Conventionals Vs ASF for Air Support in the Late Sucession Wars

[SCC]

In the early 3000's is there any advantage picking ASF's over Conventional's to provide air support and air superiority? With all the LostTech I think the only areas ASF's have an advantage are amount of armor they can carry and innate hard points for bombs, and only this second is likely to matter given the need for control rolls.

[Death by Lasers]

  The advantages are of ASF over Conventional Aircraft are huge, huge, huge!

1) Can be Anywhere on World in 90 Minutes:  ASF can fly above the atmosphere, accelerate to insane speeds, slow down again and reenter the atmosphere to be anywhere on planet in 90 minutes.  Most conventional fighters are limited to an effective range of 10,800 kilometers at Altitude 1 and it takes them over three hours to make that distance.

2) Can Flee Conventional Aircraft by Flying into High Altitudes  Lets say the enemy catches your ASF with a superior force of conventional fighters, all your ASF have to do to survive is fly into the high altitude map and the conventionals can't follow.  If a smaller force of conventionals gets caught outnumbered by the ASF however they are out of luck and have nowhere to flee.  Being able to dictate when you do and don't want to fight is a huge strategic advantage. 

3) Can Fly in Freakin' Space!  The enemy puts a satelite in orbit you don't like?  Take it out with an ASF.  The enemy has a dropship in orbit?  Take it out with an ASF.  The enemy has a moon base?  Take it out with an ASF.  These are just some of the few things a space mobile ASF can do that a atmo-bound conventional aircraft can't.

P.S.  Thought I would give a disadvantage and one advantage that you actually see in tactical gameplay rather than just being a strategic advantage.

4)Disadvantage: ASF have half the loiter time in Atmosphere  ASF have only half the fuel efficiency of conventional aircraft so they can only hang out in atmo for half as long.  This probably has to do with the fact that they are flying tanks and are using thrusters to supplement the lift from their wings.  Mind you, they can still hang out in space above the battlefield and fall into atmo when they are needed but they can't be close by for long.

5)Can use Thrust to make Tighter Turns  ASF can use their thrusters to make tighter turns than would otherwise be possible for conventionals.  Conventionals do get tighter turns by default in atmosphere but high thrust ASF can use their thrust to make up for this and potentially outmaneuver the conventional craft.

Note: Edited for an error.

[sillybrit]

In the early 3000's is there any advantage picking ASF's over Conventional's to provide air support and air superiority? With all the LostTech I think the only areas ASF's have an advantage are amount of armor they can carry and innate hard points for bombs, and only this second is likely to matter given the need for control rolls.

Conventional fighters get hardpoints too, so that in itself isn't an advantage for ASFs. However, due to ASFs potentially having a higher thrust than CFs, it's possible for ASFs to carry more bombs while maintaining a certain minimum thrust. ASFs can also be built larger than CFs, thus some ASFs can carry more bombs than any CF would be capable of carrying.

Also, bear in mind that not every loss of control results in a crash. A loss of control simply means that you drop 1d6 altitude, so even at lower altitudes it's possible that you might not crash and at higher altitudes it can be impossible as a result of failing just one roll.

In addition, a crash is not necessarily fatal, depending upon the strength of the fighter's armor, its speed upon crashing and how lucky you get with the damage roll. A slow flying, heavily armored ASF has a chance of surviving a crash and potentially getting airborne again. Due to the flimsy armor possessed by CFs, that's not an option for them.

ASFs also have the construction advantage that for a given thrust, they can have much more payload than a CF of the same size and performance. A 50t 6/9 ASF only needs a 200 rating engine, thus it has 38.5t to allocate fuel, armor, armament and other equipment. A 50t 6/9 CF has to use a 300 rating engine and install extra shielding, so it only has 16.5t remaining. Despite the ASF's lower fuel efficiency it's thus possible for an ASF to match the atmospheric endurance of a CF, while being superior in armor and armament.

[Nebfer]

Well some things to note is that CFs do have a massive endurance advantage, particularly if you use the Strat ops bonus.

CFs get 160 points per ton, with Strat ops you can make this 320, though fusion powered CFs get this as well if they only spend "safe" thrust (in this case one could say that their less efficient with their overthrust/"after burners"), though by in large it should not be to hard not to use their "overthrust" out side of low altitude combat situations (I.e high altitude map speed limit of 3...).

