Building a "strategic bomber" unit

[Alan Grant]

Watching "Masters of the Air" has reignited an old interest in bombers and strategic bombing. I know it's not just me. I'm seeing this come up a lot more across the internet.

Alongside that has come a thought and question about how that kind of unit and role might be replicated in Battletech. Not so much as a tabletop thing obviously, this might be more of a fan non-canon unit project.

I know in general, what most are doing is simply taking ASFs of all types and adding bombs when some version of a ground attack or bombing mission arises. So the reality is aerial platforms capable of doing different things, different missions.

But let's say for sake of discussion that a Great House or mercs or some other faction was looking to build a unit that was as specialized as possible to fulfill a strategic bomber mission. What do you think that looks like? What might that consist of?

I don't have a specific era or faction in mind. Or BV or any other details like that. If those details are helpful, feel free to plug in answers yourself.

I will go ahead and already say, I'm already aware of the Torrent (I believe the only actual strategic bomber in the BT universe? Correct me if I'm wrong). Could definitely see a unit built around those. So that option and possibility already has a check mark next to it in my mind. Looking beyond that.

EDIT: And let's just not get into things like how warships or PWS can do this from orbit. Already know that. That's not what I'm asking.

[monbvol]

When it comes down to it ASF really do already cover this role.

They can carry quite substantial bomb loads.  Which can include Strategic Nukes if they are big enough.

[Alan Grant]

How much does a full load of bombs slow down an ASF again? (I can't remember the rule on that)

Also, with the above in mind, does it make sense to look for something a little lighter than 100 tons, but still a heavy probably, even if it can carry fewer bombs, just to have that extra speed to work with? I find myself wondering if there's a happy middle ground between decent bomb load but can still turn and burn a bit. Rather than a 5/8 100 tonner that can carry all the bombs but will be slowed down a lot.

[monbvol]

-1 for every 5 or fraction thereof.

Which does make 5/8 100 ton ASF loaded to the gills 1/2s and something you really should not do unless you have absolute air superiority.  Besides such ASF tend to be the better options for engaging enemy Dropships.

My experience is the sweet spot is 60-75 tons and a minimum thrust of 7/11.  That give a nice blend of maximum bomb load, thrust, and still having enough other capabilities that they can chip in on other roles as needed.

[AlphaMirage]

Its -1 Cruise MP per 5 bombs, the optimal fast bomber would be something like the Traverse which can carry 6 Large Thermobaric bombs or 12 normal bombs at 5/8 and that's not nothing, it does sacrifice much in the process however. Something like the Shikra (a 6/9 90 ton fighter) would be slowed down to a 2/3 (aerospace fighters get +2 Cruise) with an 18 bomb load, in the process making it very difficult to operate in atmosphere as any engine damage could knock it out of the sky. A theoretical 400 100 tonner (I don't know of one) could carry 2 Alamos and that would be terrifying. The real limit is the fact that you still have to burn a lot of fuel to move much slower and that really cuts the range down to something that would be better considered a Tactical Bomber (unless it goes Transatmospheric but then it cannot escape interceptor sortie or GBAD).

Aerodyne Small Craft with the Bomb Bay quirk might be able to serve a Strategic Bomber role. You could easily fit 40 tons of bombs in there plus atmospheric flight stability and trans-atmospheric capability would make such an airframe very problematic. The Avenger is fluffed as a Bomber but that seems a reckless use for such as valuable asset compared to a few Small Craft Bombers.

[Daryk]

Dedicating cargo tonnage to an internal bomb bay would reduce speed worries.

[Weirdo]

The first thing to remember is, that classic mental image you have of a B-17 or B-52 at high altitude raining an obscene number of bombs on the world below?

Throw that image out.  It doesn't happen in Battletech. No matter what you try, it's not what you're gonna get. I'm being serious here.

As mentioned, the absolute best bomber platform is an ASF that is both fast AND big. The best examples are the Hammerhead and Ostrogoth, they've got the ability to carry a full bomb load while still being able to climb or maneuver in a reasonable time frame.

Units with the Internal Bomb Bay quirk (the only such units that exist are the Torrent, Mowang, Gorgon, and kinda the Avenger) can theoretically carry larger bomb loads, but are hampered by the 6-per-turn limit. You can carry a heavy load, but are stuck with performing multiple medium attacks. And most of these units REALLY don't want to make multiple passes, because they're either too fragile to survive more then one bombing run, or they're WAY too valuable to risk a lucky hit bringing them down. This admittedly can be mitigated by using larger bombs such as Large FAEs or AtG Arrows(or nukes), but it's still a lot of risk for such expensive platforms.

[glitterboy2098]

Dedicating cargo tonnage to an internal bomb bay would reduce speed worries.

and greatly increase the payload. the downside is the limit on how many bombs you can drop per hex.

[DevianID]

Weirdo so youd like to see the internal bomb bay/bomb rules able to support continuous bomb dropping, not limited to 10 hexes for external ordinance altitude bombing and 6 hexes for internal bomb bay altitude bombing, at least for strategic bombing?  Thats fair I suppose.  1 single long continuous bomb attack isn't possible even over multiple turns, since planes move 16 hexes at the slowest speed but can altitude bomb for only 10.  Thus with the btech turn structure, even if you have more then 20 external bombs somehow you cant use them all in a single altitude bombing run--the game supports an absolute max of 20 bombs and no more then 10 hexes in a line right?  I mean, clearly if you move 16 hexes logically you could bomb 16 hexes with altitude bombing, but like you say the game abstraction doesnt allow this.

This does feel like a gameplay abstraction level issue though, and not an issue for strategic bombing.  The big internal bomb bay bombers, for gameplay reasons, are limited (and thank goodness they are!  Can you imagine a 200+100HE HE dive bomb from a planetlifter in 1 turn!).  But said planetlifter with the internal bomb bay quirk, regardless of the gameplay balance used with 10 second ground battletech turns, is still a tactical bomber right?  30 Bombs if you customize with a quirk, that yes will take several battletech turns to drop, still puts 30 bombs on the enemy in less then a minute.  I dont think some gameplay balancing factors means the concept of a bomber wing isnt valid.

For me, my most common bombers used are the Boeing Jump bomber, and planetlifter.  I just stick with external ordinance, cause the tactical game we play is 4-8 units per side, so 40 damage from a Boeing Jump Bomber acting like a gunless F18 on a bomb mission, and the planetlifter acting like a c130 but now with bombs, is my 'big' bomber with 100 damage on demand.  The Jump bomber is good for tactical strikes, dropping bombs on soft targets like infantry, and the planetlifter goes for hard targets like mechs and assault tanks.  Those 2 work well on the battletech scale, which is kinda the tactical scale.  The Torrent, then, at 200 tons, would be akin to the 188 ton tu-95 bear strategic bomber.  And that feels about right, its a bit too big for the tactical battletech game normally played and requiring quirks and advanced support rules.  The Longhaul is a bit newer, toting 105 internal cargo, and the King Karnov has 76, so giving either the internal bomb bay quirk would make them strategic bombers that are much better then the ancient and primitive Torrent, which is a hot mess of rules.

The Gorgon at 6800 tons is a destroyer or submarine at that scale, I always assumed the internal bomb bay on those was for the nuclear Alamo and anti-air + anti-ship missiles, so the Gorgon can act like a missile destroyer or torpedo submarine, descending and ascending through the atmosphere interface layer to strike naval assets as its pocket warship type allows.  But yeah, it can also drop bombs too, but I wouldnt class it as a strategic bomber.

the tl;dr... strategic bombing is the scale above battletech, which is a tactical game.  So the issue with bombers using the internal bomb bay quirk being limited in the 10 second tactical turn in battletech isnt really a concern for this kind of force, which would be used in battleforce or planetary conquest scaled games.

[Dapper Apples]

Clearly instead of one big plane you should use multiple in a formation that happen to carry 20 bombs a pop.  Probably also take cluster bombs for the added AOE, as past a certain altitude the bombs will just go everywhere anyway.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea anyway; BT doesn't have turret guns like a WWII bomber might, only a tail gunner.  Fly in formation to at least try to overlap some fire arcs.

[Vehrec]

Any strategic bomber worth it's salt had better be able to loft a capital missile entire onto the enemy, like a somewhat bigger Kinzhal.  At the very least, it ought to be able to loft a Manta Ray under the centerline, partly protruding from your bomb bay as you warm up the seeker head, feed it information, and detach the final umbilicals before launch.  The target?  Enemy dropships, on the ground, fired at with the capital missile as artillery rules.

That's a mission, and a weapon, worthy of the name 'strategic bomber' in my view.

[Weirdo]

That excludes everything smaller than a DropShip that exists and will ever exist.

[Vehrec]

That excludes everything smaller than a DropShip that exists and will ever exist.

Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

But if you want to build a unit to ape the 8th Air Force, consider what the 8th actually did.  You're gonna need a lot of planes, for a start.  You want to copy Big Week?  Then you need to field at least a Wing of bombers, probably a wing of escorts too.  And you're gonna need to be willing to bleed-10% losses, every time you go up.  You'll need replacements, and lots of them coming online, to keep plugging the gaps.  You need a high operational tempo-and a lot of ammo to supply it.  Maybe consider having your own nitorgen-fixing factory to manufacture bomb-filler in the field.  This may be easier than filling 100 or so bombers with 30 tons of bombs from a mule every day. You will probably want at least one Little Friend for each Big Friend in your force-bring the escorts along, but don't keep them glued to your tail, let them roam around. The Little Friend's job is to do the dogfighting, so the big guy can carry the bombload, if the little guys have any external hardware it should be air-to-air missiles or fuel tanks.

