. To strike into orbit requires weapons of significant range and sensors of significant accuracy, in sufficient number to make a difference. This is a case of needing sufficient tech to apply the power needed at the range needed to get the job done. There's a world of difference between burying a makeshift bomb on the road and trying to deliver enough destructive power accurately into the high atmosphere without seeing it get shot down by passive defenses; your WW-II equivalent assymetric warrior's going to have to wait for the enemy to get in reach - he's not going to accomplish anything beyond about airplane altitude.

Or, I guess if you could get your hands on something like those cool plasma-firing giant beetles from Starship Troopers, you could maybe give the invader heck. :devil:

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Carlobrand and PinkSplice,

The original topic of this thread that I started concerned the propulsion system of Traveller turret missiles from the material gleaned from LBB 2, LBB 5, Mayday and SS3.

LBB 2, LBB 5, and Mayday do not specify what type of propulsion system is used, however, based on the acceleration my guess is that they use a version of the Maneuver Drive. Unfortunately, without going to Striker, the only power source is a miniature fusion power plant and fuel tankage. All of which are going to be smaller than the minimum design requirements in LBB2 and LBB 5. Note I may be incorrect about the requirements in LBB 2 and LBB 5 my books are currently unavailable.

SS3 states that turret missiles use solid and liquid fuel propulsion systems with acceleration curves that appear to be far beyond what can be achieved today.

Somewhere along the line the thread went off on a tangent, which is okay by me since I find the discussion interesting

 

[Carlobrand]

Hello Carlobrand and PinkSplice,

The original topic of this thread that I started concerned the propulsion system of Traveller turret missiles from the material gleaned from LBB 2, LBB 5, Mayday and SS3.

LBB 2, LBB 5, and Mayday do not specify what type of propulsion system is used, however, based on the acceleration my guess is that they use a version of the Maneuver Drive. Unfortunately, without going to Striker, the only power source is a miniature fusion power plant and fuel tankage. All of which are going to be smaller than the minimum design requirements in LBB2 and LBB 5. Note I may be incorrect about the requirements in LBB 2 and LBB 5 my books are currently unavailable.

SS3 states that turret missiles use solid and liquid fuel propulsion systems with acceleration curves that appear to be far beyond what can be achieved today.

Somewhere along the line the thread went off on a tangent, which is okay by me since I find the discussion interesting

Oops, sorry.

You might consider exploring MegaTrav's Hard Times supplement. It has a design sequence for reaction drives including fusion drives. Same problems: Book-2 performance can't be achieved within the constraints of the canon-described missile size. However, it's as close as you can get, and it makes for an interesting exercise. I understand the person who created it had a good understanding of the science and its limitations, so that probably represents as close to a "realistic" performance as we can expect.

Actually, Book-2/SS-3 and Book-5 conflict with each other. Book-2 presents a 6G missile which can absolutely hit a 1G target within its effective range, unless the target can use ECM or shoot it down: you've got a chance only if it's far enough away and you've got the drives and right vector to build up enough distance to outrun it. Book-5 presents a missile with a 10 in 36 chance of missing a 0-agility target at long range and a 15 in 36 chance of missing at close range, assuming equal computer factors on the launching and target ships: you want to get close to a missile ship instead of trying to stay back. They're very much different ways of imagining combat.

Striker's no help either. Book-2/SS-3 are actually a headache for Striker in that they imply the existence of a reaction drive not represented by Striker rules which, if brought into the Striker setting, would be potentially game-changing. That kind of energy density would make for some wicked powerful short-range missiles, inasmuch as the bulk of the missile would be payload. When you think of 20 Kg of fuel driving a 50kg mass at 6G for a thousand seconds, and then start imagining a shoulder-fired missile or a short-range rail-launched missile needing only enough of that fuel for a moment's thrust, the potential becomes frightening.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Carlobrand,

Oops, sorry.

