Prev: Re: [OT] Oh, the humanity Next: Re: Fighter Fur Balls a thing of the past?

Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 22:08:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

At 7:10 PM -0400 6/1/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
>
>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.

But hard points are effectively mounting points that are integral to 
the structure of the aircraft. Sure its a re-enforced point, but 
nowhere near the same addition mass that you get for the armoured box 
launchers on regular ships.

If the hardpoint on the aircraft is damaged enough to cause a problem 
then the aircraft isn't likely there any more...

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

Probably the difference of the S-3 minus a its wings?

>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.

Heavier gear by far. Not integral portions of the ship. Its also more 
complex gear that needs regular servicing, add companionways and 
hatches.

>Why does the ship-fired SM need a booster?

Off axis shots.

>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).

Likely it's pointed towards the target at launch. Perhaps the gross 
difference between fighters and ships isn't as great as I make it out 
to be, but I figure that the fighters have a significantly higher 
delta vee than do the ships and that the missiles get some impetus 
from that....

Still at this point we're starting to argue hairs...

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

Huh? When have fighters needed Firecons for any of their weapons?

--
- 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/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -


Prev: Re: [OT] Oh, the humanity Next: Re: Fighter Fur Balls a thing of the past?