Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

>
>They don't look too bad...though I would've gone with 3 per squadron 
>and they're a bit undercosted.
>I would've guessed about 15 or 20 pts per fighter off the top of my 
>head...basic = 3 + heavy = 2 (assuming harder to kill) + SMR or 2MT 
>cost (I figure fast balances with less CEF), and hope dogfight vs 
>anti-ship comes out in the wash ;)

Yep, the cost is definately a problem. I've also pondered shortening 
the range of the MT missile to 2 runs at 18" (36" total) though 
that'd make coordinated strikes among two differently armed groups 
trickier, they'd have to split up...

>I just have a couple of other questions.
>
>1) Why are they faster than fighters (my knowledge of aircraft 
>capabilities stops with WWI so I still have a "bombers are 
>lumberers" image).

Every so often bomber development has had big fast sleek multi engine 
bombers that were faster than the fighters normally sent to intercept 
them. The best example of this is the B-17 at its inception. Very 
fast compared to all of the other 'at the time' fighters. Later 
super-charged fighters were faster, but they were 'fast fighters'.

The theory is that the Bombers are faster than standard fighters and 
in a scrolly board match, they can out run the fighters given no bad 
tactics or positions. But fast-fighters can out distance them in a 
heartbeat.

>2) How easy is it for other fighters to hit them if they do get into 
>dogfight? Are they easier to hit (as well as finding it harder to 
>hit their opponents themselves)?

I'm thinking the same as standard fighters. They are bigger and 
tougher but the slower turn rate makes them more predictable targets, 
thus cancelling them out.

>3) Why do they have to be land based? Is that based on where bombers 
>of today are stationed or some hard reasoning from your background 
>or ideas?

Pretty much. One thing is I have a nice big asteroid chunk. The other 
is system defense. One big problem of operating in littorial waters 
is the land based air power trumping carrier based. How this would 
translate to space is questionable since the carrier aircraft don't 
have to be so robust (no slamming into the deck right?). However a 
"land based base" isn't nearly as cramped and the aircraft can be 
bigger and more generous in fitment. No folding wings etc.

Further, big bombers firing lots of missiles at ships that blunder 
into their realms is some part of the Naval warfare history starting 
in WWII with the sinking of several Italian ships by the Germans 
(after Il Duce's death).

>
>Cheers
>
>Beth
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>------- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>------
>Elizabeth Fulton
>c/o CSIRO Division of Marine Research
>GPO Box 1538
>HOBART
>TASMANIA 7001
>AUSTRALIA
>Phone (03) 6232 5018 International +61 3 6232 5018
>Fax 03 6232 5053 International +61 3 6232 5053
>
>email: beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -