| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thedemonapostle
Commander
Joined: 02 Aug 2011
Posts: 257
Location: Texas
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:38 am Post subject: Star Wars equivalent of an A-10 |
 |
|
While browsing this topic:
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3409&highlight=
It got me thinking. Most of us know of the A-10:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
LARGE IMAGE: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/A10Thunderbolt2_990422-F-7910D-517.jpg
As best as I can figure from looking through as many starfighters as i can find. most fall more into the fighter catagory. but none seem to fit what the A-10 is: a fighter designed around the biggest gun available that isn�t fast or exceptionally maneuverable, but can take multiple anti-fighter missiles.
so heres my take on it.
Name: A-10 Thunderbolt II
Craft: Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Type: Fixed-wing close air support, forward air control, and ground-attack starfighter
Scale: starfighter
Length: 16.26x17.53x4.47m (LxWxH)
Skill: starfighter pilot
Crew: 1
Crew Skill: varies
Passengers: 0
Cargo Capacity: 50kg
Consumables: 1 week
Cost: 120,000 new; 70,000 used
Hyperdrive: n/a
Hyperdrive Backup: n/a
Nav Computer: no
Maneuverability: 2D
Space: 4
Atmosphere: 280; 800kmh
Hull: 8D
Shields: 1D
Sensors
Passive: 25/0D
Scan: 50/1D
Search: 75/2D
Focus: 3/3D
Weapons
1 Assault Laser Gatling Cannon
Fire Arc: forward
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 1-3/12/25
Atmosphere Range: 100-300/1,200/2,500m
Ammo: 1,500 shot charge. 150 shot recharge per round.
Rate of fire: adjustable up to 350 per round (4,200 per minute)
Damage: 7D
*3 Round Burst: 8D+2
*350 Round Burst: 15D+1
11 External Hard Points
Fire Arc: based on payload
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 0D
*Rocket: 1D
*Concussion Missile: 2D
Space Range:
*Heavy Proton Bombs: 1/2/5
*Rocket: 1/2/5
*Concussion Missiles: 1-3/8/15
Atmosphere Range:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 100/200/500m
*Rockets: 100/200/500m
*Concussion Missiles: 100-300/800/1500m
Ammo:
*Bombs: 1 per hard point
*Small Rocket: 19 per hard point
*Heavy Rocket: 4 per hard point
*Concussion Missile: 1 per hard point
Damage:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 11D
*Small Rocket: 2D
*Heavy Rocket: 10D
*Concussion Missile: 9D
i wrote it up as though it were a starfighter. i havent written up anything for a background yet. but i would like some good constructive feed back on this. i used the following link to help with damage and such:
http://www.jtgibson.ca/sw/shipgen.htm
before everyone cries foul and says its over powered, i off set the 8D hull by making it slow. but the hulls of starfighters usually run from 2D-6D. i put it high so it could actually withstand multiple missile/proton torpedo hits.
thoughts?
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?
d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle
Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
LOL. That was my topic. Glad to hear it got you thinking.
I can tell you put a lot of effort into your stat, but I'm just not sure how I feel about it. I usually try to avoid direct conversions (which is primarily what you have here) and instead take the concept of something from the real world (like the A-10) and apply it to something else, like an existing SW vessel in need of a new mission (like the Z-95 becoming the Z-Wing).
Some critique for your stats:
Speed and Maneuverability: The A-10 is at its best when it is close to the ground, where it is highly maneuverable. It's at the higher altitudes where it is vulnerable to other fighters
Hull: 8D is way too much. The X-wing has a reputation for being rugged and able to take a lot of damage and still fly, yet its Hull is only 4D. If you want your A-10 to be tougher, I would suggest something more along the lines of 5D or 6D (IIRC, the Millennium Falcon's hull is at 6D).
Sensors: As part of making your A-10 a good CAS fighter, the sensors should include some sort of terrain following sensor system to improve navigation and targeting when close to the surface.
Gatling Cannon: It just sounds too real-world; they don't have gatling cannons in the SWU (at least not by that name). Call it an auto-blaster, an auto-laser, a pulse cannon, or whatever you like, but leave gatling out of it. Also, no other starfighter in the RAW has an ammo limitation on their energy weapons. The rate of fire is useful, but doesn't really give a lot of information as far as in-game rules. I would suggest something like an auto-fire rule, where the cannon has a total of 3D that can be split between damage or fire control.
