Grelfucan Marine Corps Close Air Support Craft

The new EAF-20 and EAB-17:

Spoiler:

The payloads of both fighters:

Spoiler:

The EAF-20 and EAB-17 are the Grelfucan Marines' favored air support units, for both bombing runs, and dogfighting, but also for a role somewhat unique to an airfighter: the ability to perform exoatmospheric operations to eliminate enemy landing craft (be it a half-mile-long assault ship or a 30-meter-long gunship) before they hit the atmosphere, so the debris burns in the atmosphere, reducing damage to the planet below.

This also displays the meaning behind the names: Exoatmospheric Fighter and Bomber. (Just some fun trivia.)

Some Seemingly Negative Aspects to the designs:
Despite the small size of the EAF-20, the large pods on either side of the ventral fuselage can be one of two things: high-payload bombs, or fuel pods for prolonged missions as the Grelfucan R&D Labs work with their new Garuda Vanguard allies to create a fighter-sized Rift Drive, though for now they use hyperdrives for the sake of speed.
Pilots consume specialized rations that provide the full nutritional requirements for eight hours in a single eight-cubic-centimeter bite-sized block. Grelfucan R&D Labs, along with Garuda Vanguard R&D experts, are trying to make the rations taste as good to the pilots as they are for them. So far, they appear to be more of the same bland, uber-healthy military battle-rat's...

Although the size of the EAB-17 would normally make it seem like a poor choice for an airfighter, especially one that would assault enemy spacecraft. Here's why the GT Marines love the EAB so much:

Spoiler:

The rear thrust vectors make the already-fast EAB-17 highly maneuverable, which is invaluable for a heavy bomber like this craft.

Each ship is armed with repeating pulser cannons (a new technology developed by Grelfucan R&D labs) and laser cannons, as well as rockets, missiles, and bombs to pound any enemy flat.

*Specs coming soon, I'm lazy and just wanted feedback from more people than Arik on the designs.*

And they say my fighters are OP. Just kidding, beautiful aircraft!

Just some notes, even with its rear engined layout, I can't really imagine that EAB-17 maneuvering that well, at least while its heavy payload is still being carried. Maybe after the payload is jettisoned will the bomber be able to reach sufficient speed and maneuverability to be able to do battle with the true star fighters. Its superior armor will no-doubt play a major role in survival here.

I don't want those coming my way... Cool designs Arc! The builds are simple, and yet effective in design.... I like them a lot... the bomber MIGHT have a FEW too many bombs and missiles... but other than that... I am VERY pleased with these neat little craft...

Very nice, ARC! Nice idea with the maneuvering fins. Beautiful aircraft!

Dino: That's the nice thing about missiles. Except when dealing with weight, you can put as many on as you like!

The Fleet Captain wrote:And they say my fighters are OP. :PJust kidding, beautiful aircraft!

Just some notes, even with its rear engined layout, I can't really imagine that EAB-17 maneuvering that well, at least while its heavy payload is still being carried.  Maybe after the payload is jettisoned will the bomber be able to reach sufficient speed and maneuverability to be able to do battle with the true star fighters.  Its superior armor will no-doubt play a major role in survival here.

Well, that's really more for avoiding point-defense, anti-aircraft guns, etc. That, and those engines are pretty big, so if it can't out-maneuver something...it can always do one of two things: blow it to smithereens, or run away.

dino27 wrote:I don't want those coming my way...    Cool designs Arc! The builds are simple, and yet effective in design.... I like them a lot... the bomber MIGHT have a FEW too many bombs and missiles...    but other than that... I am VERY pleased with these neat little craft...  

I'm sorry, "too many bombs and missles"? I do not understand dis concept. You didn't even see the bomb bay on the underside when it's full! This thing is designed to take out a capital ship with a single flight, and a full destroyer-sized vessel (~1,500 meters) with a single Squadron.

^^^ that MAY be a BIT OP....

dino27 wrote:^^^ that MAY be a BIT OP....

