Pack Burro "ASF"

[Daryk]

Per Worktroll's request, here's my hand jammed whack at a minimalist ASF for cargo purposes between surface and orbit.

Code: [Select]

Pack Burro Tons C-Bills
Tonnage 25.0
Cockpit 3.0 200,000
Life Support 50,000
Sensors 50,000
SI (3) 150,000
Attitude Thruster 25,000
Landing Gear 250
Engine (25) 0.5 41,667
Fuel 1.0 200
Armor (2/face) 0.5 5,000
HS (10) 20,000
Sub Total 5.0 542,117
Cargo 20.0

Multiplier 1.125 609,881

[Cryhavok101]

More high tech version:

Code: [Select]

New Aero
IS experimental
30 tons 
BV: 94
Cost: 1,784,640 C-bills

Movement: 3/5
Engine: 30
Heat Sinks: 10
Cockpit: Small Cockpit

Structural Integrity: 3
Armor: 24 (Vehicular Stealth)
                        Armor
-----------------------------
Nose                        6
Left Wing                   6
Right Wing                  6
Aft                         6


Equipment                      Loc
----------------------------------
Vehicular Stealth              AFT
Shielded SRCS                  AFT
Cargo (20 tons)                AFT


Fuel to make multiple trips, stealth armor to hide where it is going and coming from as much as possible, shield SRCS so people don't need to fly it, and it's robotic systems can't be interfered with.

[worktroll]

Thanks, Daryk!

Do you think a 10-ton version - the "Burrito" ? - is possible?

[Cryhavok101]

Code: [Select]

New Aero
IS
10 tons 
BV: 7
Cost: 495,670 C-bills

Movement: 3/5
Engine: 10
Heat Sinks: 10
Cockpit: Small Cockpit

Structural Integrity: 3
Armor: 0
                        Armor
-----------------------------
Nose                        0
Left Wing                   0
Right Wing                  0
Aft                         0


Equipment                      Loc
----------------------------------
Cargo (6 tons)                 AFT


Small cockpit, no armor, 6 tons of cargo. For a c-bill increase this could get up to 4/6 without increasing the tonnage.

[Daryk]

As Cryhavok shows, 10 tons is absolutely doable, just with smaller cargo capacity.  I went with 25 tons initially because that's the most efficient tonnage for a 0.5 ton engine (the infamous 25 rated one that powers the Savannah Master).  The next step up is 45 tons (the most efficient for a 1 ton engine).  The 60 ton version (with 1.5 ton engine) is the first that can actually mount a full up light vehicle bay.  To do that with a decent armor/fuel/weapon load, you have to go up to 75 tons (2 ton engine, aka the Mark IV landing craft).  Conveniently the steps get all the way to 100 tons (Mark V at 85, VI at 100 at 3/5 speed), when increasing the speed to 4/6 gives you the Mark VII.  For the VIII, I dropped back to 3/5 and increased the armor and weapon load while trimming the cargo back to 55 tons (vehicle plus infantry).  The IX increases the cargo to 58 to carry BA, and the X is where I went for Stealth Armor (calling it the Zhongxing, figuring it was a Capellan design).  I forget on which design I introduced DHS, but it was definitely before the X.

[Fireangel]

The plain vanilla 25-tonner could extend its range with external fuel tanks on the way down, then (if not dropped) could stow them in unused cargo space for the trip up to orbit.

The 10-tonner with the 20-rated engine can basically bolt on a pair of external fuel tanks underwing and putt along at 3/5 for the rest of its career. I would add a half ton of armor and an extra half ton of fuel. This version could be available with either a cargo area, an "infantry" bay (basic civilian seats for the trip up or down... not military, but like those on an airliner; no supplies needed for the short trip), or combination of both.

[worktroll]

The OP's original idea, IIRC, was to have these cached in satellites against an attack, and then be able to drop the cached supplies to combatants on the surface.

Which - now that I think about it - does indicate a bit of a fatal flaw, as you only need to fight on the ground if you lost aerospace superiority to the invader.

W.

