Utility of omni VTOLs

[Cannonshop]

You're thinking of the Main-Gauche.  The problem with using a ground unit in this role is that it's too difficult to get 25 hexes of straight LOS; easy for opponents to stay out of the thing's field of fire.  Especially if you replace the hill in my example with a forest.  Also, a tank can't back away into the waiting arms of your defensive force quickly like the Hawk Moth can, because it is slowed down by terrain.

There's that word: "Quickly". 
Things that only work under ideal conditions don't work.

[SCC]

The problem is, I'm not sure how much omnitech adds to a VTOL force.

Let's look at the three main combat roles, scout, slick (infantry transport), and snake (Attack/gunship).

Now a decent speed helicopter, well ten tons once you account for all the basic structure, controls, rotors, engine, and some armor, seems to be about the upper end for most designs.  The Hawkmoth and Yellowjacket go over that, but only with significant loss of mobility.

Is ten tons of pod space enough to justify using them for all three roles?  That ten tons is for a 10/15 speed, good enough for slicks and snakes, but rather the low end for scouts.  Taking the Vector, which is 12/18 design, that is good for scouting, though I'd reduce the weapons to combine ECM and BAP into a single bird, and with a SPL and two MLs a decent slick, if limited to foot infantry only.  But a ML and 2 SRM-4s don't give much more firepower over the SPL and 2 ML slick version.

Ten tons is plenty given that about the only equipment you probably really need is a probe and some sensors, a jet booster would be real nice. the recon camera is useful, but the imagers are not that good for scouting and while a full suite could be useful, it would be very marginal.

[RifleMech]

I'm still leaning towards having both Standard and OMNI VTOLs. Specialists for certain rolls, and OMNIs for everything else and as replacements/support for the Specialists. Vehicles and crews do need down time. So while the Scout VTOL is getting maintenance, an OMNI with a Probe can be out scouting.

OMNIs drop off Infantry while specialist gunships support them. Once the infantry are dropped off the OMNIs go back and get outfitted with guns or paramedic equipment and go back to support the infantry. Then the gunships can go get rearmed.

OMNIs also allows flexibility if something comes up. Like you get intel that needs checking out but you still need a scout. With an OMNI you've got that covered, instead of pushing a cargo VTOL into the roll.

[Cannonshop]

I'm still leaning towards having both Standard and OMNI VTOLs. Specialists for certain rolls, and OMNIs for everything else and as replacements/support for the Specialists. Vehicles and crews do need down time. So while the Scout VTOL is getting maintenance, an OMNI with a Probe can be out scouting.

OMNIs drop off Infantry while specialist gunships support them. Once the infantry are dropped off the OMNIs go back and get outfitted with guns or paramedic equipment and go back to support the infantry. Then the gunships can go get rearmed.

OMNIs also allows flexibility if something comes up. Like you get intel that needs checking out but you still need a scout. With an OMNI you've got that covered, instead of pushing a cargo VTOL into the roll.

I tend to think it's a better idea to have flexible tactics and training, than try to have flexible gear.

[RifleMech]

Of course but having flexible gear is good too.

[Retry]

The problem is, I'm not sure how much omnitech adds to a VTOL force.

Let's look at the three main combat roles, scout, slick (infantry transport), and snake (Attack/gunship).

Now a decent speed helicopter, well ten tons once you account for all the basic structure, controls, rotors, engine, and some armor, seems to be about the upper end for most designs.  The Hawkmoth and Yellowjacket go over that, but only with significant loss of mobility.

Is ten tons of pod space enough to justify using them for all three roles?  That ten tons is for a 10/15 speed, good enough for slicks and snakes, but rather the low end for scouts.  Taking the Vector, which is 12/18 design, that is good for scouting, though I'd reduce the weapons to combine ECM and BAP into a single bird, and with a SPL and two MLs a decent slick, if limited to foot infantry only.  But a ML and 2 SRM-4s don't give much more firepower over the SPL and 2 ML slick version.

So, based on how much engine you need, you are effectively already into two air frames, scout and Snake have to make different choices WRT whether to sacrifice mass for engine or warload.  Depending on what you want to carry, well the slick might need its own choices, though I did post a few that managed to keep at least closely related variants to do two of the three role decently.  A transport might be willing to sacrifice some armor for speed and cargo capacity instead.

Ten tons is more than enough, and I can usually get away with less even for IS-tech.  8 or 9 tons is sufficient for a general-purpose, budget friendly omni VTOL, and you can fit that in a 24-ton SFE 11/17 bird with a half-decent armor load.  The only thing you have to really give up with that is bigger Ballistics and super-hot energy weapons, but even the canonical specialist VTOLs rarely pull that off well.

Furthermore, it's not necessary for an omni-VTOL to fill every single role.  If you don't believe that 10/15 omni-VTOL is not sufficient for scouting, you don't have to use it that way: You could fill the Snake and Slick roles with the Omni and use a specialized scout for that role.  You're still up logistically against the force using 3 (or more) different platforms for Snake, Slick, and Scout.

Point is, on the combat end there enough basic differences that might require a different airframe, or at least a majorly different variant, for each role.  Once you get into the eras when ATMs and MMLs are common, these lightweight systems allow you to build say a fixed configuration gunship that can have pseudo omni capacity by changing the ammo load, for non-omni prices.

I like the MML.  It's surprisingly cheap and under-rated (in both the sense that it's under used and the sense that its BV is too low as it literally doesn't account for the SRM ammo it can throw).

