Plasma Carronade Fighters

[Cmr Nel (OP)]

Hey, still very new to this game but completely hooked.  I had an idea about arming bombers with plasma carronades.  The idea being that they have to get in close anyway and thus play to this weapon's strengths.  Since it has a rather large damage value there is even a chance for shock damage.

Here is the prototype design:

Starhawk Bomber class Fighter    495 tons     18 Crew     250. 6 BP      TCS 9. 9  TH 120  EM 0
12121 km/s     Armour 7-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 3. 07 Years     MSP 32    AFR 19%    IFR 0. 3%    1YR 5    5YR 77    Max Repair 105 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 2   

Anderson Dynamics 120 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 458. 3%    Signature 120    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 1. 6 billion km   (36 hours at full power)

Harding Limited 15cm Plasma Bomb Launcher  (1)    Range 60 000km     TS: 12121 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 1    ROF 5        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Anderson Dynamics Fire Control S00. 5 75-6250 H50 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 150 000 km   TS: 25000 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Anderson Dynamics ICFD Fighter Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 1. 2    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Any help will be appreciated:)

[AL]

First off, I'm fairly sure 12k km/s is too slow for fighters at the internal fusion tech level. I'm at magneto plasma in my current game which if I remember correctly is one level below yours, and my 500 ton beam-armed fighters have a speed of just over 19k km/s. I think a decent speed to aim for is somewhere around 25k km/s, but we should probably see what the more experienced fighter designers have to say.

Secondly, you have capacitor level 6 on that carronade but only 1.2 reactor power. Your recharge should be limited by your lowish power generation so you could save on costs by using cap 1 or 2 carronades instead.

Your fire control has a speed rating which is just over twice your weapon tracking speed (which in this case is equal to your ship speed), so if you don't end up increasing your speeds significantly I would suggest making a smaller FC with reduced tracking speed.

There's a choice to make about engineering spaces here... since your current amount of MSP is less than 105, you do not have enough to repair your most expensive component which I'm assuming is your engine. Fighters generally stay in free-maintenance hangar bars aside from when they are actually engaging the enemy, so maintenance life is not so important here. I suggest either removing the engineering spaces entirely which I tend to do, or add enough to get your MSP at least equal to that max repair number.

Also, that's a lot of armour...

[Paul M]

A few minor comments:

-Make sure you have removed the bridge from the design.
-You have a 3 month endurance on a ship with 36 hours of fuel.  I would suggest reducing the endurance to 0.3 months or so.
-More fuel may or may not be a good idea.
-You lack any sort of active or passive sensors.  This bird is blind.  To me that is not a good idea.  On the way to a strike if it is intercepted you will just see messages where your fighters blow up and likely nothing more (passive sensors of 1 are pretty ineffective)...alternatively you can't use the fighter to independently engage inbound fighters or missiles due to the lack of an internal sensor.
-Your fire control is over designed.  You need 50K km range and your fighters speed for tracking, nothing more.  You could even reduce the range to 30K but I'd stick with 50K for 50% as then you have good hits up close, less fall off.  The range is where the chance to hit is 50% remember.
-You should have more power plants to give yourself faster recharge right now your fighter shoots every 25 seconds (or 30 seconds if the 0.2 is not tracked) and this means it sits in optimal range of its target doing nothing most of the time, plus it had to close to that range.  I'd expect its life expectancy even with that armour is low.  To me it would be suicide to attempt to engage an enemy in this thing.
-instead of a single engine I would go with multiple smaller engines as then you can more easily repair them if they are damaged in combat.  But this is personal preference mainly.
-I would use a reduced emmision engine, currently the thermal signature is far too high you will be picked up on passives well outside of a range where the actives of most ships would detect you giving warning and meaning they will start working on the strike with missiles...against which their weapons are useless due to being blind.

[Prince of Space]

Any beam fighter is going to have a rough time once it enters the target's anti-missile envelope. Generally its better to not be hit than it is for the fighter to pack on armor; so maybe less armor and more (thermally damped) engines. That way they can close the gap sooner and dodge better, though anti-missile missiles might still outmaneuver you.

If you want to sneak damage through heavily armed targets, meson cannons might be a better choice. Your 6-point damage carronade has a 4.5% chance of doing any shock damage, and that's if the target's shields are down. Mesons will ignore shields and armor altogether.

[Steve Walmsley]

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different opinions in Aurora as to viable designs   I'll borrow a quote from a fictional Klingon in Star Fleet Battles: "The only test is combat; the only valid result is victory."

Your best option is to try your designs and see what happens. You will learn a lot and then you can incorporate any lessons you learn into the next version of the fighter. BTW, a lot will depends on the enemy you face, as a design that works well against one enemy may be less successful against another.

[Prince of Space]

Steve makes a good point. What kind of role do you see these fighters playing?

