A VTOL Gunship for 3025?

[DoctorX]

Got told to move my design here so here it is, a VTOL gunship that can be built with 3025 era technology.

The name may be familiar, I know, but it was done in 10 min @ zero-dark-hundred (or damn early in the morning...lol) on HMVee so forgive my naming conventions.

Code: [Select]

          BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
                      VALIDATED

Type/Model:    Apache AH-64A
Tech:          Inner Sphere / 3025
Config:        V.T.O.L.
Rules:         Level 1, Standard design

Mass:          30 tons
Power Plant:   70 I.C.E.
Cruise Speed:  75.6 km/h
Maximum Speed: 118.8 km/h
Armor Type:    Standard
Armament:     
  1 Autocannon/5
  2 SRM 4s
Manufacturer:  (Unknown)
  Location:    (Unknown)
Communications System:  (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System:  (Unknown)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model:    Apache AH-64A
Mass:          30 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  15 pts Standard               0      3.00
Engine:        70 I.C.E.                     0      4.00
    Cruise MP:   7
     Flank MP:  11
Heat Sinks:      0 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      1.50
Crew: 2 Members                              0       .00
Rotor Equipment:  Main/Tail Rotors           0      3.00
Armor Factor:   72 pts Standard              0      4.50

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     3         20
   Left / Right Sides:        3      17/17
   Rear:                      3         16
   Rotor:                     3          2

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/5           Front    0   20     2      9.00
2 SRM 4s                 Front    0   25     3      5.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                           0          5     30.00
Items & Tons Left:                           6       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        1,043,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    524 (old BV = 581)
Cost per BV:       1,990.46
Weapon Value:      176 / 176 (Ratio = .34 / .34)
Damage Factors:    SRDmg = 12;  MRDmg = 4;  LRDmg = 1
BattleForce2:      MP: 7V,  Armor/Structure: 0 / 3
                   Damage PB/M/L: 2/2/1,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: VA;  Point Value: 5

Yeah, I know that its slow for a VTOL but if used like the 20th century design (hiding behind hills or forrest and executing pop-up attacks and using other friendly units to locate and distract the target) it can still be a potent weapon on the 31st century battlefield.


Thoughts, questions, comments.


P.S. Thanks to those that helped me with this "code" thing. Your help is greatly appreciated

[Marwynn]

If you're dedicated to using an AC5 then it's a solid platform. However, I'd rather use LRM-5s. You'd get longer range and more flexibility with either indirect firing or Thunder LRMs (even in 3025).

The other disconcerting thing is its speed. I know it's built to pop-up and attack, to which I say it's again better to use LRMs since you would only need to pop-up to fire directly. But 7/11 is hardly enough when there isn't terrain you could use properly.

Still, it's a capable enough harasser.

[DoctorX]

Well the AC/5 is the primary weapon, due to its range factor, so yeah I am kinda attached to it. :)

I will agree that the SRMs could be exchanged for LRMs and provide it with the indirect ability that would indeed be useful, especially in pop-up attacks. I had difficulty in choosing which to use so I chose the SRM 4s which can be exchanged for LRM 5 without affecting weight.

Ya know I am going to get a lot of flak (no pun intended) about the speed. I still am aware that it is on the low side for a VTOL, especially a combat VTOL. In the classic trinity of speed, firepower, armor I had to sacrifice something and it was the speed. It was sacrificed more for aesthetics than anything really. I was going for something that was cheap and low-tech enough for 3025. Drop in an XL Fusion and clad it in FF armor and you can kick the speed up to 162 kph (15 MP).

A harasser exploiting terrain is exactly what it supposed ta be...cheap and nasty too....lol

Thank you for your input Marwynn. It is greatly appreciated.

[Fireangel]

I echo Marwynn's post;

7/11 is about as slow as you can go and still be viable on the battlefield.

Swap out the SRM-4s for LRM-5s; no helicopter wants to close to SRM range: SRMs are too common in the battlefield and are positively deadly to VTOLs regardless of how well armoured they are.

