Combat Dropsh... I mean Combat Shuttles

[Pouncer]

Well I've been working on borrowing some designs from that other robot game with Tech in the title for a piratical faction to give my players something to do as they work their way up to joining the Reclamation force.

Lot's of gitchy work to do to make the conversions but I'm making progress.

However, while looking at the Dropships, especially the combat ships, I got to thinking about what the UEEF could do with it's shuttles if they armed them.

Based on the small amount of info we've got I'd say the Horizon-V would be the best bet but we just don't have propper stats for it yet. We'll go with what we have and work with the Horizon-T, so that probably means most options will be based on the cargo pods.

My first thought was for a heavy hitter pod, mounting six cannons identical to those on the Monster and six fighter sized Long Range Missile tubes mounted on the front of the pod, both weapon sets with plenty of ammo. Two pop up four tube Medium Range Missile launchers on the sides of the pod facing forward to deal with fighters, also well stocked with reloads. For close defense 3 CIWS-L-20 pulse laser turrets, one mounted atop the front of the pod, another at the center of the underbelly and the third on the back of the pod. To round things out, two particle beam cannons similar to the Tomahawk's pointing out the side of the pod (on the side facing away from the Horizon).

Some other ideas?

-POUNCER

[Seto Kaiba]

However, while looking at the Dropships, especially the combat ships, I got to thinking about what the UEEF could do with it's shuttles if they armed them.

Very little, if the animation is anything to go by... the descent shuttles seem to be about as well armored as a cream slice, and roughly as agile as a brick. They're basically just VTOL cargo planes lugging cargo pods full of people. The -T model's probably the worst case scenario. The -V's design doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, as deliberate instabilities in your cargo plane's aerodynamics are hardly conducive to delivering the cargo safely, but it'd probably be a good deal more agile without its cargo pods.

My first thought was for a heavy hitter pod, mounting six cannons identical to those on the Monster and six fighter sized Long Range Missile tubes mounted on the front of the pod, both weapon sets with plenty of ammo.

To me, that seems a bit like overkill... the Monster's so huge and heavy that it can barely move, and its guns recoil so hard that the thing has a special prop it has to lower from the back to stabilize itself for firing. I'd stick something comparatively lighter, maybe try to turn the Horizon platform into something A-10A-ish. Maybe instead of a converted cargo pod, have a small, low-horizontal profile gun platform that docks to the connector, with a pair of independently rotating twin railguns of the same type found on the Silverback? That way they can double up as a modest anti-aircraft battery and the recoil the guns produce won't shiver the airframe to bits. Then maybe fit a single, heavier gun as a fixed-forward mount on the nose (like the A-10A's 30mm vulcan)... maybe the paired beam guns off the Lancer II, or something similar? That way you keep the weight down and maximize defensive agility. Maybe stick another, identical gun platform or single turret on top of the airframe near the engines, to dissuade fighters from attacking from above during atmospheric flight.

The problem with the -T model is there's not a lot of wing area, so the part of me that's a stickler for realism blanches a bit at the idea of sticking huge quantities of ordinance out there... massive artillery seems to work very poorly against the later enemies of the Earth forces, whereas smaller, rapid-fire weapons seem to be very effective. You end up with something at least a little like an AC-130 Spectre/Spooky. That fits nicely with the UEEF's recurring motif of being a largely ground and close-air support oriented force.

[glitterboy2098]

the ASC actually has a bit of an advantage there.. their shuttles are more aerodynamic and somewhat more durable (obviously 'plot armor' plays a huge role here.. the UEEF shuttles had to die to get Scott stranded on earth.. while the ASC shuttle we see in battle has all the main char's and has to survive for the plot), which would make them a bit more useful in the support role.

that said, i'm not sure that a "spooky" version of any currently canon human shuttle would be a wise idea. none of them are really laid out well for use as bombers or gunships.

