HOME | DD
Jepray — Raptor-Class GAC
Published: 2011-06-26 06:45:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 3328; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
The Raptor GAC (Ground Assault Craft) is one of the primary vessels fielded and sold by the mercenary firm Professional Military Solutions Corporation. GACs fill a role that is something of a hybrid between ground support fighters like the A-10 Warthog and attack choppers such as the AH-64 Apache and the AH-1 Cobra. They deploy from transports or dropships (though many models are capable of dropping from orbit), and work alongside gravtanks to engage in fast-attack strikes against enemy fortification, infantry, armour, and strategic targets such as shield generators and communications centers.The Raptor mounts two heavy APPCs with independent variable tracking barrels built into the engine nacelles, a medium AP lancer under the nose, a point-defense/AMS light APPC, two AP lancer ball turrets flanking the cockpit, and mission-variable ordnance pod hardpoints for armament. It is sheathed in nearly a half-meter-thick atomically-bonded carbon-turine armour battleplate, three times thicker than any fighter and twice as thick as most bombers, allowing it to weather significant ground fire. Additional maglock hardpoints under the wings and hull allow the Raptor to carry various SRM, LRM and even a pair of SSM missile loads, further expanding it's firepower against hardened targets.
Related content
Comments: 21
Hmn...I'm kind of interested in seeing what kind of weapons are used in a ground assault. All I know about antimatter is that when it interacts with normal matter, it's rather spectacular. Which raises considerable questions as to how well such a weapon would function in atmosphere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but the plasma would still be made up of antimatter, just in an energetic and excited state. Becoming plasma doesn't reverse the charge of particles.
Maybe if it operated like a hellbore, wherein a laser is used to create a vacuum channel through atmosphere instead of merely ionizing a path for the bolt...
I just...I have concerns about using a weapon that can explode. Even more so when the rest of the 'ammo' stored wherein could possibly crack a planet to the mantle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
i'll have to have Breandan chime in on this, and you two play nice ok...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So long as the appropriate disclaimers are available, I have no trouble with 'because I said so' being offered up as a reasonable explanation.
Lord knows I've done 'rocks fall, everyone dies' in my rps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
particle projection weapons and particle beam weapons- both conventional and anti-hydrogen (antimatter) based versions- utilize EM fields to protect the charged particles from emission to target. A particle beam or AP lancer fired in atmo uses a linear tube that surrounds a split-second laser pulse which eradicates all particles within the tube, followed by the near-luminal-speed stream of charged particles. The laser is not 100% efficient, however, so the charged particles will encounter stray atoms along the way. In the case of a conventional particle beam, this creates a brilliant flash of light and a deep buzzing sound as the charged particles burn through the rogue bits floating around in the tube. In the case of AP lancers, however, the flash is several times more potent, and it has a deafening explosive crash akin to a thunderclap dragged out over the duration of the beam, or three to four seconds, whichever is longer. This is from the matter-antimatter annihilation reaction.
Particle projection weapons are a bit different, and more efficient in getting particles to target. Particle projection weapons comprise the bulk of commonplace weaponry of the 24th century. They use magnetic acceleration to project self-contained packets of protons cocooned within an EM field that lasts for a few tenths of a second. Upon impact, the field disperses and releases the charged particles into the target with tremendous force. Particle projection weapons have significantly higher levels of kinetic impact from the larger packet of hypervelocity charged particles. Whereas a particle beam is like being hit with a light-speed pencil, a particle projection weapon is like being hit by a twenty kilo boulder hurled at a tenth that speed. Needless to say, it knocks target back and has much greater explosive, radiant and thermal damage. APPCs- the antimatter equivalent- add an order of magnitude greater energetic release due to the matter-antimatter reaction. Unlike AP lancers, however, the EM packet is created within the reactor core of the weapon, and contains ONLY anti-protons, positrons, etc. (depending on the model) This means that the m-am reaction doesn't occur until the field fails upon impact. This makes APPCs the most powerful conventional directed energy weapon in the arsenal. The bolts hit with tremendous force, area effect damage, and a thunderous explosion like the offspring of a thunderclap and a 155mm artillery shell detonation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmn..so you're saying that while devastating to what it hits, the energy field is relatively easily disrupted by solid matter?
