FFS designs
Re: Missiles
Reading preview
Source wording preserved. The original download is available separately.
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 14:10:39 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Re: Missiles
Message-ID: <199509112110.AA14004@mail.crl.com>
Down at lower tech levels, you can make nearly as nasty
long range / high performance missiles using double size
missiles and fusion rocket powerplants. Make the missiles
13.5 m^3, do the thrust calculations using actual mass etc,
they are still theoretically the same target size class as
the 7 m^3 missiles (sub-ton). I have some designs doing better
than 8/40 performance.
The minimum size of the fusion rocket drives the overall size
(min thrust is 100 tonnes, at 9 tonnes/m^3 you get 11.1 m^3
of powerplant...). Once it's that big, it might as well be
13.5 m^3. Fortunately, the fusion rocket needs no power plant
and is more fuel effecient than HEPLAR, so you still get very
good performance in the missile.
-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com
--
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 17:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: John ---- ------ <-------@uclink.berkeley.edu>
To: Traveller Mailing List <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Missiles
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9509111642.A27285-0100000@uclink.berkeley.edu>
Hi all,
I see that we are all using slightly different variant rules to
design Heplar missiles, so I'll just throw out my own assumptions for
purposes of comparison.
I calculated the MV of a 1/2 ton missile and it comes out to
.2kl. I use full internal bracing for max G rating. For hull plating I
scale up the armor on the missiles given in the rules for max Gs.
According to errata posted to this list, missiles with conventional
thrusters have the following armor values:
(Addition): Under section "C. Space Missiles," add the
following sentence to the end of subsection "9. Determine Max Gs
per Turn":
_Round all fractions down for final G rating._
(Addition): For both atmospheric and space rockets and
missiles, the armor value of the missile's airframe skin is
dependent upon fuel type and tech level.
Fuel Type TL 5-6 TL 7 TL 8+
Liquid Fuel 0.5 1 2
Solid Fuel 1 2 3
So if Eaplac can do 12 Gs and be armored at 3, then to be able to
protect against space junk of the same mass, my missiles armor will have
to increase with the square of velocity because KE=.5mv^2. Thus, AV=
3*(max G/12)^2. This was originally suggested to me by Merrick, but in
his last post he didn't appear to be using it. Lastly, I compute max Gs
by dividing thrust by the missiles actual mass, rather than something
based on displacement. I think this makes Heplar missiles closest in
design sequence and trade-offs to conventional missiles, rather than
small spacecraft. When done this way, Heplar missiles are also a lot less
scary. I'll post my latest design after I clean it up, but basically,
the bracing and hull plating heavies the thing down so much thata 7kl
missile has performance of about 25/25. It is comforting to me that a
design sequence which I consider most realistic also produces missiles
which are not game-balance destroying.
Merrick has proposed putting EMM on missiles and having them
evade on the way to the target, which makes them almost impossible to
lock. A question, how do you propose to get the missile to engage
if it is beyond the 10-hex control range limit? This also begs the
question of the invisible missile, which, by BL rules, is essentially
impossible to get a target lock on.
> like the missiles, but I'm going to give missiles a -2 DM vs passive
>sensors due to exhaust at close range. Many will still get through.
>
>-Merrick
I like missiles too :-), but I also have an idea to make them
easier to lock which I think is a bit more systematic, though it does
involve more house rules.
I propose that we create two new range band for sensors, called
Close and Point Blank. Close range would be .5 * Short and lock-ons would
be an Easy task. Point Blank (PB) would be .25*Short and lock-ons would
be Easy-1 task, with the -1 only coming into play to counteract positive
DMs the missile may have due to EMM or evading. Sensor tasks would look
like this:
_RANGE_ _DIFFICULTY_
Point Blank (.25*SR) Easy -1
Close (.5*SR) Easy
Short (SR) Average
Medium (2*SR) Difficult
Long (4*SR) Formidable
Extreme (8*SR) Impossible
IMHO, this is more of a logical extension of the existing rules.
P.S. To the author of the recent RICE paper featuring the "World Roof":
All I can say is "Wow." That was, IMHO the most evocative RICE paper
that this list has seen. Considering the generally high quality of RICE
papers, this is an impressive accomplishment.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:09:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 411
Message-ID: <9509120109.AA20656@Rt66.com>
> I may be missing something here, but where's the guidance
> electronics on these designs and the others published recently? Or is that
> just ignored under FF&S?
In the case of a det-laser missile the commo and pointer for the lasing
rods are built into the warhead. If you do any other type you have to
throw all that glop in (as well as if you wish to have a real sensor).
There was a note from someone about active/passive sensor use. The
short answer is it's in my sensor rules---but I didn't use nukes as
flashbulbs. Since there are whiteouts, that'd be a cool idea,
especially for players (I like the idea of a PC getting that lightbulb
over their head :-)
-Merrick
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:22:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Missiles
Message-ID: <9509120122.AA21302@Rt66.com>
> Merrick has proposed putting EMM on missiles and having them
> evade on the way to the target, which makes them almost impossible to
> lock. A question, how do you propose to get the missile to engage
> if it is beyond the 10-hex control range limit? This also begs the
> question of the invisible missile, which, by BL rules, is essentially
> impossible to get a target lock on.