[taalismn]

I agree with the Lancer beam cannons. Good weapons...not their fault they got mounted on a designated-as-cannon-fodder weapons platform at the start. Not so sure about in-atmo range on them, though.

[Rimmerdal]

the ASC actually has a bit of an advantage there.. their shuttles are more aerodynamic and somewhat more durable (obviously 'plot armor' plays a huge role here.. the UEEF shuttles had to die to get Scott stranded on earth.. while the ASC shuttle we see in battle has all the main char's and has to survive for the plot), which would make them a bit more useful in the support role.

that said, i'm not sure that a "spooky" version of any currently canon human shuttle would be a wise idea. none of them are really laid out well for use as bombers or gunships.

ANd with small mobile enemeis no one would use them...Players don't make toons to be shuttle pilots.

I can see a shuttle being an excellent Sppoky. Just needs proper weapons in game and once the marine book comes out that would be an ideal spot for it.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Combat "cargo pods" for the HT...been there done that. (21st post'ish)
For the full text PM the request.


For the HV....*shrugs* *adjusts the HT numbers by +17%*
----------------
mac III cannon + HT pod= HT -wings

Better to make a single barrel garfish partical beam cannon pods......or even better starship single barraled laser cannon pods. The laser pods wouldn't rip the wings off.

[ShadowLogan]

Based on the small amount of info we've got I'd say the Horizon-V would be the best bet but we just don't have propper stats for it yet. We'll go with what we have and work with the Horizon-T, so that probably means most options will be based on the cargo pods.

My first thought was for a heavy hitter pod, mounting six cannons identical to those on the Monster and six fighter sized Long Range Missile tubes mounted on the front of the pod, both weapon sets with plenty of ammo. Two pop up four tube Medium Range Missile launchers on the sides of the pod facing forward to deal with fighters, also well stocked with reloads. For close defense 3 CIWS-L-20 pulse laser turrets, one mounted atop the front of the pod, another at the center of the underbelly and the third on the back of the pod. To round things out, two particle beam cannons similar to the Tomahawk's pointing out the side of the pod (on the side facing away from the Horizon).

I have certain qualms about arming the pods if one is not careful. Certain weapons and deployment approaches could place to much strain on the pod/wing connection mechanism.

I think it would make more sense to replace the A/B station on the Horizon herself with a weapons bay (bomb, missile, cannon, etc), and possibly with a few other external locations as part of a refit for combat. If the pods are not necessary for the mission, one could convert those stations into docking stations or use for wing mounted weapons. When the UEEF/REF fleet is deploying from ALUCE late in NG one can find multiple Horizon's without the noticeable pods suggesting they are configured for some other mission (Bomber most likely given the numbers), in fact according to RT.com there are more than just transport versions ("Though most combat roles are filled by the Alpha and Beta fighters, the Horizon is also very capable of fulfilling combat roles. Other versions include the "B" bomber-version (Horizon-B) and the "E" Early Warning and Control (EWAC, Horizon-E)"-RT.com Infopedia entry on the Horizon-class).

It is possible that the Horizon-class of Shuttle is on the way out, or at least toward a reduced role in the UEEF given Prelude to the Shadow Chronicles introduces the new Crusader-class drop ship. Details are lacking AFAIK, AotSC/PttSC are both pretty light on useful information. About the only thing I can make out is that it has 'transformation capacity' in the sense the troop bays function as "gull-wing doors" from PttSC.

During the early part of the Pioneer mission (pre-2030) they may have been using ASC shuttles, possibly with revamped propulsion systems so they don't require the seperate booster section (or a seperate design that doesn't have to be detached).

nd roughly as agile as a brick. They're basically just VTOL cargo planes lugging cargo pods full of people. The -T model's probably the worst case scenario. The -V's design doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, as deliberate instabilities in your cargo plane's aerodynamics are hardly conducive to delivering the cargo safely, but it'd probably be a good deal more agile without its cargo pods.

