Bertil:
> 10)STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY: Building an 1MT starship that has to stand
>up to 6G of acceleration and weapon impacts demands very strong
>materials. I suspect that such materials don't exist today. There is a
>certain maximum size for each combination of material strength and
>structural stress, and this will set the maximum size for all ships.
>Any larger than that they will (in extreme cases) tear themselves apart
>when going at full throttle or crack as an egg shell when hit in
>combat.
> Civilian ships don't have to handle the same levels of stress as
>military ships, so they have a larger maximum size (and cost less for
>an equal tonnage). You could say that this is already present in the
>armour rules today, but armour is voluntary while this would be a
>compulsory factor.
Actually, I suspect that the top-end composites do have that strength.
And I suspect that if you investigate the design differences between
Naval vessels and merchants (Real World), you will find very little
difference structurally, other than the presence of armour on some Navy
ships. The primary difference between Navy ships and Civilian ships is
*Damage Control* Navy ships have large crews of highly trained young
men ready to fix these little problems as they come up. Civilian ships
don't.
I can agree with the idea that a stronger ship should have some internal
volume expended, as well as mass. Notice that old High Guard did so.
Notice that MT hull armour has infinite density (NO VOLUME).
I can accept the addition of interior components for structural
strength. I doubt it will have much effect on MT warships: Notice that
not one of the battleships in "shattered ships" pulls more than 3Gs.
High acceleration is not really necessary for a warship, so your change
will not SIGNIFICANTLY alter the picture (too many warships).
BTW, in our campaign, the defined function of thrusters is such that
ther problem your solution deals with isn't there.
>> That is not why military equipment costs so much. It has more to do
>> with short production runs and high research costs.
> When working in a place where all chips we used could stand severe
>temperature changes :) I came upon a little analogue chip called the
>4741 which contained 4 741 operational amplifyers. If you buy the
>civilian version I'd expect it to cost less than 10 cents, but the
>little 4741 in a cheramic capsule and all costs around $8.
>
> The big question is: Is there a difference in MTBF (Mean Time Between
>Failures) between military and civilian starships?
And when I was in the Navy, I ran into milspec SCRs that cost $75, when
the civilian version cost $1.90 in Radio Shack. So?
>> Actually, we see few supertankers with 10 127mm naval guns because it
>is
>> against the law in most countries to put weapons like that on
>privately
>> owned ships. Note that in WW2,we DID see merchants mounting heavy
>guns.
>
> Yes, but never as many guns and of as big calibre as a warship of
>equal tonnage. There is today a Russian fleet replenishment ship that
>is armed with a small number (3 I think) of naval medium calibre guns,
>but going from it's tonnage we'd expect it to be much more heavily
>armed: Two SAM systems, one SSM system, ASW mortars, torpedo tubes,
>CIWS and so on.
This is not a question of legality, or of hull reinforcement. This is
because (in the Real World), weapon systems are LARGE. They take up a
significant fraction of a ship's carrying capacity. A single 16" turret
from the New Jersey masses 1400 tons. Missile magazines take up large
fractions of a hull's volume.
MT (and Traveller before it) assume that weapon mass/volume are trivial,
and that the main effect of a weapon on a ship was increased cost. This
is not how the universe works (so far, at least). Changes in technology
could change that.
> It will encourage naval ships to mount bays instead of turrets, since
>each turret battery consists of many turrets (many FC's) while a bay is
>one large turret (one FC). It would also encourage civilian ships
>(who can't afford the expensive bays) to keep the number of turrets
>down.
Which expensive bays are those? A 50t missile bay costs MCr12. Ten
missile turrets cost MCr22.5. SO you'll force merchants to mount BETTER
weapons (?) for less money.
There isn't any 50t bay which costs more than the equivalent turret
battery. Most cost A LOT less.
>> Again, unlikely. If you do that, then civilian ships will armor
>> themselves to be "pirate-proof", and pirates will arm themselves with
>> bay weapons.
>
> Not if armour (and combat-proof hull) is so expensive that their
>profits disappear.
If a pirate gets them, their profits disappear too. It's cheaper to
make a ship that can survive an attack than not, if attacks are at all
common.
The condition you describe would NOT reduce the number of warships. It
would raise the demand for protection of merchant traffic, and teh Navy
would get a bigger budget to build MORE ships, which would be even more
obtrusive than before.
If you want to cut the number of warships, try eliminating piracy as a
consideration.
>> In any case it will have little effect on Naval vessels.
>> If bays cost too much, they'll use a cheaper alternative,
>
> Not if that cheaper alternative is ineffective against their likely
>opponents. I find it highly doubtful that the Imperium, the Consulate
>and the Confederation could agree to that no ship can be armored and
>just cheap weapons can be used:)
> It is quite likely that they reduce the number of ships to make each
>ship more efficient.
A nuclear missile is pretty effective against anyone, even if fired from
a turret. If the alternatives to nuclear missiles are prohibitively
expensive, then nuclear missiles will be used.
> But you can use that argument against *all* capers to increase the
>cost of naval ships! If we don't agree that more expensive military
>vessels will lead to smaller fleets, what are we discussing? :)
I hope we are discussing ways of removing those nuisance warships from
the scene. I don't agree that raising the price per will have a
significant effect on the problem. If you need an aircraft carrier for
national defense, then you'll build one. The cost doesn't matter.
Notice that the size of the US Navy has not changed significantly in 40
years. The ships keep getting more expensive, but we keep on building
new ones to replace the old ones. We just steal the extra from the
taxpayers, as governments have done throughout history.
If you want to cut the number of Naval ships, look for justifications
for fewer ships that DO NOT INCLUDE PRICE! GOVERNMENTS HAVE AN
UNLIMITED BUDGET, if they so desire. They print the money, after all.
They will ALWAYS have as much as they need.
Later...
- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b
[email removed]
I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
--W. von Braun