Thread: Re: Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital                 thoughts

6 posts.

Nice idea on the 'retirement' behind the blizzard of outgoing missiles ...
add to that possibly that the SDB is the vessel that shows its face first on the way in, the cruiser being back in reserve... and how many SDB's could our Huscarle carry?
Tim

>________________________________
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital thoughts
>
>
>

>
>Eamon--
>
>I LOVE that idea. And sorry about my points! :-)
>
>I nice little "Dragon-class" SDB (I've always used that term to specify
>the classic slab-shaped 400-ton SDB) snuggled up into the belly of the
>Huscarle would be both practical and smart and Eamon points out, but also
>SWEET!
>
>Kind of like carrying a Camaro or a Trans-Am in your RV.
>
>Having fallen in love with your idea, I now have to think about fighting
>withdrawals and rear-guards, and how does the SDB escape. Which takes us
>back to jump-capable escorts, because they're the guys who get all in the
>enemy's face while the main force gets all their stuff together and gets
>out of Dodge.
>
>Which probably takes us back to the original point of all of the missiles
>carried by the Huscarle: it retires behind a veritable thicket or hedge of
>missiles.
>
>> Bouncing off Dave's points (ouch!) I'd say that with the significant
>> number of troops on board, and the role of escort a good choice would be
>> to have the Huscarle Cruiser carry its escorts - so as to avoid running
>> the risk of losing its fighting force when it has to perform its escort
>> duty. A small SDB or two would do wonders, and also make the ship a
>> progenitor of sorts for the TNE Clippers.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012, 10:34
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital
>> thoughts
>>
>>
>>  
>> If you look at this as an operational unit, they should have the same
>> jump, otherwise the notion of maximizing use of internal volume gets
>> thwarted by the ships with excess jump. I also wouldn't drop the troop
>> carrier down to 1G, because then it's just an LST liability. If you're
>> only talking three or four ships you can't afford to have one of them be a
>> big ball and chain. Also I wouldn't limit escort G-turns to the G-turns of
>> the escortee, as the escorts need to provide cover for them, which
>> requires maneuver superiority.
>>
>> That's assuming you have a free hand in designing the ships, and are not
>> just having to pull them off the shelf with whatever mismatches they come
>> with.
>>
>>> My recollection of Charles' mission statement was that it would be an
>>> upscaled merc cruiser, carrying a company of troops, plus acting as an
>>> escort for the owning Noble's yacht, meaning jump 4 and 4g an weapons.
>>>
>>> Eyeballing it, I think it can be fit in the remaining space, but with
>>> limited small craft or vehicle space. One thing that can be done is to
>>> halve the maneuver fuel - IIRC the yacht has only 40 g-turns of fuel, so
>>> drop the Huscarle to match. That frees up another 350dt or so.
>>>
>>> Myself, I'd do it a bit differently. Drop the jump and and maneuver to
>>> 2
>>> and 1, and 30 g-turns. For yacht escort or potential space merc tickets
>>> get a patrol cruiser or two. Use the extra space on the Huscarle for
>>> small craft and vehicles, extra stores.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Probably quite a few, if you approached it from the assumption that they
are not part of the base 2000 dt size, but are strapped on at the expense
of jump performance as needed. Which is another reason to establish it
with a good jump number, as it needs that high number to get one less with
carried SDBs.

By now, Charles is probably thinking that he can't recognize his idea
anymore...

> Nice idea on the 'retirement' behind the blizzard of outgoing missiles ...
> add to that possibly that the SDB is the vessel that shows its face first
> on the way in, the cruiser being back in reserve... and how many SDB's
> could our Huscarle carry?
> Tim
>
>
>>________________________________
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital
>> thoughts
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>Eamon--
>>
>>I LOVE that idea. And sorry about my points! :-)
>>
>>I nice little "Dragon-class" SDB (I've always used that term to specify
>>the classic slab-shaped 400-ton SDB) snuggled up into the belly of the
>>Huscarle would be both practical and smart and Eamon points out, but also
>>SWEET!
>>
>>Kind of like carrying a Camaro or a Trans-Am in your RV.
>>
>>Having fallen in love with your idea, I now have to think about fighting
>>withdrawals and rear-guards, and how does the SDB escape. Which takes us
>>back to jump-capable escorts, because they're the guys who get all in the
>>enemy's face while the main force gets all their stuff together and gets
>>out of Dodge.
>>
>>Which probably takes us back to the original point of all of the missiles
>>carried by the Huscarle: it retires behind a veritable thicket or hedge
>> of
>>missiles.
>>

First, I'll have to say good points (double oww!)

Second, I really should have specified the "SDB" would have a J-1 drive. I have a bad habit of thinking people can read my thoughts and leaving things unsaid (or should I say, untyped?). In case of unexpected opposition they screen the cruiser and then jump out to a rendezvous point.*

Lastly, what the Huscarle Cruiser is, as we imagine it, depends on how we see it being used. Is it operating in a reasonable secure area? Contested space? Something in-between? Does the owner go for Merc Tickets, or does he go on crusades?