It's hard to say how agile the Horizon class really is, their greater size would imply limited agility compared to the smaller craft. The cargo pods placement I would imagine would reduce agility when carried too. It looks like the UEEF comprimised the design so that it could carry more cargo instead of in a more logical centerline postion (there was a real aircraft that flew that tested the basic principle here, that of a detachable cargo pod and it went centerline).

I can sort of see what they were going for with the -V, that of a Tilt-Wing design but IIRC it isn't necessary as the T is also supposed to be VTOL capable given that is likely the only way to land with the gear depicted on the pods.

To me, that seems a bit like overkill... the Monster's so huge and heavy that it can barely move, and its guns recoil so hard that the thing has a special prop it has to lower from the back to stabilize itself for firing.

Well the Monster is nearly 400 tons combat ready, and the Horizon-T comes in at a mass of 2200 tons, over 5 times. That would allow the Horizon to certainly handle the recoil better, just by it's mass alone. What concerns me is the placement of these big recoil generators in the pods, the connection mechansim may not be up to the task, and certainly being mounted outboard like that means the mass of the Horizon can't be fully utilized to dampen the recoil.

It would seem to make more sense to create a weapon's pod that attaches in place of the Alpha/Beta fighter than the cargo pods. Coverage would be limited, unless the Horizon itself is retrofitted with dorsal weapons, or the pods carry light weapons for additional self-defense.

[Seto Kaiba]

that said, i'm not sure that a "spooky" version of any currently canon human shuttle would be a wise idea. none of them are really laid out well for use as bombers or gunships.

True, but we're talking about working with what we have... and what we have are an assortment of cargo shuttles that an enterprising GM might have the UEEF hastily convert into gunships for planetside operations.

ANd with small mobile enemeis no one would use them...Players don't make toons to be shuttle pilots.

They'd make good NPC units either as air support for players on the ground or as an objective to escort for players flying a VF. Then again, I've known a few players who wanted to be "shuttle" pilots... though the "shuttle" in question is the flight configuration of Macross's VB-6 König Monster.

It's hard to say how agile the Horizon class really is, their greater size would imply limited agility compared to the smaller craft.

Yes, though I think their poor aerodynamics, very limited wing area, and minimal control surfaces would probably hinder the craft's mobility a fair bit too.

The cargo pods placement I would imagine would reduce agility when carried too. It looks like the UEEF comprimised the design so that it could carry more cargo instead of in a more logical centerline postion (there was a real aircraft that flew that tested the basic principle here, that of a detachable cargo pod and it went centerline).

Considering their role seems to be purely to descend from orbit and either deploy or resupply ground troops, then get out of dodge, that seems to be a reasonable compromise.

I can sort of see what they were going for with the -V, that of a Tilt-Wing design but IIRC it isn't necessary as the T is also supposed to be VTOL capable given that is likely the only way to land with the gear depicted on the pods.

Eh... I think the bigger problem on the -V is the completely unnecessary forward-swept wing that would actually make the tilt-wing and VTOL arrangements MUCH less stable than a conventional wing. You put FSW on a fighter to deliberately get its aerodynamic profile unstable in the name of enhancing its agility... you don't put it on a cargo plane, where stable flight isn't just the order of the day, it's the whole bloody point. The -T model IS VTOL capable, via a cluster of nozzles built on the underside.

[jaymz]

I did an AC variant of the Horizont that I think works.....

[ShadowLogan]

Yes, though I think their poor aerodynamics, very limited wing area, and minimal control surfaces would probably hinder the craft's mobility a fair bit too.

Though in the vacuum of space all of those factors add-up to zero impact on mobility. Atmospheric it may appear to suffer, but if the space maneuvering system (reaction control jets) is still practical in atmosphere it could change the actual handling qualities beyond the aerodynamic qualities seen. Such a system certainly effect high altitude handling (JF-104 program in the '60s allowed control-ability at 80,000ft for a modified F-104 with such a system flown by NASA). And it makes sense that as trans-atmospheric craft they would have them, might as well utilize them fully.

