Warship type descriptions

[mike wightman]

Just like the Raptor class of ship in the new Battlestar Galactica???
Only make it look like the rest so the enemy won't know which one to knock out first.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Xavier Onassis:
Here's a thought: if a squadron of fighters can fire their weapons as a single battery, could they also perform targeting and EW at the squadron level? Less manpower and dice-rolling all around would make this a lot simpler, yes? It would also be more cost-effective to have one or two 'command fighters' per squadron, rather than a whole squadron with top-of-the-line computers, sensors, etc. At least until the command craft get spotted and picked off by meson bays....

XO

That's how I assume it would work, when I use lots of fighters in HG. I assume that the fighters in a squadron of 10 (or a fighter wing of 100) datalink together and share sensor/targeting data, effectively giving the squadron a higher computer factor (in HG terms).

How that would work in T20 I have no idea.

 

[aramis]

Here's a way to handle that, Oz:

assuming the fighters maintain a close formation (same hex, facing, vector), allow them to form as a squadron (as the rules permits), then look up the number of computers on the beam laser table, subtract 1, and add to the lowest computer UPP in the squadron... One needs a higher base model (1 over) to function as coordinator. Thus, until you get past 3, no benefits accrue to anyone; at three, you get everyone equal to the coordinator.

 

[The Oz]

I'll have to look at that, Aramis. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The T20 rules state that squadrons of identical craft can use their weapons as one battery. So 10 fighters armed with triple lasers would be a factor 9. In all honesty, in T20 Computer targeting isn't all that helpful in T20. With the average ship having an AC of well under 30, adding the gunner's skill (An average gunner is around 11 for this purpose.) plus the factor of the weapon, plus a die 20. even with an AC of 30 you are looking at 50% hits to start with. Add the squadron commander's leadership (Tactics is the INT or WIS bonus, or Leadership is 1/3 of the leadership skill (I think)) for an additional +3-+4 Suddenly ou hit 65%-70% of the time.

Because of the way sensors work in T20 I don't think adding computers is a fair way to do it. Taking three radars with a range of 20 miles and putting them in close proximity won't increase your effective range to 60 miles. (Physically tieing their power sources together might get you a short term range increase for the cost of burning out one of the sets, but that isn't the same.

Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Xavier Onassis:
Here's a thought: if a squadron of fighters can fire their weapons as a single battery, could they also perform targeting and EW at the squadron level? Less manpower and dice-rolling all around would make this a lot simpler, yes? It would also be more cost-effective to have one or two 'command fighters' per squadron, rather than a whole squadron with top-of-the-line computers, sensors, etc. At least until the command craft get spotted and picked off by meson bays....

XO

That's how I assume it would work, when I use lots of fighters in HG. I assume that the fighters in a squadron of 10 (or a fighter wing of 100) datalink together and share sensor/targeting data, effectively giving the squadron a higher computer factor (in HG terms).

How that would work in T20 I have no idea. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

One other point, Grouping your fighters into squadrons simplifies enemy point defense and enemy targeting. If they are treated as one ship you can fire on the squadron and get multiple kills. If you spread out your squadron fire you have a better chance of swamping point defense, having individual fighters survive to attack range, and actually scoring damage against a moderately armored opponent. (Depending, of course on the weapon being used and the actual level of armor.)

 

[mike wightman]

I would give the fighters a chance by ruling that they can attack as one combined battery (although why they would want to in T20 is another debatable point since the weapons do more damage to the target ship if fired individually ) but are treated as separate ships for return fire, i.e. damage doesn't carry over.

 

[graden1]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
The T20 rules state that squadrons of identical craft can use their weapons as one battery. So 10 fighters armed with triple lasers would be a factor 9. In all honesty, in T20 Computer targeting isn't all that helpful in T20. With the average ship having an AC of well under 30, adding the gunner's skill (An average gunner is around 11 for this purpose.) plus the factor of the weapon, plus a die 20. even with an AC of 30 you are looking at 50% hits to start with. Add the squadron commander's leadership (Tactics is the INT or WIS bonus, or Leadership is 1/3 of the leadership skill (I think)) for an additional +3-+4 Suddenly ou hit 65%-70% of the time.

