Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: S-99 on February 10, 2009, 04:32:41 am
-
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff348/tankermottind/yokai.png?t=1234154317)
This is a great model. But, other cockpits like this are just for looks. In realistic settings it makes the pilot look up when he needs to look up to see that target fly over his head say "my what a great piece of metal blocking my view". :lol:
-
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff348/tankermottind/yokai.png?t=1234154317)
This is a great model. But, other cockpits like this are just for looks. In realistic settings it makes the pilot look up when he needs to look up to see that target fly over his head say "my what a great piece of metal blocking my view". :lol:
Not to mention the vast majority of FS cockpits have no rearward visibility at all.
-
That's because they have a radar... :rolleyes:
-
Modern fighters have a radar too, but they're not built with zero rearward visibility. The Mk1 Eyeball still has some uses, believe it or not.
-
Modern fighters have a radar too, but they're not built with zero rearward visibility. The Mk1 Eyeball still has some uses, believe it or not.
Rearward visibility honestly isn't too important in space combat, at least in FreeSpace.
-
Rearward visibility honestly isn't too important in space combat, at least in FreeSpace.
That's only because you aren't there in reality.
In real life, visibility to all directions would be extremely beneficial.
-
Modern fighters have a radar too, but they're not built with zero rearward visibility. The Mk1 Eyeball still has some uses, believe it or not.
Rearward visibility honestly isn't too important in space combat, at least in FreeSpace.
Where do you get this idea? A player with a large multiscreen setup and a 360 or even 270 degree field of view would have immense advantages over someone looking through a single mail slot of a monitor. Situational awareness is everything in aerial, and by extension FreeSpace combat. Even the most elementary fighter pilot manuals will tell you how important situational awareness is and how it's always good to have more of it. It's probably why (aside from the Merlin engine), the P-51 Mustang's effectiveness jumped massively when it was redesigned with a bubble canopy that afforded a 360-degree field of vision--and the old cockpit was still much better than FreeSpace's view, having around 270 degrees of horizontal visibility and well over 90 degrees of vertical. Situational awareness is so important that I felt more effective even using Wanderer's radar icons (although I eventually had to part with them due to problems with Wanderer's FRED build). Being able to spot a wing of oncoming Shivans by flicking my eyes to the right would be on another (higher) level entirely, especially if FS ships simulated modern combat aircraft by allowing you to acquire lock on an enemy by looking at him.
-
I concur, I guess there's another thing to be explained.
-
...especially if FS ships simulated modern combat aircraft by allowing you to acquire lock on an enemy by looking at him.
Y = target ship closest to reticle? :p
Good visibility forward and to the sides is also crucial for acquiring firing solutions fast and easily without the cockpit structures covering the enemy. Granted, with the HUD the problem of leading obstructed targets, and the problem of having to pitch up continuously in a turn is not a problem like it used to be in WW2 aircraft (the enemy ahead you is very easy to obscure behind the nose, and if you don't do that you'll be unable to take sufficient lead to the target to hit them) but visibility undoubtedly helps, no matter how sophisticated visual aids the HUD presents for maintaining situational awareness.
-
What are you talking about 'no rear visiblility'?
OF COURSE there is rear visibility. Just hit 'rear view'. :P
-
...especially if FS ships simulated modern combat aircraft by allowing you to acquire lock on an enemy by looking at him.
Y = target ship closest to reticle? :p
No, "pont your eyes in the general direction of an enemy and fire missile". The plane does not have to be facing the target to fire a missile. The FS2 reticle always appears in the direction the ship is facing.
-
What are you talking about 'no rear visiblility'?
OF COURSE there is rear visibility. Just hit 'rear view'. :P
Yeah, because the FS2 player camera shows no cockpit. If the pilot of an actual Perseus looked over his shoulder, he would see a metal bulkhead.
-
Well, maybe there's something in the cockpit like in those mecha shows which makes the bulkheads 'transparent'...uhh...well, it gives full 360 view.
-
Well, maybe there's something in the cockpit like in those mecha shows which makes the bulkheads 'transparent'...uhh...well, it gives full 360 view.
We didn't see it Lt. Ash's Apollo, nor in cockpit head animations, nor in FS1 command brief ANIs.
Fun fact: The F-14 Tomcat, an obsolete and discontinued fighter, can target, track, and launch air-to-air missiles at six targets at once.
