[S-99]

That would make it nicer. Hell, i wonder if costs would be kept down by putting a blob turret on the back? Just any kind of turret would help on a turretless bomber.

[Gamma_Draconis]

No blob turret. Even if that thing will only slow the bomber down by 1 km/s, it's nothing but an oversized water balloon launcher. They need a Subach or Kayser turret. Or maybe some next generation blob turrets.

[S-99]

At least a morning star. Of course having a blob turret would be really bad. But, it'd be better than nothing. Assuming that blob turrets are a lot cheaper than the advanced lasers and plasma that fighters use. And i believe the subach is going to be the next generation blob turret, they're cheap to produce, more than plentiful, and the smaller ships besides fighters are sporting them.

But, a blob turret would be better than nothing to have on the back of a bomber since bomber designs are phasing out turrets period. Instead of phasing them out completely i'd at least try to keep a turret as long as possible no matter how crappy it would become before phasing it out. I mean all of the bombers with turrets have kaysers, a step down from that prometheus, maxim, etc. whatever. Or hell, if you want a turret that's as ****ty as the blob turrets but actually shoots fast and shakes up a target in the least i'd want a morning star turret. A morning star turret would still keep the enemies off your back really good too.

[jr2]

Which is cheaper:

a) A bomber with a turret
b) A bomber without a turret, plus another (couple?) to replace it when it goes boom.

[S-99]

A bomber without a turret of course. But, when it comes down to making a bomber with a turret that's cheaper than making an old style bomber with a turret the possibilities are endless. For making cheaper turrets like i said a while ago, you could go with something like the subach or the morning star. Both are annoying as hell and good at keeping fighters away, the kayser turret on the other hand is annoying in the factor that one hit from it causes crazy damage and fighters will want to stay away. The standard turret on a bomber should be replaced with something annoying but cheap, subach could do the job, but the morning star may be a better venture.

[jr2]

So 3 bombers w/out rets = 1 with?

[Oddgrim]

One bomber with a morningstar turret will have better survivability then 3 bombers without a turret. 

[TrashMan]

True. the morningstar would actually be the perfect turret weapon for a bomber.
It prevents the enemy fighter from shooting at you with it's primaries, knocks him around buying the bomber time. And time is all it needs

[Gamma_Draconis]

I was thinking the GTVA should develop a new fighter-bomber to replace the Athena. I can imagine a fighter built with a single primary and only one secondary missile bank. The missile bank would be capable of carrying 2 Helios torpedoes but can also carry Harpoons if the operation calls for a dogfight situation. With advancements in support ships, perhaps they can even tradeout your missile loadout. Imagine a sleek medium size fighter-bomber capable of performing lighting fast strikes with torpedoes while still being able to handle fighters.

This new fighter-bomber would be issued to elite SOC squadrons, and maybe even be incorporated into a fighter-bomber division.

[TrashMan]

Just expand the 2nd secondary bay on the Athena

[Androgeos Exeunt]

True. the morningstar would actually be the perfect turret weapon for a bomber.
It prevents the enemy fighter from shooting at you with it's primaries, knocks him around buying the bomber time. And time is all it needs

Hmm...that's a thought, and I think that getting hit my a Morningstar can delay aspect lock as well. However, I doubt the Morningstar is that cheap to produce, as compared to Subachs and Mekhus, both of which are "standard weaponry.

This gives me an idea...why not mount Mekhus on turrets? After all, Mekhus have a high fire rate and do decent damage.

I was thinking the GTVA should develop a new fighter-bomber to replace the Athena. I can imagine a fighter built with a single primary and only one secondary missile bank. The missile bank would be capable of carrying 2 Helios torpedoes but can also carry Harpoons if the operation calls for a dogfight situation. With advancements in support ships, perhaps they can even tradeout your missile loadout. Imagine a sleek medium size fighter-bomber capable of performing lighting fast strikes with torpedoes while still being able to handle fighters.

This new fighter-bomber would be issued to elite SOC squadrons, and maybe even be incorporated into a fighter-bomber division.

You're reminding me of the Jotun, only in a more mobile package. I was thinking that Inferno Release 1's GTB Danaus fits this description quite well.

[Kosh]

Appearently the successor to the Athena was the Zues. By the time FS2 rolls around, the Artemis is the successor to the Zues (although it's primaries need serious revisions).

[S-99]

What's with that, the athena has really awesome firing points, and the artemis has ****.

[Snail]

You're reminding me of the Jotun, only in a more mobile package. I was thinking that Inferno Release 1's GTB Danaus fits this description quite well.

The Jotun was just one stupidly big warhead lobber. The Danaus looked fast but its afterburners were a big failure IMO.

[mr.WHO]

I always tread Artemis as Athena sucessor.

IMO  Sekhmet > Artemis.
I just love to fly that ship and it's the only Vasudan craft that I can stand flying it (Maybe sometimes Tauret, but I prefer terran Mara or Erinyes, or Ares).

[TrashMan]

What's with that, the athena has really awesome firing points, and the artemis has ****.

Well, obviously the GTVA design in the lightning bomber category is declining.
That's, or whoever in command was responsible for approving contracts for fighters/bombers was an idiot..which doesn't surprise anyone.

[haloboy100]

command fails again.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

As always.

I always tread Artemis as Athena sucessor.

IMO  Sekhmet > Artemis.
I just love to fly that ship and it's the only Vasudan craft that I can stand flying it (Maybe sometimes Tauret, but I prefer terran Mara or Erinyes, or Ares).

I don't mind flying a Sekhmet, but when it comes to bombers, I usually choose the Ursa.

For fighters, the order is a bit like this, from most favourite to least: Ares, Mara, Tauret, Seth, Pegasus, Erinyes, Ptah, Herc, Herc II, Perseus, Serapis, Horus.

[mr.WHO]

From what I see, you don't like inteceptors much 

Perseus and "Suicide kings"  RLZ   

[Kosh]

I think that bomber turrets should be changed to flak turrets.