As in, don't try to shoot this through a wall that's closer than the blast radius?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Civ-grade, yes, they disperse when they hit the first major obstacle. This is by design to reduce over-penetration. Mil-spec weapons fire a much denser packet or stream, and the EM field is set to the target's range. Some of the particles will sheet off upon hitting intervening objects and burn through the obstacle, but the EM field retains the remainder. If the bolt or stream hits a sufficiently hardened obstacle, then the particles are dispersed into it, doing their full damage to the intervening object. In other words, if you have a hostile hiding behind a three-foot-thick concrete wall, and your thermal or CRT imaging shows you where he is, a particle beam or AP lancer will punch right through the wall and hit him, albeit with a slightly reduced stream. A particle projection weapon or APPC will blow a huge hole through the wall and hit the target, with some minor degradation of the initial bolt (though subsequent bolts in a burst will not suffer that degradation due to a lack of obstacle). The same weapons fired at a target hiding behind a turine* bulkhead or a few dozen meters thick of rock, concrete, etc. will be stopped by the obstacle, but be severely damaged. A few more shots will eventually blow or burn through it, by which point a smart hostile will be running like hell. The blast radii of the weapons will depend on the size. A PPG (sidearm) will have a blast radius of about a meter, a PPR (rifle) will have one of about two meters or so, whereas heavy weapons can have blast radii from three meters all the way up to kilometers. Naval weapons have huge blast radii when directed against a planet, but in space the dispersion of the energy in the vacuum of space severely reduces this. There's simply no air or other matter to violently displace of add to the reaction of the explosion. Still, hits against the shields of enemy vessels will often look damned impressive , despite doing little damage if any. There's a reason, however, that the book states quite explicitly- "The survivability of a civilian-grade weapon is comparable to the survivability of a 12 gauge shotgun at close range firing .00 buckshot mixed with a slug. In other words, not very. Mil-spec weaponry is designed to combat the heavy armor worn by 24th century soldiers and is very powerful. The average mil-spec sidearm has as much firepower as 21st century heavy artillery, and is impossible to survive without armor or substantial augmentation."
Armour is your friiiieeeend
* turine entry from the game manual- "Metals are the easiest to replicate, however, some naturally-occurring metals are cheaper to mine than to synthesize. Turine is chief among them. This industrial metal forms at the heart of super-giant stars from iron atoms that are compressed and ionized due to plasma and pressure. Eventually, the atoms are tweaked into an entirely new element- the superdense metal called turine. Mined from asteroids or asteroid impact sites created after these stars die, turine is spread throughout the galaxy in various pockets around the graveyards of such stars. It is most commonly used in armor plating manufacturing due to the ease with which nanites can interlink the already densely-packed atoms to create atomically-bonded armor."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see, so even the lightest skirmish is an ecological disaster, and one hopes that all civilian infrastructure and buildings are built like bunkers.
Otherwise a single car chase or decent action movie scene is going to leave your local downtown area full of smoldering rubble.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if using mil-spec weapons, yes. Most military engagements take place offworld for that exact reason, or are urban warfare/CQB operations where the big guns are left at home. Most cities in the Colonial Territories or Fringe- the dangerous areas- are fortified, at least with city-class shield generators. Core Worlds have planetary defense shields, but a shoot-out with mil spec weapons would be like people in LA or New York duking it out with AT-4s and satchel charges.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Shh..shh..
You had me at satchel charges. What are THOSE like in Dark Nova? <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
anything from critter bombs (nanite deconstructor weapons) to antimatter charges
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oooooh...gray goo weapons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pah, minor issues... so the planet gets a little crack in it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
now i know what i want for x-mass xD very cool design
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Take some of your vehicles? naw, i have plenty of my own thanks. but if you meant draw some, i am kinda busy with DN and my commission work... but if your serious, leave me a note.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1