Hi!

This is an idea that, to me, seems modest, but I'm still hesitant to bring it up because of my opposition to "Technology Sloshing," and it IS very similar to the Borak Hunter/Killers.

The idea is that, because the FRA developed the most advanced versions of suicide shuttles (their shuttle bombs), would they have rebuilt old fighters into more capable versions of their shuttle bombs?

Replacing the cockpit of an old fighter with the antimatter containment system of a third-generation shuttle bomb should be possible, especially if the power systems meant to supply the auxiliary weapon (the SRC, mini-phots, or tachyon missile, as the case may be) were rerouted to that purpose.

I originally had this idea shortly before I got module E3 and, as I said, I heartily agree with not allowing technology sloshing. I only bring it up here because it seems to be SO obvious to me...

Anyway, I did come up with a few limitations on using these so that they won't be quite so unbalancing...

First: with limited production capabilities, the FRA council would be unwilling to allow newly build fighters to be used willy-nilly for such a project. As such, no more than a third of the fighters in a given scenario can be declared as "War Weary" enough to be used in this manner AND (if used in a historically identified year) the only fighter types that can be used must have been in service at least two years.

Second: I would strongly suggest that any secondary weapons be rendered inactive; having the suicide fighter precede its attack with a mini-photon strike, or worse, following in right behind a ship smashing tachyon missile, would make it too potent of a hit.

I know that the similarities between this idea and Borak Suicide Fighters do make this something far too close to being a techno-slosh, but does the idea otherwise seem unreasonable?

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 09:52 pm: Edit

The idea of a Remote-Controlled Fighter comes from J2 (J15.0). All empires used them to reduce the number of pilot casualties. Of course, all empires use Suicide Shuttles, with the FRA having their own particular flavor.

So I believe there is an argument here that what you are proposing is Not tech-sloshing.

However, there are a couple of things that make the (JB100.0) Borak Suicide Fighters unique. First, under (JB100.11), they employ Ready Racks. Hunter-Killer Fighters can only have their anti-matter bombs armed in fighter ready racks.

Second, Borak Hunter-Killers are able to Switch Guidance under (JB100.121). This is vitally important. They have the ability to switch from Remote Control to Seeking Mode.

So here we have an issue with your proposal.

1) Would the FRA develop Ready Racks?
2) Would the FRA develop technology that allowed them to switch from Remote-Control to Seeking Mode?
3) Would the FRA even go down this technological route (converting old fighters), given that they already have their own Shuttle Bombs?

Cool proposal by the way. Certainly worthy of discussion.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - 10:29 pm: Edit

I think Borak Hunter-Killer fighters are not actually 'real' things in the SFU, but only present in simulators. Actual Borak warship development ended in the early years (where they had early mega phasers in turrets). They did not have any fighters at that time, so it might be a thing that can't really be made (for whatever reason).

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 01:32 am: Edit

Thank you, Gentlemen.

Before I can really answer anything, I will need to reread ALL the rules for remote controlled fighters and for the Shuttle Bombs.

TBH: I've had a sort of love-hate opinion of rule J15. As a storyteller, I love the idea that the Powers that Be are concerned with the loss of life of their service people, rule J15.221 ("Remotely-controlled fighters are controlled through the seeking weapon control channels of the carrier, WITH THREE FIGHTERS CONTROLLED (INDEPENDENTLY) BY EACH CHANNEL") always gave me fits; how can a fighter, engaging in advanced maneuvers AND weapons fire be THREE times EASIER to control than a drone, which isn't?

I do think that (again, maybe) the answer to this may lay in the rules for Tachyon Missile control.

*Sigh!* Looks like what little free time I have is going to be spent with my Omega books (I type with a grin; I LOVE the Omega Sector)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

You can control three fighters because of SIZE. The fighter is already heavily computerized to assist the pilot in operating it in a combat environment and has a lot more raw computing power than drone that hangs on a rail of that fighter.

Both are expendable units, but the drone's electronics and drive systems are designed for one use. The fighter is built for multiple uses, but still compared to even a skiff expected to have a relatively short operational life.

The Drone's onboard fire control is expected to lock on to one (1) target and pursue that target being oblivious to everything else. It does not care if the target suddenly turns an intact shield to it, it will not on its own try to get to the down shield. A fighter's systems are constantly monitoring all the space around it, noting when that enemy ship starts moving to the flank so that the pilot can make a decision to continue on course, or divert to a new target. The pilot is simply making those decisions from safety on the carrier.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, April 26, 2018 - 07:50 pm: Edit

SPP, I appreciate the explaination, and what you say makes sense. My feelings towards the rule in question are, however, just that; "Feelings." I'm sure you know how logic often gets thrown out the window in the face of emotions.

Back to the subject at hand, I'm pouring over the rules regarding remote controlled fighters, Auroran Shuttle Bombs, and Borak hunter-killers to see if I can come up with a "Third Way" to allow these suicide fighters without having a major techno-slosh. So far, no luck, but I'm trying...