Bombs Away!!!

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Why aren't you responding to vierasmarius then? I'm just proposing an answer to his question!

I went back to look at vierasmius' last post and am baffled at what you think I should be saying to him. He hasn't engaged in mutliple back and forth with me as you have.

Trying frther, I don't even know if there is a guided bomb that matches his hypothetical "semi-guided".

With laser guidance the pilot or the WSO is picking the target and holding the laser on that target. However in ssytems such as were used on ther old F-111 the flyover and evasion were programmed and the laser mount was set to compensate for this. Flying conditions aren't actually impacting laser pointing. All Artillery(Guided) Skill and possibly with bonuses for euipment quiality.

With a GPS guided bomb the pilot isn't even picking the target. That was all set before he took off. The pilot is simply serving as the last fail-safe in the system to see that the computers don't go all BSOD and make the wrong thing go boom. It's an important role and perhasp even a nervewracking one but not a techically dificult one demanding high skill.

If you were in a Daultless and diving on the Japanese Fleet at High Noon at Midway it'd be all about the Pilot Skill. With all these computer systems it just isn't nearly as big a deal.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I went back to look at vierasmius' last post and am baffled at what you think I should be saying to him. .

That pilot skill doesn't matter? I was suggesting a way it could matter a little and you responded to that by saying that it doesn't matter at all. Since I was just suggesting a method, it would make sense for you to respond to the method, not the motivation to do so in the first place.

He hasn't engaged in mutliple back and forth with me as you have.

Are you saying this is personal? I don't understand. Why should previous discussions be relevant at all?

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I went back to look at vierasmius' last post and am baffled at what you think I should be saying to him. He hasn't engaged in mutliple back and forth with me as you have.

Sorry, I didn't see much else I could contribute. Didn't want to jump in just to say "Oh, an interesting idea."

If you were in a Daultless and diving on the Japanese Fleet at High Noon at Midway it'd be all about the Pilot Skill. With all these computer systems it just isn't nearly as big a deal.

I wasn't aware that modern systems were so automated. My only experience with bombers is from various flight sims, mostly of planes from WWII through the Vietnam era. From what I recall of the "guided" bombs (mostly optical or inertial) you did have to get the plane pointed in roughly the right direction. That's trivially easy when no-one's shooting at you, but I wouldn't want to attempt it in the middle of a dogfight. So maybe it doesn't so much require skill, as a particular pilot maneuver (in the GURPS sense).

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

With laser guidance the pilot or the WSO is picking the target and holding the laser on that target. However in ssytems such as were used on ther old F-111 the flyover and evasion were programmed and the laser mount was set to compensate for this. Flying conditions aren't actually impacting laser pointing. All Artillery(Guided) Skill and possibly with bonuses for euipment quiality.

With a GPS guided bomb the pilot isn't even picking the target. That was all set before he took off. The pilot is simply serving as the last fail-safe in the system to see that the computers don't go all BSOD and make the wrong thing go boom. It's an important role and perhasp even a nervewracking one but not a techically dificult one demanding high skill.

If you were in a Daultless and diving on the Japanese Fleet at High Noon at Midway it'd be all about the Pilot Skill. With all these computer systems it just isn't nearly as big a deal.

Ok. I can concede to that. Even now I remeber one more thing, increasily the bombs are dropped by UAV/UAS/RPV, like Predators (MQ-1/MQ-9), which demonstrates that flying is not at all essential to a successful dropping, but fly "near the target".

So, in risk of contradicting myself, and I am, I'm convicted that Pilot skill doesn't matter much, as drive your car around, but it in a Air Supremacy scenario. If there is risks around, SAM , AAA, CAP, steep valleys, large mountains, which one could fly into it, its another story. I don't know, yet, if this means a Pilot skill cap; or a modifier for Sensor skill, or Artillery (Guided) skill; or a roll for pilot skill, which could cause a penalty/bonus before all other tests. I'm still thinking.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by General Lee

Ok. I can concede to that. Even now I remeber one more thing, increasily the bombs are dropped by UAV/UAS/RPV, like Predators (MQ-1/MQ-9), which demonstrates that flying is not at all essential to a successful dropping,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. All those drones are piloted by internal avionics and a remote operator. It might indicate that fancy flying isn't necessary for bombing, but I don't think that was in dispute.

