Morrow Aviation Assets

[LBraden]

Just for the people who want a possible "heavy fighter"

http://braden1986.deviantart.com/art...avoc-451833313

[Capt Gideon]

Chaparral MIM-72 is based on a Sidewinder AIM-9 missile, but was modified to operate from a ground launch platform. It used a different rocket motor and reduced control surfaces. MIM-72A only had a range of 6000 meters and a speed of Mach 1.5 (1838 kph)(510.6 m/s) or 1.8 km per Combat Turn. the later MIM-72C&G version are listed at having a range of 9000 meters, with the G version have a new smokeless motor and the same IR seeker as FIM-92 Stinger. Where someone came up with the idea of 17,700m range for Chaparral is by treating it as the air launched version which it isn't. Chaparral being launched from the ground does not have Sidewinders advantage of being air launched where it is already at near Mach speeds. It has to provide all its own energy to gain speed and altitude, requiring a different type of rocket motor. This is why there were projections for improvements to the ADATS, giving it a IR seeker in addition to laser homing and a secondary version that would use a AIM-120 AMRAAM seeker in place of the original laser homing system, which would improve range. But who says the KFS doesn't have jet technology and just not shown it yet. A version of the follow on to the ME262 or other early jets, like flying wing bombers could throw a real challenge for the team.

[rcaf_777]

What about the

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
Cavalier Mustang - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang
North American P-51 Mustang - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...t-World_War_II

[welsh]

I think those would be better choices than F5s, and certainly a better balance to the KFS, but the problem is - why develop a fighter aircraft (with all the resources necessary to maintain the plane) when there are applications that need attention? Given the Morrow mission, why purchase fighters? We can leave aside the difficulty in buying advanced military fighter aircraft- something multinational enterprises usually don't do, but which might be sidestepped if you buy duel use. Of course with a heavy dose of imagination, I guess anything is possible.

The problem of having dedicated air assets in a fighter or even attack capacity, suggests that the project would anticipate the need for it in lieu of other purposes. Given that the project was supposed to rebuild after a nuclear war, I would think that aircraft, if budgeted, would be needed for recon and transportation, be low maintenance, technologically not very sophisticated, and practical. The reasons are simple that the needs for the mission demand it- low cost/multi-purpose/low tech- requiring minimal manpower (as talented labor is in short-supply). These are planes that might be adapted for military purpose, but military purpose is of secondary importance. The project's purpose is to rebuild.

There are a couple of streams of thought that you could utilize in justifying or explaining aircraft. I think there are three- the "unlimited Morrow" approach, the "Balance against potential enemies approach" or the "Morrow is a constrained organization" approach. Each reflects different mindsets about how to play the game.

(1) The Morrow Project needs them so acquires them and feels its justified to make the expense in labor and financial capital. Unlimited financial capacity and imagination can take this idea very far. In fact, that logic can go pretty fair to justify anything. My thinking is that the project would do something practical. The bigger your game project, the more likely that it might have jets. Assume the project could spend unlimited amounts, than why not buy spacecraft too or modern satellites. After all those are pretty sophisticated Science and Mars vehicles in the book. Granted those are few in number and far apart, suggesting limits in the scope of the project.

My feeling on this is that the advanced technology is pretty limited by the game's main book. I would be reluctant to go beyond that.

(2) Balancing with adversaries. Sgt has made this argument, but the only real adversary that has air capacity seems to have KFS and they have World War 2 era Thunderbolts. I would be curious to know how many Thunderbolts still remain operational today. In that sense, your choices seem a fair balance.

The down side of this is that if the Project beats KFS (and it probably will) than Morrow Project has now acquired air dominance. Beware Ballooners and every other faction. Sure they might have sidewinders and AAA capacity that might shoot down your planes, but those are fixed and if you have a wild weasel aircraft, maybe you can knock those planes out too. A dictator takes over the Project and can become the king of America, a benevolent (or not so benevolent) dictatorship because it has the capacity of bombing just about any opposition it might face. Cool side of that is that a slave federation or a bunch of former soviet forces with technology 150 years old (and with little residual know-how to service it) may save America from the best intentions (made corrupt by power-hungry leaders) of the Morrow Project. Not sure how Morrow didn't anticipate that possibility- but it might make for a new story line.