So a Meteor HSF with it's 3 tons of fuel can have as much as 960 points of fuel (equivalent to 12 tons for an ASF). So it can say fly 3,000ish km to a target and stay their all day waiting for a call in.

Though as stated in comparison to ASFs their slower, more fragile and have a lower flight ceiling.
An ASF can reach anywhere in the world in two hours or less (thanks to being orbital capable), a CF even at 3,240kph (roughly mach 3, speed 3 on the high altitude map) will need upwards of five to eight hours to reach anywhere on a world (depending on the diameter of the world).
Though in a quirk of the rules flying at velocity's that are not a 2x multiple of the velocity used to generate them is less efficient, I.e. the max speed of a CF on the high altitude map is 3, to maintain that speed requires 2 thrust points, 3 is not a multiple of 2 (as 4 is). As such the max range at a velocity of 3 for the Meteor HSF with it's 3 tons of fuel is ~25,900km, If it went at a velocity of 2 (or if it could 4) it would have a range of ~34,500km.

In short not going exactly 2x your thrust rating will drop your range to about 75% of the nominal maximum, this also applies to ASFs.

Though CFs do have the advantage of being some what more agile.

[SCC]

OK, I think a bit of background material might be in order here. I'm toying with an idea for a 4th Succession War scenario where the AFFS throws two blockades across Capellan space in order to cut the Confederation into three parts. To perform is operation a lot of ASF would be required. To get the required numbers I'm thinking of having them pull one wing from each RCT in order to come up with the numbers. To compensate for this loss each RCT would receive two wings of CF's.

So under those circumstances, weirdly, moving in space and quickly around a planet aren't that useful (If the CF is part of an attack group, the group as a whole still has ASF cover, and attackers need that movement less).

I do however have a question: Technically what BT calls fuel would actually be reaction mass, so why is it needed in atmosphere?

[Death by Lasers]

  In those circumstances the conventional fighters would be handy for close air support and guarding mechs/grounded dropships from air attack.  The only areas you are going to be hurting in is your ability to intercept enemy aerospace and to escort your dropships. 

  With the dropships you should be able to get on planet without being intercepted but you will probably have to land a fair distance from the enemy force.  However one wing and the guns of your dropships would probably be good enough defense for most invasion scenarios but they will be more exposed without the extra fighters.

  Destroying enemy aerospace will be more difficult.  They can basically flee from airfield to airfield if you don't have enough aerospace to intercept them in space.  Eventually they will run out of hiding spots but it will cost you time.

  These are all minor hurdles though and will become major problems if the enemy has an unusually large aerospace component. 

[Hellraiser]

In the early 3000's is there any advantage picking ASF's over Conventional's to provide air support and air superiority? With all the LostTech I think the only areas ASF's have an advantage are amount of armor they can carry and innate hard points for bombs, and only this second is likely to matter given the need for control rolls.

CF are OK at providing Air Support to ground units via bombs.

But Air Superiority?   No.   I'm thinking ASF could easily shred CF in at least a 2-1 ratio in a dogfight.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I do however have a question: Technically what BT calls fuel would actually be reaction mass, so why is it needed in atmosphere?

ASFs use (fusion powered) rocket motors.  Near as I can remember, there's no lore describing a switchover to jet propulsion in atmosphere.  Nor scramjet propulsion, for that matter.  I'm pretty sure ASFs are spacecraft that can delve down into the atmosphere, rather than being aircraft that can fly in space.

As for fusion powered CFs... it makes sense to suppose their inherently air-breathing engines still require "fuel" injection into the airflow compressor to achieve their statted thrust.

[Empyrus]

A fusion conventional fighter would be like proposed IRL nuclear-powered bombers. You use a jet engine but fuel it with power generated by a fusion reaction rather than petrol or kerosene or whatever else.
An ASF uses fusion to heat reaction mass (hydrogen) carried onboard.
This is why CFs are so fuel-efficient, atmosphere is their "reaction mass tank" (along with lift helping them too, ASFs may be lifting bodies but that doesn't necessarily help with maneuvering that much).

EDIT On topic, CFs are local things. Extra air support is always welcome for defenders, and CFs are good, cheap way for that.
Oddly, this actually gives the defender an advantage. Logically the defender ASFs are engaging the attacker's ASFs, ie they negate each other. Attackers are unlikely to bring CFs due to logistics considerations...

