Building a "strategic bomber" unit

[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.