COACC

[rhoneycutt]

If one assumes that a Rampart is limited to 6G's, and that means turning and manuevering at 6G's, then it would be possible for a plane to outmanuever it. A plane can turn tighter ( more than 6G's..by at least half again ) and pull up more sharply. In atmosphere, the starfighter's speed would be limited by aero-friction and heating and it might not be tailored as closely, aerodynamic-wise, to be as streamlined. Missles could take it out. Tech 9 or 10 aircraft might be nasty for a starfighter to dogfight in an atmosphere.

I avoid grav, IMTU, by making it use more power. power used=altitude*mass*g*eff and it produces no actual thrust....in such an enviroment, COAAC makes a bit more sense.

 

[Ivanovich]

As far as the idea of running a merc air unit goes, COACC always struck me as an air supplement to CT's LBB4 (Mercenary) that, by the time it went into production, had to be grafted into MT. Given the situations and pay rates for mercenary tickets listed in Book 4, a relatively low tech squadron could turn a profit.

I ran a (very, very) rough calculation on squadron startup & operating costs for TL 6-7 aircraft based on the TO&E listed in COACC. While I'm sure that I overlooked some things, I figure that you could field a squadron for ~MCr 10, and maintain it in the field for ~1 MCr per month, not including munitions expended or fuel costs--I presume that provision for POL & munitions support will be negotiated by the interested parties, otherwise bombs alone can run to 5 MCr per week easily.

The reasons that I went for the lower tech airframes were:
1) Lower maintenance & support costs;
2) Lower infrastructure requirements (unimproved air strips);
3) Better payload/mass and loiter times than high performance airframes;
4) Better chance of local tech support on frontier worlds--where most mercs seem to be employed.

As far as the shipping issues go, a light & lean attack squadron could ship in as little as 1000 dTons, which I figure can't be more than a heavily reinforced mechanized batallion with all of its heavy AFVs and support units....


On the other hand, COACC can serve to flesh out a world/system under seige in MT, too. Enemy fleets show up in-system, and all manner of skilled people may get pressed into service in defense of home & hearth. This can actually serve as an interesting intro/transition into the Rebellion, or springboard for a new campaign. If a party can't decide who to support, having a planet blasted out from under them--especially after a valiant-but-doomed military campaign--will definitely give them someone to oppose!

 

[Ivanovich]

As far as the idea of running a merc air unit goes, COACC always struck me as an air supplement to CT's LBB4 (Mercenary) that, by the time it went into production, had to be grafted into MT. Given the situations and pay rates for mercenary tickets listed in Book 4, a relatively low tech squadron could turn a profit.

I ran a (very, very) rough calculation on squadron startup & operating costs for TL 6-7 aircraft based on the TO&E listed in COACC. While I'm sure that I overlooked some things, I figure that you could field a squadron for ~MCr 10, and maintain it in the field for ~1 MCr per month, not including munitions expended or fuel costs--I presume that provision for POL & munitions support will be negotiated by the interested parties, otherwise bombs alone can run to 5 MCr per week easily.

The reasons that I went for the lower tech airframes were:
1) Lower maintenance & support costs;
2) Lower infrastructure requirements (unimproved air strips);
3) Better payload/mass and loiter times than high performance airframes;
4) Better chance of local tech support on frontier worlds--where most mercs seem to be employed.

As far as the shipping issues go, a light & lean attack squadron could ship in as little as 1000 dTons, which I figure can't be more than a heavily reinforced mechanized batallion with all of its heavy AFVs and support units....


On the other hand, COACC can serve to flesh out a world/system under seige in MT, too. Enemy fleets show up in-system, and all manner of skilled people may get pressed into service in defense of home & hearth. This can actually serve as an interesting intro/transition into the Rebellion, or springboard for a new campaign. If a party can't decide who to support, having a planet blasted out from under them--especially after a valiant-but-doomed military campaign--will definitely give them someone to oppose!

 

[Ivanovich]

As far as the idea of running a merc air unit goes, COACC always struck me as an air supplement to CT's LBB4 (Mercenary) that, by the time it went into production, had to be grafted into MT. Given the situations and pay rates for mercenary tickets listed in Book 4, a relatively low tech squadron could turn a profit.

I ran a (very, very) rough calculation on squadron startup & operating costs for TL 6-7 aircraft based on the TO&E listed in COACC. While I'm sure that I overlooked some things, I figure that you could field a squadron for ~MCr 10, and maintain it in the field for ~1 MCr per month, not including munitions expended or fuel costs--I presume that provision for POL & munitions support will be negotiated by the interested parties, otherwise bombs alone can run to 5 MCr per week easily.

The reasons that I went for the lower tech airframes were:
1) Lower maintenance & support costs;
2) Lower infrastructure requirements (unimproved air strips);
3) Better payload/mass and loiter times than high performance airframes;
4) Better chance of local tech support on frontier worlds--where most mercs seem to be employed.

As far as the shipping issues go, a light & lean attack squadron could ship in as little as 1000 dTons, which I figure can't be more than a heavily reinforced mechanized batallion with all of its heavy AFVs and support units....


