A more realistic approach to "missiles"

Star Cruiser missiles are not very realistic. For a start unlike turret weapons (with a large 6m diameter focal array and monochromatic X-Rays) the beams are not focused. The beams are at best collimated, and thus at even a few thousand km (far less than a SC hex) are meters across and essentially a warm wind rather than ravening beams of death. The same also applies to submunitions and particle beams.

The fix of course is to make everything that isn't a turret laser a sub-range 0 weapon. With these weapons a very close range detonation that hits (on the order of km) is likely to literally tear the target to pieces. However, of course this increases the amount of time defensive fire has to shoot down the incoming vampire. However, stutterwarp is so fast that a warp 3 missile is traveling roughly 3.36 million m/s, so there's not a huge amount to be gained by increasing the range of detonation. The time taken to go from the hex-side to the middle of a hex at warp 3 is 89 seconds, and it crosses "1 hex" in 179 seconds (say 3 minutes). Ignore the so-called "1 minute turns"; there were always a typo.

This means the difference in defensive fire a missile receives between ineffective detonation (1,000 km) and effective detonation (1 km) is miniscule. As far as SC is concerned the missile literally has to travel through the target hex and "impact" the target. This is a strong argument for why submunitions aren't that effective, and why perhaps nuclear mines are also ineffective.

Guidance

Realistically we have three possible forms of guidance:

1. Full control
2. Semi-active
3. Fully independent

1. Full Control

Basically the missile is being flown by a remote pilot onboard the mothership (usually). The implication for lag is enormous. At close range (like the same hex) the missile can be fire essentially as a turret weapon, but as the range opens the lag is roughly the same as a turret weapon.

The missile thus should be treated roughly as a very long range turret, but we don't have range tables beyond one hex (-2). Personally (since I'm also in favour of large focal arrays and longer range turrets) I'd restructure the range modifier to - 2x range (i.e. -2 at 1 hex, -4 at 2 hexes, -6 at 3 etc.), and should probably get the TC and RP skill as bonuses (which partially offsets the penalties at medium ranges).

2. Semi-active

Once the missile has a seeker head (i.e. a sensor) but not the full package of processing equipment then semi-active is possible. The mothership probably maintains a datalink to the missile, but aims by pointing the active sensor array at the target and the missile watches for reflections and fires on them.

The advantage is that lag is essentially eliminated - the missile when it reaches detonation range is milliseconds or less away from the target, but has to generate the target solution on more limited equipment.

In game terms apply the -3 penalty for an independent weapon, and no TC or RP bonus, but no range penalty. To determine whether the missile can track add the target reflected signature (as appropriate), motherships active sensor value (dedicated or not) and deduct range. Roll d10, if less than the result then the missile is "locked on" and can make an attack.

Example: A Kennedy (active-15 with SIM-14 missiles = 8) is firing at a Hamburg (lat ref = 7) 25 hexes away. The target number is 5, at this range the missiles will achieve a lock on to attack on 50% of attempts. Roll for each missile in the salvo after any defensive fire.

3. Fully independent

The missile is constructed as a full starship. No examples. No rules given.

Ranges of the passive sensors (likely radar only receivers given the tiny size, none has 30 m^2 of passive array) of SC missiles are:

Ritage-1: 5
Ritage-2: none
EM-1: 0
EM-5D: 0
AAS-2: 1
AAS-2B: 2
AAS-4/5: none
SR-9: none
SR-10: 0
Fantan: none
Glowworm: 3
SIM-14: 8
Silka: none

Kafer Whiskey: none
Kafer X-Ray: 2

The missile with no sensors are thus close range weapons, and given the above at 3-4 hexes with modern ships are advantaged over SA missiles (which fits the errata limiting all missiles to 4 hexes from the controlling ship). Those with sensors are designed for "long shots" with the Ritage and SIM-14 capable of some quite long shots upwards of 20-30 hexes, but most capable of 10-15 hex shots.

Cost

SC missiles were mostly constructed with NAM, but for some reason prices are divided.

An alternative is to simply make all use OC drives, which IMC implies a single coil rather than multiple coils of OM and NM drives.

The missiles using NM modifiers will have speeds 83% of the original, and OM 92% of the original.

A Silka could thus be a OC Fuel Cell, OC Drive (which it had anyway) a nav array (inc. comms) and a 5x2 warhead massing 1 ton and costing MLv1 - total cost MLv 3.02 per missile.

A SIM-14 would be a 0.07 MW NM Fuel Cell, 0.07 OC drive, nav, directional passive-8 (1 m3, 0.1 tons, MLv 0.08 say) and a 10x2 (2 tons, MLv2) = MLv4.3 (with NM drive =MLv11.1). Warp = 2.94 (slow as large warhead on a small drive).