External Hardpoints: Most SW craft tend to go with internally mounted weapons, for a variety of reasons. I like the detail you've gone into here, apart from that.
EDIT: I did something similar a while back, in that I modified an existing SWU starfighter to make it a dedicated atmospheric combat starfighter. I intended it as an homage to the A-10, but it ended up coming out more like the A-1 Skyraider of the Vietnam era. Check it out, it might give you some ideas:
The Z-Wing Atmospheric Combat Starfighter.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thedemonapostle
Commander
Joined: 02 Aug 2011
Posts: 257
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Speed and Maneuverability: The A-10 is at its best when it is close to the ground, where it is highly maneuverable. It's at the higher altitudes where it is vulnerable to other fighters |
well i tried to put the speed as close to the A-10's actual speed as possible. i wasnt really sure how it would really hold up if if thought about it too much...
| Quote: | | Hull: 8D is way too much. The X-wing has a reputation for being rugged and able to take a lot of damage and still fly, yet its Hull is only 4D. If you want your A-10 to be tougher, I would suggest something more along the lines of 5D or 6D (IIRC, the Millennium Falcon's hull is at 6D). |
im torn between agreeing with you that an 8D hull is too much and 6D sounds better. but i know that an A-10 can sustain 3 anti-air missile hits and still fly home. so the other part of me feels that a heavily armored 8D hull would be more suited to taking a direct hit from a few concussion missiles or a couple of proton torpedoes.
| Quote: | | Sensors: As part of making your A-10 a good CAP fighter, the sensors should include some sort of terrain following sensor system to improve navigation and targeting when close to the surface. |
in truth i didnt give to much thought into detail for the sensors. i pretty much just copied them from a t-65B X-Wing. i can remember an air force mechanic telling me years ago that the best fighter jets in the world have less computing power than an xbox (not 360). the real world A-10 is most a mechanical beast, very little electronics, kind of a fly by the seat of your pants kind of thing. the missiles have more computers in them than the whole of the jet.
| Quote: |
Gatling Cannon: It just sounds too real-world; they don't have gatling cannons in the SWU (at least not by that name). Call it an auto-blaster, an auto-laser, a pulse cannon, or whatever you like, but leave gatling out of it. Also, no other starfighter in the RAW has an ammo limitation on their energy weapons. The rate of fire is useful, but doesn't really give a lot of information as far as in-game rules. I would suggest something like an auto-fire rule, where the cannon has a total of 3D that can be split between damage or fire control. |
i agree, a name change is needed. i just didnt want to leave it as " 1× 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling cannon with 1,174 rounds". perhaps "Assault Auto Laser Cannon". now the ammo restriction i threw in there as a limitation on how much can be fired each round. with only 1,174 rounds onboard, the A-10 only has enough ammo for ~16.77 seconds of continuous fire. thats just over 3 rounds of continuous fire in star wars as i recall. so i figured that the power core of the ship that would be rugged enough to withstand extreme conditions and still operate normally if critically damaged; wouldnt necessarily be a very high output core, which would also explain the low starfighter speed. so i figured that a capacitor or a battery of some type would be needed to hold a charge/ammo for the laser. as a long time GM i often have trouble finding ways to limit the power that players devise for themselves. and if it comes built in, its ever so slightly easier for the GM.
| Quote: | | External Hardpoints: Most SW craft tend to go with internally mounted weapons, for a variety of reasons. I like the detail you've gone into here, apart from that. |
as i said it was more of a direct conversion. yes i know theyre hard to accurately do. ill probably take out the hard points and replace them with 2 or 4 multiple warhead launchers with ammo in the area of 2-5 each. based on the type of ammo used.