-
I remember that the Tomcat was quite popular. Something that the F-16 Falcon hasn't lived up to.
-
I remember that the Tomcat was quite popular. Something that the F-16 Falcon hasn't lived up to.
Wait, what? The F-16 Viper (pilots are not fond of the 'Fighting Falcon' nickname) is one of the most popular fighters in the world, and far more popular than the F-14.
The Tomcat never sold nearly as many. Nor was it as powerful a platform for force projection; it was a specialized heavy fighter with expensive ordinance. It was very good at its job -- carrier defense and air superiority -- but not particularly versatile.
The F-16 is not really good for comparison to the F-14 anyway. One's a land-based multirole light fighter with fantastic maneuverability and ACM ability, the other's a carrier-based heavy fighter meant to haul missiles and go fast while attacking at BVR.
-
Strangely, I always thought the Tomcat was more popular... :confused:
-
Strangely, I always thought the Tomcat was more popular... :confused:
Not by a long shot.
The only nation to fly the F-14 outside of the USA was, ironically, Iran.
Ironically, the F-14's BVR attack capability is basically useless simply because most rules of engagement require visual identification of targets.
Let's get back on topic, though!
-
Well, that and the AIM-54 Phoenix missiles cost two million dollars. Each.
-
I probably shouldn't speak so soon about cockpits.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/F-117_Front_View.jpg/800px-F-117_Front_View.jpg)
F-117 cockpit
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/DF-SD-07-12193.JPEG/800px-DF-SD-07-12193.JPEG)
B2 cockpit
Ironically not much visibility. Then again these aren't fighter jets. These are bombers. Totally different and dedicated purpose.
(http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff348/tankermottind/yokai.png?t=1234154317)
Sorry to show this photo again, but i'd say the cockpit window on this thing would be better suited on a strike bomber i guess. Something more along the lines of the herc2 bubble would be best suited for this fighter. This fighter does have great forward and side to side visibility, but crippled upwards visibility.
-
Not to mention they are stealth aircraft and shouldn't come under attack by enemy aircraft anyway. They would be screwed in air-to-air combat no matter how much visibility they have since they don't have the best maneuverability (well, the B-2 at least) and no anti-aircraft capability, as far as I know.
-
Wait, what? The F-16 Viper (pilots are not fond of the 'Fighting Falcon' nickname) is one of the most popular fighters in the world, and far more popular than the F-14.
The Tomcat never sold nearly as many. Nor was it as powerful a platform for force projection; it was a specialized heavy fighter with expensive ordinance. It was very good at its job -- carrier defense and air superiority -- but not particularly versatile.
The early version, yes. Later version become more versitale.
The F-14 was an amazing fighter - incredibly fast (faster then either the F-16, F-15 or F-18) and manuverable.
however, the era of dogfights has ended. Highly manuverable dogfighters are not needed when engagements are decided with missiles and not guns. Furthermore, as much as the Tomcats design was brilliant, it also required a bigger craft (swept wings) and was more complex, thus more expensive.
Coupled with the fact the the original F-14 modls were destroyed due to some error, it continued productions and supply with spare parts became even more expensive and difficult.
The USA army switched to newly designed multi-purpose aircraft and retiredhhte F-14. but, as anyone who flew in it can tell you, it was a legend of the sky, a plane that can still outfight and outdance practicely any fighter alive.
-
Not to mention they are stealth aircraft and shouldn't come under attack by enemy aircraft anyway. They would be screwed in air-to-air combat no matter how much visibility they have since they don't have the best maneuverability (well, the B-2 at least) and no anti-aircraft capability, as far as I know.
Then there's this one bad@$$ airplane, that is stealthier than an F-117, waaay smaller than the B-2, more agile and faster than both of those, and probably all non-prototype combat aircraft in the world:
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/gerry908/stealth_fighter.jpg)
It's also the most expensive fighter on Earth, at around 140 000 000 USD a piece.
-
Well consider the Myrmidon's visibility. Even the Ulysses' isn't great :P
Anyway, I created a version of the Aurora with no cockpit struts (see this (http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/My_Stuff/Aurora/aurora4.jpg) photo, it's the one farthest back), but no one seemed to like it...
-
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/gerry908/stealth_fighter.jpg)
Is the plane invisible because it's stealthy or because the government is going to cut production?
