OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

AU Developers - Please PM Knightmare or MechRat if you need board or permission changes

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: A Couple of Aerospace Questions for our Experts (aka: "Summon Trace Coburn!")  (Read 5948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

masterarminas

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,515

Seriously.  Guys, I need to know a couple of things.  And I realize that neither answer is to be had in canon (I think), so this is really an opinion question.  Or questions, as the case may be.

First of all.  What would you consider the rate of attrition to be among the Clans for Aerospace and OmniFighters? 

Wait?  What?  What do you mean?

Yeah.  I'm talking about what percentage of the Touman's Aerospace Fighter/OmniFighter arm requires 100% replacement each and every year (due to crashes, excessive battle damage, structural fatigue, etc., etc.).

The reason I want to know your opinion is because I am looking at Handbook:  Clan Goliath Scorpion  and I want to figure out exactly how many OmniFighters the Clan needs to produce in a single year just to maintain their current force level.  That way I can extrapolate and calculate how many new OmniFighters need to be produced to (over time!!) replace older Aerospace Fighters and OmniFighters with the newly designed ones.

For example.  My Comanche (from the Black Skies thread in Aerospace Designs) debuts in 3011.  It probably enters production two years later in 3013.  Now.  If the Scorpions produce just 18 frames a year, then by 3068, they will have produced 990 new OmniFighters!

That is three fighters every two months.  Production might even be higher (although I doubt it is any more than double that; i.e., three fighters a month or 36 a year--which would result in a total of 1,980 being produced by 3068).

My second question is purely one of opinion.  What do you think of a Clan (Goliath Scorpion, duh!) choosing to adopt just ONE OmniFighter to replace all of its existing Aerospace Fighter and OmniFighter designs?

You see.  I was looking at what I've got plotted out, and I was planning on adding another three OmniFighter designs (60-tonner moving 8/12, 70-tonner moving 7/11, and 90-tonner moving 6/9).  But that really pushes the Scorpion's industrial base to the limit.  Especially with them building new OmniMechs.

And I got to thinking . . . and so I asked myself, is there really a reason that the Scorpions can't just make do with a single 50-ton design (my Comanche)?

Sure.  Heavier OmniFighters will have greater firepower.  But at 9/14 thrust, with 7 tons of fuel, 13 tons of armor, and 12 tons of pod-space, the Comanche strikes a great balance.  It has the thrust and maneuverability (and fuel!) to out-maneuver any heavier, better armed fighter and can tailor its attacks to avoid entering an opponents weapon arcs.  It has the armor protection to take quite a few hits (more armor than the Jagatai or Subatai or Visigoth!) and is resistant to threshold penetration from Clan ER Medium Lasers (and Medium Pulse Lasers) across the nose and wings.

Twelve tons of pod-space is light . . . but the Comanche is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

What I'm wondering though, is this:  could it work, in story, for this single OmniFighter design to wind up replacing ALL existing Aerospace Fighters and OmniFighters in the Scorpion Touman?

There are advantages to doing so, outside of game mechanics.  It simplifies training and maintenance and puts less strain on the Clan's logistics since EVERY fighter now shares the same parts (and frame and weapon pods!). 

But there are also disadvantages, primarily being that some might see this as boring.  Too much of the sameness.  Too little diversity.  Too few options.

So.  What do you think?  Can it be made to work?  Can the Scorpions survive without a heavy ASF/OF sledgehammer?  And instead rely (100%) on this precision rapier?  And does it make sense?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

MA



Logged

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,481
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion

As an example and to give you numbers, I found a yearly attrition rate for all the F-16 fleets all over the world of12.33%, meaning that 0.33% of all the F-16 in the world fleets are lost every year.
50% of the F-16 lost each year are 6 years old or younger with the service life of the active fleet being 17.2 years.

Then it depends on how much they are fighting and whether or not space/atmosphere is more or less forgiving than atmosphere alone.

As for your other questions, OmniFighters should be able to perform different roles. However, you might need more specialised tools for specific missions (like CAS or reconnaissance). This could be the place for second line 'Mechs with older chassis but still able to do the job.
A bit like the debate between those saying that F-35 can do everything and those saying that the A-10 Thunderbolt is still useful.
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Vition2

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52

I'm using the numbers from 3059 as a starting point, because we kind of need one to determine roughly the number of destroyed units.  This means the Scorpions have roughly 800 ASF between their ground forces and naval units - this number surprised me too, but their, comparatively, more regimented clusters regularly use 3 or 4 stars of fighters.