Updated with new ideas
Name: A-10 Thunderbolt II
Craft: Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Type: Fixed-wing close air support, forward air control, and ground-attack starfighter
Scale: starfighter
Length: 16.26x17.53x4.47m (LxWxH)
Skill: starfighter pilot
Crew: 1
Crew Skill: varies
Passengers: 0
Cargo Capacity: 50kg
Consumables: 1 week
Cost: 130,000 new; 85,000 used
Hyperdrive: n/a
Hyperdrive Backup: n/a
Nav Computer: no
Maneuverability: 2D
Space: 4
Atmosphere: 280; 800kmh
Hull: 6D+2
Shields: 1D+1
Sensors
Passive: 25/0D
Scan: 50/1D
Search: 75/2D
Focus: 3/3D+2
Weapons
1 Assault Auto Laser Cannon
Fire Arc: forward
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 1-3/12/25
Atmosphere Range: 100-300/1,200/2,500m
Ammo: 1,400 shot charge. 10 shot recharge per round.
Rate of fire: adjustable up to 350 per round (4,200 per minute)
Damage: 7D
*3 Round Burst: 8D+2
*350 Round Burst: 15D+1
(the capacitor can only hold a maximum of 1,400 rounds of ammunition but recharges at a rate of +10 rounds of ammunition per round the laser is NOT used)
4 Multiple Warhead Launchers
Fire Arc: forward
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 0D
*Small Rocket: 1D+2
*Heavy Rocket: 1D
*Concussion Missile: 2D
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 3D
Space Range:
*Heavy Proton Bombs: 1/2/5 (non-self propelled, i.e. semi-stealth)
*Rockets: 1/2/5
*Concussion Missiles: 1-3/8/15
Atmosphere Range:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 100/200/500m
*Rockets: 100/200/500m
*Concussion Missiles: 100-300/800/1500m
Ammo:
*Bombs: 2 per launcher
*Small Rocket: 10 per launcher
*Heavy Rocket: 2 per launcher
*Concussion Missiles: 3 per launcher
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 2 per launcher
Damage:
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 11D
*Small Rocket: 2D
*Heavy Rocket: 10D
*Concussion Missile: 8D
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 9D
in this configuration it seems more suited as an anti capital ship starfighter. heavy weapons, heavy armor...
kinda heavily dependent upon a carrier too. should i put a limited hyperdrive system and nav computer on board to reduce the heavy dependency upon a carrier ship?
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?
d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle
Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | i know that an A-10 can sustain 3 anti-air missile hits and still fly home. |
Depends where it gets hit and by what exactly. A lot of Russian anti-air missiles have big enough warheads to seriously damage a WW2 destroyer. But if you're talking the Russian manpads (stinger equivalent) sure the A-10 or an Eagle for that matter can take a couple in non-vital areas. One Israeli Eagle came home with half its tail section blown off once, there's footage of it.
Thing about the A-10 is comparative armouring. After WW2 fighters became jets and once missiles became mainstream they were no longer armoured like WW2 fighters were. So modern jets just don't stand up to ground fire, at all. A rifle calibre machine gun will down low flying jets.
The A-10 is hardened against groundfire. The titanium crew box hardens the cockpit (only) against up to 30mm cannon fire (a lot of mobile Russian AAA is multiple 23mm layouts). In addition the engines are widely placed so taking out one doesn't automatically mean taking out both...if you're lucky. Lucky is the keyword here. It has a lot of lift surface so can afford to lose something like 30% of its wing area and still keep airborne. It can fly if half the tailplane is removed. There are several redundancies in avionics and control lines in case those are shot out, but luck comes back into play there.
This is all to help the pilot survive groundfire, and give the plane a better chance of returning to base following groundfire. It is not impervious to groundfire and certainly won't take 3 serious anti-air missiles, Russians have big warheads on many designed to take out heavy bombers and any of those will down it as easily as an F-111 or a B-52. The modern standard Russian dogfight missile has a warhead like a Sparrow or AMRAAM, the Sidewinder and Stinger have warheads the size of the little self defence missiles Russians put on things like helicopters. Really, never get hit by a russian missile, hell their shipboard antiship missiles are the size of a jet fighter and weigh several tons, makes a Harpoon or Tomahawk look like sarcasm.
