overmortal
Bearded Person
Wow . . . I agree with Death on that. Odd. It's also raining here.
Your WC dream ship?
- Thread starter Lunitari
- Start date
I'd go for a bearcat OR a privateer 2 duress outfitted with 2 stormfires and 2 tachyons.
I always liked those ships 'cause I always found them very agile and very useful in dogfights. Equipped with stormfires, these babies should be very destroying and be able to take on corvettes easily. The bigger ships would probably be problematic but hey that's why you have bombers.
I'm not sure, but I think a bearcat outfitted with 4 tachyons and 2 stormfires could easily take on a dragon anytime...
I always liked those ships 'cause I always found them very agile and very useful in dogfights. Equipped with stormfires, these babies should be very destroying and be able to take on corvettes easily. The bigger ships would probably be problematic but hey that's why you have bombers.
I'm not sure, but I think a bearcat outfitted with 4 tachyons and 2 stormfires could easily take on a dragon anytime...
overmortal
Bearded Person
How about a Hornet with one laser and no missiles. Bring it on, suckers!
Red said:I'd go for a bearcat OR a privateer 2 duress outfitted with 2 stormfires and 2 tachyons.
I always liked those ships 'cause I always found them very agile and very useful in dogfights. Equipped with stormfires, these babies should be very destroying and be able to take on corvettes easily. The bigger ships would probably be problematic but hey that's why you have bombers.
I'm not sure, but I think a bearcat outfitted with 4 tachyons and 2 stormfires could easily take on a dragon anytime...
No chance that a Bearcat defeats a Dragon...
Dragon 500 cm shields 250 cm armor
Bearcat 280 cm shields 150 cmd armor
Sure the Bearcat might out maneuvre the Dragon with eas and yes it's also faster than the Dragon. But! in the middle of space a Dragon could just cloack as much as it wants and play with you a untill you run out of afterburners. There is no spacecraft in WC that would be able to destroy the Dragon fast enough to prevent it from cloacking. The dragon will simply stay cloacked untill you try to return to your carrier with no afterburner fuel left and than it will unclock give you a full Fission charge followed by a few tachion burst.
This doesn't takes away that the Bearcat defeat any other fighter ((pre WCP era)including the Excalibur) except maybe the cloacking Super Arrows.
1) The Arrows are *not* tough enough to stop a Bearcat from reaming them out royally before they can cloak, and the Beracat can match them turn-for-turn.
2) The Dragon cannot, IIRC, fire fission cannons the instant it cloaks, and while ti's trying to cloak, it's vulnerable and at least partially visible.
3) Stealth dissuades detection. All the stealth in the world does not help once the enemy knows roughly where you are and is able to take your presence into accout. Granted, that takes skill, and sometimes the right equipment, but it is quite possible. That is why the F-117 does not deploy into situations where we do not have air superiority, for example, and why the F-22 is designed to be extremely maneuverable, despite it's stealthy characteristics.
4) Evasive manuevers are more complicated than hit the afterburners. Aggresive turns and emergency stops can also be quite effective without any need to resort to afterburners. I've done this personally a couple of times when I was out of juice. It's hard, but more than possible. The Bearcat has the speed and maneuverability to pull this off if the pilot is good enough.
5) See Dundradal's last post. While equipment is a large factor, for roughly evenly matched opponents in a dogfight, tactics, skill, and luck determine the outcome, not blunt technical superiority. If it were not, the USAF would not have taken the amount of abuse in the air from MiGs over Vietnam that it did.
2) The Dragon cannot, IIRC, fire fission cannons the instant it cloaks, and while ti's trying to cloak, it's vulnerable and at least partially visible.
3) Stealth dissuades detection. All the stealth in the world does not help once the enemy knows roughly where you are and is able to take your presence into accout. Granted, that takes skill, and sometimes the right equipment, but it is quite possible. That is why the F-117 does not deploy into situations where we do not have air superiority, for example, and why the F-22 is designed to be extremely maneuverable, despite it's stealthy characteristics.
