Building a "strategic bomber" unit

[theagent]

The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".

[Hellraiser]

I'd think that it's better to make the omnifighter that is designed to be intended to take the role, though. Having the temporary quirk is somewhat weird without a good reason.
...
Although I wonder that the fighter still have enough space to add the guns to be suffered by the negative quirk, but it is makes sense at least.

Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.

The problem with using Cargo space for bombs is that you can't just dump them.  IIRC, there are rules for unloaded Cargo from a Cargo Bay, which preclude their use in combat as a "poor-man's bomb bay".

Hence the idea to use the quirks for an Omni-fighter.     The temp quirk is there to represent racks.
Cargo for bombs is exactly how they are used normally.  The internal bay is set up with a cargo tonnage & the bombs fill that.

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Oh sure, but I was suggesting it as a way to use canon units & only be a custom pod or scenario specific rule for a campaign, v/s creating whole new units from scratch.

As for the Guns, I was thinking the quirk would apply to the bombs themselves. 
That weapon modifier would be to those, not any small guns the thing still carried.
So instead of applying it to an Gauss Rifle or LRM-20 you would apply it to the bomb bay.

Although I will raise the hand for the using the other weapons, but that's makes sense more than my one. Still, it's risky a bit, for Internal Bomb Bay already gives the unit a situational penalty on bombing. So not even 10+ to explodes on a lower side but also every single bombing requires an another roll that jams at 10~11 and explodes at 12 seems too harsh.

Well, Inaccurate Weapon is too difficult to apply on here(-1 points per every 5 damage points on a weapon) so I wonder that which one is better to replace that either. Perhaps, since bombs are must be one-use weapons(unless you put a TAG on it), for OS missiles have about 20% of BV than its normal versions should the rack enough to carry the bombs worth for 25 damage total gives the pods -1 point each?

The quirk for bomb bay really should be represented by a piece of gear, not a quirk.
Based on the difference between a Regular v/s a OS-Missile Rack, I'm thinking the Bomb Rack should be 1/2 ton item.
I mean, you already get "Free" external racks at the cost of speed, so an "Internal" one should be fairly light outside of the devoted "Cargo" space.

With that weight, you could also expect for lack of a problem for the chance of internal explosion on a 10+ against lower hits on the same turn when it makes a bombing run. Anyway that's more like the houserule so it is not the place to discuss that.

[Vehrec]

An 18-ton missile is huge, and is even heavier than a fully-loaded X-15.  Even testing large ballistic missiles on B-52s resulted in missiles in the 5-ton range, and the same holds true for Russian and Chinese tests.

I could only find onel larger attempt, dropping a 30-ton Minuteman ICBM out the back of a C-5 and air-lighting it, which was evidently attempted only once.

As for glide bombs, can't we drop homing Arrow IV missiles?

The Arrow IV isn't quite a glide bomb, any more than it's a proper theater-SAM.  Even if it was acceptable in the role (it's very heavy for a bomb with a wing-kit) it's range is very disappointing, only able to get a couple of hexes away from it's launch position even if dropped very high and very fast. 

The Poor Arrow IV has too man hats, to be honest.  It's an anti-ship missile.  It's a heavy Anti-air weapon.  It's a hypersonic glide vehicle, it's an air-launched cruise missile, it's a Surface-to-Air missile, it's a mine dispenser, it's a mine-clearing weapon, it's everything to every job.  And if you load it on a plane, its weight increases 25-fold.  I shouldn't be to harsh on it-but its clear that the air combat game is very much not the focus.  Which makes strategic air combat even harder to do.

[Takiro]

Brings me back to the heady days of the Small Craft bomber discussions we had. Those were the days.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=20786.msg464540#msg464540

[EPG]

Watching "Masters of the Air" has reignited an old interest in bombers and strategic bombing. I know it's not just me. I'm seeing this come up a lot more across the internet.

Alongside that has come a thought and question about how that kind of unit and role might be replicated in Battletech. Not so much as a tabletop thing obviously, this might be more of a fan non-canon unit project.

I know in general, what most are doing is simply taking ASFs of all types and adding bombs when some version of a ground attack or bombing mission arises. So the reality is aerial platforms capable of doing different things, different missions.

But let's say for sake of discussion that a Great House or mercs or some other faction was looking to build a unit that was as specialized as possible to fulfill a strategic bomber mission. What do you think that looks like? What might that consist of?

I don't have a specific era or faction in mind. Or BV or any other details like that. If those details are helpful, feel free to plug in answers yourself.

