| From: | Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Those darn Azzies |
| Date: | Wed, 5 Aug 1998 22:00:50 -0700 |
> And remember no hard stats were given at all. I assumed it did exist, but
> stats weren't given so no yahoo munchkin would try to drive around in one.
Exactly. That is what I figured they did. Didn't have to necessarily be
all that hot, I just don't particularly find it plausible that a
shadowrunner would end up running around with a MBHT, but you know
somebody _would_ allow it in their game as soon as one became available.
=| On the other hand, since some of the stories that happen here are not
on the "shadowrunner" level, but are on the global/Megacorporate/military
levels, I do wish that there was a "taste" of what the Next Level thingies
are that are hiding out there. I guess we'll have to stick with what the
_Rigger 2_ allows us to postulate. Although, they completely neglected
the "heavy artillery" (MBT class turret weapons and up, including but not
limited to large bore cannon & howitzers, heavy [or even light for that
matter] railguns, heavy rockets [ala MLRS "steel rain"], and cruise
missiles). They were probably left out for the very same reason that the
Stonewall was only hinted at in the _RBB_. No "shadowrunner" is going to
get their hands on a SSN or MBT, so why should we give them the rules to
allow them to whip one up?
> Problem is that it was horribly expensive and couldn't do the job of either
> the A-10 or a MBT quite as well. It sort of fit into a weird gray area
> between the two. And it was agreed by some that it would be far more
> effective to buy three or four A-10s and an equal amount of MBTs for the
> price of one MBT LAV.
Well, I haven't had a chance to work with the rules yet to see if I could
get something interesting, yet practical. I actually see the close
support niche being a bit bigger than you seem to. By the vary nature of
LAV type aircraft being able to be "heavier" than a fixed wing aircraft
for the same propulsion output to keep them in the air, I'm willing to
believe that you end up with something with even more protection and
armament than an A-10 (basically the ultimate expression of the close
support aircraft yet produced) and designed to stick even closer to the
ground to make them harder to hit. I see them taking over more of the
role currently assumed by attack helos and CSA, while helos would be more
used for light armor, infantry, and scouting, since you still have that
niggling problem of a helocopter being a relatively fragile flying
machine. Okay, so there is the postulated central ducted fan concept like
the "Great Horned Owl," but still, relatively exposed delicate machinery.
The question of "price" is a highly debatable one. I didn't see your
figures. The fact that it is hardly a "standard" design should kick the
price up a notch or two. I guess one would have to postulate greater
acceptance of such a thing before the price multiplier on the design could
come down a few notches. But somehow I doubt that you could purchase 3
comperably equipped CSAs and 3 "205X modern" MBTs for the price of one
heavy LAV.
On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> I much preferred Jon Szeto's version in Rigger 2, that Banshees and
> other T-birds are ground-effect vehicles needing substantial forward
> velocity to remain airborne - as you say, snowspeeders from _Empire
> Strikes Back_, fast vehicles with notable armour and armament that make
> difficult targets while in NOE flight. That makes sense to me. The
> earlier portrayals... didn't.
Yes, the way I see the design, they take advantage of wing-in-ground
effect to maintain high lift at low altitude which basically requires that
they be moving to stay up. On the other hand, I would presume that nearly
all of these designs are VTOL capable so that they can get themselves
in the air and moving, at the cost of sucking some extra fuel to get up to
speed and to allow them to do some of the more interesting maneuvers. =)
> You _know_ I like the Athenas, I used'em in my plot after all :)
Yeah, well you took a while to convince. I suppose one of these days I'll
have to go play with my R2 for a while and figure what one of the buggers
would cost to build (hopefully not too obscene). Hopefully in the
not-to-distant future, but I'm a little swamped in RL.
> Supersonic Banshees? Well, I guess if you burn enough fuel fast enough
> almost anything's possible... (doubtful expression)
"[The F-4 Phantom II is] America's proof to the world that with big enough
engines even a brick can fly"
-- Anon Air Force person
"The MiG 25 is the Soviet Union's proof that, with _even bigger_ engines,
the brick will fly fast."
-- Me
That being said, a GMC Banshee is not a brick, it is a _wall_.
And to be aerodynamically correct it is not "supersonic," but merely
"sonic." (Like that makes too much of a difference, actually. =/ ) Their
listed top speed puts it right in the middle of the transsonic region. I
don't even want to think of what that pressure wave leading the bugger
would be like, especially as a "Low Altitude Vehicle" with shock/ground/
vehicle interactions like you wouldn't believe, etc. Suffice to say that
everybody and their dead ancestors will know you are coming. But from a
drag/propulsion/fuel standpoint, it is still pretty obscene, especially
given the shown design with no lift surfaces, a nose as aerodynamic as
your average mini-van, and the fact that it has a friggin' _pivoting_
turret on top! Heck, I'd love to see the control laws on that to deal
with when you are zooming along at 600mph+ and your gunner desides to yaw
the main gun. Forget the fact that it just might rip off, how about
simply making the thing unfliable?
*Pant* *pant* Guess I'll get off my soapbox. Suffice to say, my close
support LAV concept, the Athena would, at absolute most, maybe hit
350-400mph going all out, depending on what the rules will allow, as fast
as a fast prop plane. Besides, if you are keeping within a few meters or
less of the ground, much faster is simply too dangerous, let alone
impractical. It would by necessity have a shape that is aerodynamic and
capable of producing lift.
I will have to grudgingly stick by Paul for the moment in his analysis
that a full blown "hovertank" is as yet, impractical, if not unfeasable by
SR tech levels. The gains one would get in speed and maneuverability by
making a main battle tank fly are _most likely_ outweighed in fuel
consumption to keep all that weight in the air. Ground pounding tanks
still have a place in 205X to roll up and take or hold ground. They have
to be heavily armored and armed battlewagons, which makes them impractical
to lift off the ground and fly around, quite simply. If anything, firing
heavy MBT class weapons without serious tonnage to soak the recoil and at
least a running footing on the earth could be difficult.
--My two yen
Jeff
