ASFs and Satellites

[brycesahagun]

I’m just looking to better imagine how Aerospace Fighters might be used, and how scenarios might involve Satellites.

If this discussion has taken place before, please let me know!

Are enemy military Satellites (Spysats, Recon, Communications, Navigation, etc) viable strategic targets for Aerospace Fighters? Would they be hard to detect and locate by an invading force? (real life knowledge welcome) Could important satellites be defended with one's own Aerospace Fighters, or even fixed orbital defense structures?

[Daryk]

Satellites are straight target practice for ASF.  There is no real stealth in space.

[nerd]

As satellites have almost no ability to maneuver on the ASF's scale, they're easy to destroy. Anything that's broadcasting is going to be relatively easy find.

As for defense, the only real option is to use Aerospace fighters or Dropships as part of planetary defenses. Space stations will only be able to defend nearby satellites, and have similar maneuvering limitations.

[RifleMech]

Satellites can mount ECM to make them harder to find. They can also be armed, and probably crewed by those not so happy to be there.

[Weirdo]

Satellites can mount ECM to make them harder to find. They can also be armed, and probably crewed by those not so happy to be there.

This puts them roughly on par with a zeppelin trying to defend itself from an F-16. Sure, you build one with modern tech and armaments it might spring a nasty surprise, but in the end, it's still just a tactical pork rind - no nutritional value, and easily crunched.

[dgorsman]

Space, even in orbit, is pretty big.  As long as the satellite isn't doing anything you'd have to know to look for it.  Just like that mystery pork rind you find under the couch when cleaning.  Remember the hyperspace relay and surveillance satellites found post-Jihad in the Coventry system?

[RifleMech]

This puts them roughly on par with a zeppelin trying to defend itself from an F-16. Sure, you build one with modern tech and armaments it might spring a nasty surprise, but in the end, it's still just a tactical pork rind - no nutritional value, and easily crunched.

Exactly. The weapons would be a nasty surprise and their being easily crunched would by why crews wouldn't be happy being their.

[Weirdo]

Not happy? It should be a penal posting.

[RifleMech]

 ;)

[Paul]

Satellites can mount ECM to make them harder to find.

Thats a common misconception. ECM is emitting loud by nature. Its how it works. So it would be easier to find.

They can also be armed, and probably crewed by those not so happy to be there.

Now its a space station. Not a small, cheap, unmanned tool.
And you win by sieging it. Kill the resupply runs to it. Provoke your enemy in to investing more and more in “satellites” for trivial planets. And you win without ever firing.

Better to make em cheap, easy to replace, and numerous. Let em get destroyed.

[brycesahagun]

Appreciate the replies, all.  :)

[DocShoveller]

This puts them roughly on par with a zeppelin trying to defend itself from an F-16. Sure, you build one with modern tech and armaments it might spring a nasty surprise, but in the end, it's still just a tactical pork rind - no nutritional value, and easily crunched.

At that point, you'd probably do what WW1 armies/air forces did to defend observation balloons: put it directly under your anti-aircraft guns.

Planet-side air defence knows exactly where the satellite is supposed to be at all times, so if enemy aerospace wants to shoot it down, they need to run the gauntlet (planetary AD being whatever is appropriate to the level of defence they can muster, but getting missiles into orbit is possible with 20thC tech, let alone 31stC).

[Paul]

Naval missiles dont grow on trees, and their effective range is well short of 36,000 km.

[RifleMech]

Thats a common misconception. ECM is emitting loud by nature. Its how it works. So it would be easier to find.

Now its a space station. Not a small, cheap, unmanned tool.
And you win by sieging it. Kill the resupply runs to it. Provoke your enemy in to investing more and more in “satellites” for trivial planets. And you win without ever firing.

Better to make em cheap, easy to replace, and numerous. Let em get destroyed.

ECM bubble tells that somethings there but not exactly where or what it is. It also gives a +1 to hit modifier.

I don't recall that satellites had to be a small cheap unmanned tool. It being manned and armed would be a surprise to an unsuspecting aerospace unit. And while waiting for the crew to die they're still transmitting data.

[DocShoveller]

Naval missiles dont grow on trees, and their effective range is well short of 36,000 km.

