Book 2 – Page 53

[Infidel]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

[MarbitChow]

Why would you possibly want to invent a jetpack requiring the efforts of two different types of caster when there are flying units who can be easily mounted for fast airborne travel? Oh, wait...

Great example. There appears to be an active disincentive to creating items. Creating them on a large scale is pointless, since there's no 'market' that you can get rich off of.
Creating a powerful, useful item and giving it to a unit in the field means that there's a strong likelihood of that unit being captured / killed eventually and the item falling into enemy's hands.
The best items will be ones with a defensive or utilitarian function: eye-books, hat messaging, weaponry that you can use to augment your strongest units but wouldn't be horrifically overpowering if the enemy were to acquire it.
One-shot items (scrolls, etc.) offer a better deal for mages who are manufacturing for cash, but there's no incentive to create powerful items unless you believe your side is strong enough to retain them.

Furthermore, sides who discover new tech are unlikely to share it. The mage may take the secret to the Magic Kingdom, or get captured by another side, but it's unlikely to be widely distributed.
There's a good chance that sides end up "discovering" the same things over and over again, because there's no formal distribution of knowledge throughout Erfworld, except for the Magic Kingdom, and even there it looks like there are plots and secrecy is the norm for anything other than basic information.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Or two soldiers for one gun?

[GaryThunder]

Excellent points. For that matter, invention of new item types probably isn't particularly common. For the jetpack to come into existence, as was said, it required a Dollamancer who was fixated on accessories to be on the same side as a pliable and helpful Hat Magician, not to mention a certain arrangement of side politics therein. Most Dollamancers probably just create golems of various types or rainment. Most of the casters who are employed by sides are probably too busy to tinker with items in their spare time, and most of the casters who do have spare time living in the Magic Kingdom don't have much of an incentive to invent new kinds of items beyond their own curiosity.

[Infidel]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Or two soldiers for one gun?

Where are there two soldiers for one gun? I don't think that is ever done deliberately, more a lack of funding.

[justamessenger]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Well, except for all of the one engined fighters, like the F-16, F-35, Harrier, attack aircraft such as the A-7, etc. The engines are not included for redundancy, they are included to increase performance, redundancy is a secondary benefit. Sure, an aircraft carrier may be able to continue underway if it loses an engine, but it may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck, in which case it is only a big, slow transport. Similarly, the multi-engined aircraft are designed so as to increase their speed, altitudes at which they can operate, payload that can be carried/delivered.

The only exception I can think of is the A-10, in which pretty much everything but the pilot and the main gun have built in backup systems.

[Oberon]

Why would you possibly want to invent a jetpack requiring the efforts of two different types of caster when there are flying units who can be easily mounted for fast airborne travel? Oh, wait...

Great example. There appears to be an active disincentive to creating items. Creating them on a large scale is pointless, since there's no 'market' that you can get rich off of.
Creating a powerful, useful item and giving it to a unit in the field means that there's a strong likelihood of that unit being captured / killed eventually and the item falling into enemy's hands.

Meh. Look at the examples. Ansom used his carpet for the entirety of TBfGK. This item saved him from having to have a mount, which could possibly be killed separately from him. It was a clear advantage. The blaster bracer Ossomer employed was also a clear advantage. It had both damage and knock-back capabilities. The jet pack Cubbins and Ace created is untested, but it is again able to be used without employing a separate mount which can be killed. Hats allow for remote messaging. The eyebooks allowed for remote chat between the top units. Duncan's item allows him to make battle calculations without resorting to a mathamancer. There is a wealth of history supporting the utility of items and the market for them.

[Oberon]

Sure, an aircraft carrier may be able to continue underway if it loses an engine, but it may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck, in which case it is only a big, slow transport.

Did you seriously state that a modern aircraft carrier can not launch planes if the wind is not in their favor?

