[seasalt]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

...

I think railguns firing saboted, stealth projectiles (to minimize intercept from point defense) might see some use. They'd be short-ranged and inaccurate, but kinetic impacts would break the heat shielding very well, leaving the target vulnerable to laser attacks - assuming that the impacts didn't cause catastrophic airflow issues. It might be something that some air forces are experimenting with - railguns aren't consistent weapons, but they may have some high profile victories that make people think they're better than they are.

Stealth aircraft might also exist. These would be relatively low performance, turbojets, turbo-scramjets, or hyperfans with a heavy emphasis on thermal stealth. They can't intercept (or run from) a fusion air-ram fighter, but may be able to ambush them. The threat of stealth aircraft firing close-in railguns into a squadron pursuing a fleeing enemies might limit the decisiveness of air engagements. Again, this may be a more theoretical threat than something that actual happens, but the history of war is full of military forces that let their tactics be dictated by a potential threat that never materialized in practice.

Brilliant missiles are robotic missiles, so if robotic aircraft aren't used because of the threat of hacking, you need to explain why brilliant missiles aren't vulnerable. It might simply be a time question - the missiles' robo-brains aren't active enough long enough to be hacked - but I would probably limit the endurance of brilliant missiles to around 20-30 seconds. That also limits their potential range, which encourages everyone to engage at closer ranges.

I love these ideas! This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to have! So yeah, you make a good point about robotic missiles. My thought as to why they'd be usable while combat robots wouldn't be, is that brilliant missiles don't need to have an external command input after they launch, to tell them to return and shut themselves down for repairs. Once launched, they just need to recognize an enemy vehicle and dive on it. Of course, that raises the possibility of them getting confused and attacking friendlies, but I think some friendly fire is a worthwhile risk for beyond-visual-range weapons. Though their practical range might be somewhat limited since fusion-powered aircraft are going to inevitably outrun a misisle too small to carry a reactor.

I like your idea about railguns, as a sort of "more advanced" weapon which only starts appearing later in the campaign as it gets miniaturized enough that a plane can fire one and handle the recoil. I imagine they'd shoot bursts of flechettes which rip up the skin of the enemy aircraft and ruin their heat-sinking capability. Thematically, this is also a sort of weapon that would be more likely employed on an aircraft that isn't really expected to come back, as it's too slow to run away after making its surprise attack... and thus shows the increasing desperation of whoever starts using these stealthy sniper planes first.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The missing element for Caliph is the contragravity generator...

Without easy cheap reactionless thrusters Caliph is too young a civilization to have built up to that level of space activity.

Ack... this is what I was afraid of. After re-reading the writeup in alternate earths, I have to agree that the contragravity can't be excised from the setting.

Which brings me back to the original problem. How do you avoid the fact that every battlesuit and civilian aircar is suddenly a planet-killing superweapon capable of blowing the earth apart like a shotgun to a canteloupe? A global war is the central premise of the setting! Are we assuming that nobody considered building kinetic kill vehicles? The real problem is it doesn't NEED to be planet-killing - kinetic projectiles with high-acceleration reactionless drives can be scaled to any power you need, from taking out a single city on downwards, and even with lasers there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to defend against them.

Maybe it could be assumed that they are, in fact, contra-gravity, and can't produce 1G worth of thrust constantly once they're outside Earth's gravity well. Maybe the amount of acceleration they provide drops dramatically as it gets into space, since it is "pushing" against the gravitational field of earth or another planet... which means that once it's in space the acceleration drops to a few thousandths of a G. That, at least, means they would take several years to build up planet-killing velocity and ships with conventional fusion thrusters could catch up to them before they get very far.

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

The mechanics of Caliph's fusion air-rams are 90% technobabble and game mechanics. Almost anything is justifiable, and it's mostly a question of what mechanics and play experience is desirable. I was mostly offering some reasons why vulnerable radiators at the back of the plane might not be desirable.

It is true that if an enemy craft is approaching from the flank, an aircraft would need to expose the upper surface radiators to roll into a reciprocal course - though turning away is safer since the radiators roll away from the flanker. I think that becomes part of the tactical maneuvering: if an enemy gets within effective laser range and bearing while flanking an aircraft, the flanked aircraft has to turn away (possibly into a twisting climb if it wants to re-engage) or accept that its vulnerable if it turns to engage. But I think that it is better if turning to disengage is generally safer, since that means that outmatched or losing fighters have a low risk retreat.

I actually really like this. It means that tactically, it is one's flanks that need to be guarded even more than one's tail, and the most risky thing to do (yet ultimately necessary) is to turn towards a enemy incoming from the flank. So, there's a balance between pulling a potentially fatal amount of Gs by turning hard towards the enemy (plus bleeding off a lot of your airspeed due to the inefficiency of making sharp turns), versus turning too slowly and giving the other guy a chance to vaporize your radiator surfaces and leave you crippled.

This also plays into the psychological element of fear/courage, which I think should always be a big part of any war-oriented RPG game. In the context of this specific setting it would be one of the major disadvantages of the Jamahiriya and Caliphate of Hind, since their warriors are are less likely to have the kind of suicidal bravery that "mujahedeen" do, helping to counterbalance the advantages they (particularly the Jamahiriya) get from embracing a more scientific, data-driven approach to warfare.

Originally Posted by Anthony

Aircraft really aren't going to use radiators; they'll rely on conductive cooling across large amounts of area exposed to a high velocity air stream. They have more heat problems than ships (which can use water), but less than ground vehicles and way less than spacecraft.

If it was just engines, sure. But when you're talking about mounting laser weapons with an output of several megawatts or more, conductive cooling across the surface isn't going to cut it, not on top of a fusion engine. If your laser weapon can melt another aircraft to death in spite of the cooling effects from airflow, that means it's putting out enough thermal energy into your plane to melt YOU to death as well.

And, more importantly, if lasers are the main weapons (which they absolutely will be, since even railguns can't come close in terms of range and accuracy) then you need to defend against them, and reactive exploding armor works a lot less well for an aircraft than a tank... not least because one of the biggest dangers of getting hit with a laser pulse in an aircraft is that the plasma explosion might make your plane lose control and start tumbling, so ERA defeats the whole purpose.

So, I think that if you're needing to radiate the heat of multiple laser hits as well as your own weapons, you want a super-cooling skin all over the surface of your fighter jet, and use radiators to shed the heat. From a gameplay perspective I think this works well since it gives a "weak point" that your wingmates need to protect, and creates the issue that SOMEBODY in every formation has to draw the short straw, of being the first into the breach who is unavoidably going to catch hell at the start of any engagement.

Morale is the most compelling part of combat in a game like this, even moreso than clever tactics or feats of skill. When troops are fighting on the ground, even with a jump pack or whatever, they realize that they are pretty much stuck in it once a firefight starts and that if they try to run away they'll just get mowed down. But fighter pilots don't have that certainty to lean on. They always have the option to break formation and abandon the rest of their wing in a dogfight.