Targeting is an important part of the strategic bomber mission.  Do not waste your time attacking combat units under any circumstances.  Hit the enablers, if you must-flatten bases, cut transportation and communications, bomb enemy power plants until they can't shut down their mechs because they need to run the fusion reactors to power the base's repair gantries.  Enemy airfields are also valid targets-drop a stick of bombs down every runway and fuel depot you can see, see how that slows their air-force down.  Isolate factories from suppliers, and force them to halt production-direct attacks may be impossible or undesirable.  If there's nothing else to do, dehouse some enemies and flatten a few cities to keep your game up and force the enemy to disperse AA assets to try and catch the opposing force in a Catch 22.  Always remember that as a strategic bombing force, your job is to cut the enemy's siniews and leave him unable to lift a hand to stop the other guys hitting him, be they tactical air forces, or ground forces.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Without adding a design quirk to allows to use the bombs in your cargo, the best bet would be a LAM, obviously. While you need a 100 tons ASF chassis with 400 class fusion engine to have 20 bomb bays but stuck at 2/3 thrust points and needs to be escorted by the other fighters, a 55 tons LAM can carry the same 20 bomb bays while have at least 3/5 and is not slowed down during carry the bombs.

If you want even bigger bomber and truly play a strategical engagement only by the unit itself, then perhaps what you need would be a capital missile at least....

[theagent]

Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

But if you want to build a unit to ape the 8th Air Force, consider what the 8th actually did.  You're gonna need a lot of planes, for a start.  You want to copy Big Week?  Then you need to field at least a Wing of bombers, probably a wing of escorts too.  And you're gonna need to be willing to bleed-10% losses, every time you go up.  You'll need replacements, and lots of them coming online, to keep plugging the gaps.  You need a high operational tempo-and a lot of ammo to supply it.  Maybe consider having your own nitorgen-fixing factory to manufacture bomb-filler in the field.  This may be easier than filling 100 or so bombers with 30 tons of bombs from a mule every day. You will probably want at least one Little Friend for each Big Friend in your force-bring the escorts along, but don't keep them glued to your tail, let them roam around. The Little Friend's job is to do the dogfighting, so the big guy can carry the bombload, if the little guys have any external hardware it should be air-to-air missiles or fuel tanks.

Targeting is an important part of the strategic bomber mission.  Do not waste your time attacking combat units under any circumstances.  Hit the enablers, if you must-flatten bases, cut transportation and communications, bomb enemy power plants until they can't shut down their mechs because they need to run the fusion reactors to power the base's repair gantries.  Enemy airfields are also valid targets-drop a stick of bombs down every runway and fuel depot you can see, see how that slows their air-force down.  Isolate factories from suppliers, and force them to halt production-direct attacks may be impossible or undesirable.  If there's nothing else to do, dehouse some enemies and flatten a few cities to keep your game up and force the enemy to disperse AA assets to try and catch the opposing force in a Catch 22.  Always remember that as a strategic bombing force, your job is to cut the enemy's siniews and leave him unable to lift a hand to stop the other guys hitting him, be they tactical air forces, or ground forces.

Exactly.  Even the B-52 could carry short-range SRAM missiles or the long-range ALCM cruise missiles, mostly external.  Yet we don't get that as an option with ASF.

That being said, strategic bombers are much bigger IRL than the standard conventional fighters.  Mid-range ones like the JAS 39 Gryphon run around 12-15 tons, larger ones like the Super Hornet run in the 20-30 tons, & even the largest "fighters" run from 35 tons (Su-30) to 45 tons (Su-34).  In contrast, the lightest "bomber" is the Chinese H-6 (license-built Tu-16) at 95 tons, but most of them are closer to 200+ tons:

• B-2 Spirit:  171 tons
• Tu-95 Bear:  198 tons
• B-1B Lancer:  217 tons
• B-52:  221 tons
• Tu-160:  275 tons
• Tu-22M:  278 tons
• Ironically, the B-21 is projected to only weigh 81 tons

While these are all technically atmospheric-only craft (which would be limited to Conventional Fighters or Aerospace Support Vehicles).  If you use the latter, you can get up to 200 tons, which would most correspond to a "strategic bomber".  And theoretically you could carry up to 40 bombs (200 / 5)...but that would reduce Safe Thrust by 8 unless you use the Internal Bomb Bay rule.  I'd go with the "1 ton per bay, with 1 bomb/item per bay" rule rather than the quirk (max of 6 bombs), although I would probably allow them to have more than 20 bays (since a 55-ton LAM can carry 20 tons of bomb bays on it).  The B-52 & B-1 can easily carry up to twice that, so at a minimum I'd say they could have 40 tons of bays (40 weapons) on a 200-ton Support Aerospace Vehicle; I'd even consider letting it have up to 60 or even 80 tons/bays, but it might depend on item slot limits.  That would also allow for more significant carriage of Type II/Alamo nukes (require 5-ton bays, so 40 tons would allow for 8 Alamos, 60 tons would allow for 12, & 80 tons would allow for 16; in comparison, the B-1 could carry 24 SRAM or 8 ALCM internally, plus another 6-14 externally; the B-52 could carry 12 external/8 internal SRAM or 12 external ALCM).  I'd also consider the ability to carry Type Ib/Davy Crockett-type warheads in Arrow IV-sized missiles (i.e. 1 per 1-ton internal bay).

So while there are a couple of modern bombers that mass as much as an ASF, the majority of them would be better classified as "Small Craft" or even extremely small DropShips.  I would assume the same rules for external vs. internal carriage would apply, but you also probably don't have to worry about the item slot limitations anymore if you use the internal bomb bay option.  Plus with the Small Craft & DropShips, you have the option of carrying larger weapons:  Type III/Santa Ana (compatible with White Shark/AR-10 launchers), Type IV/Peacemaker (compatible with Killer Whale/AR-10 launchers), & "Asset Management Weapon"/AMW (compatible with Barracuda/AR-10 launchers, but can't use it against mobile targets; fluff said they were deployed from converted "Freighter" dropships with 12+ launchers & large magazines).

[Alan Grant]

I don't have the revised version of TRO Vehicle Annex. But a look at the info in Sarna suggests the Torrent was back in production and and playing a bigger role for the Capellans.

I wonder, in terms of doctrine and practice, how they use them.

[theagent]

I don't have the revised version of TRO Vehicle Annex. But a look at the info in Sarna suggests the Torrent was back in production and and playing a bigger role for the Capellans.

I wonder, in terms of doctrine and practice, how they use them.

Probably not very much.  The Revised TRO entry just says the Capellans were the last faction to claim any of the Torrents in their TO&E.  Their manufacturing line(s?) are on Bellatrix, but primarily for replacement parts; apparently as a lark they build one per year "just because".

Its biggest problem is that with 15 external hardpoints, a full bomb load drops it from 4/6 Thrust to 1/2 Thrust, basically making it a flying target for just about any CF, let alone ASF.  I will say, though, that the revised version also now has 15 tons of "Cargo" space, along with Internal Bomb Bay.  The tonnage was made available due to switching the engine from ICE (120 tons) to Fission (105 tons).  Main benefit is that you can carry 30 bombs (15 external, 15 internal) and be limited to 1/2 Thrust, or carry 15 bombs (all internal) & still be able to hit 4/6 Thrust.  But that's the issue you get, then:  15 bombs is the same load as a 75-ton ASF, & the Torrent weighs 200 tons.  Personally, I find the rest of its weapons laughable:  4 MGs in the Nose (1/2 ton ammo) & a rear-mounted SRM-6 (1 ton ammo) seems very strange to me.  I'd almost recommend swapping them out for 2 SRM-4s (1 Nose, 1 Aft), 1 ton of ammo (because this is a bomber, not a dog-fighting or strafing platform), & improve the armor protection from 3.5 tons BAR 6 to 5 tons BAR 6.  It's especially frightening given that it's a Tech Level E (Star League) platform; I shudder to think of how poorly the original design would have been (apparently having been designed by the "United States of North America Air Force", aka USAF, in the late 21st Century...so probably more like Tech Level C, which would have meant a slower platform with less bombs).

[Chinless]

It's especially frightening given that it's a Tech Level E (Star League) platform; I shudder to think of how poorly the original design would have been (apparently having been designed by the "United States of North America Air Force", aka USAF, in the late 21st Century...so probably more like Tech Level C, which would have meant a slower platform with less bombs).

It is a Tech Level C platform - the armour, chassis and engine. The only thing Tech E about it is the ECM. So the earlier version wasn't much worse.

Chris

[beachhead1985]

I looked at the Torrent and decided that given the fluff, it should have some updates over the centuries.

Small improvements make a BIG difference at that scale.

If there is interest, I'll post them.

[Von Jankmon]

I was thinking of this today, and considered either a small craft with good engines and a heavy supply of Arrow IV, or an aerospace fighter with same and two cockpits, one for the pilot and one for a rear gunner.
Both are heavy tactical bombers rather than strategic.

[Hellraiser]

I don't recall the rules, but w/ this talk of internal bomb loads............   Can Omni-Pod space be used for Bombs?

If so, I think any canon Omni-Fighter might be your best bet.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

I don't recall the rules, but w/ this talk of internal bomb loads............   Can Omni-Pod space be used for Bombs?

If so, I think any canon Omni-Fighter might be your best bet.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=24393.msg560233#msg560233

You did asked the question and had the answer already. :p Yes it can't be helped consider the year on the post, though. I will barely remember any random things a decade ago as well.

[Hellraiser]

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=24393.msg560233#msg560233

You did asked the question and had the answer already. :p Yes it can't be helped consider the year on the post, though. I will barely remember any random things a decade ago as well.

That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.

[Liam's Ghost]

That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.

If the Omnifighter has the bomb bay quirk, I don't see the problem with using that cargo as bomb space.

If. I don't know of any omnifighter that has that quirk, and I don't think you can pod mount the quirk itself.

[glitterboy2098]

to be honest, Bomb bay is probably the only quirk i'd allow to be applied as part of an omnimech pod. since it is meant to represent the hardware needed to carry and drop bombs (be it racks, rotary launchers, or whatever)
while the rules just have a quirk that applies to cargo space, in universe we'd be talking specialized bomb carrying hardware, and i don't see why such hardware couldn't be pod-mounted.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

That question was about Cargo on Omnimechs for infantry.

I don't see anything there about Bombs as Cargo on Fighters.

The answer does says;

In short: Cargo can be pod-mounted per se, and per the Cargo rules (revised with errata) 'Mechs can pod-mount it.

Also since it is already possible to add the cargo bay on the ASF, nothing stops you to put the cargo pod on your omnifighter and put the bombs on it. The only problem would be making the omnifighter with Internal Bomb Bay quirk.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Which is a sad statement of the condition of the ordinance available to a player.  Why can't I have an 18 ton missile in my bomb bay?  Why are there no glide bombs, and no options to lob-bomb targets? There are wonderful options that you can't do and I'm afraid that makes me sad.

An 18-ton missile is huge, and is even heavier than a fully-loaded X-15.  Even testing large ballistic missiles on B-52s resulted in missiles in the 5-ton range, and the same holds true for Russian and Chinese tests.

I could only find onel larger attempt, dropping a 30-ton Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 and air-lighting it, which was evidently attempted only once.

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

[Weirdo]

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

Yes. Quite easily.

[Hellraiser]

So I was thinking about how the quirks system is usually for how a unit is built from the ground up.

But what about "Temporary Quirks" for the situation.   

We know they are often applied to hasty repairs that go wrong from fluff of old scenario books & such.

For example:

I'm thinking you could allow an OmniFighter that devotes Pod space to Cargo/Bombs to have the 3-Point Bomb Bay quirk for that Pod Load, but in turn, have 3 points of negative quirks to account for things like a Non-Standard bomb bay & doors being open mid flight on the bombing run.

Looking at the list I see these that seem like a solid pair.

Ammunition Feed Problem
The unit has a ballistic or missile weapons that is prone to jamming at unfortunate times.
The unit must make another roll after each to-hit roll with the affected weapon system to see if the bay or system jams or, in extreme situations, explodes.
Points Rebate: 1

Atmospheric Flight Instability
Indicates that the affected aerospace unit is unstable when flying within the atmosphere of a planet and suffers a penalty to any control rolls made.
Points Rebate: 2

Thoughts?

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Thoughts?

I'd think that it's better to make the omnifighter that is designed to be intended to take the role, though. Having the temporary quirk is somewhat weird without a good reason.

Although I don't against it entirely and without an exception. Perhaps, having the quirk for the handheld weapon would be makes sense? Then a big module, a series of omnipods that is intended to be works together(all by fluff but nothing supports this by the game rules, though) could ask for a temporary quirk for the whole module, and in this case it is not so ridiculous idea. For only a single or several tons of omnipods rarely suffers ill effect to the whole unit but the very large amount of module which is intended to be work together is an another story.

Well, what you show would be the decent pairs for represent the unstability caused by the whole series of pods. The bomb rack needs much spaces already so it could affect the balance of the fighter as well as allows fewer ways to make the way from the ammunition rack to the guns. Although I wonder that the fighter still have enough space to add the guns to be suffered by the negative quirk, but it is makes sense at least.

[theagent]

The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".

[Hellraiser]

I'd think that it's better to make the omnifighter that is designed to be intended to take the role, though. Having the temporary quirk is somewhat weird without a good reason.
...
Although I wonder that the fighter still have enough space to add the guns to be suffered by the negative quirk, but it is makes sense at least.

Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.

The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".

Hence the idea to use the quirks for an Omni-fighter.     The temp quirk is there to represent racks.
Cargo for bombs is exactly how they are used normally.  The internal bay is set up with a cargo tonnage & the bombs fill that.

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.

Although I will raise the hand for the using the other weapons, but that's makes sense more than my one. Still, it's risky a bit, for Internal Bomb Bay already gives the unit a situational penalty on bombing. So not even 10+ to explodes on a lower side but also every single bombing requires an another roll that jams at 10~11 and explodes at 12 seems too harsh.

Well, Inaccurate Weapon is too difficult to apply on here(-1 points per every 5 damage points on a weapon) so I wonder that which one is better to replace that either. Perhaps, since bombs are must be one-use weapons(unless you put a TAG on it), for OS missiles have about 20% of BV than its normal versions should the rack enough to carry the bombs worth for 25 damage total gives the pods -1 point each?

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.

With that weight, you could also expect for lack of a problem for the chance of internal explosion on a 10+ against lower hits on the same turn when it makes a bombing run. Anyway that's more like the houserule so it is not the place to discuss that.

[Vehrec]

An 18-ton missile is huge, and is even heavier than a fully-loaded X-15.  Even testing large ballistic missiles on B-52s resulted in missiles in the 5-ton range, and the same holds true for Russian and Chinese tests.

I could only find onel larger attempt, dropping a 30-ton Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 and air-lighting it, which was evidently attempted only once.

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

The Arrow IV isn't quite a glide bomb, any more than it's a proper theater-SAM.  Even if it was acceptable in the role (it's very heavy for a bomb with a wing-kit) it's range is very disappointing, only able to get a couple of hexes away from it's launch position even if dropped very high and very fast. 

The Poor Arrow IV has too man hats, to be honest.  It's an anti-ship missile.  It's a heavy Anti-air weapon.  It's a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's an air-launched cruise missile, it's a Surface-to-Air missile, it's a mine dispenser, it's a mine-clearing weapon, it's everything to every job.  And if you load it on a plane, its weight increases 25-fold.  I shouldn't be to harsh on it-but its clear that the air combat game is very much not the focus.  Which makes strategic air combat even harder to do.

[Takiro]

Brings me back to the heady days of the Small Craft bomber discussions we had. Those were the days.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=20786.msg464540#msg464540

[EPG]

Watching "Masters of the Air" has reignited an old interest in bombers and strategic bombing. I know it's not just me. I'm seeing this come up a lot more across the internet.

Alongside that has come a thought and question about how that kind of unit and role might be replicated in Battletech. Not so much as a tabletop thing obviously, this might be more of a fan non-canon unit project.

I know in general, what most are doing is simply taking ASFs of all types and adding bombs when some version of a ground attack or bombing mission arises. So the reality is aerial platforms capable of doing different things, different missions.

But let's say for sake of discussion that a Great House or mercs or some other faction was looking to build a unit that was as specialized as possible to fulfill a strategic bomber mission. What do you think that looks like? What might that consist of?

I don't have a specific era or faction in mind. Or BV or any other details like that. If those details are helpful, feel free to plug in answers yourself.

I will go ahead and already say, I'm already aware of the Torrent (I believe the only actual strategic bomber in the BT universe? Correct me if I'm wrong). Could definitely see a unit built around those. So that option and possibility already has a check mark next to it in my mind. Looking beyond that.

EDIT: And let's just not get into things like how warships or PWS can do this from orbit. Already know that. That's not what I'm asking.

Just found this thread. 

The problem with the ‘strategic bomber’ is that there aren’t any practical missions for it.  Using masses of unguided bombs against defended enemy targets was attempted one time in history in WWII, and it failed (or eventually succeeded at horrific cost in materiel and casualties depending on what data you believe) it hasn’t been attempted since then because the results aren’t worth it. 

Every single bombing campaign ever conducted since then has been performed after air superiority was achieved.  These can then be broken into 2 categories:

Attempted strategic bombing with air superiority and unguided bombs.  This was tried (Korean war, Vietnam war) and while the casualties weren’t so bad the results still weren’t worth it. 

Strategic bombing with guided bombs and air superiority (basically all wars since Vietnam and a tiny bit of the end of the Vietnam war)

There’s no need for fleets of aircraft or even individual aircraft carrying dozens and dozens of bombs.  Send one aircraft, with 1-2 bombs per target.  Hit those targets and go home. 

All of the ‘strategic’ bombers that exist today, exist for one of two objectives:  firing nuclear cruise missiles from a stand-off range;  orbiting an area of combat operations non stop for as long as they have fuel and dropping bombs on demand to delete things the ground forces find.

These are roles which ARE in fact filled perfectly by orbital bombardment - or somewhat less perfectly by an aerospace fighter waiting outside the gravity well to conserve fuel, then dropping in and planting a few bombs on the right spot in demand. 

Anything involving hitting combat units directly is tactical bombing and isn’t covered in the definition of strategic bombing.

[Hellraiser]

- or somewhat less perfectly by an aerospace fighter waiting outside the gravity well to conserve fuel, then dropping in and planting a few bombs on the right spot in demand.   

Good Points

Since Ortillery is limited in what is available from WS/PWS which are rare or unavailable depending on the era,  I prefer this suggestion.

It's almost like the Vengeance being Non-Atmospheric in design was specific for this role.
  (Take up orbit & have 1 Squadron loaded w/ bombs & available to go on rotating shifts.)

That's how I use it anyway.

[EPG]

Good Points

Since Ortillery is limited in what is available from WS/PWS which are rare or unavailable depending on the era,  I prefer this suggestion.

It's almost like the Vengeance being Non-Atmospheric in design was specific for this role.
  (Take up orbit & have 1 Squadron loaded w/ bombs & available to go on rotating shifts.)

That's how I use it anyway.

Personally I had never thought of it til this thread came up, but once I thought about the orbiting B-52 tactic the US used in Afghanistan it came to me as a logical extension of that sort of capability with space access.

I agree that a vengeance would be perfect for this sort of activity.  Park it in a stable orbit and it’s a perfect ‘base’ for an invading force that wants rapid response times for a wide variety of surface actions.  Eventually a ‘real’ surface base would be nice for certain types of repair and maintenance, and to get your people into gravity for R&R but it’s basically perfect while the action is hot and heavy.

[Daryk]

Just make sure you take the Internal Bomb Bay quirk for ASF doing that... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

[Hellraiser]

... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

I totally forgot about that. 
That does limit the use of orbital fighters a bit.

[Hellraiser]

Park it in a stable orbit and it’s a perfect ‘base’ for an invading force that wants rapid response times for a wide variety of surface actions.  Eventually a ‘real’ surface base would be nice for certain types of repair and maintenance, and to get your people into gravity for R&R but it’s basically perfect while the action is hot and heavy. 

Any force large enough to have a Vengeance tagging along probably has loads of Mech/Tank carriers that landed & set up an LZ with a surface base.
And with that in mind probably has fighters from those operating enough to keep some loaded w/ bombs for ground support missions.

[Weirdo]

Just make sure you take the Internal Bomb Bay quirk for ASF doing that... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

Yes you can. The only effect bombs have on reentry is that critted bombs make the reentry control roll more difficult.

[Daryk]

You can?  When did that change?

[EPG]

I totally forgot about that. 
That does limit the use of orbital fighters a bit.

They could still do air superiority and strafing missions though I guess the fighters designated for bomber duty would have to use land based airfields.

[EPG]

Any force large enough to have a Vengeance tagging along probably has loads of Mech/Tank carriers that landed & set up an LZ with a surface base.
And with that in mind probably has fighters from those operating enough to keep some loaded w/ bombs for ground support missions.

Fighters operating from space still have a fast reaction response edge though the whole takeoff and gain altitude process is just not there - all you have to do is launch and do a full burn straight into the target area with as many G’s as the pilot and airframe can handle. 

[Cannonshop]

You can?  When did that change?

He may be looking at the Teacher's Edition of the Errata, Daryk.  aka the unreleased changes coming up.

[Daryk]

I checked my latest version of TW before I posted that, so it's been there for some time... I just hadn't noticed (to my embarrassment)... :(

[Zematus737]

I checked my latest version of TW before I posted that, so it's been there for some time... I just hadn't noticed (to my embarrassment)... :(

I did find the limitation I think you were referring to on pg.91 of SO:AA under Bomb Munitions.  But it was concerning orbital to surface attacks and not movement with the munitions through the interface.

[Daryk]

Hmmm... that might have been what I was thinking of?  It's been a while (obviously).

[Liam's Ghost]

Before Aerotech 2, bombs were prohibited on fighters crossing the interface. This even got a very brief mention in the novel Natural Selection, where at Arc Royal they know the Red Corsair's fighters won't be carrying any bombs because they were coming in from space.

Aerotech 2 (or Aerotech 2 Revised) changed that, and even included aerofighters crossing the interface with a bombload in its introductory fiction.

So, you know, people can be excused for misremembering when the laws of reality themselves sometimes change.

[Colt Ward]

I think people are confusing tactical bombers with strategic bombers.

Strategic bombers went after different targets than tactical and were created for a simple reason- range.  The Allies created heavy bombers b/c that was the size needed to get the range with a significant payload.

Strategic bombers in BT would be small craft.  ASF lack the life support to range across a system.  Planet-wide coverage in BT should not be considered "strategic" range.  Tech advances would allow a fusion powered VTOL what we currently consider "strategic" range IRL but the tech advances of BT invalidates our definition.

FREX, systems with multiple inhabited worlds could see a strategic bomber strike at a 2nd world's spaceport to keep reinforcements from being sent for the invasion of the first.  A fleet passing through a system could send small craft to strike at infrastructure in a system while recharging jump engines.

[Zematus737]

I think people are confusing tactical bombers with strategic bombers.

The definition for strategic, as far as Battletech goes, usually is in reference to system wide operations that involve or take place in space.  Tactical for anything in atmosphere and below.  So, anything coming in from orbit to make an attack on surface or targets in air would technically be strategic.  But the historical context is still interesting.

On a side note, I'm having a hard time understanding how internal stores can be used strategically if aerospace fighters (which I'm assuming is the unit being discussed as being the most efficient unit for this) are limited to front arc weapons.  See Airborne to Surface pg.96 last bullet point.  All thoughts aside for the ridiculous per hex modifiers for this.

[Cannonshop]

I think what Colt's referring to, is the difference between Doctrine, and "I want a really big equivalent to a B-52!"

aka doctrine focus vs. gear focus.

anything that can loft an Arrow IV (or alamo) can be treated, under one doctrine or another, as a 'strategic bomber'.

Doctrine decides what is, and isn't, and that means defining what you wish to accomplish with your bombing assets and campaign-what your over-all Strategic Doctrine is. 

See?  This can be anything from slapping together a 70,000 ton dropship that has nothing but armor, point defenses, engines, and bomb bays, to taking a minimalist smallcraft with a big fuel tank, big engine, and lots of thrust with a bomb bay or even external hardpoints suitable for carrying ordnance.

It's all determined by your doctrine and what you're intent on accomplishing.

The romantic vision of strategic bombing in the 20th and 21st centuries is built around a type of conflict that isn't really prevalent in Battletech.  what kind of conflict? the kind where intercontinental distance is actually a long way to go, and not an afternoon's suborbital hop in a civilian shuttle, it's an environment where armies have to march to get places, where both sides are wrapped in the same atmosphere, under the same gravity, on the same world.

That's not the setting.  so he presents an image of what would BE strategic bombing when your sides are separated not by a massive water puddle and some mountains, but by interplanetary or even interstellar distances.

This is kind of what's bothered me about the OP's question;  he doesn't actually define the usage before asking for proposed ideas for the equipment.

Before you can build a strategic bombing unit, you need to define what Strategic Bombing has become in the 31st (or 32nd, or 28th) century, and how that differs from Tactical air power or naval bombardments.

[Alan Grant]

My perspective on strategic doctrine in the 20th and 21st centuries is framed a little differently.

You are absolutely correct that it revolves around a doctrine. Not just a technology or capability. I would 100% agree that just range or a weapon system doesn't constitute it. Yes the technology advanced to a point. But then someone drafted a doctrine that was adopted. At that point funding and resources were allocated and this became a fully fledged concept.

But my interpretation of strategic bombing doctrine, particularly from the 20th century was the belief that it could bring an enemy to its knees almost all by itself. That's what some were arguing about the strategic bombing during WW2 (on the most extreme end a few people thought it could end a war without the Army, most were skeptical of this, viewing it as taking the new concept to too far an extreme). The reasonable version was that it could wreck industry, supply lines and break an enemy's ability and willingness to continue to wage a war.

That's what some of the advocates of strategic bombing during later conflicts like Korea and Vietnam were saying as well. They were arguing that this tool alone could bring an enemy to the negotiation table.

Quite often they were wrong. It never achieved its marketed ability to be a war-winning tool by itself. At least not without atomic weaponry.

In later years this shifted. There was a strategic campaign during Operation Desert Storm that deserves study.

I found a US Air Force document on the strategic bombing of that conflict that provides a list of "core" targets of the strategic bombing campaign during Desert Storm. They were:

1. National Leadership
2. Military and civilian command, control and communication
3. Electrical power generation
4. Oil refineries, distribution and storage
5. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (storage, construction etc.)
6. Military support (research, storage of arms)
7. Scud ballistic missiles

The same document noted how strategic bombing had changed. It noted that the big B-52s were being employed against Republican Guard divisions in the field, to weaken tactical targets as what it calls the "Battlefield Preparation" phase of the air war. While the F-117s with their laser guided bombs were being used against strategic targets.

The authors of that document were clearly trying to note the irony of that, but also used it as a case study for how strategic bombing had evolved.

Based on that, I think the nature of the target defines the strategic/tactical boundary more than anything. Not range or some other factor.  If you are knocking out C3 and power grids with a handful of laser guided bombs, that's strategic bombing. If you are trying to smash a multi-regimental planetary militia force from the air by bombing their troops/positions/bases/depots with dozens of HE, cluster and inferno bombs, that's tactical bombing.

I think this continues to hold up pretty well for Battletech. The volume of firepower doesn't matter. Whether it's 1 laser guided bomb or an orbital bombardment or a nuke. It's what you are aiming it at that defines what this is. If you are aiming it at a tank, it's tactical. At a power plant, it's strategic.