[Infidel]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Well, except for all of the one engined fighters, like the F-16, F-35, Harrier, attack aircraft such as the A-7, etc. The engines are not included for redundancy, they are included to increase performance, redundancy is a secondary benefit. Sure, an aircraft carrier may be able to continue underway if it loses an engine, but it may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck, in which case it is only a big, slow transport. Similarly, the multi-engined aircraft are designed so as to increase their speed, altitudes at which they can operate, payload that can be carried/delivered.

The only exception I can think of is the A-10, in which pretty much everything but the pilot and the main gun have built in backup systems.

Actually, they are included for redundancy as a primary benefit. And there was a major uproar every time the a single engined plane is adopted. The reason always quoted for going single engine was cost. I don't like that particular argument. Sounds like robbing peter to pay paul. But, another argument that has at least some merit is the statistical analysis of how many single engined planes would have remained combat worthy if they had been equipped with two engines in the current era.

The argument goes something like this. In WW2 and Vietnam most planes were shot down by bullets, so a secondary engine often made the difference considering the relatively small amount of damage bullets cause to the aircraft as a whole even when causing the engine or critical controls to fail. Current missile payloads however create a situation where a secondary engine equipped plane would not have had a more significant chance of remaining combat worthy after a missile strike. The statistics are different depending on who assembled them, but there is some truth to this argument. Even a glancing hit from a missile should usually take a plane out, two engines or not.

And a Nimitz carrier can definitely launch planes with one engine. Although, they would probably only do so in an emergency. I can't speak for the diesel powered carriers, or other countries carriers.

And not just carriers have two engines. Most Naval ships have 2 engines. The extra power and control is appreciated and utilized, but all navy ships are specified to perform their primary mission even with one engine.

[justamessenger]

Sure, an aircraft carrier may be able to continue underway if it loses an engine, but it may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck, in which case it is only a big, slow transport.

Did you seriously state that a modern aircraft carrier can not launch planes if the wind is not in their favor?

Don't be obtuse. Even a Nimitz class carrier can have difficulty launching aircraft with one engine down, yes, even with catapults, if it does not turn into the wind to add additional wind speed across the deck.

In other words, no, I did not say 'a modern aircraft carrier cannot launch planes if the wind is not in their favor.' I said 'an aircraft carrier with one engine down *may not* be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck.' Which, in this case means, if there is a dead calm, or if the carrier cannot orient itself to launch aircraft into the wind, it may not be able to launch aircraft, even with the assistance of the catapult. I got that info from my brother, who was on the Theodore Roosevelt, albeit as a radioman.

Seriously now, I am as big a fan as anyone of our supercarriers, but they are not absolutely perfect.

To Infidel: Yes, cost is always a factor for choosing one-engined aircraft. However, it has never been my understanding that redundancy is the primary concern for aircraft design re: engines, rather that it is, again, to increase the various aspects of performance.

As an aside, on the issue of cost...it seems that the F-35 is not the umm...deal...that was promised. What is the difference now between the 22 and 35? Not that much, given the performance differentials...greater stealth, greater payload, greater speed, etc. etc.

[Oberon]

In other words, no, I did not say 'a modern aircraft carrier cannot launch planes if the wind is not in their favor.'

Ok. Whew. I would have sworn that you said that "[an aircraft carrier] may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck" Just checking, not trying to be obtuse or anything. Because without the wind, all planes would of course fall into the sea!



There are both catapults and "ski jumps" which specifically account for the absence of wind, in case anyone cares.

[justamessenger]

In other words, no, I did not say 'a modern aircraft carrier cannot launch planes if the wind is not in their favor.'

Ok. Whew. I would have sworn that you said that "[an aircraft carrier] may not be able to launch aircraft if it cannot get sufficient wind across the deck" Just checking, not trying to be obtuse or anything. Because without the wind, all planes would of course fall into the sea!



There are both catapults and "ski jumps" which specifically account for the absence of wind, in case anyone cares.

Add the 'if it loses an engine' bit and you would get an accurate quote, instead of skewing the words to suit your own stance.

Also, I seem to recall mentioning catapults. Twice.