[SCC]

ASFs use (fusion powered) rocket motors.  Near as I can remember, there's no lore describing a switchover to jet propulsion in atmosphere.  Nor scramjet propulsion, for that matter.  I'm pretty sure ASFs are spacecraft that can delve down into the atmosphere, rather than being aircraft that can fly in space.

And yet this is exactly that jump jets on BattleMechs do.

And Empyrus, the Russians got such a design to fly, and it didn't need fuel (At least like this).

[Kit deSummersville]

And Empyrus, the Russians got such a design to fly, and it didn't need fuel (At least like this).

They got a fusion powered design that went into space and back? If you want an ASF that can loiter in the atmosphere there's always the Banshee.

[Hellraiser]

Attackers are unlikely to bring CFs due to logistics considerations...

Oddly enough, I came across this before.
Simply put, we didn't have enough ASF to fill all the cubicles so a couple of slots on an Overlord went to CF just to provide a little extra ground support.

[JenniferinaMAD]

ASF bays sound impractical for CF use to me, at least on raids. I assume the launch catapult can launch a CF inside an atmosphere just fine. But how exactly will they get back in? Even with VSTOL gear they wouldn't quite have the hovering capabilities of an ASF, would they?

Does the dropship have an inbuilt crane to load fighters back into its bays while on the ground?

[SCC]

ASF bays sound impractical for CF use to me, at least on raids. I assume the launch catapult can launch a CF inside an atmosphere just fine. But how exactly will they get back in? Even with VSTOL gear they wouldn't quite have the hovering capabilities of an ASF, would they?

Not an issue, I think that ASFs can't do that either.

Does the dropship have an inbuilt crane to load fighters back into its bays while on the ground?

Yes and No. I believe the bay comes with such a crane, see above.

[Korzon77]

Depeding on how strategic level you can get, I'd think that one advantage CFs have is that it's easier to get techs/repair's done, especially if you're not first in line for logistics support.

[JenniferinaMAD]

Not an issue, I think that ASFs can't do that either.

Is that explicitly stated?

So the loading crane/arm must be zero-G capable then.

[SCC]

Is that explicitly stated?

Not too sure, I know it came up in a disscussion here at some point.

So the loading crane/arm must be zero-G capable then.

You don't need it need in zero g, which makes sense, an ASF needs it's engines active in atmosphere but not in orbit.

[Death by Lasers]

Is that explicitly stated?

So the loading crane/arm must be zero-G capable then.

  The rule is in Total Warfare: "Fighters and small craft cannot launch or be recovered directly by a landed Dropship" (TW. 86).  If your dropship is landed your fighters will just have to land next to it and as you say probably loaded back in with a crane. 

  Interestingly you can launch from a flying Dropship in an atmosphere so my guess is that their is either no or a minimal sling and that the fighter drops a little once it exits the Dropship before building enough velocity for lift. 

[SCC]

You know, when you consider why that limitation likely exists (Fusion engines are basically plasma weapons) it wouldn't be too outrageous to change it so that that no landing rule only applies to fusion engined craft, which gives non-fusion ones a reason to exist.

[JenniferinaMAD]

Is that why the limitation exists?

Also, isn't an active jet engine also really hot and fiery? Both fusion and ICE engines use heat in some fashion to generate thrust. If both are tasked with lifting a fighter plane, they'll both produce similar amounts of thrusts. If both use heat, that should result in similar amounts of heat being blasted into their surroundings, right?

It's just that fusion engines do it more weight and fuel efficiently.

[Death by Lasers]

  Technically that's not why the limitation exists as the rule applies to both ICE and Fusion ASF/Conventional Fighters.  What SCC is talking about is a fan modification to the rule.  My guess as to why neither can launch form a landed Dropship is that a dropship just doesn't have a long enough flight deck for a Fighter to safely build enough velocity for lift.

[SCC]

They can lunch just fine, they simply can't LAND. And JenniferinaMAD, there's a MASSIVE difference in heat between thrust from an ICE and a fusion engine, the later is likely capable of cutting a DS in two.

[Death by Lasers]

They can lunch just fine, they simply can't LAND. And JenniferinaMAD, there's a MASSIVE difference in heat between thrust from an ICE and a fusion engine, the later is likely capable of cutting a DS in two.