If you compare an A-10 to a WW2 era bird with armouring, let's say a Douglas A-10C which is a single pilot, twin engine attack aircraft, and aside from pilot protection from heavy calibre groundfire, the Fairchild isn't any tougher and will go down easier. A Douglas engine will even keep working with a cylinder or two shot out. Check out P-47 Thunderbolt combat damage in the combat record, one took a full magazine of 4 2cm guns and 2 7.92mm guns from a Focke Wulf for about ten minutes and still flew back to England from France.
But compared to modern jet multiroles, like the Block 50/52 F-16 that's taken over the role of the A-10, and it can't handle any ground fire at all, a lucky farmer with an AK-47 will down one if the pilot flies low. Composites and alu-alloy honeycomb just doesn't resist bullets, any calibre bullet at all, not at all. Goes straight through them like plastic.
So that's why they rave about the A-10, it's comparative to the alternatives like an F-16 or a Hornet.
And the aerodynamics don't give it particularly good manoeuvrability, just good handling qualities at low speeds, because half its job is loiter circling the combat area waiting for FAC to point out targets. Means it's very stable and doesn't stall in smooth manoeuvres at low speed, but there's no way you can just start tossing it around like a biplane. You can't pull big Gs in it, and you can't go doing loops or Immelmans. It'll Split-S but you've got to watch your G and be gentle or it'll crash.
It's more like a heavy bomber in a small package than a fighter in a big one. And that gun, it's ballistics aren't that much greater than a DEFA, Aden or the old German MK103. It has a higher rate of fire and depleted uranium is a very penetrating round, but anything newer than a T-55 needs Mavericks and their shaped charges. A T-72 *can* be disabled, but you have to hit it in the tracks (the armour behind them is thin, so it'll go through into the crew section). That's a hard shot, done at very low approach meaning an overfly first and that's dangerous, the A-10 pilot training manual specifically describes the manoeuvre but says better to use Mavericks and save the gun for soft targets like mobile AAA and SAMs.
If you want to talk serious aircraft mounted guns, the US put 75mm howitzers in the nose of B-25s at one point, for sinking ships no kidding, and the Germans put a 75mm high velocity tank gun on one antitank plane (Hs-129), it would literally destroy any known tank including their own Tigers or the Soviet "Josef Stalin" at over 500yds with a single shot. Now that's an aircraft gun.
Recoil almost stalled the plane mid flight.
Soviets tried something similar, they put a high velocity Nudelman 45mm in a Yak-9 fighter, firing through the propeller hub. Sent three prototypes into the field for service evaluation, very successful against any tank encountered they said, but there was a couple of problems. One the recoil slowed the plane to stall speeds even in a dive, two the pilots got so excited with the gun and were so intimidated by the quality of German aces, that they left tanks alone and went after German fighters, taking pot shots at them "at extreme ranges exceeding a kilometre" according to the reports.
Crazy Russians. Should've heard one I saw getting all excited over what he did to Messerschmitts with his Oldsmobile 37mm in his P-39. "Just blew up the plane in a ball of fire" he said, just about wetting himself with glee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thedemonapostle wrote: | in this configuration it seems more suited as an anti capital ship starfighter. heavy weapons, heavy armor...
kinda heavily dependent upon a carrier too. should i put a limited hyperdrive system and nav computer on board to reduce the heavy dependency upon a carrier ship? |
That's up to you. I went with that route with my Z-Wing stat because the mission the ship was designed for required some degree of interplanetary mobility, so I gave it a x2 hyperdrive and a 2-jump navcomputer.
As far as it seeming more like an anti-capital ship starfighter, that is one of the complexities of making stats in the SWU; not everything fits the same as it does in the real world. With the Z-Wing (essentially a Z-95 modified for atmospheric combat), I boosted the atmospheric performance (520; 1500kmh @ 4D Maneuverability) and left the space performance relatively unchanged from the stock Z-95 (Space 6 @ 1D Maneuverability). With those stats, by default, the Z-Wing would be overpowering in any form of atmospheric combat, be that superiority, bombing strikes or close air support, but would still be mediocre (at best) for any kind of space combat.
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back in the day i made these 2 atmospheric bomber/strafer units to simulate an A-10 type plane..