(3) The Morrow Project operates under stiff constraints- The Morrow Project is a small group whose mission is primarily rebuilding and redevelopment of a country largely destroyed by nuclear warfare. Delayed from undertaking its mission, it has few people, few resources and significant constraints. If it meets with a powerful enemy, that means it has to find a way to rise to the challenge, perhaps against a foe that has it outmatched in terms of military technology- thus the challenge is high. The goal of this game is not necessarily to make the game cool or easy, but to make it hard and challenging for the players by giving them significant obstacles to overcome.

That doesn't mean that you couldn't incorporate your airplanes into the story, but you would have to think about how. For instance, lets say that the KFS and its aircraft are threatening neighbors with bombing- utilizing air dominance to impose its demands through the threat, and occasional display of coercive capacity. The Project knows of this and has had its team hit by these planes in the past. To put an end to this, it needs to come up with an alternative- perhaps a trap in which the project uses its limited anti-air assets to shoot down the planes. Perhaps a commando raid to destroy the planes (or steal them) from the KFS. Perhaps a quick strike by armed air scouts against the air field to hit the planes while they are still on the ground. Perhaps these planes- meant for quick communication- can be put to service.

Or perhaps there is another group that might help. Perhaps a small group of pilots, largely operating independently or in cooperation with each other, are flying across the country creating a form of postal service between communities. They have taught generations of their children how to maintain the planes (although that knowledge is a bit weak after 150 years). They operate single planes out of bumpy air fields, perhaps the utilize some form of alternative fuel or energy to keep their planes in the air. The planes themselves have seen lots of wear and tear over 150 years, and are held together by bubblegum, rubber bands and prayer as well as craftsman ship and innovation.

Some of those planes might be like those you posted- rather simple, easy to maintain, practical and low cost. Maybe there are others that fit. A hodgepodge collection of ancient airplanes of uncertain maintenance and ability, being put to the test against the KFS's dedicated fighters. That would be kind of fun.

The story might be that the Project has to find a way to enlist these pilots, organized them, and perhaps even arm them to respond to the KFS. This may require some bargaining and perhaps some subterfuge, as well as the creation of potential back-up plans if this craps out. The odds remain against them, but the choice is stark. Either the Project can fashion the alliance of the KFS seizes more towns and imposes its rules.

Honestly, as a player or a director, I would prefer a difficult challenge than resolving the problem through the easy adoption of military tech and all the problems that might come from that. But at the end of the day, its your story. You decide what goes into it. I caution against advanced technology.

Another way of thinking about it comes down to how heavy do you want the military side of the game to dominate the story. Power, or I should say socially organized power, comes in different forms. Military power as social power is fundamentally concentrated and coercive- and its power at its most brutal and blunt. But there are other forms of power- ideological, economic, and political to name of few. Those forms of power operate on different logics. As I see the Morrow Project, military power is deemed essential but secondary to the broader purposes- which are economic, social, political and ideological. The problem of military power is that the consequences of its abuse are high but its application is generally destructive. As Gamer argued a page or two earlier, the goal of the project is to rebuild the country, not to create a more powerful warlord. Again, it's your game. Are you creating a mini-warlord, or are you in the difficult business of rebuilding a society. THe later requires the capacity to rebuild communities, find some ideological purchase, mediate conflicts, build communities- the stuff of the other forms of social power.

[ArmySGT.]

Using that criteria justify the Morrow Projects fielding of:

The MARS One
The Chapparal missile
The TOW Missile
The 81mm Mortar
The M9 flamethrower
40mm grenade launchers
fragmentation handgrenades
M60 machineguns
M240 machineguns
M2 .50cal machineguns
Antitank mines
claymore mines
Antipersonnel mines
Nerve agent

Because they are all in 3rd edition and fielded by the Project.

[welsh]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Using that criteria justify the Morrow Projects fielding of:

The MARS One
The Chapparal missile
The TOW Missile
The 81mm Mortar
The M9 flamethrower
40mm grenade launchers
fragmentation handgrenades
M60 machineguns
M240 machineguns
M2 .50cal machineguns
Antitank mines
claymore mines
Antipersonnel mines
Nerve agent

Because they are all in 3rd edition and fielded by the Project.

In short, they are all problematic. The weapons systems would all be difficult to get in the US by normal legal means. That's not to say that a private company couldn't buy them, but under very strict licensing rules or they could buy them abroad. But large purchases of such weapons- needed to field an army of between 10-50K people would raise serious red flags. Even private military companies will often acquire weapons through the surrogate agency of a sovereign state.

But most of the weapons above a small arms and can be purchased abroad. In certain places around the world, there is a glut on small arms. Some of these weapons however are rather unusual. Morrow One for instance. Other weapons would raise other red flags- nerve agents? We see by the administration's willingness to provide TOW missile systems to Syrian insurgents that such transfers draw attention.

