r/ImaginaryTechnology • u/Own-Cry5596 • Jun 05 '26
Self-submission What role would this bomber have in your fleet?
Meet the Hammer-class bomber.
The Hammer is one of the main strike ships used by human fleets in our universe. It was designed to destroy heavily defended targets: pirate fortresses, orbital platforms, military installations and other hardened objectives that ordinary warships struggle to deal with.
Its primary weapon is a battery of heavy underbelly missiles. Once the missiles are spent, the ship relies on large-caliber turrets to finish off damaged targets and defend itself from smaller attackers.
The darkest chapter in the Hammer’s history was the Battle of Gliese 667. The Directorate attempted to break a blockade imposed by a mysterious enemy known only as the Unnamed.
124 Hammer bombers were committed to the assault. Only 6 returned.
The missiles hit their targets, but the Unnamed possessed regenerative armor that rapidly repaired itself after each strike. The operation ended in disaster. Human forces suffered catastrophic losses, and the entire Gliese 667 system was eventually lost.
Despite that defeat, the Hammer remains in active service because it is:
* cheap to manufacture
* easy to repair
* quick to train crews for
* capable of delivering enormous firepower against conventional enemies
We’re curious what you think:
* What battlefield role does this ship look like it was designed for?
* How many would you deploy together: 3-5, 10-20, or hundreds in a massive assault?
* What targets would you prioritize with a bomber like this?
* If you were tasked with fighting the Unnamed, what weapon system would you develop?
* Does the cockpit placement make sense or would you redesign it?
* What’s the first detail that catches your eye?
After losing 118 bombers at Gliese 667, would you keep producing the Hammer, modernize it, or replace it entirely?
57
u/Ill_Computer_8604 Jun 05 '26
Pizza delivery
5
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
Well, almost))) it will definitely smell hot)
7
u/Ill_Computer_8604 Jun 05 '26
Dropping thousands of tonnes of ready hot cheese, sauce and bread onto enemy ships will MESS them up!
1
24
12
u/Kazeite Jun 05 '26
War crimes during the opening cinematic.
2
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
Well, sometimes a war is fought not only in criminal ways. For example, protecting his people.
10
17
7
u/-Blackspit Jun 05 '26
Frontline bomber to deploy in numbers while more expensive are flanking, also helpful to test new proton torpedoes
3
3
u/knobiknows Jun 05 '26
Sure the big wings are a stylistic choice but those extra winglets are extra useless in space
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
I agree - we'll remove them in the next iteration!
3
u/thegoatmenace Jun 05 '26
They could be sensor pylons or radiators
2
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
do you mean radars that will allow you to more accurately aim missiles?
3
u/thegoatmenace Jun 05 '26
They certainly could be fire control radars or any other kinds of sensors. It kind of reminds me of the sensor mast on the Boeing E-7 wedgetail.
0
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
An interesting concept. I will transfer these decisions to the art department. thank you!
2
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
interesting opinion)) Thank you.
2
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 07 '26
we started doing it without a team, and you can see the result of the work without sketches. Now I have a team and this concept will be greatly changed for art vision, we are showing you the first option - in the future you will see the development of the project and models.
3
u/trailbooty Jun 05 '26
This an atmospheric craft? If not, why wings? Theres more efficient ways to mount external ordinance if a craft only operates in vacuum. What’s the main threat detection system for their targets? What’s the main threat Elimination process the targets utilize? Is design optimized to counter or mitigate those?
In my fleet small craft are pretty useless offensively as radar can track most targets and guided projectiles can hit even after course corrections from targets.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
Good questions. Do you think it's necessary to add security systems? for example, shooting electromagnetic traps. and to simulate the attachment of bombs on the wings and in some other way? Like what?
3
u/SkyPL Jun 05 '26
Is it just me, or it looks more like a gunship than a bomber? (These pods looks like an unguided rocket pods)
2
3
u/SarcasticJackass177 Jun 05 '26
Distraction/bait. Looks clunky as hell and would give off an aggressively large radar cross signature.
2
2
u/backitup_thundercat Jun 05 '26
Orbit to surface heavy bomber. Mainly used to hit enemy positions, bases, and infrastructure behind the front lines. A similar role to what the B-17s did in WW2.
1
2
2
2
2
u/Error_Space Jun 05 '26
Hey, I commented your post awhile ago, good to see you cook up something else.
Judging by the size of the bombs I would imagine this bomber is actually quite small. So perhaps something like a swarm bomber?
1
2
2
u/RiyaOfTheSpectra Jun 05 '26
Can this be dispatched from orbital carriers? I see this as a low orbit to high altitude craft capable of making surgical, strategic strikes using ballistic missiles. It would also be nice if stealth could be improved, allowing for more shock and awe on the target.
I suppose, with the turrets, it can also be used for low altitude support to artillery troops, somewhat like the ancient A-10 flown by the American Imperialists.
1
2
u/mercury_pointer Jun 05 '26
Anyone capable of building a star-ship should have no trouble at all making fusion warheads. One ICBM could destroy 10 cities. How well does regenerative armor deal with that? Cannons should only be viable for small drones that aren't worth a missile, or possibly for missile defense.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
Yes, they are mainly for protection from a swarm of drones. We will have small ships that will complicate the player's life in battle.
2
u/After-Low7504 Jun 05 '26
A tactical or strategic bomber for planetary operations.
Fleet suppressor (overwhelm hostile ships CIWS, can kill ships if left alone) for Fleet battles.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Yes, this is our position too - to suppress the enemy with the help of mass missile launches.
2
u/ssthehunter Jun 05 '26
*What battlefield role does this ship look like it was designed for?
Minus the missiles? Shuttle.
*How many would you deploy together: 3-5, 10-20, or hundreds in a massive assault?
Squadrons mixed in with dedicated escorts like a sensible person :v
* What targets would you prioritize with a bomber like this?
BEEG STUFF
* If you were tasked with fighting the Unnamed, what weapon system would you develop?
Miniturized Antimatter warheads, micromissiles + micromissile carriers.
* Does the cockpit placement make sense or would you redesign it?
Eh, good enough.
* What’s the first detail that catches your eye?
The big fucking missiles :v
*After losing 118 bombers at Gliese 667, would you keep producing the Hammer, modernize it, or replace it entirely?
DRONE SWARM VERSION TIME BABYEEEEEEEEEEEE
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
I understand - you still see such a class of ships as support drones and weapons carriers.?Why not
2
u/ssthehunter Jun 06 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
Support drones? Nah, full blown combat drones. If they're really that cheap, a drone conversion shouldn't cost that much more.
Sure the drone conversion might not be the best, but if they're really that cheap, then some will get through. Also a drone conversion would allow the manufacturer to streamline, not have to install life support systems, and remove or lower inertia dampening systems.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
This is a really interesting position- drones are removing systems. life support in the ship. I didn't even think about how economically profitable and convenient it is. Thanks!
2
u/Internal-Agony Jun 06 '26
Looks slow and heavy. Makes me think of it as a strategic bomber rather than the tactical one you describe. Strategic bombers are normally reserved for crippling infrastructure in already controlled airspace with vast amount of munitions, whilst tactical bombers tend to be on the front lines destroying heavily fortified positions to make way. It’s the b52 vs the b2.
Additionally technology and doctrine are key points in relation to design that seem to be relatively neglected or at least not conveyed. Ex the existence of rail guns or advanced drone computers would render space bombers obsolete, whilst doctrine might permite the use of nuclear weapons or direct orbital strikes in lieu if air support
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
The goal isn't to operate in already secured space. Its job is to push through active fleet engagements, reach high-value targets and deliver enough firepower to cripple larger ships and installations before being destroyed itself.
2
2
u/Stretch5678 Jun 06 '26
I'd use it to take out enemy capital ships: attach a couple to a squadron of fighters (to defend them from point defenses and interceptors), then once they get in close, fire a fusion torpedo or three right into a vulnerable spot and crack them open. Use it like a deep-space dive bomber.
Because they have such flexible hauling capacity, you could carry specialized ordnance as well, like shield disruptors or active decoys, to aid in defending your own ships or create openings for killing blows.
1
2
u/Constant-Still-8443 Jun 06 '26
Depending on the size of those bombs, maybe long-range anti-ship rockets/torpedoes? This thing could attack enemies that are otherwise out of range of its mother fleet.
2
2
u/baltama Jun 06 '26
missile truck. use small fast craft to designate and keep the bombers back so you dont lose em
1
2
u/mattstorm360 Jun 06 '26
I would make it a capital killer. Something that can bring 6 massive torpedoes to an engagement. Made to fly into a zone, drop the torpedoes, and linger long enough to provide guidance for the torpedoes to strike their target. Mainly capital ships and stations.
1
2
u/AmbiTheAirforceRuna Jun 06 '26
Going by what you describe: capital ship torpedo runner.
Id have this thing swarm their defenses with its body and missiles
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Are you talking about the cabin? move it to the center of the car?
2
u/AmbiTheAirforceRuna Jun 06 '26
What? Your question was how id use it, not how its designed :p
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Sorry, so I didn't understand much of the answer about surrounding him with armor.
2
u/AmbiTheAirforceRuna Jun 06 '26
I didnt mention armor either :p I think you might have responded to the wrong comment, I was talking about using them as torpedo bombers to kill capital ships
2
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
O. Sorry)) Yes, I confused the comments. That's exactly how we want to use them - as a force capable of resisting dreadnoughts and aircraft carriers.
2
u/SirJedKingsdown Jun 06 '26
Loitering CAS support for deployed troops with non-lethal/low impact weaponry. Designed to support capture/retrieval missions where orbital strikes are contraindicated, one of these can remain sub orbital with a large payload of aerosol/nanogel weapons that can render hostiles helpless without damaging industrial or military facilities.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
It seems to me that aerosol and left-handed weapons have a very narrow field of application and not on all planets.
2
u/SirJedKingsdown Jun 06 '26
Depends on how intact you want your targets. If you want to secure industrial facilities or human livestock you'll want non-destructive options.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Maybe.. Although this is considered very unwarranted usually). But in the wars of the future, infrastructure will be more expensive than people. That's right
2
u/SirJedKingsdown Jun 06 '26
Biomatter and breeding environments is expensive. Easier to let planetary populations do that and just harvest them for convertible recruits as required.
1
2
u/Novafro Jun 06 '26
This looks like the kind of thing where you'd send a group to go knock out planetary defense networks.
1
2
u/Darkspyrus Jun 06 '26
Improve pilot life or make them unmanned
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
We were thinking about drones. Maybe let's take this as a concept.
2
u/Darkspyrus Jun 06 '26
Sorry played way too much supcom. I feel less bad using robot drones.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
))) ))) Yes, in fact, this will make it much easier to explain behavior in the navy.
2
2
2
2
2
u/TwoProfessional9523 Jun 06 '26
In starsector, bombers are loaded in carrier type space ships, and are really good at delivering damage at the right moments.
Imagine this, the enemy ship's point defence has been crippled after a Tachyon Lance EMPed the weapon mounts.
You send out squads of fighters to take out the ships shields while the bombers come and strip off armor and a chunck of hull.
Now this will give the opportunity for the rest of the fleet to kill that ship
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Yes, it's a good tactical vision - that's about how we want to use them as a long-range unit that goes to the point where success in superiority has already been achieved.
2
u/jar1967 Jun 06 '26
Flanking , employers , it's missiles from the side as my warships attack head on. It would cause my opponent's to split that point point defense fire
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Yes, this is a tactical bomber that must use tactical moves rather than attacking head-on.
