Starhawk LRSB

[Retry]

Code: [Select]

Starhawk LRSB
Type: Military Aerodyne
Mass: 200 tons
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Introduced: 2750
Mass: 200
Battle Value: 1,728
Tech Rating/Availability: D/D-E-D-D
Cost: 10,180,000 C-bills
Fuel: 19.5 tons (1,560)
Safe Thrust: 6
Maximum Thrust: 9
Heat Sinks: 1
Structural Integrity: 9
Armor
     Nose: 201
     Sides: 171/171
     Aft: 141
Cargo
Bay 1: Cargo (18.0 tons) 1 Door
Bay 2: Cargo (18.0 tons) 1 Door
Escape Pods: 0
Life Boats: 0
Crew: 1 officer, 2 enlisted/non-rated
Ammunition: None
Notes: Mounts 40.5 tons of standard aerospace armor.
None
Weapons
and Ammo Location Tonnage Heat SRV MRV LRV ERV
Features the following design quirks: Fast Reload , Internal Bomb Bay
A small craft version of the Torch, the Starhawk was intended to carry a payload of 6 anti-ship missiles to destroy hostile Dropships and Warships.

(No, I don't remember what LRSB stands for)

[Lagrange]

(No, I don't remember what LRSB stands for)

Long Range Strategic Bomber would make sense.

My only complaint is that it's not 7/11.  5.5g typically has much better overtake than 4.5g.

[Daryk]

1 HS seems low for the size engine a 6/9 Small Craft would have... ?

[Lagrange]

1 HS seems low for the size engine a 6/9 Small Craft would have... ?

It's an aerodyne---heat sinks scale linearly in size and SC are on the wrong end of linear.

[Daryk]

I'll double check in the morning, but you're probably right...

[Daryk]

Hmmm... per Tech Manual (page 185), your base movement factor is 200 x 6 = 1200.  On the same page, your engine weight is thus 0.065 x 1200 = 78 tons.  Per page 193, you get "weight-free heat sinks" equal to your engine weight divided by 20 (rounded down) for Military Aerodynes.  That would be 3, not 1.

[Lagrange]

That would be 3, not 1.

Checks out.

[DevianID]

Does it need to be that fast though?  Considering you could launch these for 10 days only at 1g, a slower speed would be more fuel, more missiles, secondary weapons/functions, ect.

Since they have no secondary weapons or anything, it feels like aerospace fighters could do the same thing but be more disposable and easier to produce in numbers on the short range intercept role.

Now, a starhawk with only a 3/5 speed would double the missile payload for example, or triple the range.

[Liam's Ghost]

Does it need to be that fast though?  Considering you could launch these for 10 days only at 1g, a slower speed would be more fuel, more missiles, secondary weapons/functions, ect.

Since they have no secondary weapons or anything, it feels like aerospace fighters could do the same thing but be more disposable and easier to produce in numbers on the short range intercept role.

Now, a starhawk with only a 3/5 speed would double the missile payload for example, or triple the range.

Depends on how you're intercepting your target.

If you're doing a head on pass over a long range, then no, acceleration isn't as important. You build up your velocity on the way.

If you're trying to overhaul a target, then yes, because you need to be accelerating faster than your opponent.

(Bonus option: If you're using it as a long range strategic bomber against a planetary target, then you absolutely need the extra thrust, because you're not going to have escorts and you need to have enough thrust to scream in and out like a bat out of hell past any interceptors)

Personally, I think higher thrust capacity gives you more options for how to intercept your opponent.