If the tank is beside a power plant in a city and that attack will smash both, yes the lines get blurry at best.

[Daryk]

Before Aerotech 2, bombs were prohibited on fighters crossing the interface. This even got a very brief mention in the novel Natural Selection, where at Arc Royal they know the Red Corsair's fighters won't be carrying any bombs because they were coming in from space.

Aerotech 2 (or Aerotech 2 Revised) changed that, and even included aerofighters crossing the interface with a bombload in its introductory fiction.

So, you know, people can be excused for misremembering when the laws of reality themselves sometimes change.

Thanks for letting me know I'm not totally crazy Liam! :)

[EPG]

My perspective on strategic doctrine in the 20th and 21st centuries is framed a little differently.

You are absolutely correct that it revolves around a doctrine. Not just a technology or capability. I would 100% agree that just range or a weapon system doesn't constitute it. Yes the technology advanced to a point. But then someone drafted a doctrine that was adopted. At that point funding and resources were allocated and this became a fully fledged concept.

But my interpretation of strategic bombing doctrine, particularly from the 20th century was the belief that it could bring an enemy to its knees almost all by itself. That's what some were arguing about the strategic bombing during WW2 (on the most extreme end a few people thought it could end a war without the Army, most were skeptical of this, viewing it as taking the new concept to too far an extreme). The reasonable version was that it could wreck industry, supply lines and break an enemy's ability and willingness to continue to wage a war.

That's what some of the advocates of strategic bombing during later conflicts like Korea and Vietnam were saying as well. They were arguing that this tool alone could bring an enemy to the negotiation table.

Quite often they were wrong. It never achieved its marketed ability to be a war-winning tool by itself. At least not without atomic weaponry.

In later years this shifted. There was a strategic campaign during Operation Desert Storm that deserves study.

I found a US Air Force document on the strategic bombing of that conflict that provides a list of "core" targets of the strategic bombing campaign during Desert Storm. They were:

1. National Leadership
2. Military and civilian command, control and communication
3. Electrical power generation
4. Oil refineries, distribution and storage
5. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (storage, construction etc.)
6. Military support (research, storage of arms)
7. Scud ballistic missiles

The same document noted how strategic bombing had changed. It noted that the big B-52s were being employed against Republican Guard divisions in the field, to weaken tactical targets as what it calls the "Battlefield Preparation" phase of the air war. While the F-117s with their laser guided bombs were being used against strategic targets.

The authors of that document were clearly trying to note the irony of that, but also used it as a case study for how strategic bombing had evolved.

Based on that, I think the nature of the target defines the strategic/tactical boundary more than anything. Not range or some other factor.  If you are knocking out C3 and power grids with a handful of laser guided bombs, that's strategic bombing. If you are trying to smash a multi-regimental planetary militia force from the air by bombing their troops/positions/bases/depots with dozens of HE, cluster and inferno bombs, that's tactical bombing.

I think this continues to hold up pretty well for Battletech. The volume of firepower doesn't matter. Whether it's 1 laser guided bomb or an orbital bombardment or a nuke. It's what you are aiming it at that defines what this is. If you are aiming it at a tank, it's tactical. At a power plant, it's strategic.

If the tank is beside a power plant in a city and that attack will smash both, yes the lines get blurry at best.

I agree with this - type of target determines the difference between strategic and tactical bombing.  During tje WWII era and ~ 20 years afterward, the right equipment go strategic bombing had to be really really large, because the bombing is extremely inaccurate, to the point where 100 bomber attacks often failed to hit a target.  Lest you think this was resolved post WWII, it was not. 
https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/first-laser-bombs-bust-dragons-jaw   

 One key bridge in the Hanoi area the Thanh HOA ‘Dragons Jaw’ of northern Vietnam stayed up despite multiple repeated major attempts by the US to bring it down.  Between 1965 and 1972 the bridge stayed in service throughout repeated attacks with only a few short periods of extra maintenance due to the bombing.  After nearly a decade of attempts to bring the bridge down, it was blown up completely by a flight of 16 F4 phantoms with 29 tons of bombs.

Following on that success they dropped over 100 other bridges in single attacks that had heretofore survived the entire war.

Basically the old concept of what a strategic bomber meant from a hardware concept no longer existed after this mission.

[Colt Ward]

But it does shift back to equipment IMO because as I mentioned ASF do not have the range in fuel or life support to range through a system w/o having a carrier.  One of the things that let previously tactical fighter/bombers strike strategic targets is mid-air refueling.  RANGE always dictates what craft gets used.  Vietnam is a bad example b/c it is a coastal county unable to protect their waters which allowed carriers to get close.

[Hellraiser]

One of the things that let previously tactical fighter/bombers strike strategic targets is mid-air refueling. 

To an extent I would say that applies to strategic bombers like the B-52 as well.
Your not going from West USA to SE Asia w/o a refuel or stopping at Hawaii.
They offer more distance but they still aren't trans-global the way an ASF can with a boost up out of the atmosphere.

As you noted, for intersystem small craft could be used, but really, I'd probably designate something like a Leo-CV to that task in case multiple waves are needed.
Smallcraft Squadron seems like a 1-shot attempt v/s the Leo & ASF Squadron can refuel/rearm if needed.

[Cannonshop]

To an extent I would say that applies to strategic bombers like the B-52 as well.
Your not going from West USA to SE Asia w/o a refuel or stopping at Hawaii.
They offer more distance but they still aren't trans-global the way an ASF can with a boost up out of the atmosphere.

As you noted, for intersystem small craft could be used, but really, I'd probably designate something like a Leo-CV to that task in case multiple waves are needed.
Smallcraft Squadron seems like a 1-shot attempt v/s the Leo & ASF Squadron can refuel/rearm if needed.

The smallcraft may have the advantage in terms of stealth, since the engine thrust cone is going to be significantly smaller and they can be dispersed/spread out to make interception significantly more difficult in the event of detection.

[Daryk]

*snip*
Vietnam is a bad example b/c it is a coastal county unable to protect their waters which allowed carriers to get close.

Well, "close" in the Naval sense at any rate...

[EPG]

But it does shift back to equipment IMO because as I mentioned ASF do not have the range in fuel or life support to range through a system w/o having a carrier.  One of the things that let previously tactical fighter/bombers strike strategic targets is mid-air refueling.  RANGE always dictates what craft gets used.  Vietnam is a bad example b/c it is a coastal county unable to protect their waters which allowed carriers to get close.

The range question really depends on what the strategic targets in the system are.  For some star systems, all the critical stuff is olanetside, in which case aerospace fighters DO have strategic range.  For systems that have strategically significant space defenses/infrastructure or multiple inhabited places, then aerospace fighters aren’t the right tool - drop ships are the strategic level tool.

[Cannonshop]

The range question really depends on what the strategic targets in the system are.  For some star systems, all the critical stuff is olanetside, in which case aerospace fighters DO have strategic range.  For systems that have strategically significant space defenses/infrastructure or multiple inhabited places, then aerospace fighters aren’t the right tool - drop ships are the strategic level tool.

again, depending on doctrine.

if my doctrine includes sneak attacks, or 'ranging' attacks, Dropships might be just a tad too conspicuous when I'm planning to rain bombs on the other guy's traffic control, air defense control, rally points, airfields...

Likewise if he's got it spread out.  One biggun hauling a shit-ton o' bombs doesn't really help if what I need, is to hit sensors and control stations scattered by wide distances (say, bigger than your scatter diagram), and need to hit them simultaneously to create teh most chaos in the enemy's ranks. (other targets, like comm relays, radio towers, bridges...)

so it's doctrinal, which means "How does your plan work in ideal conditions and what kind of counters do you have planned for when it doesn't work like ideal conditions?"

six 150 ton smallcraft rigged as bombers with big fuel tanks can potentially take out more critical infrastructure than one Triumph class that's had all the bays converted to bomb bays.

at least, in a timely manner that makes it worth the effort to run the strikes in the first place.  The idea is to paralyze the enemy on the Strategic level, futz with their coordination, communication, defenses and detection grid, preferably before your main force is in range for that grid to be worth something.

[Alan Grant]

I think we're sometimes actually talking about two different things. Strategic movement or mobility, and then there's strategic bombing.

Yes they can overlap. But they don't always.

[Hellraiser]

The smallcraft may have the advantage in terms of stealth, since the engine thrust cone is going to be significantly smaller and they can be dispersed/spread out to make interception significantly more difficult in the event of detection.

Very True, stealth is certainly an advantage for the SC.

I feel like the original 5 Smallcraft from DS/JS  (SR-Shuttle, LR-Shuttle, ShuttleBus, DropShuttle, & Landing Craft)  all need to be "reworked" from their DS/JS stats.
Little stuff like the Thrust even which IIRC varied from 3/5 to 4/6 should be changed around because there is basically NO POINT in having mass taken up by 4/6 speed engine for purely civilian ships like those (LC exception but in that case it needs mass for the Vee Bay).
Most would benefit from all being boosted to 200T as well.

Stuff like the SR v/s LR shuttle should have been a Fuel/Cargo variation not engine size.
Maybe have a variant for personnel transport.

[Daryk]

For the short-range shuttles, the fact that ASF can carry cargo now makes them easy to rebuild.