Considering their role seems to be purely to descend from orbit and either deploy or resupply ground troops, then get out of dodge, that seems to be a reasonable compromise.

Its really debatable. It cuts down on the number of transports required, but at the same time it makes them more vulnerable. The UEEF certainly appears to like to compromise designs as one can see in their other main designs.

Almost makes me wonder if it would have been better to have the Transports fly in close and release the pods for re-entry ala the space capsule approach. One could certainly then have the transports follow them down separately (same time/later) for recovery. Such an approach means the enemy has to spend x2-3 the resources after a certain point to deal with these transports and their cargo. There are options to allow them to steer for a landing.

Eh... I think the bigger problem on the -V is the completely unnecessary forward-swept wing that would actually make the tilt-wing and VTOL arrangements MUCH less stable than a conventional wing. You put FSW on a fighter to deliberately get its aerodynamic profile unstable in the name of enhancing its agility... you don't put it on a cargo plane, where stable flight isn't just the order of the day, it's the whole bloody point. The -T model IS VTOL capable, via a cluster of nozzles built on the underside.

In all likelihood though TY probably designed it this way because it looked cool, without consideration to the actual implications of various technologies he used in the design.

FSW designs are not always about aerodynamic maneuverability, but rather structural in nature. Nor is the use limited to fighters. In '44 there was a FSW fuel transport glider (XFG-1), while a glider it share similar mission profile and FSW to the Horizon (it isn't Tilt-Wing though). And in '64 the HFB-320 business jet had FSW (again not tilt-wing).

The hole tilt-wing feature isn't necessary as you say, given the baseline already has VTOL. I'm not sure if the FSW matters though in VTOL mode, given stability issues already are present with normal wings for Tilt-Wing. The V-22 Tilt-Rotor family has a FSW (slight degree), so did the XV-15 so there is some precedent for FSWs and VTOL being present on the same design (though the wing position is different in T-R than a T-W I'll grant).

[Jefffar]

AC-130 style aircraft only work in a permissive environment (ie where the enemy has no significant anti-aircraft weapons and no pressence in the air of their own). Such an environment likely doesn't exist very often in the UEEFs campaigns against the former Robotech Masters Empire, against TR Edwards, against the Invid and against the Haydonites.

In a contested air space you want more conventional attack craft that can defend themselves or evade much better than a converted cargo hauler. So the Conbat, Alpha and Beta are the better choices for attack than any shuttle variant.

[jaymz]

AC-130 style aircraft only work in a permissive environment (ie where the enemy has no significant anti-aircraft weapons and no pressence in the air of their own). Such an environment likely doesn't exist very often in the UEEFs campaigns against the former Robotech Masters Empire, against TR Edwards, against the Invid and against the Haydonites.

In a contested air space you want more conventional attack craft that can defend themselves or evade much better than a converted cargo hauler. So the Conbat, Alpha and Beta are the better choices for attack than any shuttle variant.

Unless the AC like craft is armed to deal with fighters as well

Mind you my AC like Horizont is more of an escort/picket class vessel used for screening against fighters and some medium sized capital class ships too.

[glitterboy2098]

that said, i'm not sure that a "spooky" version of any currently canon human shuttle would be a wise idea. none of them are really laid out well for use as bombers or gunships.

