| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Its only a few thousand years of peace time because the EU hasn't filled in the gaps with video games yet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Its only a few thousand years of peace time because the EU hasn't filled in the gaps with video games yet. |
 good point, but as it stands, those retcons have yet to be made, and the history of the Republic is supposed to be one of thousands of years of peace punctuated by a few short wars.
The funny thing is that once those periods are filled in, technology will appear to devolve as older and older spacecraft are written into newer and newer games!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Its only a few thousand years of peace time because the EU hasn't filled in the gaps with video games yet. |
LOL!! Funny yet true. But then it is STAR WARS, not STAR PEACE.
THere is a bit of a problem with the Empire's escessive military might. The Empire seems to be the only superpower around arfer the Clone Wars. While a certain military prescence is required in order to maintain an oppressive government, there doesn't seem to be anybody that the Empire can really go to war with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | THere is a bit of a problem with the Empire's escessive military might. The Empire seems to be the only superpower around arfer the Clone Wars. While a certain military prescence is required in order to maintain an oppressive government, there doesn't seem to be anybody that the Empire can really go to war with. |
Two points:
- Is the Empire's military really excessive? Sure they have 25,000 Stardestroyers and what not, but given there are hundreds of thousands of planetary sytems in the Empire that doesn't necessarily seem excessive from an economic or population* perspective.
- The lack of opponents (other than the Rebels) may help justify the existence of TIEs, walkers, and Star Detroyers - all of which have some clear problems as military war machines.
* Although the fact that the Imperial military seems to be almost exclusively human may make draft and recruitment into the armed forces from the human population excessive - certainly it is excessive relative to the percentage in uniform of the non-human population - which appears to be nearly nil.[/list] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two points:
- Is the Empire's military really excessive? Sure they have 25,000 Stardestroyers and what not, but given there are hundreds of thousands of planetary sytems in the Empire that doesn't necessarily seem excessive from an economic or population* perspective. [/quote]
I mean excessive in terms of what they are used for. Since there is nobody out there to fight, and no other force with capital ships to speak of, the whole purpose of the Navy must be to dominate the populace.
It's had to imagine that the Empire could disguise it's function and keep the support of the core worlds without some sort of threat to "defend" against. The Separatists probably served that purpose for the first few years, but eventually the Empire needed some sort of threat. Either real or manufactured. Remember, Palpatine presents himself as a hero, and the New Order as an improvement over the corrupt and ineffective Republic. When all those military spending programs got brought up in the Imperial Senate, that had to be some justification.
| Quote: |
The lack of opponents (other than the Rebels) may help justify the existence of TIEs, walkers, and Star Detroyers - all of which have some clear problems as military war machines. |
Some truth there. A lot of the Empire"s tech looks like it"s lower grade, cheap, but produced in large numbers. It seems the Empire would rather have 4 or 5 cheap fighters than one cutting edge fighter. They can [probably handle what conflicts that do have (piracy, small scale insurgency) through superior numbers and attrition.
| Quote: |
* Although the fact that the Imperial military seems to be almost exclusively human may make draft and recruitment into the armed forces from the human population excessive - certainly it is excessive relative to the percentage in uniform of the non-human population - which appears to be nearly nil.[/list] |
Yeah, although I suspect that humans are probably one of the largest segments of the population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I mean excessive in terms of what they are used for. Since there is nobody out there to fight, and no other force with capital ships to speak of, the whole purpose of the Navy must be to dominate the populace. |
No, no, no. We are here for your safety. To protect you against pirates, the so called Rebels and other terrorists, disaffected elements of the Empire (code for non-humans), and to ensure that our illustrious Empire will never have to face a threat like the Separatists, that threatens not only the galactic peace, but our very existence, ever again.
Heck Palps wants the Rebels to justify his military buildup.
Regarding population - it's hard for me to believe that humans make up more than 10% of the total population of the Empire. Though the percentage is higher at the core and lower as you head out from the core worlds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | No, no, no. We are here for your safety. To protect you against pirates, the so called Rebels and other terrorists, disaffected elements of the Empire [/i](code for non-humans), and to ensure that our illustrious Empire will never have to face a threat like the Separatists, that threatens not only the galactic peace, but our very existence, ever again. |
That"s just it. It gets hard tp sustain the fear and push the need for greater military buildup without a visible threat. I suspect the CIS made a good bogeyman in the early days. Maybe even for the first decade, but after than...
| Quote: |
Heck Palps wants the Rebels to justify his military buildup. |
That's what I'm thinking. Some form of rebellion would be inevitable. Why not use it to your advantage?
| Quote: |
Regarding population - it's hard for me to believe that humans make up more than 10% of the total population of the Empire. Though the percentage is higher at the core and lower as you head out from the core worlds. |
Yeah, that sounds about right. 10% of the population of an entire galaxy is still lots of people. That might even help to explain the xenophobia. With humans outnumbered nearly ten to one, and with every alien a potential separatist,the people (i.e. humans) must remain forever vigilant against the menace of the alien hordes.
Getting back on topic, it might mean that the Empire era ships were, for the most part, mass produced generic grade and of low quality. Much like the military force of third world countires today. A bit dated but a lot of it. That would explain why the older Clone Wars era ships are still competitive, as well as why the rebels were able to produce better ships than the Empire. It would be like design a modern fighter jet to compete against an air force comprised of MiG-21s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | No, no, no. We are here for your safety. To protect you against pirates, the so called Rebels and other terrorists, disaffected elements of the Empire [/i](code for non-humans), and to ensure that our illustrious Empire will never have to face a threat like the Separatists, that threatens not only the galactic peace, but our very existence, ever again. |
That"s just it. It gets hard tp sustain the fear and push the need for greater military buildup without a visible threat. I suspect the CIS made a good bogeyman in the early days. Maybe even for the first decade, but after than...
|
It's also possible that the people of the Empire are more like Romans than Americans, and not opposed to conquest plain and simple.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | The point I was trying to make is that newer vehicles aren't always faster. They might be superior in other ways though. |
Agreed but my important stipulation is that this, in the case of 2nd Gen and 3rd Gen fighter speeds had nothing to do with technology, and was only as a result of doctrinal shift in the US, but not the east.
| Quote: | | The MiG-25 Foxbat is an excellent example. It was designed originally to shoot down a high altitude, high speed bomber, the VB-70 Valkyrie, that eventually got canceled. The Soviets needed an interceptor and the Foxbat was the result.Then the e Vaslkyrie got canceled the Soviets then had to come up with a new use for the Foxbat, and it eventually found a role as a reconnaissance craft. |
The Valkyrie wasn't thought of in 1955-58 when the Foxbat wound up on the drawing boards and in development. The Blackbird was, the KGB knew about the U2 and the A-11/12, work on the Blackbird and Foxbat started right about the same time. The Russians believed the A-11 designation the CIA was using for the Blackbird meant that it was a dual role recon/attack model. The Foxbat was conceived to counter these and cruise missiles specifically.
It's a different case because the Valkyrie was designed to cruise at 3.0 Mach (close to maximum airframe limitation), at 75,000ft (they were hoping to achieve 80,000ft but wasn't easy using shock-lift). It flies a lot like an airliner, like a Concorde only faster.
The Blackbird's speed is limited only by its windscreen melting and things like that, 3.4 Mach has been seen and faster is possible. It is also designed to skim thin air like skimming a rock over water so it acts more like a boat than a plane.
One plane is using shock lift and the other atmospheric skimming, one is acting like a bomber, the other like a spacecraft.
The way you deal with a Valkyrie is with something like a Blackbird, the way you deal with a Blackbird is with something that acts like a big SAM.
This influenced the way the Interceptor version of the Foxbat was to be designed and its performance regime, it's job, the way it flies.
