Interesting piece Los.
What I found neat was your attack pilot pointed out that your multi-role
choppers exist, though they don't get tasked with two things at once. That I'd
buy. But if you had the capacity to design a ship that could do both roles
well, the only reason to partition the roles would be a mission oriented one
(rather than technical). That is the most cognizant
statement of the situation - that you don't WANT your troopships
shooting when the should be hauling infantry ass. Heck, every flyboy wants to
shoot up stuff so it doesn't surprise me that the psychology would be there
that if a slick had heavy firepower, he'd want to go blow stuff up rather than
worry about landing his crew. That makes perfect sense!
But that doesn't preclude a multi-role airframe (we have some now). Just
at any given operation, it would be configured for one or the other task.
> From your buddies post:
the fact that each AIRCRAFT is designed to conduct a single type
of mission at any single time. Example, the AH-1W+ is a multimission
aircraft, we are trained in many type missions, escort, fac(a), close air
support, TRAP, TAC(a), etc. However, we only do one mission at any given time.
Also I have no knowledge of any multimission aircraft that share a
transport AND attack role, except MAYBE the AC-130 and that's stretching
it.
What is TRAP? It is an acronym I'm not familiar with.
Plus, as to the argument of competence: How be I put it to you this way
- the reason you are good at hitting a target with a rifle (assumption!)
and I am good (again assumption) at writing code is the skills are different
and we've each mastered them. If they had a common interface (ie we both just
pushed a button), then we could be equally good at either. I would imagine
this kind of convergence of interface is possible in attack and transport
craft such that any pilot of one can fly the other with facility. Further, I
assume expert systems and computer aided systems will make this task easy,
freeing the pilot to worry about things like what he should be doing and
where. He might even have chipped implants to let him select what mission type
he is on and
just chip-in the right skillset.
Again, that doesn't mean you want troopships engaging ground targets - I
agree thats for gunships. But it needn't be because the airframe couldn't be
kitted out that way, or because the pilot couldn't have the
skillset. It should be for the one good reason - the job of getting
troops down is different from the job of shooting up stuff.
Tom
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, With my last breath, I spit at thee. From the depths
> of Hell, I stab at thee. wrote:
> Again, that doesn't mean you want troopships engaging ground targets -
I'm still of the opinion that if the troop ship can lob ordinance on the
target area on the way in it couldn't hurt. Not necessarily function as a
gunship, but suppressive fire on the way in and way out.
Good posts all about this subject.
As for the skillsets being different Transport and Gun. They are enough
different that all current services use separate pilots. More of a training $
and time thing than a requirement.
As for your transports using ordinance on the target area... It is just not a
good idea. Us Flyboys <Throws cowboy booted leg up on desk as he pushes back
Stetson> can do one thing well at a time. That's the way were are made. Find a
problem, fix it, find a problem fix it. So if you want us to bring some grunts
down to an unfriendly LZ great we can do that. If you
want us to blow up some folks somewhere swell we can do that. But - if
you want us to blow up some folks and then take some other folks along for the
ride to drop off after well, its not gonna work as well. When were are on the
attack we do in small crews (Attacking is dangerous and people like to shoot
back) so that we minimize losses. When schlepping people around we try to do
it to places that are not likely to result in crashing (Or at least less
likely than when we are blowing things up. They can still be unfriendly places
but hopefully not so much so.
As for the same vehicle that would be swell if you can do it but I believe the
design criteria will dictate that separate attack and lift assets are
developed except in very obscure circumstances (i.e.: This fringe patrol craft
can only carry one lander and it needs to be able to assist this squad
(aliens))
"With my last breath, I spit at thee. From the depths of Hell, I stab at
> thee." wrote:
> Interesting piece Los.
Note that they are multi-Combat role though not transport/combat. In
Scumpys definition an UH60 blackhawk is multirole, (Transport troops,
slingload equipment, perform SAR etc) Also he pointed out the AC130 which is a
gunship, but this craft (which I have some experience working with them and
have also been on for a few familiarization rides), carries no cargo or
troops. It's strictly a gunship based of a transport airframe. (BTW
interesting side tidbit. Half the guys in an AC130 crew just stand their with
snow shovels and take care of brass!)