True, but we're talking about working with what we have... and what we have are an assortment of cargo shuttles that an enterprising GM might have the UEEF hastily convert into gunships for planetside operations.

my point was mainly about layout. the Horizon series is too fragile for real use, though of all of the space capable ones it is best suited to an AC-130 type refit.. you just need to cut holes in the pods and mount guns to stick out of them.

the ASC's AS-14 Pegasus has some defensive guns, but it's main bay is dorsally mounted, with no real side or front exposure. if you mount guns in the bay, you have to fly upside down to shoot them at the ground. if you were using it as an orbital bomber (going up into orbit then dropping munitions onto targets on the planet) it might work, but in atmosphere it would be suicide.

the SC-32 appears to have a similar problem, at least if you don't want to cut through vital systems on the sides of the shuttle.

the SC-37 Phoenix could be fitted with a couple guns AC-130 style, but the wings block most of the bay, and the best mounting for available space would be frontal, firing out the bow hatch.. which keeps the shuttle from being able to 'stand off' from the target and remain safer, since it would have to overfly the target to shoot it.

the UEDF's SHC-08 Star Goose pretty muich has no where to place the guns.. the internal space is mostly blocked by wings and systems. (and i find it odd that the Star Gooose is described as being VTOL when it shows no signs of any lift engines or vectored thrust systems.. honestly given the use in show, i'd doubt it would handle well in atmosphere, probably just enough to land. [it's design resembles some of the early 'powered return' space shuttle designs])

the best craft for AC-130 type conversion is actually the VC-33 and the VC-27 Tunny, which are purely atmospheric craft. they have plenty of room for added guns, and their sides are nice and open for gun mounting.

[Jefffar]

Unless the AC like craft is armed to deal with fighters as well

Mind you my AC like Horizont is more of an escort/picket class vessel used for screening against fighters and some medium sized capital class ships too.

Of course, you also need to have dedicated air to air combat oriented sensor systems and computer systems (this is why a Cessna with a Sidewinder isn't a fighter) and have made a very expensive aircraft that still doesn't do the job of a fighter or an attacker as well as the dedicated craft.

[Rimmerdal]

Unless the AC like craft is armed to deal with fighters as well

Mind you my AC like Horizont is more of an escort/picket class vessel used for screening against fighters and some medium sized capital class ships too.

Of course, you also need to have dedicated air to air combat oriented sensor systems and computer systems (this is why a Cessna with a Sidewinder isn't a fighter) and have made a very expensive aircraft that still doesn't do the job of a fighter or an attacker as well as the dedicated craft.

I might try with a larger craft and one soley designed as multi-role Gunship for that. not the horizant, I'd go modified cargo pods. have a pack 4-6 with heavy weapons pods...thats a dozen VF's for cover...that would be possible. add on anti-fighter gunners like the old bombers..and no since we aren't fight Invid as much it might last longet than a minute.

[Seto Kaiba]

Though in the vacuum of space all of those factors add-up to zero impact on mobility. Atmospheric it may appear to suffer, but if the space maneuvering system (reaction control jets) is still practical in atmosphere it could change the actual handling qualities beyond the aerodynamic qualities seen.

It depends on if the Horizont's vernier array (bear in mind, one was not part of the original design) is robust enough to put out the kind of thrust that could meaningfully improve agility in atmospheric flight. As VFs generally don't burn verniers in atmosphere, and they'd be the ones most likely to exploit such a thing, it seems unlikely IMO.

In all likelihood though TY probably designed it this way because it looked cool, without consideration to the actual implications of various technologies he used in the design.

Probably, yeah... the Horizon-V is much better, aerodynamically, but the forward-swept wing and tiltwing design are totally unnecessary for its role. Whether the RPG will make something of that in alternate roles...

AC-130 style aircraft only work in a permissive environment (ie where the enemy has no significant anti-aircraft weapons and no pressence in the air of their own).

The Invid are about as close to that as it gets for Robotech... they have no dedicated anti-aircraft assets to speak of, and the flight-capable scouts are slow and ponderous. All in all, a beautifully target-rich environment in which heavy attack craft can prosper.

[Jefffar]

The Invid are about as close to that as it gets for Robotech... they have no dedicated anti-aircraft assets to speak of, and the flight-capable scouts are slow and ponderous. All in all, a beautifully target-rich environment in which heavy attack craft can prosper.