The Foxbat was always going to be made in two major versions: a reconnaissance-bomber and an interceptor. The Recon/bomber would get more flying time, the interceptor was a limited use strategic defence tool.
The recon version was prototyped, developed and entered service about a year ahead of the interceptor version at every stage. It was always the priority.
Limited use, short lifespan engines were placed into the interceptor version, the recon/bomber received more engine development with higher TBO, more thrust and longer engine life. The interceptor received valve technology to handle the very high currents being used in its avionics, it was designed to be jam proof and EW hardened.
These are because the two are flown differently. The MiG-25RB~ does high mach cruise at high altitude, it has demonstrated precision strikes with 500kg bombs at 2.8 Mach from high altitude.
The MiG-25P rarely sees past 2.35 Mach, it uses its speed in climb although the regime calls for 2.35 Mach level outs then zooms all the way up to 68,000ft with 4 missiles or 78,000ft with 2 missiles (the missiles thus have a maximum reach of 88,000ft). It's about loiter in orbit waiting for GCI to plot an interception path of incoming cruise missiles or Blackbirds, then a vertical climb and zooms to get the missiles to launch altitude under ground control. It can do this from brakes off, full warload in under 9 mins to launch height at 67-78,000ft.
The RB is used differently and does flat high mach cruise, nominally at 2.35 Mach but it designed for 2.8 Mach dash with 2,000kg bombs externally (demonstrated). Maximum warload is 3,000kg bombs. So the RB really uses flat speed runs, the P version just uses fast supersonic climbs.
Both have a slight engine management problem and are normally speed restricted to 2.5 Mach anyway. Due to insufficient engine-intake bleed and lack of bypass, the engines tend to experience "runaway rpm" if pilot management isn't extremely careful above 2.5 Mach, which is how some RB have managed to exceed 3.2 Mach in service on occasion (the engines were destroyed each time, pilot lucky to survive).
So normally the interceptor doesn't do high mach but climbs, the bomber does high mach cruise but is speed restricted except in extreme emergencies.
The idea is that being cheap to build, if you lost half your interceptor force to low serviceability after the first exchange it doesn't matter, they're a last ditch defence against cruise missiles if air superiority is lost or the strike is a surprise attack. One use items.
| Quote: | | When the west noticed the MiG 25, they were very worried about it, and wondered how the Soviets could have produced such a fast fighter. THey even went to far as to post a reward for one, which was claimed by a defector. When the west got a look at the Fobat, they discovered that the plane was actually rather crude. Big powerful engines produce a lot of thrust. It wasn't that sophisticaed a plane after all. |
Two things are involved here. The Blackbird and Valkyrie projects resulted in aircraft that would be so expensive and difficult to produce, to put into service and maintain in the field, and to support for missions, that they were cancelled effectively with the conclusion "if we can't do it, nobody can." Soviets proved this wrong, the Foxbat didn't cost all that much more than a Phantom to produce or place into the field and it appeared in large numbers, this led speculation during the height of Cold War paranoia that the Russians had alien technology. It was a crazy time. What was ultimately assumed was the Soviets probably built something much simpler than the Blackbird, would be equally ill-suited to low altitude or low speed performance, and probably less capable at high altitude and high mach. They believed the Phantom would probably handle them in real air-air combat as a fighter type, but just in case went ahead with the terrifically expensive FX replacement (Eagle).
When they examined Belyenko's they were actually so disappointed and shocked with its valve technology, basic engines and nickel steel monocoque construction, they actually didn't bother to take a whole lot of notice of its merits. They didn't revise what was simply assumed about the Foxbat low altitude performance and even listed it as subsonic at sea level, incapable of even simple BFM comparable to any fighter type, useful only at high altitude and high mach BVR and poorly equipped even for that due to ancient avionics.
