IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Military Transport Choppers
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 13 2003, 08:11 PM
Post #1


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I know it has been done several times before, but now I happen to have access to Rigger 3.

I could easily find at least Grendel's vehicles, which has the stats for an MH-60K Blackhawk. My main problem with that is that it's a Utility Helicopter instead of Cargo Helicopter, so it costs 4 times as much and is rather small, and it has a few other oddities (dunno what version of Rigger it's been done with). The small size doesn't have to be a problem, there's need for smaller transports too, but the Max CF of 75 is really pitiful: 3.125 x 2 x 1.5 meters is hardly enough for a squad of infantry, nevermind all the equipment.

A Utility Chopper is probably something like a UH-1 with it's 4800kg max take-off weight, just too small for a 10-tonner like the UH-60. And then I thought, if I'm going to design a military transport chopper, I might as well take it to the extreme to see if all aspects of it would work. So I set out to do something like a 2060s MH-53.

The following is what I came up with. I took a few liberties while originally designing it, and then had to tune it to get it back into canon. I'm sure there are errors in there, and I'd be really thankful if someone could point them out.

MH-##X
Chassis: Cargo Helicopter
Powerplant: Jet Turbine
Handling: 1
Speed: 300
Accel: 20
Body: 7
Armor: 12
Sig: 8
Autonav: 4
Sensor: 9
Cargo: 575
Load: 11527
Seating: 4 bucket seats
Entry: 2d + 2s + 1t
Fuel: 4000l
Economy: 0.35km/l

Design Options:

-Fuel tank cap increase (Jet, 300)
+3000l
-Acceleration increase (+10)
10 -> 20
-Extra entry (2 sliding doors)
To the cargo area
-Handling improvement (-2)
Max available (5 -> 3)
-Improved economy (15)
0.2 x (1+15x0.05) -> 0.35 (km/l)
-Increased cargo space (650)
730 Total CF
-Increased load (13300)
850 -> 13800 (max for Chassis after SmartMat)
-Signature improvement (1)
3 -> 4
-Speed increase (180)
120 -> 300
-Smart materials
-1 Handling, +1 Sig, +1 Stress TNs, +1 SI, x1.15 Acc, Speed, Load
-Autonav-4
-Contingency maneuver controls (6)
Didn't want to go completely overboard with CMC
-Rigger adaptation
-Fly-by-wire-3
-3 Handling, full bonus to Load (+30% after other mods)
-Structural agility 3
Does this work on a chopper?
-Remote-control interface
Only Pilot 1, not meant to be remote-controlled
-Secondary controls
-APPS (4 bucket seats)
The pilots and the crew chiefs
-Armor (12)
I mean, heck, why not? +2 Handling
-Smart armor system
Ditto
-Crash cages
-Gas seal
-Life support system (20 man hrs)
Enough for 5 hours for the whole crew
-Roll bars
Can these even be used on a helo?
-Radar-absorbent materials 2
+2 Sig
-Thermal baffles 1
+1 Sig
-2 Door mounts
For Minigun-action
-Small pop-up remote turret
For more Minigun-action
-Ammo bin
2CF inside turret, 4CF in chassis, 6,000 minigun rounds
-ECM 8
-ECCM 8
-Electronics port
-Power Amps 10
+10 Flux, w00t
-Sensors 9
-Extra seating 2 buckets
-Winch 1000kg

Design Point total: 20731
Cost: 5,182,750
Street Index: 4
Load (pre-F-B-W): 8867

Could easily put in CMC-9, more enviroseals, 1pt higher Sig and higher Speed, CF and Acceleration etc. and it would still be far, far cheaper than RL military transport choppers. The MH-53J has a Unit Cost of $25 million (1993), compared to that this baby is a real bargain. With max fuel and all the weapons and ammo necessary (3 miniguns and at least 10,000 rounds, probably 14,000) it can still easily lug around an infantry Squad or two.