4) Evasive manuevers are more complicated than hit the afterburners. Aggresive turns and emergency stops can also be quite effective without any need to resort to afterburners. I've done this personally a couple of times when I was out of juice. It's hard, but more than possible. The Bearcat has the speed and maneuverability to pull this off if the pilot is good enough.
5) See Dundradal's last post. While equipment is a large factor, for roughly evenly matched opponents in a dogfight, tactics, skill, and luck determine the outcome, not blunt technical superiority. If it were not, the USAF would not have taken the amount of abuse in the air from MiGs over Vietnam that it did.
Matt Nelson
Lieutenant Commander
Favorite WC Fighter
Mine is for sure the DRAGON! I fell for that ship the first time I saw a picture of it and it was because of the DRAGON that I got involved with WC in the first place. I was invited to the movie and then introduced to the game and well the rest is FUN.
Matt Nelson
BL HQs
Mine is for sure the DRAGON! I fell for that ship the first time I saw a picture of it and it was because of the DRAGON that I got involved with WC in the first place. I was invited to the movie and then introduced to the game and well the rest is FUN.
Matt Nelson
BL HQs
BigsWickDagger
Spaceman
[All the stealth in the world does not help once the enemy knows roughly where you are and is able to take your presence into accout. Granted, that takes skill, and sometimes the right equipment, but it is quite possible.]
Actually, it does help. An F-22 loses its stealth signature momentarily when it fires an AAM, but regains it quite rapidly. Moreover, what if there is more than one F-22 in the area, and only one fires a weapon? This would be much more likely than not. Also, the USAF plans to initially deploy the F-22 along side the F-15. This provides an additional advantage in that the true number of fighters being engaged would be unknown by any potential foe.
[That is why the F-117 does not deploy into situations where we do not have air superiority, for example,]
The F-117 was utilized during the opening sorties of Desert Storm, well before air superiority was achieved by either side. Bagdad, one of the most heavily defended cities in the history of warfare, was hit repeatedly. Moreover, the USAF had achieved air supremecy over Yugoslavia when it had an F-117 shot down.
[and why the F-22 is designed to be extremely maneuverable, despite it's stealthy characteristics].
The F-22, like most newer fighter aircraft, takes advantage of thrust vectoring technology, something that would have been foolish to leave out of its design. It also has the ability to achieve supersonic speeds without the aid of afterburners via "supercruise," engines that are capable of propelling the aircraft faster than the speed of sound at or at slightly less then full military power. These assets compliment its stealth design and make it a more well rounded fighter. Stealth will remain the primary consideration in all new US fighter designs until and unless a new generation of detection technology renders current stealth designs worthless.
[While equipment is a large factor, for roughly evenly matched opponents in a dogfight, tactics, skill, and luck determine the outcome, not blunt technical superiority. If it were not, the USAF would not have taken the amount of abuse in the air from MiGs over Vietnam that it did.]
True, but you are only looking at half of the equasion. The F-8, a relatively low-tech fighter, finished the war with a 5 to 1 kill ratio over the NVAF MiGs- not bad considering. The F-105 did well against the MiGs, in spite of the fact that it was designed as a tactical nuclear bomber. It was the largest single seat "fighter" in the USAF inventory, it was used principally as a ground attack aircraft until it was replaced by the F-4, and it was not initially equipped to carry AAMs. The F-4? Well, the Phantom was designed as an interceptor to be used against Soviet bombers, not as a dog fighter to be used in a limited conflict in Southeast Asia. It lacked an internal cannon until late in the conflict and the air crews had to rely moslty upon missiles. The fact is that the opponents were not evenly matched. The Soviets/Chinese supplied the NVAF with older but more appropriate aircraft for the conditions they fought under- give them credit. Also, consider the rules of engagement our pilots fought under, the often flawed tactical constraints imposed from Washington, the poor p/k ratio of the Sparrow missle (a real turd), and the "off limits" sanctuaries the MiGs had for most of the war in and around Haiphong and Hanoi, let alone China.