Naval missiles that you put on warships? Those are always going to be smaller than what you can mount in a surface installation (compare something like the SA-2 or SA-10 with the naval SA-3). Key planets may also have defensive satellites, though probably not for most of the Succession Wars.

Ultimately I think it's something that hasn't been thought about very much...

[dgorsman]

Per the various books, the surface missiles are functionally identical to the ship launched ones (Barracuda, White Shark, Killer Whale).

[Paul]

ECM bubble tells that somethings there but not exactly where or what it is. It also gives a +1 to hit modifier.

Sure, because its actively working against the function of the weapons. Thats its purpose. It does this by attempting to overwhelm the information the weapon system is getting with false positives.
So while it nay be harder to hit, as soon as the ECM turns on, its easier, not harder, to find it.

I don't recall that satellites had to be a small cheap unmanned tool.

Yes, please be that inefficient. If your opponent is making a mistake, dont interrupt them.

It being manned and armed would be a surprise to an unsuspecting aerospace unit.

Its size would be all the clue you need.
Or the resupply runs needed to feed the crew and maintain the space station.

And while waiting for the crew to die they're still transmitting data.

Not past my ECM, theyre not.
Meanwhile, have fun paying for all those manned satellites of yours.

Naval missiles that you put on warships? Those are always going to be smaller than what you can mount in a surface installation

In BT, theyre totally identical, including the tiny range in which theyre effective. Only thing they can reliably hit past 900km is, well, satellites.

[Retry]

Now its a space station. Not a small, cheap, unmanned tool.

The canonical Battlesat (3056) costs under 15-mill C-Bills.
An AS7-D is under 10-mill C-Bills.
A "Pocket Warship" Leopard costs 270-mill C-Bills.  (18 Battlesats)
A Fox Corvette costs 19 billion.  (~1300 Battlesats)

[Weirdo]

...C-Bills...

Bad idea all around. Every time.

[Retry]

Bad idea all around. Every time.

Never said FASAnomics made sense, but there's not a whole lot of other methods to to determine "cheapness".

[Paul]

The canonical Battlesat (3056) costs under 15-mill C-Bills.

And a single fighter can wreck it easy. Even if it gets a lucky shot in.

An AS7-D is under 10-mill C-Bills.

That battlesat isn't doing much about that Atlas. Unless it's directly above it for a few minutes. Every hour and a half. If the Atlas feels like being under it.

A "Pocket Warship" Leopard costs 270-mill C-Bills.  (18 Battlesats)

That Leopard's wrecking all 18 of them, which isn't enough to fully cover 1 planet by a few thousand battlesats, and then you can ship it to another system where it can do the same.

A Fox Corvette costs 19 billion.  (~1300 Battlesats)

1300 still isn't enough to fully cover 1 planet.
The Fox, meanwhile, can fully cover a planet. And any other within 60 light years.
With a lot more firepower and utility than battlesats.

[Retry]

And a single fighter can wreck it easy. Even if it gets a lucky shot in.

Possibly one could, with the right Fighter, but I highly doubt it'd be trivial.

That Leopard's wrecking all 18 of them

I don't believe that for one second.

I'm going to have to try that scenario out myself...

[Ursus Maior]

Are we talking about the BattleSat? As in BBP Industries' 1375 tons (or 2000 tons according to MUL) space station? Or just any generic combat satellite constructed using the support vehicle construction rules?

Because the original BattleSat has a single NL-55 mounted aft and no thrust to bring it to bear. A Leopard could zoom into any other arc and have its way with that space station. Since 5 points of capital armor aren't that much for the Leopard's energy based armament (plus LRM-20s and a teleoperated Killer Whale Capital Missile Launcher, I'd say the battle is decided if the 18 BattleSats do not manage to kill the Leopard PWS during the time it needs to get in their rear.

And since space stations use the same firing arcs that JumpShips use (p. 235 TW), the number of shots during this initial phse is pretty limited, probably to no more than 5 satellites at most.

[Weirdo]

Possibly one could, with the right Fighter, but I highly doubt it'd be trivial.

The qualifications for right fighter in this case are: Can it reach space? Can it do 60 damage to a target, spread out over any period of time? If yes, then it can kill a lone Battlesat. Bear in mind, a light fighter mounting a single small laser or machine gun meets these requirements. Yes, there is a chance the sat might actually kill the fighter, but given the to-hit numbers needed to hit an evading fighter trying to get close, and the fact that all but the very lightest fighters can actually tank a NL-35 hit or two with few ill effects...the odds are pretty bad.

