Class M? Bomber Idea

[AalaarDB]

http://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=780

I was thinking, since small ship can only rely on missels, and they are easily shut down, would it be possible to equip m5s or M6 with large pulse weapons.

1. Those weapons should be very powerfull, but also very slow.
2. Either they should use all the energy, or special ammo.
3. They should not be allowed to carry any other weapons at the same time

This way small ships would have an powerfull weapon. And would be dangerous against capital ships. after each attack they have to rearm at an carrier

and the Bomber would be born.

Thats a great id, if you could work out a more detailed concept we could look into the possibilities of it.
plz PM me with any further details you might come up with.

I would say a bomber would need M3 size and manouvrability, but atleast sentinal level shielding so it doesn't get instantlly killed by the cap ship. I think its a great idea and since Moxy can now change weapons effects it should make a very big explosion on impact, with the projectile itself looking either like a PPC (Zeta PPC maybe?) or something new altogther And while it should be slow moving it needs to be as fast as the bomber itself atleast so you don't have firestorm torpedo problems of it blowing up in your face

I like your bomber idea, and I have another twist that might be easier to implement. Could we perhaps have a bomber variant of M6s that had weak forward guns and turret(s) on the bottom with relatively heavy guns like PPCs? Perhaps the bottom turrets could only mount Gamma's and maybe 2 or 3 tops. They would have very limited fire time and the ship should be pretty vulnerable to fighters with all it's firepower on the bottom turret.

I do like custom bomber weapons though Moxy, if you have the time.

[-XTM-]

Just thinking out loud,

M3.5

Size : around 2-3 times that of a M3
Speed : able to keep up with M6's of their race
Steer : 1/3 that of a M3
Shield : 4 to 6 x 25mj
Weaponry : front mounted array of some special sort, preferably mass-driver type ammo-feed and not much storage for magazines.
weapon should be powerfull enough to take out shields on a M7/M1/M2 when there's a full squadron of these buzzing down on 1.

Turrets:
-double aft turret, dual barrel with protective anti-missile/fighter defense lasermask.

Price : between 4 and 6 million

This is 1 ID, another could be to modify the above onto the Sentinel subclass of the M3.

[obi-HERMITMAN]

Or use the raider/vanguard/sentinal version of the m6 and turn it into a heavy bomber (think WW2 B17 or something- the bomber would be the large craft that would need a fighter escort to get in the way and draw fire from it).

As an m6 it already has good shields (might even be able to drop them, but with a larger profile than even something twice the size of an m3 it would probably be wise to leave them at m6 levels).
Then add something like the rocket pod to the ship, give it a small cargo hold so it can only hold a small amount of powerful ammo. The small cargo bay would be explained away by the extra space taken up by a launching mechanism for the heavy "bombs"

With a fair coverage of PAC turrets for anti m5/missile protection. But only PACs (and not too many) as these things, I feel, should require atleast a small escort to make them a viable anti cap ship weapon.


Tho in real life there are also many smaller bombers these days capable of taking out large targets, so both m3 and m6 could benefit from a bomber class of some sort.

You could as you say make one of the subclasses of m3 into the light bomber, basically like the model you describe mox but with nearly as much agility as an m3.
Maybe make the weapons it's capable of carrying be more like the hornet and firestorm, but restrict them to only a few by giving them a small cargo bay (in effect making it nessecary to be a carrier borne craft). This would also mean they would have to get in close to have any real chance of delivering their payload successfully.
This might cause some problems, as it would prabably mean not allowing even vanilla m3 to carry hornets aswell, but it's just an idea.
Price would be just a spot more than a normal m3, say 3 to 4 million.

6 to 9 million for the heavy bomber as it wouldn't run the risk of having it's payload destroyed by weapon fire, so could fire from further out - to which end make the bombers weapon range half that of PPCs so that it has to run the gauntlet a little to get in range.

