Atmospheric Operations

[Nabterayl]

Anybody out there play Aeronautica Imperialis who can satisfy my appetite for fluff? I've looked over the rulebook, but never actually played a game. What insights can we glean from AI about the performance of various aircraft in 40K? Similarly, I know that a couple Black Library books (e.g., Double Eagle) have dealt with air combat in some detail. What do they tell us?

A couple questions that come to mind off the top of my head to start off:

How big a deal is maneuverability? I know that in real cannon dogfights maneuverability is one of the key factors - far more important than, say, armament. What about in AI? For instance, the Lightning is only very slightly faster than a Thunderbolt (enough that it doesn't even have a different max speed stat in AI) and is less heavily armed - but is materially more maneuverable. How big an advantage is that?
How formidable is a Thunderhawk gunship in a dogfight? Could you use them to establish air superiority against actual air superiority aircraft, such as ork fightaz, Tau Barracudas, eldar Nightwings and Phoenixes, or Chaos Hell Blades? Or are they just too lumbering for that, despite their toughness and heavy armament?

[Just_Me]

Ok, number one, the fluff indicates that both Imperial Navy and Chaos aircraft are vectored-thrust vehicles, so they are capable of vertical take-off and landing, and would be capable of very impressive maneuvers compared to purely lift reliant airframes.

The Thunderbolt seems to be in both appearance and role comparable to both its WWII namesake and the Wildcat/Hellcat fighter lines of the same era, while the Lightning is analogous to the Corsair, Spitfire, and Mustang lines of the same time. The Thunderbolt is a heavy fighter; it has range, staying power, and heavy firepower. It IS fast once it gets up to speed, but it cannot accelerate or turn as quickly as the Lightning. The Lightning has great acceleration and maneuverability, but it lacks the raw firepower of the Thunderbolt and isn’t as tough.

The Thunderhawk on the other hand is in no way a dogfighter, it would get torn to pieces in an atmospheric dogfight. It has poor aerodynamics, and cannot maneuver with any agility in atmosphere. What it is, and where it excels, is in the role of an assault or strike fighter, it has staggering firepower for use against ground targets, and the durability to weather return ground fire

[mightymconeshot]

i think the thunderhawk would do okay in an atmospheric. it is designed to be able to more punishment then almost all other aircraft and keep going. it does not the have the speed of a true fighter. then again it isnt desgnied to try and take air control but designed to insert troops into hostile locations. try to have air contol with no air bases.

[person person]

Space Marines are also excellent shots compared to Orks and most crazed nut-headed Chaos worshippers. Wait, what kind of people pilot the Chaos aircraft? I agree with mightymconeshot on the T-hawk though.

[Nabterayl]

The Thunderbolt seems to be in both appearance and role comparable to both its WWII namesake and the Wildcat/Hellcat fighter lines of the same era, while the Lightning is analogous to the Corsair, Spitfire, and Mustang lines of the same time. The Thunderbolt is a heavy fighter; it has range, staying power, and heavy firepower. It IS fast once it gets up to speed, but it cannot accelerate or turn as quickly as the Lightning. The Lightning has great acceleration and maneuverability, but it lacks the raw firepower of the Thunderbolt and isn’t as tough.
Does the Lightning have superior acceleration? I know that it's more maneuverable than a Thunderbolt, but I'm not aware of any official fluff stating that it has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. I know I haven't read all the available fluff on fighters, though. Can you cite to something for this?


The Thunderhawk on the other hand is in no way a dogfighter, it would get torn to pieces in an atmospheric dogfight. It has poor aerodynamics, and cannot maneuver with any agility in atmosphere. What it is, and where it excels, is in the role of an assault or strike fighter, it has staggering firepower for use against ground targets, and the durability to weather return ground fire
This would certainly be my instinct, and obviously the Thunderhawk's weapons mix is heavily oriented toward engaging ground targets.

