It appears that you have not registered with Aurora 4x. To register, please click here...
VB6 Aurora > Newtonian Aurora
Newtonian Fighters
chrislocke2000:
Given how this was getting mixed up in the more general discussion thought I would take the suggestion and start a new thread.
From the existing topics I think there is a clear argument as to why Fighters will no longer be the highly effective weapon platforms that we see in Aurora today. However, I really enjoy playing with fighters so would like to see if we can come up with some suggestions as to how Steve could implement fighters such that they remain a viable tactical option.
Some thoughts from me are:
1) Fighters need to be substantially more fuel efficient than missiles at the same levels of performance. Ie they would need engines to be at least four times more efficient than a missile engine. This allows the journey to target and back without a substantially less effective use of carried fuel.
2) Situationally they could be good for bringing weapons to bear on off axis targets. Ie a lot cheaper, fuel wise to turn a 200 ton fighter round to intercept a hostile contact than shifting say 100,000 tons of ships. Of course a missile could do just this in any case.
3) Potentially all fighters start as UAVs from the very start with controllers staying based on the carrier. As a UAV this would allow substantially better acceleration and deceleration performance than a crewed ship. Again this could be matched by a MIRV unless the cost of building the weapon bus is prohibitive if you don't get it back?
4) Potentially use them as guided slug throwers with relatively low acceleration coil guns. From previous discussions I think there is an expectation of ships moving relatively slower than in to days Aurora and that head on attacks at very high velocities are likely to be pretty dangerous to both sides. It's also clear that the relative velocity gain of shells compared to ship speeds will be pretty low. UAVs could address this quite nicely:
- With high acceleration the UAV can generate a far better closing speed on the enemy compared to a ship and with a low comparative cost it can afford to take the risk. It can also get in position a lot more easily than ships to attack off axis threats.
- As majority of attack speed comes from engines instead of the coil guns these can be lower power and smaller than their ship counter parts, allowing a better rate of fire for a given slug size
- UAV carriers batteries only and recharges from the carrier. Carrier could also hold both generators and batteries so UAVs can be quickly recharged as well as refueled and rearmed.
- Set the cost of UAVs so that say five uses of them, plus say 10% loss rate, is cheaper than the equivalent 5 * MIRV. After that the UAV is substantially more cost effective. Also set relative price of coil guns so you would would not want to just mount them on a one shot platform.
This would then give you a weapon platform that would enable strikes against hostile ships with intelligent slugs that would hitting at a magnitude higher than those fired from fleet ships without risking the fleet ships themselves and in the long run being cheaper than MIRV equivalents.
5) My last thought is a subset of fighters that have an aero package and hence can operate in a planets atmosphere. The idea being that they can then make precision attacks on installations / military units / PDCs with far less collateral damage and without causing atmospheric dust etc. This would also allow precision attacks without having to get your ships into reasonably close orbit for use of lasers etc and hence exposing them to counter fire from the planet. Depending on what you do with ground combat I guess you could also give them an attack strength to support your troops on the ground.
Anyway that's my starter for ten!
bean:
There are only three kinds of practical fighters in my mind:
1. Improvised: These are cobbled together if two space colonies decide to go at it, simply do to cost and time reasons. It has an engine, a weapon, and a guy to run them. They probably won't outlast the first war.
2. Lancers: This is the technical term for using your engine to put a projectile on track to intercept a target. Only really practical when the dominant engine is too expensive for missile use and too good to pass up. Will be unmanned.
3. Aerospace: Probably based on the surface, pops up, launches missiles, goes back down. May or may not be manned.
scoopdjm:
As per my previous statement I still maintain fighters have a higher damage per Weight/cost ratio then missiles EDIT: thnx for making a new thread
HaliRyan:
--- Quote from: scoopdjm on November 07, 2011, 01:20:45 PM ---As per my previous statement I still maintain fighters have a higher damage per Weight/cost ratio then missiles EDIT: thnx for making a new thread
--- End quote ---
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's not even true with existing modern jet fighters. A missile has a much, MUCH higher damage per weight ratio, and a modern cruise missile like the Tomahawk costs a little under $1m while an F-22 runs in the neighborhood of $150m.
In space a fighter has to carry (as the OP said) a minimum of 4 times the fuel of a missile, is limited in its acceleration/maneuverability by human tolerances (which is a much more crippling penalty in vacuum than in atmosphere), and has a host of other problems associated with their use.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be included, just that they're most definitely a rule-of-cool item rather than a realistic one.
Steve Walmsley:
Fighters in Newtonian Aurora (as with normal Aurora) are just small spacecraft and the same rules will apply in both cases. There won't be any fighter-specific systems or rules. In terms of mass comparison, fighters in standard Aurora are around 200-300 tons compared to 'normal' warships that resemble modern naval warships in terms of size. Therefore a "fighter" is much more comparable to a real world fast attack craft. For example, a Russian Project 205 Tsunami (NATO designation: Osa) is a 200 ton missile boat with four P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) missiles.
With regard to Newtonian Aurora, I think fighters will actually be more dangerous than in standard Aurora and don't need any special help. Small, expendable and easily replaceable craft are always useful for attacking a well defended enemy fleet, especially now you can no longer fire your missiles and turn away. In addition to a loadout of missiles, they will be able to carry the equivalent of "iron bombs" and act as the delivery system, which means the number of reloads for a carrier will be much higher than at the moment. The smallest railgun is 25 tons (or 0.5 HS in standard Aurora), which means a fighter 'beam weapon' is now possible. As they are based on a mothership, they will be able to mount more powerful, less fuel efficient engines and dedicate more of their tonnage to those engines, allowing greater acceleration and therefore more options. As well as being hard to detect, they will also be hard to hit as target size is now a significant factor. Finally, their range will be far greater than in standard Aurora as they can be launched at extreme range and coast most of the way. Or launched at extreme range and accelerated up to high speed before launching missiles or kinetic weapons, both of which will have the initial momentum of the fighter. The fighters are more likely to be able to avoid defensive fire after launching as they are hard to detect, hard to hit and will likely have greater acceleration/turning capability than a full size warship.
They will obviously be susceptible to nukes but they were susceptible to missiles before and as a single nuke could potentially kill a capital ship in Newtonian Aurora, using one against a fighter will be more overkill than in standard Aurora. I would advise spreading out the squadron though :)
Carrier operations will be more involved, as the fighters will have the momentum of the carrier. A modern version of: "Officer of the deck - turn the Nimitz into the wind"
Steve
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version