On the other hand, COACC can serve to flesh out a world/system under seige in MT, too. Enemy fleets show up in-system, and all manner of skilled people may get pressed into service in defense of home & hearth. This can actually serve as an interesting intro/transition into the Rebellion, or springboard for a new campaign. If a party can't decide who to support, having a planet blasted out from under them--especially after a valiant-but-doomed military campaign--will definitely give them someone to oppose!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Right on, Shere Khan! An F-14 would kick a spacecraft's --- in atmosphere, given the assumptions about G-limits.

As far as putting a grav unit on an airplane, Reg ... absolutely! Now you have VTOL capability with no complicated vectoring of thrust, hover capability for attacks (and forward observation), PLUS the agility and maneuverability that aerodynamics gives you! (And, if you think the idea of slewing your wings forward, popping the speed brake, and going to idle is a cool maneuver, try throwing in the ability to go (almost) straight up without changing your angle of attack!) And, BTW, I would leave the jet engines on - g-thrust ain't gonna give you 9 G's!

The biggest problem comes with: Who needs an air force when you can do close air support from orbit with good enough sensors and weapons? Your air defense can be done the same way. Transport doesn't need 6+ G's and recon can be done with grav platforms or orbital sensors.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Right on, Shere Khan! An F-14 would kick a spacecraft's --- in atmosphere, given the assumptions about G-limits.

As far as putting a grav unit on an airplane, Reg ... absolutely! Now you have VTOL capability with no complicated vectoring of thrust, hover capability for attacks (and forward observation), PLUS the agility and maneuverability that aerodynamics gives you! (And, if you think the idea of slewing your wings forward, popping the speed brake, and going to idle is a cool maneuver, try throwing in the ability to go (almost) straight up without changing your angle of attack!) And, BTW, I would leave the jet engines on - g-thrust ain't gonna give you 9 G's!

The biggest problem comes with: Who needs an air force when you can do close air support from orbit with good enough sensors and weapons? Your air defense can be done the same way. Transport doesn't need 6+ G's and recon can be done with grav platforms or orbital sensors.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Right on, Shere Khan! An F-14 would kick a spacecraft's --- in atmosphere, given the assumptions about G-limits.

As far as putting a grav unit on an airplane, Reg ... absolutely! Now you have VTOL capability with no complicated vectoring of thrust, hover capability for attacks (and forward observation), PLUS the agility and maneuverability that aerodynamics gives you! (And, if you think the idea of slewing your wings forward, popping the speed brake, and going to idle is a cool maneuver, try throwing in the ability to go (almost) straight up without changing your angle of attack!) And, BTW, I would leave the jet engines on - g-thrust ain't gonna give you 9 G's!

The biggest problem comes with: Who needs an air force when you can do close air support from orbit with good enough sensors and weapons? Your air defense can be done the same way. Transport doesn't need 6+ G's and recon can be done with grav platforms or orbital sensors.

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry, but the wrong assumptions about G limits have been made here

First, the starfighter can accelerate in a straight line at 6G, an F14 can't match that.

Second, the starfighter is equipped with acceleration compensators which "negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces", so the pilot of the starfighter can pull much heavier G turns and not even need to strain.

Finally the starfighter can mount a laser or rapid fire energy weapon for point defence against missiles.

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry, but the wrong assumptions about G limits have been made here

First, the starfighter can accelerate in a straight line at 6G, an F14 can't match that.

Second, the starfighter is equipped with acceleration compensators which "negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces", so the pilot of the starfighter can pull much heavier G turns and not even need to strain.

Finally the starfighter can mount a laser or rapid fire energy weapon for point defence against missiles.

 

[mike wightman]

Sorry, but the wrong assumptions about G limits have been made here

First, the starfighter can accelerate in a straight line at 6G, an F14 can't match that.

Second, the starfighter is equipped with acceleration compensators which "negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces", so the pilot of the starfighter can pull much heavier G turns and not even need to strain.

Finally the starfighter can mount a laser or rapid fire energy weapon for point defence against missiles.

 

[fredofmars]

IMTU, the starfighter using a gravity based drive can change it's vector by 6G (assuming it has that level of drive). A TL7 jet fighter might be able to generate _thrust_ at somewhat over 1G, but might be able to use aerodynamic forces to change vector at 9+G. Thus the TL7 jet fighter might be able to out-turn the starfighter, but could not out-run it.
Again IMTU, COACC forces tend to use thrust based propulsion and airframe hulls, where naval forces (the IN for ex.) would use gravitic based propulsion (which maxes at 6G) and streamlined hulls.

 

[fredofmars]

IMTU, the starfighter using a gravity based drive can change it's vector by 6G (assuming it has that level of drive). A TL7 jet fighter might be able to generate _thrust_ at somewhat over 1G, but might be able to use aerodynamic forces to change vector at 9+G. Thus the TL7 jet fighter might be able to out-turn the starfighter, but could not out-run it.
Again IMTU, COACC forces tend to use thrust based propulsion and airframe hulls, where naval forces (the IN for ex.) would use gravitic based propulsion (which maxes at 6G) and streamlined hulls.