I'm curious, though, if anybody has any experience using them in an air superiority role in games. I'm aware of some fluff in which Thunderhawks were reluctant to take to the skies due to enemy fighters (Barracudas over Tarokeen during the Taros campaign), but that was primarily because if they were shot down the troops on the ground, who were in a bad position, would be unable to exfiltrate. Granted Thunderhawks come in very small numbers (nearest I can tell, a strike cruiser carries a grand total of six), and so losing them is always going to be worrisome, and that this clearly isn't what they're designed to do, if a force commander is willing to commit them to an air superiority role, how do they actually hold up against enemy fighters?

[Cryl]

I could be confusing background here but wasn't the Taros campaign the first time that the Tau used (or at least the Imperium encountered) the flying railgun death version of the Tau fighter? That could have been a serious factor in the decision not to commit the thunderhawks to the sky. Also (and I admit it's a while since I read my IA3 book) wasn't there a serious lack of fighter escort capability on Taros because the sneaky little blue space communists went behind the lines and took out a good proportion of the Imperial air bases?

I doubt a marine commander would commit thunderhawk gunships to an air superiority role against a capable enemy where an alternative existed. They're ground support, it'd be a little bit like putting an A10 up against a F22. The A10 is amazing at what it does but doesn't have a shot against the F22, sure the comparison isn't exact but you get the intention I hope...

I've used both a thunderhawk and thunderbolt in apocalypse, and you the thunderbolt is only just better in air superiority mostly due to the AA rule on it's nose guns, I say only just as the thunderhawk is still fast and as a superheavy flyer has structure points, better armour and more guns. I doubt the ruleset actually conveys the 'reality' that Aeronautica games would though

[Nabterayl]

The engagement I'm thinking of was the Avenging Sons assassination mission against the planetary governor - it was the failure of this mission that led to the full-scale invasion in the first place. The space marines knew that there were Barracudas flying support for the hunter cadre, but they hadn't encountered any Tiger Sharks, let alone the AX-1-0s (which, interestingly enough, the AI rules only allow you to fire vs. ground targets, so arguably "in reality" its heavy railguns would not pose a threat to a Thunderhawk).

Still, the threat of the Barracudas was enough that the captain on the ground didn't want to bring his Thunderhawks into play, lest they get shot down and leave his men stranded. Ironically, when things got so bad that he was forced to call them in for an air strike anyway, they were able to fly straight through the Barracuda cover to make their attack runs and then depart, because they were so durable. Alas for my curiosity, none of the Thunderhawks actually engaged the Barracudas directly :p

EDIT: I agree 100% that Thunderhawks are a ground attack aircraft, and so would not be used in an air superiority role except in the very weirdest and desperate of circumstances. This is just a question that's been on my mind. Another way of putting the question is, if a Thunderhawk gunship decides to really fight back, how many true air superiority fighters or interceptors could it fight off?

[Just_Me]

Does the Lightning have superior acceleration? I know that it's more maneuverable than a Thunderbolt, but I'm not aware of any official fluff stating that it has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. I know I haven't read all the available fluff on fighters, though. Can you cite to something for this?

Actually, I just looked at Imperial Armour Volume I, and it gives the max speed of the Lightening as 2,400 kph to the Thunderbolt's 2,200 kph, so the Lightening IS slightly faster. The Thunderbolt however has far greater range (12,000 km) than the Lightening (8,000 km), and a slightly higher operational ceiling (39,000 m) than the Lightening (36,000 m). All of this suggests that the Thunderbolt is simply a more robust fighter.

While I can't directly cite any indication of faster acceleration, it is implied by the Lightening's greater maneuverability (both tend to depend on thrust/mass ratio, and in physics terms are synonymous), and its lighter airframe (9.8 tonnes vs. 14 tonnes).


This would certainly be my instinct, and obviously the Thunderhawk's weapons mix is heavily oriented toward engaging ground targets.

I'm curious, though, if anybody has any experience using them in an air superiority role in games. I'm aware of some fluff in which Thunderhawks were reluctant to take to the skies due to enemy fighters (Barracudas over Tarokeen during the Taros campaign), but that was primarily because if they were shot down the troops on the ground, who were in a bad position, would be unable to exfiltrate. Granted Thunderhawks come in very small numbers (nearest I can tell, a strike cruiser carries a grand total of six), and so losing them is always going to be worrisome, and that this clearly isn't what they're designed to do, if a force commander is willing to commit them to an air superiority role, how do they actually hold up against enemy fighters?