Battlesats are effective weapons platforms, but they were never built to win battles by themselves.

[Warship]

I am thinking the BatSat's have minor station keeping thrust abilities.  Sarna lists 20 tons of fuel.  With that, they probably have the ability to rotate the station to better engage the NL.

[Daryk]

Still, engaging an ASF with a single NL is less than optimal (to put it lightly).  My money is still on the ASF...

[RifleMech]

Sure, because its actively working against the function of the weapons. Thats its purpose. It does this by attempting to overwhelm the information the weapon system is getting with false positives.
So while it nay be harder to hit, as soon as the ECM turns on, its easier, not harder, to find it.


Yes, please be that inefficient. If your opponent is making a mistake, dont interrupt them.


Its size would be all the clue you need.
Or the resupply runs needed to feed the crew and maintain the space station.


Not past my ECM, theyre not.
Meanwhile, have fun paying for all those manned satellites of yours.

Space is still big even with ECM.

Probably inefficient but how much damage can an Aerospace unit take before it can't reenter atmosphere?

Not really. Satellites can weigh up to 200 tons. For example the Skyward weighs 65 tons.

And how long is the invasion fleet going to hang about in orbit, using up their supplies, to find out the resupply rates of some manned satellites? If those satellites delay an invasion even a day they'll be worth the expense.

Com. Equipment can counter your ECM. So can a Command Console. If manned, armed satellites can delay an invasion fleet for a time, I think they're well worth the cost. And if they don't the damage they could cause means less invaders making it to the surface.

The qualifications for right fighter in this case are: Can it reach space? Can it do 60 damage to a target, spread out over any period of time? If yes, then it can kill a lone Battlesat. Bear in mind, a light fighter mounting a single small laser or machine gun meets these requirements. Yes, there is a chance the sat might actually kill the fighter, but given the to-hit numbers needed to hit an evading fighter trying to get close, and the fact that all but the very lightest fighters can actually tank a NL-35 hit or two with few ill effects...the odds are pretty bad.

Battlesats are effective weapons platforms, but they were never built to win battles by themselves.

And evading ASF may be hard to hit but the evading ASF also can't fire any weapons.

[Ursus Maior]

And evading ASF may be hard to hit but the evading ASF also can't fire any weapons.

It can do that later, after it moved out of the firing arc of the NL.

[Weirdo]

Probably inefficient but how much damage can an Aerospace unit take before it can't reenter atmosphere?

If it ain't dead and can still maneuver, it can reenter.

Com. Equipment can counter your ECM. So can a Command Console.

ECM in space doesn't work that way. It's a probe or nothing.

[grimlock1]

but in the end, it's still just a tactical pork rind - no nutritional value, and easily crunched.

I'm stealing that!

[Weirdo]

I'm stealing that!

Go right ahead! :D

[idea weenie]

One fun idea for manned penal satellites is tossing in a Steerage Quarter and a ton of Supply (food/O2 recyclers, etc) for a single person.  You give them a list of maintenance instructions so they stay alive, and leave them there.

That manned satellite now has 200 days of endurance.  Send up a shuttle twice a year to provide the satellite with resupply and see if the lone person in the punishment satellite has cracked from isolation yet.

Even better, make sure there is 2 or more tons of cargo capacity.  That tells the prisoner that things could get much worse (i.e. 400 days of Supplies and they wait a year between seeing another person)

A little constellation of prison pods, where the person on board has to perform maintenance every day to stay alive, hoping they make it to the end of the year with their sanity intact.

Once the isolation sentence is over, you put them in the indoctrination courses, so the only people for the prisoner to interact with are loyal to the state.  If they want to talk to anyone, they have to pretend to be loyal and eventually crowd conditioning makes them truly loyal.

This is only for those that might have useful skills worth putting in the 1-2 tons of Supply for them.

[RifleMech]

It can do that later, after it moved out of the firing arc of the NL.

The Satellite could have weapons in multiple arcs.

If it ain't dead and can still maneuver, it can reenter.

ECM in space doesn't work that way. It's a probe or nothing.

Yes but damage does make re-entry more difficult.