So, what did I do wrong? That would just rock too much to be real.

Next up, a smaller transport...

[Edit]Sorry about that, forgot that [pre] no longer works, and then my keyboard decided to turn American all of a sudden...[/Edit]

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Nov 13 2003, 08:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grendel
post Nov 13 2003, 08:28 PM
Post #2


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,763
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Special Hell
Member No.: 284



First of all, thanks for the advert. :)

As for the design, nicely done. I'd recommend against the high sensors and ECM/ECCM, though, especially for a simple transport. No need to have that kind of gear on board. It just takes up room and adds cost. Also, the sig is a bit high for such a monster. Roll bars aren't used on helicopters. And the life support system is kind of useless. If you're going to have open doors for door guns, then you're not going to be able to seal the cockpit to provide life support. Also, I wouldn't put a smart armor system on a helicopter. While it would serve very useful to protect the cabin area, the rotor system would remain vulnerable. Again, just something that adds weight and takes up space without bein useful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moosegod
post Nov 13 2003, 08:28 PM
Post #3


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,047
Joined: 12-November 03
From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation.
Member No.: 5,818



Change the pop-up turrent to a external fixed turret. In helo combat, a deploy phase= death.

Can't use roll bars- crash cages are about it.

Is the cargo area gas sealed? Cause that doesn't make much sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 13 2003, 08:36 PM
Post #4


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



The design of the MH-##X is based on the method of "slap on everything, you can take 'em off later if they cost too much".

The high sensors are probably useless, you're right about that. It's main purpose is to dodge enemy detection, not to detect the enemy itself. Originally it had rating 6 Sensors, I upped them to 9 because the chopper was so darn cheap... Same goes for ECCM, but I like to keep the ECM where it is, since this isn't a just a simple transport. It's meant for infiltration and exfiltration/-traction of special operations units.

Okay, getting rid of the Roll bars, they sounded ridiculours anyway and they'd be redundant with the Crash cages. The Life Support is another of those "added because you never know" thingies. Maybe it has to fly through a chemical cloud, or something. Okay, taking it off...

I should think the Smart Armor System would protect the whole of the chassis, not just the cabin area. It certainly wouldn't protect the rotor, that's true, but it's also rather cheap, and it could easily mean the difference between a crash and just Serious damage (which doesn't even cause any modifiers, thanks to CMC). The weight isn't really a problem, though I guess the Load could be reduced a bit to make it faster.

So, before I'm doing a medium transporter, I'll make a basic utility version of this bugger. Lessee how that turns out...

[Edit]Oops! The pop-up is a remnant from when I though I might make the thing a bit less conspicuous, and it Concealed Armor and no SAS. Obviously it doesn't need a popup anymore. That's coming right out. Although the MH-## isn't meant for helo combat, the miniguns are only for ground support.

And nope, the cargo area isn't gas sealed (the description says cockpit only), the troops can use their own gas masks.[/Edit]

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Nov 13 2003, 09:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 13 2003, 10:09 PM
Post #5


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



All right, modified the MH-85X based on the feedback, then used it to make a cheaper cargo transport version and a personnel transport, as well as designing a medium transport (with cargo, personnel and specops versions).

Changes to the MH-85X:
Acceleration Increase from 10 to 15
Speed Increase from 180 to 280
No more pop-up, just Small Remote
No more roll bars
Design Point Total: 21006
Cost: 5,251,500
Speed: 400
Accel: 25
Cargo: 579
Load: 11527

CH-85X
As MH-85X, except:
Armor 6
No Smart Armor System
No RAM
No Thermal Baffles
ECM 5, ECCM 5
Sensors 6
3 Spotlights
Design Point Total: 14949
Cost: 3,737,250
Handling: 0
Armor: 6
Sig: 5
Sensor: 6
Cargo: 603
Load: 14682