Because of the way sensors work in T20 I don't think adding computers is a fair way to do it. Taking three radars with a range of 20 miles and putting them in close proximity won't increase your effective range to 60 miles. (Physically tieing their power sources together might get you a short term range increase for the cost of burning out one of the sets, but that isn't the same.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Xavier Onassis:
Here's a thought: if a squadron of fighters can fire their weapons as a single battery, could they also perform targeting and EW at the squadron level? Less manpower and dice-rolling all around would make this a lot simpler, yes? It would also be more cost-effective to have one or two 'command fighters' per squadron, rather than a whole squadron with top-of-the-line computers, sensors, etc. At least until the command craft get spotted and picked off by meson bays....

XO

That's how I assume it would work, when I use lots of fighters in HG. I assume that the fighters in a squadron of 10 (or a fighter wing of 100) datalink together and share sensor/targeting data, effectively giving the squadron a higher computer factor (in HG terms).

How that would work in T20 I have no idea. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]In T20, it's the sensors that count, but that necessitates at least one ship with a good sensor suite and computer to match, so you're back to the computer again, anyway. However, if you're using home rules to allow fighter squadrons to pool computing power and increase their effective model number, their sensor model could be increased as well.

(I vaguely recall reading about some sort of radar data-sharing system in the works for the F-22; has anyone else heard about this?)

XO

 

[aramis]

Xavier: It's called Synthetic Aperature Sensor Synthesis.

Here's the theory: 4 small dishes with the same surface area as a single larger dish, but separated by some small amount, produce a better resolution than the single dish, and better depth of field, but at the sacrifice of marginal signals and reduced sensitivity to low (which often means distant) signals. The Resolution is related to both SA and separation, plus the nature of the detector used.

In short, two tied together with the right computer are FAR better than one, as the singals above threshold are clearly doubled. Also, inherent signal noise, being non-replicated, can be eliminated.

With optical systems, one can add interferometry to enhance and/or cancel certain parts of the signal, and to DRASTICALLY reduce glare. (An orbital optical interferometer of a foursome of 2m dishes SHOULD be able to visually IMAGE planets out to about 3-4pc, and spot planets out to 40pc.)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Xavier Onassis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
The T20 rules state that squadrons of identical craft can use their weapons as one battery. So 10 fighters armed with triple lasers would be a factor 9. In all honesty, in T20 Computer targeting isn't all that helpful in T20. With the average ship having an AC of well under 30, adding the gunner's skill (An average gunner is around 11 for this purpose.) plus the factor of the weapon, plus a die 20. even with an AC of 30 you are looking at 50% hits to start with. Add the squadron commander's leadership (Tactics is the INT or WIS bonus, or Leadership is 1/3 of the leadership skill (I think)) for an additional +3-+4 Suddenly ou hit 65%-70% of the time.

Because of the way sensors work in T20 I don't think adding computers is a fair way to do it. Taking three radars with a range of 20 miles and putting them in close proximity won't increase your effective range to 60 miles. (Physically tieing their power sources together might get you a short term range increase for the cost of burning out one of the sets, but that isn't the same.

In T20, it's the sensors that count, but that necessitates at least one ship with a good sensor suite and computer to match, so you're back to the computer again, anyway. However, if you're using home rules to allow fighter squadrons to pool computing power and increase their effective model number, their sensor model could be increased as well.

(I vaguely recall reading about some sort of radar data-sharing system in the works for the F-22; has anyone else heard about this?)

XO </font>[/QUOTE]Actually having one ship with the great sensors and computer, or vice versa depending on your perspective, is how fighters have been employed for quite some time. The Viet Nam era being the time when it was used less. The British developed the system for the Battle of Britain.

Back then fighters had no radar so they were directed by ground controllers to the target. As Airborne radars got more sophisticated, ground control fell out of fashion, in some places. It was obviously still in place in other places. (The downing of Flight KLM007 being one example of it still in place.)

However in recent years the US and Allies have reinstituted the practise but not with ground stations.

The problem, inherent in using systems like Radar is that it gives your position away. If you are flying in proximity to the enemy with your Radar on then he knows you are there before you know he is there. So modern fighters generally only have their active systems on when they know the enemy is close. This information is given to them by either a ground station or an airborne station. Otherwise known as an Airborne Warning and Control Station or AWACS. (The E-2 Hawkeye is the Carrier launched version and the E-3 the Land based system.) Carrying very powerful sensors, multiple computers and a crew to direct the friendly aircraft to their targets. THe Control Aircraft stay away from the enemy generally out of harms way and since they can see targets coming much farther than any effective range of any weapon system they can defend themselves by desiginating any approaching aircraft as primary interception targets.

The only problem isn't being able to sneak up on one but if all its resources are engaged and swamped. Before the advent of the E-2 the Carrier used its radar and the radar of its escorts to direct its fighters.

