Re: fleets, and solutions for same

> From: [email removed] (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3615) fleets, and solutions for same
>
> >We also know that each one of those
> >30kt freighters can mount a horrifying fire-power compared to a 400t
> >corsair.
>
> But how about against a 10000ton corsair?

  It outnumbers it three to one in turrets if it uses all available hardpoints.
This will cost MCr675 if we assume 300 triple missile turrets, but probably
less since a part of them will be sandcasters. A 10kt SIE Behemoth costs
MCr1537, so the 30kt should cost at least MCr4611. The armaments will
thus represent a cost increase of 15% not counting computers. Parity with
the corsair (100 turrets) will be achieved at a cost increase of 5%.

> >  What I'd like the Traveller universe to be is a place where traders
> >on up to 200kt, and fleet tankers of even larger tonnages are common,
> >but where  these ships have at most a handful of turrets and where a
> >'battleship' is somewhere on the order 20-30kt (destroyers: around 1 to
> >3kt, cruisers around 10kt, carriers around 30kt, but lightly armed).
> >
> >  What do people think about this goal?
>
> Nice goal...  Not very likely that your warships will be that small,
> though.

  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.

  An example: A 10kt hull at TL15 will have to weigh X metric tons and have
Y kubic meters (kilolitres for you MT-damaged:) of interior space wasted
on structural components if it is going to be able to pull 6 Gees and stand
on it's own in combat. More than this and it becomes more durable and less
than this and it becomes more frail(1).
  The same size and TL of hull but rated for 1G civilian duty only would
perhaps only weigh 1/4 of the other hull and have a tenth of the interior
space taken up by structural components.


 (1) This ties in closely to the use of hull-points and armour. I'd like to
suggest that the number of hullpoints be based the size of the hull and
modified for the ships 'fragility factor': A 10kt hull has 10000 points as
a base. If it is the 1G trader it will only have 2500 points while a
6G combat-rated cruiser would have 15000 hull point (or even larger
difference). These practical hullpoints can be increased with interior
strenghtening to copy the strengthening effect of increased armour in
TDR VEH. Armour will thus mean the actual hull plating, and not hull plating
plus interial strengthening.
  There should also be a minimum level of hull points for each level of G
the ship can pull and a mimimum level for jump dependent on the tonnage and so
on. If the ship violates those it will begin to suffer catastrophic effects.
The effects of weapons depends on the damamge of the weapon compared to the
hull points remaining.
  Hull tonnage relates to basic hull points non-linearly (somebody suggested
this some time ago: I remember a square root being involved somewhere but
those messages is lost now) to discourage humongous battleships being able
to absorbe ludicrous amounts of damage without visible effect.

> 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?

> >           (This is BTW the reason why we don't see any supertankers
> >mounting 10 127mm naval guns today).
>
> 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.

> >  7) FIRECONTROL: If we make the cost of the firecontrol highly
> >dependent on the number of turrets or bays we can inflate the costs of
> >large ships mounting more turrets than the referee care for, and
> >inflate the cost of military ships in one fell swoop.
>
> I doubt it.  If we do that, the ships will just look more like my
> Sikkintar (one BIG gun).  the price change won't affect anything except
> Naval design doctrine.

  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.

> >  9) MILITARY WEAPONS: Turrets and bays are more or less equal today.
> >If the effectiveness of turrets upon military vessels is lowered (due
> >to armour?), all military ships will be forced to have bays or spinals
> >to be usable against other military vessels. Then we let the prices for
> >bay weapons and spinal  mounts skyrocket to such levels that no
> >civilian will afford them.
> >  Turret defences should not work very well against bay weapons and we
> >should probably introduce a series of bay lasers and sandcasters for
> >military vessels.
> >  There will still be some turret weapons on military vessels, but
> >their  purpose would be to keep the civilian ships in line.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> or just raise
> taxes to pay the difference.

  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? :)

  BTW: see my other mgs on How the Imperium Fell: Now the Truth can be told:)

> Remember, the Military is in the business of wasting money.

  Exactly:)

> [email removed]

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."