Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

Ryan Gill wrote:

> At 5:20 PM +1000 5/30/01, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
>
> >Shipboard, SML salvoes and MT missiles are 2 mass on their own, so if
you
> >want a fighter capable of delivering the full shipboard effect, your
fighter
> >is going to need to be 3-4 mass (which defeats the purpose of
fighters).
> >It's cheaper to send in a missile destroyer with SMRs/MT missiles
once you
> >get into these mass / costs (plus the added benefits of FTL).
>
> Well, there isn't a need for magazines, handling gear and all the
> armoured box stuff that they need shipboard. Compare what is needed
> to fire a Harpoon from the air with what they use on the ground. Also
> the ground based missiles usually need a booster.

The magazines are empty spaces, the handling equipment is already
figured into
the mass of launcher (which is why an empty launcher is almost as
massive as a
full rack).  The shipboard harpoon launcher is a steel tube that is long
enough
to accomodate the missile and its booster (which won't be needed for FT
SM's).	I
believe that the end caps are only durable enough to keep the rain out. 
If you
compared the shipboard mount for the VLS-SM2 to the aircraft mount for
the
standard-ARM, you will find the difference to be slight.