ATMs are not really flexible or pseudo-omni.  You have the choice of weak punches at long range or strong punches at short range.  Clan LRMs are far better for a pseudo-omni (oh, and said pseudo-omni also doesn't benefit from the rearmament or replacement speed bonuses).

iATMs are fairly flexible, but at that point you're no longer below omni prices, you're above them (unless said omni is also mounting an iATM).

In either case, it's much easier and quickly come up with and ship, say, 10-ton omni-pod refit kits for omni-units on the front than it is to produce an entirely new 25-ton unit with entirely new gear, or to drag an old standard unit down to the factory to the new specifications, and then ship that unit back to the front.  Cargo fleet space is precious, and time is a currency all its own.

[Hellraiser]

I'm not feeling any love really for Omni-Vtols.

1.  Pretty sure you can't have BA mount the outside of a Vtol the way you can a ground vehicle.   (Someone mentioned it above, maybe I'm wrong, but also applies to WIGEs)

2.  They really lack the pod space for what I'd want for anything Omni.  (Not a fan of most Light MECH Omni's either)

3.  Vtols aren't something I need for every mission & when I want them I generally want them very specialist oriented.

[Maingunnery]

1. Correct, see TW p227 Movement restrictions
3. A lot of roles have very overlapping chassis. 

[Getz]

I voted that they are worth it.

On the one hand, as has already been pointed out, they cost differential isn't nearly as great as the vote options imply.

However, the real reason to my mind comes down to transport capacity.  Even if you are not transporting your VTOLs in vehicles bays, drop ships do not have infinite cargo capacity so bringing along multiple VTOLs to cover your different scout, transport and attack roles will require in considerable duplication of airframes and spares.  Bearing in mind that the average Mech formation will probably only want a few wings of VTOLs on their TOE for support purposes, then having half as many airframes, all able to do all three roles, seems like a sensible way of saving cargo space to me.

People have observed that you need different VTOLs chassis for different jobs.  I say bullfeathers to that - the Vector complete disproves that notion.  The four Vector variants are all excellent for the attack, scout and transport role - and they all use exactly the same base chassis.  You could easily omni-fy the Vector and have a single VTOL capable of doing pretty much everything you need.

Alternatively, a 25 ton fusion engined VTOL with 11/17 movement profile gives you 11.5 tons of war load.  Shall we say three and a half tons of armour and eight tons of pod space?  That should be suitable to cover almost any role you need from a VTOL adequately.

Of course, if you're talking about a PDF militia, then a very different set of economic drivers come into play and then maybe cheaper, specialised VTOLs make more sense - but that doesn't mean omni-VTOLs don't have a role.

[Cannonshop]

I voted that they are worth it.

On the one hand, as has already been pointed out, they cost differential isn't nearly as great as the vote options imply.

However, the real reason to my mind comes down to transport capacity.  Even if you are not transporting your VTOLs in vehicles bays, drop ships do not have infinite cargo capacity so bringing along multiple VTOLs to cover your different scout, transport and attack roles will require in considerable duplication of airframes and spares.  Bearing in mind that the average Mech formation will probably only want a few wings of VTOLs on their TOE for support purposes, then having half as many airframes, all able to do all three roles, seems like a sensible way of saving cargo space to me.

People have observed that you need different VTOLs chassis for different jobs.  I say bullfeathers to that - the Vector complete disproves that notion.  The four Vector variants are all excellent for the attack, scout and transport role - and they all use exactly the same base chassis.  You could easily omni-fy the Vector and have a single VTOL capable of doing pretty much everything you need.

Alternatively, a 25 ton fusion engined VTOL with 11/17 movement profile gives you 11.5 tons of war load.  Shall we say three and a half tons of armour and eight tons of pod space?  That should be suitable to cover almost any role you need from a VTOL adequately.

Of course, if you're talking about a PDF militia, then a very different set of economic drivers come into play and then maybe cheaper, specialised VTOLs make more sense - but that doesn't mean omni-VTOLs don't have a role.

I think you're looking at the wrong economic drivers myself.

On either offense, or defense, a VTOL is a sharply lifespan limited asset.  Think of it this way, let's use your 25 ton VTOL and assume you can omni-pod for 4 or more mission profiles.

1 VTOL at 25 tons with 11.5 tons of pod space.

11.5 tons for mission profile A
11.5 tons for mission profile B
11.5 tons for mission profile C
11.5 tons for mission profile D

NOTE: "Pod Weight" doesn't include ammo on omnis.  It doesn't include the actual infantrymen either.  It's the mass/weight of the airframe plus the pods carrying weapons/hardware.

Note 2: specialists tend to vary in weight.

Note 3: while your OmniVTOL is being a gunship, it's not being a recon bird, slick, SAR, or different kind of gunship.  while it's doing any role, you've still got 34.5 tons of unused equipment sitting in the dugout/depot/airbase/FOB instead of supporting your other units.

VTOLs are lifespan limited-a lot of things in the "OMNI" period are made to kill them pretty easily.  (LBX's, later HAGs etc.)  that means you're carrying a lot of equipment that the odds are good, won't be used, but still has to be maintained and transported.

The other side of it: Standard VTOLs.

if  your cargo mass-budget/logistics budget allocates 69.5 (seventy) tons of equipment marked "VTOL", you can either run 1 Omnivtol with 44.5 tons of gear, or, you can run anywhere from a short lance to a demicompany, depending on the mass of the other specialists.