In Traveller a Similar situation could exist by the Carrier carrying the sophisticated sensors and directing the fighters. THe problem is the range of Meson and PA spinals. (Especially the Spinal Mesons with a 55% one shot kill percentage.) These weapons are extremely lethal and under the combat rules of T20 have more than three times the range of a typical combat area. (20 strategic hexes is in the third range band for a spinal meson.)

So you can have your super sensor system directing the fighters and none of the fighters need to actually carry it. Unlike HG the computer on the firing craft, generally has little impact on firing and unless you are carrying more than the traditional 2 person crew on your fighters, the fighter only needs a model 1 computer. (Though I tend to put at least a model 5 so it can find its way home.) You should probably have 3 person crews (A communication officer) SO they can keep commo open between fighters and the carrier.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Actually rereading the rules they fire as one ship, but it is a little ambigous as to how they receive fire. Funny the squadron rules were left out of the Player's Guidebook playtest files. (As were the advanced Combat rules.)

THough because of the way hitting and damage works in starship combat in T20, I would never group fire from squadrons either. YOu score more damage friing independently. (At least against the moderately armored ships. Against the heavily armored ships, like a Kokirrak, Tigress, 200T SDB from Sup-9, etc you need to group your shots.)

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I would give the fighters a chance by ruling that they can attack as one combined battery (although why they would want to in T20 is another debatable point since the weapons do more damage to the target ship if fired individually ) but are treated as separate ships for return fire, i.e. damage doesn't carry over.

 

[Antony]

Has anyone identified the spacecraft which appear on pages 9 and 10 of Traveller Module 6 Solomani, if so are there any stats for them.

People (well me) redesigning for a TNE setting whant to know.

 

[BetterThanLife]

After doing some research I have come to the following conclusions with regards to 20th Century Naval Ship types.

Battleship: Ship capable of standing in the battle Line against all comers.

Cruiser: Long Ranged, multi-role ship. Designed to screen battleships, raid commerce, shore bombardment, blockade enemy ports and go on long patrols.

Destroyer, Multi-role Escort designed to keep up with the fleet. Designed to attack heavier ships. Designed to screen friendly forces from enemy Destroyers and smaller ships. ASW role. Air Defense Role. Limited Shore Bombardment.

Destroyer-Escort/Frigate: Same class of ship two different names. Originally designed to fullfill the role of escorting Merchantmen. Capable of short bursts of speed after attacking a detected submarine or other screening duties so it could catch back up to the merchants it was escorting. Primarily ASW platform but later versions multi-role. (Usually with limited Surface warfare capability.)

Corvette: Same basic mission as the Frigate on a smaller more specialized platform. Primarily ASW.

Translating to Traveller.

Battleship/Drednaught: Attack enemy ships in outright battle.

Cruiser: Screen Battleships, perform independent missions, commerce raiding, long range patrols, etc.

Destroyer/Fleet Escort: (3Kton-8Kton) Smallest ship actually deployed to screen a fleet. Smallest ship that operational requirements require the same jump and maneuver capability as the rest of the fleet.

<Edit:> Notice I said require the same jump and maneuver capability, that doesn't mean that the smaller escorts, listed below, won't have the same capabilities, some will, some won't but operationally they aren't required to have them. </Edit>

Destroyer-Escort/Frigate: (1000-2000 Tons) Commerce escort.

Corvette: Small escorts, generally under 1000 tons. (Patrol Cruiser, Mercenary Cruiser, Lucifer, Valor, Zhidts, etc.)

 

[The Oz]

That sounds about right to me, Bhoins.

 

[PBI]

With a caveat that those types apply mostly in the early part of the century. The Cruiser, Destroyer and Frigate classes have gotten murkier as the century wore on, with each class moving up a step one the BBs were retired. Now, Cruisers are the big boys on the ocean, with DDs and some FFs not far behind.

 

[BetterThanLife]

True, and the multi-role capability of the VLS Destroyers in the USN adds a whole new definition. Further as times and political environment change the types of craft change. The USS Leahy for example was classified as a Destroyer, originally, but was later classed as a Cruiser. The USS Truxton was classified as a Frigate, but size and capability wise it is at least a Destroyer. After the mid 50s there are no Destroyer Escorts and no Corvettes either. Frigates now, in addition to their commerce escort roles, perform Fleet ASW functions. If we were to get into another major shooting war, involving commerce protection, unrestricted submarine warfare, the WWII definitions would probably go back to what they were. (Though the chances of that type of war are, today, highly unlikely, especially given the sea dominance of the USN and the use of Aircraft for most of the functions of sea commerce during WWII.)

