Small one man space fighters
- Thread starter Enlightened
- Start date
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
DFW said:
???
Thought the answer was clearly there in black and white, but just to explain to you yet again....
Would I fly one? Is a daft question,... I would not have a choice, so yes, but the real point you need to understand is that servicemen often do have to use inadequate equipement.
Re: OT, possibly, but in a good cause, I am trying to explain to you that there are many more considerations involved in defence procurement in the real world, and some at least of these we should expect to turn up in our sci-fi worlds. The idea that protecting its servicemen is the only thing that any government takes into account is naive, there are many conflicting interests, in a world with limited budgets (again, as pretty much any sci-fi world will be as well)
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
DFW said:
Yeah, luckily the Iraqis had 1970s (and earlier!!) kit, and were following Soviet doctrines from the 1960s (or earlier), the US etc had 1980s kit and doctine.
To bring this back to topic, perhaps this illustrates how much variation there can be within, basically, the same TL?
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
DFW said:
You are still missing the point.
Actually, several points, but, to clarify (again)
1. I can see that the 15+ pt armour fighter is perfectly within the rules, but was interested in where the counter measures were (particle bay weapons? fusion guns?) and whether it would be realistic to expect a turrent mounted counter measure, as the turret particle beam (TL8, why no significant development over the next 7 tech levels?)is inadequate. Is the "flying pill box" a likely or realistic design (if not then some rule mods might be in order), is it good for game balance (whatever that means in this context). I am not advocating the construction of weak fighters, if the rules are there, build the best you can afford. Luckily one of the joys of gaming is we niether have to pay for or fly the designs!
2. However, in the real world a wide range of factors end up influencing design, not just "is this the best we can do". So bad designs do appear.
3. Your question about "would I fly a weak design" misses the point, the pilot will do what is required, even if he doesn't like it, so you should be able to deduce an answer from that.
You know, if you cannot follow that, then you a welcome to consider me a troll.
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
rust said:
Yeah, agree, and as a highly skilled, very well motivated and (presumably) young man he would take the risk. And that was in peace time, at certain points in wartime, the statistics were such that aircrew were almost certain to be shot down, killed, wounded or captured, the only question how soon. There were few cases of aircrew refusing to fly. So the answer to the question "would I fly an inadequately armoured space fighter" is, as a highly motivated pilot, yes, even if I am likely to die.
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
rust said:
Because we're using the spinward marches and 3I assumptions, I'm just going along with the tech level pretty much as written in MonT, the justification is that the 3I assumptions as to how a hugh, settled, long lived, high tech (in places) space with an effective FTL will work is as good as mine, and it does lead to a very good game at the level of a small group of passengers and a far trader trying to make their way.
However, with a couple of non-3I campaign ideas slowly evolving I am doing the same as you and modifying what is available at different tech levels.
Egil
I'd say no.Egil Skallagrimsson said:
But then it depends on whether you're talking of realism within the MgT universe or the real universe. Because the MgT universe doesn't take mass into consideration when determining performance, a super armored ship can be just as nimble as a paper mache one.
In the real world, all the mass of that heavy armor will degrade the ship's performance and make it easier to hit.
One of the best ways to protect the pilots is to make them very hard to hit. Hanging tonnes of armor on the ship is another. So, it comes down to realistic in MgT terms? or real universe termsRust said:
Don't put too much stock in wargames; they can be and often are 'fixed' to make the newest toy look good. Look into the development histories of fighters and weapon systems in the past. Also, consider the F/A-18's first deployment on the Constellation. During wargames, the Kitty Hawk utterly defeated the Constellation with its new F/A-18's several times and, because the Constellation's planes couldn't even get within striking range, the wargame 'referees' ordered us to let one in so that we could have a mass conflag drill, AND to make sure the Viper didn't look ineffective. Also, during that deployment cycle, even though the Kitty Hawk excelled over the Constellation in every aspect, the Constellation was awarded the Battle "E" in order to show how awesome the Viper was and help justify its cost on Capital Hill. Taking the wargames at face value, it could be argued that planes a tech level or two lower than the F/A-18 ( our A-6's, A-7's and Tomcats ) were more effective in actual combat.DFW said:
This argues the fact that the deciding factor is the weapons system and not necessarily the weapons delivery platform.DFW said:
... The Iraqis probably did not have the upgraded zsu23-4's and the Israelis learned in the Yom Kipper war about just how deadly the zsu23-4's can be, just like we learned it during the Viet Nam war . Of course its not Russia's top line anti-air system anymore. I've also heard a story ( but cannot verify it on short notice ) that an F-4 Phantom was 'shot down' while flying at tree top level by soldiers throwing sticks and branches into the air in front of it to be sucked into the intakes; a tech 7 fighter shot down by tech 0 weapons and tactics.