[IKCBlade]

Click me


THAT is a Bomber.
32 meters in length that craft is designed to be the worst and only true nightmare a capital ships crew has. Her six gunmounts gives her a mass forward punch, and the four missile/torpedoe bays allow for a extremely heavy ranged punch. The shielding is heavier then any other strike craft, riveling some frigates. Her armor also is extremely thick.

Her manuverability and speed are her some of her only weaknesses, going by X3 standards a speed of 60, and slightly better then a M6's manuvering. NO TURRETS. Unless your making a bomber based on the old WWII bomber ideal, they WONT have turrets, but will rely on thier thick shields and armoring as well as fighters for defence.


Now we could make a M8 class "Bomber" like the old WWII bombers, Lancaster, B-17, B-24, B-29. Smaller then a M6, 6 twin barrel light turrets, moderate speed, HEAVY missile payload. Very slow, and not very manuverable.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

When it comes to bombers, my favorite type of space bomber craft are the type who are fast an do divebomb style techniques.

I have to post multi fightercraft history though.

I'll also include the Bunpei support craft.

SF-17D Dragonfang II Starfighter:
"The Pre-GCFA riegning starfighter for nearly a decade, the Dragonfang is a capable interceptor. It has recieved several design upgrades to keep pace with the galaxy, however it has always had a fundamental drawback. While an exceptional space combat starfighter, it was optimized spacificly for space, with poor aerodynamics or atmospheric stability, rendering it horrible at airspace dogfighting, and forcing many to rely on strict airframe designs outdated by as much as a hundred years to operate effectively planetside. However it is well armed and suited to switching before starfighter, and starbomber rolls rapidly."

SF/A-28 Rapier Space Superiority Starfighter:
"Designed as one of the first general pupose starfighters for the GCFA to replace the aging DragonFang attacker fighters... the Rapier Starfighter was designed for multi environment combat operations. (MECO) In space and at high atmospheric velocities, it retains 60 degree folded up wings to keep them out of the way. When it slows to low airspeed velocities within an atmospheric body, the wings unfold into a forward swept W shape to provide lift and manueverability for air combat. With its ability to load mission spacific weapons payloads and adjustments, it can provide a number of combat roles. However because of the lighter frame, the capacity means it can only fulfill a single one of these roles at a time."


SF/A-30C Phoenix Bomber:
"With the Rapier's lack of payload capacity towards carrying high yeild torpedo, bomb, or missile type weapons, a new type of fighter was commissioned, the SF/A-30. Emphasis was put on engine power and frame strength to allow a large payload to fit in its small body. During test flights with a full payload, the first SF-30 accellerated within an atmosphere to well above supersonic, and cleared mach ten. It then incinerated due to materal problams and the frictional heat caused by the high velocity. Engineers quickly realized how such velocity could pose both a threat, and an advantage to the fighter, and quickly adjusted the design to take advanage of it. At super high atmospheric velocities, the craft superheats the air around it, creating a white hot streak of light across the sky, so hot that missiles tracking it cannot tell the engine from the fighter, and anything attempting to maintain velocity with it incinerates. Meaning no tracking weapon can keep up with the SF-30 without expensive alterations. Beam weapon and plasma weapon projectiles must then be used to intercept this craft, which is extremely difficult at range and velocity. The new SF-30B rose from the dissasterous ashes of the SF-30A and excelled at utilizing its velocity friction advantage, and became known as the Phoenix. The Phoenix Bomber can deliver large payloads to targets both in space and planetside, and can do so accurately at high speed. The first operational Phoenix Bomber group delivered a devastating thermite bombardment to a well protected cave facility entrance at hypersonic velocity, easily avoiding the SAMs and defensive lasers mounted on the roofs of nearby civilian homes. After a few adjustments to increase high velocity atmospheric manuevering and computer systems, the SF/A-30C is now one of the best multi environment fighterbombers in the GCFA fleet."