Conversely, you could swap out one SRM-4 for an LRM-5 and downgrade the other for an SRM-2 with a second ton of ammo for the LRM AC/5, enabling for an alternate ammo type and inferno loads for the SRM to deal with pesky infantry.

I really like the low-tech approach while retaining the high-tech feel.

[DoctorX]

Ok, ok....lol Here is the LRM version.

Code: [Select]

          BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
                      VALIDATED

Type/Model:    Apache AH-64A
Tech:          Inner Sphere / 3025
Config:        V.T.O.L.
Rules:         Level 1, Standard design

Mass:          30 tons
Power Plant:   70 I.C.E.
Cruise Speed:  75.6 km/h
Maximum Speed: 118.8 km/h
Armor Type:    Standard
Armament:     
  1 Autocannon/5
  2 LRM 5s
Manufacturer:  (Unknown)
  Location:    (Unknown)
Communications System:  (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System:  (Unknown)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model:    Apache AH-64A
Mass:          30 tons

Equipment:                                 Items    Mass
Int. Struct.:  15 pts Standard               0      3.00
Engine:        70 I.C.E.                     0      4.00
    Cruise MP:   7
     Flank MP:  11
Heat Sinks:      0 Single                    0       .00
Cockpit & Controls:                          0      1.50
Crew: 2 Members                              0       .00
Rotor Equipment:  Main/Tail Rotors           0      3.00
Armor Factor:   72 pts Standard              0      4.50

                          Internal    Armor
                          Structure   Value
   Front:                     3         20
   Left / Right Sides:        3      17/17
   Rear:                      3         16
   Rotor:                     3          2

Weapons and Equipment    Loc  Heat  Ammo   Items    Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/5           Front    0   20     2      9.00
2 LRM 5s                 Front    0   24     3      5.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS:                           0          5     30.00
Items & Tons Left:                           6       .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost:        929,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2:    547 (old BV = 623)
Cost per BV:       1,698.35
Weapon Value:      172 / 172 (Ratio = .31 / .31)
Damage Factors:    SRDmg = 8;  MRDmg = 8;  LRDmg = 4
BattleForce2:      MP: 7V,  Armor/Structure: 0 / 3
                   Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/1,  Overheat: 0
                   Class: VA;  Point Value: 5
                   Specials: if

Hey..that makes it even cheaper...I mean economical...lol

The reason I chose the SRM 4s...pure aesthetics. I was going for an "Apache clone" and they carry 4 hellfire missiles on each mount (2 per side), so I chose the SRM 4. Coincidentally they swap out for LRM 5 with no weight bonus or penalty so if you so choose, put LRM 5 on it. It makes it a better and cheaper harasser unit, I'll agree wholeheartedly.

Conversely, you could swap out one SRM-4 for an LRM-5 and downgrade the other for an SRM-2 with a second ton of ammo for the LRM AC/5, enabling for an alternate ammo type and inferno loads for the SRM to deal with pesky infantry.

Not a bad idea, but if you were to do that I think you'd be flying a big ammo bin. A tertiary consideration was logistics. Three tons of different ammo can be a burden at times when ones supply chain is stretched to the limit.

I really like the low-tech approach while retaining the high-tech feel.

Not terrably bad for 10 minutes of thinking (including distractions), eh.

Thank you for your input Fireangel. I do appreciate it.

[Belisarius]

Has anything been published about bombs and bomb bays and external ASF ordinance on VTOLs? I'd be interested in looking at the idea of giving a tonnage of cargo and that cargo can range from AIV missiles to dumb bombs to unguided rockets.

[DoctorX]

unguided rockets.

We played around a bit with this concept in the 80's. The best we came up with is a "rocket pod" that consisted of 15-30 LAW rockets. But that was in the days before the rocket launchers. Did pretty good against infantry as I recall. Ah the things you think up after seeing Apocalypse Now for the first time, eh...lol.

To answer the rest of your question, to my knowledge (which I'll be the first three to admit is limited) I don't think that there was anything about bombs on VTOLs. It would not seem practical to me since you would need some speed to clear the bomb damage radius in a hurry. Then again I just had a thought about a VTOL delivered cluster munition....or antipersonnel/anti-vehicle mines.