25 ton gunship
25 ton gunship
10 ton slick/scout
5 ton scout/liaison

Or:
30 ton transport (Karnov)
25 ton gunship
5 ton scout,
5 ton scout.

Or:
25 ton gunship
15 ton scout
15 ton scout
5 ton scout

and so on.

for the mass fraction to carry a lance of 25 ton Omnis with 11.5 tons of pods each, you can outfit a generally more-capable force of VTOL craft potentially up to the scale of a short battalion.  that's more coverage, in case you're interested, with more missions going on at the same time, which translates into better support for your 'mech, tank, and infantry forces.  Your limitation ends up being life-support and paycheques.

[Terrace]

People have observed that you need different VTOLs chassis for different jobs.  I say bullfeathers to that - the Vector complete disproves that notion.  The four Vector variants are all excellent for the attack, scout and transport role - and they all use exactly the same base chassis.  You could easily omni-fy the Vector and have a single VTOL capable of doing pretty much everything you need.

I should note that you could easily update this hypothetical Omni-Vector for the Battle Armor age by dropping the Small Pulse Laser from the Infantry Transport configuration and plow that spare ton into the infantry compartment, which would allow it to move a medium BA squad.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

People have observed that you need different VTOLs chassis for different jobs.  I say bullfeathers to that - the Vector complete disproves that notion.  The four Vector variants are all excellent for the attack, scout and transport role - and they all use exactly the same base chassis.  You could easily omni-fy the Vector and have a single VTOL capable of doing pretty much everything you need.

I don't really count the 1 ML and 2 SRM-4s of the attack version as a significant improvement over the 2 MLs and SPL of the transport model.  Heck the Scout and Jammer models arguable have slightly more firepower with the added SL.

[Terrace]

I don't really count the 1 ML and 2 SRM-4s of the attack version as a significant improvement over the 2 MLs and SPL of the transport model.  Heck the Scout and Jammer models arguable have slightly more firepower with the added SL.

1 ML and 2 SRM-4s has higher potential firepower, capable of kicking out up to 21 damage (as always, cluster rolls determine if you'll manage this), allowing you to force a PSR if you're lucky, and has the potential versatility of loading infernos for vehicle popping and infantry roasting. In contrast, the Transport version could do 13, while the Scout and Jammer models could do 16.

As for the Scout and Jammer configurations, one version I saw did away with the Small Laser in favor of a Mast Mount to put the TAG on the rotor.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

1 ML and 2 SRM-4s has higher potential firepower, capable of kicking out up to 21 damage (as always, cluster rolls determine if you'll manage this), allowing you to force a PSR if you're lucky, and has the potential versatility of loading infernos for vehicle popping and infantry roasting. In contrast, the Transport version could do 13, while the Scout and Jammer models could do 16.

As for the Scout and Jammer configurations, one version I saw did away with the Small Laser in favor of a Mast Mount to put the TAG on the rotor.

I was using the average SRM damage, which works out to five per pack. (2.64 missiles averaged out per back), which gives it on average 15 damage.  Now if they used LRM-5s I'd might give it a better look, due to the standoff potential.

The Vector has good armor, 3.5 tons FF, but only six tons left over after that and the structure, and motive systems are installed.

[Retry]

1 ML and 2 SRM-4s has higher potential firepower, capable of kicking out up to 21 damage (as always, cluster rolls determine if you'll manage this), allowing you to force a PSR if you're lucky, and has the potential versatility of loading infernos for vehicle popping and infantry roasting. In contrast, the Transport version could do 13, while the Scout and Jammer models could do 16.

That would be a crapshoot even if all the weapons were front-mounted.  That requires 11s or 12s on the to-hit for both missiles, which is a 1-in-12 chance each, for a total of 1-in-144 chance of all missiles hitting.  If you somehow had a guarantee to hit your target (say, target to-hit of 2), you'd still force a PSR less than 1% of the time.

That's not even the problem.  The problem is that the Attack Vector's SRMs are side mounted.  There's no concentrating fire on one opponent, ever.

[Terrace]

That would be a crapshoot even if all the weapons were front-mounted.  That requires 11s or 12s on the to-hit for both missiles, which is a 1-in-12 chance each, for a total of 1-in-144 chance of all missiles hitting.  If you somehow had a guarantee to hit your target (say, target to-hit of 2), you'd still force a PSR less than 1% of the time.

That's not even the problem.  The problem is that the Attack Vector's SRMs are side mounted.  There's no concentrating fire on one opponent, ever.

Don't have to be limited by that when making an Omni version. Just have everything forward mounted. Hmm...

Drop the Small Laser and Small Pulse Laser, and you could consolidate the Scout and EW configurations into a single platform, leaving it with a pair of Medium Lasers for self-defense. Similarly, drop the Small Pulse Laser from the Transport version to expand the Infantry Compartment so it can carry medium Battle Armor squads. Thus, the Attack version would still have the highest damage (half-again the firepower of the others on average, with it approaching twice the firepower on good cluster rolls), and let you concentrate firepower on a single target.

Ok, I think those changes are just about perfect for updating the Vector to an Omni platform!

[Hellraiser]

I won't say the Vector isn't a nice Vtol, it is, ugly, but very nice configuration w/ the cheesy 22 tons for better movement.
Learned from the Warrior (Donar) that one did.  :thumbsup:

But, to say 6 tons of pod space is enough for everything is totally NOT accurate in my book.

For starters.  Where is the ability to move 2 platoons of Jump Troops or BA Squads?
But lets go further, some ML is nice, but even 3 ML with SRMs does not a "Gunship" make.
And certainly not the kind I want my Vtol to be.