SF-36 Raptor Interceptor:
"With the increasing role of the Phoenix Bomber fleetside, engineers realized that it may be only a matter of time before an opponent begins to use a similar design to counter-attack the Phoenix or strike at targets from hypersonic velocities. The Rapier starfighter design was brought up and given an overhaul designed mainly for high speed engagements. The new design incorporated bigger more powerful engines while doing away with most of the Rapier's small ordinance capacity, giving the new fighter only capacity for anti-starfighter weapons. The frame quickly removed the transforming W wing shape and replaced it with still mildly effective backswept wings. The computer system and targeting system was developed to target and track a large number of opponents in order to utilize multiple fire and forget class intercept missiles. The Raptor's main laser weapons system is tied directly in to the power systems right out of the engines. Engineers of course had misgivings about doing this, but pilots who flew fighters stated that if the engines went out, what good were lasers anyway? Performance wise, the Raptor can outrun a Phoenix Bomber inside an atmosphere, can turn hard even under such intense stresses, and is extremely manueverable at high velocity. While it's airframe lacks the low velocity manuevering ability of the Rapier, the Raptor makes up for it with the vectored engines, and multiple high power thruster groups strong enough to allow the vehicle to hover at a standstill at one G of gravity. It's powerfull accelleration and decelleration combined with powerful anti-fighter design, make it the ideal interceptor."


BUNPEI Class AWACS Corvette:
"Despite communications systems and developement of technology across all types of starship, it has always been cost effective to have a smaller craft devoted to the task of fighter command and control away from the high cost assets of a carrier. The Bunpei (Japanese: Sentry) Class AWACS (Aerospace Warning and Control System) Corvette fills this role. The Bunpei is packed with every type of communications and sensor system that can be squeezed in, allowing for it to maintain full understanding of the environment across an entire system. Because of the strategic value, it was given a rapidly calculating short jump hyperdrive system to use in emergencies to escape enemy ambush. It's ECM and ECCM warfare abilities are top of its class, with EMP field generators, defensive EMP cannons, and the best close range targeting system scrambling countermeasures available. Often times attacking a Bunpei is deemed the most irritating task ever by pilots undergoing wargames, because more often then not, the Bunpei remains a step ahead, often frying have the coputer systems of attackers, and doing short leaps all over the field of battle. Those pilots who can successfully attack a correctly functioning Bunpei, are given the title Assassins, because of the art and skill needed to get in close to these small vessels. A Bunpei class AWACS corvete almost ALWAYS stays outside the effective combat range of larger ships."

[-XTM-]

Obi, very good thinking, let's just make bombers for every ship class *begins to design a M0-Bomber* .

IKCBlade, I'm sure you mean well but I disagree on so many points you describe that I'd best leave it at that.


ATC, I LOVE the idea of a Awacs/ECM/EW type of vessel!

[Syklon]

I prefer the smaller more manouverable idea, I like the idea of flying in dodging eploding Flak and PPCs to get off the bombs (if you don't have Moxy's weapons FX mod u dont appreciate this picture fully). And 4-6 25 MJ sounds about right

If your gonna make the bombs ammo based then you need to include scripts for them so they go back and reload automatically, and if you make it so the ai use them im not sure how well this will work for them, while if you make it energy based you can just time it out so the bombers only get off like 2 shots (1 from each gun if theres 2 or more if you want to but 2 seems like a good # to me) per run, so i think that model would be easier to impliment and use, but the ammo based idea sounds cool too, and makes it neccessary to use a carrier. Also with the energy projectile model it would be difficult to also have any light turrets unless u make it proportionatly so insignifacant that it doesn't matter. So either the turrets would have to be like IREs for anti-missile purposes or the energy usage of the energy projectile launchers (and the weapon energy generator) would have to be really high w/ a little bit extra for the turrets to use.

Look what happens when I actually go play for several hours, a whole new idea thread gets started that I helped start

[-XTM-]

Making Bombers carrier-based(only) sounds perfect.
In fact I'd say they don't need to be very much larger then your average M3 (ok, twice as large) but due to larger generators required and the bigger weapons they'd just have to do without jumpdrives entirely, making them at least limited in use, keeping their price at bay etc etc...
Especially when the AI is going to use them or you are going to loose stations sooner then later.

