Prev: Re: Sensors and Zooplankton Next: Re: [OT] USN and USAF sharing the same crack pipe

RE: Maritime Strike Bombers

From: aebrain@a...
Date: Wed, 30 May 101 23:51:31 GMT
Subject: RE: Maritime Strike Bombers

> But in this case you're comparing launching a missile from the air
> launching it from the ground. A more relevant comparison is between 
> launching a cruise missile from a big flying aircraft and launching
> same cruise missile from a smaller flying aircraft.
> Regards,
> Oerjan

I agree with Oerjan on this one. Drastically unbalanced.

But worth persisting with IMHO. It's a nice idea, has a neat feel to it,
be a lot of fun.

My own initial thoughts (based on KISS...)

Option A : That an MSB is basically just a really, really extended range
Missile, one with 2 parts - the long-range booster ( or MSB itself) that
like a fighter, and the payload, which when launched, moves like a SM.
So they 
should be bought as such. Given we need 4 mass for a SMR (Rack), and 5
mass for 
an ER-SMR, perhaps we should have 6 mass per bomber, ie the same as a
squadron, you can fit one of em in a standard hanger. Costs in points
another issue - given the fact that 1 hit kills em, they have to go home
reload their weaponry so will get at most 2 SM shots in a usual game,
standard fighter cost of 12 seems good to me, maybe even a tadge high.

Think Tupolev Tu-95 + AS-4 Kitchen, if you're that way inclined.

Option B : An MSB is a flight of 6 not-aircraft, each with a D6 missile
They can be dogfought etc, and attritted away. When they launch their
payload, they don't roll a D6 incoming warheads, you use the number of 
surviving bombers. This means unintercepted MSBs are about 5/7 better
than a 
normal SM.
A cost of 18 looks good here, same as a fast fighter. 
Think Grumman A-6s + Standard ARM, similar deal.

This message was sent using the AustarMetro Internet Web Mail System.

Prev: Re: Sensors and Zooplankton Next: Re: [OT] USN and USAF sharing the same crack pipe