I'm thinking PPC + C3S for 8 tons is the bare minimum I'm calling a "Gunship".
Maybe triple LRM5's with 2 tons of ammo (or 1 w/ C3S)

The Vector isn't pulling off those loads.
Its certainly not doing what the HawkMoth or Yellowjacket, do for firepower/range.
And its not moving troops the way the Karnov-BA can.

It has nice speed, but frankly, I'd like my Recon to be even faster. 
Any "Close Assault" configuration w/ ML/SRM should probably be faster too.
You can't afford to not have those extra couple MP to get into the sweet spot of safety & striking at the same time.


I could see if you were just operating a Platoon of Vtols while you might want some versatility in them.
But if your a large Regular army you can afford to be running specialists.

5t - Speedy TAG Bot
15t - ECM/BAP/C3S/ERML
25t - Infantry Insertion
30t - Slow Support Gunboat

Basically some variations of Ferret, Mantis, Cavalry-Infantry, & YellowJacket-Arrow.

[Terrace]

I consider the ultimate point of running an omni platform for all the assorted roles you might need such a platform to fulfill to be the logistical benefits you get, since you only have to stock spare parts for one unique chassis, as opposed to working with multiple chassis that draw from mutually-exclusive parts bins.

So give me an Omni-VTOL instead of multiple specialist designs, so I can streamline the paperwork my logistics people have to deal with.

[Retry]

I'm sure omnis start to look like a logistical pain in the arse if you're trying to produce enough omni-pods to have every single one of your airframes have access to every single omni-configuration at all times.

I'm not sure why you would even try to do that.  There's not going to be a situation where your entire Great House military needs all of their Omni-VTOLs converted to scouts now.  You don't need to have a 1-to-1 chopper-to-recon kit ratio any more than you need to have a 1-to-1

For demonstration's sake, let's make a theoretical VTOL battalion out of a Seeker Dropship.  Someone decides it needs 4 different VTOL types to perform its duties, for whatever reason:

10 ton Sprint Scout Helicopter (Laser) -> Recon
10 ton Ripper Infantry Transport (Standard) -> Light Slick/Snake
25 ton Cavalry Attack Helicopter (Infantry) -> Heavy Slick/Snake
30 ton Cobra Transport VTOL  -> Cargo & Logistical Support VTOL

So for our Seeker Dropship with 40 light vehicle bays, for the sake of simplicity we'll take an even split: 10 of each.  (We probably wouldn't actually do that so evenly, but it's just for example)

Each of these airframes presumably fulfill a specific niche that, without them, the task force would perform much more poorly.  At least, presumably that's the case: If one of the vehicles or roles turned out to be not all that important after all, why bother bringing it in the first place?  So you don't want to run out of such vehicles in the field, as that would presumably cripple your performance, so we're going to want to stow additional VTOLs in reserve.  Let's say we decide to store a decent chunk of VTOLs in the cargo for our reserves, 5 airframes each, 20 airframes total: 375 tons worth of VTOLs alone.  Only 116 tons are left on the Dropship for other stuff like consumables and spare parts.

Alternatively, I may be able to effectively replicate the lighter end roles into one 11-ton SFE Omni-VTOL with 3-4 tons of pod space and 2 variants, and I could replicate the bigger two into one 24-ton SFE Omni-VTOL with 8-9 tons of pod space and 2 variants, with no real loss in tactical effectiveness.

The alternative Battalion now has 20 light Omnis (10 in a scout configuration, 10 in a slick/snake) and 20 heavy Omnis (10 in a slick/snake configuration, 10 as logistics) in the vehicle bays, and 10/10 "naked" frames in reserve + 5 omni kits for each role, taking up 350 tons and leaving 141 tons to spare, more than the non-omni force.

Currently, the alternative Battalion is actually quite similar to the Standard Vehicle version, and would perform quite similarly on the tactical level.  However, it already has a large advantage at the strategic level, as repairs, replacements, and rearming (and overall combat readiness) is much quicker than the conventional force.  The price for this is approximately 25% extra up front for the VTOL component of the force.  Considering the cost of the Seeker dropship and its parent Jumpship or Warship, that price hike is just a drop in the bucket.

However, the Omni's reserves are actually over-stocked with airframes.  Originally we were operating on the assumption of "one-bird one-frame" and stocked the reserves accordingly.  What's the probability that we lose both 5 recon birds and 5 light slicks?  What about losing and needing both 5 combat birds and transport birds?  Depending on the scenario, our recon birds may suffer or less from attrition than the Light Slicks.  Since both are using the same frame, we can often get away with reducing the amount of frames we have in reserves while having the same number of pod kits.  Say, reduce both the light and heavy VTOL reserves by 2 frames, so 8 light reserve frames are sharing between 5 recon packages and 5 slick packages, and 8 heavy frames share between 5 transport packages and 5 snake/slick packages.  This saves about 50 extra tons, some more money, and you'll perform the same as a unit with slightly more reserve frames unless you're in the extremely unlikely scenario of requiring both 4-5 of Role A and 5 of role B from reserves, for the same frame, at the same time.  (If you require more than 5 frames at the same time, both the Omni battalion and the Standard battalion are up a creek).