I will go ahead and already say, I'm already aware of the Torrent (I believe the only actual strategic bomber in the BT universe? Correct me if I'm wrong). Could definitely see a unit built around those. So that option and possibility already has a check mark next to it in my mind. Looking beyond that.

EDIT: And let's just not get into things like how warships or PWS can do this from orbit. Already know that. That's not what I'm asking.

Just found this thread. 

The problem with the ‘strategic bomber’ is that there aren’t any practical missions for it.  Using masses of unguided bombs against defended enemy targets was attempted one time in history in WWII, and it failed (or eventually succeeded at horrific cost in materiel and casualties depending on what data you believe) it hasn’t been attempted since then because the results aren’t worth it. 

Every single bombing campaign ever conducted since then has been performed after air superiority was achieved.  These can then be broken into 2 categories:

Attempted strategic bombing with air superiority and unguided bombs.  This was tried (Korean war, Vietnam war) and while the casualties weren’t so bad the results still weren’t worth it. 

Strategic bombing with guided bombs and air superiority (basically all wars since Vietnam and a tiny bit of the end of the Vietnam war)

There’s no need for fleets of aircraft or even individual aircraft carrying dozens and dozens of bombs.  Send one aircraft, with 1-2 bombs per target.  Hit those targets and go home. 

All of the ‘strategic’ bombers that exist today, exist for one of two objectives:  firing nuclear cruise missiles from a stand-off range;  orbiting an area of combat operations non stop for as long as they have fuel and dropping bombs on demand to delete things the ground forces find.

These are roles which ARE in fact filled perfectly by orbital bombardment - or somewhat less perfectly by an aerospace fighter waiting outside the gravity well to conserve fuel, then dropping in and planting a few bombs on the right spot in demand. 

Anything involving hitting combat units directly is tactical bombing and isn’t covered in the definition of strategic bombing.

[Hellraiser]

- or somewhat less perfectly by an aerospace fighter waiting outside the gravity well to conserve fuel, then dropping in and planting a few bombs on the right spot in demand.   

Good Points

Since Ortillery is limited in what is available from WS/PWS which are rare or unavailable depending on the era,  I prefer this suggestion.

It's almost like the Vengeance being Non-Atmospheric in design was specific for this role.
  (Take up orbit & have 1 Squadron loaded w/ bombs & available to go on rotating shifts.)

That's how I use it anyway.

[EPG]

Good Points

Since Ortillery is limited in what is available from WS/PWS which are rare or unavailable depending on the era,  I prefer this suggestion.

It's almost like the Vengeance being Non-Atmospheric in design was specific for this role.
  (Take up orbit & have 1 Squadron loaded w/ bombs & available to go on rotating shifts.)

That's how I use it anyway.

Personally I had never thought of it til this thread came up, but once I thought about the orbiting B-52 tactic the US used in Afghanistan it came to me as a logical extension of that sort of capability with space access.

I agree that a vengeance would be perfect for this sort of activity.  Park it in a stable orbit and it’s a perfect ‘base’ for an invading force that wants rapid response times for a wide variety of surface actions.  Eventually a ‘real’ surface base would be nice for certain types of repair and maintenance, and to get your people into gravity for R&R but it’s basically perfect while the action is hot and heavy.

[Daryk]

Just make sure you take the Internal Bomb Bay quirk for ASF doing that... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

[Hellraiser]

... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

I totally forgot about that. 
That does limit the use of orbital fighters a bit.

[Hellraiser]

Park it in a stable orbit and it’s a perfect ‘base’ for an invading force that wants rapid response times for a wide variety of surface actions.  Eventually a ‘real’ surface base would be nice for certain types of repair and maintenance, and to get your people into gravity for R&R but it’s basically perfect while the action is hot and heavy. 

Any force large enough to have a Vengeance tagging along probably has loads of Mech/Tank carriers that landed & set up an LZ with a surface base.
And with that in mind probably has fighters from those operating enough to keep some loaded w/ bombs for ground support missions.

[Weirdo]

Just make sure you take the Internal Bomb Bay quirk for ASF doing that... you can't take external stores from space into an atmosphere.

Yes you can. The only effect bombs have on reentry is that critted bombs make the reentry control roll more difficult.

[Daryk]

You can?  When did that change?

[EPG]

I totally forgot about that. 
That does limit the use of orbital fighters a bit.