 

[fredofmars]

IMTU, the starfighter using a gravity based drive can change it's vector by 6G (assuming it has that level of drive). A TL7 jet fighter might be able to generate _thrust_ at somewhat over 1G, but might be able to use aerodynamic forces to change vector at 9+G. Thus the TL7 jet fighter might be able to out-turn the starfighter, but could not out-run it.
Again IMTU, COACC forces tend to use thrust based propulsion and airframe hulls, where naval forces (the IN for ex.) would use gravitic based propulsion (which maxes at 6G) and streamlined hulls.

 

[Tobias]

IMTU, COACC aircraft have quite a role to play until at TL 11, Thruster-plate-equipped fighters and gunboats (supported by conventional grav propulsion and lifting surfaces) take over. Even then, reaction-based thrust agencies can continue to be used for some applications (you can reach very high acceleration ratings by using fusion rockets, as opposed to grav thrusters, which are limited to 6 Gs.)

I agree that the lack of actual Science Fiction designs is disappointing. I designed a few orbital fighters, taking some assumptions from the TL 10 Airlines (hydrogen-burning turbofans with VTOL capacity + fusion rocket.)

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

IMTU, COACC aircraft have quite a role to play until at TL 11, Thruster-plate-equipped fighters and gunboats (supported by conventional grav propulsion and lifting surfaces) take over. Even then, reaction-based thrust agencies can continue to be used for some applications (you can reach very high acceleration ratings by using fusion rockets, as opposed to grav thrusters, which are limited to 6 Gs.)

I agree that the lack of actual Science Fiction designs is disappointing. I designed a few orbital fighters, taking some assumptions from the TL 10 Airlines (hydrogen-burning turbofans with VTOL capacity + fusion rocket.)

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Tobias]

IMTU, COACC aircraft have quite a role to play until at TL 11, Thruster-plate-equipped fighters and gunboats (supported by conventional grav propulsion and lifting surfaces) take over. Even then, reaction-based thrust agencies can continue to be used for some applications (you can reach very high acceleration ratings by using fusion rockets, as opposed to grav thrusters, which are limited to 6 Gs.)

I agree that the lack of actual Science Fiction designs is disappointing. I designed a few orbital fighters, taking some assumptions from the TL 10 Airlines (hydrogen-burning turbofans with VTOL capacity + fusion rocket.)

Regards,

Tobias

 

[rhoneycutt]

I stand by my assumptions as the spacefighter's frame would only be stressed to handle 6 g's regardless of direction. Yes, the spacefighter would beat it on speed, but not in a turning game, whether or not the pilot feels anything ( IMTU, he would. Grav tech is severely limited for the sake of play balance. Grav tech makes planes, trains and cars and every other mode of transport worthless....where's the fun in that?)

As I recall, Ramparts ( hi -tech first rate example? ) have fixed forward triple lasers ...fixed. I will never understand why people are so gung-ho for awesome point defense turrets when it makes so many exciting actions moot.

a stomach churning dogfight in a canyon and over a desert floor between a cavalier turbo mustang-3 and a westland wyrven is cool. Too bad many people's view of things prevents PC's from seeing that sort of thing. just my opinion

 

[rhoneycutt]

I stand by my assumptions as the spacefighter's frame would only be stressed to handle 6 g's regardless of direction. Yes, the spacefighter would beat it on speed, but not in a turning game, whether or not the pilot feels anything ( IMTU, he would. Grav tech is severely limited for the sake of play balance. Grav tech makes planes, trains and cars and every other mode of transport worthless....where's the fun in that?)

As I recall, Ramparts ( hi -tech first rate example? ) have fixed forward triple lasers ...fixed. I will never understand why people are so gung-ho for awesome point defense turrets when it makes so many exciting actions moot.

a stomach churning dogfight in a canyon and over a desert floor between a cavalier turbo mustang-3 and a westland wyrven is cool. Too bad many people's view of things prevents PC's from seeing that sort of thing. just my opinion

 

[rhoneycutt]

I stand by my assumptions as the spacefighter's frame would only be stressed to handle 6 g's regardless of direction. Yes, the spacefighter would beat it on speed, but not in a turning game, whether or not the pilot feels anything ( IMTU, he would. Grav tech is severely limited for the sake of play balance. Grav tech makes planes, trains and cars and every other mode of transport worthless....where's the fun in that?)

As I recall, Ramparts ( hi -tech first rate example? ) have fixed forward triple lasers ...fixed. I will never understand why people are so gung-ho for awesome point defense turrets when it makes so many exciting actions moot.

a stomach churning dogfight in a canyon and over a desert floor between a cavalier turbo mustang-3 and a westland wyrven is cool. Too bad many people's view of things prevents PC's from seeing that sort of thing. just my opinion

 

[Starviking]

Heh! Go Wyrven! One of my all-time favourite prop planes.

As for COACC aircraft - perhaps hi-tech versions will have thruster plates and an airframe hull - 6G acceleration and 9G+ turns.

On an unrelated note, I think there was a mercenary ticket in the old JTAS that featured Ramparts vs. F-14 type a/c...

Starviking