> But that doesn't preclude a multi-role airframe (we have some now).
Just
> at any given operation, it would be configured for one or the other
Ye this has been something I'm an advocate for. Same airframe but you attach
differnt modules to it. That cuts down on construction cost and pilot
familiarization.
> different and we've each mastered them. If they had a common interface
AN esoteric first sentence but essentially correct, assuming I am not tasked
to write code at the same time I'm supposed to be fighting which is the point.
(And yours too?) Anyway as far as downloading knowledge, sounds like the
Matrix. Of course when on the slippery slope of estimating things in a sci fi
universe you can always come up with a solution for something. (Screw it lets
just go to transporter beams and get rid of landers all together!<grin>) More
important than downloading knowledge is downloading and uploading pertinent
experience which is nine tenths of the operation. And this is an important
point. It's not the physical operation of the aircraft. Even Scrumpy as a
Cobra pilot, could probably get in and fly Magic's Daphene (sp?) with some
quick transition. It is the Mission parameters and doctrine that requires for
that given operation or set of operations" experience.
Let my diverge for a quick second. In SF (or in the SAS) we as operators are
supposedly capable of doing all the Special operations missions. But in
reality what we do is teams (or sometimes company sand squadrons) specialize
in one area. I our company e have one team that specializes in CQB. The other
in CSAR(Combat Search and rescue) another in SR (Strategic Recon) another in
Mountain ops. We also have teams that specialize in how they go to work Scuba,
Halo, Desert Hummers. I can take any individual guy off the mountain team and
put him on the CQB team and he would do reasonably well with a trainup. BUT I
would never send the mountain team to go kick down a door somewhere. (I could
but it would not be a wise use or resources i anything but extreme
circumstances) Nor would I want the CQB team to go scale a cliff and fight in
the mountains even if individual guys have don that in the past. These are
perishable skill that have to be specialized in and maintained. In our case a
unit will spend two years specializing in one mission then they'll rotate so
they can come proficient in something else. But on any given operation, the
door kickers kick doors and the SR guys sneak and peak. NOte that except for a
few esoteric items all team used mostly the same equipment and have the same
background but have differnt collective unit requirements to get that
particular mission done. Also note that this is the same in most all teh
worlds sepecial operations forces (as it's the same in most of the worlds
rotary wing forces) since it has been shown time and again through hard earned
experience to be the best way.
> Again, that doesn't mean you want troopships engaging ground targets -
OK I agree (said this many times) with same airframe. Different load outs. I
disagree with every ship being kitted out and armed the same for every
mission. (I'm not sure you are sayingthat either) That's not very cost
effective just for starters. Assume that an attack loadout is more expensive
than a transport load out. WHy risk more expensive assetts when you don't have
to. Especially since the crew concentrating on the delivery of troops they
can't make efficient us eof eth extar tech anyway.
AND of course my standard discalimer in these conversations: There will always
be a
niche role for a multi-purpose craft in specific specialist operations!
On 1-Oct-99 at 10:36, Makowsky, Robert LCDR
(RMakowsky@airstaborinquen.uscg.mil) wrote: > Good posts all about this
subject.
> As for the skillsets being different Transport and Gun. They are
So you wouldn't have things set up with a big area affect weapon that you
trigger just before touchdown that torches a large area around the ship? No
thought, just, 100 meters, clear the area. I know I would want something like
that in the Starship Troopers scenario. Obviously in a tight, multiple ship
assault you wouldn't use it because you would torch your friends, but if you
stage it a little looser you could increase your chance of getting your cargo
down.
On the SS note, what about troop drops using the Heinlein method? Of course it
would all be PA.
> Roger Books wrote:
> So you wouldn't have things set up with a big area affect weapon that
Yikes If you have to worry about the security of the 100 meters around the
aircraft's touchdown site then you are probably doomed to failure! But on a
more serious note something like that falls unnder defense weapons and systems
for the landers and not Offensive systems alal Attack craft. Re: SST setting
down amongst Bug swarms would be just the kind of things I expect Verhoeven's
MI to do.
> On the SS note, what about troop drops using the Heinlein method?
