Re: Maritime Strike Bombers

Ryan Gill wrote:

> 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.

Armored box launchers in wet naval service are much more massive than
the
comparable space navy box, as the environment at sealevel, when
subjected to
weather patterns can actually be at lot worse than the environment in
space.

Unfortunately, you are hard pressed to locate the mass of the Mk141(?)
launcher for the harpoon.  I do know that mount four exocets on what
looks to
be a five tonne truck, so shipboard mountings need not be as heavy as
you
think.

>
>
> 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?

No, hardpoints are not free.  The structure of the wing must be altered
to
allow a variable weight to be attached to it.  The weight varies between
the
extremes of the g-loading multiplied by the mass of attached object. 
The
central hardpoint on the fuselage of an F-15 will support eighteen
thousand
pounds, but the centerline tank is only allowed to weigh two thousand
pounds,
so that the aircraft can maneuver while carrying it.  Aircraft
hardpoints are
simple in comparison to an FT-style hardpoint, because the forces on an
aircraft hardpoint never wander very far
from the vertical axis (relative to the wing).	FT-style hardpoints must
be
rated for main drive and thruster pushes.  If they are mounted any
distance
from center of rotation, they must also resist rotational inertias.

The Maritime Strike Bombers probably need extra boosters to enable them
to
carry the missiles, and not have radically different handling
characteristics
after launch (which is why so much effort goes into precisely loading
aircraft).

>
>
> >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.

Companion ways only take up volume.  Putting a hatch in a solid wall
only adds
the mass of hinges and a latch (and a fair amount of cost).  The door
hardware
may be heavy in absolute terms, but relative to the mass of material
that
fills the volume, which would exist if it was a solid wall anyway, it
does
need to be much in relative terms.

>
> >
> >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?

Possibly when they fire at ranges greater than six mu