CH-85X Personnel
As CH-85X, except:
Extra seating, 20 benches
Cargo: 483
Load: 10782
Seating: 4 bucket + 40 bench

UH-90X
As CH-85X, except:
Increased cargo space (250)
Increased load (9150)
+15% Accel/Speed from F-B-W
Armor (4)
No turret or ammo bin
Design Point Total: 12084
Cost: 3,021,000
Handling: 0
Speed: 460
Accel: 29
Armor: 4
Cargo: 211
Load: 8439

UH-90X Personnel
As UH-90X, except:
Extra seating, 10 benches
Cargo: 151
Load: 6939
Seating: 4 bucket + 20 bench

And would you guess what differentiates MH-90X from UH-90X? Mainly the :nuyen: 4,704,000 price tag...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 13 2003, 11:32 PM
Post #6


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Thought about doing several other military vehicles as well, but certain ones, like the heavier versions of the HMMWVs, are really difficult to do accurately. For example, they are only barely in the Medium Truck category, pushing for heavy truck.

Next up (tomorrow morning) the 2060s Mk5 SOC (SEAL team insertion boat), which is going to end up as something between a Gasoline Sports Cruiser and a Jet Turbine Yacht.

Hrrmm, what kind of (military) vehicles do people want to see most?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moosegod
post Nov 13 2003, 11:43 PM
Post #7


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,047
Joined: 12-November 03
From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation.
Member No.: 5,818



Bombers. I mean the big ones.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grendel
post Nov 14 2003, 12:23 AM
Post #8


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,763
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Special Hell
Member No.: 284



You might want to consider posting to this thread, and/or talking to lodestar about your project. If you want/need somewhere to host your vehicle designs I'd be more than happy to put them up on my page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
easytohate
post Nov 14 2003, 12:44 AM
Post #9


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 30-October 03
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 5,767



A 2063 version of a AC-130 gunship.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moosegod
post Nov 14 2003, 12:55 AM
Post #10


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,047
Joined: 12-November 03
From: Perilously close to the Sioux Nation.
Member No.: 5,818



They wouldn't make those. With the increase of shoulder mounted SAMS and heavy caliber, man-portable weapons, those'd be dead meat. Unless it had a good ECM suite, I suppose...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
easytohate
post Nov 14 2003, 01:05 AM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 30-October 03
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 5,767



Or they are VTOL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seville
post Nov 14 2003, 05:34 AM
Post #12


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 18-October 03
Member No.: 5,737



I'm sorry, but if you want realistic, that design looks to be too much. I looked at the stats from the website (rather than calling my friends from pilot training) and a lot of the numbers don't match up. Now I never flew a helicopter, but I'm a military pilot, so here's a few of my opinions.

For example, the MH-53 (not the spec ops version, by the way) has a max allowable speed of 150, and a range of 700 miles, which is not reflected in the design (at least I don't think, being as I don't have Rigger 3 in front of me). A sensor 8 suite would be something found on AWACS, and even the equipment listed for a Pavelow is still only about 4 or 5.

A sensor of 8 for a helocopter would make it more stealthy than a hang glider, and helos rely on their altitude, not their signature, for radar avoidance. Even a 5 would be high... those jet turbines are loud and hot, and the rotors create a huge buffet on the air (increasing signature)

Helo's are not easy to handle. Hovering is very difficult, and the use of a collective (rather than a throttle) is a difficult thing to learn. With a Handling of 1 or 0, it would be easier to fly a Pavelow than a Cessna. A handling of 4 (maybe higher... most helo pilots I know pride themselves on their stick and rudder skills) would seem more appropriate.

