Surface to Air Missles

[azato]

Has anybody done a write up for these?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I would imagine some or all of the equipment or vehicle books would have an example of one... But basically an RKA Explosion w/ Limited Target?

[L. Marcus]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I'd build it with No Range Penalty.

[Christopher]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I'd built it with a lot of extra OCV. To coutneract the Speed Based DCV for a fast moving plane.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I suppose it depends on how complicated you want it to be. The simplest version would be an RKA with Extra Range (probably) and No Range Penalties. A more complicated (but realistic) version would be an Automaton that flies to the target and then explodes.

[Christopher]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

A more complicated (but realistic) version would be an Automaton that flies to the target and then explodes.

Also, the APG II has Rules for Foci that can act on their own. Specifically designed with Missiles in Mind.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

MIM-72 Chaparral: Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (+10 OCV (Only vs. 'Hot' Targets, -1)), Area Of Effect (8m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4), No Range Modifier (+1/2) (140 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), OAF (-1), IR Targetting (-1/2), Can Be Deflected (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Extra Time (Full Phase (Varies by distance to target), Only to Activate, -1/4)

 

?

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

MIM-72 Chaparral: Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (+10 OCV (Only vs. 'Hot' Targets, -1)), Area Of Effect (8m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4), No Range Modifier (+1/2) (140 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), OAF (-1), IR Targetting (-1/2), Can Be Deflected (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Extra Time (Full Phase (Varies by distance to target), Only to Activate, -1/4)

 

?

 

I wouldn't make it armor piercing. Chaparral (IIRC) is the ground based version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM. It's not designed for high PD/ED targets. Other than that, I like it.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I figured just about any modern missile would be Armor Piercing, and then some targets would be hardened (like Tanks.) You hit even the newest jets with a missile, they tend to explode, and I would put Aircraft armor at about 10-12 rPD (as you won't be shooting down an F-35 Phantom with a Desert Eagle.)

 

Actual "Anti-Armor" weapons would be AP x2 or more.

 

Well, in my way of doing things, at any rate.

[azato]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I think it was the 2nd book of the the Hero System that talked about building them as vehicles. What I had in mind was something with acceleration and perhaps some piloting rolls to help avoid. They will be in a ships boat (Traveller Hero) and the planet they will be on will be at the 1960s-ish tech level. I thought about just throwing a couple missiles at them to heighten some tension but more likely than not they will fail. Rather than just doing a simple attack roll, i was wondering if manuervring it out on the hex paper would make for a good time. Thoughts?

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I think it was the 2nd book of the the Hero System that talked about building them as vehicles. What I had in mind was something with acceleration and perhaps some piloting rolls to help avoid. They will be in a ships boat (Traveller Hero) and the planet they will be on will be at the 1960s-ish tech level. I thought about just throwing a couple missiles at them to heighten some tension but more likely than not they will fail. Rather than just doing a simple attack roll' date=' i was wondering if manuervring it out on the hex paper would make for a good time. Thoughts?[/quote']

 

One of my "best moments" from a Star HERO campaign I ran was when the party's little tramp freighter was trying to get through a jump gate while being chased by a carrier group, and had to outmaneuver or shoot down an incoming nuke. The tension was beautiful, and their solution was brilliant - if I recall correctly they maneuvered such that the nuke hit one of the enemy destroyers. I didn't quite do it as a vehicle, but did play it out using the turn mode rules.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I also tend to build missiles as vehicles with a 1 charge no range RKA explosion built into them. Then use the dogfighting rules to determine if the target can evade the missile or not.

[Martin2]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

MIM-72 Chaparral: Killing Attack - Ranged 4d6 (+10 OCV (Only vs. 'Hot' Targets, -1)), Area Of Effect (8m Radius Explosion; +1/4), Armor Piercing (+1/4), No Range Modifier (+1/2) (140 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), OAF (-1), IR Targetting (-1/2), Can Be Deflected (-1/4), Real Weapon (-1/4), Extra Time (Full Phase (Varies by distance to target), Only to Activate, -1/4)

 

?

 

Is the MIM-72 an AOE weapon? Most anti aircraft missiles do not get to within a certain distance and then explode (some do, but I do not think this is one). So its a hit the target and then do lots of damage to it which includes some AOE which could also set fire to the plane etc.

 

The missile does not target to land in the middle ot two aircraft and then explode weapon.

 

I also think that missiles should have a number of charges to simulate if it misses it has a chance to relock on a target. To be realistic a missile is fires and takes several seconds to reach the target followed by several seconds to hit it.

 

But that is realism and not Hero

[Martin2]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I figured just about any modern missile would be Armor Piercing, and then some targets would be hardened (like Tanks.) You hit even the newest jets with a missile, they tend to explode, and I would put Aircraft armor at about 10-12 rPD (as you won't be shooting down an F-35 Phantom with a Desert Eagle.)

