Are Heavy Assault Fighters viable?

[Catty Nebulart (OP)]

Are beam weapon armed fighters viable or are they going to be shredded by the point defenses of capships?

Bellow is an example of what I'm talking about;
A-10 Warthog class Fighter-bomber    280 tons     12 Crew     95. 7 BP      TCS 5. 6  TH 30. 1  EM 0
15357 km/s     Armour 2-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 6%    IFR: 0. 1%    Maint Capacity 21 MSP    Max Repair 42 MSP    Est Time: 3. 49 Years

FTR Magnetic Confinement Fusion Drive (1)    Power 86. 25    Fuel Use 5200%    Signature 30. 1875    Armour 0    Exp 60%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1. 2 billion km   (22 hours at full power)

R6/C3 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 60,000km     TS: 15357 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 6    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00. 5 30-6250 H50 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 60,000 km   TS: 25000 km/s     83 67 50 33 17 0 0 0 0 0
Pocket Mag-Conf Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (3)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

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


Compare to my other fighters they are slow, relatively expensive and have a low damage output.  However I hope that they will be able to shred the big cap ships due to being meson armed, has anyone tried this and how has it worked?

[Narmio]

The threat here is AMM fire. Resolution 1 sensors can pick up fighters from a much longer distance than they can pick up missiles, so assuming they have missile defence systems you won't be able to stay stealthy. While a lightly-armoured fighter can take a few warhead-1 missiles, once it's been hit with three or so there's a very solid chance that further hits will pop that drive, which will definitely vapourise the entire thing instantly. And incoming missiles are a lot harder to hit than 15k/s fighters.

I've not actually experimented with it, so I don't actually know how effective you'll be, how many losses you would actually take on the way in, etc. Once you're in range with any decent number of meson fighters you'll fry almost anything, but only if getting there doesn't cost you most of your wave. One experiment I've been thinking about trying is 600-800t beam-armed FACs instead - they're similar speed and can have more armour and still pack a beam weapon.  The bigger fire controls are a bit of a pain, but in theory it should work.

[AirborneRifles]

I just fought a massive battle against a huge Invader fleet and I employed fighters very similar to yours.   They ended up being the decisive weapon due to the Meson's ability to shoot through absorbtion sheilds.    I combined massive missile salvos from my capital ships and missile fighters to destroy their escorts from long range with my attack fighters speeding in to shred their superdreadnoughts and battleships.   One thing I found a little gamey was that even though the Invader fleet had a huge amount of firepower in the form of plasma torpedoes, they only concentrated it on one ship or one fighter at a time (HUGE overkill) until damage to their ships began to break up their formation.   Even so I suffered about 25% casualties to my 80 attack fighters.   Had they distributed their fire more effectively it would have been a close run thing.   As it was, I traded about 20 fighters and one capital ship for seven 64kT superdreadnoughts, eight 32kT battleships, and about 20 smaller cruiser and destroyer escorts.   Without the fighters though there would have been no way I would have had enough missiles to defeat the absorbtion shilds on the invader capital ships.

[AirborneRifles]

Here is the design I used.   Only one layer of armor.

A-1 Razorback class Strikefighter    285 tons     11 Crew     130. 1 BP      TCS 5. 7  TH 115  EM 0
20175 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 57%    IFR: 0. 8%    Maint Capacity 0 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years

F275 ICDF (1)    Power 115. 2    Fuel Use 5600%    Signature 115. 2    Armour 0    Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 2. 3 billion km   (31 hours at full power)

M130 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 75,000km     TS: 20175 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 7. 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
AN/BPS-3 Razorback Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 100,000 km   TS: 40000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Raptor ICF Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

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

[Shadow]

A-1 Razorback class Strikefighter    285 tons     11 Crew     130. 1 BP      TCS 5. 7  TH 115  EM 0
20175 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 57%    IFR: 0. 8%    Maint Capacity 0 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 0 Years

F275 ICDF (1)    Power 115. 2    Fuel Use 5600%    Signature 115. 2    Armour 0    Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 2. 3 billion km   (31 hours at full power)

M130 Meson Cannon (1)    Range 75,000km     TS: 20175 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 7. 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
AN/BPS-3 Razorback Fire Control (1)    Max Range: 100,000 km   TS: 40000 km/s     90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Raptor ICF Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 6    Armour 0    Exp 5%

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

There's some room for optimization there.

