Seto wrote:Well... from the RPG's perspective, we could say they have a reconnaissance craft in the VEFR-1 via the UEEF Marines book's insistence that the Expeditionary Forces marines continued to use the VF-1. I know they slightly tweaked the name in the RPG, but it was designated as a multi-role electronic warning and reconnaissance craft originally.
But how many VEFR-1s are there realistically in the UEEF inventory? How many VF-1s are realistically in the UEEF inventory? By 2022 or by 2030 or even by 204x. They aren't producing more, and attrition is going to happen one way or the other (either from combat or lack of spare parts).
Seto wrote:TBH, I'm not sure I would call what we saw in RTSC "reconnaissance" since they appear to have been flying a BARCAP op instead of actually scouting anything. The Shadow Fighter would make a pretty awful reconnaissance aircraft since most of its sensors are passive and, its main radar field-of-view is typically fighter-esque, and its other sensors are fairly ill-suited to the task.
That's how the pilots see it, I won't argue if it is more properly something else.
The Shadow Fighter could still carry a pod(s) with better sensors to perform the mission (obviously it wasn't used in TSC), one that could be contained in a gunpod casing for ease of use by the battloid (VEFR-1 does this to IINM). Or there could be a variant of the Alpha/Beta with better sensors for the task (while OSM, Imaifiles does have a recon Legoiss variant pg93 M4-07 around this area other bolt-on packages also appear, indicating that OSM-ly a variant was considered during pre-production, though I don't know if I'd go with what is depicted), but this gets into the whole we don't know what they actually use for these Planetary Survey Missions. For a planetary survey (or even recon) mission passive sensors are not a bad thing, its more their resolution I would be concerned with.
Seto wrote:but it was always supposed to be something that was designed alongside the Alpha.
In the OSM yes all three troublesome designs in the story are that way, however in RT this doesn't appear to be the case. The Alpha is a ~30 year old design, with the oldest known cyclone dates I could find coming it at 1/2 its age and the Beta being added late in the process. Admittedly the Cyclone might have an unknown precursor in the UEEF. Then again the Alpha seems to always be "new" in the comics (2014-ish, 2030-ish, 2038-ish), so maybe they kept changing things requiring changes to the design (ala F-22) and finally someone said "enough".
Seto wrote:... there doesn't seem to be a separate planetary defense group, and the one time we see one of their surface installations attacked they do such a rubbish job of defending it that it would tend to bear out the idea that they're not equipped for planetary defense.
Not equipped for planetary defense? I would disagree, I think it would be more accurate to say they aren't organized for planetary defense, and there is a difference. You're referring to Edwards escape from Tiresia? Or the ASC's defense of Earth?
Seto wrote:It doesn't so much point to a change in doctrine, IMO, as it does the uncomfortable realization that ships designed around pre-1st War assumptions about space combat proving to be useless.
If their assumptions are proving useless, then that means they have to shift their doctrine from changing the levels of emphasis on "ship-ship combat" and "planetary assault". It might not be radical doctrine change, but it is doctrine change.
Seto wrote:Mind you, the Alpha's main problem here isn't a delta-v issue so much as an inability to even reach altitudes where its lacking endurance could become an issue in the first place.
As I've said in the past, this doesn't make sense. The Delta-V determines how far and how fast you can go on pure rocket power. This is also compounded by a lack of useful statistical data that could put this to bed (ex. propellant mass, burn time, etc). You'd almost thing HG is avoiding quantifying things in writing or something ("short legs" in space is relative since we don't know what they conceive of as "short" for example) or doesn't realize that what they state is not necessarily supported by animation (even if we ignore TSC, which clearly shows they weren't paying attention to details).