Heptal 4d-XX24y atmospheric superiority fighter/bomber
Type: Hurian atmospheric fighter, archaic
scale: star fighter
length: 23M Wing span 18M
skill: Archaic atmospheric craft piloting.
Crew: 2, gunners 1 Skel 2/+5
Passengers: none
Cargo: weapon pod space for 36,000 LB of ordinance
Engine system: 4 Duat-maxiozin sure life fission engines, 3800lb thrust
Consumables: 28 hours
Cost: 350,000
Atmospheric speed: 400, 1250kph
maneuverability: 2D
Hull: 5D
Shields: what the heck are they??
Sensors:
Passive 1d/6
scan 1d+2/18
search 2d+1/36
focus 4d/3
Weapons:
6 Hard points for variable munitions
2 nose mounted Arricl-vulcus 20mm Chain guns
arc fwd
scale Speeder
crew 1
F.cont 3D
Rof 6
range: 600m/1.4km/2.2km
Damage: each burst 5D+2 continuous fire 7D
The onboard cargo bay contains enough ammo for both guns to fire continuously for 12 straight rounds or for 24 bursts.
Munitions:
Maverick heat seekers (F.cont 4D/dam 4D)
Range 50m-2km/4km/8km
Sidewinders (F.cont 5D/dam 3D+1)
Range 250m-4km/8km/12km
Tomahawks (F.cont 2D+1/6D)
Range 200m-2.5km/5km/10km
Piledriver bombs (F.cont 1D/dam 6d/4d/3d/2d 5/7/10/14ft)
Range 20m-1km/2km/4km,
Fravv bombs (F.cont 2D/4d ion damage)
Same as Piledriver
Name: Mudhog
Craft: Indiric systems Model XX-122
Type: Dedicated heavy ground assault fighter
Scale: Starfighter
Crew: 2, Gunners 2
Length: 28.4M, Wing span 18M
Consumables: 8 days
Cargo space: 40Kg + ordinance. Cost: 78,000, 44000 used
Maneuverability: 1D space, 3D+1 atmospheric
Space speed: 5
Atmospheric speed: 680:1400KMH
Hull: 6D
Shields 1D
Sensors: passive 20/1D, scan 40/1D+2, search 60/2D+2, focus 7/4D
Weapons:
4 Proton bomb tubes (6 bombs each)
Scale: Walker
Arc: forward/down 20 deg angle
Skill: Starfighter gunnery
Range: 6/12/18
Atmosphere range: 600m/1.2km/1.8km
F.cont: 1D
Damage 8d 4m/6d 7m/4d 10m/2d 14m
4 wing mounted heavy e-webs
Stats as for e-web
2 tri blasters
Scale: star fighter
Arc: forward
Skill: star fighter gunnery
Range: 4/8/12
Atmosphere range: 400m/800m/1.2km
F.Cont: 2D
Damage: 5D+1
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Totally OTT... 
Whats that? 15d damage? 8d i damage resistance? Cost about as much as an YT1300....
WHO would ever build Star Destroyers when one of these have a good chance of damaging it with the first burst..(Lets not talk about if shields are down).
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who was that in ref to?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Who was that in ref to? |
The A-10 SW version..
The problem starts when you compare to 'real life'. As pointed out, one could make a design inspired by a real airplane. That means that you look through what ships allready exists in the SWU and make some modifications, keeping the desing somewhat in line with other ships.
Autofire has been discussed at lenght here at the Pit for example. I think most suggestions have chosen play-balance before 'realism'. The A-10 cannon gets really OTT if you try to make it as real as possible and really goes completely the other way..
In this case its even crazy OTT... I mean 15D?? 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to agree. At 15D, you are doing as much damage as a CS-Scale turbolaser cannon, almost as much as a CS-scale proton torpedo. That means one long burst from this cannon is enough to chop a corvette or a frigate in half. I know the GAU-8 Avenger is a serious beast of a cannon, but this is a bit much.