Essentially all that was taken really was that the Foxbat wasn't as good as was thought at high altitude or in design, and there was even less reason to fear it in fighter vs fighter combat than before, so assumptions about its low altitude handling were never revised.
This was all quite wrong. The collapse of the USSR has led to declassification and western familiarity, Foxbats are even used alongside Foxhounds for "edge of space tours" and westerners pay the RuAF a packet to take a flight. Plus there is the Gulf War combat record, which was before you could just take a plane to Moscow and go fly in one.
The dirty little secret is the old valves used on the Foxbat radar is because it uses extremely high amps and current, the solid state electronics of the 1970s simply couldn't cope. This was to produce a radar set which is literally impossible to jam, even today. Its airframe design isn't in the same sphere as the Blackbird but it was designed to zoom missiles high very quickly from GCI redirect at a loiter somewhere. Its high Mach performance is generally limited to around 2.35 Mach, it is normally speed restricted to 2.5 Mach anyway, and at speeds under 3.0 Mach nickel steel aircraft alloys are actually just as good and less problematic than titanium. Russians have more titanium ore than just about any other country in the world, but nickel-steel (not to be confused with industrial steels, this is a very high grade aircraft alloy) was just better for this bird. Its greatest problem is the engine management, which was already under redevelopment for what became the Foxhound from around 1973, Belyenko warned about it in 1976 telling that it would fix all the faults of the Foxbat and keep the performance marques.
But mostly the US speculators were interested in patting themselves on the back for the Blackbird and FX/Eagle projects and declared themselves supreme in warbird design merits, technologically ahead of the Soviets. It became about sabre rattling and politics, and wasn't really about looking at a dangerous aircraft type and whether or not it created any gaps in US doctrine. Which in fact it does, as shown in the Gulf War encounters.
Mainly, at low altitude and in thick air the Foxbat still outspeeds something like an F-16 or a Panavia Tornado in straight lines, and it still handles as good as something like a Phantom if it hasn't got a full fuel load, which nobody usually does in a fighter vs fighter encounter. Now it can't turn with an Eagle or a Hornet, but has speed and is still dangerous to them.
The assumption had been, so long as you know he's there, a Foxbat is little threat down low because it handles like a brick and isn't even supersonic, that was what was believed before the Iraqi Foxbats changed that idea. Following the encounter they were declared by US pilots as the most dangerous Iraqi warbird type in the war. US analysts still claimed the MiG Fulcrum was the most dangerous type, but the pilot reports were that Fulcrums hadn't been much of a show against the NATO birds, but the Foxbat was scaring people instead.
| Quote: | I don't know why F-15 pilots would be surprised by the Mig-25'S thrust and acceleration. The Foxbat is still the fastest fighter jet that the USSR ever produced.
The main reason why top speeds haven't gone up in fighters over the last 50 years is simple, more speed doesn't help. Maneuverability drops off in proportion to the square of velocity. So places that are going faster turn in wider circles.
Modern fighters are superior in ways other than sheer speed.
|
This is called a strategic doctrine for fighter combat. It is an assertion by the USAF and is not shared by Mikoyan OKB but is by KnAAPO (Sukhoi).
Top speeds have gone up, just not for the USAF, they went down. In the USSR they went up. The interceptor Foxbat has a high speed mission profile in the 2.35 Mach range, the replacement Foxhound makes that speed one for unlimited cruise at half-afterburner, its 2.83 Mach dash is fully loaded and its high altitude performance is far more sustainable and not just a zoom climb, it'll actually kick around between 65-80,000ft all day and the missiles have little problem getting up around 90,000ft or more. In practise the Foxhound is much quicker than a Foxbat and closes the gap to something like a Valkyrie (where the Foxbat fell slightly short). Similarly the Flogger is a much quicker update of the Fishbed.
Soviets went faster, US changed doctrine and went slower. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason I post all this rhetoric is of course so we don't wind up using awry celebrations of jet fighter airspeeds as an analogue for Clone Wars era starfighters being faster than or as fast as Rebellion era fighters. They shouldn't be.
