Grav_Moped's Scout Ships Hub

[Grav_Moped]

This is just a place for me to link to all of my "scout ship" designs (LBB2 2nd Ed. and LBB5 2nd Ed.).

The primary design specifications are 2G and whatever Jn is required by the mission. In some cases I go with higher maneuver ratings as the mission dictates. They're mostly LBB2, and sometimes I short the power plant fuel (relying on a house-rule variant on the TCS/JTAS14 power-down rule).

Please direct comments about each design to its specific thread -- I'd like to keep this as a reference page, rather than a discussion thread. Thanks in advance!

So far, these include:
Type S (Suleiman) -- corrected deck plans that actually fit into the stated hull dimensions, and which preserve much of the Supp 7 version's layout.

Type S as a Prolate Spheroid Tailsitter (deck plans with detailed descriptions -- final revised plans are on page 4 of the thread: LINK ).

Type S3 Far Scout/Courier (Type S using LBB5 drives for J3/2G in what could be a LBB2 100Td "standard hull" by house rule). No deck plans, as your favorite Type S deck plans will work for this. Note that while J3 is TL-12, it needs a TL-13 power plant for the drives to fit into the 15Td drive bay of the 100Td standard hull, and a TL-13 fuel processor in order to keep the 3Td of cargo. At TL-15, it could have 3G capability and 2Td additional cargo capacity.

Type ST Transport Scout (199Td J4/2G, LBB2 with house-ruled shortage of power plant fuel -- 30Td instead of 40Td). It's an overgrown Type S with J4 capability. Could be 200Td and have a second turret with no other changes except to crew size. No deck plans yet, as the habitable spaces forward of the drive bay can be identical with the Suleiman Type S (it's just a bit longer, and the drives are bigger).

Type SF Fleet Scout (199.5Td J4/4G, LBB2). It's the ST but with the maneuver drive maxed out, and a full fuel allocation (no house rules needed here, but I suggest a couple anyhow). Only has 2 staterooms and 1.5Td cargo. No deck plans, but it's derivative of the ST, above, and generally doesn't have enough interior space to really warrant a set anyhow...

Type S5 Distant Scout (600Td, J5.2G, LBB2 -- it's the Scout version of my Shugushaag freighter, listed partway down in the first post of that thread). 15 staterooms, crew of 9 (1 MLS turret); carries a 10Td Dory (3G, 4Td cargo), an Air/Raft, and has a 10Td cargo hold. No plans for this version, but you can get the general idea based on the plans for the freighter.

Still to come (will list in subsequent posts when I get around to them, if I ever do):
Type S4 (version 1) (100Td, J4/2G; LBB5 at TL-13) Will have 2 staterooms, a turret, and (I think) 2Td cargo. Still need to run the numbers though -- it might only have 1.5 staterooms. It's all that's left of a Type S if you insist on J4/2G in a 100Td hull at TL-13 in HG. Maybe go to TL-15 to free up 4Td of space... Probably no need for deck plans, due to lack of usable interior space.

Type S4/ST (version 2) (unknown tonnage but between 100Td and 199Td, J4/2G) It's the Type ST, above, done in High Guard at TL-13, but only just big enough to have the 4 staterooms, turret, air/raft, and 3Td cargo of a Type S. Deck plans will be only-slightly-stretched Type S plans.

Type SF Plus (200Td, J4/6G, LBB5 at TL-13, or TL-15 if needed to make it work) It's the Navy version of the SF, with maxed-out acceleration and weapons. Probably no need for deck plans (as with the S4) due to lack of usable interior space.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Also:
X5 (100Td, J5/1G, HG'80 at TL-15). It would be a 5Boat, but there's room for a 1G drive and a turret. 1.5 staterooms for crew of pilot and gunner. Fully RAW compliant for HG'81.

At TL-14 it is a 5Boat (no M-drive or turret, and only 1 SR), and not this ship.