Not seeing that it doesn't but if true then the satellite's ECM is tuned to ECCM and the com equipment keeps on transmitting.

One fun idea for manned penal satellites is tossing in a Steerage Quarter and a ton of Supply (food/O2 recyclers, etc) for a single person.  You give them a list of maintenance instructions so they stay alive, and leave them there.

That manned satellite now has 200 days of endurance.  Send up a shuttle twice a year to provide the satellite with resupply and see if the lone person in the punishment satellite has cracked from isolation yet.

Even better, make sure there is 2 or more tons of cargo capacity.  That tells the prisoner that things could get much worse (i.e. 400 days of Supplies and they wait a year between seeing another person)

A little constellation of prison pods, where the person on board has to perform maintenance every day to stay alive, hoping they make it to the end of the year with their sanity intact.

Once the isolation sentence is over, you put them in the indoctrination courses, so the only people for the prisoner to interact with are loyal to the state.  If they want to talk to anyone, they have to pretend to be loyal and eventually crowd conditioning makes them truly loyal.

This is only for those that might have useful skills worth putting in the 1-2 tons of Supply for them.

 :) :thumbsup:

[Weirdo]

The Satellite could have weapons in multiple arcs.

Then it's not a BattleSat. You were talking about ASF vs BattleSat.

Yes but damage does make re-entry more difficult.

Thrust-related crits, control-related crits, bomb crits, and door crits. Nothing else. Armor and SI damage has zero effect on the reentry roll.

Not seeing that it doesn't but if true then the satellite's ECM is tuned to ECCM and the com equipment keeps on transmitting.

Rules for ECM in space are in StratOps, page 110. Comm gear has no effect ever. Units larger than fighters get their ECM for free, and putting an actual ECM suite on them does exactly nothing. They also get ECCM for free. Neither ECM or ECCM functions in the way it does on the ground.

[Maingunnery]

What about a Large satellite with a single ASF bay, and adding some asteroid debris as camouflage?

[Daryk]

Still not a BattleSat, but that would probably have the best odds against another ASF...

[Paul]

The Satellite could have weapons in multiple arcs.

Time to stop calling it a satellite, and start calling it a space station.

Yes but damage does make re-entry more difficult.

Not seeing that it doesn't but if true then the satellite's ECM is tuned to ECCM and the com equipment keeps on transmitting.

You argue pretty vehemently in favor of your position, while you so clearly haven't consulted the rules that govern this.
This isn't about what you wish was true. We're telling you what *is* true.

Your space station is:
A. Easy to kill, and cheap. Invaders can wreck em without too much trouble, but it's kind of like shooting a bucket on their way to burn down your house. You can get another bucket.
B. Very difficult to kill, but expensive. Now your nation's resources are mismanaged badly, because there's literally no way in BT to make space station that planetary invaders have to worry about. So you still lose that planet, but now you paid extra for that privilege.
C. Both useful and affordable. This space unicorn cannot exist in BT, no matter how much you wish it so.

OP's question was specifically bout option A, your approach towards B is thread drift.

[RifleMech]

Then it's not a BattleSat. You were talking about ASF vs BattleSat.

Thrust-related crits, control-related crits, bomb crits, and door crits. Nothing else. Armor and SI damage has zero effect on the reentry roll.

Rules for ECM in space are in StratOps, page 110. Comm gear has no effect ever. Units larger than fighters get their ECM for free, and putting an actual ECM suite on them does exactly nothing. They also get ECCM for free. Neither ECM or ECCM functions in the way it does on the ground.

 ??? I never said anything about the BattleSat.

True but there's many ways of causing critical hits to ASFs.

It says Fighters and Small Craft. I'll have to ask in the Rules section. Small Craft top out at 200 tons so that could include some Satellites. That would allow their ECM to function as ECCM. I'll post the answer when I get one.

Time to stop calling it a satellite, and start calling it a space station.

Legally, they're satellites. Satellites are 300 tons or less. Space Stations start at 2,000 tons.

You argue pretty vehemently in favor of your position, while you so clearly haven't consulted the rules that govern this.
This isn't about what you wish was true. We're telling you what *is* true.

And there's 4 ways a hit can cause a critical resulting in damage making re-entry more dangerous. I did read the rules. TM pages 238-239.