There's certain things about helos that aren't going to change. You can't really make them much faster than the fastest already are (as the critical mach on the forward blade will rapidly get too high), nor can you easily apply modern stealth technology to make them stealthier (because of the rotor blades again). I like the design, but the future of helos is not in the direction of Pavelows, unless you're talking about Spec Ops. Instead, we will see tilt-wings, and upgrades of old aircraft (like they're doing with the Huey right now).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 14 2003, 11:39 AM
Post #13


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



My guideline was more the price of the current design than it's capabilities. If the MH-53 costs $25 mil, then why would they not get all the stuff I've put in the MH-85X above when it's still so darned cheap? Of course it isn't perfectly realistic, and I've got versions I like more on my own computer, but I wanted to start out canon.

QUOTE
For example, the MH-53 (not the spec ops version, by the way) has a max allowable speed of 150, and a range of 700 miles, which is not reflected in the design (at least I don't think, being as I don't have Rigger 3 in front of me). A sensor 8 suite would be something found on AWACS, and even the equipment listed for a Pavelow is still only about 4 or 5.

Of the price of the design, the TOTAL speed increase from 120 to 400 costs :nuyen: 140,000, which really is a pittance for more than tripled speed. Again, if they could make it that fast for that cheap, why wouldn't they? The standard version could be cheaper, but even dropping it to, say, 200 wouldn't save you a whole lot of money.

You've got a point with the Sensors, but when you're rigging you're even more dependent on them. Still, a lower Sensor rating than 6 could be justified for the CH-85s, but that would only save something like :nuyen: 15,000 -- Sensors-6 simply has the best quality for its price.

QUOTE
A sensor of 8 for a helocopter would make it more stealthy than a hang glider, and helos rely on their altitude, not their signature, for radar avoidance. Even a 5 would be high... those jet turbines are loud and hot, and the rotors create a huge buffet on the air (increasing signature)

I'm guessing you meant Signature... If it's meant for the infiltration of SpecOps units, then why the heck not? The entrance of "Smart Materials" states that it gets rid of the "eggbeater sound" of helicopters (whether that's realistic or not). The relative cheapness of Thermal Baffles makes me think that such technology is quite cheap. Even the rating 2 Radar Absorbent Materials only cost :nuyen: 100,000, which isn't much for making sure that no one notices the infiltration.

The buffet of air would be a problem in some situations, if someone has managed to make a sensor to spot that kind of stuff by the 2060s. Humans would spot this baby anyway. And as for hotness and sound, I think the engines of T-Birds and Jet Fighters would be even hotter and louder, and they can still go quite unnoticed by different kinds of sensors. If there are "stealth fighters", why not "stealth choppers"? Ok, the first thing that came to my mind was radar cross-section, but I didn't say anything about what the MH-85X looks like yet, have I? :)

QUOTE
Helo's are not easy to handle. Hovering is very difficult, and the use of a collective (rather than a throttle) is a difficult thing to learn. With a Handling of 1 or 0, it would be easier to fly a Pavelow than a Cessna. A handling of 4 (maybe higher... most helo pilots I know pride themselves on their stick and rudder skills) would seem more appropriate.

That's just silly. If they can make the helos very easy to pilot, why wouldn't they? I'm pretty sure that the RL vehicle designers didn't intentionally make the things hard to pilot. Although of the things you've commented on so far, getting the Handling back up to 4 would save by far most cash. StructAg-3 + F-B-W-3 together cost :nuyen: 1,125,000. But that would mean dropping 30% of load too, as well as getting rid of the +3 Control Pool when piloting these babies. Maybe for the CH- and UH-versions I gould drop the F-B-W down to 1, the Handling would still be a 2 and the price for even the CH-53X goes under :nuyen: 3mil (2,987,250 to be exact). On the down side, Load just dropped from 14682 to 12423.

The speed of 460 on the H-60s is probably too high, that's true, but is it a fact that helicopters can't be made any faster than they are these days (~350km/h)? No matter the improvement in materials, engines, etc? And no, I'm not talking about the fabled nano-machines this time, just plain more flexible, stronger, lighter materials all around.