Big missiles

MikeJ wrote up for his Russians an equivalent of a Sunburn - 0.3 MW drive missile giving a very high warp speed with a big warhead. Of course the darn thing will cost about MLv15 per pop.

That said, the original boxed set Kafer X-Ray is clearly more like a Sunburn, with a move of 11 and 2 power plant hits (implying a very large drive). That's rather different, and makes Kafers a bit scarier. One wonders if this was changed when the Kennedy kept getting slaughtered.

Damage

A turret (x1) puts out roughly 1/3,500th of a kiloton per turn (20 minute). Ergo a moderate nuke puts out at least 10,000 "hits" in energy, but it is not very concentrated. The x1 laser has an impulsive density of about 3 MJ/cm^2 (at 20% efficiency), whereas a 100 kT nuke without shaping 250 m away has a density of 0.05 MJ/cm^2. However, with shaping it's very hard to get the pulse intensity as high as a focused weapon unless very close - 1 cm beams occur around 180 km, but efficiency is low. By low I mean that 1980's estimates that we might get 0.1% of the X-Rays coming out of the rods seem high.

Since the best rod is 1.4 nm wide, and for a 1 m device each rod is 4.456x10^-10 of the diameter. If we generously say 10% of the radiated X-Rays (i.e. 7% of the total energy) are in the region adjacent to the physics package with the right angle then each rod will emit (for a 10 kT device) 1.3 kJ. Thus either the bomb needs to be bigger, or each "pulse" must be come from a large number of rods (about 5,000 for a x2 pulse).

Let he note here that the bomb is likely a simple fission device, since fusion produces fast neutrons rather than X-Rays (which in a modern thermonuclear warheads are used to inefficiently fission U-238 boosting the explosive power but at the cost of a much dirtier bomb). So megaton nukes are out.

Ergo I think a reasonable case can be made that the damage levels are reasonable, especially since the pattern of sewn pulse will be much wider than a ship and most will miss.

However, better would be to have a roll for the number of pulses that hit. In fact instead of a general hit/miss roll like turret lasers instead a better model would be a "no. of hits" roll that allows for a result of zero.


That said, I think that turret lasers should allow for multiple hits. Perhaps for each "level" (4 points) the to hit roll is passed by an extra hit is inflicted. In this case the missile should make multiple to hit rolls equal to the "no. of pulses".

So for example, a spread of 4 SIM-14's against an Alpha at long range will roll 40 times, with rolls of 8-10 inflicting a hit, but at range = 2 rolls of 3-7 will hit once, but 7-10 twice. The average numbers of hits are 12 and 48 respectively. We should use a table converter to determine actual numbers of hits.

Submunitions of course are essentially range-0 missiles, so against an Alpha with FC+2 and CQ+2 rolls of 1-2 hit once, 3-6 twice and 7-10 thrice. A 5 pulse Big Clip hits 11 times on average. Hence one can see just how dangerous a reimagined fighter with many submunitions launchers could be to a capital ship.

A Design Study – Paris class “Frigate” (Destroyer)

A Design Study – Paris class “Frigate” (Destroyer)

The following design study is for a frigate of the line, what some call a “starship destroyer” or “star destroyer”. Operationally this vessel will operate as a core vessel in the battleline with other frigates of the line and flagship frigates of the Richelieu etc. classes. Operation with fast cruising frigates like the Suffren constituting the fast wing of the fleet is not necessary as achieving the same speed on a balanced hull is not possible.

Specifications

1.       Use 150 MW fusion plant (smallest available fusion plant) as greatest MW per ton and lowest cost per MW

2.       Overall tonnage less than 10,000 tons (and less than 1,000 Traveller dTons = 14,000 m3)

3.       Warp efficiency greater than 3.0 with reasonable loads, but no need to match Suffren or other ships of the “fast wing” of the fleet.

4.       Use latest technologies

5.       Greatest possible protection , i.e. armour = 10, screens = 6, compromise on stealth and other features to achieve (this led to rejection of hull masking and thus the ability to make a short, fatter hull with less material value modelled on the Ypres)

6.       Maximum possible turret firepower (the fatter hull after all other systems were accounted for limited the number of weapons mounts to 15, and given the required speed we were able to make they all x2+1dbls with UTES in jack turrets)

7.       Large guided weapon complement ca. 50% greater than a Suffren (paralleling the Kiev/ Konstantin) = 24 Ritage-2’s – 8 communicators as per Richelieu etc.