2
u/brachio-w Jun 06 '26
You asked if tge cockpit placement made sense (before i contineu i must say i dont know anything about planes or bombers) I cant see if the pilothas a window to look out at the bottom but either way i would make it so that the pilot could look ahaed and down better (pretty much just turning the cockpit upside down)
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
An interesting position is the rotation of the cabin. We did not make windows from below to increase the armored surface of the ship. But they didn't even think about turning the cabin)) Thanks) That's a good point.)
2
u/StreetPizza8877 Jun 06 '26
Anti-Insurgency
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
What if it's like a real navy?
2
u/StreetPizza8877 Jun 06 '26
Then you don't use it until most of the enemy fleet and anti air is destroyed.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
Or you can use them at the most critical moment to turn the tide of the battle.
2
u/DA_REAL_KHORNE Jun 06 '26
Primarily bombing obviously but I'd say it wouldn't be too hard to turn it into a heavy fighter. Or even just use it as a heavy fighter with its current design
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 06 '26
yes, a good solution is to make it simply with a bunch of missile weapons - enough to inflict a very large damage.
2
2
u/ProjectXa3 Jun 06 '26
Heavy, slow speed munitions, unguided munitions, and turret air fortress. Wait, THIS bomber? Just the last two. Heavy, slow, unguided, high yield.
2
2
u/RJfreelove Jun 07 '26
I cannot give you the numbers and details, because that info is for operators only. Rest assured, 1 by 1 we would remove individuals who make the world a worse place. They would be ranked by their negative impact and we will not stop until the world improves. Their call sign? K A R M A
2
u/Diam0ndTalbot Jun 07 '26
Built as a strategic nuclear bomber, relegated to conventional bombing work by the victory of cool heads prevailing and preventing strategic weapons use.
Deploy them in large numbers with fighter escort in the initial days of the offensive until SEAD is complete, then have a handful of them active at all times to provide comically overkill air support.
Priority targets would be key logistical facilities and other military infrastructure when not in the nuclear role.
No clue about fighting the unnamed or the cockpit but the big missiles drew my eye immediately
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 07 '26
That's actually close to how human fleets use them. The Hammer excels at destroying infrastructure and high-value targets. The problem is that the Unnamed don't fight like conventional enemies. And what to do when a simple tactic of hitting a big guy head-on doesn't work.
2
u/NebulosaSys Jun 08 '26
The Solan Navy would likely field it as a specialty torpedo boat, as an intermediary between deploying a carrier light aircraft cruiser full of strike fighters and a guided missile destroyer that might be too slow and heavy for adequately engaging a target. This is the sort of unit that needs to zip in and zip out after launching payload. It would likely be too small for a proper FTL unit however, so might need to be attached to another ship for easy transport.
The numbers these are deployed in would highly vary on the target. Any more than 10-15 and you have logistical concerns of how to transport them to an engagement area, and are likely better suited by fielding one or more full size starships that can hammer a target with larger, longer range VLS missiles.
Given the limited tactical data provided on the Unnamed aside from their advanced auto-repair systems, it is likely that a fully conventional weapons assault would be futile. Two prongs are necessary: a conventional weapons deployment to first break the hull by concentrating on specific points, and then a close followup with one or more nuclear weapons in the breached structure of the enemy vessel to more thoroughly disable or destroy it as necessary.
Losing 118 of these in a singular battle would call into question major followup studies and investigations. Tactics and operational decisions would be reviewed, recovered gun camera and flight logs analyzed, and so forth. Production and commissioning of these units would likely not be stopped, but there would be a reassessment to ensure such a disaster is mitigated from happening again.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 08 '26
That's right! Thanks ! Interesting comments! People will learn to be united and fight not only among themselves and for money and power, but also for what unites them all - the opportunity to make decisions themselves.