But when you talk about advanced fighters you are talking some big ticket items. Those who sell such systems are under significant constraints in how they sell and where those weapons going. Advanced fighter aircraft are prestige items, the prize of a country's arsenal. They don't go to private agencies easily.

I would be concerned about costs- A lightly armored V-150 is significantly less expensive than an advance F5 fighter aircraft, and you can probably do more with the V-150.

Sgt your argument is "If the Morrow says it, than it is possible." I am not disputing that. My argument is "How?" I admit that's a question I have with regard to other weapons that the Morrow Project offers to players. To me, that becomes the basis of some rather interesting story telling about the nature of the Morrow Project itself.

A second argument point is "does it make sense for the game." That goes to the issue of game craft. If you want a game that emphasizes the use of military technology in a post-apocalyptic world- ok. But it seems from the game design that the military aspects are secondary to the overall story. This I am pulling form the 4th edition where the authors are justifying "why so many weapons-because it might be a hostile world."

I think there is a choice that needs to be made- is this a game about war making or a game about rebuilding. Arguably, aspects of war and development overlap, but every story needs to show some heirarchy of preferences.

If you argue abundance and warmaking- than anything is possible. The danger is you've set up a bunch of strawmen that are easily knocked down- like world war 2 era Thunderbolts taking on modern F5 aircraft.

If you argue constraint and development - than things are more difficult and challenging, your enemies are harder to fight and require more imagination and innovation, where your scouts are being hunted down by World War 2 era Thunderbolts. I find that a better story.

As for game design and consequence, well history suggests that in regions with little real political infrastructure, weak economies and social conflict- those with military dominance tend to rule and exploit their military power to rule through the use or threat of coercion. Dictatorship becomes the norm, even if originally motivated for benevolent purposes. I would be surprised if the Morrow Project would be able to overcome that temptation. And should it fall to that temptation, than the result is usually a coup within.

If you give your Morrow Project a decisive military edge through superior aircraft, and if you are trying to tell a realistic story, than you have to deal with those implications. Otherwise, its just more wishful thinking.

But it is your story to do with as you will.

[stormlion1]

A lot of equipment the Project has was bought from company's that were also part of the Project itself. CoT members held top jobs in those company's and fudged orders. Probably double billing the US Government or charging extra for foreign orders and then making extra gear and stocking it away. Say the 4th Edition had the Stryker as a usable vehicle. The company that makes them gets an order from the US Government for ten of them, and a bunch of foreign orders for another fifteen. The CoT influenced company that makes the Stryker charges the US Gov't for thirteen and the foreign orders for twenty with the excuse of issues in the plant and rising costs. They all pay because its the only place to get a Stryker. The extra money is put into producing Stryker's for the Project with the excuse there demonstration models or testing models that will be tested to destruction. They might even get a few more out of the plant as well in parts.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by welsh

In short, they are all problematic. The weapons systems would all be difficult to get in the US by normal legal means. That's not to say that a private company couldn't buy them, but under very strict licensing rules or they could buy them abroad. But large purchases of such weapons- needed to field an army of between 10-50K people would raise serious red flags. Even private military companies will often acquire weapons through the surrogate agency of a sovereign state.
But most of the weapons above a small arms and can be purchased abroad. In certain places around the world, there is a glut on small arms. Some of these weapons however are rather unusual. Morrow One for instance. Other weapons would raise other red flags- nerve agents? We see by the administration's willingness to provide TOW missile systems to Syrian insurgents that such transfers draw attention.
But when you talk about advanced fighters you are talking some big ticket items. Those who sell such systems are under significant constraints in how they sell and where those weapons going. Advanced fighter aircraft are prestige items, the prize of a country's arsenal. They don't go to private agencies easily.
I would be concerned about costs- A lightly armored V-150 is significantly less expensive than an advance F5 fighter aircraft, and you can probably do more with the V-150.

The Project has them because Morrow Industries and their partners in the Council of Tomorrow are the manufacturers and distributors of them. The Project with exceptions like MARS One, Science One, HAAM suits, and fusion plants uses off the shelf technologies. This stuff has had the research and development paid for, the investment in the manufacturing capability, and the investment in training workers paid for by large government contracts. After the government contract is fulfilled the production line just runs for a bit longer. This or the assembly line is broken down and sold as scrap by “Manufacturing! A wholly owned subsidiary of the Coucil of Tomorrow!” over to “Recyclers! A wholly owned subsidiary of Morrow Industries. A percentage is melted down in front of government auditior then it is out on the town for drinks and lapdances. The rest of the percentage is re-installed in another plant and the process restarted to make more Browing HP-35s, or hundreds of resist weave uniforms, or thousands of pounds of RDX to make various munitions.
Government contracts paid all the initial startup costs and most of the production costs.