...or is it Wonder Womans?
-
Well consider the Myrmidon's visibility. Even the Ulysses' isn't great :P
Anyway, I created a version of the Aurora with no cockpit struts (see this (http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/My_Stuff/Aurora/aurora4.jpg) photo, it's the one farthest back), but no one seemed to like it...
You could try keeping the vertical strut that wraps around the top of the canopy like a ring while removing the one that goes backwards from the ring to the main body and obstructs the pilot's view. Or you can say "**** it" and accept that FS is governed by the Rule of Cool.
-
Wait, what? The F-16 Viper (pilots are not fond of the 'Fighting Falcon' nickname) is one of the most popular fighters in the world, and far more popular than the F-14.
The Tomcat never sold nearly as many. Nor was it as powerful a platform for force projection; it was a specialized heavy fighter with expensive ordinance. It was very good at its job -- carrier defense and air superiority -- but not particularly versatile.
The early version, yes. Later version become more versitale.
The F-14 was an amazing fighter - incredibly fast (faster then either the F-16, F-15 or F-18) and manuverable.
however, the era of dogfights has ended. Highly manuverable dogfighters are not needed when engagements are decided with missiles and not guns. Furthermore, as much as the Tomcats design was brilliant, it also required a bigger craft (swept wings) and was more complex, thus more expensive.
Coupled with the fact the the original F-14 modls were destroyed due to some error, it continued productions and supply with spare parts became even more expensive and difficult.
The USA army switched to newly designed multi-purpose aircraft and retiredhhte F-14. but, as anyone who flew in it can tell you, it was a legend of the sky, a plane that can still outfight and outdance practicely any fighter alive.
Heheh, people have been saying 'the era of dogfights has ended' since Korea and Vietnam, and it never does.
Like I said, almost all engagements end up in visual-range ACM where cannon and IR-guided missiles are important.
The F-14 wasn't an awful dogfighter, but it was way too big and clumsy to out-turn nimbler combatants, and it didn't have any real edge in high-alpha engagements near the stall limit.
-
Let's begin with the fact the F-14 was heavy, with a max T/O mass of 33,720 kg and 19,838 kg empty.
For example the F-15's max is 30,845 kg and 12,700 kg empty, F-16's is 19,200 kg full and 12,000 kg empty, Su-27: 33,000 kg full and 16,380 kg empty, and MiG-29: 21,000 kg and 11,000 kg respectively, and uhhh...
F-22: 38,000 kg max, 19,700 kg empty (yup, it's a heavy @$$ fighter, makes it's 9+ G and supercruise even more impressive)
-
Can you shut up and continue this off-topicness someplace else, please? I want to see pretty FS pictures, not a nerdy discussion on fighter stats.
-
Sounds good.
For the sake of cleanliness maybe we should split those posts.
-
Dammit, people, stop making me do work. I enjoy being lazy. :p
-
Vasudan craft and terran craft with vasudan design have those forward facing cockpits. Vasudan cockpits like this aren't bad, you can actually look down with them. As opposed to terran craft where you can only look forward, up, and side to side.
-
Seth? :wtf: Tauret? :wtf: Serapis? :wtf: Horus? :wtf:
I can only think of a few Vasudan craft where you can actually look down, and even then, the view is limited..
-
Not to mention they are stealth aircraft and shouldn't come under attack by enemy aircraft anyway. They would be screwed in air-to-air combat no matter how much visibility they have since they don't have the best maneuverability (well, the B-2 at least) and no anti-aircraft capability, as far as I know.
Then there's this one bad@$$ airplane, that is stealthier than an F-117, waaay smaller than the B-2, more agile and faster than both of those, and probably all non-prototype combat aircraft in the world:
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/gerry908/stealth_fighter.jpg)
It's also the most expensive fighter on Earth, at around 140 000 000 USD a piece.
Okay, correction, stealth bombers. :p
-
Seth? :wtf: Tauret? :wtf: Serapis? :wtf: Horus? :wtf:
I can only think of a few Vasudan craft where you can actually look down, and even then, the view is limited..
Yeah not many people understood that too well. The typical vasudan cockpit is forward viewing, but not all of their fighters and bombers are like that. In fact for vasudan ships not having the forward facing cockpit we don't know how the vasudan sits inside.