EDIT: I agree 100% that Thunderhawks are a ground attack aircraft, and so would not be used in an air superiority role except in the very weirdest and desperate of circumstances. This is just a question that's been on my mind. Another way of putting the question is, if a Thunderhawk gunship decides to really fight back, how many true air superiority fighters or interceptors could it fight off?

Well, I don't know of any examples either in game or in fluff of Thunderhawks engaging in atmospheric dogfights, they just aren't suited for that role, and I think Cryl's analogy of the Thunderhawk in-atmosphere as an A-10 trying to dogfight an F-22 is an apt one.

Out-atmosphere is another matter entirely, in space combat the Thunderhawk serves as a quite effective space-superiority fighter, the equal or superior to the Imperial Navy Fury line of space-superiority fighters. In a vacuum the Thunderhawk's mass and poor aerodynamics would not be a very serious issue, and its heavy armor and massive firepower would be telling. In fact from the very sketchy details we have on them Furies seem to be broadly similar in appearance to Thunderhawks, and in fact slightly larger. This would imply that a Thunderhawk could be a threat to other fighters even in the atmosphere under the right circumstances, but this would require a combination of extraordinary luck and skill (or some very, very good planning), say for example a flight of Thunderhawks jumping an enemy squadron returning from a sortie with low full reserves and hence limited maneuverability.

As a point of interest when the in-atmosphere performance of the Thunderhawk is compared to the Lightening and Thunderbolt the Thunderhawk is slower (2,000 kph) and MUCH heavier (121 tonnes) , but with no operational ceiling and far greater range (28,000 km).

As compared to their Imperial Navy counterparts Chaos fighter designs are sickeningly fast and light (Hell Talon 2,350 kph and 17 tonnes, Hell Blade 2,800 kph and 3.5 tonnes), though few other statistics are given.

[Duke]

I always that the closest actual plane in service today that resembles the Thunderhawk would be the AC-130H Spectre gunship.

Essentially it fills the role of a thunerhawk to a "T"... it even has a howitzer stiking out of it, lol.

If the AC-130 got in a dog fight it would have one strength.... it is is slow and could beat a fighter in a turning fight, it would lose in all other aspects, as such the gunship would perform many tight turns which the quicker fighters wouldn't be able to copy, if they survived it would be more due to luck than any dogfighting capability (which would be mostly defensive in nature, i.e. flares) It could possibly have some air to air, but would mostly be used to keep it alive long enough to bug out.

all in all a gunship would be lucky to take out 1 fighter without specific armament...2 would be VERY lucky.

Remember that an "Ace," Traditionally has 5 kills. so a gunship pilot would generally never dream of becoming and ace.

Duke

[mightymconeshot]

well the heavy bolters are for point defence so i think they could put down a fighter given time. it would defiantly make you think twice before engaging it.

[Just_Me]

well the heavy bolters are for point defence so i think they could put down a fighter given time. it would defiantly make you think twice before engaging it.

True, but point defense guns have never been the most effective things at driving off fighters. As an example the B-17s sported half a dozen heavy machine guns for point defense, but were still easy targets without fighter cover. Point defense weapons tend to be only a mild deterrent to interceptors, the most effective thing they really do is limit the attacking fighter’s approach vectors.

Given that the heavy bolter turrets on the Thunderhawk don’t have the “AA” rule, we can infer that anti fighter fire is not their primary function, most likely they are intended to clear an LZ before the Astartes disembark. The heavy bolter turrets might be a mild annoyance to an attacking fighter and with a skilled Space Marine gunner might even be able to drive one or two off, but I wouldn’t be willing to put much faith in them in a dogfight.

[Duke]

especially since B-17's were only shooting at Propellar driven planes, where as Thunderhawks would be shooting a Jet fighters. Trying to shoot down a straffing jet in very very difficult, even for a space marine.

Duke

[Nabterayl]

True, though (ridiculous as this is - but lots of things in 40K are ridiculous) the heavy bolters are controlled by the gunship's machine spirit, which according to IA2 is the same class as that of a Reaver titan. IA2 also specifies that the heavy bolter turrets are for engaging enemy interceptors, as well as sweeping drop zones with suppressive fire.

