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

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

According to Spaceships 4, bombs are 1/3 the size of missiles, and launchers can load 3 bombs instead of one missile. That's a bit strange, given that bombs are usually meant to do lots of damage, preferably in one hit. So, I'm asking: if I want to use a bomb the size of a whole missile, not 1/3, are there any things I should be aware off, or should I just seek the stats of a missile warhead with (SM of the launcher's default missile)+1?

Thanks in advance!

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Molokh

Greetings, all!

According to Spaceships 4, bombs are 1/3 the size of missiles, and launchers can load 3 bombs instead of one missile. That's a bit strange, given that bombs are usually meant to do lots of damage, preferably in one hit. So, I'm asking: if I want to use a bomb the size of a whole missile, not 1/3, are there any things I should be aware off, or should I just seek the stats of a missile warhead with (SM of the launcher's default missile)+1?

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.

[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.

[Ulzgoroth]

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.

Shape almost certainly matters for nuclear warheads, including X-ray, but would being elongated really be a problem for kinetic-kill bombs? A missile-sized impact bomb with 1.44x damage makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Molokh

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.

I'd presume bombs aren't at all long like missiles...most of the length of a missile is going to be the multi-stage drive stack that gives it delta-V. The bomb version is just about functionally identical to the missile's warhead/attack package.

[weby]

Some penetrating bombs like GBU-28 are extremly long for the diameter, but more normal bombs are way shorter than missiles for given diameter.

Simplified:
If you want apex style penetrator you probably want to make it long and narrow for best penetration.

If you want to pack maximum ammount of explosives, you want to make a shape that is as close to sphere as other concerns allow to minimise the casing material compared to the explosives.

[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.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Molokh

But aren't bombs long, like missiles? .

Not normally. Bombs have a lot less in the way of stability and drag issues because they aren't self-propelled.

[Kale]

If we assume that the bombs are mainly kinetic kill cluster, then a cylindrical bomb makes sense; a long core of explosive around a bunch of ball bearings or penetrator darts arranged in a cylinder. As the bomb approaches the target it bursts and creates a moving cloud of projectiles. Since it doesn't have engines, fuel, or much of a guidance system there is more room for darts or ball-bearings.
The cylinder allows an even dispersal of the cloud of penetrators.
In the case of a single solid penetrator, again a cylinder makes sense as it allows a narrow aspect ratio. This would be handy for bombing ground targets as it would reduce atmospheric friction.
Given the two above assumptions I'd say it should be straightforward to have a triple-damage bomb the same size as a regular missile. Either it has more darts or more solid mass for impact. One downside is that without engines the bomb cannot accelerate and get extra damage from velocity. On the other hand, if you are dropping them on a planet from orbit gravity will do the work for you, or if the launching ship is already moving quickly relative to its target.
In the case of nukes I don't know how much larger you would be able to make the warhead. If it was a gun type nuke (propels a slug into the fissile mass inside the warhead) then the extra length might be handy. In the case of X-ray laser rods, a long cylinder would be able to carry more bundles of long, thin rods and would be a more suitable shape than a sphere.

[panton41]

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.

[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?