Originally Posted by welsh

Sgt your argument is "If the Morrow says it, than it is possible." I am not disputing that. My argument is "How?" I admit that's a question I have with regard to other weapons that the Morrow Project offers to players. To me, that becomes the basis of some rather interesting story telling about the nature of the Morrow Project itself.

The Morrow Project has been building and planning since the Cuban Missile crisis for a War that eventually happens 9 November 1989. That is a lot of time to stock pile equipment, train personnel, and hide them.

Originally Posted by welsh

A second argument point is "does it make sense for the game." That goes to the issue of game craft. If you want a game that emphasizes the use of military technology in a post-apocalyptic world- ok. But it seems from the game design that the military aspects are secondary to the overall story. This I am pulling form the 4th edition where the authors are justifying "why so many weapons-because it might be a hostile world."

It is a hostile world. In conflict there is adventure.
If you run a campaign emphasizing the rebuilding your players are going to be almighty bored and probably abandon your game for something else.

Nobody wants to make saving throws for crop rotation, or skill rolls on ox plowing 40 acres.

Originally Posted by welsh

I think there is a choice that needs to be made- is this a game about war making or a game about rebuilding. Arguably, aspects of war and development overlap, but every story needs to show some heirarchy of preferences.

The players have the obligation to make the world safe for the rebuilders. To be the Heroes (or Don Quixote!) and stand up for what is Right. They have to recruit the NPCs to do the rebuilding work. Even in my campaigns the Morrow Project Civil engineering teams are all NPCs. Making skill rolls on bridge building, and skill rolls to make a function village power grid are not going to make a great night gaming.

Originally Posted by welsh

If you argue abundance and warmaking- than anything is possible. The danger is you've set up a bunch of strawmen that are easily knocked down- like world war 2 era Thunderbolts taking on modern F5 aircraft.
If you argue constraint and development - than things are more difficult and challenging, your enemies are harder to fight and require more imagination and innovation, where your scouts are being hunted down by World War 2 era Thunderbolts. I find that a better story.

Nope, what ever I give I can take away. The KFS uses Thunderbolts. The KFS uses their own pre-War manufacturing base and education of very loyal subjects (the 2000) to build from scratch more Thunderbolts. This doesn’t mean the KFS could not field F-16s within 12 months it would take to train the pilots. There can be a cache of F-16s mothballed by the KFS , simply because it is not a necessary expense to fly them if Thunderbolts will do the job. The KFS may also be sitting on Theater air defense systems and advanced radar systems like Patriot and phased array systems. They don’t field them because they don’t have to. To do so, without a credible threat is to tip your potential enemies off.

See even if I give the Morrow Project, ten, twenty, two hundred F-5s I can still rebalance the threat and take those F-5s away or make them useless.

Originally Posted by welsh

As for game design and consequence, well history suggests that in regions with little real political infrastructure, weak economies and social conflict- those with military dominance tend to rule and exploit their military power to rule through the use or threat of coercion. Dictatorship becomes the norm, even if originally motivated for benevolent purposes. I would be surprised if the Morrow Project would be able to overcome that temptation. And should it fall to that temptation, than the result is usually a coup within.

Nope, that is built into the game canon. Project personnel are thoroughly psychologically screened to pick out potential warlords or rogues. If that fails the PD could invoke the Phoenix Project and still remove that threat. This is if Bruce (the Wander Warlock) doesn’t deal with the matter quietly.

Originally Posted by welsh

If you give your Morrow Project a decisive military edge through superior aircraft, and if you are trying to tell a realistic story, than you have to deal with those implications. Otherwise, its just more wishful thinking.

I am fleshing out all the missing data from what the Project was intended to be and how it intended to function had the mission launched in the planned for 3-5 years after the war. I would expect there to be significant threats to the Project from rogue elements of the Armed Force of the U. S., Canada, and Mexico, in addition to actual Soviet threats from over the North Pole, and from Central America or Cuba.

Originally Posted by welsh

But it is your story to do with as you will.

As always everyone’s input is welcome and adds new facets for everyone to use or discard as best benefits them.