Low tech fighters

[Andrew]

If your HPM's out range the defenders AMM systems I will be surprised.  So your HPM fighters will have to fly through the enemy AMM fire to get in energy range which is why going fast is good and then your HPM's will not outrange the enemy energy weapons so you have to stay alive until you manage a disabling HPM shot

[Drgong (OP)]

Isn't the theory that defensive fire would not know where they were since they engage from outside the range of AMM's, but are too small for larger active sensors to detect effectively?

HPM are very short range.   Missiles at least have some range.


Here is the Ion Drive Era bomber - Smaller, just as fast, and much more punch.

Code: [Select]

Vulcan class Fighter-bomber    380 tons     9 Crew     64.4 BP      TCS 7.6  TH 30  EM 0
3947 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 2.4
Maint Life 53.91 Years     MSP 106    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 20 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 16   

Bush Ind. 30 EP Ion Drive (fighter) (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 136.96%    Signature 30    Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 3.5 billion km   (10 days at full power)

Alam -Alam  Incorporated Size 4 Box Launcher (4)    Missile Size 4    Hangar Reload 30 minutes    MF Reload 5 hours
Ryan-Dixon Heavy Industries Missile Fire Control FC28-R100 (70%) (1)     Range 28.8m km    Resolution 100
ASM-2-Falcon (4)  Speed: 11 500 km/s   End: 88.3m    Range: 60.9m km   WH: 9    Size: 4    TH: 42/25/12

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

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

I just put in a standard size 4 missile, one could build a missile built to a 30 million mile range and get more speed or kick. 

[Sheb]

If you're using box launchers and planning on having salvo size overwhelm enemy FC, wouldn't you be better served by a single size 16 missile?

[Drgong (OP)]

If you're using box launchers and planning on having salvo size overwhelm enemy FC, wouldn't you be better served by a single size 16 missile?

I would have to let the experts weight in on this.

[83athom]

It all depends on how many fighter-bombers you will field simultaneously. If a carrier group will carry a few hundred of them, I would say one large missile/torpedo would be better. But if there are only a few dozen, then a number of mid sized (like how you have it) is preferable.

Now, on to critiques on the design. I suppose it is meant to fight both small craft and be able to punch big ones in the nose, but how you have it now it is lacking the "fighter" of "fighter-bomber". I would suggest adding one or two small gauss cannons. . While you have brought the range down to levels others usually have fighters, the time is still way overboard. Anything under less than a month of deployment time gets a reduction in crew requirements, perfect for fighters. 0.2 months halves the crew and 0.1 brings it down to 1/3.

[Iranon]

I generally prefer very large salvos or single missiles; if the main limitation of enemy missile defence is going to be fire controls anyway we may as well make our missiles larger for better armour penetration, shock damage and fuel efficiency.
Preferred size may also have something to with desired speed. Size-5 engines maximise fuel efficiency, a high-speed missile may be size 11 while a high-yield torpedo may be size 16.

[Andrew]

I tend to use multiple smaller missiles for logistics reasons, it helps to have most or all of my ships using a standard missile size and often a standard missile. I usually have 3 types at most a Long range planatery defense missile , an AMM and a standard ASM. I have experimented with short range versions of the ASM but the increase in warhead size from removing half the fuel is rarely worthwhile , and also an AMM version with a larger warhead , slower and less agile for when I use AMM's offensively but the logistics are too much effort normally and it is embarrassing if you have the wrong missile variant left

[Iranon]

Slightly modified example from another thread, using slightly higher tech in 8k techs + ion drives and box launchers (I'd be reluctant to research box launchers before ion drives).

Code: [Select]

Quasimodo class Fighter-bomber    300 tons     6 Crew     50.2 BP      TCS 6  TH 14  EM 0
2333 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1.8
Maint Life 17.83 Years     MSP 21    AFR 3%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15.6 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 12   

7.2 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 7.2    Fuel Use 16.57%    Signature 7.2    Exp 6%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 36.2 billion km   (179 days at full power)

Size 3 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 3    Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes    MF Reload 3.7 hours
Size 4 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 4    Hangar Reload 30 minutes    MF Reload 5 hours
Size 5 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 5    Hangar Reload 37.5 minutes    MF Reload 6.2 hours
Missile Fire Control FC75-R120 (1)     Range 75.9m km    Resolution 120
ASM-3 (1)  Speed: 22 600 km/s   End: 57.9m    Range: 78.5m km   WH: 4    Size: 3    TH: 158/95/47
ASM-4 (1)  Speed: 22 600 km/s   End: 57.9m    Range: 78.5m km   WH: 6    Size: 4    TH: 150/90/45
ASM-5 (1)  Speed: 22 600 km/s   End: 56.6m    Range: 76.7m km   WH: 9    Size: 5    TH: 128/76/38

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

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

A little more salvo dispersion with decent firing range, without excessive overhead in fire controls. Logistics get a little "uglier" since this needs 3 missile types that do the same thing, but not really harder - they'll always be fired in equal numbers.
Speed was sacrificed for endurance, these absolutely do not require carriers, maintenance life should suffice until they are thoroughly obsolete. The hope is that they won't require speed when they can engage most enemies without being detected.

[Nyvis]

Going the absolutely opposite way, you could end up with some thing like this:

Code: [Select]

King George V class Bomber 240 tons     4 Crew     77.6 BP      TCS 4.8  TH 16.8  EM 0
10000 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.9
Maint Life 9.71 Years     MSP 20    AFR 4%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 0    5YR 6    Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.2 months    Spare Berths 4   
Magazine 6   

24 EP Ion Drive (2)    Power 24    Fuel Use 336.02%    Signature 8.4    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres    Range 4.5 billion km   (5 days at full power)

Size 6 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC50-R100 (1)     Range 50.4m km    Resolution 100
Tech may not be exactly the same. It packs a lot less punch, of course, but it's a bit lighter, and compensates by being fast enough to make multiple trips back and forth.
Also, more than one size of offensive missiles make your logistics planners kill themselves. Poor guys.

[linkxsc]

Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.

Personally i play my fighters with that kind of attack in mind.
Fighters are launched from well outside the range my cvs will be detected, they make a masssd attack, and come back to rearm.
50-60 size 8-10 missiles in 50-60 salvos is quite difficult for even a large fleet to deal with when trying to protect 1 ship.

Course by design i split roles between long range fighters and short range. Long range fighters have larger missile as their turn around time on attacks is already going to be a long time. They head out. Make a strike 3-4 hours away from my carriers, at low speed, and then return and take an hour or so to rearm.

Fighters that work closer to the cv, or off of a different kind of ship, tend to have more small missiles so the turn around time on the cv is shorter.

[Sheb]

Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.

It really depends on which war you're looking at. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by two planes with high-tech missiles.

[Drgong (OP)]

Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.

Fighters that work closer to the cv, or off of a different kind of ship, tend to have more small missiles so the turn around time on the cv is shorter.

As Sheb said, it depends on the war. 

The KRI Hang Tuah (ex HMAS Ipswich) was taken out by one B-26, and then there is the Falkland wars.

[linkxsc]

It really depends on which war you're looking at. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by two planes with high-tech missiles.

Modern warships like HMS Sheffield aren't armored like ye old warships, and the space craft present ingame.
And Ipswitch was a destroyer that was taken out while by itself. Also destroyers were never ones for armor either.

A 10kt warship with 5-6 layers (which isn't even heavily armored) would take a 25-36 damage missile to penetrate, and probably 5-6 hits total to kill. (course 2 hits stacked ontop of eachother would likely cripple it noticeably and "mission kill" it. But)

And usually not dealing with 1. I fought an NPR a while ago at higher techs that just loved to throw 10-12 20kt missile ships after me at a time. 200-240kt total, I would face off against with 64 light fighters (250t designs. Carry 64 of them on a CV).

[alex_brunius]

Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.

There are plenty of examples in History (WW2) of single hits sinking Capital warships.

Carrier Akagi (41,300ton) was sunk by a single bomb hit from a divebomber during the Battle of Midway
Carrier Taiho (37,300ton) was sunk by a single torpedo hit during the Battle of the Philippine Sea

There were also many successful small scale attacks.

-The famous torpedo plane attack that crippled the Bismarck was made up of 15 planes.
-Battle of Taranto which served as the model of WW2 Port strikes contained two waves of 12 + 8 aircraft attacking 6 Battleships in Port ( Sinking one and Heavily damaging 2 more ).
-A strike of 10 Japanese Torpedo bombers escorted by 6 Zeroes, managed to put 2 torpedoes in Carrier Yorktown which doomed her despite heavy air defenses.

Ofcourse the more planes you have available the better ( since hit chances were bad and enemy fighters + AA could easier be overwhelmed ), but that they were never used that way is false. Smaller strikes of 20 planes or less were frequently Carried out and got results against enemy capital ships during WW2. Smaller attacks actually were more common then larger were, but it's the larger ones with hundreds of planes that get all the glory like Pearl Harbour or sinking of Yamato ( the latter which was immense overkill ).


It's actually not far from being the same in Aurora, once you take shock damage and secondary explosions into account any larger single missile hit or meson hit has the potential to be lethal to even the biggest Capital ship, but with lower chance then hits being crippling in reality. Point Defense in Aurora is also more effective at missiles then stopping real munitions is/was, especially during WW2, which again favors you to go for larger strikes.

Another big difference is lack of over time damage in Aurora, when in reality the main causes of ship destruction was not catastrophic explosions but rather out of control fire/flooding ( which only needs a single good hit to get going if the target got bad damage control ).

[Gabethebaldandbold]

Another big difference is lack of over time damage in Aurora, when in reality the main causes of ship destruction was not catastrophic explosions but rather out of control fire/flooding ( which only needs a single good hit to get going if the target got bad damage control ).

you could imagination power that feature into the game