They could still do air superiority and strafing missions though I guess the fighters designated for bomber duty would have to use land based airfields.

[EPG]

Any force large enough to have a Vengeance tagging along probably has loads of Mech/Tank carriers that landed & set up an LZ with a surface base.
And with that in mind probably has fighters from those operating enough to keep some loaded w/ bombs for ground support missions.

Fighters operating from space still have a fast reaction response edge though the whole takeoff and gain altitude process is just not there - all you have to do is launch and do a full burn straight into the target area with as many G’s as the pilot and airframe can handle. 

[Cannonshop]

You can?  When did that change?

He may be looking at the Teacher's Edition of the Errata, Daryk.  aka the unreleased changes coming up.

[Daryk]

I checked my latest version of TW before I posted that, so it's been there for some time... I just hadn't noticed (to my embarrassment)... :(

[Zematus737]

I checked my latest version of TW before I posted that, so it's been there for some time... I just hadn't noticed (to my embarrassment)... :(

I did find the limitation I think you were referring to on pg.91 of SO:AA under Bomb Munitions.  But it was concerning orbital to surface attacks and not movement with the munitions through the interface.

[Daryk]

Hmmm... that might have been what I was thinking of?  It's been a while (obviously).

[Liam's Ghost]

Before Aerotech 2, bombs were prohibited on fighters crossing the interface. This even got a very brief mention in the novel Natural Selection, where at Arc Royal they know the Red Corsair's fighters won't be carrying any bombs because they were coming in from space.

Aerotech 2 (or Aerotech 2 Revised) changed that, and even included aerofighters crossing the interface with a bombload in its introductory fiction.

So, you know, people can be excused for misremembering when the laws of reality themselves sometimes change.

[Colt Ward]

I think people are confusing tactical bombers with strategic bombers.

Strategic bombers went after different targets than tactical and were created for a simple reason- range.  The Allies created heavy bombers b/c that was the size needed to get the range with a significant payload.

Strategic bombers in BT would be small craft.  ASF lack the life support to range across a system.  Planet-wide coverage in BT should not be considered "strategic" range.  Tech advances would allow a fusion powered VTOL what we currently consider "strategic" range IRL but the tech advances of BT invalidates our definition.

FREX, systems with multiple inhabited worlds could see a strategic bomber strike at a 2nd world's spaceport to keep reinforcements from being sent for the invasion of the first.  A fleet passing through a system could send small craft to strike at infrastructure in a system while recharging jump engines.

[Zematus737]

I think people are confusing tactical bombers with strategic bombers.

The definition for strategic, as far as Battletech goes, usually is in reference to system wide operations that involve or take place in space.  Tactical for anything in atmosphere and below.  So, anything coming in from orbit to make an attack on surface or targets in air would technically be strategic.  But the historical context is still interesting.

On a side note, I'm having a hard time understanding how internal stores can be used strategically if aerospace fighters (which I'm assuming is the unit being discussed as being the most efficient unit for this) are limited to front arc weapons.  See Airborne to Surface pg.96 last bullet point.  All thoughts aside for the ridiculous per hex modifiers for this.

[Cannonshop]

I think what Colt's referring to, is the difference between Doctrine, and "I want a really big equivalent to a B-52!"

aka doctrine focus vs. gear focus.

anything that can loft an Arrow IV (or alamo) can be treated, under one doctrine or another, as a 'strategic bomber'.

Doctrine decides what is, and isn't, and that means defining what you wish to accomplish with your bombing assets and campaign-what your over-all Strategic Doctrine is. 

See?  This can be anything from slapping together a 70,000 ton dropship that has nothing but armor, point defenses, engines, and bomb bays, to taking a minimalist smallcraft with a big fuel tank, big engine, and lots of thrust with a bomb bay or even external hardpoints suitable for carrying ordnance.

It's all determined by your doctrine and what you're intent on accomplishing.

The romantic vision of strategic bombing in the 20th and 21st centuries is built around a type of conflict that isn't really prevalent in Battletech.  what kind of conflict? the kind where intercontinental distance is actually a long way to go, and not an afternoon's suborbital hop in a civilian shuttle, it's an environment where armies have to march to get places, where both sides are wrapped in the same atmosphere, under the same gravity, on the same world.

That's not the setting.  so he presents an image of what would BE strategic bombing when your sides are separated not by a massive water puddle and some mountains, but by interplanetary or even interstellar distances.

This is kind of what's bothered me about the OP's question;  he doesn't actually define the usage before asking for proposed ideas for the equipment.

