Shadrak
10/01/15 11:41 AM
64.233.172.130
|
Why can't conv. Fighters mount light and xl fusion?
|
Cray
10/07/15 06:11 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Honestly, I don't recall if there's an in-game reason. But speaking of failure to recall, I've seen lights and XLs argued among writers and don't recall why the ban was reaffirmed, either.
Personally, I don't see the harm in using such engines on conventional fighters.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
happyguy49
10/12/15 04:00 AM
98.30.242.159
|
Maybe so they don't end up outclassing Aerospace Fighters. The same way Vee's and infantry are nerfed so they don't outclass Mech's. I don't see why that is an issue though, Aerospace fighters are by definition the "jack of all trades" as far as being able to fight in air AND space... which means they would be the 'master of none'... I.E, a dedicated air-only fighter, or space only fighter, would defeat an equivalent aerospace fighter.
IIRC there is fluff to support this... that humanity created space interceptors, and already had fighter jets, but needed something to escort troopships on the way down. What doesn't necessarily make sense is that the two specialized types must then fall by the wayside, considering that, in their own role(s) they should be superior to the generalist design.
|
Bad_Syntax
10/12/15 04:13 AM
72.190.114.13
|
I wouldn't say infantry are nerfed, I can make a 1500 BV platoon that can gut an Atlas at 15 hexes. Vee's without double heat sinks though is silly, but otherwise vehicles would simply rule mechs in many situations.
But it is one of those limitations made so mechs are still king.
I can't see why anybody would make a conventional fighter anyway. A bit cheaper sure, but atmospheric only, usually with fuel restrictions, far less capacity, heavier controls if >30 tons, no VTOL support, all for a bit more maneuverability in the atmosphere.
In universe I'd say the example would be "conventional fighters are made to be simple to operate and maintain, and be cheap. Adding such engines to conventional fighters wouldn't be accepted, as for the price one may as well go ahead and purchase a full blown aerospace fighter instead".
The availability ratings of these newer engines would prevent a conventional fighter so equipped from operating in many worlds of the inner sphere.
|
ghostrider
10/12/15 12:04 PM
98.150.102.177
|
there is a very good reason to make conventional fighters. Cheap is what you would want when having to provide some air cover to the masses on backwater worlds.
Pirate defenses would be a good example. Most do not have fighters with them, and having conventional fighters as opposed to stationing aerofighters on the world would give the locals some feeling of safety without the expensive, needed elsewhere fighters.
This could also help with covering area and still be effective enough against mechs and tanks to be worth the costs. For assaulting an enemy planet? No. It isn't worth it.
To have some sort of defense against pirates or even insurgents. I would say it is.
|
Shadrak
10/12/15 08:31 PM
173.88.45.54
|
Conventional fighters can have a great deal of value especially at the 10-20 ton range...10 free heat sinks at that weight is fine since most weapons that might make DHS advantageous would be too heavy to use. While Conventional fighters lose 2 thrust points, they double their fuel points...very advantageous for a lightweight fighter...
Couple this with the fact that a conventional fighter is transportable in a standard light vehicle bay, you have a cheap air support option that can be carried on most mech and vehicle dropships and could be used for what I would like to use it for...a submersible aircraft carrier.
I should run all of the numbers, but it might be possible to field a conventional fighter force 3-5 times larger than an aerospace fighter group for the same price and BV.
|
Akirapryde2006
10/13/15 03:55 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Shadrak writes:
I should run all of the numbers, but it might be possible to field a conventional fighter force 3-5 times larger than an aerospace fighter group for the same price and BV.
I have run the numbers before and you can.
But to answer the OP,
I don't know if there are any rules against it. But logically speaking, a conventional fighter is cheap. However not just in the upfront cost of buying the unit. Conventional Fighters are cheap to maintain and repair after combat missions. Adding advanced technology like an XL Engine would defeat these benefits.
The only reason why this is even a question/topic is because operational costs are not taken in to consideration.
Akira
|
ghostrider
10/13/15 01:45 PM
98.150.102.177
|
From the looks of it, costs are not a factor in most games. Slap everything you can onto a unit and not worry a single unit would destroy alot of budgets.
Another issue that is rarely thought of in the game is how rare the fusion style engines are supposed to be. Making one for a conventional fighter almost sounds wasteful. Same should be said for light tanks as well. A single shot from say a medium laser should make people avoid the costs of using them.
And this does make me ask why a conventional jet engine would weigh twice as much as a fusion engine, even with the extra things like thrusters?
I am going to assume the fusion uses an electric motor to turn the jets blades, and using the plasma for the engine as thrust like a rocket would be extremely dangerous in any area there are people at.
Though I don't see why something like a fan turbine moving the craft would require fuel, as the fusion engine itself doesn't use that much to run a hover craft or power the weapons systems for things like capital ship weapons.
|
Retry
10/13/15 08:16 PM
76.7.232.58
|
Conventional fighter engines and technologies are different from Aerospace fighter engines and technologies even if the "engine type" is the same.
Conventional fighter engines are described as "fast-pumping, dual-chambered fusion engines, instead of the jet or turbine engines usually employed by conventional fighters, which makes them immune to engine stalling and overall provides them with far more durability, as well as comparatively more space for their loadouts.". A conventional fighter fusion engine is therefore inherently different than an aerospace fighter's fusion engine even though they're both listed as "fusion".
Conventional fighters have, in theory, an advantage over Aerospace fighters in both maneuverability and battlefield loiter times. Conventional fighters are generally built cheap but there's nothing against the creation of "high-tier/high-effectiveness" versions with the top technology especially when they do hold some advantages over ASF.
Quote:
The only reason why this is even a question/topic is because operational costs are not taken in to consideration.
Said train of thought would eliminate the existence of quite a few existing vehicles and infantry. There's easily roles for stealth conventional infantry with Mausers, high-performance vehicles and fusion engined stealth CVF even though battle-armor, battlemechs, and ASF are considered their more expensive, effective alternatives.
|
ghostrider
10/14/15 04:00 AM
98.150.102.177
|
So a conventional fighter could not use propellers to move the aircraft like the Karnov does?
The idea of a fusion driven Karnov came to mind, and has me wondering.
Does it require fuel to fly?
If so. Why?
And the definition of the fusion engine does not answer what it projects out of the craft to propel it.
It is super heated air? Plasma?
Edited by ghostrider (10/14/15 04:10 AM)
|