As far as"Would I fly it.."
If I were a pilot and my unit was assigned this fighter, then yes, I would have no choice outside of disobeying a lawful order, potentially in wartime.
If it were not a military unit, would it be 'realistic' for a government to allow such a weapons system in private non-government controlled hands?
here's a propaganda film about the Starfighter
On Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!
00:17:35 is hilarious
" ........a million and a half dollars apiece. "
http://www.hulu.com/watch/112299/mystery-science-theater-3000-the-starfighters
On Mystery Science Theater 3000!!!
00:17:35 is hilarious
" ........a million and a half dollars apiece. "
http://www.hulu.com/watch/112299/mystery-science-theater-3000-the-starfighters
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Ishmael said:
Very interesting and informative, thanks for that!
The story about the F4 sounds like a bit like someones bad joke, I doubt if the soldiers would have had enough time to throw much into the air before the F4 passed, but the dangers of foreign objects being sucked into jet intakes are well known, so I could just about see this happening by coincidence (theoretically, possibly, on a very unlucky day!)
Egil
It does not take much to bring a jet down, especially if it has only one en-Egil Skallagrimsson said:
gine. The airbase I served at was near a river with a couple of islands, a
perfect habitat for many birds, and so we had our own falconer who used
his falcon to keep those birds away from the base - especially the small
ones, which would otherwise have been difficult to spot in time.
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Yeah, the dangers are well known, I think any airforce, or civilian airport, handling jets, is, quite rightly, obsessive about small objects getting into jet intakes.rust said:
Egil
The major limits on a fighter are the weaponry. They can't mount bays or spinal mounts - it's turret and barbette weaponry at best. So while they can be used to increase the number of weapons mounted of this class for a given hull, it's at the detriment of tonnage and cost that could be spent on other things. Tactically, they probably only need to armour up against turret weapons, since the big guns are going to be trained on the other side's capital ships. The advantage of a fighter over a turret is that it can close range.
I'd suggest that one of the useful roles for a space fighter is as an escort. Install one or two of them in a large merchant or tanker and you have immediate insurance against attack, even if your escort ships haven't popped out of J-Space yet.
I'd suggest that one of the useful roles for a space fighter is as an escort. Install one or two of them in a large merchant or tanker and you have immediate insurance against attack, even if your escort ships haven't popped out of J-Space yet.
AndrewW said:
This is true, but I wouldn't call such craft "fighters". A 50 ton bay means that you just can't add enough powerplant and drive to acheive the higher G performances. But these missile boats or bombers have their place.
Just ran through a design sequence for a 10 ton pulse laser fighter, and the main issues I can see are lack of volume for armour (or at least a tradeoff between thrust and armour) and cost effectiveness (12 points of Bonded superdense is the same cost as the basic hull, though this isnt a huge fraction of the drive costs).
There have been several cases of 'fixed' wargames in the recent past. Gen. Paul Van Riper's pre-Iraq case is probably the most extreme.
The problem is that a ship's thrust value and/or sensor signature doesn't make it discernably harder to hit.
It might let you dodge a few more times (provided your initiative is high enough) but there's no 'extreme evasive manouvres' option for thrust 8+ fighters that make them essentially impossible to hit by spending 5 points of thrust dodging something.
Equally, a big DM on sensor checks may stop someone locking onto you, but that takes away a bonus, it doesn't stop them shooting.