Before you can build a strategic bombing unit, you need to define what Strategic Bombing has become in the 31st (or 32nd, or 28th) century, and how that differs from Tactical air power or naval bombardments.

[Alan Grant]

My perspective on strategic doctrine in the 20th and 21st centuries is framed a little differently.

You are absolutely correct that it revolves around a doctrine. Not just a technology or capability. I would 100% agree that just range or a weapon system doesn't constitute it. Yes the technology advanced to a point. But then someone drafted a doctrine that was adopted. At that point funding and resources were allocated and this became a fully fledged concept.

But my interpretation of strategic bombing doctrine, particularly from the 20th century was the belief that it could bring an enemy to its knees almost all by itself. That's what some were arguing about the strategic bombing during WW2 (on the most extreme end a few people thought it could end a war without the Army, most were skeptical of this, viewing it as taking the new concept to too far an extreme). The reasonable version was that it could wreck industry, supply lines and break an enemy's ability and willingness to continue to wage a war.

That's what some of the advocates of strategic bombing during later conflicts like Korea and Vietnam were saying as well. They were arguing that this tool alone could bring an enemy to the negotiation table.

Quite often they were wrong. It never achieved its marketed ability to be a war-winning tool by itself. At least not without atomic weaponry.

In later years this shifted. There was a strategic campaign during Operation Desert Storm that deserves study.

I found a US Air Force document on the strategic bombing of that conflict that provides a list of "core" targets of the strategic bombing campaign during Desert Storm. They were:

1. National Leadership
2. Military and civilian command, control and communication
3. Electrical power generation
4. Oil refineries, distribution and storage
5. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (storage, construction etc.)
6. Military support (research, storage of arms)
7. Scud ballistic missiles

The same document noted how strategic bombing had changed. It noted that the big B-52s were being employed against Republican Guard divisions in the field, to weaken tactical targets as what it calls the "Battlefield Preparation" phase of the air war. While the F-117s with their laser guided bombs were being used against strategic targets.

The authors of that document were clearly trying to note the irony of that, but also used it as a case study for how strategic bombing had evolved.

Based on that, I think the nature of the target defines the strategic/tactical boundary more than anything. Not range or some other factor.  If you are knocking out C3 and power grids with a handful of laser guided bombs, that's strategic bombing. If you are trying to smash a multi-regimental planetary militia force from the air by bombing their troops/positions/bases/depots with dozens of HE, cluster and inferno bombs, that's tactical bombing.

I think this continues to hold up pretty well for Battletech. The volume of firepower doesn't matter. Whether it's 1 laser guided bomb or an orbital bombardment or a nuke. It's what you are aiming it at that defines what this is. If you are aiming it at a tank, it's tactical. At a power plant, it's strategic.

If the tank is beside a power plant in a city and that attack will smash both, yes the lines get blurry at best.

[Daryk]

Before Aerotech 2, bombs were prohibited on fighters crossing the interface. This even got a very brief mention in the novel Natural Selection, where at Arc Royal they know the Red Corsair's fighters won't be carrying any bombs because they were coming in from space.

Aerotech 2 (or Aerotech 2 Revised) changed that, and even included aerofighters crossing the interface with a bombload in its introductory fiction.

So, you know, people can be excused for misremembering when the laws of reality themselves sometimes change.

Thanks for letting me know I'm not totally crazy Liam! :)

[EPG]

My perspective on strategic doctrine in the 20th and 21st centuries is framed a little differently.

You are absolutely correct that it revolves around a doctrine. Not just a technology or capability. I would 100% agree that just range or a weapon system doesn't constitute it. Yes the technology advanced to a point. But then someone drafted a doctrine that was adopted. At that point funding and resources were allocated and this became a fully fledged concept.

But my interpretation of strategic bombing doctrine, particularly from the 20th century was the belief that it could bring an enemy to its knees almost all by itself. That's what some were arguing about the strategic bombing during WW2 (on the most extreme end a few people thought it could end a war without the Army, most were skeptical of this, viewing it as taking the new concept to too far an extreme). The reasonable version was that it could wreck industry, supply lines and break an enemy's ability and willingness to continue to wage a war.

That's what some of the advocates of strategic bombing during later conflicts like Korea and Vietnam were saying as well. They were arguing that this tool alone could bring an enemy to the negotiation table.

Quite often they were wrong. It never achieved its marketed ability to be a war-winning tool by itself. At least not without atomic weaponry.

