Atmospheric operation of small craft, incorrect assumptions

[DFW]

So the purpose of this thread, I say, is to generate conversation, thought, and reading material on the subject. So an interesting point is wholly appropriate.[/i]

This part as cut off - "A standard-hull ship may still enter atmosphere but is very ungainly
and ponderous, capable only of making a controlled glide to the
surface. Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch
setup and considerable expense."

 

[rust]

"Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch
setup and considerable expense"

I would just add " ... if it does not have landing gear." and move on to
the next problem - there are enough of them. :wink:

 

[DFW]

And 99% of the time, outmanuevering your opponent means going fast enough to keep up with them, but slow enough you can predict their trajectory and react to it.

Actually, 99% of the time it means getting your plane set up pointed at your opponent so as to able get off a missile or gun shot BEFORE the opponent does the same. At least that is what a friend (who flew fighter combat in Korea - Vietnam and then the SR-71) told me they were taught in air combat training.

 

[DFW]

"Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch
setup and considerable expense"

I would just add " ... if it does not have landing gear." and move on to
the next problem - there are enough of them. :wink:

Yes, that's the logical way to rewrite the rule. Thus, regular hulled craft can land and take off also.

 

[Chuckhazard]

So the purpose of this thread, I say, is to generate conversation, thought, and reading material on the subject. So an interesting point is wholly appropriate.[/i]

This part as cut off - "A standard-hull ship may still enter atmosphere but is very ungainly
and ponderous, capable only of making a controlled glide to the
surface. Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch
setup and considerable expense."

eh? cut off from where? I don't follow.

 

[rust]

Actually, 99% of the time it means getting your plane set up pointed at your opponent ...

This is slightly outdated, many of today's missiles are built to function
well even if dropped in another direction than the one where the ene-
my is.

 

[Colin]

I've been reading this thread off and on, and it seems to be running around in circles. I'll just add my 2 bits.
A standard hull is going to have crap poking out all over it. Turrets, sensors clusters, antennae, cooling fins, duct tape, whatever. It is not designed for high-speed atmospheric flight and maneuvering. The antigrav system provides lift, but not drive. Drive comes from the thrusters. Lift-and-drive systems in the vehicle book simply reflect glomming the two together. The drive system can provide limited amounts of off-axis thrust, but only at the expense of forward speed. So it can vector, but that slows it down. Without continual thrust, the barely-streamlined shape and afore-mentioned crap will slow it down rapidly.

In order to land, it slows to a near stop, and then starts cutting power to the lifters until it touches down. To take off, it just applies power to the lifters until it is clear to use the thruster. Big ships may need the cradles and pads to support their mass for long periods of time while grounded.
A streamlined vessel represents a boat optimized for atmospheric flight, with streamlined turrets, or jack turrets, and smooth lines. Control surfaces help it maneuver in atmosphere without relying on the limited vectoring abilities of the grav drive, though it can still make use of those, too. such a vessel is not like an airplane, though it may resemble one.

 

[GJD]

Also, I know I'm like fifty pages behind on this... but regarding the talk of a gravitic dog fight with a regular jet.

There was all this talk about trying to get behind the fighter plane. I'd just have the gravitic vehicle spin around and shoot to rearwards it, while maintaining it's direction of travel. I'm thinking of the hover craft style behavior, although I think I saw similar maneuvers in BSG.

I'm also reminded by all this talk that the space fighting from star wars was modeled on world war dog fights, because it looked super awesome.

Sure, but the guy you are shooting at doesn't want to get shot at, so he's trying to get on your tail, where you can't shoot him, and you want to be on his tail where he can't shoot you.

G.

 

[tneva82]

Actually, 99% of the time it means getting your plane set up pointed at your opponent ...

This is slightly outdated, many of today's missiles are built to function
well even if dropped in another direction than the one where the ene-
my is.

Yeah. They are now even designing system where pilot can see 360 degree through his helmet and lock targets quickly within the system and then just fire the missiles away which heads toward target regardless of where the target lies...

So it's getting pretty much of who spots other first. Only drawback from that fire into another direction than target is would be reduced flight time I guess(I presume it will reduce it) and therefore at extreme ranges you might be shot first if two planes are at the edge and other can point toward you. But probably you could just head out of other missile's range if that becomes issue as reduction isn't likely all THAT much...

 

[DFW]

eh? cut off from where? I don't follow.

From the original post.

 

[GJD]

As said: NO mentioning means...