And since the H-85X are based on the MH, the main purpose of which is simply to be the best possible method of infiltrating SpecOps, I really am talking SpecOps. But you're probably right in that tilt-wings would become more common, and I'll design a few of those too, soon.

QUOTE
You might want to consider posting to this thread, and/or talking to lodestar about your project. If you want/need somewhere to host your vehicle designs I'd be more than happy to put them up on my page.

I'll go there next.
I don't want anything I've scratched together so far to be put up anywhere though. Maybe some day...

And as for AC-130... Well, it would be easy enough to mount a few gatling-ACs on the MH-53X chassis. :D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 14 2003, 04:30 PM
Post #14


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



QUOTE (moosegod)
Bombers. I mean the big ones.

Well, how about this:
Lockheed B-7A Pike

Chassis: Airliner
Powerplant: Jet Turbine
Handling: 0
Speed: 150/1,150
Accel: 35
Body: 9
Armor: 4
Sig: 9
Autonav: 4
Sensor: 9
Cargo: 308
Load: 63,960 (3960 with max ordnance)
Seating: 4 ejection bucket seats
Entry: 2d
Fuel: 30,000l
Economy: 0.6km/l
Price: :nuyen: 14,511,750 (cheap as dirt)

Features:
Fuel tank cap increase (Jet, 2500), Handling improvement (-3), Improved economy (10 levels), Increased cargo (4700), Increased load (65000), Signature improvement (2), Speed increase (550), Improved TO/L P (STOL), Smart materials, Autonav (4), Contingency maneuver controls (9), Fly-by-wire (3), Rigger adaptation, Secondary controls x 3, APPS (4 seats), Armor (4), Crash cages, Gas seal, Life support 100 man-hrs, Radar-absorbent materials (3), Thermal baffles (2), Heavy launch control systems (4), Internal heavy mounts (40), ECM (9), ECCM (6), ED (6), ECD (4), Electronics ports, Power amplifiers (10), Sensors (9), Ejection bucket seats (4)

Additionally, 3 doors were removed. 100 man-hrs is long enough for the crew of 4 for going around the world with 2 refuels. Airliner chassis doesn't say you can't got STOL, so of course I went STOL. VSTOL would've been pushing it, though. F-B-W-3 is necessary to get the load high enough and Handling Improvement is so damn cheap that it ended up with that insanely low Handling. By far the most expensive mods are Increased cargo ( :nuyen: 5,875,000) and Increased load ( :nuyen: 1,625,000) before ECM ( :nuyen: 1,250,000) and F-B-W ( :nuyen: 1,125,000).

Sort of a cross between B-1B and B-2 with a bit of B-52 for good measure, it's a stealthy, super-cruising long-range bomber meant for stand-off attacks but just as capable of old-fashioned carpet bombing. Common loads include 80 ASM-144 JASSMs (use the stats of SS-N-49 Sirocco), 40 UGM-188C/D (Sea) Sabers or 40 GBU-47 2,000lb TV-guided bombs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seville
post Nov 14 2003, 11:54 PM
Post #15


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 18-October 03
Member No.: 5,737



The Bomber you made looks like it makes a lot of sense, I can't argue with any of the design choices from a modern perspective, and it also looks like a really cool bomber, something of a stealth bomber of the future.

But I'm not ready to yield on the helicopter yet :)

I understand that according to Rigger 3 rules, it is possible, even likely, that helo's like this are mass produced. But the cost isn't realistic, which would be an arguement more with Rigger 3 than your design (although I like Rigger 3 as it is, it just is difficult to give accurate cost for military vehicles.) What I was saying is that if you look at what the Pavelow is capable of, and what helicopters can realistically do, then you couldn't have a platform like the one you describe.

Its a very cool vehicle for the game, but it bears little resemblance to the MH-53. Remember that there have only been 2 or 3 generations of military cargo helicopters since the Korean War, and there isn't much need to improve on the basic design.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Nov 15 2003, 12:59 AM
Post #16


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



Just a note, but as a GM I do not allow Handling to be reduced below 2. I think this is a standard minimum as not a single listed vehicle has lower than this.