I was thinking about lookin into the code for the fighter drones, if those can be modded to become some form of kamikaze ammo /mine-missile hybrid, we'd have our ammo...I'll look into it.

[Pynchon]

With the advent of the M7 mod, it seems to me the original M6 class might be able to fulfill the desire for this "tough, slow, heavy hitting forward guns" craft.

Looking at the tactics and existing craft in the game, pehaps something tactically similar to a WWII PT Boat is more whats lacking.

PT boats were very light and very fast, but also extremely deadly because of a heavy forward firing armament (torpeodes).

So I guess what I'm proposing would be a fast missile boat, with speed on the order of an M5, perhaps 1x25 MJ sheild, maybe two turrets for missile defense only and the ability to carry a few of the heavy missiles.

GET IN, FIRE MISSILES, GET OUT.

For heavy gunboat duties, we already have M6.

Even modern tactics dictate the use of high speed strike figters with accurate weapons to attack defended targets, it's not till the threat is removed that a "big, slow" bomber would have breathing room to operate.

[Syklon]

the ability to carry a few of the heavy missiles.

GET IN, FIRE MISSILES, GET OUT.

I think this got cut out of the original posts (or maybe it wasn't said), but I believe we've all been saying weapons rather than missiles so that the projectiles can't get shot down, which is the problem with heavier missiles, plus the weapon prbly shouldnt have the damage radius of say the hammerhead or firestorm missiles cuase then you risk blowing up some of the other bombers on a run.

And trust me the M6 still very much has a place as a gunship w/ M7s, but the bomber should be a faster more manouvarable, smaller and cheaper option so as to make the use of them in squadrons more effective, while also being ineffective against fighter (unlike the M6s)

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

I was gonna post pics... but then I remembered, you can go view my whole topic and see the pictures.

Go here

http://www.***/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=1343

And for a few weapons descriptions HERE

http://www.***/Forum/viewtopi ... 2367#12367

[Pynchon]

the ability to carry a few of the heavy missiles.

GET IN, FIRE MISSILES, GET OUT.

I think this got cut out of the original posts (or maybe it wasn't said), but I believe we've all been saying weapons rather than missiles so that the projectiles can't get shot down, which is the problem with heavier missiles, plus the weapon prbly shouldnt have the damage radius of say the hammerhead or firestorm missiles cuase then you risk blowing up some of the other bombers on a run.

And trust me the M6 still very much has a place as a gunship w/ M7s, but the bomber should be a faster more manouvarable, smaller and cheaper option so as to make the use of them in squadrons more effective, while also being ineffective against fighter (unlike the M6s)

Fair enough, as these missiles do fly very slowly.

How about a couple "big Guns" but only enough charge for 1 highly destuctive pass, and then a VERY slow (or NO)recharge rate to make them behave in a way tactically consistent with a bomber (ingress, expend payload, egress). I'd hate to see a so called bomber loitering around the battlefield kicking ass. Thats what it seems M6's and M7's do.

So my .02 goes to:

Something Fast, Not terribly large, single(powerful) offensive strike, purely defensive until redock for recharge (maybe PPC with NO chargers but enough in the capacitors for several shots). The lack of chargers could explain the big gun/high speed/low mass design and would be a neat employment twist. Is it possible to have a ship that can only charge [main ] weapons when docked to "mothership"?

[Syklon]

I like the idea of the railcannon as a heavy ammo-based gun, except the long range would defeat the bomber image i think, so we would probally have to ignore physics, not like X3 payed that much attention anyway

[IKCBlade]

I come from the old school (talkin 15-20 years ago) ideal of a bomber being big, slow, heavily armored beast that will get in your face, knock yuor teeth down your throught then turn and waltz away laughing, Ive noticed lately the concept of bomber's fits a much more recent ideal of having them be basicaly a oversized fighter. No reason to disagree on so many points. Though Id like to see what points you disagree on.