As I knew already, nothing in this thread OR the rules indicates that vectoring doesn't exist. Although, it would be impossible to land a non-airframe ship without it, including on a planet with NO atmoshere. Logic is a beautiful thing.

Well, true, but nothing in the rules says that fart-gas thrusters don't exist, or invisible space pixies that push my ship around, or the glorious carbohydrate rich, invisible, undetectable, noodly appendages that clearly make everything happen in the universe ever (Ramen!).

Just because it doesn't say there isn't doesn't correlate that there is.

G.

 

[rust]

So it's getting pretty much of who spots other first.

The Typhoon (and probably also any counterpart used by other forces) is
built with a communication and computer system that allows the pilot to
use the sensor data of any other plane or ground station in the network,
so when Plane A or ground station X gets a target lock on an enemy pla-
ne, Plane B (and C, D, E ...) can also send its missiles against that enemy
plane, provided it is within their range.

In the not so far future, high altitude sensor planes or even satellites will
provide the target data, and the pilot of the interceptor plane only has to
transport his missiles somewhere within range of the enemy plane, with-
out any need to spot it at all with his own plane's sensors.

 

[AndrewW]

The Typhoon (and probably also any counterpart used by other forces) is built with a communication and computer system that allows the pilot to use the sensor data of any other plane or ground station in the network, so when Plane A or ground station X gets a target lock on an enemy plane, Plane B (and C, D, E ...) can also send its missiles against that enemy plane, provided it is within their range.

Yup, but not limited to just planes and ground stations other resources such as ships can be integrated into the same sensor map. The shared sensor data can then be utilized by the various forces including planes, ships and ground forces.

 

[DFW]

Well, true, but nothing in the rules says that fart-gas thrusters don't exist,

Well, for a "airframe" ship (under the rules) to be able to land and take off on an airless planet, it would require thrusters. So, there ya go...

 

[far-trader]

The Typhoon (and probably also any counterpart used by other forces) is built with a communication and computer system that allows the pilot to use the sensor data of any other plane or ground station in the network, so when Plane A or ground station X gets a target lock on an enemy plane, Plane B (and C, D, E ...) can also send its missiles against that enemy plane, provided it is within their range.

Yup, but not limited to just planes and ground stations other resources such as ships can be integrated into the same sensor map. The shared sensor data can then be utilized by the various forces including planes, ships and ground forces.

Yep, and inevitably when it's implemented there will be a "friendly" shoot down based on some spurious data or it'll simply fail at times. And likely it will be hacked into by the enemy. And before anyone starts in about how it will be 100% proof against hacking just think a bit.

And I won't even start in about how data saturated modern fighter pilots already are...

 

[tneva82]

And I won't even start in about how data saturated modern fighter pilots already are...

Well the system they were developing helped around that as well...It automatically tags targets according to side/type so pilot can quickly see that ground target being enemy ground unit(and depending on level of identification could see that's enemy SAM).

 

[GJD]

Well, true, but nothing in the rules says that fart-gas thrusters don't exist,

Well, for a "airframe" ship (under the rules) to be able to land and take off on an airless planet, it would require thrusters. So, there ya go...

But are they fart gas thrusters?

 

[rust]

Yep, and inevitably when it's implemented there will be a "friendly" shoot down based on some spurious data ...

This will probably depend a lot on the quality of a future missile's IFF sys-
tem (provided it has one, which I would expect).

And likely it will be hacked into by the enemy.

The more electronics of all kinds become ubiquitous, the more important
electronic warfare will doubtless become, but the problem of a potential
enemy interference will hardly convince the military not to use advanced
C3 systems.

 

[kristof65]

The more electronics of all kinds become ubiquitous, the more important electronic warfare will doubtless become, but the problem of a potential enemy interference will hardly convince the military not to use advanced C3 systems.

The most advanced interference tactics won't be to actually interupt the data they present, but to use them against their users with false data. It's one thing if you can confuse an advanced C3 system into thinking you aren't there, or that you're in a different place than you really are - but quite another if you can use that C3 system into getting the enemy to beleive you have them massively outnumbered and that your craft are invulnerable to their hits.

Even so, electronic warfare can only go so far before you have to have some muscle to back it up.

 

[rust]

And ultimately we will see a 50 Million Euro fighter downed accidentially by a guy manning a 30+ year old Rheinmetall Mk20 or a 60+ year old 40mm Bofors

From my experiences with pilots, the ones most likely to destroy the pla-
nes are the pilots themselves ...