It's a runabout for a subsector's Assistant Detached Duty Coordinator. It's externally identical to a Type S (of your choice), and Sailor Jerry -- the ADDC -- just shows up looking for all the worlds like any other Scout on Detached Duty, apparently at random, with suggestions of things for former Scouts to check out.

They're usually interesting and occasionally quite lucrative. You'll likely never know the real reason he wanted you to look into it, though...

(Yes, this is simply a narrative device with a 5-parsec range.)

 

[Spinward Flow]

I personally still find the argument that XBoats are normally unmanned and operated remotely by Express Tenders to be more compelling than the notion of putting a pilot into every single XBoat in operation.

Pilot aboard every XBoat means you need more pilots than XBoats in service (so as to be able to rotate pilots).
Pilots remotely command XBoat ops from Tenders mean that you need FAR FEWER pilots than XBoats (since a single pilot can remotely oversee jump departures for up to dozens of XBoats per week).

From a manpower efficiency allocation, the remote operations of XBoats from Express Tenders is something of NO BRAINER.
I mean, aside from "pushing the button to jump" (so to speak) ... what else is a pilot aboard an XBoat supposed to DO? It's not like the canonical J4 XBoat has a maneuver drive (or even a power plant!). You don't need a "pilot" to occupy a craft that is adrift and lacking a maneuver drive.

Yes yes, jokes about "jump space loves an audience" aside ... when you need a pilot for all of a few minutes per jump (to initiate the jump) ... it's just STUPID to organize your standard operations around the notion that a single pilot only needs to "use their valuable pilot skills" for only a few minutes every week (direct in person control aboard XBoats) rather than "using their valuable pilot skills" MULTIPLE times every week from a remote control workstation on an Express Tender to dispatch multiple XBoats through jump departure each week.

• 12 pilots for 10 XBoats
• 4 pilots for 48 XBoats

Which makes more sense to you, as an administrator, if your payroll and personnel budgets are NOT unlimited?

 

[Vargr Breath]

For me XBoats were just a background story when giving a retired Scout a ship. You know the one, low pilot, low navigation, low engineering, but high Computer.

 

[coliver988]

I personally still find the argument that XBoats are normally unmanned and operated remotely by Express Tenders to be more compelling than the notion of putting a pilot into every single XBoat in operation.

Pilot aboard every XBoat means you need more pilots than XBoats in service (so as to be able to rotate pilots).
Pilots remotely command XBoat ops from Tenders mean that you need FAR FEWER pilots than XBoats (since a single pilot can remotely oversee jump departures for up to dozens of XBoats per week).

From a manpower efficiency allocation, the remote operations of XBoats from Express Tenders is something of NO BRAINER.
I mean, aside from "pushing the button to jump" (so to speak) ... what else is a pilot aboard an XBoat supposed to DO? It's not like the canonical J4 XBoat has a maneuver drive (or even a power plant!). You don't need a "pilot" to occupy a craft that is adrift and lacking a maneuver drive.

Yes yes, jokes about "jump space loves an audience" aside ... when you need a pilot for all of a few minutes per jump (to initiate the jump) ... it's just STUPID to organize your standard operations around the notion that a single pilot only needs to "use their valuable pilot skills" for only a few minutes every week (direct in person control aboard XBoats) rather than "using their valuable pilot skills" MULTIPLE times every week from a remote control workstation on an Express Tender to dispatch multiple XBoats through jump departure each week.

• 12 pilots for 10 XBoats
• 4 pilots for 48 XBoats

Which makes more sense to you, as an administrator, if your payroll and personnel budgets are NOT unlimited?

I go with you do need someone onboard ships. One Traveller's basic conceits is very low automation, though it is honestly mostly for game effect and in the way things are even now, does not always make a lot of sense. Whether an in-game effect of needing a sophont for jump (hello retcon) or simple bureaucracy, it is as it is. However, like black & white line drawings of ships and 2D space maps, it is part of Traveller to me, and as you start to strip away things that don't make sense, you often strip away those things that are quintessentially Traveller. To me at least.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Don't forget the Ross class Scout.