The 10L commo for the missiles is a _short range_, so it's possible out
to 80.
And with EMM they are _Impossible_ (the task) to lock, with any
successful evasion they cannot be locked. If a missile is fired inside
a certain range (depending on the missiles total gturns) it can evade so
as to be unlockable. The only defense is to break the missile's lock.
> I propose that we create two new range band for sensors, called
> Close and Point Blank. Close range would be .5 * Short and lock-ons would
> be an Easy task. Point Blank (PB) would be .25*Short and lock-ons would
> be Easy-1 task, with the -1 only coming into play to counteract positive
> DMs the missile may have due to EMM or evading. Sensor tasks would look
> like this:
This will be added to my sensor rules. It still won't stop "invisible"
missiles, but it'll limit KKMs.
-Merrick
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 21:43:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Some Missile designs
Message-ID: <9509120343.AA29939@Rt66.com>
Here are some I've been playing with. The HEPlaR one at 7kl is
basically ----'s design run through my spreadsheet (with 2 different
versions).
Here's a dump of some various missiles from my spreadsheet, the important stuff is at the end of each listing. 1/2 ton missiles are assumed to have a MV of 0.2
I armored them to gs/12*3, and they are fully braced for full gs (Internal
Structure). I guess the TL 9 one is old, 'cause it isn't armored or
braced.
I assume that the multi-warhead ones will be spinning, and spread the
nukes out a bit like mines.
TL15 HEPlaR S/FIMissile 30,000km PEMS
Tech Level: 15
Total Volume: 7
Max gs: 25
Volume Mass Cost MW
Sensor-SR1 PEMS 0.205 0.405 0.405 0.02
Warhead 0.247 0.247 1.2
Commo 0 0
HEPlaR Drive 0.624995 0.624995 0.00625 6.25
Total Fuel 4.4913026 0.3143912
Powerplant 1.0461667 2.0923333 0.20923 6.277
EMM 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.007
Int. structure 0.1964286 2.9464286 0.0055
Armor 0.0491071 0.7366071 0.00138
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 7 7.436755 1.86236
gturns 143.73088
TL15 S/FIM 500kt detlaser 10L 1P +4/+3/+4/+3/+1 25g143
Asset=10
========================================================
========================================================
TL15 HEPlaR S/FIMissile 60,000km PEMS
Tech Level: 15
Total Volume: 7
Max gs: 23
Volume Mass Cost MW
SR2 PEMS 0.41 0.81 0.81 0.04
Warhead 0.247 0.247 1.2
Commo 0 0
HEPlaR Drive 0.5749954 0.5749954 0.00575 5.75
Total Fuel 4.4359451 0.3105162
Powerplant 0.9661667 1.9323333 0.1932 5.797
EMM 0.14 0.07 0.035 0.007
Int. structure 0.1807143 2.7107143 0.00506
Armor 0.0451786 0.6776786
------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 7 7.333238 2.24901
gturns 141.95933
TL15 S/FIM 500kt detlaser 10L 2P +4/+3/+4/+3/+1 23g141
Asset=10
========================================================
========================================================
TL15 HEPlaR Multi-warhead Bay Missile (S/FIM)
Number ofWarheads: 15
Tech Level: 15
Total Volume: 14kl
Max gs: 27
Volume Mass Cost MW
SR1 PEMS 0.41 0.81 0.81 0.04
Warhead 3.705 3.705 1.2
Commo 0 0
HEPlaR Drive 1.3499892 1.3499892 0.0135 13.5
Total Fuel 5.7308322 0.4011583
Powerplant 2.259 4.518 0.4518 13.554
EMM 0.28 0.14 0.07 0.014
Int. Structure 0.2121429 3.1821429 0.00594
Armor 0.0530357 0.7955357 0.001485
---------------------------------------------------------
Totals 14 14.90183 2.552725
gturns: 91.699184
TL15 S/FIM 15*500kt detlaser 10L 1P +4/+3/+4/+3/+1 27g91 Asset=10
========================================================
========================================================
TL13 500kt detlaser HEPlaR S/FIM 10L 1P
Tech Level: 13
Total Volume: 7kl
Max gs: 14
Volume Mass Cost MW
SR1 PEMS 0.35 0.65 0.65 0.03
Warhead 0.358 0.358 1.2
Commo 0 0
HEPlaR Drive 0.3499972 0.3499972 0.0035 3.5
Fuel 4.4855028 0.3139852
Powerplant 1.179 3.537 0.2358 3.537
EMM 0.14 0.07 0.035 0.007
Int. Structure 0.11 1.65 0.00308
Armor 0.0275 0.4125 0.00077
--------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 7 7.341482 2.12815
gturns 143.54528
TL13 S/FIM 500kt detlaser 10L 1P +4/+3/+4/+3/+1 14g143
Asset=8
========================================================
========================================================
TL 9 2*500kt detlaser missile (fusion drive)
Warheads: 2
Max gs: 8.0827675
Total Volume: 14
Volume Mass Cost MW
Warhead 1.01 1.01 1.2
Sensor 0 0 0
Commo 0 0 0
EMM 0.28 0.14 0.07 0.014
Fusion Drive 11.11 11.11 0.38885
Fuel 1.6 0.112
------------------------------------------------------
Totals 14.0175 12.372
gturns 91.428571
TL9 Controlled 2*500kt detlaser 10L 1P +4/+3/+4/+3/+1 8g91
--
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 06:24:24 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: re: missiles
Message-ID: <199509120424.GAA15795@hasle.oslonett.no>
Merrick wrote:
>Why is the HEPlaR so big? Shouldn't be .35714% of volume per g like
>all other HEPlaRs? I get vol=.125kl for a 5g HEPlaR on a 1/2 ton ship.
