Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> At 7:51 PM +0200 5/30/01, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>
> >
> >Don't look at the *SM*-ER. You have to look at the *SMR*-ER, since
> >that's what your bomber is launching - it includes the mass of the
> >hardpoints, which your bomber certainly does need (unless it uses
> >duct tape to secure the missiles <g>). Similarly the MTMs include
> >the Mass of their hardpoints.
>
> I'm somewhere in between SMR-ER's and SM-ERs. But there are still
> differences. I still envision SMR's inside the ship with access
> points for maintenance and such. The SM/Magazine system is larger but
> only if you keep the same number of rounds.

Accessways only affect the volume, not the mass.  The hardpoints are not
going to have zero mass, as they must be strong enough to hold the
missile and craft together at the craft's maximum accelleration.

>
>
> Difference between the Harpoons in box launchers on the deck of a
> ship and those carried on an S-3. The Aircraft in effect is much of
> that hardpoint itself.

The unanswerable question is how much lighter would an S-3 be if it did
not have the hardpoints installed?

>
>
> SMRs are in effect, VLS; SMs, Mark 26 twin rail launchers. Though the
> bearing angle has one wondering if it is a trainable mount or a
> missile capable of off axis launches.

Actually, going by the descriptions, an SMR is a collection of six,
closely spaced holes in the hull, with each leading to a missile filled
tube.  The SML has heavy blast doors at the inner end of the tube that
leads to a magazine, and includes equipment to shove missiles through
the
doors.

>
>
> >A single ship-board SMR-ER is Mass 5 and costs 15. This Mass does
> >not include magazines or handling gear; but it *does* include the
> >hardpoints - which the bomber needs too. Two MTMs including
> >hardpoints is Mass 4 and costs 12.
>
> >IOW, unless you meant for the entire bomber squadron to have a total
> >payload of 1 SMR-ER or 2 MTMs, the ship-mounted *weapon* alone -
> >without the ship to carry it to the battle - costs more than your
> >entire *bomber* (including missiles) :-/
>
> Hard to split 2 MTMs between 3 aircraft.... :)
>
> >
> >No, they don't carry "a single shot mass 4 weapon". They carry a
> >single-shot weapon with similar damage and *one-fifth the range* of
> >a mass 4 *multi-shot* weapon. Saying that the torp fighter weapon is
> >the same as a P-torp is similar to saying that an 120mm tank round
> >is the same as the more-than-5-meter long tank gun which fires it,
> >plus its magazine :-/
> >
> >Your bombers do seem to launch the full-sized ship missiles though,
> >since they have the same range as the originals.
>
> Sans the boosters. I'm abstractifying here just a bit mind
> you...Getting the right feel, balance and difference in tactics is
> the trick.

Why does the ship-fired SM need a booster?

>
>
> >But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air
> >with launching it from the ground. A more relevant comparison is
> >between launching a cruise missile from a big flying aircraft and
> >launching the same cruise missile from a smaller flying aircraft.
>
> To a degree yes. However I'm still drawing a line between fighters
> and their Delta Vee and the ships and their associated Delta Vee.

If the Maritime Strike Bomber is supplying the Delta Vee, then it must
be
following the missiles in towards the target (which defeats the purpose
stand-off weaponry).

>
>
> So given an increased cost to ~18pts / bomber with a ship sized
> weapon (SMR-ER or x2 MTMs), does it still seem under-costed? Would a
> bigger bomber make more sense. Mass 3 perhaps? Difference between a
> Carrier fighter and a Land Based Maritime patrol craft (F-18 vs a
> P-3)?.

The real problem is if they are firing missiles at 36mu, they need a
firecon.