Ah, rats. Oh well, it never hurts to dream that it could have been miniaturized sufficiently.
Yup. It's called Warhammer.
You're welcome.
I was curious and did some (relatively) empirical testing.
Conditions:
Aggressor - UEB Durga
Range - Approx 2100m
Weapon - Warhammer swarm bomb
AI class: BP-Colonel
vs. Hyperion cruiser:
Sides are impenetrable. 50 salvos (400 bombs) out of 50 shot down by point defenses.
Top approach equally futile. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Bottom approach futile. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Front approach surprisingly futile. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Back is the weak point, no appreciable coverage.
vs. Chimera corvette:
Side approach free of holes. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Ditto for the top. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Bottom is well-covered. 50/50 salvos shot down.
Direct frontal approach is almost completely vulnerable.
Back approach has some coverage, but on a rough estimate approx 50%-80% of bombs get through.
vs. Bellerophon:
50/50 side approach bomb salvos shot down. Side approach on a Bellerophon is suicide thanks to placement of AAA beams.
50/50 top approach bomb salvos shot down.
50/50 bottom approach bomb salvos shot down.
As with the Chimera, front arc is almost completely uncovered and the aft coverage is woeful.
vs. Deimos, retrofitted with BP-era weaponry:
50/50 side salvos shot down.
Top coverage is easily overwhelmed.
50/50 bottom salvos shot down.
Again, the front is extremely vulnerable, although getting in the way of the business end of a slash beam makes the front approach a risky endeavor.
50/50 back salvos shot down; the Deimos is frightful from the back, and the ship most capable of protecting its engines from bombs.
Some interesting observations: the Hyperion cruiser is a nightmare to attack. The Chimera and Bellerophon seem to me to be flawed designs in combat with the UEF because the front beam emitters are almost completely defenseless. The Chimera probably has the worst overall point defense coverage. The Bellerophon is AAA beamrape except from the front and back. Besides having less than optimal anti-capital armament, the Deimos is just as competent in anti-strikecraft defense as its newer counterparts, especially when its missile launchers are armed with things that don't suck, although that's another discussion entirely.
After firing about 5000 total Warhammers, firing them at areas covered by point defenses still has dubious results, since the turrets will prioritize incoming warheads over any other targets. Depending on the ship and coverage area, some of these point defenses could likely handle 2-3x the volume of Warhammers that I was able to fire at them without breaking a sweat, and the low damage of individual Warhammer warheads makes the attrition rate an interesting data point. If I were a UEF analyst, I would deem it unacceptable. Yes, the test is flawed because the conditions absolutely don't reflect a battle environment, but when you start adding variables, it's hard to stop. If you're able to choose your angle of approach to fire at the weak points of the vessel you're attacking, you don't need Warhammers anyway. Warhammers are an attempt to compensate for less-than-ideal firing conditions.
I maintain my observation that BP-era point defenses are frighteningly competent.