A whole seperate can of worms/discussion! Seperate protocols need to be
developed for dropping troops from orbit. (We have had the detailed
discussions in the past)
Los says stuff:
[with other stuff clipped]
> (Screw it lets just go to transporter beams and get rid of
Ya know...sounds like an excellent little tech level feature for an alien
race...(not Kra'Vak, but someone else? transporting Sa'Vasku troops?? or some
other BEM...)
Mk
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:54:36AM -0500, Climbing Stone Mtn is science
> friction wrote:
or
> some other BEM...)
It seems to me the Sa'Vasku would just drop eggs somewhere
isolated, let them grow up, and attack with _them_.
> On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 10:52:08AM -0400, Roger Books wrote:
Heinlein's MI dropped chaff pods, bombs, and other
"noise" along with the troops. Anti-radiation weapons would
be useful, as would a few nukes to get the locals' heads down.
I would think that shooting at something would tend to draw its attention. And
having drawn its attention, would draw its fire. And having drawn its fire,
would make the primary mission of landing
troops/cargo MUCH harder.
It seems to me single mission is the way to go.
> Los says stuff:
or
> some other BEM...)
There was a reasonably good science-fiction anthology comic series a few
years ago (Marvel put it out...it was called *something*Space, as I recall) in
which FTL travel was achieved using a form of teleportation that only
worked (safely, at least) in a near-vaccuum. In one story, a squad of
troops is teleported down to the planetary surface from orbit, after some form
of massive plasma weapon is used to first blast the target area. In the split
second of vacuum that results, the (power armored) troops are then beamed
down.
Frankly, the physics of it seems rather dodgy, at best. It would work great in
a game scenario, though.... First comes the blast template, and then a squad
of PA standing on the liquified remains of your troops.
> "Bell, Brian K" wrote:
> I would think that shooting at something would tend to draw its
The US Army had some problems with this when they introduced the M2 and M3
Bradely's. In the early training exercises the "more survivable" M2/3's
died faster and more often then the M113's they replaced. Why? Because the
crews were picking fights with MBT's... I'm not sure how or if the US Army
resolved this situation.
Maybe, and I mean maybe this would come in handy. Again in the "We are the
only asset" scenario it would work but in most operations you have others
landing, pathfinders that were there finding/marking the LZ, or folks
already in from the first lift.
In a Starship Troopers type situation I would still want to ground, unload,
and lift before the bugs can come out. Now if I have to go back in to get the
guys on the ground... Hmmm. Nope guess I cannot use my LZClearer tm.
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
> -----Original Message-----
The only way how - training, training, training. Just because you
*look* like a tank doesn't mean you *are* a tank.
-- vargr1 UPP-8D9B85 --
The three principle virtues of a good programmer |
Getting back to the original idea of this thread (Aliens), if I recall
correctly from the Colonial Marines Handbook (excellant book, now if I could
only find it again:-) there is a pure gunship version of the dropship,
but they are only used in larger drops, to support the landings. When you are
only dropping squads or platoons, you have to settle for your landers for
support. The reason isn't given, but from a logistics point of view it
probably makes sense, i.e. fewer airframes, less transport costs. As usual,
the teeth of the Marines are not making the decisions, the tail is. Same old,
same old.
I get to work around the HC-130 and AC-130 flight crews and
aircraft. They are both the same basic ariframe with different modifications.
Both planes handle very differently and have a staggering difference in
standard operating procedures. Sure one pilot could fly both but knowing where
that plane should be and what it should be doing in any given instance during
an operation is a whole other matter. The mind set is just to far apart
between the two. In combat you really dont want a pilot who has to juggle 2
sets of procedures in his head like that anyway. I dont see this changing
much in the future. Just my 1/2 cent.
> "Imre A. Szabo" wrote:
> The US Army had some problems with this when they introduced the M2
M2/3's died
> faster and more often then the M113's they replaced. Why? Because
By training and sticking to the proper doctrine developed to employ the
Bradley in combat.
> "Makowsky, Robert LCDR" wrote:
> In a Starship Troopers type situation I would still want to ground,
Also note that the instance where the SST landers are firing off stuff after
they land (those stupid roman cancdle things) is done iurely for effect and
excitement and has no bearing in any relevant tactics. (Sort of like the rest
of the tactics in that flick).