The philosophy of my design outline was that the cruiser could encounter some spaceborne opposition - hence the "SDBs"** to screen the cruiser from combat.

Eamon

* The Tender version of the Maggart Clipper used the same principle, with SDBs - but being utilized in a fleet makes all the difference here.
** I call SDB-style ships with J-1 or J-2 "Jaegers" IMTU. Used by some Planetary Navies and minor powers to get more bang for their dTons. Bith like the Scandanavian Coastal Defense Ships of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

________________________________
Sent: Monday, 16 July 2012, 6:05
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital thoughts


 
Eamon--

I LOVE that idea. And sorry about my points! :-)

I nice little "Dragon-class" SDB (I've always used that term to specify
the classic slab-shaped 400-ton SDB) snuggled up into the belly of the
Huscarle would be both practical and smart and Eamon points out, but also
SWEET!

Kind of like carrying a Camaro or a Trans-Am in your RV.

Having fallen in love with your idea, I now have to think about fighting
withdrawals and rear-guards, and how does the SDB escape. Which takes us
back to jump-capable escorts, because they're the guys who get all in the
enemy's face while the main force gets all their stuff together and gets
out of Dodge.

Which probably takes us back to the original point of all of the missiles
carried by the Huscarle: it retires behind a veritable thicket or hedge of
missiles.

> Bouncing off Dave's points (ouch!) I'd say that with the significant
> number of troops on board, and the role of escort a good choice would be
> to have the Huscarle Cruiser carry its escorts - so as to avoid running
> the risk of losing its fighting force when it has to perform its escort
> duty. A small SDB or two would do wonders, and also make the ship a
> progenitor of sorts for the TNE Clippers.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012, 10:34
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital
> thoughts
>
>
>  
> If you look at this as an operational unit, they should have the same
> jump, otherwise the notion of maximizing use of internal volume gets
> thwarted by the ships with excess jump. I also wouldn't drop the troop
> carrier down to 1G, because then it's just an LST liability. If you're
> only talking three or four ships you can't afford to have one of them be a
> big ball and chain. Also I wouldn't limit escort G-turns to the G-turns of
> the escortee, as the escorts need to provide cover for them, which
> requires maneuver superiority.
>
> That's assuming you have a free hand in designing the ships, and are not
> just having to pull them off the shelf with whatever mismatches they come
> with.
>
>> My recollection of Charles' mission statement was that it would be an
>> upscaled merc cruiser, carrying a company of troops, plus acting as an
>> escort for the owning Noble's yacht, meaning jump 4 and 4g an weapons.
>>
>> Eyeballing it, I think it can be fit in the remaining space, but with
>> limited small craft or vehicle space. One thing that can be done is to
>> halve the maneuver fuel - IIRC the yacht has only 40 g-turns of fuel, so
>> drop the Huscarle to match. That frees up another 350dt or so.
>>
>> Myself, I'd do it a bit differently. Drop the jump and and maneuver to
>> 2
>> and 1, and 30 g-turns. For yacht escort or potential space merc tickets
>> get a patrol cruiser or two. Use the extra space on the Huscarle for
>> small craft and vehicles, extra stores.
>>
>
It's not a function of blinding, it's a function of preventing the sensor
task. Getting an FC lock is a sensor task with difficulty mods, and the
nuke fireball marker is like a +1 difficulty level. So between EMS jamming
and nukes, if you can prevent the sensor task from succeeding, you're not
tracked.

> Like everything in warfare there its an arms race.
>
> A nuke or active EMS jammer might 'muddy' the analysis making the task
> harder but I doubt it would completely mask it.
>
> Also the nuke idea would probably only work as long as it occured between
> the ship that is jumping and the viewer. If there is only 1 viewer that
> may
> do in a pinch but if there are multiple viewers capable of collecting (not
> necessarily analyze) the jump data it would be for not.
>
> Active EMS masking or jamming I would doubt could effectively blind a
> viewer simply due to the power of one vs the other.
>
> a jump drives consumes alot of LHyd fuel very quickly, a jammer/masker
> would need to approach the same power levels in order to be effective,
> which is why I said it could make the analysis harder my muddying the
> data.
>
> But that purely a theoretical call because the rules for TNE do not cover
> anything resembling masking a ships j-drive emission signature.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Craige Cook
> <>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Question. Would an active EMS Jammer prevent starships from gaining a
>> lock
>> on your Jump envelope energy levels and thus prevent them from following
>> through jump? Is there any reason why military ships wouldn't routinely
>> activate EMS jammers prior to jump to prevent others from spying?
>>
>> Interesting thread!
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave would you mind if I email you off list to discuss my ideas for
>> sensor
>> ops. I have some pretty heretical ideas for this topic. hehe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> Craige
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>>
>>
>> To:
>> <>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Sent:
>> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Subject:
>> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital thoughts
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pop a nuke or two behind you before you go to pricy the view of
>> eavesdroppers
>>
>>
>> ---
>> from my T989
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>

I almost forgot there is a rule in the main TNE book about the Pump Laser going
off in atmos. They do not work. They only do the damage from the explosion.