[Cryhavok101]

Which - now that I think about it - does indicate a bit of a fatal flaw, as you only need to fight on the ground if you lost aerospace superiority to the invader.

I see that get repeated a lot, but that isn't what happens in a lot of stories I have read. Pretty often the ground battle is going on while the skies are still contested. I know I have quite often deployed ground forces while the space/air battle was still going on. I have also seen opponents not commit their full aerospace forces to a single winner-take-all battle.

However, (being the OP from the original thread) I do have to say: I was thinking about deploying these satellites in support of an attack, not to defend against an invasion. Support and logistics for the ground force, without tying up or leaving in one spot a far more valuable asset, like a dropship or warship. Going with aerospace fighters though, I don't think it would work as well. My plan was for a 200 ton satellite that could fit inside a small craft or super heavy vehicle bay. If it goes from cargo containers to ASFs, even if it is just one, it still eats away 150 tons of the satellite from the bay. That doesn't leave much for the cargo packages being deployed. At that point it would be more efficient to just use a cargo small craft.

[Daryk]

Under the current rules, a small craft is the last thing you want.  ASFs can at least take off and land vertically without destroying themselves.  The 100 ton version of the Burro can haul 90 tons between the surface and orbit with 3.5 tons of internal fuel.  That's a decent fraction of a 150 ton ASF bay, and even of a 200 ton "satellite".

[marauder648]

I like her, she's more like a dinky shuttle or a priority courier than anything.  I can imagine her zipping over with 20 tons of say medical supplies aboard, dropping that off before going away.

[Daryk]

For only 610,000 C-Bills, it's a great way to move cargo from anywhere to anywhere on a planet.  Large support vehicles would be cheaper with the proper facilities, but if you're not going city to city and are in a hurry, it's hard to beat.  The only hesitation I'd have with going for Cryhavok's idea of lower cost via a Small Cockpit is that atmospheric reentry isn't a piloting roll you ever want to fail, especially without armor.

[Fireangel]

For only 610,000 C-Bills, it's a great way to move cargo from anywhere to anywhere on a planet.  Large support vehicles would be cheaper with the proper facilities, but if you're not going city to city and are in a hurry, it's hard to beat.  The only hesitation I'd have with going for Cryhavok's idea of lower cost via a Small Cockpit is that atmospheric reentry isn't a piloting roll you ever want to fail, especially without armor.

One reason why you want at least a half ton of armor.

I really see these more as orbital shuttles; a 5-ton cargo capacity is plenty of some of the smaller needs, 20 tons is an excellent cargo/passenger shuttle on short-haul routes, like surface to ship or orbital station.

Heck, the 10-tonner with just 5 tons of cargo can deploy communications, weather, geo-location, or scientific/observation satellites ranging from 100 kg to 5 tons.

NASA today would kill for a spacecraft with those capabilities.

[Daryk]

Absolutely... it's one of the things that drew me to the aerospace side of the game.

[idea weenie]

Take a bunch of these, a space station in orbit, and you would have a very useful cargo dispersal system for when a Behemoth arrives in-system.  Add in a few Dropships to transfer larger cargo up and down from station to planet, and it would do wonders to support a planet.

The ASF carrying Light Vehicle Bays would also mean you can deliver light combat vehicles almost directly on the battlefield.

[Daryk]

At 100 tons, you can get a light vehicle, some BA and some conventional infantry crammed in there with a very survivable armor load and weapons to boot.  The only thing it really lacks is speed.

[worktroll]

What's the cargo fraction of a 1000-ton, or 10,000-ton, minimalist carrier compared to the 10- and 25-tonners? There ought to be efficiencies in size.

Plus, the space traffic control challenge of thousands of 10-ton "locust" droppers ...

[Daryk]

Well, the 1,000 ton vehicle carrier I whipped up a while ago was able to cram in about 650 tons (give or take some food and spare parts), but used bay quality quarters for the crew.  Going with the more recently clarified rules, you're more likely in the neighborhood of 600 tons.  And I used Quickscell design principles on that one.  With that as a baseline, I'd say the 100 ton ASF shuttle wins cargo fraction-wise, if not on fuel efficiency.