The order of preference for survivability in military equipment is:
1) Don't get shot at in the first place - Stealth
2) Dont get hit by the shot - Evasion & Active Defence
3) Survive the effects of the shot - Passive Defence
(1) is why stealth is such a big thing in the minds of airforce and navy generals (plus the fact that both of those are ultimately unable to rely on number three - one has to fly and one has to float), and improved camo in the minds of infantry commanders (since they have the advantage of terrain you can take cover behind). But - at least in the current traveller rules - there are very limited opportunities for this.
(2) Doesn't really apply because evasive manouvres are pretty ineffectual against decent gunnery. Sand, Screens and PDLs are about the only thing in this category, but there is nothing that works effectively against the default ship-to-ship armament of the particle beam. Which is part of the reason it's the default weapon, I guess.....
That leaves (3) - which is why a small craft built like a tank with an M-Drive seems to be the default first choice.
They were following some of the Russian tactics. IADS is more than just sitting there with a bunch of RADARs burning till they're blown away by anti-radiation missiles.
If you tried engaging an F-117 nighthawk with a 1960's radar-homing S-125, the result should be the same. But that's what's considered to have blown one out of the sky in Kosovo. Is it going to happen on a regular basis, no, but with competent planners it will happen. Not, as noted, that this means much in traveller, as the current rules don't allow for 'stealth' to make a meaningful difference in combat.
That can always happen - it's happened with small arms and light weapons often enough, but 'smashing it with enough rocks' is usually situation-specific. The aircraft in question will have been at tree-top level to avoid SAMS and MiG interceptors - accepting the risk of a lower TL threat to give it a better chance of avoiding a threat on its own level. A higher level unit has (in theory) less need to come down to an altitude where you can engage it.
The argument about how effective close support from altitude is is still going on, though. It's one of the big persisting complaints about the F-35, because CAS is supposed to be a big part of its role, and if it sucks at it that's going to be a problem.
A barrage of fire from Particle barbettes with the Accurate upgrade, I guess. It's no less effective against fighters than bigger ships...
The upside of fighters essentially being pocket versions of a starship means you don't really need specialised weapons to engage them.
A few things I meant to mention.
All fighters in MGT are better than CT, as they can have decent armour, and do not suffer a DM for not being able to mount decent computers as they have the same choice as a starship and weight has gone down for computers.
They are quicker to replace - 24/15 to build. Using CT TCS rules this can be reduced to 24/12 with 100s being built at the same time.
You can put a particle barbette on them at 60 tons
Really had not noticed you could put a 50 ton missile bay on, nice find.
Although paper thin out of the box, it is really cheap to add Reinforced hull, structure and bulkheads to all the important systems.
I think they have a place for mid-tech worlds performing patrols against civilian targets in pairs or squadrons. I have not tried them in High Guard yet, but the flight concept looks really interesting (particularly with the reinforced hull option above).
I suspect multi-role fighters are much bigger as they need the choice of weapons. Specialist fighters, such as escort or civilian traffic policing are very do-able as single man craft, and relatively cheap.
The BSG concept of sleek fast fighter able to attack large craft, or the Star Wars fighter blowing up the death star is probably not do-able. But then traveller has the concept of battle riders, so I think its fighters are somewhat different as well.
All fighters in MGT are better than CT, as they can have decent armour, and do not suffer a DM for not being able to mount decent computers as they have the same choice as a starship and weight has gone down for computers.
They are quicker to replace - 24/15 to build. Using CT TCS rules this can be reduced to 24/12 with 100s being built at the same time.
You can put a particle barbette on them at 60 tons
Really had not noticed you could put a 50 ton missile bay on, nice find.
Although paper thin out of the box, it is really cheap to add Reinforced hull, structure and bulkheads to all the important systems.
I think they have a place for mid-tech worlds performing patrols against civilian targets in pairs or squadrons. I have not tried them in High Guard yet, but the flight concept looks really interesting (particularly with the reinforced hull option above).
I suspect multi-role fighters are much bigger as they need the choice of weapons. Specialist fighters, such as escort or civilian traffic policing are very do-able as single man craft, and relatively cheap.
The BSG concept of sleek fast fighter able to attack large craft, or the Star Wars fighter blowing up the death star is probably not do-able. But then traveller has the concept of battle riders, so I think its fighters are somewhat different as well.
