Independent Air Force in the SWU?

[ZzaphodD]

Cant really se an independent 'space force', a planetary airforce on the other hand.

The problem is that the realm of space belong to the Navy (spaceships are called, well ships for a reason). Whereas on Earth we have the Navy on the water and Airforce in the sky, in SW we only have Space (planetary forces aside). Having an independent 'space force' would be like having a planetary Navy and then another 'independent' planetary naval force as well. Of course, from an organizational point of view plausible, but not really different.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..

[CRMcNeill]

Well, going by the WEG material, it's already happened. As Whill pointed out, per the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, Starfighter Command exists separately from Fleet Command. Even though Starfighter Command does deploy starfighters in support of Fleet operations, it also exists and operates as an independent unit, including performing combat operations independent of the fleet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[jmanski]

I dont see anything wrong with what you have in mind. From what you seem to be looking for I think you have a good solution.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[CRMcNeill]

I know it has been a while on this topic, but do you think a space transport mounting a capital scale energy weapon (be it a turbolaser, disruptor, plasma cannon or whatever) would qualify as a starbomber? Even with a limited range, a light freighter that gives up most (or even all) of its cargo space for the power cells, capacitor systems and other equipment needed to fire a heavy energy weapon could be just as effective against a Capital scale target as would a freighter equipped to deliver ordnance.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Fallon Kell]

I don't know if a starbomber is the right term, mostly since we haven't seen a real-life counterpart. As fare as role goes, though, I think it is completely applicable to the mission. I've developed more than a couple ships that bridge the gap
Between capital ships and light gunboats. Most of them being some form of heavy torpedo boat or bomber. They perform very well in that niche against frigates and small cruisers, or in groups against large capital ships. Much like the torpedo planes of WWII...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System

[vanir]

In the Rebellion era I already use Starfighter Corps as independent Alliance service branch not directly tied to naval or SpecForces/ground units, but assigned to either as attachments from High Command.
I've even redesigned an Alliance rank structure with separate ranks for Administrative, Naval, SpecForces, General ground forces and Starfighter Corps.
For example despite using similar badging, equivalent ranks between the various military branches would be a High Command Colonel, a Starfighter Wing Commander, A Naval Fleet Captain, a general ground forces Colonel and a SpecForces Colonel. Another equivalent set of ranks is a High Command Captain, a Starfighter Senior Lieutenant, a Navy First Lieutenant, a general ground forces Staff Lieutenant and a SpecForces Technical Officer. Whilst their badging is similar, uniforms are different and there are some patches and other cosmetic differences between the service branches.

The Imperial Starfighter Corps are subsidiary of the Navy and Army service arms, but naval TIE/starfighter pilots train at Naval Academies with a higher standard of training, whilst station and base TIE/starfighter pilots train at Army Academies and have different formations (a 40-ship wing instead of a 72-ship wing). Base/station TIE wings also often receive older models like the slower T.I.E. due to high attrition in fleet service of the TIE/ln sapping available production.
Essentially in our gameworld, TIE encountered near bases and space stations tend to have lower quality pilots (typically 4D+2 skill), and fewer, older TIE models to work with. But they also tend to have several light scout craft, blastboats and combat shuttles to compensate.



In terms of real world air forces history, they started as Army spotters during WW1 and were an extension of the Army artillery regiments. England was the first to create the independent RAF, whilst as the fighter aircraft evolved in Germany the role of fighter pilot attracted the aristocracy, so air force development during the Great War in Germany was partly funded and accorded by rich nobles who flew the planes as a kind of knightly rite, everyone from Goering and Boelcke to Richtofen and Immelman all bought and paid for their own planes using family fortunes, and entered service as pilots as duty to the Kaiser. Nobles paid for Germany's air war out of their own pockets basically, so you couldn't really tell them what to do if you're an army officer, they'd tell you to take it up with the kaiser, but it's not like they wouldn't work with you because the army is the war and they're all there to fight the war.

Because England created an independent air force early on (1917) as a mundane defence branch, they decided to use the Naval ranking system to punctuate that air force was no longer subsidiary to or attachments of the Army due to fighter evolution. Thus began interservice rivalry in Britain. Their Navy had their own air force (Fleet Air and Coastal Command) which remained subsidiary to the Navy, so interservice rivalry was mainly between air force and army and only competed with the navy for their battleship funding, which always had military priority in Britain.

For every other nation, including the USAAC, the Luftkreig and Imperial Russian air force theoretically the air force remained an extension of Army artillery regiments. However fighter evolution had changed that slightly, then light bombers did more to change this and finally long range bombers virtually created the strategic air arms within air forces that sapped too much army funding not to become somewhat independent at the administrative and political level. Long range squadrons like heavy bombers needed independent support and maintenance. Army support was at the front lines and couldn't be drawn from.