-
Perhaps they fly lying down? :drevil:
-
Isn't the Serapis too small (flat) for a Vasudan flying in any other position?
-
Which might explain why they tend to die quite a lot flying those things. :drevil:
-
Maybe...
What about the Pegasus- that pilot would fit better if he/she/it was laying down on his/her/it's back...
-
Heheh, people have been saying 'the era of dogfights has ended' since Korea and Vietnam, and it never does.
You can rest assured however that by 2367 the age of dogfights HAS ended, at least for interceptors. Trebuchets down Seraphims better than any Perseus ever could.
-
Heheh, people have been saying 'the era of dogfights has ended' since Korea and Vietnam, and it never does.
You can rest assured however that by 2367 the age of dogfights HAS ended, at least for interceptors. Trebuchets down Seraphims better than any Perseus ever could.
Yes. It's true.
I have to say, the Phoenix V was a bit better-balanced than the Treb.
-
What do you call a fighter that intercepts interceptors?
Such a ship would be usefull to keep the Treb-equipped fighters too busy to shoot down bombers.
-
Heheh, people have been saying 'the era of dogfights has ended' since Korea and Vietnam, and it never does.
You can rest assured however that by 2367 the age of dogfights HAS ended, at least for interceptors. Trebuchets down Seraphims better than any Perseus ever could.
Interceptors aren't supposed to "dogfight". The Perseus is a space superiority fighter pretending to be an interceptor, and really ought to be filling the Myrmidon's shoes. Compare it to the Horus, which is a piss-poor dogfighter but a very fast and capable interceptor.
What do you call a fighter that intercepts interceptors?
A bomber escort. The usual choice for that is a heavy assault fighter.
-
Well, since everyone uses Potatoes with huge amounts of Trebs as "interceptors", I'd say that the Perseus or SF Dragon would make, by far, the best bomber escorts in the game, both being able to dodge Trebs, reach the heavies fast, and outdogfight them.
-
Heheh, people have been saying 'the era of dogfights has ended' since Korea and Vietnam, and it never does.
You can rest assured however that by 2367 the age of dogfights HAS ended, at least for interceptors. Trebuchets down Seraphims better than any Perseus ever could.
Disregarding the fact that a Trebuchet is a relatively large, expensive missile and is only usable once, as opposed to a normal sized, moderately expensive, highly reusable and versatile fighter?
-
Not to mention that if the bombers jump in closer than 2000 meters from their target, the potato with Trebuchets is thoroughly boned.
-
Which is why I use the Erynies with 8 Kaysers for intercepts.
I treat the Perseus as an antifighter unit, both offensive and defensive.
-
Why the hell would you put two banks of Kaysers in an Erinyes? The Erinyes doesn't have anywhere near enough energy for double Kaysers, not even on Easy.
As for intercept, the proper tool is the Valkyrie, but Command, in a fit of "brilliance", discontinued it.
-
It does. Even on medium.
It depends on how you use it.
The trick is not to spray and pray, but to be like Darth Vader in ANH and wait for the right moment before letting loose a torrent of death from your eight banks.
However, this is a terrible loadout for actually intercepting bombs because you DO have to spray and pray for those.
-
I don't know...the Valkyrie seemed quite fragile. I thought the Perseus was better even though I always encounter problems trying to aim while flying circles around everything.
-
I don't know...the Valkyrie seemed quite fragile. I thought the Perseus was better even though I always encounter problems trying to aim while flying circles around everything.
I don't have any gripes about the Perseus, but the Valk is a piece of carboard sticky-taped to a powerful engine. If they replaced the carboard with something more durable, it would be perfectly okay.
-
Totally agreed. I have no serious problems with the Valk apart from the fact that it's comms system is very vulnerable especially attacking Nephilims and Seraphims which is what it is normally used for. The Perseus is considerably much more durable and has no such weaknesses.
-
...even on Very Easy, some of my wingmen can STILL get killed in less than a minute while flying a Valk! :wakka:
-
Which might explain why they tend to die quite a lot flying those things. :drevil:
Thats what iv been saying..
-
...even on Very Easy, some of my wingmen can STILL get killed in less than a minute while flying a Valk! :wakka:
Your wingmen are more likely to die on Very Easy due to weaker AI.
-
What do you call a fighter that intercepts interceptors?
Such a ship would be usefull to keep the Treb-equipped fighters too busy to shoot down bombers.
