Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:37:40 -0400
At 10:25 PM 6/18/98 +0100, you wrote:

[Snip]
>> Also, I was under the impression that it wasn't a matter of
>> the AH-64s not being able to mount TOWs but rather that they didn't mount
>> TOWs (because it would be a major step down from the Hellfires and/or
>> because the fire & forget Hellfires were more suitable to the AH-64's
>> role) ... hmmm ... could it be because the AH-64's don't have shaft
>> mounted sights? (I doubt it, but you never know ...)
>
>>From what I've read, it seems to me that AH-64s don't have the
>necessary electronics to fire TOWs fitted as standard. I'm sure it
>would be _possible_ to mount and fire TOWs, but not without
>adding bits to the helicopter's fire control system. Mast-mounted
>sights don't have anything to do with it; Cobras don't have those
>either (the only US Army helo with a MMS is the OH-58 Kiowa).

I think that they just added those. The Apache Longbow has a mast mounted
radar and laser sighting system on it. That way it can hover behind a hill
or group of trees and just look over the top with the mast. When he sees a
target the pilot pops up, fires off a slavo o' death, and then drops back
down ebfore someone can perforate his airframe. Pretty slick little system.

>Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html

Sommers
"Janes says it so it has to be true!"
Message no. 2
From: "Droopy ." <mmanhardt@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 18:10:20 +0000
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
> Subject: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata and

> AFAIK only AH-1W Cobras can use Hellfire, but perhaps the USMC
> has upgraded their T-Cobras to fire them as well since the books I
> have on the subject came out.

Blackhawks are technicly capable of fireing hellfires as well, with
modification....not that you'll be likely to see it happen. Wouldn't
want someone to realise it and cut the apache spending.

> either (the only US Army helo with a MMS is the OH-58 Kiowa).

I believe the apache longbow has a MMS.

> > And Hellfires are not fire&forget, IIRC...
>
> Funny thing is that the name does (did?) stand for just that:
> helicopter-launched fire-and-forget...

Yes and no...the airframe firing the missle can forget it...it is
guided by a spotter. This can be the firing airframe (apache),
another apache, or another airframe with a targeter (kiowa scout)


--Droopy
Message no. 3
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 11:26:47 +0100
Droopy . said on 18:10/18 Jun 98,...

> > either (the only US Army helo with a MMS is the OH-58 Kiowa).
>
> I believe the apache longbow has a MMS.

That's a mast-mounted radar, which isn't the same as a mast-
mounted sight. A true MMS, like that on the OH-58D, has FLIR,
LLLTV, a laser designator, etc. in it to allow the crew to actually
see over obstacles and target, well, targets with it.
AFAIK the Longbow radar OTOH is for giving the crew and other
helicopters in the same flight a better picture of the battlefield,
and thus also for target detection, but it doesn't quite have the
same function as a MMS.

Okay, bringing this back round to SR: a MMS should be possible
for SR helicopters, but how would you implement it? I'm thinking
of letting the helicopter buy two sets of sensors, one in the main
body and one on top of the rotor. Then add a few design points to
allow one set to become the MMS, and perhaps multiply the
MMS's Load reduction by 125% or so to account for the
mechanics necessary to stop it turning with the rotor.

Any other ideas?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
An intelligent computer would be one that doesn't work most of the time.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 14:28:52 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>Okay, bringing this back round to SR: a MMS should be possible
>for SR helicopters, but how would you implement it? I'm thinking
>of letting the helicopter buy two sets of sensors, one in the main
>body and one on top of the rotor. Then add a few design points to
>allow one set to become the MMS, and perhaps multiply the
>MMS's Load reduction by 125% or so to account for the
>mechanics necessary to stop it turning with the rotor.
>
>Any other ideas?

To keep the costs up (instead of just adding a few DPs):
the sensor rating of the MMS system may not exceed (match?) that of the
main body sensors.

James Ojaste
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 13:36:46 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 14:28/19 Jun 98,...

> >Any other ideas?
>
> To keep the costs up (instead of just adding a few DPs):
> the sensor rating of the MMS system may not exceed (match?) that of the
> main body sensors.