Originally posted by PBI:
With a caveat that those types apply mostly in the early part of the century. The Cruiser, Destroyer and Frigate classes have gotten murkier as the century wore on, with each class moving up a step one the BBs were retired. Now, Cruisers are the big boys on the ocean, with DDs and some FFs not far behind.

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
The USS Leahy for example was classified as a Destroyer, originally, but was later classed as a Cruiser.

Ah, yes. I remember the Leahy. On a Westpac cruise off Japan they managed to run it into a reef. Tore off the sonar dome (the Navy had to send divers down to recover the sonar equipment -- classified stuff in there), tore open the bottom about a third of the way back, bent up the props and actually lost one of the blades on one propeller.

Miraculously there were no fatalities and they managed to limp back to port. I saw it in drydock the next day and boy was it a sorry sight.

For the next few weeks, the best way to start a brawl in Yokosuka was to walk into a bar and order "a Leahy on the rocks."

EDIT: There are details on the accident and lots of pictures at http://www.ussleahy.com/Rocks.html

Check out the ship-to-ship 15 mile drag race, too: http://www.ussleahy.com/DRH.html

 

[Ran Targas]

^ Remember why these ships were classified as they were:

- The were all built as escorts for nuke carriers before the advent of the shipboard gas turbine engine; a big boiler or a nuke plant was needed to achieve the same speed and range of a nuke carrier, thus a big hull was needed. In some cases, a nuke destroyer and a nuke frigate was built which were later reclassified as cruisers

- The U.S. was very interested in limiting the number of "cruisers" in the inventory to maintain parity with the Soviet fleet; plus buying a frigate with the capabilities of a cruiser sounds a lot better to Congress than buying a cruiser

- It also has to do with as silly a thing as rank of the captain; a frigate or destroyer has only a Commander as a captain, where cruisers have full bird Captains. When the number of commands for senior captains was dropping (retiring BB's, old cruisers, etc.), the Navy sought to create more billets for them. Keep in mind that carriers are commanded only by aviation officers, not career surface warriors. By reclassifying these ships as cruisers, they were able to retain a great deal of critical command experience vice losing these officers to shore duty or early retirement. Remember, the more senior the captain of a ship, the more senior the rest of the officers, so a senior captain will have senior department heads (LCDR and CDR), keeping these officers at sea too.

- Also for reasons of seniority, the nuke plants on those cruisers equiped with them required O-5 Engineering Officers (i.e. captain's of engineering) as department heads. These Engineering Officer billets were the testing ground for up-and-coming carrier CHENGs. Can't have the CHENG outranking the CO now.

 

[aramis]

Actually, many of the CO's of CVN's are Captain grade. That the AirBoss (CAG), XO, and CEngr, and even CMO might also be captains is NOT an issue.

Currently CVN65 Enterprise is commanded by Captain Eric Neidlinger.

The Vinson is commanded by a Captain, the Exec is a captain. Only one will be referred to by Rank, typically, but in Naval organizations (US/UK), it's not an uncommon situation. And remember also, the Air Boss/CAG is NOT a ship's asset, nor is the Air Wing he commands. THey are assets of the group, and answer directly to the Carrier Group Commander, usually an admiral.

In at least one case, during WWII, there was a ship with a Commander billet CMO filled by a Captain Doctor, who happened to outrank the CO...

The number of admirals in the restricted line and staff are VERY few, thoroughly poitical, and some very senior captains have opted to remain in the fleet rather than try for the desk job. So it is entirely likely to find certain staff officers have (on paper) more seniority that their skippers do.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ran Targas wrote:

- Also for reasons of seniority, the nuke plants on those cruisers equiped with them required O-5 Engineering Officers (i.e. captain's of engineering) as department heads.

Mr. Targas,

Wrong. I was aboard USS California CGN-36 between '83 and '87 and served under two different CHENGs; LCDR Tuddenham and LCDR Gregory. While serving aboard USS Dale CG-19 (Leahy-class), the CO was one CAPT Rodgers, previously the CHENG of USS America a billet he held at the rank of O6.

Google "Hazegrey.org" and do a little reading.

Also, 'porting USN/RN traditions and procedures whole cloth into the fictional 57th Century Imperial Navy betrays a lack of imagination. The IN will have multiple naval traditions to draw on; Vilani, various Terran nations, and various MHRs.

Mr. Bhoins - Damn good list!


Sincerely,
Larsen