Well, a couple of interceptors can take out a frigate all by themselves...at least I think that's what an Eta-5 is...anyways, do I seem as if I care? "OP" to me is a way of saying "something well-designed, made to work, that I can't defeat by merely saying 'I blast it repeatedly.'"...Sorry, LMB's speaking there.

But still. Wah. Just hope you don't have to face them.

Eh, this is Star Trek, shielding it better here... but I completely agree on making a good, effective product... and there's a reason (or several.... ) I left the LMBs.

Don't get me started on the LMB's. But yeah, ST shielding is better...and that's about the only superior thing to it...

Well, theres lots of stuff that's superior, but it's all canon and frankly I think it doesn't make for a good universe. For example, the V'ger probe, Doomsday Machine, the Q, etcetera etcetera.

I like them. They're a little simple in design, especially the EAF-17, IMO. But they are still pretty solid in their design, and not worse for wear in their simplicity. I like the EAB-20 the best. It has a certain A-10 Warthog look to it. I think it's the tail and the engines, though the front cannon and the large payload of missiles helps too.

And no, lots of missiles is not OP, especially if you can actually build them all onto it. It's just much better. If you have room for more, wai noht?

^^^ leaves off discussion because it's no longer constructive advice to the builder.

Regardless, those are some cool little fighter craft.... they look pretty fun to fly....

Commander Ant wrote:Well, theres lots of stuff that's superior, but it's all canon and frankly I think it doesn't make for a good universe. For example, the V'ger probe, Doomsday Machine, the Q, etcetera etcetera.

I like them. They're a little simple in design, especially the EAF-17, IMO. But they are still pretty solid in their design, and not worse for wear in their simplicity. I like the EAB-20 the best. It has a certain A-10 Warthog look to it. :PI think it's the tail and the engines, though the front cannon and the large payload of missiles helps too.

And no, lots of missiles is not OP, especially if you can actually build them all onto it. It's just much better. :PIf you have room for more, wai noht?

Yeah, I know they're basic, but the EAF-20 was based on a fighter I designed a while ago, so when I was making it into LDD, I decided to mess with it a bit, but keeping the simplicity. Simple designs mean less expensive, faster builds.
As for the EAB-17, yeah, LOTS of blowy-uppy-things to make enemy toys go boom. It's just plain fun. The EAB was in fact inspired by/based upon the A-10, and the EAF was visually based upon the F-35.

dino27 wrote:^^^ leaves off discussion because it's no longer constructive advice to the builder.

Regardless, those are some cool little fighter craft.... they look pretty fun to fly....  

Fun to build, fun to fly, fun to watch the EAB blow up an entire armor column.

General Jace wrote:...ST shielding is better...

I'm not so sure. Star Trek shields seem to just reduce the amount of damage taken, not block it completely. Ships have been damaged while their shields were still up.

Yup, that makes sense. It still doesn't have as many missiles as my A-10 based craft though, but unfortunatly...mine was for the Agents RPG on the LMBs (still built it in LDD though)....can't quite bring it over..... But mine had two gattling guns!

Ant, mine has a gatling gun, and four laser cannons, along with 11 rather large warheads, and I'm still working on how many bombs I can fit in the ventral bay. So hush!

No, SW shielding is probably better. The fact is that they're completely different. It seems that ST shields are designed to DEFLECT energy blasts, not absorb them, by creating layers of "gravitons" that "push" things away from them by replicating reverse gravity. These shields can be overpowered after repeated projectiles or energy blasts strike it and dissipate the gravitons to the point where they are no longer useful. I would assume from this that ST shields only regenerate when extra energy is able to be routed into the shields, which convert it into gravitons in some way, which takes a significant amount of time and power. The shields are also useless on certain "frequencies," meaning quick-tuning weapons can be matched with the enemy shield frequency, rendering their shields useless. This brings the whole "multi-phasic" weapon and shield line into play.