Now some assumptions:
- I usually peg the turnover rate of clan warriors at about 20% per year.  As ASF are often bid away, I'd lower this to 15% for ASF pilots.  Of those, perhaps a third of the ASF survive intact enough to be salvaged.  So losses due to normal wear and tear are going to be about 10%. Trials for replacement of these clan warriors will result in losses as well, though to a smaller degree.  Overall, I'd peg the normal replacement levels per year at around 100 ASF, with bad years being significantly higher, while good years not having as high an effect as a bad year.  (bad years could see 300 ASF losses, and production shouldn't be able to keep up with that, I'd suggest pegging production numbers at a maximum of 150 ASF per year, even with the streamlining into a single type - and probably lower at that)


Personally, I think three is the real minimum for the number of ASF types to properly fill out the roles needed in the typical aerospace force.  But that would be for an ideal and balanced force, with the clans often eschewing proper recon and interception roles, the lighter aspect of the force can be done away with without much decrease in the clan's overall effectiveness.  So I strongly recommend having a heavier "strike" fighter in the mix along with the more typical fast dog fighter the Commanche is.


PS. This is why you want to stay away from numbers, they don't work well with the expected lower production levels people normally work with in BattleTech.

Edit: Just realized that this is almost spot on to the 12.33% number Ice Hellion gave.  So count this as a +1 for his numbers. =)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 02:29:23 AM by Vition2 »
Logged

marauder648

  • Generalmajor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 775

I wish I could help but I really dunno much about the Clan's use of ASF.   As the Clan's don't really seem to use aerospace assets (of course some Clans have a raging hard-on for them but they were not invaders) and as was pointed out the Clans don't use their fighters for recon too much.  They are all very short legged so that tends to eliminate them from CAS as they don't have the fuel to do more than a single pass or two before being bingo and having to bugger off.  So the Clan fighters are mainly interceptors or used in local aerospace supremacy actions.

This lack of use would probably mean a lower turnover rate for the pilots and airframes, at least that's how I'd interpret it.  Of course you then flip that when you look at the Ravens.
Logged

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,481
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion

Edit: Just realized that this is almost spot on to the 12.33% number Ice Hellion gave.  So count this as a +1 for his numbers. =)

Which made me realise I hadn't corrected the figure.
The yearly attrition rate is 0.33%. The 12.33% is over the years in total.

However, it would depend if these ASF see much combat or fly a lot.
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,481
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion

Just to further illustrate, here are some data I found on the Internet, the source being a 1985 book analysing the actual German records.

Percentage of Total German Fighter Aircraft lost Monthly, All Fronts January-December 1941
January: 2.1%
February: 3.6%
March: 4.7%
April: 6.4%
May: 6.8%
June: 14.2%
July: 22.9%
August: 13.4%
September: 12.6%
October: 6.0%
November: N/A
December: 10.2%

Monthly Percentage of Total German Fighter Strength Lost January-June 1944
January: 30.3
February: 33.8
March: 56.4
April: 43
May: 50.4
June: 48.3
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 04:40:32 PM by Ice Hellion »
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!

Just a few comments from me. 

BattleTech Survivability - As an in game measurable the BattleMech is probably the most durable war machine ever built. Once off the assembly a model could be salvaged several dozen times depending on the amount of battle damage suffered of course. I would think Aerospace Fighters rank second behind the Mech in terms of survivability but have to deal with pesky gravity problems multiplying any damage after battle aka they crash. Still they are valuable and unlike Vehicles for example aren't easy to completely destroy. Therefore the average design life of an aerospace fighter is probably pretty darn long especially when compared to fighters today. Thinking you can get 100 years out of one pretty easy.

Clan production and design usage - Now in canon the self sufficiency of Clan industry and excellent salvage work leads to long design life and proliferation. Designs spread all over the darn place as seen in some books that had InnerSphere models serving in Smoke Jaguar second line forces on Huntress. Scientist reverse engineer things frequently looking for an edge, Merchants trade arms and parts frequently, Techs build and restore designs all the time, while the Laborers work to keep the Clan going. All castes especially the warriors will use whatever works and they will not squander a gosh darn thing. So designs once in use general spread and stay around.