Not sure I agree with that... I feel you should be able to put a
MMS on a helicopter that has no other sensors at all, thereby
totally relying on the sensors in the MMS. Or, you could use the
MMS as the primary system, and have a lower-rated set of
backups in the main body of the chopper.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
An intelligent computer would be one that doesn't work most of the time.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 6
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:18:43 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>> To keep the costs up (instead of just adding a few DPs):
>> the sensor rating of the MMS system may not exceed (match?) that of the
>> main body sensors.
>
>Not sure I agree with that... I feel you should be able to put a
>MMS on a helicopter that has no other sensors at all, thereby
>totally relying on the sensors in the MMS. Or, you could use the
>MMS as the primary system, and have a lower-rated set of
>backups in the main body of the chopper.

Well, it's mostly a mechanic reflecting the difficuly of mounting the
hardware on the mast and making sure that the rotor doesn't interfere
with anything. Instead, you could have a more complex rule with
something like sig -1, extra flux required, +50% DP, +1 Load, -1 CF.
Doing it the other way it easier though... :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:42:04 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 13:18/22 Jun 98,...

> Well, it's mostly a mechanic reflecting the difficuly of mounting the
> hardware on the mast and making sure that the rotor doesn't interfere
> with anything. Instead, you could have a more complex rule with
> something like sig -1, extra flux required, +50% DP, +1 Load, -1 CF.
> Doing it the other way it easier though... :-)

My idea is that you simply buy a set of sensors, add some DP
(say, 25%) and Load (10%?) and be done with it. The Sig
reduction I'm not sure about, and I don't think a MMS system
would cost CF...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Nobody has a nicely-balanced range of obsessions
which they dabble in when they feel like it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 09:34:09 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>> Well, it's mostly a mechanic reflecting the difficuly of mounting the
>> hardware on the mast and making sure that the rotor doesn't interfere
>> with anything. Instead, you could have a more complex rule with
>> something like sig -1, extra flux required, +50% DP, +1 Load, -1 CF.
>> Doing it the other way it easier though... :-)
>
>My idea is that you simply buy a set of sensors, add some DP
>(say, 25%) and Load (10%?) and be done with it. The Sig

What are the actual benefits of having an MMS, game-wise? The ability
to improve your sig by hiding behind stuff?

>reduction I'm not sure about, and I don't think a MMS system
>would cost CF...

That wasn't *costing* CF, that was *saving* CF by mounting a chunk of
stuff outside the hull (minimum of 0, of course).

James Ojaste
Message no. 9
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 10:15:13 -0400
At 09:34 AM 6/23/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Gurth wrote:
>>> Well, it's mostly a mechanic reflecting the difficuly of mounting the
>>> hardware on the mast and making sure that the rotor doesn't interfere
>>> with anything. Instead, you could have a more complex rule with
>>> something like sig -1, extra flux required, +50% DP, +1 Load, -1 CF.
>>> Doing it the other way it easier though... :-)
>>
>>My idea is that you simply buy a set of sensors, add some DP
>>(say, 25%) and Load (10%?) and be done with it. The Sig
>
>What are the actual benefits of having an MMS, game-wise? The ability
>to improve your sig by hiding behind stuff?

Check out the rules in Smugglers Havens about smuggling. There is a section
in there with the t-birds about sensor deadzones occuring and hiding in
them. That seems to be an excellent method of showing what the benefits
are. Against ground and low-level flying targets, the use of the mast would
allow you to hide in a ravine, in a stand of trees, etc. that act as said
dead zone. However, the mast allows you to "peek out" and see what's out
there.

First, the mast would be able to be seen, and as such have a sig. But it
would be a very high sig, as it is a small object that won't be generating
a lot of noise or thermal radiation. I would say about 8-10.

Second, it would not be nearly as effective against higher flying vehicles,
such as a high flying jet fighter. Some bonuses would be acrued, generally
from the cover. I might look at the variable cover modifiers from FOF as
inspiration.