However, SW shields are designed to completely ABSORB certain types of energy-- ray shields concentrated light or other energy-based weapons (turbolasers, ion cannons), and particle shields solid, kinetic-based weapons (railguns, torpedoes). These shields can be regenerated much more quickly, as well as boosted at a moment's notice by rerouting power to the generators, as it uses energy directly to dissipate enemy attacks. SW shields can also be raised and lowered almost instantly and selectively, as they are typically projected from a large number of generators scattered around the ship's hull. It takes several minutes to completely recycle SW shields if they have been completely overloaded, while they can be regenerated in a matter of seconds if only partial damage has been taken.

It's impossible to accurately compare them, as they both go about the same job in very different ways, but I think it's safe to say that ST shields are MUCH more energy efficient while raised, while SW shields are better in terms of universal defenses (in that they cannot be bypassed by the vast majority of weapons, and are generally stronger). However, ST shields are more complicated, and are more easily affected by circumstances. Really, though, it depends on the type of ship you're building, and what you're up against, to decide which shields you should use.

So, Daragon, you're just going to compare shielding, and not even comment on my designs. Okay, that's cool.  

I do like the designs (though I find it hard to believe that the EAB-17 has any more maneuverability than a B-17 with those massive payloads), they're better than any of the fighters I have posted!

SD (comment goes way over head)

Then why is it that Trek ships shoot it out for twenty minutes whereas SW ships seem to only fight for a couple minutes before the shields are blown away? Don't tell me, 'cause the writers wanted it that way? Also, Trek ships do have multiple shield generators, the Sovereign class for example, has around 26 generators I believe, besides the Navigational Deflector, which just handles debris.



Regardless of endless comparisons between the two titans of modern American space sci-fi.


Back to the fighters: as (was it AA who said???) it looks kinda like an A-10.... I really like that look... very business like, no frills sparkles or confetti, it's all "get in, kill the enemy by blasting them to bits, and get out." I especially like the tailfins, engines, and top view of the wings... it just looks like a very... how do I even put it into words... a very... realistically pleasing design.

dino27 wrote:Then why is it that Trek ships shoot it out for twenty minutes whereas SW ships seem to only fight for a couple minutes before the shields are blown away? Don't tell me, 'cause the writers wanted it that way?  

It's obviously because Star Wars weapons are far more powerful than phasers, of course!

But twenty minutes is surely an exaggeration... sure, I haven't watched a lot of Trek, but the episodes are only abut 40 minutes long and I've never seen a fight last for half an episode.

@Jace: Nice fighters. That bomber really puts the 'over' in 'overkill'.

RMM, that would be because you haven't watch DS-9. And the movie fights tend to be a lot longer. Keep in mind for fairness sake, most on screen SW battles (besides CW) are movie length, and most ST battles are shown in TV episode length format. So.... they're actually probably about the same.

It would be interesting to see the EAB-17 against Talmid's Star Cruiser IIb...

Well aside from "that's the way the writers wanted it," remember that weapons in ST have different effects on shields than weapons in SW have on their shields. ST weapons are designed to take down ST shields, and may do so more slowly than SW weapons work on SW shields. The strength of the universe's weapons against their respective shields are not relative to the universal strengths of the shields themselves, as we're discussing shield strength based on the physics behind them, not based on the strengths in the universes themselves. The latter is what results in the endless bickering between movies, which is why references to movies/episodes for facts are best avoided, unless they're hard facts seen or said.

RememberMM wrote:
@Jace: Nice fighters. That bomber really puts the 'over' in 'overkill'.

But, you say that as if there's any other kind of kill!

Anyways, how is it that my creations always devolve into non-building-related debates and discussions?

Because you always build thought provoking things. You couldn't just settle for building something cool, you have to build something cool that people feel the need to go off topic on.

(And you should see where some other creation chats go.... I uploaded a ship semi-recently.... and we ended up talking about the Bord.... a wooden version of the Borg... yeah... we're all just a bunch of maniacs looking for an outlet of our strange nerd-i-ness. )