Topic: SMP:V Some basic questions

[Skaran]

OK I'm putting together a destroyer escort which should carry a pair of my Moth class away boats. The basic question is does the mass of hanger already include provision for the mass of the carried class or should the mass of the carried craft be added to that of the mother ship?

Based on the example TMAC, this has an on board crew of 2 but a calculated crew with an additional 9 general technicians (page 117). Are these personnel forgotten about or would they be added to the crew of the carrier, basically as the carried crafts maintenance team?

[markc]

IMHO,
1) The mass of the carried craft is not included in the mass of the bay.
2) You have to include the support team's and crew quarters separately from that of the carried craft. So if the craft has quarters for the crew then IMHO you should also include quarters for them on the mother ship.
MDC 

[Skaran]

Thanks Mark, does make hangers very heavy though. Looks like I have to shed another 175 tons from the ship I am working on as I didn't want to increase its volume any further.

In my ship designs I always include accommodations on the carrier for the small craft. If it is something like one of Traveller's battleriders then it does not get these types of accommodations.

[snrdg051306]

If a naval vessel is designed or retro-fitted to carry other units accommodations are usually provided. A carrier has separate accommodations for the air crews and the assigned ship's company. However, if there more bodies than bunks usually the enlisted get to hot bunk.

The carrier's has a displacement and mass calculated without the air wings and then with the air wings and everything associated with them.

I'm in agreement with MarkC that the hangar doesn't include the mass of the carried sub craft.

[Skaran]

Ok I've now got the ship with the extra accomodation for the small crafts crew and associated technicians.

In the case of the warship I'm working on mass is 7,000 tons and volume 14,000 m^3 (Cramped) and everything fits in this.

I'm not sure what you mean by recalculating displacement and mass with and without the airwings. If they are carried internally then their volume would be included in that of their mother ship wouldn't they. Mass I could understand if applied to this example volume would still be 14,000 m^3 but mass would rise to 7,175 tons since it is carrying a 175 ton ship's boat. Is this right?

[snrdg051306]

Good call on taking the cramped option, since most military vessels are concerned more on space for weapons, drives, sensors, and protection. Then minimum standards are calculated to keep the crew comfortable.
 
Sorry, about not explaining better here is a second attempt.

A ship has at least two mass and "external" displacement, how much liquid is moved to keep the ship afloat, characteristics. The first is the unloaded characteristics with a minimum of normal stores. The second is with everything loaded for a normal deployment.

Aircraft also have a range of flight related characteristics concerning loaded and unloaded information.

Yep, internal volume doesn't change from the calculated amount.

[David Johansen]

For some ships, hot bunking may also be a good option.  That is to say that a bed can be used in shifts to double or even triple occupancy.  Lifesupport, not so much...

[snrdg051306]

The command may think this is a good option, but the individuals having to hot bunk usually don't really like the experience. Heck, a bunk doesn't have much storage for one person.

[David Johansen]

I'd see it as more of a solution for short ranged patrol craft or ships doing shuttle service.

[snrdg051306]

I was lucky for most of my Navy career and had only one experience with the joys of hot bunking. I got bumped out of my bunk for a so that a member of the inspection team had a place to sleep. Being displaced for a week didn't kill me, I was however a very happy sailor because I was griping a lot more than usual;-).

Of course the needs of the particular mission or job dictates the crew accommodations.

[markc]

I was lucky for most of my Navy career and had only one experience with the joys of hot bunking. I got bumped out of my bunk for a so that a member of the inspection team had a place to sleep. Being displaced for a week didn't kill me, I was however a very happy sailor because I was griping a lot more than usual;-).

Of course the needs of the particular mission or job dictates the crew accommodations.

 They actually gave you a place to sleep? Boy you mush of had a good enlistment.
MDC

[snrdg051306]

I'm really going to have to be more careful about proofing my typing, of course I'll still claim that Monday is a problem;-).

Yep, I did have a good career as a member of the Submarine Service. After boot and schooling in San Diego, CA I got stationed at Pearl Harbor when most of my class got sent to the East Coast for my first sea tour. My first shore tour was in San Diego. The second sea tour I requested Bangor, WA and got sent to New London, actually Groton, Conn. The second shore tour I was once again assigned to San Diego. My last sea tour I requested any command on the West Coast. I got sent to La Maddalena, Italy, which is sort of on the West Coast, not of the US though. ;-)

Of course I was kind of disappointed in that I didn't go to submarine school. Actually, I think going to my first submarine without sub school was probably an advantage.