[Hellraiser]

Yeah, and IDK if it was ever clarified if a 100-ton Shuttle was allowed to use ASF bays.

I know ASF can use Shuttle Bays but I recall there was some issue if the smallest of shuttles at 100T can use ASF bays.

So if they can then I can actually still see some reason  (outside of $$)  for smaller shuttles.

But for the most part, like Warships, the larger Shuttles just work better.

[Daryk]

What complicates Small Craft design the most at the moment is the requirement to use actual Quarters for the crew.  Going with ASF designs gets around that for the short-range ones.

[Cannonshop]

What complicates Small Craft design the most at the moment is the requirement to use actual Quarters for the crew.  Going with ASF designs gets around that for the short-range ones.

I don't necessarily agree here, Daryk, think about the scale you're operating at-especially if you're building "Stratgic bombers"-the distances are measurable in days (same for utility shuttles in a lot of cases).  it's not healthy to sit in a seat for days at a time.

Even with specialist medical involved.

On the civilian side, that extra thrust can be damned useful for things like avoiding collisions in the traffic pattern, dealing with crossing into inclement weather on a landing, or as a representation of 'torque' in your engines.  (relates to towing and/or cargo loads).  Some of the problem with Aerospace, is that the rules kind of abstract everything down, and skip things we in the real world take for granted.

[Daryk]

The thing that was deleted (possibly unintentionally) was the ability to use infantry bay quality quarters.  Those have racks and are actually more efficient under 90 days or so.  Missions that are days in duration aren't "short range", at least not to me.

[Hellraiser]

On the civilian side, that extra thrust can be damned useful for things like avoiding collisions in the traffic pattern, dealing with crossing into inclement weather on a landing, or as a representation of 'torque' in your engines.  (relates to towing and/or cargo loads).  Some of the problem with Aerospace, is that the rules kind of abstract everything down, and skip things we in the real world take for granted.

If 2MP is your standard 1G travel, then 3/5 allows for plenty of options to avoid collisions?
4/6 really does nothing for the LR-Shuttle (I think that was the one w/ 4/6).  Or am I missing something?

The only thing that really needs thrust as a Small Craft would be Assault/Boarding Craft which need to overtake an enemy & the NL-42 has that moving 6/9 IIRC.

[Hellraiser]

What complicates Small Craft design the most at the moment is the requirement to use actual Quarters for the crew.  Going with ASF designs gets around that for the short-range ones. 

Agreed on the 1st part. 
Not so much on the 2nd since Ideally I'd like them to be bigger than 100T for the most part.

The thing that was deleted (possibly unintentionally) was the ability to use infantry bay quality quarters.  Those have racks and are actually more efficient under 90 days or so.  Missions that are days in duration aren't "short range", at least not to me.

Agreed.
Logically most Small Craft should require a Foot Platoon as "passengers & crew" & call it a day.
Or maybe since they have a minimum of 3 Crew, IIRC, then give them a "Command Console" level of weight, but a Trio of 5-Ton Steerage Quarters is kind of lame IMO.

[Cannonshop]

If 2MP is your standard 1G travel, then 3/5 allows for plenty of options to avoid collisions?
4/6 really does nothing for the LR-Shuttle (I think that was the one w/ 4/6).  Or am I missing something?

The only thing that really needs thrust as a Small Craft would be Assault/Boarding Craft which need to overtake an enemy & the NL-42 has that moving 6/9 IIRC.

Y'know the Laborghini doesn't need all that horsepower and potential speed to drive on a 70 mph freeway, right?

in fact, you typical compact car has more power than is actually required to serve 98% of the time, right?

At least, theoretically.

The Battletech Universe is not an extensive nanny-state environment, even in realms that allege to BE extensive nanny states, and we're talking about civilian craft, which have to be sold to keep their manufacturers in business.

Businesses that have to compete with one another, since exclusive government contracts, while very easy to pad with graft, are of limited duration and uncertain reliability (you can lose your contract to the head-of-state's-no-good-brother-in-law in a heartbeat, or to whomever has the right sized briefcase full of cash when talking to the procurement guys...)

That means "least amount you HAVE to have to do what you MUST" is a loss-leader, but your main business isn't that loss-leader.

it's the guy who wants his executive transport (or small goods smuggling transport) to be faster than the cops-or at least fast enough to maybe shake them.  (or needs to outrun some other enterprising gentlemen whom are in the market for his goods, or even himself.)

'Need' beyond 'needs to start when I turn the key and go when I open the throttle' doesn't factor into it nearly as much.   After all, a hoopty stereo and a disco ball over the waterbed isn't going to appeal to everyone who wants to put a racing stripe on the side...

and even semi-trucks have more power than they absolutely need to comply with the law.

[Hellraiser]

Y'know the Laborghini doesn't need all that horsepower and potential speed to drive on a 70 mph freeway, right?

in fact, you typical compact car has more power than is actually required to serve 98% of the time, right?

Very true. 
A Toyota Corolla or Ford 150 also isn't able to go 210MPH (Triple) or even double at 140MPH in most cases.

Like I said, if 2MP is the "norm" then 3/5 seems fairly logical. 

Someone's Lamborghini would be closer in comparison to that NL-42 Military Grade/BattleTaxi that your run of the mill Shuttles that are supposed to be the Taxis & Cargo Vans etc etc of the Aerospace world.  Which does in fact then offer you 6/9 MP speeds.

[Daryk]

3/5 is the absolute minimum to get out of an atmosphere (I'm not sure why, but it is).

[EPG]

If 2MP is your standard 1G travel, then 3/5 allows for plenty of options to avoid collisions?
4/6 really does nothing for the LR-Shuttle (I think that was the one w/ 4/6).  Or am I missing something?

The only thing that really needs thrust as a Small Craft would be Assault/Boarding Craft which need to overtake an enemy & the NL-42 has that moving 6/9 IIRC.

Having civilian craft with extra MP is all about scheduling, maintenance and reliability. 

If you have extra MP available, then you can speed up to make up time if you’re behind schedule.  This would be used only sparingly for passenger transport for comfort reasons but it could be done - even a relatively short time under high thrust with the fasten seatbelt sign on could make a big difference, or maybe this is only used by the flight crew when the vehicle is running empty to reduce  the time not getting paid on deadhead runs.  For cargo only trips, for VIP’s who value time over comfort or for trips with military personnel, higher thrust could be used whenever time matters a lot.

Engines and other equipment last longer when they aren’t used at 100% capacity all the time.  For military service this is probably a negligible issue, but cost of operation is going to be a big deal for civilian service

Redundancy - If your shuttle can still safely complete an operation with one of the engines turned off because it’s acting up somehow, that’s a major safety and reliability feature, and once again one that can reduce the cost of operations if you can safely put repair and maintenance facilities further apart and probably still pay out fewer claims for emergency recovery tugs and the like.

[Cannonshop]

Very true. 
A Toyota Corolla or Ford 150 also isn't able to go 210MPH (Triple) or even double at 140MPH in most cases.

Like I said, if 2MP is the "norm" then 3/5 seems fairly logical. 

Someone's Lamborghini would be closer in comparison to that NL-42 Military Grade/BattleTaxi that your run of the mill Shuttles that are supposed to be the Taxis & Cargo Vans etc etc of the Aerospace world.  Which does in fact then offer you 6/9 MP speeds.

2MP, as Daryk pointed out, doesn't get you out of the atmosphere.  3/5 is, therefore, the absolute bare minimum for space capable small craft.  It's the 50hp Austin 7 equivalent (or 35HP VW air cooled boxer 4-which struggles with typical highway speeds).

The equivalent of a Lambo would be a dedicated racing hull pulling six or seven gees.

[AlphaMirage]

3/5 is the minimum due to atmospheric drag combined with gravity. You need 2MP to gain elevation, and increase velocity thus at least 4 needs to be expended each turn to reach space.

[Wolf72]

What about low G or no atmo planets and moons for the minimum thrust? (is it 3 MP or 5 MP for atmo escape?)

Trying to recap: it is totally legit to use a Kirghiz- C style craft, right?  I'd rather use a 80 ton fighter to transport a 5 ton infantry bay (or compartment) than a small craft.

[AlphaMirage]

What about low G or no atmo planets and moons for the minimum thrust? (is it 3 MP or 5 MP for atmo escape?)

Frustratingly there are no extra rules for that, clearly a bizarre oversight in the otherwise 'flawless' rules which take nearly everything else into account.

[Daryk]

As AlphaMirage said, you have to spend 4 points to gain altitude and speed, so 3/5 thrust is necessary.

[Vehrec]

Y'know the Laborghini doesn't need all that horsepower and potential speed to drive on a 70 mph freeway, right?

in fact, you typical compact car has more power than is actually required to serve 98% of the time, right?

At least, theoretically.

The Battletech Universe is not an extensive nanny-state environment, even in realms that allege to BE extensive nanny states, and we're talking about civilian craft, which have to be sold to keep their manufacturers in business.

Businesses that have to compete with one another, since exclusive government contracts, while very easy to pad with graft, are of limited duration and uncertain reliability (you can lose your contract to the head-of-state's-no-good-brother-in-law in a heartbeat, or to whomever has the right sized briefcase full of cash when talking to the procurement guys...)

That means "least amount you HAVE to have to do what you MUST" is a loss-leader, but your main business isn't that loss-leader.

it's the guy who wants his executive transport (or small goods smuggling transport) to be faster than the cops-or at least fast enough to maybe shake them.  (or needs to outrun some other enterprising gentlemen whom are in the market for his goods, or even himself.)