These are just general ideas, although I believe at lunch I will check more
thouroughly into both T:SH and Rigger 2 to get some more concrete examples
for the mialing list masses.:)

>
>>reduction I'm not sure about, and I don't think a MMS system
>>would cost CF...
>
>That wasn't *costing* CF, that was *saving* CF by mounting a chunk of
>stuff outside the hull (minimum of 0, of course).

I think that the way those masts work is that most of the sensors are
containded in the body of the aircraft. The only thing that should be up
there is the receiver, and it the case of active systems, a transmitter of
some sort. And I also think that those parts would have equivelents in the
body, just in case that mast got damaged up there.

Take two options. One is that it doesn't save any CF because its redundant.
Reduce load by 1/4 on the sensor system rating to reflect the
transmitter/receiver in the mast and the mast itself. Option 2 is to say
that it replaces those parts and that load stays the same but the sensors
go down 1 CF (min of zero).

In either case I would probably require a Hardpoint and its related costs
for the mounting and rewiring of the system. That's not much differnt than
FLIR systems being put on on an F16 wing hardpoint.

>
>James Ojaste
>
>

Sommers
"Making the world safe for democracy. Or something like that."
Message no. 10
From: K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:50:23 EDT
In a message dated 6/23/98 9:16:17 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU writes:

> First, the mast would be able to be seen, and as such have a sig. But it
> would be a very high sig, as it is a small object that won't be generating
> a lot of noise or thermal radiation. I would say about 8-10.
>
> Second, it would not be nearly as effective against higher flying vehicles,
> such as a high flying jet fighter. Some bonuses would be acrued, generally
> from the cover. I might look at the variable cover modifiers from FOF as
> inspiration.
>
Hey, this sounds like a particular type of modification. "Sensor Masts", for
just usage. Works with Helos and true VTOL craft. Have to consider this.
Hell, with SR tech, telescopic/retractable toys of this kind could be done as
well.

-K
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:58:16 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 9:34/23 Jun 98,...

> What are the actual benefits of having an MMS, game-wise? The ability
> to improve your sig by hiding behind stuff?

I'd say you could add cover modifiers to your enemy's TN while
still being able to target things yourself.

> That wasn't *costing* CF, that was *saving* CF by mounting a chunk of
> stuff outside the hull (minimum of 0, of course).

Ah. In that case it makes more sense... However I think I
wouldn't charge any CF for a MMS, simply because it's all outside
the helicopter (except for displays, but they're in the helicopter
anyway).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Nobody has a nicely-balanced range of obsessions
which they dabble in when they feel like it.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 12
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:09:46 -0400
Gurth wrote:
>> That wasn't *costing* CF, that was *saving* CF by mounting a chunk of
>> stuff outside the hull (minimum of 0, of course).
>
>Ah. In that case it makes more sense... However I think I
>wouldn't charge any CF for a MMS, simply because it's all outside
>the helicopter (except for displays, but they're in the helicopter
>anyway).

You still need the electronics to manipulate the signal - at low
(civilian) levels, it won't make much difference as there isn't much
analysis going on, but higher tech ones will. Maybe 80% base CF would
be better... Giving it away for free isn't really practical (sensors
can take up to 16 CF!).

James Ojaste
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:31:56 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 9:09/25 Jun 98,...

> >Ah. In that case it makes more sense... However I think I
> >wouldn't charge any CF for a MMS, simply because it's all outside
> >the helicopter (except for displays, but they're in the helicopter
> >anyway).
>
> You still need the electronics to manipulate the signal - at low
> (civilian) levels, it won't make much difference as there isn't much
> analysis going on, but higher tech ones will. Maybe 80% base CF would
> be better... Giving it away for free isn't really practical (sensors
> can take up to 16 CF!).

Yeah, okay, flying around with 2 cubic meters of stuff on top of
the rotor might be a bit impractical... Another option is to limit
the rating of the sensors in the MMS, not to that of the main
sensors but to a flat figure, like up to level 7 -- that's 6 CF, which
should be doable IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Hold on to nothing as fast as you can.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rockets and Attack helicopters (was Re: Cyberpirates errata, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!