So, in risk of contradicting myself, and I am, I'm convicted that Pilot skill doesn't matter much, as drive your car around, but it in a Air Supremacy scenario. If there is risks around, SAM , AAA, CAP, steep valleys, large mountains, which one could fly into it, its another story. I don't know, yet, if this means a Pilot skill cap; or a modifier for Sensor skill, or Artillery (Guided) skill; or a roll for pilot skill, which could cause a penalty/bonus before all other tests. I'm still thinking.

I'd probably treat it as a separate Piloting roll to line up the bomb drop, but with such a large positive TDM (+4 to +6 or more, depending on targeting and flight systems) that it's routine and not rolled unless the pilot is distracted, debilitated, flying by default, etc. I do still wonder if it should require a particular maneuver on the pilot's part (Attack?) to represent flying straight and steady.

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I wasn't aware that modern systems were so automated. My only experience with bombers is from various flight sims, mostly of planes from WWII through the Vietnam era. From what I recall of the "guided" bombs (mostly optical or inertial) you did have to get the plane pointed in roughly the right direction. That's trivially easy when no-one's shooting at you, but I wouldn't want to attempt it in the middle of a dogfight. So maybe it doesn't so much require skill, as a particular pilot maneuver (in the GURPS sense).

Bombs of that generation indeed are "dumb" requiring a lot of the pilot to hit the target, or guided, including in the GURPS sense, because the pilot/WSO/Operator directly have to "drive" the bomb to the target. Fortunately, technology has evolved, and now the bombs go pretty much by therselves for theirs targets.

That brings me to another issue. As how "intelligent" are this homing bombs? What bonus for hit (Acc)?

[General Lee]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. All those drones are piloted by internal avionics and a remote operator. It might indicate that fancy flying isn't necessary for bombing, but I don't think that was in dispute.

Sure. What I mean is that flying is just an ancillary part of the process, not the "juicy" part.

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I'd probably treat it as a separate Piloting roll to line up the bomb drop, but with such a large positive TDM (+4 to +6 or more, depending on targeting and flight systems) that it's routine and not rolled unless the pilot is distracted, debilitated, flying by default, etc. I do still wonder if it should require a particular maneuver on the pilot's part (Attack?) to represent flying straight and steady.

I concur with you about the lack of need for a roll, when there is no risk. But, I can't see how one knows when the pilot is distracted, debilitated, etc. It seems to me there is a gap in the rules that I hope would be filled.

I comenced reading Spaceships looking for some answers, if it already exists.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by General Lee

I concur with you about the lack of need for a roll, when there is no risk. But, I can't see how one knows when the pilot is distracted, debilitated, etc. It seems to me there is a gap in the rules that I hope would be filled.

Ah, I was assuming that the pilot was a PC. If it's a ground operative calling in an air strike, and there isn't significant enemy air or anti-air presence, then the strike will just happen. If there is enemy interference, I might make a QC between the "relative strength" of the two sides, with allied success meaning a bomber can get through, and failure meaning the airspace is too hot.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by General Lee

I concur with you about the lack of need for a roll, when there is no risk. But, I can't see how one knows when the pilot is distracted, debilitated, etc. It seems to me there is a gap in the rules that I hope would be filled.

Uh, the same way one knows in general if a character is distracted, debilitated, etc? That's covered by a mix of general GURPS rules and GM judgement. Is there any reason you'd need special rules for distraction and debility when piloting?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. All the information ose. drones are piloted by internal avionics and a remote operator.

Not true of the newest UCAVs like the X-47, which are fully autonomous even for carrier landing.