Actually, it does help. An F-22 loses its stealth signature momentarily when it fires an AAM, but regains it quite rapidly. Moreover, what if there is more than one F-22 in the area, and only one fires a weapon? This would be much more likely than not. Also, the USAF plans to initially deploy the F-22 along side the F-15. This provides an additional advantage in that the true number of fighters being engaged would be unknown by any potential foe.
[That is why the F-117 does not deploy into situations where we do not have air superiority, for example,]
The F-117 was utilized during the opening sorties of Desert Storm, well before air superiority was achieved by either side. Bagdad, one of the most heavily defended cities in the history of warfare, was hit repeatedly. Moreover, the USAF had achieved air supremecy over Yugoslavia when it had an F-117 shot down.
[and why the F-22 is designed to be extremely maneuverable, despite it's stealthy characteristics].
The F-22, like most newer fighter aircraft, takes advantage of thrust vectoring technology, something that would have been foolish to leave out of its design. It also has the ability to achieve supersonic speeds without the aid of afterburners via "supercruise," engines that are capable of propelling the aircraft faster than the speed of sound at or at slightly less then full military power. These assets compliment its stealth design and make it a more well rounded fighter. Stealth will remain the primary consideration in all new US fighter designs until and unless a new generation of detection technology renders current stealth designs worthless.
[While equipment is a large factor, for roughly evenly matched opponents in a dogfight, tactics, skill, and luck determine the outcome, not blunt technical superiority. If it were not, the USAF would not have taken the amount of abuse in the air from MiGs over Vietnam that it did.]
True, but you are only looking at half of the equasion. The F-8, a relatively low-tech fighter, finished the war with a 5 to 1 kill ratio over the NVAF MiGs- not bad considering. The F-105 did well against the MiGs, in spite of the fact that it was designed as a tactical nuclear bomber. It was the largest single seat "fighter" in the USAF inventory, it was used principally as a ground attack aircraft until it was replaced by the F-4, and it was not initially equipped to carry AAMs. The F-4? Well, the Phantom was designed as an interceptor to be used against Soviet bombers, not as a dog fighter to be used in a limited conflict in Southeast Asia. It lacked an internal cannon until late in the conflict and the air crews had to rely moslty upon missiles. The fact is that the opponents were not evenly matched. The Soviets/Chinese supplied the NVAF with older but more appropriate aircraft for the conditions they fought under- give them credit. Also, consider the rules of engagement our pilots fought under, the often flawed tactical constraints imposed from Washington, the poor p/k ratio of the Sparrow missle (a real turd), and the "off limits" sanctuaries the MiGs had for most of the war in and around Haiphong and Hanoi, let alone China.
BigsWickDagger
Spaceman
Death said:Perhaps I'm using an old dictionary, but since when did "dream" mean "really stupid shit that ignores all hints of reality [even the reality within a fictional game universe] so I could be Mr. Billy Badass"?
I mean, yeah, this is just people shooting the breeze, and not in any way even remotely suggested to be serious, but I doubt y'all couldl get any more munchkin than these totally bizarre wastes of electrons whose only possible purpose is to have a big penis to wave around (overcompensation, perhaps?), unless you invoke everyone's favorite "that's not a moon, that's a space station" or the Behemoth and put it in a fighter-sized package.
Hey Death, get back on the porch.
*shrugs* That entire statement was used poorly and imprecisely there. My apologies. Also, it's easier to find and deal with a Dragon when in a Bearcat than an F-22 while in a Su-35, IMHO.
Air superiority does not mean shutting down the SAM sites, simply holding the skies, IIRC. Also, I thought the F-117 over Yugoslavia suffered failures in the controls? I know the test program for the F-117 had problems with this.