8.       Large submunitions complement with heaviest available warhead (10x2) but only 2 rounds per launcher needed (ultimately 8 fitted)

9.       Capability to carry 560 m3 (40 Traveller dTons) of small craft, i.e. two large fighters or platoon landers and maintain them.

a.       Additionally, to allow carriage of 1-2 additional fighters in rider mounts. (feature dropped as costing too much surface area and adding to armour cost)

Tactical Employment

Whilst larger cruisers and attached fighters form the fast wing of the fleet (a la the Battlecruiser Force), the destroyers and flagships (with fighter squadrons) form the main body. Since the major action is likely to be a blockade of Earth and engagement with the enemy main body within hours of the declaration of war the majority of these ships are based at a protected station near Earth – that is a station with a large “no entry- free fire”  zone approximately 30 light seconds from Earth of which there are several. The envisioned scenarios are:

1.       War with Manchuria (Jade)  – impose blockade and send expeditionary force against Manchurian fleet base at Mercury whilst fast wing attempts to intercept Manchurian raiders fleeing the system. Long term provide squadrons for expeditionary warfare against colonial holdings.

2.       War with Imperial Germany (Iron) – conduct major fleet action against German battleline immediately and impose blockade of Earth, fast wing to pursue any leakers. Long term provide squadrons for expeditionary warfare against colonial holdings.

3.       War with America (Silver) – destroy American naval facilities in Earth orbit and send expeditionary force against Mars base. Detach fast wing to pursue leakers. Long term provide squadrons for expeditionary warfare against colonial holdings.

4.       The nightmare scenario, Jade-Iron-Silver without support from Red (UK) – destruction of enemy orbital holdings priority and expeditions against Mars and Mercury immediately launched.

5.       Alien Invasion (Black) – plan black retains the central feature of suborning forces to Les Force Humaines (LFH) pro rata to potentially hostile nations, thus maintaining home defence as a minimum requirement.

Cost Breakdown

Propulsion: 37% (stutterwarp and proportion of reactor cost dedicated to it)
Weapons: 20% (weapons, combat electronics and proportion of reactor – excludes cost of launched weapons)
Protection: 42% (armour, screens and proportion of reactor dedicated to screens)
Crew, life support etc.: 1%

Stats

French Paris Class Frégate- Destructeur design study

Design Date: 2294

First Example Laid Down: ?

First Example Completed: ?

Fleets in Service: France

Number in Service: staff requirement for 4 in this class if chosen design

Performance

Warp efficiency: 3.09 (standard load) (3.12 unloaded)

Power Plant: 150 MW fusion

Fuel: nil (may carry bladders for small craft)

Range: 7.7 light years

Endurance: six months life support

Mass: 8,841 tons unloaded

Cargo Capacity: 840 cubic meters

Crew: 120 (30 Bridge, 27 TAC, 8 Small Craft, 24 Engineering, 10 troops, 12 stewards, 4 medical); Passengers: 5

Comfort: 0;

Emergency Power: 1 week

Total Life Support: 120 for 180 days

Cost: MLv212.72 (excluding launched weapons etc.)

Ship Status Sheet

Move: 6

Screens: 6

Radiated Signature: 7

Radial Reflected: 6

Lateral Reflected: 7

Target Computer: +2;

Radial Profile: -1

Lateral Profile: +1

Armour: 10

Hull hits: 600/120 (by SC)

Power Plant Hits: 100/20

Active: 16 and redundant

Passive: 12 and redundant

Other:

Weapons

15 x2+1dbl lasers in jack turrets (1x 128, 5x 123, 5x 178, 2x 345, 2x 567)
8 internal (jack) submunitions launchers (2 shots each, 10x2 warhead)

Ordnance Load

24 Ritage-2 in 8 bays

Sensors and Electronics:

Active-16 with redundant antenna
Passive-12 with redundant antenna
Navigation Radar
DSS
Gravitational

Crew Hits:
Bridge: Captain, Navigator, Helm, 3 Engineer, 4 Communications, 5 Computer
TAC: 15 Fire Control (turrets and sm), 8 Remote Pilot, 2 Flight Control, Active Operator, Passive Operator

Damage Control: 39 (13 teams)

Frequency of Starship Arrivals

A decade ago I worked with a trade formula. We could estimate the distribution of ships, but the overall number was problematic. I missed one obvious fact, the number of starships entering or leaving the French arm every day was a dozen. Thus we can determine the overall number of ships making passage.

The following table is the result.

System Number of starships arriving per week Core Sol 464 Alpha Centauri (Tirane) 338 French Arm Eta Bootis (Aurore) 6 Hochbaden 9 Dunkelheim 9 Beta Comae Bernices (Nous Voila) 16 Vogelheim 4 Beta Canum Venticorum 36 Kimanjano 56 Kie-Yuma 0 61 Ursae Majoris (Joi) 6 Henry's Star (Crater) 7 Queen Alice's Star (Beowulf) 80 Neubayern 84 American Arm Ellis 2 Hermes 3 Kingsland 2 Botany Bay 1 King 7 Chinese Arm Procyon (Paulo) 1 DM-3 1123 (Austin's World) 2 Omicron II Eridani 3 Epsilon Eridani  3 Epsilon Indi 7 Rho Eridani 1 Zeta Tucanae 15 Beta Hydri  23 Delta Pavonis (Han Shan) 35

Solar Power Starships

GDW missed something very important with respect to solar power; it produces electricity. An odd statement to be sure, but all the solar arrays in SotFA etc. are stated to be there for fuel cracking. Well, why not use it directly?