'Need' beyond 'needs to start when I turn the key and go when I open the throttle' doesn't factor into it nearly as much.   After all, a hoopty stereo and a disco ball over the waterbed isn't going to appeal to everyone who wants to put a racing stripe on the side...

and even semi-trucks have more power than they absolutely need to comply with the law.

You know that aerospace engines spend 95% of their time at like 80% of their maximum rated power, yes?  Jets or piston engines, it's a very different regime to what ground vehichles do-and I imagine it's very much the same for Battletech.

[Wolf72]

As AlphaMirage said, you have to spend 4 points to gain altitude and speed, so 3/5 thrust is necessary.

missed that, thanks. 

[EPG]

You know that aerospace engines spend 95% of their time at like 80% of their maximum rated power, yes?  Jets or piston engines, it's a very different regime to what ground vehichles do-and I imagine it's very much the same for Battletech.

At least in my pretty extensive experience with industrial equipment, there is an absolutely monumental difference in replacement and repair costs and schedules for equipment running at 75-80% of nameplate capacity my and equipment at 90-95% of capacity.  I know what the curves look like for some types of equipment and it’s the difference between ‘inspect and make repairs as needed  annually’ versus ‘throw away and replace these components monthly’ in some cases. And we’re talking about throwing away and replacing the most complex, expensive hard to make absolutely critical components in the systems.

[Cannonshop]

You know that aerospace engines spend 95% of their time at like 80% of their maximum rated power, yes?  Jets or piston engines, it's a very different regime to what ground vehichles do-and I imagine it's very much the same for Battletech.

In Battletech, to be fair, it's likely closer to spending 96% of the time they're operating at roughly 60% of max rated power.

Y'know, the difference between 'Cruise' and 'Overthrust'.

Thing is, you're still having to shove mass through the nozzle to move, so overthrust might not be a fantastic idea Every time you have to make suborbital or orbital.

At least in my pretty extensive experience with industrial equipment, there is an absolutely monumental difference in replacement and repair costs and schedules for equipment running at 75-80% of nameplate capacity my and equipment at 90-95% of capacity.  I know what the curves look like for some types of equipment and it’s the difference between ‘inspect and make repairs as needed  annually’ versus ‘throw away and replace these components monthly’ in some cases. And we’re talking about throwing away and replacing the most complex, expensive hard to make absolutely critical components in the systems.

going easy on your thrust means going easy on your maintenance-the less strain the mechanical parts (or whatever you're using) is under, per hour of operation, the longer your maintenance interval can be.

Maintenance and Fuel are both significant costs in aviation.  the longer you can extend that operational duration between overhauls the better your profit margins seem to be.

[EPG]

going easy on your thrust means going easy on your maintenance-the less strain the mechanical parts (or whatever you're using) is under, per hour of operation, the longer your maintenance interval can be.

Maintenance and Fuel are both significant costs in aviation.  the longer you can extend that operational duration between overhauls the better your profit margins seem to be.

Depending on what they are made of, I can see some major league thermal fatigue cycle stress effects on power plants, or possibly even on the structure of the craft near them, basically every time the engines start, stop or change thrust amounts. 

Another major factor is going to be material creep at extremely high temperatures, where eventually components permanently change shape when used at extremely high temperature for very long times.  Basically when an item is used at a temperature that starts to get close to its melting point, it deforms very slowly, very slightly like play dough.  Over the course of 1,000’s 100’s or 10’s of hours (depending on just how close you are) the piece eventually creeps into a shape that won’t work in the rest of the machine and has to be changed out. 

Another major possible issue is stress cracking corrosion in components exposed to hydrogen fuel.  There are ways to prevent or minimize this but they are exceedingly costly, and use a lot of rare exotic hard to get alloys and machining techniques.  You can use simple components made in more ordinary ways instead, but you had better do a good job of keeping track of where they are, exactly what they have been exposed to in terms of pressures and temperatures and for how long, or your going to get exciting liquid hydrogen leaks at unexpected times.

[RifleMech]

I've got a question about the 4 thrust needed to get into space. If I remember right the fastest an AS unit can go is twice it's safe thrust. If so, wouldn't a 2/3 AS unit with the throttle all the way open be able to hit 4 thrust and just get into orbit?

I don't think any current manufacture would build an AS Unit that slow. I'm mostly wondering about ancient and damaged units and worlds with just barely enough tech to get into space.

[Wolf72]

would that be like sprinting for mechs?

[Hellraiser]

would that be like sprinting for mechs?

Yeah, basically, its using the optional rules.

My point is that 4MP is a short burst used 1x in a transit from planet to destination & back.

The rest of the trip is 2MP.

Which, for me, means 3/5 works just fine for basic civilian craft.  Which is what I'm talking about, the 5 basic DS&JS SmallCraft.
Anything more than that means I'm not getting the Crew, Passenger, Cargo, or Fuel amounts that I'd like to maximize in a "Space-Truck/Bus"

[Lagrange]

I've got a question about the 4 thrust needed to get into space. If I remember right the fastest an AS unit can go is twice it's safe thrust. If so, wouldn't a 2/3 AS unit with the throttle all the way open be able to hit 4 thrust and just get into orbit?

I don't think any current manufacture would build an AS Unit that slow. I'm mostly wondering about ancient and damaged units and worlds with just barely enough tech to get into space.

The need for 4 thrust to get to space appears as a hard requirement on TW page 79 to exit the space/atmosphere interface row into space.  2 thrust is to low in atmosphere because you need 2 to climb altitude and either 1 (low altitude) or 2 (high altitude) to maintain velocity.  I believe 3 thrust can be made to work in atmosphere though.

AS are limited to twice as fast as safe thrust at low altitude (before requiring control rolls), but not at high altitude.  At high altitude there is a direct limit on maximum velocity dependent on the atmospheric row.

[RifleMech]

The need for 4 thrust to get to space appears as a hard requirement on TW page 79 to exit the space/atmosphere interface row into space.  2 thrust is to low in atmosphere because you need 2 to climb altitude and either 1 (low altitude) or 2 (high altitude) to maintain velocity.  I believe 3 thrust can be made to work in atmosphere though.

AS are limited to twice as fast as safe thrust at low altitude (before requiring control rolls), but not at high altitude.  At high altitude there is a direct limit on maximum velocity dependent on the atmospheric row.

Thank you.
So if I've got it right, it costs 2 thrust to increase 1 velocity which drops at the end of the turn so you'll always spend at least 2 thrust to keep in the air. And since it takes 2 thrust to increase altitude (on the high altitude table) a 2/3 AS Unit is stuck flying at the Ground Row because it doesn't have enough thrust to fly higher?

And the twice the safe thrust only happens when the AS unit is going down. So the only time a 2/3 AS unit can hit velocity 2 in a dive. 

AS rules still give me a headache.    There's got to be an easier way to word things.

[DevianID]

Another reason for small craft to move faster then 3/5 is for use in other planets.  Gravity stronger then earths would require more thrust, so a 3/5 might not have the oomph to service all planets.  Also, 4/6 allows you to spend 4 thrust without using overthrust.  Overthrust can cause issues and excess fuel consumption, so a 4/6 craft expected to spend a lot of time going up and down, which Id imagine is most shuttles, will see some minor gains with a 4/6 engine that doesnt need to use overthrust and can just 'cruise' out to space.

[Daryk]

SI is more easily adjusted for Small Craft than ASF.

[Lagrange]

So if I've got it right, it costs 2 thrust to increase 1 velocity which drops at the end of the turn so you'll always spend at least 2 thrust to keep in the air.

It's 2 thrust for 1 velocity on the high altitude map, then -1 to velocity at the end of the turn.  To change altitude, you just change direction.  You 2 thrust minimum to stay in the air, and 1 thrust to change direction, so a minimum of 3.

On the low altitude map velocity increases are 1-for-1 with a max of 2x SI with velocity halved (round down) at the end of the turn.  To change altitude, you spend 2 thrust points.  You need 1 thrust minimum to stay in the air, and 2 thrust to add to altitude, so a minimum of 3 is reasonable.

AS rules still give me a headache.    There's got to be an easier way to word things.

Well, let's count the rule sets: :-)

• TW Space (+/- gravity)
• SO Vector Space
• High Altitude
• Low Altitude
• High-Low transition
• Low-High transition
• High-Space transition
• Space-High transition

[Zematus737]

You forgot Hyperspace!

[Luciora]

And Quasispace!

You forgot Hyperspace!

[RifleMech]

It's 2 thrust for 1 velocity on the high altitude map, then -1 to velocity at the end of the turn.  To change altitude, you just change direction.  You 2 thrust minimum to stay in the air, and 1 thrust to change direction, so a minimum of 3.

On the low altitude map velocity increases are 1-for-1 with a max of 2x SI with velocity halved (round down) at the end of the turn.  To change altitude, you spend 2 thrust points.  You need 1 thrust minimum to stay in the air, and 2 thrust to add to altitude, so a minimum of 3 is reasonable.Well, let's count the rule sets: :-)

• TW Space (+/- gravity)
• SO Vector Space
• High Altitude
• Low Altitude
• High-Low transition
• Low-High transition
• High-Space transition
• Space-High transition

Thank you. So a 2/3 unit can get up to the space interface just not beyond.
Like I said, it gives me a headache. I hope when the next edition comes out the word things a lot easier.