I still say there should be a old school bomber in the style of the WWII greats that I mentioned, if for no other purpose then just to look wicked and mean

[-XTM-]

Agree no super dooper rockets, that should become the domain of the M0 (and perhaps later on the M2's for upgrade) in the form of heavy missile platform's like the ones featured in Wing Commander the movie and (even more brilliantly captured) the new Battlestar Galactica series.

I also propose to take launch capabilities of anti-capital ships away from M3's when this is going to happen, it never made sense to me anyway that they could carry them...always struck me like more of a gaming/resource shortcut, combining both a heavy fighter and bomber in one.

A Heavy few-shots weapon.
In order to do so it's almost a must to go with the massdriver-ammo kind of sollution otherwise there's just no way to limit their fire other then make them auto-destruct after 2 or 4 shots


The Carier could be made to equip a ammo-belt feed ware, auto-equipping/replenishing bombers docked to it with the required magazines (if that's possible, dunno...I hope so).
It could even be made into some symbioses, both carier and bombers needing eachother and being useless apart.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

The concept of bomber is actually quite dynamic. When you say, slow moving in your face knock your teeth down your throat kind of stuff, I believe you refer to the image of Heavy Bombers such as the B-52H Stratofortress. Good in their own right, but not exactly used for attacking major combat vessels like armed 'warships' .

A mass of heavy bombers is an impressive sight, but if I have a defending fleet on hand ready to fight... those bombers are flying targets. You got your full power capital ship returning fire on these slow manuevering bomberss, and these capital ship weapons hit extremely hard. Since these bombers aren't really capital ships, but compact weapons platforms, they would lack the equalizing defenses of a capital ship. And since they aren't fast and manueverable like fighters, what you really have is a slow moving, ineffective target. Thinking from a realistic standpoint of combat. (Try to get eveyone home alive!) Sending in such a design that could be easily performed by both fighters and full capital ships is suicidal. The craft is armored well enough to plow through fighter defenses... but can't dogfight with them, and has enough power to fight capital ships, but can't outlast them, and can't dodge the return fire so well.

The only effective role would be instalation hit and fade strikes against pre-softened targets and broken defenses, or suppressive assaults against under-defended targets. But not head to head with capital warships. That's the job of small fast attackers, fleets of medium warships, and matching capital class vessels.

[Pynchon]

I like that concept, Moxy.

There are tons of cool ships in x3, but there is never a sense that they were designed to work together. What would really add alot is the kind of interdependency you mention.

Large mASS Kickers.
Low ammo.
Redock-reload.
Still voteing for faster/lighter ship personally. We already have plenty of slow ships.

If its to be carrier based, then the modern naval strike paradigm of using multiple strike fighters (F/A-18) for single pass, high speed strikes makes most sense. One would think a carrier type asset would be defended by an M2 class, but still needs high speed survivable striking force for offensive use.

Plus, flying such a craft would be a hoot, having to RTB to reload would lend a very "naval" feeling to the missions.

[Blinki1984]

Concerning your request for a more detailed version.

At first I want to I think of bombers in an more modern concept. This means,
that "Bombers" should be less like a B52 and more like a tactical solution.

Aim: 1. Overcome or sneak through the enemys defence systems.
2. Deliver one or two good shots/Rockets at Turrets or shields
3. Return for rearm and repair.

This is the concept that was first used by the japanese during the pacific warefare, and later succesfully adapted by the USA. The Germans used Stukas, to pick their targets. Since The second worldwar every army is mostly using tactical bombers to attack picked targets.
Bigger Bombers can deliver more rockets, but are also more vunerable to
enemy fire.

The biggest disadvantage of bombers are their speed, since they have to carry big weapons, they can't fly as fast as their fighter counterparts.
So their sworn enemy are: Fighters and frigates.

Advantages: Small Fast cheap and hard to hit.

The size of a bomber should be the class of an M3 ("Nova etc")
Since the Tactical weapons use a lot of space no other defence weapons
exept the turret weapons could be carried at the same time.

Weapons.
Basicly there are three kind of weapons I would consider as bomber weapons, to cover all aspects.