>The missile needs 0.25MW/g, 1.25MW for 5gs, so .125kl for drive.
The missile displaces .5 ton, Thus to conform to the 15*ton rule it can't
weight more than 7.5tons. The original drive was spec'ed to 12G. As 3MW
gives 60 tons of trust, and 60 divided on 12.4 gives 4.838, or rounded to 5.
--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of
| those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 19:29:19 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
Subject: Missiles
Here is a few missiles I have created over the weekend, while I have been away.
TL-12 Missile/Semi-Independent
Pow Vol Wgt Mcr
WH-500Kt .4 .4 1.2
Comm 10L .15 .028 .056 .056
PEMS = 1hex .03 .3 .6 .6
Antenna .05 .05 .05
EAPLAC 2.0 5.97 5.97 .024
--------------------------------------
Totals Enough :) 7.0 7.08 1.93
--------------------------------------
G-rating=10/10
TL-14 FF-Missile (semi-ind option)
Pow Vol Wgt Mcr
WH-500 .358 .358 1.2
AEMS-1hex 6.0 1.2 2.4 2.4
Comm 10L .15 .028 .056 .056
HEPLAR 5G* 3.0 .3 .3 .03
Fuel 2.061 0.144 na
Fusion PP (9.15) 3.05 9.15 .61
Fuel 24hrs .003 ** na
---------------------------------------
Totals 0.0 7.0 12.4 4.296
---------------------------------------
G-rating=66/5
*The design reflects the 15*displacement ton rule.
**This value are summed into the fuel weight of the
HEPLAR
TL-15 FF Missile
Pow Vol Wgt Mcr
WH-10Kt .103 .103 .6
AEMS 2hex 7.0 1.4 2.8 2.8
HEPLAR 12G 3.0 .3 .3 .03
Fuel 3.524 .246 na
Fusion PP (10.02) 1.67 3.34 .334
Fuel 24hrs .003 ** na
----------------------------------------
Totals .02 7.0 6.789 3.764
----------------------------------------
G-rating=112/12
**This weight is included in the HEPLAR fuel
TL-16 FF Missile MK I
Pow Vol Wgt Mcr
WH-500Kt .103 .103 1.2
AEMS 2Hex 6.0 1.2 2.4 2.4
Comm 10L .15 .007 .014 .056
HEPLAR 12G 3.0 .3 .3 .03
Fuel 4.077 .286 na
Fusion PP (9.15) 1.31 1.31 .262
Fuel 24hrs .003 ** na
---------------------------------------
Totals 0.0 7.0 4.413 3.948
---------------------------------------
G-rating=141/12
**This weight is included in the HEPLAR fuel
TL-16 FF Missile MK II
Pow Vol Wgt Mcr
WH-500Kt .103 .103 1.2
AEMS 10Hex 10.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
HEPLAR 12G 3.0 .3 .3 .03
Fuel 2.737 .19 na
Fusion PP (13.02) 1.86 1.86 .372
Fuel .004 ** na
---------------------------------------
Totals .02 7.0 6.453 5.602
---------------------------------------
G-rating=87/12
**This weight is included in the HEPLAR fuel
I haven't included a TL 13 design when it would be quite like the TL 12. If
you strain the design concept, you may manage to design a TL-13 missile with
a HEPLAR.
For truly effective FF missiles you need a long range sensor. Either passive
or active. But look at the prices. When the cost gets this high, it doesn't
matter if you use a cheap kinetic warhead or a det-laser.
Besides the senario described a few digests ago doesn't make sense. Missiles
are launched at 30+ hexes range and the firing unit runs. OK this far hadn't
it been for the missiles been rated with a 1Hex PEMS. The PEMS won't have
much to home in on if the target pops a few decoys and remain silent. To
amend this the firing unit must remain where it is and control the missiles
in towards their target, until the missiles sensor get a fair chance to lock
onto their target.
--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of
| those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------