[Wolf72]

IF using optional "sprint" rules, a 2/3 could do 4mp to push itself out, at a cost of more fuel? Just trying to clarify.  Apologies if answered fully already -- still in summer brain mode, teacher mode engages next week ... which means I'll be less likely to read everything fully.

(also, basically any SC/DS unit doing 1/2 or 2/3 is either atmo bound or open space bound, right? -- guess it could enter atmo and then be an atmo bound transport)

[Lagrange]

IF using optional "sprint" rules, a 2/3 could do 4mp to push itself out, at a cost of more fuel?

I believe Sprint is for mechs only.

(also, basically any SC/DS unit doing 1/2 or 2/3 is either atmo bound or open space bound, right? -- guess it could enter atmo and then be an atmo bound transport)

Yes.  Further, I'd say that 1/2 is not viable in atmosphere for any extended duration because it can't climb in altitude.

1/2 is the usable space minimum.  It's actually fairly sensible for a bus type of transport.
2/3 is the usable atmo minimum. It's ok, but notably slower.
3/5 is the space/atmo minimum.  You see many dropships (particularly civilian) with this speed.

[Wolf72]

Why wouldn't 1/2 be usable in atmosphere? Other than bad/inefficient design?

[Daryk]

If you can't climb, how can you take off?

[Wolf72]

If you can't climb, how can you take off?

does this also affect CF designs then? (really not that up on basics for AT stuff) Or are they staying at the row-8 or below (did I understand that part correctly?)

[Daryk]

CF can't exit the atmosphere, so I'm not sure how that matters to the discussion...

[Lagrange]

Why wouldn't 1/2 be usable in atmosphere? Other than bad/inefficient design?

Suppose you lift off using thrust 2.  At the end of the round your velocity falls to 1.  Next round you must use 1 thrust to get your velocity up to 2 or you'll stall at the end of the round.  That leaves 1 thrust point for other stuff.  Increasing velocity to 3 does nothing because 2 or 3 velocity is halved & rounded down to 1.  It takes 2 thrust points to increase altitude, so you can't go up.  So, you can only fly at Altitude 1.  That's extraordinarily dangerous and you are limited to avoid any hills or forest.  Overall, basically not usable.

[Wolf72]

sorry Daryk, just trying to find the min move for any aero units ... are ASF/CF different in flight rules (maintaining flight that is).

think I got it Lagrange ... don't do it, could be some boondoggle. Which is now a target or training facility 

[RifleMech]

Suppose you lift off using thrust 2.  At the end of the round your velocity falls to 1.  Next round you must use 1 thrust to get your velocity up to 2 or you'll stall at the end of the round.  That leaves 1 thrust point for other stuff.  Increasing velocity to 3 does nothing because 2 or 3 velocity is halved & rounded down to 1.  It takes 2 thrust points to increase altitude, so you can't go up.  So, you can only fly at Altitude 1.  That's extraordinarily dangerous and you are limited to avoid any hills or forest.  Overall, basically not usable.

Where's my aspirin?

With liftoff requiring 2 thrust points I wonder how WWI aircraft manage to fly. A Sopwith Camel could just manage 1 Thrust Point. It makes me miss the TRO:3025 Boomerang stats that used Cruise/Flank MP.

[Daryk]

Support Vehicles are a whole other kettle of fish...

[EPG]

Where's my aspirin?

With liftoff requiring 2 thrust points I wonder how WWI aircraft manage to fly. A Sopwith Camel could just manage 1 Thrust Point. It makes me miss the TRO:3025 Boomerang stats that used Cruise/Flank MP.

To be fair, World War I aircraft WERE right on the edge of ‘barely able to fly’ a lot of them DID randomly crash into trees and hills, so the Battletech conceit that they can barely make it into the air is accurate. 

Considering how important they were to the war, it’s important to remember that aircraft had only been invented 8 years before the war began. 

[Vehrec]

In Battletech, to be fair, it's likely closer to spending 96% of the time they're operating at roughly 60% of max rated power.

Y'know, the difference between 'Cruise' and 'Overthrust'.

Thing is, you're still having to shove mass through the nozzle to move, so overthrust might not be a fantastic idea Every time you have to make suborbital or orbital.

Uh, no, with fusion engines, it's *mass flow* that determines the difference between cruise and overthrust?  You use the same engine power in both modes, but you open the fuel valves wider to get more reaction mass and more thrust.  It's a classic problem for all nuclear space engines, you get great SI in low thrust mode but if you want to accelerate faster, you need to pour more and more fuel over your heating element, or inject mass into the engine bell or do something to tilt Newton's third Law in your direction.

You don't scale your multi-terrawatt fusion reaction down and up by 40% of it's rated power to switch between cruise and overthrust, indeed, that's the opposite of what you would want to do.  Not only is that hard on the reactor, you're robbing your precious helium and hydrogen exhaust of the speed it needs in order to make you go vroom, and since the speed of those little particles is squared in terms of the energy they impart on you, you want them to go as fast as reasonably possible. One interesting side effect of this for games more simulationist than Battletech is that as you lower your acceleration, you generate more heat, since there's fewer atoms carrying heat away from the reactor in the exhaust stream and more being deposited in the reactor itself.

[RifleMech]

Support Vehicles are a whole other kettle of fish...

They still use Thrust and Velocity though.    There's just speed and altitude limits for props and airships. And at 1/2 Thrust or less, it might be easier to treat them as vehicles and not "aerospace' units like VTOLs. It required some house rules but it did work for the old Boomerang.

To be fair, World War I aircraft WERE right on the edge of ‘barely able to fly’ a lot of them DID randomly crash into trees and hills, so the Battletech conceit that they can barely make it into the air is accurate. 

Considering how important they were to the war, it’s important to remember that aircraft had only been invented 8 years before the war began. 

True but they flew well enough that thousands were built.

With 2 Thrust required for take off can a plane even be built with a max of 1 Thrust? I know there's a Minimum Movement rule but doesn't that apply to ground units only?

[DevianID]

I think technically all the old stuff would need to be built with the 'airship' rules that have fractional thrust.  I dont believe anything else can use fractional thrust besides an airship right?  But I think thats fair... 2 thrust is a LOT of thrust by modern aircraft standards, and so the engines and flight mechanics of btech represent a different kind of monstrously fast flying unit.  So if treating the older planes, things that cant exceed 3 velocity, as airships then you only need .5 thrust to take off; you spend fractional thrust over 4 turns, so at the end of turn 4 with .5 thrust/turn for taking off you achieve the 2 thrust needed for liftoff.

Like, when btech says 'prop plane' with a speed of 4/6, that is insanely fast.  Thats not a Sopwith camel of ww1, that is a futuristic monster that breaks the sound barrier with ease, and can fly vertical straight up.  4/6 speed units are 'super cruise' units, meaning they can hit velocity 7, the sound barrier on the .5km hex low altitude map, using just their cruising speed of 4 as I understand it.  Not only that, they can cruise up to the sound barrier right after takeoff in 3 turns/30 seconds of acceleration.  So 2/3 speed craft are still plenty fast per the real world, like many jets are less then 2/3 speed, and a 1/2 speed fighter works just fine if you dont mind needing 'afterburners' to take off and climb every other turn.

[AlphaMirage]

Max Velocity in low altitude is 2 and your speed is halved every turn. Conventional units without props can only reach Velocity 3 on High Altitude 1 which is their operational ceiling. Also 2 Thrust is needed per altitude and velocity.

[DevianID]

Max Velocity in low altitude is 2

Max velocity on the 'ground row' of the high altitude map is 2.  On the low altitude map, max velocity is 2x safe thrust before control rolls.

On the high altitude map, hexes are 18k across right?  If so, velocity 2 on the ground row is almost mach 2.

[RifleMech]

I think technically all the old stuff would need to be built with the 'airship' rules that have fractional thrust.  I dont believe anything else can use fractional thrust besides an airship right?  But I think thats fair... 2 thrust is a LOT of thrust by modern aircraft standards, and so the engines and flight mechanics of btech represent a different kind of monstrously fast flying unit.  So if treating the older planes, things that cant exceed 3 velocity, as airships then you only need .5 thrust to take off; you spend fractional thrust over 4 turns, so at the end of turn 4 with .5 thrust/turn for taking off you achieve the 2 thrust needed for liftoff.

Like, when btech says 'prop plane' with a speed of 4/6, that is insanely fast.  Thats not a Sopwith camel of ww1, that is a futuristic monster that breaks the sound barrier with ease, and can fly vertical straight up.  4/6 speed units are 'super cruise' units, meaning they can hit velocity 7, the sound barrier on the .5km hex low altitude map, using just their cruising speed of 4 as I understand it.  Not only that, they can cruise up to the sound barrier right after takeoff in 3 turns/30 seconds of acceleration.  So 2/3 speed craft are still plenty fast per the real world, like many jets are less then 2/3 speed, and a 1/2 speed fighter works just fine if you dont mind needing 'afterburners' to take off and climb every other turn.

I wish the XTRO:1945 rules were legal. Those rules make a distinction between pre-age of war and age of war and late aircraft and give the older planes half the movement of later ones. I still like the old Boomerang's Cruise/Flank MP though. It moved 13/20 which is slower than the Ferret VTOL's 15/23. C/F would seem to fit better for the old/slow airplanes and give them more variety than all having 1/2 thrust. But that's me.