RE: Maritime Strike Bombers

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.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

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)?.

Put your strike force on a ship and they take up 27 mass and 81 pts 
plus 96pts for the bombers vs the 24 mass and 72 pts of the MT 
missiles.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		 ----------	      SW1025 H -
-   Internet Technologies  --  Data Center Manager (3N &10S)   -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 rmgill@mindspring.com -
-		   www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
- C&R-FFL -	  The gunshow loophole isn't		 - NRA -
-	     keep federal laws out of private lives	       -