It is an interesting thinking point Belisarius, though I have to admit that there might not be anything forthcoming in the rules. it could adjust the "balance" of a game too much (and make all the ASF jocks mad that a mere combat vehicle stole their thunder...lol). Still I am interested in reviving the "rocket pod" concept. It is low-tech enough for 2nd or 3rd Succession Wars and should be available during those eras, and possably a precursor to the Marian Hegemony's RL series of launchers.

[Belisarius]

Kind of a weird train of thought, but this actually comes from talk about boosting LAM firepower and staying power. Since they lack external racks like ASFs, if you want them to carry any bombs or air to air missiles LAMs have to have internal bays for such things. Interestingly enough, fuel is another internal payload that LAMs could need on a regular basis. So having an internal cargo bay is a rather hand feature for a LAM in that it would enable you to tailor your payload to the mission, bombs for some missions, fuel for others, missiles for yet another, Arrow IV for yet another, etc etc.

This leads me to wondering whether such a capability would be possible for VTOLs. Maybe not dumb bombs (due to the blast issue), but, perhaps guided bombs, rockets, missiles and the like.

[Marwynn]

Well the AC/5 is the primary weapon, due to its range factor, so yeah I am kinda attached to it. :)

I will agree that the SRMs could be exchanged for LRMs and provide it with the indirect ability that would indeed be useful, especially in pop-up attacks. I had difficulty in choosing which to use so I chose the SRM 4s which can be exchanged for LRM 5 without affecting weight.

Ya know I am going to get a lot of flak (no pun intended) about the speed. I still am aware that it is on the low side for a VTOL, especially a combat VTOL. In the classic trinity of speed, firepower, armor I had to sacrifice something and it was the speed. It was sacrificed more for aesthetics than anything really. I was going for something that was cheap and low-tech enough for 3025. Drop in an XL Fusion and clad it in FF armor and you can kick the speed up to 162 kph (15 MP).

A harasser exploiting terrain is exactly what it supposed ta be...cheap and nasty too....lol

Thank you for your input Marwynn. It is greatly appreciated.

I've been a fan of VTOLs for quite a while and designed many in my heyday, so I understand choosing aesthetics over pure function.

In my experience, I've found that 15 points to the front and 10/8 on the sides and rear was often more than enough in this era. And by using LRMs primarily, you'll only face AC2 or LRM fire in return, which coupled with its "hide and shoot" approach should boost its survivability.

Your mileage will very of course. But when it comes to VTOLs and Conventional Fighters in the 3025 era, I just fall back on LRMs. Ol' habit.

[billtfor3]

I will have to post my two designs from my original 3025 Gunship thread.  I agree on many of the points that have been made here, except the no SRM carrying VTOL.  If used withsome distractions, say a Hunchback or Atlas, people tend to ignore Vehicles.  The one I designed carries 4 SRM 4s with one ton of regular ammo and another of Inferno.  Flank around wait for the distraction then dart in at a 15 hex move and lay the big nasty open, hose him with Infernos, or a combination of the two.  If he shuts down from the heat spike or is hurt badly, then hang around to try and finish him off, but if support comes RETREAT!!!! RINSE!!! REPEAT!!!

[A. Lurker]

Has anything been published about bombs and bomb bays and external ASF ordinance on VTOLs? I'd be interested in looking at the idea of giving a tonnage of cargo and that cargo can range from AIV missiles to dumb bombs to unguided rockets.

Tactical Operations pp. 107-108, "VTOL Special Attacks". Lets VTOLs carry external ordnance just like fighters and make their own takes on strafing and bombing attacks.