 

Actual "Anti-Armor" weapons would be AP x2 or more.

 

Well, in my way of doing things, at any rate.

 

Again in realism modern jets are not that armoured. Extra armour means it is heavy so less speed, less ordanance carried and more fuel required. A-F35 sitting on a runway could be taken out with a Desert Eagle (but not in one shot). It is the fact it is travelling at Mach 1 that makes it hard to hit backed up by electronic defences etc. Put up enough lead into the air around an aircraft and one lucky hit can cause enough effect for the jet to crash.

 

I think they have some armour around the engines and cockpit but are limited in other ways.

[IndianaJoe3]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

Is the MIM-72 an AOE weapon?

The MIM-72 used a continuous-rod warhead that is designed to expand from the center when detonated. Describing it as an AoE would be accurate.

 

Most anti aircraft missiles do not get to within a certain distance and then explode (some do, but I do not think this is one).

Actually, most vehicle-launched missiles use a proximity fuze of some sort. Only the smaller man-portable missiles require impact.

 

The missile does not target to land in the middle ot two aircraft and then explode weapon.

Of course not, aircraft are generally hundreds of meters apart. You would need a nuclear weapon to affect more than one. (The only missile designed for this was the AIR-2 Genie.)

 

I also think that missiles should have a number of charges to simulate if it misses it has a chance to relock on a target. To be realistic a missile is fires and takes several seconds to reach the target followed by several seconds to hit it.

 

But that is realism and not Hero

It's not that realistic. If a missile fails to hit its target, it is very hard for the missile to re-acquire it. It does sound appropriate for an anime-influenced mecha game where lots of missiles are used, though.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

Is the MIM-72 an AOE weapon? Most anti aircraft missiles do not get to within a certain distance and then explode (some do, but I do not think this is one). So its a hit the target and then do lots of damage to it which includes some AOE which could also set fire to the plane etc.

 

The missile does not target to land in the middle ot two aircraft and then explode weapon.

 

I also think that missiles should have a number of charges to simulate if it misses it has a chance to relock on a target. To be realistic a missile is fires and takes several seconds to reach the target followed by several seconds to hit it.

 

But that is realism and not Hero

 

Air to Air missiles are designed so that when they lose lock on, they detonate. This is to prevent it from accidently locking on a friendly aircraft in mid dogfight. It also gives them a small chance of hitting the original target with fragments.

Ship launched radar guided SAMs do the same thing. This allows you to self destruct the missile by intentionally breaking radar lock.

Area affect/explosive effect is realistic, they do 'explode' to improve thier chances to hit.

As others have pointed out, airplanes with a few exceptions are only lightly armored. A bullet into the engine turbines will knock out an engine, although that may not force the plane down.

 

 

The video shows a man sucked into the air intake of a A-6 Intruder. Note the sudden burst of flame out the back: that's the damage done by the man's helmet when it hits the engine's turbines.

Oh, the man lived through it. The suction pulled his helmet off, the helmet destroyed the engine, the pilot immediately shut the engine down. Since the engine was only 'idling', it didn't do much damage to the aircraft, although the engine was scrap metal. In a combat situation, similar damage would force a abort at the minimum to a multi-engine aircraft, and cause a single engine aircraft to land, immediately. And perhaps violently.

[gewing]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

The MIM-72 used a continuous-rod warhead that is designed to expand from the center when detonated. Describing it as an AoE would be accurate.

 

 

Actually, most vehicle-launched missiles use a proximity fuze of some sort. Only the smaller man-portable missiles require impact.

 

 

Of course not, aircraft are generally hundreds of meters apart. You would need a nuclear weapon to affect more than one. (The only missile designed for this was the AIR-2 Genie.)

 

 

It's not that realistic. If a missile fails to hit its target, it is very hard for the missile to re-acquire it. It does sound appropriate for an anime-influenced mecha game where lots of missiles are used, though.

 

 

 

I thought the Chaparral was a blast frag? oh well, given the era, continuous rod was common. Better versus bombers, not so great against fighters iirc.

 

THere were the nuclear armed naval sam versions... I always liked TALOS. I didn't realize how big it really was, but I always thought it looked cool. Then I found out it was 28" in diameter! Booster was 30"! still pretty darned cool.

 

and given the size and speed, it was probably pretty good at the secondary anti-ship role, if they ever needed to use it for that. Heck, iirc a sea sparrow or two disabled a Turkish destroyer( ex-US, FUBAR when someone forgot the safety interlocks during exercises iirc). so what, 10 times as heavy...

 

 

Even Stinger iirc has a proximity fuse.