Y'all can still go on with the tangent discussion, I just wanted you to know that the thread was started to further discuss the turret missile. I have submitted errata for SS3 to Donald McKinney who will at some point be able to get Marc Miller to vet the material for use in the next Consolidated CT Errata update. Unfortunately, I still haven't figured out how to get around the SS3 propulsion systems.

You might consider exploring MegaTrav's Hard Times supplement. It has a design sequence for reaction drives including fusion drives. Same problems: Book-2 performance can't be achieved within the constraints of the canon-described missile size. However, it's as close as you can get, and it makes for an interesting exercise. I understand the person who created it had a good understanding of the science and its limitations, so that probably represents as close to a "realistic" performance as we can expect.

Thanks for the new source material to look at which will be added to my growing list of projects. Right now I'm working on CT Alien Module 3 section on the Arrghoun Vargr dialect and grammar.

Actually, Book-2/SS-3 and Book-5 conflict with each other. Book-2 presents a 6G missile which can absolutely hit a 1G target within its effective range, unless the target can use ECM or shoot it down: you've got a chance only if it's far enough away and you've got the drives and right vector to build up enough distance to outrun it. Book-5 presents a missile with a 10 in 36 chance of missing a 0-agility target at long range and a 15 in 36 chance of missing at close range, assuming equal computer factors on the launching and target ships: you want to get close to a missile ship instead of trying to stay back. They're very much different ways of imagining combat.

My opinion is that SS3 conflicts with LBB2, LBB 5, and Mayday. Thanks for the numbers about missiles hitting the target. I am not looking at hit probability just seeing how much information I can get about the missile physical characteristics specifically the propulsion system which LBB 5 doesn't do. However, LBB 5 does provide that there are types of warhead available which is not, IIRC, is the case in LBB 2.

Striker's no help either. Book-2/SS-3 are actually a headache for Striker in that they imply the existence of a reaction drive not represented by Striker rules which, if brought into the Striker setting, would be potentially game-changing. That kind of energy density would make for some wicked powerful short-range missiles, inasmuch as the bulk of the missile would be payload. When you think of 20 Kg of fuel driving a 50kg mass at 6G for a thousand seconds, and then start imagining a shoulder-fired missile or a short-range rail-launched missile needing only enough of that fuel for a moment's thrust, the potential becomes frightening.

Thanks for the heads up about Striker and starship missiles.

Thanks for the reply and please continue with the tangent discussion.

 

[PinkSplice]

Hello Carlobrand and PinkSplice,

The original topic of this thread that I started concerned the propulsion system of Traveller turret missiles from the material gleaned from LBB 2, LBB 5, Mayday and SS3.

LBB 2, LBB 5, and Mayday do not specify what type of propulsion system is used, however, based on the acceleration my guess is that they use a version of the Maneuver Drive. Unfortunately, without going to Striker, the only power source is a miniature fusion power plant and fuel tankage. All of which are going to be smaller than the minimum design requirements in LBB2 and LBB 5. Note I may be incorrect about the requirements in LBB 2 and LBB 5 my books are currently unavailable.

SS3 states that turret missiles use solid and liquid fuel propulsion systems with acceleration curves that appear to be far beyond what can be achieved today.

Somewhere along the line the thread went off on a tangent, which is okay by me since I find the discussion interesting

For extrapolations of propulsion, you might try this site:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

 

[PinkSplice]

Striker's no help either. Book-2/SS-3 are actually a headache for Striker in that they imply the existence of a reaction drive not represented by Striker rules which, if brought into the Striker setting, would be potentially game-changing. That kind of energy density would make for some wicked powerful short-range missiles, inasmuch as the bulk of the missile would be payload. When you think of 20 Kg of fuel driving a 50kg mass at 6G for a thousand seconds, and then start imagining a shoulder-fired missile or a short-range rail-launched missile needing only enough of that fuel for a moment's thrust, the potential becomes frightening.

Indeed. And the reverse, for spacecraft.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening PinkSplice,

For extrapolations of propulsion, you might try this site:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/index.php

Thanks for reminding me about the site and providing me with the link.