When I do the math the result come up as not-impossible. I lack the data to come up with more precision.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 09:17 am: Edit

Loren;

That's a great idea the Federation FI-CON system, a group of 6 bombers carrying 12 F-18's.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 09:51 am: Edit

We know how large drones are physically compared to other stuff.

A drone space is one cargo point. IIRC a standard Admin shuttle, packed for shiping is 50, and a standard cargo box holds 50.

But we also know that drones ready to fire take up a LOT more space than those packed for shipping, and that there is SOMETHING other than size which makes it hard to fire a type-H (Standard B rack carries 6 spaces and is configurable, that's two type-H drones unless something makes it not work, since it doesn't work we know that something DOES make it not work).

Maybe the warp bubble or drive exhaust or ignition radiation burst or whatever on the type-H drive tries to fry the launching unit and a Drogue works because it is little more than a slab of armor separating the two type-H's and a bunch of support equipment that gets slagged by launch.

I'd have no trouble with a shuttle launching a type-H as long as that was ALL it launched that impulse and doing so destroyed the shuttle.

Type-H size isn't the problem, but we know there is a serious problem that restricts carriage to bases with special silo's and unmanned Drogues that have most of their support systems many kilometers away at launch.

DougL

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 10:50 am: Edit

Klingon heavy shuttle (two space) with one type-H drone:



I have posted this before. There is a lot more to a shuttle than to a drone or a drogue.

If you assume a drogue is one shuttle space and holds two type-H drones, then (because the drogue is essentially just a small framework) a type-H drone is about half a shuttle space, an a shuttle able to actually fly while carrying one would be much larger.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:10 am: Edit

So......are you implying said HTS could launch that type-H drone?

As a one-shot SP (which is destroyed during the launch)?

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:05 pm: Edit

He posted it in response to my concept art for the "KB-22", over in the Proposals board.

(If you know what a Tu-22 looks like, you'll see how badly I ripped it off.)

Also: Let's not forget that a Scatterpack shuttle holds six spaces of drones and takes up one hangar box...and an F-14CM holds ten spaces of drones and still only takes up one hangar box...

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:17 pm: Edit

A Standard Admin Shuttle carries FIFTEEN spaces of drones, that's its cargo capacity. It just can't launch them if they are carried as cargo. This MIGHT just be a hint that physical size of the drone isn't the limiting factor on how many you can deploy.

The space that holds an Stanard Admin Shuttle can hold at least 50 spaces of drones (probably more, you can overload a bay without wrecking the shuttles and the bay needs service spaces). Fill that same space with a Drogue which is little more than a framework for type-H drones and it holds no more than 6 spaces of drones ready to launch. The limiting factor IS NOT THE PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE DRONES.

The limit may be size deployed for launch and the availablilty of rails or spaces to pace drones deployed for launch. But niether an F14M nor a scatter-pack fills much of the actual space it occupies with drones.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:26 pm: Edit

'The limiting factor IS NOT THE PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE DRONES.'

Agreed. So an OFFICIAL technobabble reason needs to be given to avoid discussions like this.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:23 pm: Edit

No, a technobable reason really does not need to be given, and would be dangerous as people would try to find ways around it. So much easier just to have "SVC said no" than to waste time creating and defending an engineering concept.

The Tu-22 is not a scatter-pack and is not destroyed by the launch. It's a purpose built spacecraft with one function (to carry and launch a single type-H drone). Not really a bomber, per se, since being a two-space HTS-frame shuttle it can be inside a shuttle bay, but would have to be loaded by hand.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Can you envision a type-H drone in a bomber bay? How many spaces would it take up?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Whoa there big fella!

Lets not get carried away!

If a F-111 has a 3 space bay, a P2, PG and a RX P3 in addition to a normal load of drones (4xI, 2xVI,2xspecial and a ADD-6 does it really need a Type H drone?

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Not saying it does, just saying it would be useful for the matter to be closed.

Personally I would consider the F-111 mounting a type-H to be unlikely, but a B-52?

I'm expecting the answer to be 'hell no', but I'd like it to be stated clearly so we don't run around in a circle.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:06 pm: Edit

How about a F-117 Heavy fighter

2 special bays that can carry a H drone each. No other weapons, some sorta heavy EW protection.

Didn't see picture before I posted, the F-117 would need to be a 2+ space fighter mech links/ground only.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:07 pm: Edit

'No, a technobable reason really does not need to be given, and would be dangerous as people would try to find ways around it. So much easier just to have "SVC said no" than to waste time creating and defending an engineering concept'

You said 'no' in J2 and within 5 seconds of publication people were proposing putting it on ships, PF's, bases, and Space Pigeons.