1. Missiles.
Advantages: Autolock, differend kinds of warheads, distance
Disadvantages: Could be shot down, explosion range, max 4 Rockets
Types: Nuklear Warhead (S,M,L), Crouse Missile.

2.Massdrivers. (Big one)
Advantages; High speed, great against turrets
Disadvantages: Short range, max 20 Shots,
Types: 60mm gun (60 bullets) fires like M2A2, 120mm gun (20 bullets) like M1A2
ammunition: Uranium (against Hull), EMP (against shield

3. PulseWeapons
Advantages: Very destructive energy, no ammo,
Disatvantages: Very slow, 2 shots no energy -> long reload phase
Types: Some are better against hull and some against Shields.


The rockets are the most powerfull weapon, but hard to deliver, since they are easily shot down and the bomber need to keep its distants not to be affected by the explosion.

The Massdrivers are the first choice against turrets, since they are fast, and don't deal with shields.

And The Pulse weapons are best for continues attacks, since they can
reload by them selfs.

Good luck
Blinki1984

[-XTM-]

Ok, I got bored a little so I decided to make a Argon Bomber.
However, since this is my first fighter, I ended up with a Argonian X-Wing

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/ ... nl/M3B.jpg

She probably would not look halve bad ingame...3ds just sucks at displaying MAT6 textures...however, this design should not be taken seriously.

[doubleshadow]

my 2 cents:

You've mentioned "old school bombers" - they are really useless. You've mentioned "strike crafts". I think they are ok.

But imagine that you are designing a "capital ship killer". What do you want from it? I would want it to be
- extremly fast
- maneuverable
- undetectable
- very well armed
(well shielded - but in reallity no one expects the craft to be hit - except A-10/Su-25)
Sounds too "super"? No it does not. Everyone want's that. The only problem is that you cannot get all of this for reasonable price (at last in real world)

In X3 the "undetectable" is problematic so forget it.

So I think that we have 2 different approaches here which are probably most accurately represeted by:

A-10 - well armored, slow moving, very well maneuverable aircraft with (mostly) single purpose weapons. That's close to what are you describing above imho.

B-1 - very fast aricraft which relies on its ability to fly undetected in low altitudes at high speeds and then launch it's missiles/bombs.

I like the second more because you can make the ship/craft fast but not too maneuverable (thus preventing it from anti-fighter role) with some heavy weapons. the question is whether quick ship can avoid the capital ship fire in x3.

If you want projectice based weapons, then you can look at Ju-87 Stuka or Il-2 Sturmovnik or Mosquito (anti-ship version) or the howitzer used at AC-130.

All those planes used large caliber anti-material weapons.

Projectile based weapon used in space can be probably based on iron slug accelerated by electromagnetic means to some insane speed. Of course the same princip could be used to stop such bullet. Another approach would be to use non-magnetic material (such as titatium), but this material is light and it had to be accelerated by other means.

Note that the weapon should have a corresponding caliber-to-ship-size ratio. You cannot fire 50mm projectiles to 1000m length ship and hope to succeed (unless the energy would be really great, but even then the damage would probably be only "local").

The main problem with "designing" anti-capital ship craft is, that in "real" space, such ship would be invincible. Look at todays carriers or missile cruisers. They have 2 major weak spots:
- They cannot watch under water (not too well)
- they ability to detect flying targets is limited at low levels (near ground)

- another weak spot is that the anti-missile systems have short range and thus they have a little time to react to incoming threat. I think that Phalanx based CIWS cannot destroy more than 2 missiles simultaneously - its "operational window" is from 1 to 2 seconds (Goalkeeper is probably better as it is using GAU-8 )

But space-based capital ship would not have any of these limtations. It would have enough power to supply its LONG range sensors. There would probably be no range limit for the CIWS as well. Of course there is no direction so no underwater suprises or dive-bombing.

Truth is that X series never care about "reality" but there must be some quide lines - some limits. If no one else then we have to make them in order to make some good mods.

Anyway, someone should first test whether adding another "mass driver" is possible othervise this talk is lost of time