I know the rules do not reflect this, but I think logic does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 15 2003, 01:16 AM
Post #17


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



I know, it would be a far more specialized vehicle than the RL MH-53. My original message was poorly worded and not very well thought of. Always happens.

Yeah, the costs are way off. I think the chopper as it appears in the first post should cost something more like :nuyen: 20,000,000 at least, preferably :nuyen: 30,000,000. But then the other choppers would be insanely cheap. And like you said, pricing large vehicles is really hard unless you have people with actual experience of vehicle design doing the rules, and making them really complicated. The B-7A should probably cost hundreds of millions.

In any case, I downtuned all the choppers. I think that the decrease of the price of the MH-85X from 5.25 mil to 3.5 mil gives a rather good picture of how much... 200 less Cargo, 1 level lower F-B-W, lower Sensors, ECM and ECCM, etc. I just couldn't bear making it any slower than it is, though... The CH-85 now costs only 1.87 mil, with a Speed of 300, Acc 20, Sig 4, Handling 3, and all kinds of other reductions in capabilities all around. The UH-90 only costs 1.4 mil after the downtune.

I also fiddled around with an Osprey-type vehicle (more like the RL Osprey than the Docwagon Ospreys). Handling 3, Speed 400, Acc 15, Armor 4, Sig 4, Sensors 6, Cargo 269, Load 8,857, Fuel 2000l, Economy 1km/l. ECM 5, CMC 3, APPS, Crash cages and that's about it. :nuyen: 1,501,750. A far better alternative for most non-combat transporting than the UH-90, because it's faster, has a longer range and uses less fuel, and can carry more, while being in the same price bracket. Might not be as good in hostile situations though, because of the poor Acceleration (it takes time to make it hover, land, get up and going again because of the tilt-wing design).

I'm still not completely happy with them, and I'll certainly make some even cheaper versions of them for general cargo ferrying. I already made a civilian version of the CH-85, with rating 4 Sensors and none of the military-type mods that the original has (no ECM, no CMC, no Armor, no Mounts, certainly no F-B-W), which costs 1.6mil. You could get it down to 1.5mil by dropping Speed and Accel, or maybe even 1.4mil, but that's it unless you want to make it smaller and lighter, which defeats the purpose of an extra heavy transport.

[Edit]I see no problem with lower-than-2 Handling. The TN will always be at least 2, but it would still be 2 even after Damage, weather, terrain and whathaveyou. I haven't given much thought to the vehicles canon vehicles, apart from the few that I've compared to the vehicles I've designed so far.[/Edit]

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Nov 15 2003, 01:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kanada Ten
post Nov 15 2003, 01:37 AM
Post #18


Beetle Eater
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826



I don't really care about the TN. I just don't think they can make/build things with a Handling less than 2 and would not allow such things in my games. The entire point of damage modifiers is to affect the vehicle's abilities and so on. Dropping it below 2 is verging on munchkinism, IMGMO.

SotA:63 doesn't even have any Handling 2 military vehicles, much less below that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seville
post Nov 15 2003, 02:38 AM
Post #19


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 18-October 03
Member No.: 5,737



Just out of curiousity, (and I ask this as both a request and a friendly challenge) would you care to take a crack at the C-5's 2063 counterpart (assuming that there will still be a place for an oversize cargo hauler)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 15 2003, 02:45 AM
Post #20


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Then all you need to do is get rid of the Handling Improvement bits on the vehicles, that will raise the Handling to at least 2 on all the designs which currently have under that. And it won't really affect anything else, except the cost by some insanely small figure (12,500 - 18,750).

