Re: Naval vessels

> > >  6) MORE EXPENSIVE HARDPOINTS: This will also cure the problem with 30kt
> > >freighters who have a missile turret on every hardpoint "since they are
> > >practically free compared to the cost of the ship". Each hardpoint should
> > >cause a noticable percentage increase in hull cost and weight due to
> > >reinforcements (This is BTW the reason why we don't see any supertankers
> > >mounting 10 127mm naval guns today). A spinal mount should lead to such
> > >extreme increases in hull weight and cost that it would be impossible to
> > >make a spinal-mount armed vessel above, say 40kt, unthinkably expensive
> > >between 30 and 40kt, and very expensive between 20 and 30kt.
>
> A better way is to consider the price of missiles.  At Cr50000 each, a bay
> shoots off MCr1.25 with each volley.  As to supertankers and guns, I must
> point out that missile racks and lasers are recoilless weapons, and would
> not require structural reinforcement.

  This would affect the PC's capability of popping off missiles like pop-corn
too so it has it's disadvantages.

  Why keep all missiles equal: Striker assumes that bay missiles are 25cm
diameter while turret missiles are just 15cm diameter. It would be easy to
increase the size of the missiles. A cubical 50ton bay should be 8.7 meters
in each axis, so bay missiles could easily be as big as modern-day torpedoes
(even the type 65 650mm:) and carry warheads of up to 500kg.

> Rob Dean

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."