For the Empire a doctrinal shift was evident. They backed low cost, high maintenance mass production TIE to fill star destroyer and battlestation hangars quickly with something dangerous. Trying to do that with starfighters that have X-Wing like merits would've taken many times longer and cost many times more, the Death Star may not have had its hangars filled in time for service.
But to retain the performance marques of fast starfighters and even improve upon those set (typically, Space: 8 for a Delta-7 or a Clone-Z95, older ships like the CloakShape are more like Space: 6-7 in speed and this should also be the speed of heavy assault starfighters like the Y-Wing and ARC-170), the TIE is so stripped of pilot equipment that it's virtually just an engine and guns with a tiny capsule and no fuel load to speak of. At the very latest tech circa. 5BBY this gets you a Space: 10.
Now it is possible for a dedicated high speed interceptor like the A-Wing to achieve Space: 12, but then to assert that old ARC-170 do Space:8-10 and the Eta-2 does Space: 13-16 is just being silly imho.
It doesn't gel with real world historical analogues, and it doesn't gel with a SWU that works with any kind of centralised construction, industry and technologies gaming systems.
There was a technological leap which occured around 1,000BBY which was the jump from Information Tech to Space Tech levels. Old Republic as per the Tales of the Jedi Companion are Information Tech standard, the armour, energy weapons and starship tech just isn't as good or anywhere near as powerful or miniaturised.
You might consider somewhat of a plateau for the last millennium of the Republic, but during that thousand years you might also consider a fairly fast rate of technological improvement by the decades for the last millennium in the real world. A Spanish broadsword is nothing like a Damascus steel sabre, which barely manages to match an 18th century katana. Cannons appeared and within decades improved and kept that pace up so that what started as iron tubes firing stone shot wound up as civil war 8-pdrs made by Napoleon firing grapeshot and canister, then siege guns appeared, and recoil mechanisms and split carriages and the change to tractor-hauled, then SPG until finally the old stone shot cannon is an Avenger GAU-8A or a DP-100mm ship gun capable of shooting down subsonic missiles or sinking frigates at the press of a button.
If the Clone Wars was true Old Republic era then they'd have split manual shields and only large warships with massive power cores could be capable of any real sublight speed at all (starfighters were quick in hyperspace but lacked power for fast sublight in TotJC era, most people favoured scouts and couriers or cruisers because starfighter capabilities were lacking due to technology).
But as Clone Wars era is within the same tech range, but older production of high powered engines and starship systems than Rebellion era, it should follow that they are slower, heavier and generally use slightly less developed equipment for the same roles and in the same types of ships.
I've talked it over with the Players and are satisfied with my revisions of Space: 6 for ARC-170 and Space: 9 for the Eta-2, basically. It follows logically in our game, and gives the various special equipment in the GG6 some context and sense for Player starship construction, and when we come across used starships.
We have one system, Lazeria IV which I've rewritten as still maintaining a Clone Wars fleet, but the starships are older, heavier and overall slightly under the maximum capabilities of the very latest war technologies available, if you can get your hands on them. It seems to work well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
It's also possible that the people of the Empire are more like Romans than Americans, and not opposed to conquest plain and simple. |
There are several problems with that analogy. For starters it was the Roman Republic that did most of the conquering. More importantly, the Empire doesn't have anybody to conquer. It took over the Republic and so has control of practically everybody to begin with. The Empire needs a Carthage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vanir,
THat's a long post. I"ll try to just use the highlights.
| vanir wrote: | | Agreed but my important stipulation is that this, in the case of 2nd Gen and 3rd Gen fighter speeds had nothing to do with technology, and was only as a result of doctrinal shift in the US, but not the east. |
That is hard to prove. Doctrine shift was part of it. THe fact that planes can't dogfight at supersonic speeds and the slowness of development of dogfighting missiles also played a factor as did the cost and the practicalities behind producing ultra high speed aircraft.