Could the Scorpions get by with just one aerospace fighter? Absolutely but why would they? No Clan does. They would use whatever they would get their hands on just like any other Clan. Most Clans it seems to me get by with just one type of fighter in production but use them all, see TRO3055. Sure the major ones have multiple designs in production but the Scorpions ain't major they are minor. You can easily build just one type of fighter. Might it affect their performance, sure but no more than other Clans.

Just my early morning thoughts. ;)
Logged

Vition2

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52

Adding a bit of an explanation from my stats, running down the whole thing.  (Warning, numbers ahead)

I assume that every aerospace pilot gets 1 combat against another clan per year.  The Scorpions win roughly the same amount they lose.  So, looking at their ground forces (and using the baseline of FM: Warden Clans for their touman composition), they have a total of 628 aerospace fighters at full strength. 

314 win their single trial against another clan per year, casualties in a win are, on average, 25%, so a total of 78.5 casualties.  Of these losses, roughly 25% of the machines are beyond repair, leading to a total of 19.626 losses per year in won trials against other clans using the ground touman.

314 lose their single trial against another clan each year.  Casualties ins loss are, on average, 75%, so a total of 235.5 casualties.  Again, roughly 25% of the machines are beyond repair, leading to a total of 58.875 losses per year in lost trials against other clans using the ground touman.

I actually think the number of casualties on a win or loss are both closer to the 50% point - perhaps 40/60 or 33/67 - but the overall average ends up at the same point of 50%.  There will be good years and bad years, but this is just looking at a hypothetical perfectly average year.

In space, they have a total of 200 aerospace fighters assigned to warships (these are the only concrete numbers we have, so if there any assigned to dropships or jumpships, then this number just increases).  Again, each aerospace fighter gets in combat once each year with half of them winning and half losing.

100 win their trial against another clan, again there are 25% casualties, so a total of 25 casualties.  Of these, roughly an eighth of them are beyond repair (or half as much as in ground conflicts).  This means that roughly 3.125 casualties occur against other clans.

100 lose their trial against another clan, and with 75% casualties there are a total of 75 casualties.  An eighth of these are beyond repair, leading to a total of 9.375 losses against other clans per year.

Lastly there are enough trials of position to fill out 20% of the entire touman (75% of these are expected to succeed).  This means that there are 165.6 cadets trialing for full warrior status, so a total of 331.2  aerospace fighters are involved in these trials of position.  There are going to be 50% casualties during these trials, but the more controlled environment means that only a twelfth of the casualties are beyond repair.  This leads to a total of 13.8 destroyed machines.

Listing all the casualties:
Won ground trials: 19.626 fighters
Lost ground trials: 58.875 fighters
Won space trials: 3.125 fighters
Lost space trials: 9.375 fighters
ToP trials: 13.8 fighters

Total: 104.8 fighters (or 12.66%) losses each year.

Overall the losses are about twice as high as BattleMechs, even though I assume that 'Mechs are involved in twice as many trials each year.  Most of this comes down to the more destructive environment - lawn darting, potentially being lost in space, and occasionally a more hostile repair environment than the typical 'Mech will see.

I encourage a picking apart of my numbers, as a lot of them are based on assumptions of survivability and the actual use of aerospace fighters in the clans.
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!

Wow, impressive math V2. I will have to give it a going over. I didn't see any number for accidents but that would likely be a low number anyway.
Logged

Vition2

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52

Wow, impressive math V2. I will have to give it a going over. I didn't see any number for accidents but that would likely be a low number anyway.

Didn't really consider it.  But honestly I'd suspect actual fighter losses to be mostly insignificant.  Maybe 1 per year, and likely even less than that.  Training accidents, while likely fairly frequent are unlikely to result in the level of devastation that combat would inflict on the fighter.  If you feel like rounding the overall number to 106, that would probably cover the losses due to accidents and probably then some.  At least IMO.
Logged

Vition2

  • Korporal
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52

Kind of curious if this went/is going anywhere.

How are things coming on that Handbook?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up