[morris13]

Even today, it rather depends on the fighter. An A-10 for example is capable of taking a rather impressive amount of punishment without going down. Even the lighter unarmored fighters can take a few dozen rounds without exploding, and even then usually its because of who delicate the engines are. Any flak or cannon rounds that get into a jet engine will almost always damage the turbines enough that it won't work. I'd think that one or two missiles to kill a fighter and two or three for a bomber
isn't unrealistic, and thats not counting the shields, which make an awful lot of difference.

[Sushi]

Agreed. If there are no shields, than one, maybe two missiles should be enough.

But with shields, I would think you would be able to take one or two more...are you leaving the shields on?




------------------
Sushi- the OTHER white meat!

Accelerate your game-Velocity Mod
Sushi's Freespace Zone-Future home of loads of cool stuff.

[The Claw]

Well, if I release this as a proper mod for FS2 it's debatable.
 I think I might rebalance it so it's more like 3-4 hits from a laser and 1-2 for a missile.

[Nico]

depends where you shot, and what you shot. an hydra rocket in a wing "may" allow the ship to fly (supposing that there is no fuel tank in the wing...) an AGM64 phoenix  will kill any plane in one shot I guess. in fact a sidewinder would too... and bombers are not more armoured than a fighter, now... a B2 shot by a missile will be doomed (and don't forget that they carry a huge payload. even with securities, there's always the risk of the whole stuff to explode because of fire). The A10 is trully a special case. it can fly with only half of a wing reaped, and with only one engine. But if another a10 opened fire on it with its avenger canon,; well the A10 would be doomed too. Damn the recoil of the Aveger can stop the plane even with full afterburners . bad guy hehe  

[The Claw]

I dunno, we'll see how it goes  

[Sandwich]

 

Originally posted by Shrike:
All the basic turrets.  Increased shot speed and ROF but reduced damage, so you have to be more careful or you'll be taking additional hits.

Give me a link, so I can compare... *evil laugh*  



------------------
"He who laughs last thinks slowest."
"Just becase you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
"To err is human; to really screw up you need a computer."
Creator of the Sandvich Bar

[Fattony]

One word:

Insane

[morris13]

 

Originally posted by venom2506:
depends where you shot, and what you shot. an hydra rocket in a wing "may" allow the ship to fly (supposing that there is no fuel tank in the wing...) an AGM64 phoenix  will kill any plane in one shot I guess. in fact a sidewinder would too... and bombers are not more armoured than a fighter, now... a B2 shot by a missile will be doomed (and don't forget that they carry a huge payload. even with securities, there's always the risk of the whole stuff to explode because of fire). The A10 is trully a special case. it can fly with only half of a wing reaped, and with only one engine. But if another a10 opened fire on it with its avenger canon,; well the A10 would be doomed too. Damn the recoil of the Aveger can stop the plane even with full afterburners . bad guy hehe  

Thats mostly true, but as I said most of the immediate kill effect that these missiles generate is because jet engines are unarmored and extremely fragile. ALL anti-aircraft missiles use proximity-fused fragmentation warheads to generate big clouds of flak for exactly this reason. B-52 bombers can and have taken missile hits without crashing, I've read descriptions from vietnam. Prop-driven aircraft are quite a bit more resistant to damage because the engines are somewhat harder to damage.

[Nico]

now, we musn't forget that a spacehip is different from a plane. There's no worry about aerodynamic issues, but there's more about temperature. A plane can sustain really warm temperature (the SR71 can fly up to mach 3, and must resist extremely high t°), but nothing in comparison with a space faring vehicle (not atmosphere to stop sun, or extremely cold environment when there's no sun -behind a planet, or, in fact, on the non exposed side of the ship). The US shuttle hull is much more resistant than a plane hull for this main reason, and I bet it could resist some punishment. A spacefighter, free from the aerodynamic issues, will probably have a more resistant hull than its atmospheric counterpart, just because of t°. So, I suppose a space fighter should be much more resistant than an atmospheric fighter.

[The Claw]

Yes, but to counter this, the payload and dynamics of the missiles would be changed.