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thedemonapostle
Commander
Joined: 02 Aug 2011
Posts: 257
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: my polite reply |
|
|
i think some of you missed the point of what i was trying to do. i liked the idea of the A-10. i wanted something with a high level of toughness, with a really big over sized gun, that could carry lots of ordinance, isnt fast, or highly maneuverable.
regarding howitzers:
from wikipedia: A howitzer is a type of artillery piece characterized by a relatively short barrel and the use of comparatively small propellant charges to propel projectiles at relatively high trajectories, with a steep angle of descent. Until fairly recently, about the end of the Second World War, such weapons were characterized by a barrel length 15 to 25 times the caliber of the gun.
that said moving on.
saying that the F-16 has taken over the role of the A-10 is not true. i live less than 10 miles from over 450 active F-16's (Luke AFB). the pilots tell me that the jet is a multirole fighter. its specialty is that it can adapt to do a wide range of jobs, but it isnt a specialty jet like the A-10, F-117, B-2, or the AC-130. the F/A-18 Hornet is a multirole fighter designed for the navy and marines, whereas the F-16 was designed for the air force.
the GAU-8 avenger has been using depleted uranium rounds since it was made in the 1970's. we've upgraded since then.
the soviets tried everything, they spent all their moneys building a military infrastructure that was never used.
sorry if i dont list any of the soviet/russian comparisons. mainly because everything they made was so over the top over powered that its achilles heel was it was over powered weapons eventually caused some kind of critical failure of some kind, structure failed to withstand the recoiling forces, over heated constantly in hot environments, designed to withstand a nuclear blast but could survive a 12 year old's ingenuity with an AK-47, etc.
im sorry if i seem a little condescending, its not my intent to do so.
| Quote: | Totally OTT... Laughing
Whats that? 15d damage? 8d i damage resistance? Cost about as much as an YT1300....
WHO would ever build Star Destroyers when one of these have a good chance of damaging it with the first burst..(Lets not talk about if shields are down). |
the expanded B-wing (Source: The Jedi Academy Sourcebook (pages 125-126), Starships of the Galaxy (page 64), The Essential Guide to
Vehicles and Vessels (pages 52-53)) has 7D+2 worth of defenses.
the H-wing (Source: Challenge Magazine (pages 58-59)) has 7D worth of defenses.
the XJ3 X-Wing (New Jedi Order Sourcebook page 140) has 7D worth of defenses.
and now the one everyone complains about, full auto fire. the base damage listed for the weapon is 7D. now i might be mistaken but i dont recall reading any rules for fully automatic fire anywhere, could be somewhere but reading through all the books again just for the sake of discussion would only confuse everything. so what i did was just use
http://www.jtgibson.ca/sw/shipgen.htm
and firelinked 3 and 350, i would have listed more but im accustomed to players shooting odd number of rounds during full auto fire. so saying the gun does 7D base and then firelinked damage for 3 is 8D+2, i figured that a 3 round burst would do the same, might need to put an auto fire penalty in there but the original weapon that the Assault Auto Laser Cannon was based on has, "Accuracy: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) range hit within a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle." and i listed 1200 meters as medium range. so even if the high tech star wars equivalent has the same accuracy as its slug firing cousin, i figure that the range penalties and auto fire penalties would be insignificant.
thanks for the ships everyone has listed, id search for them but its hard to get the ships without getting the hundreds of topics that have used those key words. is there a collection somewhere that has all the ships everyone on these forums has created?
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?
d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle
Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: my polite reply |
|
|
| thedemonapostle wrote: | | i think some of you missed the point of what i was trying to do. i liked the idea of the A-10. i wanted something with a high level of toughness, with a really big over sized gun, that could carry lots of ordinance, isnt fast, or highly maneuverable. |
You are correct about the A-10 still being in service. The original plan had been to phase out the A-10 in the early '90's, replacing it with an F-16 fitted with a pod mounted version of the GAU-8. A unit of these CAP modified F-16s was actually deployed during Desert Storm, but encountered serious technical difficulties, all while the low-tech A-10's were racking up kills by the truckload. After that performance, the decision was made to keep the A-10, providing it with modest upgrade funds to keep it functional (such as an auto-pilot and reduced glare cockpit lights so the pilots could wear night vision goggles). Per Wikipedia, the A-10 is expected to remain in service until at least 2028.