[GreatTuna]

So...
1. 7 layers of armor. Enough to slow the fighter down, but not enough to counter anything but fighters.
2. Infrared 15cm lasers are cheaper than the carronades, while retaining their advantages in damage profile. Just saying.
3. Speed is very bad, my quick response team (when it was consisting from InFD-equipped cruisers) could outrun your fighters.
4. No sensors is not a bad thing, you can use dedicated sensor ship or sensor fighter or have good sensor on your carrier.

Main advantage of fighters is speed. They cannot allow the luxury of armour and superior firepower.
But if you want shock fighters, you can use something else. 0.5x sized 30cm laser have 24 damage and the same size as 15cm carronade. Cut the wavelength to make it cheap, remove everything unnecessary, add engines for speed and voila, perfect hit-and-runner.

Hm. That made me think about making this kind of design myself.

EDIT. Like this:

Code: [Select]

Ayala class Fighter    500 tons     5 Crew     399.5 BP      TCS 10  TH 300  EM 0
30000 km/s     Armour 2-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 43    5YR 644    Max Repair 188 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 5   

Fasters Tornado Drive Doubled (2)    Power 150    Fuel Use 381.92%    Signature 150    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 35 000 Litres    Range 3.3 billion km   (30 hours at full power)

ExpAI Hit-and-Run Laser System mk. 2 (1)    Range 200 000km     TS: 30000 km/s     Power 24-0.6     RM 1    ROF 200        24 12 8 6 4 4 3 3 2 2
Fire Control S00.5 100-12500 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 200 000 km   TS: 50000 km/s     95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50
Solid-core Anti-matter Power Plant Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 3.2    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
I still don't know why anyone would use fighters like these. Maybe against armored enemies to take them down quickly in one salvo. Could work, but I prefer mesons.

[sublight]

Al and the others are championing the Tie-Fighter approach. All speed and agility, no armor, and just enough weaponry to pose a threat. On one hand that is considered the best approach wherever AMMs are involved, on the other hand AMMs tend to destroy any fighter design that lack significant tech superiority.

I've had some success with the heavy beam fighters intended to be just fast enough to outrun a scout frigate and dodge most anti-capitol ship beam weaponry with enough armor to soak the occasional hit. I'd guess 12.1 km/s a little slow but adequate against most opponents.

The 15cm Plasma Carronade, however, has got to go. In general plasma carronades should only be considered a fair choice when you haven't yet researched any other beam weapon of equivalent or greater calliber. By the fusion era I'd assume you have 15cm lasers which are superior to 15cm cannonades in every way except possibly cost. The longer range of the lasers would also help stay outside of turreted beam PD when necessary.

[CharonJr]

Some designs which remain fairly close to the original:

Spitfire Opt1 class Fast Attack Craft    465 tons     4 Crew     188.8 BP      TCS 9.3  TH 120  EM 0
12903 km/s     Armour 7-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 93%    IFR 1.3%    1YR 19    5YR 282    Max Repair 60 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 6   

120 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 120    Fuel Use 458.3%    Signature 120    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 1.7 billion km   (36 hours at full power)

15cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60 000km     TS: 12903 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 1    ROF 5        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 75-3125 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 150 000 km   TS: 12500 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (5)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Option 1 trades the (IMO not needed engineering and deployment time for a fighter) and inefficient tracking speed for 4 more reactors to enable shooting each turn.


Spitfire Opt2 class Fast Attack Craft    500 tons     4 Crew     214.2 BP      TCS 10  TH 180  EM 0
18000 km/s     Armour 6-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 28    5YR 425    Max Repair 90 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 6   

180 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 453.63%    Signature 180    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 15 000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (18 hours at full power)

15cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60 000km     TS: 18000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 1    ROF 5        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 75-3125 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 150 000 km   TS: 12500 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (5)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Option 2 removes 1 additional armor and a bit of fuel for 1 more HS for the engine.


Spitfire Opt3 class Fast Attack Craft    500 tons     4 Crew     217.2 BP      TCS 10  TH 180  EM 0
18000 km/s     Armour 6-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 28    5YR 427    Max Repair 90 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 6   

180 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 453.63%    Signature 180    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 0.8 billion km   (12 hours at full power)

15cm C6 Plasma Carronade (1)    Range 60 000km     TS: 18000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 1    ROF 5        6 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 75-3125 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 150 000 km   TS: 12500 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (5)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

Active Search Sensor MR1-R1 (1)     GPS 5     Range 1.2m km    MCR 125k km    Resolution 1

And Option3 would trade some more fuel/range for a small active sensor (not sure about your sensor tech levels), but I feel the sensor range is not really worth it and would rather use a very fast dedicated sensor fighter instead myself, maybe something like this:

Sensor FAC class Fast Attack Craft    325 tons     3 Crew     241.6 BP      TCS 6.5  TH 180  EM 0
27692 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 65%    IFR 0.9%    1YR 57    5YR 856    Max Repair 144 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 7   

180 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 453.63%    Signature 180    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (12 hours at full power)

Active Search Sensor MR34-R1 (1)     GPS 144     Range 34.6m km    MCR 3.8m km    Resolution 1

[CharonJr]

And yes, for the fairly small chance for shock damage (due to low caliber/damage IIRC) I would prefer a laser as well:

Spitfire Opt4 class Fast Attack Craft    500 tons     5 Crew     287.2 BP      TCS 10  TH 180  EM 0
18000 km/s     Armour 6-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 4
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 100%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 47    5YR 698    Max Repair 102 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 5   

180 EP Internal Fusion Drive (1)    Power 180    Fuel Use 453.63%    Signature 180    Exp 30%
Fuel Capacity 15 000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (18 hours at full power)

15cm C6 X-Ray Laser (1)    Range 150 000km     TS: 18000 km/s     Power 6-6     RM 7    ROF 5        6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 4
Fire Control S00.2 75-3125 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 150 000 km   TS: 12500 km/s     93 87 80 73 67 60 53 47 40 33
Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (5)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

[Iranon]

Plasma Carronades are similar to infrared lasers, with a few differences:
- more expensive
- wider and shallower damage profile
- lower crew requirements
- larger size available for the same research investment

On the whole, they are pretty crummy weapons unless you're going for something cheap and bulky (infrared lasers end up more expensive because of crew requirements).

[Steve Walmsley]

They have another advantage over lasers in that you can have larger calibre weapons for less research points (15cm Carronade is the same as 10cm Laser)

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Just want to mention how the deployment length mechanics work.

The reason people are posting up designs with '0.1 month' deployment times is that if you lower deployment times to this level, required crew drops dramatically - it's the 'fighter cutoff'. This reduces the Crew Quarters requirement dramatically.  Now, 3 days is not very long, but most fighters will lack the fuel to be fighting for longer than that anyway. 

The important sidenote is that - unless it's a PDC - your carrier *must* have as many Spare Berths (aka Flight Crew Berths) available as crew required for your fighters. Otherwise, the strain of maintaining the crew will be too much, and the carrier's life support systems will malfunction over time!

[Cmr Nel (OP)]

Thank you guys so much for the replies.

I will definitely look into the fire control designs, armour and deployment time to save mass.

@AL thanks! I havent messed around with fighters much.  I thought my speed was decent since it was better than certain ships of factions I am not allowed to mention.

@Paul M thanks for pointing out the deployment time! I have large dedicated sensors (active and passive) on frigates for the fleet and on my PDCs, so I was hoping that would be sufficient.  Most of the Fighters i own are currently planet based(yet to build a carrier since I havent met any NPRs yet. . .  Except for SPOILERS camping Gliese. . . ) I also use a standardised fire control on all my fighters, but I'll definitely look into this.  And thermal reduction will be introduced:) thanks for that tip

@Prince of Space it is very true what you are saying.  Not being hit is the best armour of all.  having fought against meson armed ships they just felt a bit cheap ignoring all defences. . .

@ Steve Walmsley firstly, thanks for this great game! It is absolutely amazing! A bit overwhelming at first though. . .

The role of these fighter-bombers is probably more roleplay than practicality. . .  Lasers just feel like they should be on interceptors, or absolutely massive ones (spinal mounted) on capital ships.  Plasma carronade is almost an analogue to the plasma bombs used by the Hiigarans in Homeworld. . .  so it just felt right to me

I have a laser armed fighter very similar to CharonJr's design.  My speed is just lacking since I havent fixed the armour or the deployment time errors of mine.  Will correct it in the next production run.

@ GreatTuna thank the gods I'm not fighting you then:D

Thanks again for all the input! You have really helped me with understanding this game a bit better:)

[alex_brunius]

So...
1. 7 layers of armor. Enough to slow the fighter down, but not enough to counter anything but fighters.

I don't agree. The main problem a fighter that needs to get really close and personal must face is Anti missile systems, such as Gauss and AMMs that both do just 1 point of damage each.

With 7-5 armor rate each fighter can absorb up to 35 AMMs before taking internal damage. Meaning your strike have a much larger chance to brute force their way through intense AMM fire.

So what it comes down to is: Will a higher speed bring down the interception chance and time enough to offset ~3x survivability offered by extra armor?

It depends alot on enemy Anti missile systems, if they are very advanced and have a high interception rate even on your faster fighters, and missiles.... well then armor will serve you better as long as you still can catch their fleet. If the enemy AMMs are very crude and a high speed fighter can dodge almost 90%+ then picking speed and lighter armor may be the better option to quickly dash through the fire and strike.


A fighter/bomber that dies before it even can shoot is not of much use to you.