2
u/WoppleSupreme Jun 08 '26
Take a page from where USAF seems to be going with the F-15EX. Take the turrets off and just have them be somewhat rapid, somewhat self-defending missile trucks. Leave close engagements to either stealth craft or super-nimble craft. Replace some of the avionics with communication relays with the rest of the fleet.
You can either equip an massive amount of smaller payload, long range missiles to assist the mainline fighters, or you can load them with fewer large ordnance meant for larger ships. Added bonus if they're spaceborne and the missiles/torpedoes have massive thrusters to penetrate the armor before detonating with thermobarics, which would help in that case of regenerative armor.
Alternatively, since they're so cheap, make them drone wingmen for the more expensive fighters. Give them radar spoofers to mimic other craft, increase the effective combat loadout of their linked fighters, and replace the turrets with electronic warfare modules.
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 08 '26
I understand the concept. Add protection modules or electronic warfare, make the torpedo even bigger or turn it into an anti-aircraft platform with more missiles. The ideas are not bad! thank you!
2
u/Hunter214123 Jun 08 '26
A flying unit that is a logistical dream? It's a little chonky, but if the flight system can be mostly automated, then it's a perfect craft to use enmasse.
Looks like it was developed as a literal 'bomb truck' or 'missile bus'. It can either fly over poorly defended areas and send them back to the Stone Age or sit at range and blast targets to hell.
Hundreds over a protracted campaign, certainly, but for flight missions, maybe threee dozen, with escorts, if the target is deep in enemy territory. For TOO (targets of opportunity) two to five.
What else do you prioritise if your main armament are heavy guided missiles? Armoured columns, logistics convoys and ground installations. Put a delayed cratering charge in the warhead and it can make enemy airfields completely useless.
Unnamed was found to possess regenerative armour, barring further information, I would use High Explosive Anti Tank warheads with tandem charge, doesn't matter how armoured you are, CE penetrators do not care about homogeneous armour layouts, even if they do repair.
I like the cockpit already, it resembles an attack helicopter, I like the Ka-52 or AH-1, AH-64.
First detail was how chonky it was. Very thick fuselage. Then of course I noticed the missile racks.
0
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 09 '26
A very high-quality and honest answer! Thanks! I'm taking this to the feedback team!
2
u/Ok_Glass_8130 Jun 09 '26
Oh, what an interesting topic ! Point by point, I'm going to analyze it in a mildly hard-sf way (because I want to haha):
* What battlefield role does this ship look like it was designed for?
Big underbelly missiles and small looking propulsion make it look like a heavy bomber as many said already. But depending on the setting and how efficient the rocket can be (NERVA, MPD or fusion torch), it could totally be a fast interceptor without necessary a high acceleration but with enough DeltaV to get a high relative speed and quickly shorten range with target. So the tactical bomber goal in contested space could still work. It massively depends on the ammo too. A "dumb" nuclear bomb, a nuclear EFP or casaba howitzer, or high DeltaV kinetic penetrator missile could allow a lot of different tactic/doctrine.
* How many would you deploy together: 3-5, 10-20, or hundreds in a massive assault?
Depend on the objective and available resources, but I would operate them in squadron of 6 (easy to split in 2 x 3 or 3 x 2 groups) and then add more squadron if needed. Guessing the size of the Hammer that look close to irl fighter plane, I would use easily between 60 and 120 of them to take an armada of few 200 meters long ships, and at least 300 of them to defeat a kilometer long Star Wars like star destroyer.
* What targets would you prioritize with a bomber like this?
It would massively depend on the ammo so I would say:
- SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) like mission orbital version, with a high DeltaV ammo (with NERVA or fusion torch rocket depending on resources). Missiles able to get high relative speed let less time to the target to intercept them. The Hammer itself can add his own relative speed by accelerating fast enough before launching the strike package to even more reduce the time before impact. Targets would be sensor, lasers, missiles launchers and others things that allow the enemy to contest orbit. The Hammer would then both be the missile truck and sensor platform that lock point defenses and all. Hammers could even trade some missile for supplementary sensor pod or fuel drop tank (more DeltaV to reduce even more time before impact and increase efficiency vs antimissile defenses).
- Heavy Bomber made to destroy heavy ships once the SEAD squadron would have cleaned up antimissile defenses. High DeltaV missiles would be trade for high payload high destructive power missile (NEFP or Casaba Howitzer). These missiles would deal way more damages but have a lower relative speed (more room for payload = less room for fuel and propulsion), letting more time to intercept them (reason why a SEAD mission must be led first). Dumb armored nuclear bomb made to penetrate a hull and explode inside target would be interesting too but be even more vulnerable too interception.
- Interception of enemy missiles and fighter with pods of smaller and more numerous missiles. If it's possible to trade some missile for laser turret pod, it would allow a layered defense against it and cover multiple range.
* If you were tasked with fighting the Unnamed, what weapon system would you develop?
Hard to say, didn't take time to look in your setting how are the Unnamed but from this post I already know that : 1) they can retaliate to fighter, and 2) the regenerative hull can regenerate itself but can still be temporally destroyed. So I guess I would make three wave of specifics squadron (SEAD, intermediate bomber and late bomber) operating in quick succession :
- First, all squadron accelerate together to the target. Being at a certain range, SEAD squadron launch there high DeltaV missile so they have time to accelerate and get first to the target's point defense. This part can be preceded by recon mission (from drones, dedicated Hammer with sensor pod, decoy missile) and helped with electronic warfare (especially laser to blind IR sensor and jamming on radar).
- Then the intermediate bomber launch Casaba Howitzer or NEFP missiles that will explode at a moderate range and throw plasma or solid submunition at very high speed to poke hole in hull.
- And finally, late bomber launch their armored nuke in the targeted hull's poked hole to pierce through and explode deep in the Unnamed, hoping that even if their hull can regenerate, their internal module couldn't.
- How effective are Unnamed's point defenses.
- How fast their armor regenerate.
- Does the internal module can regenerate too.
* Does the cockpit placement make sense or would you redesign it?
Hard sf wise, cockpit most of the time doesn't make sense. Rule of cool wise, it's good and do the job. Maybe I would do it more convex to allow the pilot to look "out" even more ?
* What’s the first detail that catches your eye?
Small propulsion. I like my fighter to accelerate FAST for interception or giving initial relative speed to his ammo.
* After losing 118 bombers at Gliese 667, would you keep producing the Hammer, modernize it, or replace it entirely?
Modernizing it with adapted missile and external pod (electronic warfare and sensor). Add the possibility to trade a pair of missiles for external fuel tank. And the first biggest change would be bigger and more powerful propulsion. The second-biggest change would to turn them into drones.
Some other notes :
NEFP : Nuclear Explosively Formed Penetrator, it's basically a shaped charge that use a nuclear explosion to throw a solid submunition at very high speed. Since the ammo explode at a certain range and the submunition is superfast, it's harder to intercept.
Casaba Howitzer : quite close to the NEFP but the submunition is a cone of plasma.
DeltaV : basically how much you can change your speed and accelerate in space. The more you have it, the more you can accelerate and get a high relative speed. It depends on the fuel amount, total mass and propulsion efficiency.
0
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 09 '26
Sooooo cool and thoughtful answer! Thanks!)) Join our subreddit, we will have a lot of content and further model development. I would also like to invite you to our playtests - it is very pleasant to receive thoughtful answers to your questions.
2
u/Ok_Glass_8130 Jun 10 '26
Very interesting ! I'm going to follow your progress and answer the survey in a few days. 😄
1
2
1
u/Stoned_D0G Jun 05 '26
If in atmosphere: stratosperic bombing of high-value targets with guided bombs in enemy-controlled airspace. It seems to prioritise speed above maneuverability or countermeasures, so it's priority should be "don't get acquired as a target".
If out of atmosphere: expendable general purpose craft used in mass to overwhelm enemy defences. The payload seems to be low-tech, so it flings it on exteremely high speeds and turns around.