Maybe you can only prevail in an engagement if you...I dunno...misstate what others said to strengthen your position and make yourself seem more witty.

I would suggest you are getting perilously close to Rob's only rule for these forums

[Infidel]

As an aside, on the issue of cost...it seems that the F-35 is not the umm...deal...that was promised. What is the difference now between the 22 and 35? Not that much, given the performance differentials...greater stealth, greater payload, greater speed, etc. etc.

It seems nothing ever is delivered as promised.

Sounds like they got rid of the F16 because of maintenance costs, so they went and got a whole new plane with even worse maintenance costs. I know the F35 isn't specifically to replace the F16, but the contract and number of planes on order makes it look like the new workhorse that will be distributed across all the services.

I still think the irony is funny.
More boats in the Army than the Navy.
More planes in the Navy than the Air Force.

[justamessenger]

As an aside, on the issue of cost...it seems that the F-35 is not the umm...deal...that was promised. What is the difference now between the 22 and 35? Not that much, given the performance differentials...greater stealth, greater payload, greater speed, etc. etc.

It seems nothing ever is delivered as promised.

Sounds like they got rid of the F16 because of maintenance costs, so they went and got a whole new plane with even worse maintenance costs. I know the F35 isn't specifically to replace the F16, but the contract and number of planes on order makes it look like the new workhorse that will be distributed across all the services.

I still think the irony is funny.
More boats in the Army than the Navy.
More planes in the Navy than the Air Force.

Re: F-35, I seem to recall having read that a few of our foreign buyers would much prefer to get the F-22, given the shrinking cost difference between the two. Also, didn't they cut down the production numbers for the -35?

[Infidel]

They should. The 35 has lots of compromises. It's more multi-purpose and has some improvements over the 22, but overall the 22 is better in its role than a 35 in the same role. The 35 is a lego plane. And yea, it's also becoming habit for congress to change their initial order. Oops. Where will we get the money for this?

[justamessenger]

They should. The 35 has lots of compromises. It's more multi-purpose and has some improvements over the 22, but overall the 22 is better in its role than a 35 in the same role. The 35 is a lego plane. And yea, it's also becoming habit for congress to change their initial order. Oops. Where will we get the money for this?

Sadly, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has adamantly refused to allow the export of the F-22. Despite a projected cost savings of approximately 20%-30% per airframe over the life of the program (including maintenance costs for parts, etc). If we allowed the buyers to actually throw their money at it, the F-35 would be a thing of the past, as the F-22 would be cost-competitive.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Or two soldiers for one gun?

Where are there two soldiers for one gun? I don't think that is ever done deliberately, more a lack of funding.

I'm no historian but I've been told it was somewhat common strategy for the russians during WW2 due to their large population and the poor productivity of their weapon factory... but I may be awfully misinformed so anyone who has any real statistics to contribute for or against this would be welcomed...

[Dr Pepper]

Meh,

Any one who fights wars should knowthe value of redundancy. There's a reason why warships and warplanes have two engines, even though only one is necessary.

Or two soldiers for one gun?

Where are there two soldiers for one gun? I don't think that is ever done deliberately, more a lack of funding.

Russia, WWI.

[╒╦╧╬╩╦╦╛]

Thank for redundancy Dr. Pepper... it is done wiht so much à-propos!

Edit: Typo

[Oberon]

Add the 'if it loses an engine' bit and you would get an accurate quote, instead of skewing the words to suit your own stance.

Also, I seem to recall mentioning catapults. Twice.

Since your twice mentioned catapults failed to mean anything in context, I'll just quote you directly then: "Even a Nimitz class carrier can have difficulty launching aircraft with one engine down, yes, even with catapults, if it does not turn into the wind to add additional wind speed across the deck." Only one mention of catapults there, no "skewing" involved.
Let me be clear, since you were not: Modern aircraft carriers are able to launch aircraft in almost any weather, and regardless of their engine status. They are designed such, despite your insinuations, or your brother's second hand information.