Re: [GZG] Mixed Role Fighters (design system)

At 5:11 PM -0400 4/18/09, Doc wrote:
>I have a set of rules for designing fighters, 
>and it included allowing you to make these Mixed 
>Roles Fighters, and will allow U to build all of 
>the stock GZG fighter types at right cost.  You 
>find that more you squeeze in to a fighter, it 
>will cost you much in points, and you still find 
>they die just as fast a stock fighters.
><http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/modular%20Fighter%20Designs.pd
f>http://www.freewebs.com/heavymetaldrake/modular 
>Fighter Designs.pdf
>

So, just for the sake of argument, what if you 
have a fighter system that's a full generation 
ahead of all of the other space-craft it's up 
against. Look at the F22 as an example. The 
Super-Bugs (F18) (gen 4.5) F-15s and F16s (Gen 4) 
have all had fits trying to get them in their 
gunsites, let alone shoo them down. So far as 
I've heard, ONE F-18 jock managed to get a kill 
shot by violating the ROE for the practice 
engagement which meant the F22 jock was probably 
trying to avoid a collision rather than kill the 
F18.

In this case it would seem that the F22 is head 
and shoulders above everything else. At Red Flag 
the F22s got 144 kills with no kills on their own 
side.

I know this makes for gaming that's tough for the 
guy with the lower gen fighters, but in theory, 
the technology between say the NAC and the LLAR 
should reflect this. The LLAR doesn't go to war 
with the NAC because they don't want to get 
buried. More or less the same reason a lot of 
nations don't go to war with the US or for that 
point, the Republic of Manitcore. The functional 
differences between the tech edge as things have 
progressed between the advanced and the slightly 
advanced have increased dramatically.

John Atkinson pointed to this some time ago with 
the advent of repeating rifles vs Fuzzywuzzies. 
The Fuzzywuzzies could still kill the British 
troops. When you get to the point where the enemy 
can't even get a shot off at your guys and have 
to resort to human wave tactics with expensive 
assets like aircraft, what do you do?

I mean, can anyone see anyone succeeding against 
the US with Mig 17s or Mig 22s against F-22s? 
Presumably if the Aerospace Fighters of full 
thrust are any example, the more advanced 
fighters would be able to refuse combat or 
maneuver to points where they can kill the lower 
tech fighters just by running them out of fuel 
and killing them at leisure. That's entirely 
apart from the ability to remain functionally 
invisible to the enemy fighters while at the same 
time killing them at range before even being 
detected.

I guess another area where this is a good example 
is the FAA in the Falklands vs the British RN. A 
lot of the Argentine Airforce jets were utterly 
lacking in Radar Warning REceivers. They were 
designed as intercepters and when they were being 
tracked and shot at they didn't know they were in 
trouble until the AIM-9s were going up their 
tailpipes. They were also at such a limit of 
endurance due to the battle they couldn't turn 
and fight nor did they have the leisure to with 
the AAA environment. No RWR to warn against being 
shot at is a critical aspect just the same as no 
warning against an F22 that's just rolled up on 
you from 5 miles back and is engaging you with 
weapons that don't emit and using sensors that 
don't need to emit to detect you. (Admittedly 
there's also the aspect of an AWACs in there 
somewhere) but in the FT environment, presumably 
the Carriers, if nearby have some VERY good 
sensor resolution just based on size alone.

But, F22s with AWACs vs F16s with AWACs is still 
no contest. How does this work in FT?
-- 
--
Ryan Gill	       rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
----------------------------------------------------------
	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me.
       But I do work there and still like the company.
----------------------------------------------------------
      |        |		   |	     -==----	  
      | O--=-  |		   |	    /_8[*]°_\	   
      |_/|o|_\_|       | _________ |	    /_[===]_\	  
      / 00DA61 \       |/---------\|	 __/	     \--- 
   _w/|=_[__]_= \w_    // [_]  o[]\\   _oO_\	     /_O|_
  |: O(4) ==	O :|  _Oo\=======/_O_  |____\	    /____|
  |---\________/---|  [__O_______W__]	|x||_\	   /_||x| 
   |s|\        /|s|   |s|/BSV 575\|s|	|x|-\|	   |/-|x| 
   |s|=\______/=|s|   |s|=|_____|=|s|	|x|--|_____|--|x| 
   |s|		|s|   |s|	  |s|	|x|	      |x| 
'60 Daimler Ferret '42 Daimler Dingo '42 Humber MkIV (1/2)
----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l