They don't, however, technically get access to the StratOps "Internal Bomb Bay" quirk because that's only available to fighters, Small Craft, and DropShips, not vehicles. However, if you feel like applying the general "if it works for your game" principle here... ;)

[DoctorX]

Kind of a weird train of thought, but this actually comes from talk about boosting LAM firepower and staying power. Since they lack external racks like ASFs, if you want them to carry any bombs or air to air missiles LAMs have to have internal bays for such things. Interestingly enough, fuel is another internal payload that LAMs could need on a regular basis. So having an internal cargo bay is a rather hand feature for a LAM in that it would enable you to tailor your payload to the mission, bombs for some missions, fuel for others, missiles for yet another, Arrow IV for yet another, etc etc.

This leads me to wondering whether such a capability would be possible for VTOLs. Maybe not dumb bombs (due to the blast issue), but, perhaps guided bombs, rockets, missiles and the like.

Dude, any train of thought is cool in my books. If one person can think it, so can another. According to TRO 3085 the Wasp LAM has a 5 ton bomb bay listed and has 80 points of fuel. That means that you can put bombs or an Arrow IV missile in the bay for "fun time".  :) it is the only LAM design that has this.

As much as I do love the LAM concept (and I sure do love it) our group tends to avoid the LAMs. They are kinda a "force multiplier" that might unbalance gameplay. That and we play in an era were they are extinct.

[DoctorX]

I've been a fan of VTOLs for quite a while and designed many in my heyday, so I understand choosing aesthetics over pure function.

Well, having a picture of what your designing at hand sure does help...lol. You gotta admit that seeing one rise over a hill, pointing all of its weapon systems at you is a frightening thought (ask the Iraqi army how they feel about them).

In my experience, I've found that 15 points to the front and 10/8 on the sides and rear was often more than enough in this era. And by using LRMs primarily, you'll only face AC2 or LRM fire in return, which coupled with its "hide and shoot" approach should boost its survivability.

Yeah, I do agree, but I chose a nice thick frontal armor simply because of the original weapon loadout (the SRMs). You want to be able to sustain at least one heavy hit before getting outta Dodge. The choice of using the LRMs would mean that you could shave half a ton (maybe a full ton) or armor off and toss that back into engine size for increased speed.

[DoctorX]

I will have to post my two designs from my original 3025 Gunship thread.  I agree on many of the points that have been made here, except the no SRM carrying VTOL.  If used withsome distractions, say a Hunchback or Atlas, people tend to ignore Vehicles.  The one I designed carries 4 SRM 4s with one ton of regular ammo and another of Inferno.  Flank around wait for the distraction then dart in at a 15 hex move and lay the big nasty open, hose him with Infernos, or a combination of the two.  If he shuts down from the heat spike or is hurt badly, then hang around to try and finish him off, but if support comes RETREAT!!!! RINSE!!! REPEAT!!!

I see that you subscribe to the "distraction is good" theory. So do I. Most 'MechWarriros are on the arrogant side and will ignore a vehicle if there is another 'Mech around. The perfect use for a VTOL. Though my "clone" doesn't have 15 MP, it can still be used in such a fashion. Twenty-one points of damage in the rear can really ruin your day, no matter what your piloting.

Then again you could use that argument to justify the LRMs too. Snipe at long range while your opponent is distracted with something else.

[truetanker]

Kirghiz C variant, the so called BA transporter... More than a fair share of bomber in my book.

But I do like this VTOL.

TT

[DoctorX]

Tactical Operations pp. 107-108, "VTOL Special Attacks". Lets VTOLs carry external ordnance just like fighters and make their own takes on strafing and bombing attacks.

They don't, however, technically get access to the StratOps "Internal Bomb Bay" quirk because that's only available to fighters, Small Craft, and DropShips, not vehicles. However, if you feel like applying the general "if it works for your game" principle here... ;)

Well, there ya go Belisarius I guess that answers your question. Thanks dude. :)

[Belisarius]

So you can make it fast and as heavy as you dare and put an AC2 or 5 on it and use rockets or AIV or bombs or what-have-you. External ordnance is awesome.

[DoctorX]

So you can make it fast and as heavy as you dare

Well, within the 30 ton limit.  Course you could call it an armed support VTOL and jack that up to 60 tons.

External ordnance is awesome.

That it is. :)