Sure I'll try the extra-heavy jet transport, but it won't work very well because of the Load limits. Let's see what comes out if, once I get the E-24G Scope EWCRS done...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 15 2003, 04:02 AM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Well, that was quick. Here's the absolute maximum, and the more reasonable version (although they are both still far too expensive compared to e.g. the B-7 above):

Lockheed XC-15
Chassis: Airliner
Powerplant: Jet Turbine
Handling: 2
Speed: 150/600
Accel: 35
Body: 9
Armor: 0
Sig: 2
Autonav: 3
Sensor: 6 [Edit]No chance! Sensors (1) for you![/Edit]
Cargo: 7,291 (911 cubic meters, or about 38.6 x 5.76 x 4.1 meters using C-5 Galaxys cargo comp width and height, comparable to the original, though I couldn't confirm the length of the C-5s cargo comp -- it's probably about 40 meters)
Load: 112,356 (well under the 130,950 max payload of the C-5)
Seating: None
Entry: 2d + 2r (both nose and tail open up to ramps)
Fuel: 16,000l (same range as an empty C-5)
Economy: 0.6km/l
Price: 13,022,500 (almost as much as the B-7...)
This doesn't have any amenities or other systems, though it does have F-B-W-3 to maximize the Load. You could get 13kg more load by removing the Crash Cage, but that's it. There's just no more you can fit to an airplane with the rules. This doesn't even have seats, just Remote-control interface, and you need Sensors-1 with those (12kg).

Lockheed C-14 Cluster
Handling: 2 (4 with drop tanks)
Speed: 150/600 (150/540 with drop tanks)
Accel: 35
Body: 9
Armor: 0
Sig: 2 (1 with drop tanks)
Autonav: 3
Sensor: 6
Cargo: 6,812
Load: 80,285
Seating: 6 bucket + 50 bench (25 benches -> 50 people)
Entry: 2d + 2r
Fuel: 20,000l (28,000l with drop tanks, 16,800km max range without refueling with a flight time of 29 hours)
Economy: 0.6km/l
Price: 12,420,000
The C-14 has partial basic living amenities for 50 troops on the upper deck, full basic living amenities for the 6 crew members in the front, Crash cages, APPS for all, ECM 4 and rating 10 Power amps. The personnel transport version costs 80,000 more, can carry 800 more personnel on benches and partial basic amenities for all, has 4412 Cargo space left and 20285 Load.

I assume these would still be needed for quickly deploying heavy vehicles. The heaviest airlifters in R3 have max payload ratings of 15,000kg, which is not even enough for most AFVs. The C-14 can carry 2 of those, or an MBT + logistics. Or 2 battalions of infantry, if need be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Seville
post Nov 15 2003, 08:29 AM
Post #22


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Joined: 18-October 03
Member No.: 5,737



Wow... those look pretty good. I have the dash one for the C-5 right here, so if you convert metric to english for me, I can let you know exactly how close you were.

And of course, with my own platform now statted out in SR, my next group of runners will invariably have something to do on it. Thanks, Austere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 15 2003, 12:16 PM
Post #23


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Onlineconversion.com, for all your conversion needs! It's a real treasure trove.

Speed 600 -> 447mph cruising, maximum 671mph
Cargo 6,812 -> 118" 1' x 18' 9" x 13" 5"
Load 80,285 -> 176,996lbs
Fuel 20,000l -> 5,283 gallons, 28,000l -> 7,397 gallons (US Liquid)
16,800km -> 10,439 / 9,071 miles (US Statute / US Nautical)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Nov 16 2003, 01:06 AM
Post #24


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Well I put up 2 military transport vehicles on lodestar's thread. I'm sure that if you thought that the CH-85s and UH-90s were too expensive and had too much stuff in them you'll like the Sikorsky-Bell 646 LUH/UH-4. I even resisted the temptation to make a stealthy, EW-capable version of it.

The other vehicle is just something came up with looking at the XM1108 and the AMTV on the Fas.org/Man site, and thought that SR was lacking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th May 2024 - 12:00 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.