Alternatively, you could go the other way.  Do you expect in advance from experience that the heavy VTOL will likely take more casualties in the Slick/Snake role than in the Transport role?  The conventional force would have to allocate the full weight of the VTOLs to provide reserve capacity.  It often suffices to simply allocate a few more omni-pod kits for the existing Omni Fleet, which is a far less weight and cost intensive way to get the reserve capacity needed.  Adding 2 more 8-9 ton heavy Slick/Snake kits is much easier than adding 2 more entire frames, and works just as fine as long as both the Transport and Slick/Snake reserves do not get maximally stressed out at the same time.

Or perhaps you take out your VTOL battalion and- oops, it turns out having a VTOL that's capable of long-range harassing fire is pretty vital!  If your force is a standard force, you have to figure out how you want to reorganize your battalion to fit long-ranged firepower, either develop a new design or import an existing one (heavy and more expensive approach), or just ship the weapons and refit an existing one (almost certainly going to be maintenance level or worse, so time-consuming and error-prone).  If it's an Omni-VTOL, put some PPCs or ERLLs in a pod, ship the pods, plop the pod on the Heavy chassis, and enjoy.  All the pod kits you need for the Omni Battalion's conversion can likely be carried by only 1 or 2 Small Craft (K-1 Dropshuttles) and the conversion can be done in a trivial amount of time, which is much better than the options that the Standard battalion has available.

Or maybe your faction's supply lines have started producing more advanced weapons and equipment.  Now that we're producing a glut of IS ER Medium Lasers, so we can upgrade our regular Mediums to the new standard.  It's not terribly difficult for a standard vehicle, but omni VTOLs can do the swap faster nonetheless.  A few years later, our faction is now producing much more Battle Armor, and they want to refit the Battalions with IS Standards instead of Jump Infantry.  Well, our infantry bays are too small for the full squad, so we'll either have to develop, ship and deploy yet another specialist design specifically for BA or our standard VTOL battalion is going to be unavailable as they perform the maintenance-grade (or worse) upgrade on our existing slicks.  Omnis?  Ship a few new pod kits in a Dropshuttle or 2, and plop them in.  We're ready to roll out.

Not that it pertains to war, but the ability to convert a portion of your VTOL fleet during peace-time to respond to disasters in under an hour is handy.  Throw a few cheap kits in a garrison and your helicopters can convert for aerial firefighting, post-disaster SAR, or MEDEVAC in under an hour, as the need presents itself.  There'll presumably also be dedicated civillian choppers for that, but as we know local governments are always perfectly prepared for any such contigency...  Well, maybe not.

Or there's other uses.  An omni-VTOL can be converted to assist with infrastructure projects with little hassle, and could supplement or even replace dedicated construction VTOLs.  There's usually some government project that needs help erecting, some power lines or transmission towers needing built or replaced, or crops needing dusted, high-speed hovercraft pursuits being monitored (though if you're feeling less than charitable I suppose you could also omni-mount a laser for "enforcement").  Unless the typical service life of your VTOLs is "Build it->Deploy it->Lose it," (in which case the only your VTOLs are helping is your MIC and your military opponents,) the omni-VTOL can (and should) easily pay off its initial premium simply by contributing to the nation's economy during times of (relative) peace.  So much for the expense argument.

So that's my excessively wordy essay in defense of omni-VTOLs.

[Cannonshop]

I'm sure omnis start to look like a logistical pain in the arse if you're trying to produce enough omni-pods to have every single one of your airframes have access to every single omni-configuration at all times.

I'm not sure why you would even try to do that.  There's not going to be a situation where your entire Great House military needs all of their Omni-VTOLs converted to scouts now.  You don't need to have a 1-to-1 chopper-to-recon kit ratio any more than you need to have a 1-to-1

For demonstration's sake, let's make a theoretical VTOL battalion out of a Seeker Dropship.  Someone decides it needs 4 different VTOL types to perform its duties, for whatever reason:

10 ton Sprint Scout Helicopter (Laser) -> Recon
10 ton Ripper Infantry Transport (Standard) -> Light Slick/Snake
25 ton Cavalry Attack Helicopter (Infantry) -> Heavy Slick/Snake
30 ton Cobra Transport VTOL  -> Cargo & Logistical Support VTOL

So for our Seeker Dropship with 40 light vehicle bays, for the sake of simplicity we'll take an even split: 10 of each.  (We probably wouldn't actually do that so evenly, but it's just for example)

Each of these airframes presumably fulfill a specific niche that, without them, the task force would perform much more poorly.  At least, presumably that's the case: If one of the vehicles or roles turned out to be not all that important after all, why bother bringing it in the first place?  So you don't want to run out of such vehicles in the field, as that would presumably cripple your performance, so we're going to want to stow additional VTOLs in reserve.  Let's say we decide to store a decent chunk of VTOLs in the cargo for our reserves, 5 airframes each, 20 airframes total: 375 tons worth of VTOLs alone.  Only 116 tons are left on the Dropship for other stuff like consumables and spare parts.

Alternatively, I may be able to effectively replicate the lighter end roles into one 11-ton SFE Omni-VTOL with 3-4 tons of pod space and 2 variants, and I could replicate the bigger two into one 24-ton SFE Omni-VTOL with 8-9 tons of pod space and 2 variants, with no real loss in tactical effectiveness.

The alternative Battalion now has 20 light Omnis (10 in a scout configuration, 10 in a slick/snake) and 20 heavy Omnis (10 in a slick/snake configuration, 10 as logistics) in the vehicle bays, and 10/10 "naked" frames in reserve + 5 omni kits for each role, taking up 350 tons and leaving 141 tons to spare, more than the non-omni force.