The SF Dragon
-
FS cockpits seem to be loosely based on modern attack helicopter gunships.
In that respect, it makes a lot more sense. =/
-
FS cockpits seem to be loosely based on modern attack helicopter gunships.
In that respect, it makes a lot more sense. =/
Well if you see in the FS Intro cutscene, it looks enough like the cockpit of any modern interceptor....with notably less switches.
-
I was referring to the the non-existing rear visibility, but you're right there.
Then again, how do we what any of those buttons do. :lol:
-
I was referring to the the non-existing rear visibility, but you're right there.
Then again, how do we what any of those buttons do. :lol:
Oh yes true, on both counts :D
-
Seems like FS pilots depend on their targeting computers, as much as anything else.
-
They also depend on their radar, which will work under any circumstances unless if it is surgically destroyed by the enemy.
-
Seems like FS pilots depend on their targeting computers, as much as anything else.
So do most modern Fighter Pilots. Hell, the F-117 can't fly if it's onboard computer is somehow disabled in-flight. But then again
-It isn't a Fighter
-It's probably not going to get in a dogfight in the next 10 million years.
-
What do you mean it isn't a bomber? It's AFAIK exclusively used as a light bomber.
-
What do you mean it isn't a bomber? It's AFAIK exclusively used as a light bomber.
Ooooops typo
meant to say
-Isn't a fighter
-
Somehow I completely missed that typo. O_o
What about helicopters though?
-
Somehow I completely missed that typo. O_o
What about helicopters though?
Well....what about them?
If you think of fighters as infantry, the Aeolus would be the AH-64C Apache that rises up from behind a treeline guns blazing to save a pinned down infantry unit.
-
Which is why I use the Erynies with 8 Kaysers for intercepts.
I treat the Perseus as an antifighter unit, both offensive and defensive.
Talk about energy drain. Its not the most viable loadout for a long, fighter intensive mission.
And the perseus is a ok fighter, its fast, but its shields and weapons are too weak. I avoid taking them when i can. For light missions, its just fine but, put it vs a cap and see what happens.
-
Which is why I use the Erynies with 8 Kaysers for intercepts.
I treat the Perseus as an antifighter unit, both offensive and defensive.
Talk about energy drain. Its not the most viable loadout for a long, fighter intensive mission.
And the perseus is a ok fighter, its fast, but its shields and weapons are too weak. I avoid taking them when i can. For light missions, its just fine but, put it vs a cap and see what happens.
A Perseus should never, ever, be up against a cap. As an interceptor, it should be posted to defend other vessels from small numbers of fighters and in particular, waves of bombers.
-
And the perseus is a ok fighter, its fast, but its shields and weapons are too weak. I avoid taking them when i can. For light missions, its just fine but, put it vs a cap and see what happens.
The thing is that the Perseus is an interceptor - so it really sacrifices armour and shielding for speed. They are meant for harassment of bombers and perhaps light skirmishes. For cap ships - go for heavy assault fighters and bombers.
-
If you think of fighters as infantry, the Aeolus would be the AH-64C Apache that rises up from behind a treeline guns blazing to save a pinned down infantry unit.
They should totally do this. Put repeating flak guns on the apache. It'd be the perfect way to make enemy soldiers clear out.
-
And inhumane. All that shrapnel could hit civilians, or anything else you don't wanna hit.
-
And inhumane. All that shrapnel could hit civilians, or anything else you don't wanna hit.
Not to mention a good cash-guzzler with extended combat.
-
They should totally do this. Put repeating flak guns on the apache. It'd be the perfect way to make enemy soldiers clear out.
That's called the AC-130 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk&fmt=18) Gunship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OkoWEMCnLQ&fmt=18)...
-
They should totally do this. Put repeating flak guns on the apache. It'd be the perfect way to make enemy soldiers clear out.
That's called the AC-130 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk&fmt=18) Gunship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OkoWEMCnLQ&fmt=18)...
I'd call that the Aeolus of RL
-
Gatling cannons and a howitzer, nothing about flak cannons on the Spectre.
-
Gatling cannons and a howitzer, nothing about flak cannons on the Spectre.
Eeeh, just use HE ammunition with altitude/proximity/time fuses and any cannon can be used as a flak gun. Flak is just abbreviation from Flugabwehrkanone aka anti-aircraft artillery in German.