The scout and fighter scout have proven capable of intercepting the Horizont in the past. When it's flying in the relatively low and slow pattern a gunship flies it will be even easier.

[ShadowLogan]

the ASC's AS-14 Pegasus has some defensive guns, but it's main bay is dorsally mounted, with no real side or front exposure. if you mount guns in the bay, you have to fly upside down to shoot them at the ground. if you were using it as an orbital bomber (going up into orbit then dropping munitions onto targets on the planet) it might work, but in atmosphere it would be suicide.

One may not have to fly upside down:
1. the bay is actually mounted (for the most part) forward of the wings, which would give them some clearance to mount out the sides (assuming system clearance exists)
2. the existing turrets could also be upgraded with heavier weapons appropriate to the gunship role
3. convert the cargo bay into a vertical launch missile rack with guided missiles
4. use guided mortar/artillery rounds fired from cannon instead of a missile launcher as #3, may not even need guided versions using a combination of high angle placement of the cannon (at high angle) and rolling the craft to assist in aiming
5. podded wing stations (may required modifying the wings for hardpoints), the wing is mid-high allowing some ground clearance, this may place limits on what can be used vs internal
6. variant model that is produced with the gunship role in mind, having the cargo bay (and other systems) with a more friendly placement for the mission
7. retractable turret in the bay with the weapons having additional traversability (Destroid arm/waist combo), combined with some roll from the craft. Main draw back would the turrets effect on aerodynamics during flight when deployed

#3/4/6/7 options would also work with the SC-32 design I would think. The SC-37 doesn't have these options for the most part (#5 being the only one I would think), but it has both front and rear doors, so it isn't limited to a frontal attack only.

and i find it odd that the Star Gooose is described as being VTOL when it shows no signs of any lift engines or vectored thrust systems.. honestly given the use in show,

"Khyron's Revenge" shows the Star Goose's VTOL in use during landing operation at the RFS.

It depends on if the Horizont's vernier array (bear in mind, one was not part of the original design) is robust enough to put out the kind of thrust that could meaningfully improve agility in atmospheric flight. As VFs generally don't burn verniers in atmosphere, and they'd be the ones most likely to exploit such a thing, it seems unlikely IMO.

Unlikely I admit, but still possible. It may be one of those desperation things that Horizon (and other shuttle) pilots hold off on unless necessary (starships almost have to). There are a variety of factors to consider in this regard, but it might explain why the Alpha is supposed to be more maneuverable if it has certain favorable factors in this regard compared to other designs (VF-X-4 and may be the VF-1) that allow it to rely on it's space RCS in atmosphere more heavily than other examples to improve mobility.

Probably, yeah... the Horizon-V is much better, aerodynamically, but the forward-swept wing and tiltwing design are totally unnecessary for its role. Whether the RPG will make something of that in alternate roles...

I agree here with the end conclusions, but there is also a minimum value for the FSW to have an impact on performance, weather the Horizon-V actually falls into this range I don't know.

[Seto Kaiba]

The scout and fighter scout have proven capable of intercepting the Horizont in the past. When it's flying in the relatively low and slow pattern a gunship flies it will be even easier.

Let's please qualify this statement with important context... the scout and fighter scout showed they could intercept some Horizont units on a reentry glide path when the shuttle's ability to maneuver was somewhere between slim and none. That isn't exactly a fair indicator of their capability in actual combat.

There are a variety of factors to consider in this regard, but it might explain why the Alpha is supposed to be more maneuverable if it has certain favorable factors in this regard compared to other designs (VF-X-4 and may be the VF-1) that allow it to rely on it's space RCS in atmosphere more heavily than other examples to improve mobility.