| vanir wrote: | | The Valkyrie wasn't thought of in 1955-58 when the Foxbat wound up on the drawing boards and in development. |
Yeah it was. The VB-70 origins go back to around 1954.
| vanir wrote: |
This is called a strategic doctrine for fighter combat. It is an assertion by the USAF and is not shared by Mikoyan OKB but is by KnAAPO (Sukhoi). |
No, it is elementary flight physics. The turning radius increases with the square of the velocity. It's why a Piper Cub can pull a tighter turn than a F-15, and why the SR-71 takes a couple of states to turn around at Mach 3. If aircraft B is going twice as fast as Aircraft A, it must pull 4 times as many Gs to make the same turn. I don't buy your argument that it was entirely a shift in doctrine in the West.
Now back to the Empire... it might well havew been a doctrine shift. In fact, the NEw Order certasinly was a shift in doctrine from the Republic.
| vanir wrote: |
But to retain the performance marques of fast starfighters and even improve upon those set (typically, Space: 8 for a Delta-7 or a Clone-Z95, older ships like the CloakShape are more like Space: 6-7 in speed and this should also be the speed of heavy assault starfighters like the Y-Wing and ARC-170), the TIE is so stripped of pilot equipment that it's virtually just an engine and guns with a tiny capsule and no fuel load to speak of. At the very latest tech circa. 5BBY this gets you a Space: 10 |
According to Lucasfilm the Delta-7 has nearly the same accleration as the A-Wing. 5000Gs vs. 5100Gs. The Space 8 Delta-7 is a fan writeup, not anything from Lucasfilm nor WEG.
[quote="vanir"]
Now it is possible for a dedicated high speed interceptor like the A-Wing to achieve Space: 12, but then to assert that old ARC-170 do Space:8-10 and the Eta-2 does Space: 13-16 is just being silly imho.
It doesn't gel with real world historical analogues, [/
Since the Eta-2 is also a dedicated high speed interceptor, produced by a government with far greater resources than the Rebel Alliance, I disagree.
And it does hold true with real world analogues. The faster fighter jet today isn't any faster than the fastest fighter jet of 20 years ago. In fact, they are the same jet. So the analog holds up.
Now you, I and anybody else can interpret or reinterpret things anyway we want to. I'm just saying that the intention was for the Clone Wars ships to be as fast as the Rebellion era ships, and I gave some reasons why. MOstly that the very fast ships are tiny and low mass. That's all. If you want the older ships to be slower, fine. It's you call. But there is no real reason why the older ships can't be as fast as LUcasfilm claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
There are several problems with that analogy. For starters it was the Roman Republic that did most of the conquering. |
I'm not sure why that's a problem? | atgxtg wrote: | | More importantly, the Empire doesn't have anybody to conquer. It took over the Republic and so has control of practically everybody to begin with. The Empire needs a Carthage. |
Wildspace, the unknown regions, the extra-galactic star clusters, and potentially, other galaxies are all valid targets.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
atgxtg, according to the Mikoyan records when E-155 design started in 1959 (officially program started 1962), they didn't know about the Valkyrie. They only knew about the A-11 through the Intelligence network and believed the US would develop cruise missiles with similar flight profiles, so the E-155P design requirements are specifically given as "interception of cruise missiles and A-11 interdiction"
It's just that it is commonly printed the MiG-25P was designed to intercept the Valkyrie so I like to correct it as it's not the case. Janes references the Mikoyan OKB records or you can visit their site or proxies which mention it.
The truth is the Valkyrie was never really considered for service by the time the first prototype was built, their greatest value and the main reason the project continued to get funding was because Valkyrie pioneered the alu-honeycomb industry that was to be used by all the modern composite fighters, without the Valkyrie they'd still be making them out of box-monocoque like the Phantoms and Russian birds (the Fulcrum for example, looks modern but is made like a Phantom, just box-monocoque mostly sheet metal, bit of graphite/epoxy here and there, made in refrigerator factories and I mean quite literally). Alu-honeycomb is extremely difficult to mass produce (Russians still can't do it, they use graphite-honeycomb which wasn't available in the 70s), the Valkyrie paid for that development in US air industry.