Or the Vargr Pocket Scout.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Don't forget the Ross class Scout.

Or the Vargr Pocket Scout.

... but those aren't my designs.

If you want to do a collection of all scout ships, feel free!

It's just that I wanted to make a place to keep track of the ones I've done over the years.

 

[Vargr Breath]

... but those aren't my designs.

But you could fix them.

 

[Grav_Moped]

But you could fix them.

Possible, but not a high priority

 

[Spinward Scout]

I didn't realize they were just yours. Sorry about that.

 

[Grav_Moped]

No problem! Probably could have phrased the thread title more clearly....

 

[Grav_Moped]

Also:
X5 (100Td, J5/1G, HG'80 at TL-15). It would be a 5Boat, but there's room for a 1G drive and a turret. 1.5 staterooms for crew of pilot and gunner. Fully RAW compliant for HG'81.

At TL-14 it is a 5Boat (no M-drive or turret, and only 1 SR), and not this ship.

It's a runabout for a subsector's Assistant Detached Duty Coordinator. It's externally identical to a Type S (of your choice), and Sailor Jerry -- the ADDC -- just shows up looking for all the worlds like any other Scout on Detached Duty, apparently at random, with suggestions of things for former Scouts to check out.

They're usually interesting and occasionally quite lucrative. You'll likely never know the real reason he wanted you to look into it, though...

(Yes, this is simply a narrative device with a 5-parsec range.)

S5 Long Scout (199Td, J5/3G, HG'80 at TL-14)
This is the "more than a Jump-5 narrative device" version of the X5.

(Almost) doubling the size and doing it in HG gets you a Jump-5 Scout Ship with most of the payload features of the Type S at TL-14. TL-15 gets you all of them...

Edit to add: it's now in its own thread.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Reverting to 2g would free up 6Td (which could be useful)

Well ... it would put the X-Mail factor into the Scout/COURIER via installation of a 5 ton Mail Vault.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Well ... it would put the X-Mail factor into the Scout/COURIER via installation of a 5 ton Mail Vault.

Trade the air/raft for 4Td cargo. Done.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Trade the air/raft for 4Td cargo. Done.

So ... Scout OR Courier ...
Not ... Scout AND Courier ...?

My point being that 3G acceleration is a LUXURY item that does not meaningfully enhance capabilities on a daily operational basis. It's nice to have if you get attacked, but that's not a daily occurrence (it's an edge case).

Additionally, J5 with a 5 parsec range, requiring a model/5 computer, is ... somewhat excessive.
You're honestly better off with a J3 and model/2bis computer ... giving you enough "reserve tonnage" for a collapsible fuel tank that can extend range out to an extra 2-3 parsecs via double jumping. That way, you can "full fuel" at the point of origin for a round trip to a location that does not have wilderness refueling available, but when you don't need that capability, you've got flexible cargo hold/hangar bay tonnage available to support other missions.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's specifically for when jump 5 is needed (fast-response situations at 5, 9, or 10 parsecs out), or where there's a high enough chance of that, to merit having the capability on hand. J4 and J3 with most/all of the Type S stuff are far cheaper, and would be used instead if that was an option

 

[Spinward Flow]

It's specifically for when jump 5 is needed (fast-response situations at 5, 9, or 10 parsecs out), or where there's a high enough chance of that, to merit having the capability on hand.

In which case, you want a 400 ton J6/2G Fleet Courier (LBB S9, p20).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Overkill, mostly.

(Trying to re-rerail the thread, full response on the ship-specific one.
S5 Long Scout (199Td, J5/3G, HG'80 at TL-14))

 

[Grav_Moped]

A lot of these are "well, pretty much it's a Type S, but with a higher Jump Number and maybe it's bigger but works the same".

Easy to work out, easy to fit into a scenario (or build a scenario around).

But it's low-hanging fruit, and I'll readily admit it.