In all honesty, I doubt it... the Alpha's alleged greater maneuverability is one of those odd cases where the official info is trying to argue that 2+2 equals Fish. It's hard to say exactly what the performance is like on those verniers, because, in practical terms, they don't actually exist (they're not on the art at all). The existence and nature of the Super Shadows FAST pack doesn't augur well for the idea that verniers of considerable power are a factor in atmospheric maneuverability, since the Alpha apparently needed its verniers augmented for practical solo flight in space. I'd almost suspect the -V is a major overreaction to the low maneuverability of the -T model.

The -V might actually have greater utility as a troopship for rapid insertions if you let the cargo pods off...

[Jefffar]

Let's please qualify this statement with important context... the scout and fighter scout showed they could intercept some Horizont units on a reentry glide path when the shuttle's ability to maneuver was somewhere between slim and none. That isn't exactly a fair indicator of their capability in actual combat.

You mean like the slow and predictable path a cargo shuttle based gunship would be taking as it orbited the target area?

[ShadowLogan]

In all honesty, I doubt it... the Alpha's alleged greater maneuverability is one of those odd cases where the official info is trying to argue that 2+2 equals Fish. It's hard to say exactly what the performance is like on those verniers, because, in practical terms, they don't actually exist (they're not on the art at all).

Can we be sure those systems aren't integrated with the existing engine setup so as to be unnoticeable? The Alpha has 4-6 engines (model dependent) that could mask the presence if the RCS is a result of thrust vectoring (and/or reverser) and/or asymmetric thrust from those engines instead of as a separate system done as a space/weight saving measure. And aircraft have been steered by thrust alone without the use of a separate RCS, so the idea isn't without precedent.

since the Alpha apparently needed its verniers augmented for practical solo flight in space.

That may not actually be related to some of the verniers performance measures (thrust, Isp, etc), but a result of the limited tankage (that would effect Delta-V performance) on the Alpha which has also resulted in the "need" for the Veritech Beta Fighter (two incarnations) and potentially more if they also looked at non-veritech options (like FAST-Packs, nt-booster, drop tanks, etc). It is also possible that if the 6 engines in non-shadow double as the RCS, the loss of the 2 VTOL engines would require something to replace them (internally and/or externally) on the 4 engine Shadow version (Those are shadow fights afterall, they just haven't had the Shadow Systems installed).

Though we are drifting a bit from the topic at hand. The Horizon does look like it has the ability to gimbal it's engines, which would give it a form of thrust vectoring, and maneuverability improvement not present in the basic aerodynamics.

[Pouncer]

Well for the little wings issue of the Horizon-T the connector pods are well rooted to the main body with the actual wings on the outside of the connector. Also the heavy hitter pods, and the "combat" horizon" in general, would have very limited use in atmosphere where they aren't the most manuverable. More of a space strike unit meant more for going after larger ships, taking down Sheldoors before they can unleash their cargo perhaps.

In atmosphere they would almost always be limitted to operating in uncontested air space, not usually gonna happen against the Invid.

I'd overlooked the cannons on the Lancer II, perhaps mounting four of those on the front of the heavy hitter pod instead of the artillery.

For something of a more "anti-Invid" pod I was thinking of starting with the CIWS-L-20 pulse laser turrets, three front moutned (1 top, 2 outer sides), three aft (1 rear and 2 outer sides) and 2 on the underbelly. Then for longer ranges a dozzen medium range missile tubes forward and antoher dozzen on the outer sides.

Now when it comes to the vernier/RCS issues I've always just written it off as "Star Wars Syndrome." Spacecraft flying around like airplanes because usually the people who make the show just don't get how spacecraft work. So I write it off and put the things in there doing their work.

-POUNCER

[obsessed]

...

The best craft for AC-130 type conversion is actually the VC-33 and the VC-27 Tunny, which are purely atmospheric craft. they have plenty of room for added guns, and their sides are nice and open for gun mounting.

- 30mm (32mm?) autocannon
- 25mm gatling gun
- Air to ground SRMs
- PCB-11 instead of the 105mm

So, where are Spooky Tunny stats?