The problem I see here is not the idea, its the extreme to which you've taken it. There's nothing wrong with having a vehicle or vessel that does what you want it to do, just so long as it fits well in universe. A starfighter with a cannon with the potential to inflict 15D (enough to chop a small capital ship in half) is too much. A starfighter with a Hull of 5D and Shields of 1D can be considered just as tough by SW starfighter standards as the A-10 is by human standards. You don't need to massively overpower the stats just because the thing is tough.
In actuality, according to the RAW, an A-10 in the SWU would need either a Walker-Scale cannon, or a rapid-fire, highly accurate blaster cannon to engage ground targets, not a super-blaster. If you are truly going to build an SWU A-10, it should stay true to its mission: engaging ground targets in tactical support of friendly troops. What you have here is really more of an extremely powerful strike bomber.
| Quote: | | thanks for the ships everyone has listed, id search for them but its hard to get the ships without getting the hundreds of topics that have used those key words. is there a collection somewhere that has all the ships everyone on these forums has created? |
Not a bad idea. I wouldn't mind contributing if someone wants to get the ball rolling. I know I've written up a few starfighter and capital ship stats over the years. Maybe Loc Taal could set up a section of the forum for completed works, where we can post stats when we feel they are complete and no more discussion is needed.
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thedemonapostle
Commander
Joined: 02 Aug 2011
Posts: 257
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it does need fine tuning, which is why we're here discussing it.
as i see it, most are saying the gun does too much. well ill leave it up to the individual GM to do autofire rules. so i tore those out. also there seems to be a slight dispute still regarding the defenses. so i lowered them. to better balance everything i increased the speed characteristics but left the maneuverability. i left the warhead launchers untouched, i feel very strongly that their fine and within the rules. thoughts on the update?
Name: A-10 Thunderbolt II
Craft: Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II
Type: heavy strike bomber
Scale: starfighter
Length: 16.26x17.53x4.47m (LxWxH)
Skill: starfighter pilot
Crew: 1
Crew Skill: varies
Passengers: 0
Cargo Capacity: 50kg
Consumables: 1 week
Cost: 130,000 new; 85,000 used
Hyperdrive: n/a
Hyperdrive Backup: n/a
Nav Computer: no
Maneuverability: 2D
Space: 6
Atmosphere: 330; 950 km/h
Hull: 5D
Shields: 1D
Sensors
Passive: 25/0D
Scan: 50/1D
Search: 75/2D
Focus: 3/3D+2
Weapons
1 Assault Cannon
Fire Arc: forward
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 1-3/12/25
Atmosphere Range: 100-300/1,200/2,500m
Damage: 7D
4 Multiple Warhead Launchers
Fire Arc: forward
Crew: 1
Scale: starfighter
Skill: starship gunnery
Fire Control: varies
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 0D
*Small Rocket: 1D+2
*Heavy Rocket: 1D
*Concussion Missile: 2D
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 3D
Space Range: varies
*Heavy Proton Bombs: 1/2/5 (non-self propelled, i.e. semi-stealth)
*Rockets: 1/2/5
*Concussion Missiles: 1-3/8/15
Atmosphere Range: varies
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 100/200/500m
*Rockets: 100/200/500m
*Concussion Missiles: 100-300/800/1500m
Ammo: based on payload
*Bombs: 2 per launcher
*Small Rocket: 10 per launcher
*Heavy Rocket: 2 per launcher
*Concussion Missiles: 3 per launcher
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 2 per launcher
Damage: based on payload
*Heavy Proton Bomb: 11D
*Small Rocket: 2D
*Heavy Rocket: 10D
*Concussion Missile: 8D
*Heavy Concussion Missile: 9D
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?
d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle
Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's the air force which says the F-16 is taking over the role of the A-10. They said it in a media release.
One of the designers of the A-10 is also one of the engineers who designed the F-16 and he's been on camera saying he's disappointed by this turn of events because he feels the F-16 can't do what an A-10 can do (loiter in the combat zone and take ground fire).
You really should look up the ballistics of the weapon someplace like Tony William's website (google it). He has comparative ballistics between pretty much all aircraft guns posted up, he's authored dozens of books on the subject and is a well known authority.
Air force folks are at some of the aviation and flight sim sites I go to, including the developers site for the flight sim "DCS: A-10" which is widely remarked as currently the best researched and most true to plane performance sim around.