Currently, the alternative Battalion is actually quite similar to the Standard Vehicle version, and would perform quite similarly on the tactical level.  However, it already has a large advantage at the strategic level, as repairs, replacements, and rearming (and overall combat readiness) is much quicker than the conventional force.  The price for this is approximately 25% extra up front for the VTOL component of the force.  Considering the cost of the Seeker dropship and its parent Jumpship or Warship, that price hike is just a drop in the bucket.

However, the Omni's reserves are actually over-stocked with airframes.  Originally we were operating on the assumption of "one-bird one-frame" and stocked the reserves accordingly.  What's the probability that we lose both 5 recon birds and 5 light slicks?  What about losing and needing both 5 combat birds and transport birds?  Depending on the scenario, our recon birds may suffer or less from attrition than the Light Slicks.  Since both are using the same frame, we can often get away with reducing the amount of frames we have in reserves while having the same number of pod kits.  Say, reduce both the light and heavy VTOL reserves by 2 frames, so 8 light reserve frames are sharing between 5 recon packages and 5 slick packages, and 8 heavy frames share between 5 transport packages and 5 snake/slick packages.  This saves about 50 extra tons, some more money, and you'll perform the same as a unit with slightly more reserve frames unless you're in the extremely unlikely scenario of requiring both 4-5 of Role A and 5 of role B from reserves, for the same frame, at the same time.  (If you require more than 5 frames at the same time, both the Omni battalion and the Standard battalion are up a creek).

Alternatively, you could go the other way.  Do you expect in advance from experience that the heavy VTOL will likely take more casualties in the Slick/Snake role than in the Transport role?  The conventional force would have to allocate the full weight of the VTOLs to provide reserve capacity.  It often suffices to simply allocate a few more omni-pod kits for the existing Omni Fleet, which is a far less weight and cost intensive way to get the reserve capacity needed.  Adding 2 more 8-9 ton heavy Slick/Snake kits is much easier than adding 2 more entire frames, and works just as fine as long as both the Transport and Slick/Snake reserves do not get maximally stressed out at the same time.

Or perhaps you take out your VTOL battalion and- oops, it turns out having a VTOL that's capable of long-range harassing fire is pretty vital!  If your force is a standard force, you have to figure out how you want to reorganize your battalion to fit long-ranged firepower, either develop a new design or import an existing one (heavy and more expensive approach), or just ship the weapons and refit an existing one (almost certainly going to be maintenance level or worse, so time-consuming and error-prone).  If it's an Omni-VTOL, put some PPCs or ERLLs in a pod, ship the pods, plop the pod on the Heavy chassis, and enjoy.  All the pod kits you need for the Omni Battalion's conversion can likely be carried by only 1 or 2 Small Craft (K-1 Dropshuttles) and the conversion can be done in a trivial amount of time, which is much better than the options that the Standard battalion has available.

Or maybe your faction's supply lines have started producing more advanced weapons and equipment.  Now that we're producing a glut of IS ER Medium Lasers, so we can upgrade our regular Mediums to the new standard.  It's not terribly difficult for a standard vehicle, but omni VTOLs can do the swap faster nonetheless.  A few years later, our faction is now producing much more Battle Armor, and they want to refit the Battalions with IS Standards instead of Jump Infantry.  Well, our infantry bays are too small for the full squad, so we'll either have to develop, ship and deploy yet another specialist design specifically for BA or our standard VTOL battalion is going to be unavailable as they perform the maintenance-grade (or worse) upgrade on our existing slicks.  Omnis?  Ship a few new pod kits in a Dropshuttle or 2, and plop them in.  We're ready to roll out.

Not that it pertains to war, but the ability to convert a portion of your VTOL fleet during peace-time to respond to disasters in under an hour is handy.  Throw a few cheap kits in a garrison and your helicopters can convert for aerial firefighting, post-disaster SAR, or MEDEVAC in under an hour, as the need presents itself.  There'll presumably also be dedicated civillian choppers for that, but as we know local governments are always perfectly prepared for any such contigency...  Well, maybe not.

Or there's other uses.  An omni-VTOL can be converted to assist with infrastructure projects with little hassle, and could supplement or even replace dedicated construction VTOLs.  There's usually some government project that needs help erecting, some power lines or transmission towers needing built or replaced, or crops needing dusted, high-speed hovercraft pursuits being monitored (though if you're feeling less than charitable I suppose you could also omni-mount a laser for "enforcement").  Unless the typical service life of your VTOLs is "Build it->Deploy it->Lose it," (in which case the only your VTOLs are helping is your MIC and your military opponents,) the omni-VTOL can (and should) easily pay off its initial premium simply by contributing to the nation's economy during times of (relative) peace.  So much for the expense argument.

So that's my excessively wordy essay in defense of omni-VTOLs.

These are VTOLs, replacement airframes are a hell of a lot more likely than opportunities to exhaust your omni-pods.  Unless the REST of your forces are also Omni-equipped, you're going to be lugging those extra pods on fewer airframes (and still losing as many airframes, only now you've got excess inventory to lug around or have to destroy in place.)

Further, they're not like the Timber Wolf or Summoner-an omni might excel in a single role (that could be done better or cheaper by a fixed unit), but it's going to be at best mediocre in the other roles (and barely mediocre in most of them.)

the only way around it, is to build one that makes it a cheaper buy to get a slightly heavier 'mech, or another type of vehicle entirely.

I'ts one of those things where yes, you CAN build it...but...unless you're the Republic of the Sphere with operations siphoning half the GDP from the rest of the Inner Sphere plus getting all the WoB tech, plus getting all the Clantech, plus having no tech restrictions whatsoever, it's probably giong to be too expensive to procure, maintain, or deploy.