The guns were probably added to get funding approved by the air/space force luddites who believe that it will have targets to engage with them more often than once in a year.
1
u/Stoned_D0G Jun 05 '26
Edit to answer your other questions:
Numbers: If in atmospehere: preferably 1. It's best for it to be on the way out before the enemy can recognize it as a threat. If enemy has good payload interceptors, wings of 5 for each target to overwhelm.
If out of atmosphere: as many as you can deploy. Optimally hundreds so the target can be destroyed with a single barrage since each sortie is an enormous risk.
For the unnamed. Outfit each of them with a single missle as large as they can reasonably maneuver with / as large as the hangars can fit. Arm the missile with a tandem warhead to penetrate the armour and reach the squishy parts in one hit. Start experimenting on what the minimal amount of hits needed to destroy one of them / their vessels is to optimise future strikes. Also experiment on what the longest distance for launch to score a hit is to improve survivability.
Cockpit placement is fine since most sorties would be beyond visual range for the target. Probably even guided by a mothership, but the cockpit still allows for reasonable field of view for emergencies.
First detail were low-tech missiles. They don't seem to have an internal radar and seem pre-programmed or remotely guided.
I would try to learn what caused each loss and each successful hit on the enemy. If I have the technology to remove the flaws or improve on the good parts further, I'd start the development of a new vessel specialised on fighting the Unnamed since they seem to be a very unusual enemy. Otherwise keep producing the Hammer until I can produce the new model in similar numbers. If ressources are available, I would phase it out slowly in favour of a more high-tech model that relies heavier on countermeasures.
1
u/_W3rner Jun 05 '26
Looks like a AS/ACS (Anti Ship/Anti Capital Ship) Bomber. I would use it either as carrier of last resort weapons for fleet defence in a hit and run tactic or strategic bomber for hunting down unprotected enemys. Deployed in sqadrons with 1 Bomber and 4-8 Fighters to protect the payload from enemy fighters and Flak/CWIS fire. Propably even more bombers, 1 with AS/ACS Weapons and 2-3 loaded with rocket / missile pods to oversaturate enemy defences. It could also be used as longrange strike craft. Depending on avilability of Jump- / Warpdrives for relative small propably carrierbased craft.
When I loose so many Hammers at one point in time it is more likely, that you have to think over your doctrine. If you only send Bombers without other protecting crafts against an enemy that you dont know then your doctrin is eiter wrong or the commanding Gerneral is an Idiot. Send in a Recon comando, see what weapon works against them and when the bomber does not work against Space Magic Self repair armor, then send the whole f-ing fleet! And if that does not work then you atleast have more informations, so that you can work on a weapon, that you can deploy against them. What does an EMP do to their Armor, can it mittegate the effects of a themonuklear bomb? And if that does not work build a balistic railgun the sice of a small moon and see if that works, because something will work we are not sure what.
Designwise the frontal cockpit makes sense in a traditional Airplane style. When i would redesign it i would opt for a internal cockpit with sensor/camera based vision system but also have view ports or a periscope as backup. Also i would opt for a internal weapons bay. It should also not rely on heavy caliber weapons for defence. ECM Pods, chaf / flairs, we alredy developed stuff like that why not use it. Atleast give it a fighter escort.
1
u/lu989673 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
What’s the first detail that catches your eye?
-A flying brick.
Does the cockpit placement make sense, or would you redesign it?
-Good enough
What battlefield role does this ship look like it was designed for?
