[Spaceships] 'Triple' bomb size instead of triple ammo count?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

That might make sense with dedicated bomb bays, where the bay opening would be larger in comparison to the volume of the bomb than the opening of a missile bay would. But with a bomb intended for a missile bay, I don't think it works in general, since shape matters for bombs.

But aren't bombs long, like missiles? I actually find it strange that it's possible to load three bombs into the missile tube - it seems like an error.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Molokh

But aren't bombs long, like missiles?

I would expect not, and that they are of similar cross sectional area but shorter -- probably nearly spherical -- while missiles are elongated.

I actually find it strange that it's possible to load three bombs into the missile tube - it seems like an error.

Well, it would be somewhat odd if you assume that they are proportioned similarly to missiles, since they ought to be identical in size if they are designed to launch from the same opening. That's pretty much why I think they are proportioned differently: its the only thing that makes the current setup make sense to me.

OTOH, its true that for kinetic-kill "bombs" (and I wonder if "mines" isn't a better word than "bombs", generally), having them shaped more like missiles, but on average denser since they are all "penetrator" but for the maneuvering kit, is also sensible; for these types of "bombs", your original proposal makes sense.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

OTOH, its true that for kinetic-kill "bombs" (and I wonder if "mines" isn't a better word than "bombs", generally)

'Mines' seems like a word to avoid in space. You can't really do area-denial weapons very well between 'space is big' and 'stealth is hard'.

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

I viewed the missiles as being long for their diameter, like a Sidewinder, AMRAAM, Harpoon or Standard, whereas the bombs were comparatively shorter. I also viewed the standard bomb as being a 500-lbs class weapon as opposed to the missile's 1,000 to 2,000-lbs class weapon. However that distinction makes little sense with SM+4 to SM+6 since most of the missiles are a small fraction of a ton each. Even assuming bombs simulate something similar to the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (250lbs range) they're still very small and there's the real-world question of whether the SMB can do what it's designed to do.

The distinction makes sense at the 28-32cm size range. Naturally it needs some adaptation for the rest, considering that missiles weigh anywhere from 133 pounds to 40 tons.

Comparing Spaceships bombs and missiles to atmospheric bombs and missiles is unwise, since they have very different modes of action. The ~44 pound conventional 16cm bomb isn't packed with explosives. Most of its mass is solid penetrators and maybe some terminal attack boosters and penaids. Its lethality comes from being delivered at a few miles per second.

Hum. It's a bit strange to me that bombs mass less than electromagnetic and grav gun shells. Why does the shell version weight 50% more?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

'Mines' seems like a word to avoid in space. You can't really do area-denial weapons very well between 'space is big' and 'stealth is hard'.

Unless you're in Star Wars EU, or Star Trek . . .

Though now I wonder if we can make a 'mine' ship, and scale it down from SM4 to some more tame size.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The distinction makes sense at the 28-32cm size range. Naturally it needs some adaptation for the rest, considering that missiles weigh anywhere from 133 pounds to 40 tons.

Comparing Spaceships bombs and missiles to atmospheric bombs and missiles is unwise, since they have very different modes of action. The ~44 pound conventional 16cm bomb isn't packed with explosives. Most of its mass is solid penetrators and maybe some terminal attack boosters and penaids. Its lethality comes from being delivered at a few miles per second.

Hum. It's a bit strange to me that bombs mass less than electromagnetic and grav gun shells. Why does the shell version weight 50% more?

Interesting points.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Hum. It's a bit strange to me that bombs mass less than electromagnetic and grav gun shells. Why does the shell version weight 50% more?

3e Vehicles, which had bombs weigh less than a missile warhead, said that they don't undergo stress do to acceleration, and so don't need as sturdy a construction. I don't know enough about the subject to say whether that's realistic, but it's a possible explanation.

[panton41]

Originally Posted by gjc8

3e Vehicles, which had bombs weigh less than a missile warhead, said that they don't undergo stress do to acceleration, and so don't need as sturdy a construction. I don't know enough about the subject to say whether that's realistic, but it's a possible explanation.

There's actually several missiles that have a normal aerial bomb as the warhead (AGM-130 comes to mind). They're not much more than rocket-boosted guided bombs (the previous example is just a GBU-15 with a strap-on motor), but the Air Force and Navy list them as guided missiles.

[Langy]

I made the assumption bombs (and missiles, too) had a similar effect that was simplified into a single damage score for the purposes of keeping Spaceships simple. Kinetic damage is all well and good against an unarmored non-maneuvering satellite being hit by a "kinetic kill vehicle" that's nearly the same size as the target with an relative impact velocity of about mach 50, but against a heavily armored maneuvering spacecraft that weighs many, many times the weight of the missile that wouldn't simply explode into thousands of tiny pieces on impact it would take a bit of followup "oomph".

There's very, very little need for 'follow-up oomph' in a kinetic kill missile going 1 mile per second or higher, even against an extremely heavily armored maneuvering spacecraft. They're capable of doing absolutely crazy amounts of damage - the only missiles or bombs with actual explosives in them are likely to be nuclear or antimatter weapons, as normal explosive filler just doesn't increase lethality as much as an equal mass of propellant.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

'Mines' seems like a word to avoid in space. You can't really do area-denial weapons very well between 'space is big' and 'stealth is hard'.

Starfire's mines were one shot beam weapons you'd put by jump points.

[Langy]

You can do mines in space - just make them bomb-pumped x-ray lasers. And hey, we just got the rules for them, too! They've probably got pretty decent range, on the order of hundreds of miles, but you'll still need to spread them out pretty thickly for them to be of any use at all given the ugodly size of space.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Unless you're in Star Wars EU, or Star Trek . . .

Neither exactly a proponent of either space being big or stealth being hard, and also a little fuzzy on economic concepts like 'a system-defense minefield costs more than a Dyson sphere'.

Some space opera definitely does go in for minefields.

As for mine ships, see the Sentinel class SDP in Spaceships 3 (page 21). It weighs 100 tons, but it's pretty much a big, mean space mine. Though if you were going to use stealth instead of camouflage, you'd need to get rid of the fission reactors.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Starfire's mines were one shot beam weapons you'd put by jump points.

Jump points give you a nice way around both of the major problems with mines, because you can concentrate them in a small space, and the enemy can't see or engage them before coming into attack range.

Originally Posted by Langy

You can do mines in space - just make them bomb-pumped x-ray lasers. And hey, we just got the rules for them, too! They've probably got pretty decent range, on the order of hundreds of miles, but you'll still need to spread them out pretty thickly for them to be of any use at all given the ugodly size of space.

Hex-packed at their maximum 1000 mile range, that'll cost you .039$ per square mile. Not impossible to afford if, say, you want to fully enclose the earth at the geocentric orbit level, but it'll get bad fast.

Also, as statted, they'll only scratch the paint on a proper battleship. Could be pretty intimidating to civilians though.