[Maingunnery]

These are VTOLs, replacement airframes are a hell of a lot more likely than opportunities to exhaust your omni-pods.  Unless the REST of your forces are also Omni-equipped, you're going to be lugging those extra pods on fewer airframes (and still losing as many airframes, only now you've got excess inventory to lug around or have to destroy in place.)

I think that we can assume that any faction that invest in OmniVTOLs will have frontline forces with very high OMNI %. And when you have a high Omni situation then having more omnis will actually help common parts situation. 

After all this discussion I believe that almost every role can be done by two OmniVTOLs (heavy lift and high speed).

I'ts one of those things where yes, you CAN build it...but...unless you're the Republic of the Sphere with operations siphoning half the GDP from the rest of the Inner Sphere plus getting all the WoB tech, plus getting all the Clantech, plus having no tech restrictions whatsoever, it's probably giong to be too expensive to procure, maintain, or deploy.

Not very believable, we have now VTOLs such as the Warrior S-9 or the DI Multipurpose Light VTOL, spending a bit of money isn't an issue.

[Getz]

I consider the ultimate point of running an omni platform for all the assorted roles you might need such a platform to fulfill to be the logistical benefits you get, since you only have to stock spare parts for one unique chassis, as opposed to working with multiple chassis that draw from mutually-exclusive parts bins.

So give me an Omni-VTOL instead of multiple specialist designs, so I can streamline the paperwork my logistics people have to deal with.

This.  This exactly.

Also what Retry said, but his post is a bit long for quoting.

On the other hand:

I think you're looking at the wrong economic drivers myself.

On either offense, or defense, a VTOL is a sharply lifespan limited asset.

I think this says more about your own tactical skill than any problem with VTOLs.  I rarely lose VTOLs on the tabletop because I don't use them recklessly.  If you are cautious and patient, any VTOL that has a sensible amount of armour should be able to survive a typical battle - although certainly there are machines like the Peregrine that are just hopeless because they can't survive pretty much any kind of lucky hit.

Obviously, you will lose some of them sometimes - you opponent has some say in the matter after all - but if you're losing most of the VTOLs you commit every battle then you're either using too many of the designs that are simply bad or you aren't using them well.

To illustrate my point, in a campaign I played a couple of years ago, I had a lance of Vectors and I only lost one throughout the entire campaign, despite them taking part in six to ten battles (I forget exactly, but it was at least six battles and probably two or three more).

Think of it this way, let's use your 25 ton VTOL and assume you can omni-pod for 4 or more mission profiles.

1 VTOL at 25 tons with 11.5 tons of pod space.

11.5 tons for mission profile A
11.5 tons for mission profile B
11.5 tons for mission profile C
11.5 tons for mission profile D

NOTE: "Pod Weight" doesn't include ammo on omnis.  It doesn't include the actual infantrymen either.  It's the mass/weight of the airframe plus the pods carrying weapons/hardware.

First of all, I know very well how omni-pods work and I'll thank you not the be so condescending.

Secondly, you should pay closer attention to what I actually said.  I pointed out that a 25 ton 11/17 chassis would have 11.5 tons of war load, so weaponry and armour combined.  I suggested that my hypothetical Omni-VTOL would have three and a half tons of armour and eight tons of pod space.

However, you're assuming that every VTOL must have it's own special set of all the components required to assemble every possible configuration.  There is no reason this must be the case.  In fact, it is far more likely that there would be a common pool of Omni-pods that can be shared across every Omni-mech and Omni-vehicle in the battle group.

Note 2: specialists tend to vary in weight.

Says who?  There are certain optimal weights for specific speeds, but I see no requirements beyond a generic light weight "fast" chassis for scouts and fast transport and a generic heavy weight "slow chassis" for gunships and heavy transport.

Note 3: while your OmniVTOL is being a gunship, it's not being a recon bird, slick, SAR, or different kind of gunship.  while it's doing any role, you've still got 34.5 tons of unused equipment sitting in the dugout/depot/airbase/FOB instead of supporting your other units.

Again, your vision of how Omni logistics must work is not the only or even the best way of doing things.  You have deliberately constructed a worst case strawman scenario.  I could just as readily point out that when my Gunship is airborne, there's 75 tons of unused recon and transport birds sitting on the pan.  Also, if I have these extra VTOLs, presumably I will also want crews for them so they can all be airborne at the same time.  Transporting people across interstellar space is far harder than transporting equipment and is the main reason why Battlemechs are preferred over tanks.  Omni-Vehicles similarly allow me to reduce the number of personnel I need to keep fed, watered and breathing as I ship them through space for months at a time without sacrificing capability.

VTOLs are lifespan limited-a lot of things in the "OMNI" period are made to kill them pretty easily.  (LBX's, later HAGs etc.)  that means you're carrying a lot of equipment that the odds are good, won't be used, but still has to be maintained and transported.

As I say, if you lose so many VTOLs, that's on you - not the concept.

The other side of it: Standard VTOLs.

if  your cargo mass-budget/logistics budget allocates 69.5 (seventy) tons of equipment marked "VTOL", you can either run 1 Omnivtol with 44.5 tons of gear, or, you can run anywhere from a short lance to a demicompany, depending on the mass of the other specialists.

25 ton gunship
25 ton gunship
10 ton slick/scout
5 ton scout/liaison

Or:
30 ton transport (Karnov)
25 ton gunship
5 ton scout,
5 ton scout.