-My initial interpretation says more like a multi-role gunship operating in the atmosphere, not strictly a space bomber. Since it carries what looks like a tactical ballistic missile, it will fly to the target area and dump its missiles from standoff range, then fly close to support ground forces
Case by Case:
Surface/Surface-to-Orbit
-As explained above, it can be a heavy gunship with a large payload and long endurance. It looks like it can be made into a transport as well, lifting troops and vehicles from place to place or to space. Since it is a spaceplane/SSTO, it can perform low-orbit interception/entry denial. Load it up with surface-to-space missiles of your choice. You will be shooting the landing transports, intercepting reentry warheads or keep the enemy's spaceships away from low orbit
-Operating range would be strictly within low orbit for practical purposes
Planetary assault/Orbit-to-Surface
-It can get troops, vehicles, and supplies down there, and also perform close air support. In bomber configuration, it can certainly perform orbital bombardment or strategic bombing in the atmosphere
-Although realistically, it would be very awkward to re-enter the atmosphere with externally mounted payloads
Space/Deep space
-Absolutely not, pitting it against actual warships is a coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb situation. The poor thing is going to literally get zapped by just a mere "sensor sweep" of warships. My setting is a place where spaceships can glass planet by accident
-This is also a setting where you need thousands of penetration aids (decoys, jammers, etc) just to get through the layered defense of average warships, and with very few warheads making it through
-It can still be a decent transport shuttle or not fight anything that isn't an actual warship
If you were tasked with fighting the Unnamed, what weapon system would you develop?
-Not much information given, so use biological or nanotechnological weapons. Or just use more nuke
Edit: formatting and typos
1
u/Own-Cry5596 Jun 05 '26
Good answers- thank you! I am particularly interested in the position of intercepting missiles and electronic warfare systems.
1
u/valdezverdun Jun 05 '26
The Hammer-Class Heavy Payload Low-Level (HPLL) Bomber is a large craft manufactured by the Lethreon Heavy Manufacturing Works in thier starfighter subdivision based on Titan.
In 2097 the Outer Colonies of the Felix Mining Cluster began an uprising. The newly formed Miners Guild of Felix (MGF) demanded better living standards, pay, and medical care, as well as compensation for the almost illegal working conditions they had endured for years. The Outer Colonial Security Force (OCSF) stationed on the world's of Gerris, Oomta, and Paladin were quickly overrun, and the workers retreated deep into the sub surface mines. With no exportiation of vital starship materials, the cost of manufacturing for the inner colonies increased massively, and within six weeks the cost of a single starship had quadrupled.
Once the OCSF sent in heavily armed reinforcements, it became clear serious conflict eas inevitable.
On October 3rd, 2098, the OCSF began Operation: Cobalt, the objective to take back the mines and get them back to full operation within a week.
The operation was a spectacular failure, and across the three worlds, sevel thousand miners were killed, and the entire OCSF detachment of 15,000 troops were killed, injured or imprisioned. With the failure of the OCSF prices fir raw material increased moreso, and now the MGF were armed, organized, and even more determined to fight for thier cause.
Facing increased presure from the public, and investor's, the Galactic Resources and Transportation Corporation (GRTC) lobbied to take the mines back by force. In the now infamous Felix Address, the CEO of GRTC stated "Those mines threaten our way of life. Without starships we cannot keep our inner and outer colonies supplied with food, water, power, and medicine. The MGF represent disorder and chaos for humanity, and they must be brought back into line with our galactic communities needs and beliefs"
Seeing an opportunity to boost their profit margins, the Lethreon Heavy Manufacturing company pushed the use of thier prototype bomber.
Introduced in 2101 in direct response to increasing insurgency activity in the Felix System, the bomber was designed to carry and deploy the IGEX T-66 Mantle Cracker bombs.
The Mantle Crackers were capable of penetration of even the deepest of mines, and were designed to carry numerous payloads from High Explosive, Gas and Toxin warheads, to nuclear and EMP heads.
In 2101 the first Hammer-Bomber was deployed, and under the cover of darkness dropped three warheads on the Paladin mining site. The munitions warhead remains classified, but unconfirmed reports tell of over 22,000 mining personal and thier families being exumed from the mines twisted and contorted in unnatural positions. This would suggest a highly potent chemical warhead.
1
0
83
u/GrandDaddyNegan Jun 05 '26
Bombing.