Your space station is:
A. Easy to kill, and cheap. Invaders can wreck em without too much trouble, but it's kind of like shooting a bucket on their way to burn down your house. You can get another bucket.
B. Very difficult to kill, but expensive. Now your nation's resources are mismanaged badly, because there's literally no way in BT to make space station that planetary invaders have to worry about. So you still lose that planet, but now you paid extra for that privilege.
C. Both useful and affordable. This space unicorn cannot exist in BT, no matter how much you wish it so.

OP's question was specifically bout option A, your approach towards B is thread drift.

I believe I've said from the beginning that they would be cheap and easy to kill.

I never said anything about a 2,000 plus ton satellite.

I never said anything about unicorns either. I am not causing thread drift. I have been discussing Satellites. Not Space Stations. They are two separate types of units.

[Daryk]

Retry brought up BattleSats, not RifleMech...

[Retry]

Then it's not a BattleSat. You were talking about ASF vs BattleSat.

??? I never said anything about the BattleSat.

Retry brought up BattleSats, not RifleMech...

...Err... Sorry?

[Daryk]

Much of the confusion seemed to have been driven by some (including me for a day or two) conflating your posts with RifleMech's… I hope this sorts it out...

[Paul]

It says Fighters and Small Craft. I'll have to ask in the Rules section. Small Craft top out at 200 tons so that could include some Satellites. That would allow their ECM to function as ECCM. I'll post the answer when I get one.

By definition, a small craft and a satellite are 2 different entities.

Legally, they're satellites. Satellites are 300 tons or less. Space Stations start at 2,000 tons.

I challenge you to make a 300 ton one that's somehow meaningful to this concept of yours.

And there's 4 ways a hit can cause a critical resulting in damage making re-entry more dangerous.

You seem to overestimate how likely critical hits are. And you seem to think re-entry is major obstacle. By dint of being invaders, they brought vehicles (DropShips, likely) that have aerospace fighter bays.

I believe I've said from the beginning that they would be cheap and easy to kill.

Your 300 ton object that's meant to be a threat to an aerospace fighter is not cheap anymore.

I never said anything about unicorns either. I am not causing thread drift. I have been discussing Satellites. Not Space Stations. They are two separate types of units.

For purposes of how rules interact with them, perhaps.
Speaking about the in-universe theory about how you defend planets, the distinction is much less relevant.

But hey, you haven't listened to a single thing I've posted about this, so perhaps I should go do something else.

[RifleMech]

Retry brought up BattleSats, not RifleMech...

Thank you.

...Err... Sorry?

Weiro's reply was to my post about weapons in the satellites rear arc. I believe he,mixed your post up with mine.

By definition, a small craft and a satellite are 2 different entities.

True. However Strategic Operations seems to have forgotten about Satelites so I've been going by tonnage. Its also why I asked for clarification in the rules section. To have an official answer.

I challenge you to make a 300 ton one that's somehow meaningful to this concept of yours

.

I might do that for kicks, but why should I have to prove that a weapon on a satellite can cause possibly cause enough damage to another aerospace unit to make reentry more challenging?

You seem to overestimate how likely critical hits are. And you seem to think re-entry is major obstacle. By dint of being invaders, they brought vehicles (DropShips, likely) that have aerospace fighter bays.

Possibly but a chance of a critical hit is still a chance?  And so? We've already established that said satellights would be facing ASF.

Your 300 ton object that's meant to be a threat to an aerospace fighter is not cheap anymore

.

I never said it has to be 300 tons. Even if it was, itd still be cheaper than a 2000 ton space station. And all the satellite has to do is be able to possibly cause one of those crit rolls. Not outright destroy the ASF. Although that would be the best outcome.

For purposes of how rules interact with them, perhaps.
Speaking about the in-universe theory about how you defend planets, the distinction is much less relevant.

But hey, you haven't listened to a single thing I've posted about this, so perhaps I should go do something else.

There might not be much distinction between them in practical terms. One is just a much smaller version of the other. However, they are constructed and operate under different sets of rules. That makes them distinct unit types. Calling both units space stations would even cause more confusion than there is now.

To clear up any further misunderstandings. I am and have been talking about Satellites which have a max tonnage of 300 tons.

[Weirdo]

Retry brought up BattleSats, not RifleMech...

My mistake. Apologies.

[RifleMech]

No worries :)