To add another gaming perspective, in AI a Thunderhawk can engage enemy aircraft with its heavy bolters out to "medium" range, and at that range, if the interceptor is attacking from a vector optimal for the Thunderhawk, will score an expected average of 0.9 points of damage against an enemy interceptor (most interceptors have 2 "hits" in this game). At close range, still from an optimal vector, that goes up to 1.3 points of damage.

However, if the interceptor bounces the Thunderhawk (i.e., attacks from above), the Thunderhawk can't reply at all (unless the interceptor is bouncing from the front, which should be easy to avoid). Doing so will reduce the effectiveness of the interceptor's fire - in fact, no interceptor in the game has enough ammo to bring down a Thunderhawk on its own using this technique - but leaves the Thunderhawk at the fighter's mercy.

So I think the World War II analogy is not a bad one (though a Thunderhawk, unlike a B-17, has a significant blind spot). The general vibe I get from AI is that real fighters are only limited by their ammunition in terms of how many lumbering aircraft like Thunderhawks they can shoot down - if they have the time to do it right. Get impatient, or get forced to get impatient (e.g., because the Thunderhawk is approaching its target or due to fighter escorts), and the point defense can become a real threat.

[Just_Me]

especially since B-17's were only shooting at Propellar driven planes, where as Thunderhawks would be shooting a Jet fighters. Trying to shoot down a straffing jet in very very difficult, even for a space marine.

Duke

Exactly, even with (presumably) advanced electronic aiming aids and the skilled marksmanship of a Space Marine shooting down a jet fighter whose relative velocity might be thousands of kilometers per hour is a daunting task. Also consider the positioning of the Thunderhawk’s heavy bolters is not ideal for providing 360 degree coverage, but on the other hand they ARE ideally placed to rake the ground beneath the Thunderhawk. Given this, I am going to go ahead and say that they were not designed with anti-fighter defense in mind.

[Nabterayl]

Given this, I am going to go ahead and say that they were not designed with anti-fighter defense in mind.
"For additional power in ground attacks it mounts twin lascannons, and, for engaging enemy interceptors or sweeping landing zones with suppressive fire, up to eight heavy bolters in remote turrets" (Imperial Armour Volume 2, page 150).

Designed for anti-fighter defense (among other things), yes. Effective at it? Only kind of. AI would have us believe that the fighter essentially has to cooperate (or get really unlucky) to be shot down by a Thunderhawk's heavy bolters. Apocalypse would have us believe that it's very difficult to hit a fighter with a Thunderhawk's heavy bolters (though they are at least twin-linked, so it's not as hard as it could be). I think all sources point to the heavy bolters having a difficult time of knocking a fighter out of the sky. But that is one of their intended uses. Not their only intended use, but as Imperial Armour indicates, it is an intended use. World War II bombers had a difficult time knocking down fighters with their point defense too, but that's still what the point defense was for.

[Just_Me]

"For additional power in ground attacks it mounts twin lascannons, and, for engaging enemy interceptors or sweeping landing zones with suppressive fire, up to eight heavy bolters in remote turrets" (Imperial Armour Volume 2, page 150).

Designed for anti-fighter defense (among other things), yes. Effective at it? Only kind of. AI would have us believe that the fighter essentially has to cooperate (or get really unlucky) to be shot down by a Thunderhawk's heavy bolters. Apocalypse would have us believe that it's very difficult to hit a fighter with a Thunderhawk's heavy bolters (though they are at least twin-linked, so it's not as hard as it could be). I think all sources point to the heavy bolters having a difficult time of knocking a fighter out of the sky. But that is one of their intended uses. Not their only intended use, but as Imperial Armour indicates, it is an intended use. World War II bombers had a difficult time knocking down fighters with their point defense too, but that's still what the point defense was for.

Good reference,I missed that, but while it may be one intended use clearly it is not the primary indented use, whatever IA2 may tell us. If it were their primary function then clearly they could have been positioned better.