• The fighter could do with half as much fuel stores.
• The reactor could be half as large.

Also, technically, the problem is that shipboard ECM could easily negate fighter fire (unless they closed in to basically point-blank range) if there's no compact ECCM modules on the small craft. Are you implying the invaders didn't have any ECM at all? Maybe Steve was merciful and didn't give them electronic warfare capabilities in light of their already nasty tech, like those absorption shields you mentioned. But I know Precursors have such, and probably so would the average NPR.

Here's a prototype of mine. It would use gauss guns instead of mesons since those seem boring, easy and less unique.

X-Vanguard class Interceptor    330 tons     12 Crew     269.1 BP      TCS 6.6  TH 18  EM 0
22727 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 2
Annual Failure Rate: 8%    IFR: 0.1%    Maint Capacity 51 MSP    Max Repair 75 MSP    Est Time: 3.45 Years

TE-150F5 S-Type Anti-Matter Drive (1)    Power 150    Fuel Use 4500%    Signature 18    Armour 0    Exp 100%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km   (14 hours at full power)

Ares Arsenal G50-F Gauss Cannon (2x5)    Range 50,000km     TS: 22727 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17%     RM 5    ROF 5        1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
G50-F Fire Control 60-8K (1)    Max Range: 120,000 km   TS: 32000 km/s     92 83 75 67 58 50 42 33 25 17

Compact ECCM-2 (1)         ECM 40

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

The Vanguard is heavier and slower than average for its tech level, but its compact ECM should theoretically do wonders to its survivability. Likely a lot more than the extra 4000 km/s would in its stead.

[welchbloke]

Also, technically, the problem is that shipboard ECM could easily negate fighter fire (unless they closed in to basically point-blank range) if there's no compact ECCM modules on the small craft. Are you implying the invaders didn't have any ECM at all? Maybe Steve was merciful and didn't give them electronic warfare capabilities in light of their already nasty tech, like those absorption shields you mentioned.

Invader ECM spoiler In every game I've played since they were introduced, Invaders have had ECM and ECCM strength 6.

[AirborneRifles]

You're right, their ECM was a problem.   I had to employ waypoints and multiple squadrons to come to grips with their ships.   Based on my experience in the battle I'm starting to manufacture a B version with ECCM and a longer ranged fire control.   As for the reactor, it's as small as it can get so I guess I just have more than enough power.   I did always consider these to be a point blank weapons platform, though.

[Shadow]

Invader ECM spoiler In every game I've played since they were introduced, Invaders have had ECM and ECCM strength 6.

Good God.

[Rastaman]

How much does a point of ECM affect turrets? Is it simply ECM strength 1 = 10 less tracking?

[welchbloke]

How much does a point of ECM affect turrets? Is it simply ECM strength 1 = 10 less tracking?

IIRC it is a percentage thing - ECM 1 = 10% reduction in range (assuming no corresponding ECCM to offset the ECM).  Hopefully, that explains why my ships have long range fire control compared to my missile range

[Rastaman]

IIRC it is a percentage thing - ECM 1 = 10% reduction in range (assuming no corresponding ECCM to offset the ECM).  Hopefully, that explains why my ships have long range fire control compared to my missile range

ECM reduces range against missiles and reduces chance to hit against beams.
Steve

[Shadow]

As far as I know, ECM reduces hostile missile range and beam accuracy by 10% per level.

ECCM only offsets enemy ECM and has no further effect once the latter has been completely nullified.

[Andrew]

ECM Definetly reduces beam accuracy by 10* per level so hitting high ECM ships with beams is hard if you do not have ECCM

[Andrew]

Heavy assault fighter with mesons may be worthwhile vs Invaders , and may be viable vs other npr's due to poor targeting of their antimissiles against multiple targets. However they are much less viable against manual controlled defenses as the antimissile capability of a fleet will shred them very fast , you would have to cover their attack with lots of missiles

[PandaQ]

Would extremely small AMM missiles be viable on a beam fighter? You could get rather small ones if you sacrificed fuel/range to near point blank and research high warhead strength.