Germany decided on an independent air force during the creation of the Nazi Luftwaffe in 1932-34, it was headed there anyway because for Germany due to the involvement of aristocracy in fighter piloting and procurement during WW1, it was very much thought of as the whole "knights of the air" romanticism popularised in dimestore chapbooks of the 1920s. It retained the army ranking system but mostly because this was originally derived from Knight ranks in the first place, and following Navy practise there was a second field rank which was the primary authority that did not follow exactly with service rank. A senior-lieutenant (Oberleutnant) would often be posted as a Flight Captain (Staffelkapitän) or even Squadron Leader (Gruppenkommandeur) for example, and actually had the full authority of a Captain or Major, could not be outranked by other Captains or Majors and had all their resources and staff, but was only a Lieutenant in service rank badging. It worked this way because Luftwaffe ranks are awarded by service career rather than posting, and field ranks are given by posting.
Germans are extremely pragmatic that way, and separate individual career and individual service value and need in the field.

In Russia the air force remained an extension of army artillery, but new air forces were created with independent subsidiary command, these were the strategic arm (included transports and heavy bombers, based at Moscow), and the spotters/communications arm (low level field commands but independent of the tactical air force, contained fighters and light bombers as well as spotters and scouts). The tactical air force used mainly medium fast bombers and fighter escorts and was attached directly to army field commands. This was all changed in 1942 as it was obsolete during WW2 against the modern tactical Luftwaffe.

In the US the USAAC grew with national industrial capacity to become a real monster, and this was approached by creating several air forces within the USAAC: two for every theatre of combat, one tactical air force (fighters and medium bombers), and one strategic air force (heavy bombers, transports and heavy attack aircraft).

After WW2 this evolved and progressed to create a number of independent air commands and service branches, whilst army retained FAC/spotters and later helicopter forces, the marines and navy retained their own air forces, SAC split from the USAF and both were independent, and PAC and TACAFE (Pacific and European air commands) have their own administrative structure, plus air national guard and strategic air defence arms.
It's kind of a big, confused, extremely expensive monster in the US.

Russia did it simply with their midwar revision based on lessons given by the Luftwaffe, creating four independent, primary arms the KBAF (navy air), VVS (air force), SKVO (army air) and PVO (strategic forces), each has their own fighters, bombers and transports, except army air which has helicopters and transports. The VVS is used like a tactical air force (frontal aviation) and supports army as independent attachments, whilst the PVO and Naval Aviation are used for long range support and home defence. All of them work together for interception and force interdiction duties. Nothing the size of a superpower isn't going to have complicated air forces in the modern world but Russia made theirs a bit cleaner than the US administratively and in terms of funding (simple: naval aviation uses navy funding, army pays for helicopters, the VVS gets very little funding and PVO gets the lion share of everything).
It was revised again in the late 90s so that only the VVS and naval aviation remain now, army air and PVO were absorbed but Russia is much smaller now territorially.


So historically it comes down to answering specific needs and following local military culture, which are different between different countries. That would suggest that Imperial and Alliance militaries may very well have vastly different administrative structures and cultures, including a completely different approach to service arms, support and technical functions, deployment, and command systems.

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

[vanir]

I agree completely if for no other reason than it's the only way to GM their respective forces in any large scale starfighter battles involving the PCs. At the very least it comes down to what Lucas equipped the respective starfighter forces with to use in combat.

The TIE are fleet interceptors. They're not much good for anything else. The snubnose fighters are multiroles, space superiority and light attack craft.

It's like a MiG-23MLD up against an early build F/A-18A or a Block 30 F-16C. Believe it or not that model of MiG can out-accelerate either easily, it can outclimb them, out run them at high speed, has generally better high mach performance and can pull the same G as a Hornet subsonic, when it's going supersonic (very few fighters can do that).

But in a transonic turn fight the MiG is a no show against the composites. It can't turn with them, it bleeds more energy through manoeuvres, it's got poor pilot visibility and ergonomics, controls are heavy in thick air, avionics are unreliable at best, all it's got is high speed qualities and you want plenty of air under the wings to get the composites out of their strength. At low altitude which is where most modern jet combat now occurs the composites will eat these old cold war monsters for breakfast.

But it's still a fantastic straight interceptor, it stayed in front line service until the Fulcrum and Foxhound numbers were up in the 90s, then stayed in training/reserve regiments. It's far more serviceable than the Foxbat (which is much quicker again but has terrible engine life). Thing will still out speed pretty much anything in the sky except another cold war MiG, plus you can run it on kerosine, maintain it with a screwdriver and pair of pliers and land it on a highway in farmland no prob. Believe me MiGs have their strengths.

Point is different roles. Use them the wrong way, the other guy has all the advantages. Use them the right way and you might take him out of his equipment strengths and into yours. Part of this is planning, doctrine, deployment, tactics and strategy.

TIE and Rebel ships work the same themes. One's a fleet interceptor force, the other is a multirole strike force. You have to use them that way. Interceptors need to be under direct command/control of the ships they're protecting. Strike forces need independent organisation and support elements. Closest parallel to Rebel Starfighter Corps would be the USMC I should think, with SpecForces representing Marine ground units and the Rebel Fleet representing the Marine landing force and light carriers (the MonCal cruisers representing a Naval cruiser escort attachment). Imperial Starfighter force is like straight Naval Aviation. They've got line/interceptor TIE and they've got bomber TIE, but both operate under direct fleet command and aren't even capable of straying too far.