Although I don't know if it's sensible to call a weapon mounted in an airplane "anti-aircraft artillery" anyway - it's just a gun anyway.
-
Doesn't "kanone" stand for "cannon", and not "artillery"?
-
Doesn't "kanone" stand for "cannon", and not "artillery"?
Flak is equivalent to AAA (or AA-gun) as far as abbreviations go. It's not a literal translation but it is pretty much accurate.
-
And in FS, somehow, AAAs are beams.
-
For the fact that they're anti-aircraft, and like artillery, have a range beyond what most of the fighters and bombers' weapons have.
-
And inhumane. All that shrapnel could hit civilians, or anything else you don't wanna hit.
Oh geez now that was unnecessary. I said ENEMY SOLDIERS, but i guess you'd ban grenades and especially the automatic grenade launcher too since the shrapnel would be inhumane. Since we already use a lot of weapons with the premise of shrapnel doing the damage; you speak retardedly late in history. We don't need squares in this conversatioon.
Remember everyone, don't be too mean to your enemies, you could kill them in war.
I stand behind my kickass idea of the apache mounted repeating flak cannon.
-
You do realize that deliberately or negligently killing civilians is a major war crime and automatic flak cannons would cause massive civilian casualties if fired anywhere near a place where civilians might possibly live? The casualty radius would be enormous. Never mind that an 88mm flak cannon would probably be too large and powerful for a small helicopter chassis to handle. Every action causes an equal and opposite reaction...
And if you really want to push it, several types of weapons are banned by international law for being too inhumane for warfare, most notably hollow-point bullets and flamethrowers.
-
I'm pretty sure grenades exploding mid-air repeatedly would be similarly inhumane. I did happen to say ENEMY SOLDIERS. Meaning intended use for them. It's as easy as not using a certain destructive weapon in favor of more tactical weapons if there is civilians around. All wars have collateral damage anyhow, the most you can do is to try to minimize it, a good way is to use certain weapons in certain situations. Such as ooohh, i figured it out, don't use the repeating flak cannon if there is any chance of a civilian getting killed (now that's an idea there that i already mentioned in this post).
I still like the apache mounted repeating flak cannon.
Used in the right situations it'd be a great diversionary and deadly weapon that would ruin enemy morale so they run for the hills (enemy troops will not want to stick around when crap is repeatedly exploding above their heads).
-
Point he's making is
This would only work in conventional warfare, something that we haven't seen lately. Most combat takes place in urban/close quarters environment, making the cannon useless other than for an environment we're not currently engaged in.
-
And that is why we should use those anti-missile lasers currently on that 747 thing to burn through people.
Pinpoint accuracy, impossible to miss, no ricochets, virtually unlimited ammo.
Only downside is massive power requirements :(
-
Large scale deployment of laser weaponry is only impossible because of those power requirements.
If and when more efficient power sources are invented, I'm pretty sure we'll see lasers all over the place. o_o
-
I'm pretty sure grenades exploding mid-air repeatedly would be similarly inhumane. I did happen to say ENEMY SOLDIERS. Meaning intended use for them. It's as easy as not using a certain destructive weapon in favor of more tactical weapons if there is civilians around. All wars have collateral damage anyhow, the most you can do is to try to minimize it, a good way is to use certain weapons in certain situations. Such as ooohh, i figured it out, don't use the repeating flak cannon if there is any chance of a civilian getting killed (now that's an idea there that i already mentioned in this post).
I still like the apache mounted repeating flak cannon.
Used in the right situations it'd be a great diversionary and deadly weapon that would ruin enemy morale so they run for the hills (enemy troops will not want to stick around when crap is repeatedly exploding above their heads).
Even if you use it on an open field miles fron any civilians (which is highly unlikely due to the modus operandi of America's current enemies), how are you going to keep what is basically an artillery cannon from knocking an Apache off course with each round? How are you going to make a loader that can load shells at a decent rate? Where are you going to put all these huge shells (the Apache is not a big aircraft, and is actually much lighter than a modern jet fighter, never mind an A-10 or AC-130)? Why not just drop a bunch of fragmentation bombs on them instead or annihilate them with an MLRS strike?
-
And how are we going to keep errant posters from knocking this already-tenuous thread further off-topic?
Oh. That's right. I can do that. :p