Or:
25 ton gunship
15 ton scout
15 ton scout
5 ton scout

and so on.

for the mass fraction to carry a lance of 25 ton Omnis with 11.5 tons of pods each, you can outfit a generally more-capable force of VTOL craft potentially up to the scale of a short battalion.  that's more coverage, in case you're interested, with more missions going on at the same time, which translates into better support for your 'mech, tank, and infantry forces.  Your limitation ends up being life-support and paycheques.

Again, your maths is out because you've assumed 11.5 tons of pod space, not 8, because you didn't read my post correctly - and again, your imaginings of Omni-logistics are a carefully constructed strawman that makes the worst possible case for the Omni-VTOLs and there is no reason it needs to be done the way you seem to be imagining it.  Retry has made a far more compelling case about than I could.

And I repeat, the hardest thing of all to ship through space is living, breathing people.  Omni-vehicles permit you to do more with fewer personnel, and in the reality of the Battletech universe shipping all those VTOLs and their crew through space is going to require more dropships, and by extension more jumpships, costing you far more than a measly 25% increase on the base cost of a VTOL.

Now, for a Planetary Defence Militia, your logic might apply, but I explicitly pointed out from the first that Omni technology makes the most sense for interplanetary offensive operations.

[Terrace]

Secondly, you should pay closer attention to what I actually said.  I pointed out that a 25 ton 11/17 chassis would have 11.5 tons of war load, so weaponry and armour combined.  I suggested that my hypothetical Omni-VTOL would have three and a half tons of armour and eight tons of pod space.

Ok, what you just said about eight tons of podspace put me in the mind of a trio of Battle Armor-transport configurations, each meant for BA squads of different weight classes. The Assault BA config would be unarmed, with the entirety of the podspace being devoted to transporting the squad. The Heavy BA config would have a pair of Medium Lasers for armament, with a six-ton infantry compartment. The Medium BA config would look identical to the Heavy, but the lasers would be Medium Pulse Lasers, taking up another two tons, with transport space for a medium BA squad.

[Retry]

Also what Retry said, but his post is a bit long for quoting.

I went in expecting to write a few paragraphs and come out with a novella.  Happens way more often than you'd expect...

I think this says more about your own tactical skill than any problem with VTOLs.  I rarely lose VTOLs on the tabletop because I don't use them recklessly.  If you are cautious and patient, any VTOL that has a sensible amount of armour should be able to survive a typical battle - although certainly there are machines like the Peregrine that are just hopeless because they can't survive pretty much any kind of lucky hit.

Obviously, you will lose some of them sometimes - you opponent has some say in the matter after all - but if you're losing most of the VTOLs you commit every battle then you're either using too many of the designs that are simply bad or you aren't using them well.

Agreed.  If you're starting to take rotor fire (or any fire, depending on how well armored the machine is) you pull back, repair the old airframe and get out one of the reserves.  As long as you don't actively try to bash your VTOL lances up close against Aesirs and pull back when you need to, your pilots tend to come back home.

[Colt Ward]

VTOLs are not that fragile any more in taking damage or in their movement.  You can absolutely safely flank IF you plan the move out properly- IE make the turn early in the movement and allow for max failure.  If you move 4 hexes and then turn the maximum, no matter Margin of Failure, you can sideslip would be 3 hexes per TW pg 67.  If you make that turn with a 3 hex allowance then it is a 'safe' turn no matter what and all you would get is possibly some bonus hexes moved.  Combined with the change to rotors reduces the chances of catastrophic loss of a VTOL even if it might be considered a 'mission kill' by forcing it to withdraw.

Omnis make sense for frontline offensive formations period, be they mechs, armor or airframes.  We are not talking about a airframe being sent to planetary militia tier equipped formations- unless its a long way down the road.  The for a frontline formation strategic flexibility of allowing a single unit to adjust to projected tactical requirements and ability to rapidly repair damaged units by replacing damaged pods has been stated.  Getz, Terrace and others mentioned the availability of a common pool of pods and I think that has been understated in what it means for a formation and what it does for your logistics.  When a formation goes on the offensive it is already going to drag along as much in the way of logistics it can get, and functionally there is no difference for logistics in a ERPPC or ECM that is podded or not podded for the purposes of stashing it somewhere in the dropship.  It does take time to put a weapon or system into a pod (or to take it out.  For example you can salvage a Clan ERLL off a Ares medium tank, load it in a IS made pod, then place it on a Black Hawk KU for one mission, and then strip it off to make it a Prime while placing the cERLL on a Omni VTOL that will snipe in support of a push.  Yes, if things get tight a Omni VTOL might be sent out with a sub-optimal load or fitted out for a support role when you might prefer a gunship b/c you have a lack of 'gun' pods . . . but a Hawk Moth is just as likely to have its LGR stripped to go on a mech if there are no functional replacements for a mech or higher value tank (Moltke M1) just like SFE powered tanks were converted to ICE in the later Succession Wars to keep more mechs functioning.  All a Omni VTOL means in that situation is I am more likely to get better value than a toothless Hawk Moth would when it loses its main (only) gun.  Yeah, Omni- mechs, ASF, and armor are more likely to have first call on combat/gun pods than VTOLs but its not unique to a piece of equipment just b/c its Omni.


Terrace- the BA VTOL options you were suggesting would be using the TacOps BA weight rule.  If its not in play than a assault suit weighs in at a single ton just the same as the PA(L) suits.