Just like every so often somebody would propose 'ramming' rules, until a technobabble gobbledegook explanation was published in GURPS Prime Directive, IIRC.

'The Tu-22 is not a scatter-pack and is not destroyed by the launch.'

Well, the Tu/KB-22 is a conjectural 'what if' unit, too.

Your picture there looked like (to me, anyway) a regular HTS carrying a type-H as cargo.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:33 pm: Edit

If a type-H could be launched from a SC=6 unit (not saying it can or should) I'd suggest that the unit be ground based.

By Michael Powers (Mtpowers) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:56 pm: Edit

One thing I've always figured is that the "space" that a ship takes up has as much to do with its support equipment as it does with the actual vehicle. So the "hangar" box doesn't necessarily represent a rectangular area that's exactly large enough to hold one shuttle; it represents a parking space inside a larger bay, plus an area of cargo hold reserved for spare parts and consumable supplies, plus all of the conveyor-belt connections to the drone storage area (to refill the ready rack), etcetera.

This explains why, for example, some carrier variants can just magically "have" more hangar spaces than the regular hulls. They don't change the size of the bay, so much as they change the amount of internal volume devoted to shuttle/fighter operations.

(And maybe the Fed CVS/CVB was a question of the drone-supply thing; while they both have the same hangar bay, the surrounding structure had to be redesigned in the CVB because the F-15 had a different ready rack.)

Which leads to my final thought: When I envision a Type-H drone, I think of something about twice as big as what SVC drew.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 04:05 pm: Edit

The ramming technobable in GURPS was forced there by Steve Jackson, who basically said he did not care how much trouble it caused in SFB, he would not approve the book without it. And once we printed it, it caused no end of total hell as people tried to figure out ways around it. MUCH easier to just have "SVC said no" and leave it alone. The GURPS fiasco is exactly WHY I won't print any more technobable in the game system. It CAUSES arguments; it does not end them.

I said "no" to type-H drones on ships in J2 and that is the end of that conversation. I said no, and no means no. That's the end of it. The last thing we need is a technobable explanation of why I said no, as that would just let people start finding cracks, gaps, and wiggle room. I said NO and NO means NO and there is no wiggle room and there ain't no cracks.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 04:23 pm: Edit

SVC, at the risk of serious booth time, your answer still isn't clear. I am not asking for technobabble.

Everyone knows you can't put a Type-H on a ship.

Everyone knows you can put a Type-H on a Drogue.

The question we want to know the answer to is can you put a Type-H on a Fighter or Bomber?

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Tos, everyone who's read (FD21.11) knows the answer to your question.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 04:51 pm: Edit

SVC

Sorry to aggravate you further, but it certainly looks like you now have Type-H drones mounted on ships to me. After all, someone somehow got the Type-H on the drogues to circumvent the "No Type-Hs on ships" rule. To a Hydran, it looks like the Klingons invented a new Type "F" drone rack to launch Type-H drones. (I'd call it an "H" rack but the SB drone racks already have that designation.)

Of course if you say that drogues can no longer mount Type-H drones, that would fix both problems. (Type-Hs on ships and people asking to put Type-Hs on fighters/bombers/PFs/what-have-you.)

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Because the H drone needs:

1) Lots of distance between itself and a ship (lots of radaiation backblast)
2) Lots of TLC that you can't apply to it inside a tube.
3) It will chain react at the drop of a hat
4) SVC said no.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Pity that SVC said no... looking at the B2 stats I see the B2 has a 6 point weapons Bay... enough for TWO Type H drones.

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "throw weight"!

(the 6 type I drones and the 2 special rails just add spice to the mix.)

By Richard Sherman (Rich) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 06:12 pm: Edit

If you guys keep pushin', methinks you might run the risk of ticking the man off, and killing type-H drogues, or perhaps even type-H drones in toto.

Hmmm...not a bad idea!

Keep it up, guys!

[leave to SFB'ers - myself included - for being told no and pressing ahead anyways...]

By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Michael Lui,

Launching an H-drone from a drogue is not like launching one from a ship.

You have to:
* roll the drogue out at least four impulses before you want to launch the drone, taking the risk that your opponent will shoot it down before you can launch the drone.
* be moving at speed 12 (or lower) from the moment you roll out the drogue until the moment you recover it.
* allocate power to maintain your tractor-tether.
* give up an admin shuttle to have the drogue in the first place.
* accept that your opponent might vaporise the drogue before you get to launch the drone.
* not be in a nebula or other tractor-negating terrain.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 06:19 pm: Edit

(FD21.11) is clear enough for me. I withdrawl my question. Thank you Martin.