As for the shift in US aircraft manufacture, I told you and if you don't believe me compare the technical reviews of a 1983 MiG-23ML to a 1972 MiG-21. Soviet fighters got faster coming into 3rd Gen equivalence. US fighters took the composites/transonic emphasis.
I know why they did it, for the reasons you stated. You don't seem to understand that this is what doctrine describes. If I say high speeds are better, and you say transonic performance and low speed handling qualities is better, I've got my doctrine and you've got yours.
Even the Fulcrum, which looks just like a US composite (as I mentioned it isn't however, not in construction but has aerodynamic similarities), it's the same story again. If you visit F-16.net (there are a number of USAF pilots who post there, including a flight instructor at the USAF advanced fighter tactics school with several hours in German Fulcrums, Vipers, Eagles, etc.), you can read the comparative evaluations where the Fulcrum is an absolute speed demon if it gets any altitude. At medium altitudes it even has the goods on an Eagle for turn rate, acceleration, speed qualities, it's a monster. In thick air they don't do so well, and a modern Block 50 Viper is a lot quicker near the deck and handles much better.
It's that old school emphasis from MiG again, a continuation of the old themes of fast accelerating, high mach fighter/interceptors doing the grunt work. The Fulcrum has no problem achieving 2.3 Mach in service, for the only US bird that can break 2 Mach the Eagle, you can't see those speeds with missiles slung and you're nominally speed restricted to 1.78 Mach anyway.
Now the thing about the Russian fighters is their G-ratings are often supersonic. The Foxbat, Foxhound G-ratings are supersonic. The Fulcrum is 8G subsonic but 7G supersonic. The Flogger P/ML/D is 7.5G supersonic (8.5G subsonic).
Most US aircraft the G-ratings are always subsonic, the Eagle is 9G but subsonic, the Hornet 7G subsonic, the exception is the F-16 which is 9G subsonic and also supersonic, and has never broken exceeding it. Most fighter jets including the composites are lucky to cope with 7G supersonic, that's where the line is marked on the accelometer in the cockpit, say for the F-15. Starts at 7G, redlines at 8G (those are the pilot guidelines and should relate to supersonic/subsonic limits), but as everyone knows the Eagle is listed by the manufacturer as routinely 9G capable.
Still in supersonic handling the Russian birds compare just fine with the NATO ones. Its in thick air, low speed and transonic handling the US composites are generally better. I get that's why the doctrine shift.
Whether that is more important in a war or not to you defines your doctrine.
Russians don't think it is so much, well Mikoyan OKB doesn't, KnAAPO (Sukhoi) do. Their Flanker makes the US composites look like bricks in the low speed handling stakes.
Also you are aware an acceleration listing in SWU should relate to handling, accelerometers measure the G stresses you're putting on the plane in turns and rolls and such. It translates to manoeuvrability, not speed. MGLT is speed in space, not directly relative to speed in atmosphere.
So the Eta-2 should be about as manoeuvrable as an A-Wing. I agree.
Engines are very small though. Typically smaller diameter jets are designed for higher exhaust velocities at lower speeds, which limits maximum speeds and high speed acceleration. Big diameter jets like in an A-Wing are slower off the mark, but gain acceleration as they get faster and really respond well at very high speeds.
Look at an A-4 exhaust jet and a Foxbat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wasn't there supposed to be something in this topic about the cargo capacity of a highly modified light freighter? All this techno-speak is all well and good, but no analogy we apply to the SWU is going to be 100% accurate, for a variety of different reasons. How does this debate on modern military history and aircraft design tie back into light freighter modification?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