[gewing]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

Air to Air missiles are designed so that when they lose lock on, they detonate. This is to prevent it from accidently locking on a friendly aircraft in mid dogfight. It also gives them a small chance of hitting the original target with fragments.

Ship launched radar guided SAMs do the same thing. This allows you to self destruct the missile by intentionally breaking radar lock.

Area affect/explosive effect is realistic, they do 'explode' to improve thier chances to hit.

As others have pointed out, airplanes with a few exceptions are only lightly armored. A bullet into the engine turbines will knock out an engine, although that may not force the plane down.

 

 

The video shows a man sucked into the air intake of a A-6 Intruder. Note the sudden burst of flame out the back: that's the damage done by the man's helmet when it hits the engine's turbines.

Oh, the man lived through it. The suction pulled his helmet off, the helmet destroyed the engine, the pilot immediately shut the engine down. Since the engine was only 'idling', it didn't do much damage to the aircraft, although the engine was scrap metal. In a combat situation, similar damage would force a abort at the minimum to a multi-engine aircraft, and cause a single engine aircraft to land, immediately. And perhaps violently.

 

 

I had heard of men being sucked in, but never seen real footage. I am amazed that he survived. Imagine, that was only an 11,200lb thrust engine. The F-35 engine is about 40k lbs thrust.

 

As an amazing thing, apparently one version of the engine had a vectored thrust nozzle for stol takeoffs. IMO that might have been worth incorporating into the production versions in addition to the prototype. otoh, it might have just been too heavy.

 

I also wish they had gone with the upgraded A-6F. I knew the A-12 had been overweight, but I thought I remembered a figure quoted in the 80s of 1000lbs or so. According to Wiki, it was about 30% over...

[Christopher]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I also tend to build missiles as vehicles with a 1 charge no range RKA explosion built into them. Then use the dogfighting rules to determine if the target can evade the missile or not.

For "Kamikaze" vehicles (inlcuding missiles), I would always add a Side Effect "Takes full damage itself".

[Martin2]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

The MIM-72 used a continuous-rod warhead that is designed to expand from the center when detonated. Describing it as an AoE would be accurate.

 

Actually, most vehicle-launched missiles use a proximity fuze of some sort. Only the smaller man-portable missiles require impact.

 

Of course not, aircraft are generally hundreds of meters apart. You would need a nuclear weapon to affect more than one. (The only missile designed for this was the AIR-2 Genie.)

 

It's not that realistic. If a missile fails to hit its target, it is very hard for the missile to re-acquire it. It does sound appropriate for an anime-influenced mecha game where lots of missiles are used, though.

 

OK i was wrong .

 

I did read the Wiki on the missile but it did not mention it was a proximty missile (or I did not read it right).

 

I was also thinking that hiting an airoplane that did not get all of its body it would some how effect its airworthyness.

 

Not many modern jets take a missile strike and then keep flying at 100%.

 

How about RKA AoE and also linked drain flight (or transform aircraft into aircraft with holes and no flight)?

[Christopher]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

Not many modern jets take a missile strike and then keep flying at 100%.

See the "Vehicle Damage Table" on 6E2 195 for that.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I put AOE on it because, were it to land in a hex, it would cause an explosion and damage anything near that hex. I am currently at a loss as to how to represent that, as yes, AOE would not be quite right - you are targetting the aircraft, not the hex it is in or the one it will be in when the missile reaches it.

[Escafarc]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I put AOE on it because' date=' were it to land in a hex, it would cause an explosion and damage anything near that hex. I am currently at a loss as to how to represent that, as yes, AOE would not be quite right - you are targetting the aircraft, not the hex it is in or the one it will be in when the missile reaches it.[/quote']

 

I like building it as Vehicle myself. But you could build it as two Linked attacks (one regular attack and a AOE attack which requires the non-AOE to hit). Also don't forget that there will be a DCV adjustment for size on the jet.

[dmjalund]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

AoEs can and do attack targets. There could be a limitation to AoE so that you can't just target "a point in space" and must target something solid (a point on the ground or a flying target for instance)

[Christopher]

Re: Surface to Air Missles

 

I put AOE on it because' date=' were it to land in a hex, it would cause an explosion and damage anything near that hex. I am currently at a loss as to how to represent that, as yes, AOE would not be quite right - you are targetting the aircraft, not the hex it is in or the one it will be in when the missile reaches it.[/quote']

I simply always asumed that the Velocity Based DCV also counts when trying to hit something with an AOE. Yes, you only need to hit a hex/area, but it must be a hex close enough to the target (just because we do movement in phases, doesn't means the target stands still when you aim your attack).

AOE size and normal miss penalty (6E2 40) will take care of the rest.