Your comments about the F-22 are tagential to the argument. I never said anything contradicting that, or the F-22's capabilities as an aircraft. Stealth is a large advantage under contemporary rules, one that it is very difficult, almost impossible to 'take into account' so to speak. As I said, that statement was poorly worded. Also, at close range, in a turning dogfight, the enemy can spot you visually, which is what I was referring to.
Let's not get into a debate over the Vietnam air war. That's an ugly one, and I bow to your better statistical knowledge of the conflict. Also, your point about the ROE is dead-on, and I fully agree with it. The basic point stands, however, and has been proven in the WC unvierse several times. Taking down a Dragon in any other fighter, for example, or in False Colors when the pirates and Landreichers are able to take on newer, more able Kilrathi fighters.
Air superiority does not mean shutting down the SAM sites, simply holding the skies, IIRC. Also, I thought the F-117 over Yugoslavia suffered failures in the controls? I know the test program for the F-117 had problems with this.
Your comments about the F-22 are tagential to the argument. I never said anything contradicting that, or the F-22's capabilities as an aircraft. Stealth is a large advantage under contemporary rules, one that it is very difficult, almost impossible to 'take into account' so to speak. As I said, that statement was poorly worded. Also, at close range, in a turning dogfight, the enemy can spot you visually, which is what I was referring to.
Let's not get into a debate over the Vietnam air war. That's an ugly one, and I bow to your better statistical knowledge of the conflict. Also, your point about the ROE is dead-on, and I fully agree with it. The basic point stands, however, and has been proven in the WC unvierse several times. Taking down a Dragon in any other fighter, for example, or in False Colors when the pirates and Landreichers are able to take on newer, more able Kilrathi fighters.
WhiteDevil01
Spaceman
The Bearcat or Avenger would be my 2nd choice, along with the Excal.
WhiteDevil01
Spaceman
lol!
The Bearcat still wont be able to finish off the Dragon... there is no way to prevent it from cloaking and let alone get through enough damage to destroy the Dragon. It's not for nothing the most heavely shielded spacecraft in Wing Commander. The question is rather how does the Bearcat get away from the Dragon while it's hours away from it's carrier? The Dragon will simply uncloak out of range of the Bearcat and charge it's Fission guns. Fly head to head and try to pump the Bearcat in the face with the Fission. (this is all with afterburners on constantly). Then it will make a few turns to make the Bearcat loose some afterburner fuel and then it will cloack again. Repeat this untill his afterburners are gone and he's dead.
Or am I missing something?
Or am I missing something?
BigsWickDagger
Spaceman
Edfilho said:
Yeah, yeah, kick it, kick it!
I would have to agree with Edfilho, I dont like the Bearcat for that reason alone, Its like the Tachyon cannons are installed for shooting at capships, also the autoaim over or undercompensates so I have to turn it off, buit still, sitting on an Arrows ass will do you nothing and you might as well launch a missile.
I'll always wonder why the Bearcat, Excalibur and Dragon aren't in WCP... They could have atleast named the Parinha: Hellcat VI (or whatever number... I've lost count). It does kinda have the same look.
After WC IV I thought that the Excalibur would have atleast become the new heavy fighter of the Confederation.
We also don't see anything of the Kilrathi/Confederation hybrid; the Dragon. The Confederation can't just throw the Kilrathi cloaking technologie away
. What about the Axius base? Or the jamming device technologies?
Not to mention the Bearcat instead of that stupid Tigershark. We barely got to fly it in WC IV.
Shame on you!
After WC IV I thought that the Excalibur would have atleast become the new heavy fighter of the Confederation.
We also don't see anything of the Kilrathi/Confederation hybrid; the Dragon. The Confederation can't just throw the Kilrathi cloaking technologie away
. What about the Axius base? Or the jamming device technologies?Not to mention the Bearcat instead of that stupid Tigershark. We barely got to fly it in WC IV.
Shame on you!