  Actually they can't launch.  The rule is in Total Warfare: "Fighters and small craft cannot launch or be recovered directly by a landed Dropship" (TW. 86).

[JenniferinaMAD]

They can lunch just fine, they simply can't LAND. And JenniferinaMAD, there's a MASSIVE difference in heat between thrust from an ICE and a fusion engine, the later is likely capable of cutting a DS in two.

Even if both have the same thrust rating for the same weight of fighter? They are different technologies and everything, but at the end of the day, if two engines are both pushing X tons of fighter to Y kph, then aren't both putting out very similar amounts of thrust?

  Actually they can't launch.  The rule is in Total Warfare: "Fighters and small craft cannot launch or be recovered directly by a landed Dropship" (TW. 86).

Fair enough, though of course this is ignored at times in the novels (Day of Heroes has it, though it doesn't go well for one fighter and is referred to as a highly unconventional tactic).

[SCC]

Even if both have the same thrust rating for the same weight of fighter? They are different technologies and everything, but at the end of the day, if two engines are both pushing X tons of fighter to Y kph, then aren't both putting out very similar amounts of thrust?

ICE engines are jet engines, Fusion are plasma based.

[JenniferinaMAD]

ICE engines are jet engines, Fusion are plasma based.

I still don't follow. Between both types explicitly being defined as producing the same amount of thrust (a 250 rated ice engine will push a mechbuster exactly as fast as a 250 rated fusion engine) and the explanation as to why fusion engines don't explode (on contact with air or shielding material, the plasma cools insanely quickly), I still don't see why a fusion engine ASF would cut a dropship in half when an ICE jet fighter wouldn't.
They produce the same amount of kinetic energy (if the engine is rated the same), and cool air and blast shielding will rapidly cool even fusion exhaust.

[Kit deSummersville]

One would think that if a ASF's exhaust was so potent it would be used as a weapon. We've had HPGs and Jump Jets used (poorly) in that manner....

[Death by Lasers]

One would think that if a ASF's exhaust was so potent it would be used as a weapon. We've had HPGs and Jump Jets used (poorly) in that manner....

  Conjures the image of a Griffin running around the battlefield holding a giant jet turbine and blasting mechs with it.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

ICE engines are jet engines, Fusion are plasma based.

I still don't follow. Between both types explicitly being defined as producing the same amount of thrust (a 250 rated ice engine will push a mechbuster exactly as fast as a 250 rated fusion engine) and the explanation as to why fusion engines don't explode (on contact with air or shielding material, the plasma cools insanely quickly), I still don't see why a fusion engine ASF would cut a dropship in half when an ICE jet fighter wouldn't.
They produce the same amount of kinetic energy (if the engine is rated the same), and cool air and blast shielding will rapidly cool even fusion exhaust.

I think it's faulty to presume that the identical (game) velocities equates to identical amounts of energy being expelled out the thrust nozzle.

Still, I also think it's faulty to presume that an ASF's thrust will cut a DropShip in half.  Can a DropShip's exhaust vaporize an ASF? Sure.  But the "cutting torch" effect of the radiation expelled as ASF thrust is not even in the same league.  Neither by scale/magnitude, nor (more importantly) by the implications given by the rules.  DropShip  drives and ASF drives are treated, under the rules, as fundamentally different critters.  No ASF drive can move thousands of tons at several gravities of acceleration but more importantly they can't produce thrust for more than a few minutes/hours at a time.  It's not just a question of fuel reserves; transit thrust is a different creature under the rules than "combat" thrust.  ASFs just flat out can't do it*.

Now that's not to say that an ASF firing its drive within a DropShip's hangar won't do immense damage.  But the magic armor/hulls of spacecraft can resist all kinds of energy, up to and including nuclear explosions.  I have a hard time seeing the emissions of an ASF grade fusion rocket having more energy than a frikkin' nuke.

*=ASF's can't do it, but Small Craft can.  It might be more interesting to postulate what a Small Craft's drive might do to another spacecraft whilst in transit mode.  I still kind of doubt it'd destroy something of the size of a DropShip.  You'd probably need a dropship thrusting directly upon another dropship at point blank range (and I mean literally almost touching, as if docked with thrusters pointed right at the other vessel) to get that kind of result.