I am not saying that they were never intended to be used for point defense, but from an observational standpoint that could not have been the chief consideration in their design. If it was than some Imperial aeronautical engineers in the distant past really sucked at their jobs (which I suppose isn’t really all that unlikely, given it is the Imperium we are talking about :p).

[Nabterayl]

"If Thunderhawks needed to fire above them, the Machine God would have positioned the bolter turrets differently, now wouldn't he, Technographer Fernwell?"

You're clearly right about the primary use, though.

So ... I guess the conclusion is that Thunderhawks really aren't useful in an air superiority role, or any other mission in which they will be loitering in fighter-infested skies.

[Duke]

Agreed, thought they could do air to ait they would most likely have to be in formation...much like WW2 bombers.

Duke

[Just_Me]

"If Thunderhawks needed to fire above them, the Machine God would have positioned the bolter turrets differently, now wouldn't he, Technographer Fernwell?"

“Most assuredly Magos, it is well known that attacking from above is a blasphemy in the eyes of the Omnessiah (blessed be his spark-plugs!).”


You're clearly right about the primary use, though.

So ... I guess the conclusion is that Thunderhawks really aren't useful in an air superiority role, or any other mission in which they will be loitering in fighter-infested skies.

Yes, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. Keep in mind however that, as I said before, while the Thunderhawk is poorly suited to act as an air-superiority fighter, is a very capable space-superiority fighter

The one thing we haven’t discussed are the Thunderhawk’s pretty extensive arsenal of Hellstrike missiles. Guided missiles are often very effective against fighters, and while the game rules do not specify that these are in an anti-aircraft mount, I see no reason to assume that a if Thunderhawk can carry air-to-ground missiles it cannot carry air-to-air missiles. With a load-out of air-to-air missiles the Thunderhawk could be a real threat to would be interceptors at a distance. If you think about it this makes sense, a Thunderhawk closes with an objective at best speed, fires a barrage of air-to-air missiles at any air-cover the enemy may have, targets enemy armor and entrenchments with its lascannon and primary spinal weapon, then rakes the LZ with heavy bolter fire as it sets down to disembark its strike force, and finally withdraws before the enemy can scramble more air assets.

EDIT: I really thought I read some rule somewhere about hunter-killer and hellstirke missiles counting as “AA,” but I can’t seem to find anything like that now, I must have been mistaken.

[Nabterayl]

Aeronautica Imperialis includes weapons called "Skystrike" missiles, which Lightnings and Thunderbolts carry, and seem to be air-to-air versions of Hellstrikes (which can't even be fired at aircraft in AI, unlike Apocalypse). I'm not aware of Thunderhawks ever being described as carrying air-to-air missiles, though. I wonder if this is one of those techno-taboos that the Astartes haven't felt comfortable breaking yet, or if we simply haven't seen it in any fluff. Unless somebody has?

[Duke]

Though it doesn't specifically state that they have ata missles that doesn't mean that the missles are incapable of it... Howeveras your earlier post stated the imperium doesn't use logic in technogy.

"... If hellstikes were meant to shhot planes then the omnissiah would have built them that way."

so in that case hellstrikes are perfectly anti- aircraft if those aircraft are onthe ground!

Duke

ps how do you like aeronautical imperialis?

[Nabterayl]

As I said, I've never played, just looked at the rulebook. But it seems like it would be fun, if, you know, I could get enough of the gaming group to jump in with me at the same time :p

[Just_Me]

As I said, I've never played, just looked at the rulebook. But it seems like it would be fun, if, you know, I could get enough of the gaming group to jump in with me at the same time :p

Same here, I would love to give that game a shot...

[mightymconeshot]

well the bolters would be coming from above as they would be arriving from orbit meaning that the blind spot isnt that big as most air cover has an operation ceiling.

[Nabterayl]

True, but the operational ceiling for most of the craft in question is low orbit. Even Thunderbolts and Lightnings, though not capable of fighting in space, can boost into low orbit to return to their motherships. Many of their opponents (e.g., Tau and eldar) don't even seem to have strictly atmospheric fighters. My theorycrafted tactics for Thunderhawk deliveries do suggest, though, that at least one sensible tactic is to remain at maximum altitude for as long as possible and then drop like a rock on final approach.