Newtonian Fighters

[Steve Walmsley]

It's better to think in terms of delta-V than fuel. If you break your burn times up into 1/4 fuel mass burns it's more confusing because each burn gets you a different speed. It's simpler to think of 1/4 delta-V as being a quarter of your capacity. Then the only thing you have to watch out for is other changing masses. For example if you have a "full load" (what Steve has been quoting in his designs) delta-V of 5k km/s and you burn for 2k km/s, then drop off all of your missiles, you'll have more than 3k km/s of Delta-V left.

The Delta-V Budget (Full Load) number assumes you start at full load but it includes changing mass. The class design code runs a loop that updates the fuel mass (and therefore ship mass and acceleration rate) every minute of a simulated maximum burn.

Steve

[chuckles73]

The Delta-V Budget (Full Load) number assumes you start at full load but it includes changing mass. The class design code runs a loop that updates the fuel mass (and therefore ship mass and acceleration rate) every minute of a simulated maximum burn.

I think Yonder was specifically talking about lowering your mass through using missiles, not using fuel.

[Yonder]

I think Yonder was specifically talking about lowering your mass through using missiles, not using fuel.

I was, for example the Resolution has only lasers and railguns, so it wouldn't be affected, but the fighter appears to have 30 tons of fuel and 60 tons of missiles. If it never fires its missiles (or fires them at the end of its journey) it will have the displayed "full load" delta-V of 1,145km/s. If it leaves without its missiles it has a delta-V of 1,526 km/s. Lastly if it made an attack run of 50% full-load delta-V it would burn 15.5 tons of fuel to reach 572 km/s, then if it launched its missiles the remaining delta-V would actually increase from 572 km/s to 774 km/s, giving a total delta-V of 1346 km/s.

[Steve Walmsley]

I was, for example the Resolution has only lasers and railguns, so it wouldn't be affected, but the fighter appears to have 30 tons of fuel and 60 tons of missiles. If it never fires its missiles (or fires them at the end of its journey) it will have the displayed "full load" delta-V of 1,145km/s. If it leaves without its missiles it has a delta-V of 1,526 km/s. Lastly if it made an attack run of 50% full-load delta-V it would burn 15.5 tons of fuel to reach 572 km/s, then if it launched its missiles the remaining delta-V would actually increase from 572 km/s to 774 km/s, giving a total delta-V of 1346 km/s.

Sorry, I misunderstood. By the way, the missile sizes in Newtonian Aurora are based on tons, not Missile Size Points. So a size 6 missile is 6 tons rather than 15 tons. The launchers are correspondingly smaller, so a box launcher for a size 1 missile is 3 tons rather than 7.5 tons.

I will try and post a missile design section soon but there are a lot of factors involved and haven't even started on some of the warhead types. It might be worth posting what I have so far though.

Steve

[Yonder]

Sorry, I misunderstood. By the way, the missile sizes in Newtonian Aurora are based on tons, not Missile Size Points. So a size 6 missile is 6 tons rather than 15 tons. The launchers are correspondingly smaller, so a box launcher for a size 1 missile is 3 tons rather than 7.5 tons.

Hmm, is that change reflected in the fighter stats? I had thought that the fuel massed 1 ton per thousand liters, which would mean the Fighter had 30 tons of fuel, and the remaining 60 ton difference between standard and full mass would be the four 15 ton missiles. If the Missile sizes have already been updated then it only has 24 tons of missiles.

Is there something else being jettisoned along with the missiles?

P.S. Sorry I'm being a nitpicky pain in the ass.

[UnLimiTeD]

Thinking about it, will we be able to mount "box launchers" outside the armor and jettison them after the attack?^^

[Steve Walmsley]

Hmm, is that change reflected in the fighter stats? I had thought that the fuel massed 1 ton per thousand liters, which would mean the Fighter had 30 tons of fuel, and the remaining 60 ton difference between standard and full mass would be the four 15 ton missiles. If the Missile sizes have already been updated then it only has 24 tons of missiles.

Is there something else being jettisoned along with the missiles?

P.S. Sorry I'm being a nitpicky pain in the ass.