In later years this shifted. There was a strategic campaign during Operation Desert Storm that deserves study.

I found a US Air Force document on the strategic bombing of that conflict that provides a list of "core" targets of the strategic bombing campaign during Desert Storm. They were:

1. National Leadership
2. Military and civilian command, control and communication
3. Electrical power generation
4. Oil refineries, distribution and storage
5. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (storage, construction etc.)
6. Military support (research, storage of arms)
7. Scud ballistic missiles

The same document noted how strategic bombing had changed. It noted that the big B-52s were being employed against Republican Guard divisions in the field, to weaken tactical targets as what it calls the "Battlefield Preparation" phase of the air war. While the F-117s with their laser guided bombs were being used against strategic targets.

The authors of that document were clearly trying to note the irony of that, but also used it as a case study for how strategic bombing had evolved.

Based on that, I think the nature of the target defines the strategic/tactical boundary more than anything. Not range or some other factor.  If you are knocking out C3 and power grids with a handful of laser guided bombs, that's strategic bombing. If you are trying to smash a multi-regimental planetary militia force from the air by bombing their troops/positions/bases/depots with dozens of HE, cluster and inferno bombs, that's tactical bombing.

I think this continues to hold up pretty well for Battletech. The volume of firepower doesn't matter. Whether it's 1 laser guided bomb or an orbital bombardment or a nuke. It's what you are aiming it at that defines what this is. If you are aiming it at a tank, it's tactical. At a power plant, it's strategic.

If the tank is beside a power plant in a city and that attack will smash both, yes the lines get blurry at best.

I agree with this - type of target determines the difference between strategic and tactical bombing.  During tje WWII era and ~ 20 years afterward, the right equipment go strategic bombing had to be really really large, because the bombing is extremely inaccurate, to the point where 100 bomber attacks often failed to hit a target.  Lest you think this was resolved post WWII, it was not. 
https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/first-laser-bombs-bust-dragons-jaw   

 One key bridge in the Hanoi area the Thanh HOA ‘Dragons Jaw’ of northern Vietnam stayed up despite multiple repeated major attempts by the US to bring it down.  Between 1965 and 1972 the bridge stayed in service throughout repeated attacks with only a few short periods of extra maintenance due to the bombing.  After nearly a decade of attempts to bring the bridge down, it was blown up completely by a flight of 16 F4 phantoms with 29 tons of bombs.

Following on that success they dropped over 100 other bridges in single attacks that had heretofore survived the entire war.

Basically the old concept of what a strategic bomber meant from a hardware concept no longer existed after this mission.

[Colt Ward]

But it does shift back to equipment IMO because as I mentioned ASF do not have the range in fuel or life support to range through a system w/o having a carrier.  One of the things that let previously tactical fighter/bombers strike strategic targets is mid-air refueling.  RANGE always dictates what craft gets used.  Vietnam is a bad example b/c it is a coastal county unable to protect their waters which allowed carriers to get close.

[Hellraiser]

One of the things that let previously tactical fighter/bombers strike strategic targets is mid-air refueling. 

To an extent I would say that applies to strategic bombers like the B-52 as well.
Your not going from West USA to SE Asia w/o a refuel or stopping at Hawaii.
They offer more distance but they still aren't trans-global the way an ASF can with a boost up out of the atmosphere.

As you noted, for intersystem small craft could be used, but really, I'd probably designate something like a Leo-CV to that task in case multiple waves are needed.
Smallcraft Squadron seems like a 1-shot attempt v/s the Leo & ASF Squadron can refuel/rearm if needed.

[Cannonshop]

To an extent I would say that applies to strategic bombers like the B-52 as well.
Your not going from West USA to SE Asia w/o a refuel or stopping at Hawaii.
They offer more distance but they still aren't trans-global the way an ASF can with a boost up out of the atmosphere.

As you noted, for intersystem small craft could be used, but really, I'd probably designate something like a Leo-CV to that task in case multiple waves are needed.
Smallcraft Squadron seems like a 1-shot attempt v/s the Leo & ASF Squadron can refuel/rearm if needed.

The smallcraft may have the advantage in terms of stealth, since the engine thrust cone is going to be significantly smaller and they can be dispersed/spread out to make interception significantly more difficult in the event of detection.

[Daryk]

*snip*
Vietnam is a bad example b/c it is a coastal county unable to protect their waters which allowed carriers to get close.

Well, "close" in the Naval sense at any rate...