________________________________
Sent: Thu, July 19, 2012 1:17:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital
thoughts

It's not a function of blinding, it's a function of preventing the sensor
task. Getting an FC lock is a sensor task with difficulty mods, and the
nuke fireball marker is like a +1 difficulty level. So between EMS jamming
and nukes, if you can prevent the sensor task from succeeding, you're not
tracked.

> Like everything in warfare there its an arms race.
>
> A nuke or active EMS jammer might 'muddy' the analysis making the task
> harder but I doubt it would completely mask it.
>
> Also the nuke idea would probably only work as long as it occured between
> the ship that is jumping and the viewer. If there is only 1 viewer that
> may
> do in a pinch but if there are multiple viewers capable of collecting (not
> necessarily analyze) the jump data it would be for not.
>
> Active EMS masking or jamming I would doubt could effectively blind a
> viewer simply due to the power of one vs the other.
>
> a jump drives consumes alot of LHyd fuel very quickly, a jammer/masker
> would need to approach the same power levels in order to be effective,
> which is why I said it could make the analysis harder my muddying the
> data.
>
> But that purely a theoretical call because the rules for TNE do not cover
> anything resembling masking a ships j-drive emission signature.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Craige Cook
> <>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Question. Would an active EMS Jammer prevent starships from gaining a
>> lock
>> on your Jump envelope energy levels and thus prevent them from following
>> through jump? Is there any reason why military ships wouldn't routinely
>> activate EMS jammers prior to jump to prevent others from spying?
>>
>> Interesting thread!
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave would you mind if I email you off list to discuss my ideas for
>> sensor
>> ops. I have some pretty heretical ideas for this topic. hehe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> Craige
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>>
>>
>> To:
>> <>
>> Cc:
>>
>> Sent:
>> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Subject:
>> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital thoughts
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pop a nuke or two behind you before you go to pricy the view of
>> eavesdroppers
>>
>>
>> ---
>> from my T989
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
> would have been deserved.
>

Right, the laser part doesn't work, because the laser generating rods
won't stay aligned and break up in the windstream. However, absent the
failsafes some of the guys mentioned a couple weeks ago, the nuke still
works, which is the problem.

Dave

> I almost forgot there is a rule in the main TNE book about the Pump Laser
> going
> off in atmos. They do not work. They only do the damage from the
> explosion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
Sent: Thu, July 19, 2012 1:17:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital
> thoughts
>
>
> It's not a function of blinding, it's a function of preventing the sensor
> task. Getting an FC lock is a sensor task with difficulty mods, and the
> nuke fireball marker is like a +1 difficulty level. So between EMS jamming
> and nukes, if you can prevent the sensor task from succeeding, you're not
> tracked.
>
>> Like everything in warfare there its an arms race.
>>
>> A nuke or active EMS jammer might 'muddy' the analysis making the task
>> harder but I doubt it would completely mask it.
>>
>> Also the nuke idea would probably only work as long as it occured
>> between
>> the ship that is jumping and the viewer. If there is only 1 viewer that
>> may
>> do in a pinch but if there are multiple viewers capable of collecting
>> (not
>> necessarily analyze) the jump data it would be for not.
>>
>> Active EMS masking or jamming I would doubt could effectively blind a
>> viewer simply due to the power of one vs the other.
>>
>> a jump drives consumes alot of LHyd fuel very quickly, a jammer/masker
>> would need to approach the same power levels in order to be effective,
>> which is why I said it could make the analysis harder my muddying the
>> data.
>>
>> But that purely a theoretical call because the rules for TNE do not
>> cover
>> anything resembling masking a ships j-drive emission signature.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Craige Cook
>> <>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Question. Would an active EMS Jammer prevent starships from gaining a
>>> lock
>>> on your Jump envelope energy levels and thus prevent them from
>>> following
>>> through jump? Is there any reason why military ships wouldn't routinely
>>> activate EMS jammers prior to jump to prevent others from spying?
>>>
>>> Interesting thread!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave would you mind if I email you off list to discuss my ideas for
>>> sensor
>>> ops. I have some pretty heretical ideas for this topic. hehe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> Craige
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From:
>>>
>>>
>>> To:
>>> <>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>> Sent:
>>> Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [Traveller_TNE] Huscarle Cruiser Last time - tangenital thoughts
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pop a nuke or two behind you before you go to pricy the view of
>>> eavesdroppers
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> from my T989
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
>> would have been deserved.
>>
>
>
>