Well spotted! Please keep being nitpicky

I had adjusted empty space in magazines for the new rules but forgot about missile launchers. Updated fighter below:

Twin Ion Engine class Fighter    202 tons standard     256 tons full load      2 Crew     80.95 BP
Length 20m     Armour 1-16     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 51%    IFR 0.7%    1YR 3    5YR 47    Max Repair 20 MSP
Active Signature 5.12    Thermal Signature 52.5    EM Signature 0/0
Magazine 24   

Fighter Ion Engine (2)    Total Power 5.25 MN    Fuel Use 2058 litres per hour   Exp 17%
Full Load Acceleration  20.51 mp/s (2.09G)    Hourly Acceleration 73.83 km/s    Daily Acceleration 1771.87 km/s
Standard Acceleration  25.99 mp/s (2.65G)    Hourly Acceleration 93.56 km/s    Daily Acceleration 2245.54 km/s
Fuel Capacity 30,000 Litres    Delta-V Budget (Full Load) 1,145 km/s    Full Burn Duration 14.6 hours

S6 Box Launcher (4)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
Missile Fire Control (1)     Range 60.0m km    Resolution 100

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

Thinking about it, will we be able to mount "box launchers" outside the armor and jettison them after the attack?^^

Not at the moment. A box launcher is only 3 tons per missile ton so you wouldn't save a huge amount. I will probably add drop-off fuel tanks at some stage though so some type of missile launch pod might be possible too.

Steve

[UnLimiTeD]

2 tons per missile ton?
Thats 200%!
Just saying
I suppose it would be somewhat wasteful anyways.^^
Enemy hitting you and they are all gone.

[scoopdjm]

Will fighters have any sort or ciws system? Or some form of missile deterrent?

[Yonder]

Will fighters have any sort or ciws system? Or some form of missile deterrent?

Steve said that the smallest railgun would now be 25 tons, does that count?

[bean]

It's better to think in terms of delta-V than fuel. If you break your burn times up into 1/4 fuel mass burns it's more confusing because each burn gets you a different speed. It's simpler to think of 1/4 delta-V as being a quarter of your capacity. Then the only thing you have to watch out for is other changing masses. For example if you have a "full load" (what Steve has been quoting in his designs) delta-V of 5k km/s and you burn for 2k km/s, then drop off all of your missiles, you'll have more than 3k km/s of Delta-V left.

You could actually run into situations where you have to launch your missiles at random waypoints since your mission plan assumed you would use 3/4 of your missiles at this location, and you don't have the delta-V to get back unless you leave your missiles behind (although I'm guessing most of us won't be planning missions with that little margin for error).

This is another issue with fighters.  If the missiles are a very significant fraction of vessel mass, then they will almost have to be fired.

I do like the change.  The velocities seemed to be getting entirely too high.

As for revised rail launchers, I also support that.  A modern fighter launch rail is about 25% of missile mass.  Of course, the missiles are outside the armor, and might go off...

[Yonder]

As for revised rail launchers, I also support that.  A modern fighter launch rail is about 25% of missile mass.  Of course, the missiles are outside the armor, and might go off...

The F-22, F-117, B-2, B1B and some other craft have internal launchers. I don't know how you'd go about making an estimate of the additional door mechanism mass that requires in addition to the launch rails though. Torpedo Tubes may be a better example (For normal launchers, not Boxes), but I don't know how you'd go about finding the mass of a torpedo tube.

Other examples you could look at include the Autoloaders for tanks, and even the mass of shoulder mounted missile launchers.

[bean]

The F-22, F-117, B-2, B1B and some other craft have internal launchers. I don't know how you'd go about making an estimate of the additional door mechanism mass that requires in addition to the launch rails though. Torpedo Tubes may be a better example (For normal launchers, not Boxes), but I don't know how you'd go about finding the mass of a torpedo tube.

Other examples you could look at include the Autoloaders for tanks, and even the mass of shoulder mounted missile launchers.

I was specifically referring to modern external missiles in the context of "hardpoints".
Also, a thought.  Shouldn't box launchers only mass twice that of the missile in question, as the missile itself will provide the rest?

[Steve Walmsley]

I was specifically referring to modern external missiles in the context of "hardpoints".
Also, a thought.  Shouldn't box launchers only mass twice that of the missile in question, as the missile itself will provide the rest?

They mass 3x because I also have to account for volume. If the missile is absent, the launcher only accounts for 2x mass but still 3x volume.

Steve