Even correcting for GDW being out an order of magnitude for the power gained from an array (100 sq m should produce 0.2 MW in the life zone, not 2 MW) a deployed solar array is an incredible thing. It gives the starship unlimited power (in duration). Thus any non-nuclear starship insystem can turn off the fuel consuming MHD turbine and "sail".

This means starships operating insystem have effectively infinite range. A transport running from 16 Psyche to Earth and back might occasionally run the turbine briefly to keep it working, but it would rarely need it. This also has some military ramifications. Once insystem a warship (be it a fighter, corvette or cruiser) can deploy a solar array and "sail" around the system forever, only pulling in the sails and warming up the turbines when a threat is detected.

On another point, for interstellar crossings there is no need to go full speed. Remembering that doubling speed increases fuel consumption eightfold, if you go half as fast you'll use a quarter of the fuel for the same interstellar journey. A vessel like the Aconit could cruise on 2 MW (i.e. full engines, weapons powered down) for 7 weeks, or at 1 MW for 14 weeks, or even 0.5 MW for 28 weeks. Even at 0.5 MW warp efficiency is still 63% that of 2 MW, and speeds of greater than 1 ly/day are typically if not fully loaded.

Food for thought.

French Bufer class Fighter

French Bufer class Fighter

Original Date of Design: August 3, 2289
First Example Laid Down: October 12, 2291
First Example Completed: December 3, 2293
Fleets of Service: France
Number in Service:12 (Bufer, Barineau, Giraud, Hasbrouck, Ducat, Dodier, Morace, Nugent, Pepin, Rosier, Senesac and Segur - named after previous fighter captains)




The Bufer is the a French fighter design which uses carried ordnance as its only offensive weapons. Originally the design called for four magnetically harnessed LL-2 submunitions launchers, then the most common submunition in the French arsenal. Now, however, most Bufers have been refitted to accept the updated LL-5 (Type 2285 or Big Clip), LL-7 (Type-2286) or LL-8 (Type 2290) designs which boast more powerful warheads.

In order to carry several launchers, the Bufer design had to be somewhat on the large side. The ship itself is 20 meters from nose to tail and has a wingspan of just over 15 meters on a 8m diameter hull. The four launchers are carried magnetically on the underside of the wings and the launchers can be dropped. The weapons are limited all controlled by one fire control system and may all fire in a single turn.

The hull is streamlined and is composed of advanced composites. Sufficient material has been added to the hull to give it noticeable armor resistance. Masking the hull has made the ship virtually invisible to enemy passive detection, and the design is not so large that the ship suffers from having too great a profile.

Bufers are currently deployed sparingly along the French Arm. Their numbers are rumored to be somewhat low, but actual figures have never been released by the French government. To date there
have been no Bufers sold to any other nation.

It lacks a solar array and medic, and thus is not suitable for extended cruising. Deployments are mainly to carriers in the strike role.

Crew: Commander and XO, nav and 2nd, helm and 2nd, comm and 2nd, comp and 2nd, passive operator, gunner, and 6 engineers.

Streamlining: as spaceplane, external droptanks used for lift

Performance

Warp efficiency: 3.75-3.98 on full military power (depending on fuel)
Power Plant: 10 MW MHD Turbine
Turbine Fuel: 96 tons (16 hours at full military power)
Range: 7.7 ly
Mass: 497.8 tons unfueled and unloaded with ordnance
Cargo Capacity:minimal
Crew: 18
Passengers: nil
Comfort: -2
Total Life Support: 90 days
Cost: MLv 16.83

Ship Status Sheet

Move: 8

Screens: 0

Radiated Signature: 1(4) (down to -2 when powered down to 1 MW)

Radial Reflected: 4

Lateral Reflected: 5

Target Computer:0

Radial Profile: -2

Lateral Profile: -2

Armour: 5

Hull hits: 50/10

Power Plant Hits: 20/4

Active: nil

Passive: 6

 

Weapons

Ordnance Load: 4 Submunitions Launchers of any type (usually Big Clip)

Sensors and Electronics: Navigation Radar and Passive-6

Crew Hits: Bridge (Commander, Helm, Navigator, Comms, Comp), TAC (passive operator and gunner)

Damage Control:8 (3 teams)