According to these various sources the performance of the GAU gun has been slightly reduced since the 70s, not increased due to overheating. The higher rate of fire has been locked out so it only uses the lower rate and shorter burst, you can't get anymore out of the gun now. D/U rounds were most certainly used in the Gulf War but once again the main weapon of the A-10 against tanks is the Maverick with a shaped charge fitted. Not the gun.
It's a great gun, but it's not the be all or anything. It's just a 30mm gun. They have limitations.
And Soviet/Russian equipment compares very well to NATO equipment. There are specific reasons for differences, there are specific reasons for shortfalls in specific ways for specific equipment. I can run them down for you but that's a hell of a long post. It depends which equipment you're comparing, from which design bureau and for which purpose the equipment was intended.
For example, in cost, production, maintenance and doctrinal role the old MiG-21 is a contemporary of the F-5 and F-104 compared to both of which it is a superior interceptor/fighter, it's not a contemporary of the F-4 the Sukhoi interceptors/patrollers made for PVO have that kind of production cost and design complexity. VVS never got that kind of budget and were designed to operate from rough fields.
Similarly comparisons between the Fulcrum and Eagle are misplaced also, the Fulcrum is a Block 30 F-16 and F/A-18A contemporary against which again it compares extremely well. The Sukhoi Su-27S and SM are contemporaries of the Eagle and again compares extremely well. The Fulcrum is just a metal wing box/monocoque with a little graphite in the fins, designed specifically to be made in appliance factories: the Moscow plant that makes Fulcrums makes domestic refridgerators at the other end of the same factory, no kidding.
It's the Flanker that's made of titanium and composites like the Eagle, and costs nearly as much and takes as much highly skilled workers to produce.
It's largely doctrinal and about industrial things. They don't have independent arms companies competing for contracts, they have design bureaus set up and government funded for specific projects.
The people who made MiG engines also built the Soyuz spacecraft. The engines in the Flanker are more powerful and much more economical than those of the Eagle, so totally reliable they didn't need to put catapults on their aircraft carrier to safely launch Flankers.
Where you get technological disparity is mostly in Russian avionics, they were still using valves when the US started using solid state, they were using solid state when the US was using digital. They didn't spend anywhere near the same budget on their space/strategic programs which paid for development of these technologies. You can still buy valve radios in Russia today. In the mid-70s a Russian fighter radar weighed half a ton, whilst an American one weighed half that. They were using twist-cassegrain antennae in the 90s while the US had moved to scanned array.
But again you compare their lead projects like the Foxhound radar and it was so far ahead of anything else in a fighter that it's only just been matched recently by the latest AESA radars and that entered mass production back in 1986.
So it depends what you compare.
And that gun is good, but it isn't quite that good. It's nowhere near as good as any antitank missile/rocket like the ones they stick on choppers by the dozen. The Maverick is always preferable in a plane and why the air force decided not to continue development of an A-10 replacement but replace it the F-16 in the role. Army does most antitank work with attack choppers anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You are correct about the A-10 still being in service. The original plan had been to phase out the A-10 in the early '90's, replacing it with an F-16 fitted with a pod mounted version of the GAU-8. A unit of these CAP modified F-16s was actually deployed during Desert Storm, but encountered serious technical difficulties, all while the low-tech A-10's were racking up kills by the truckload. After that performance, the decision was made to keep the A-10, providing it with modest upgrade funds to keep it functional (such as an auto-pilot and reduced glare cockpit lights so the pilots could wear night vision goggles). Per Wikipedia, the A-10 is expected to remain in service until at least 2028. |
Naturally I'm aware of this, the A-10A was mothballed (placed into reserve) and the units were re-equipped with the F-16 and there were plans to develop GAU style pods and whatnot for the Viper, but the A-10s were brought back during the Gulf actions.
Then updated to the A-10C (with changes to the gun control I mentioned).
Air Force still says they're replacing it with the F-16. They'll squeeze as much life as they can get out of the A-10C update first but there are no plans to develop a replacement designed similarly. When those airframes are used up, they'll switch them out for Vipers again (or F-35 if those are in service in numbers). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
