At which point non-missile combat fighters become again worthy?

[Arwyn]

I have used, and still used beam fighters for close defense. Beam fighters on a JP during a squadron transit can be very nasty. Like Steve, I wind up building beam fighters in just about every game. They are cheap military, cheap defense, and can be built with industry vs. shipyards. In numbers, they can be very effective. A squadron of 12 railgun fighters is 48 potential damage every five seconds, realistically 24 damage when you figure hit rates. That is perfectly capable of getting someones attention.

For example;

Code: [Select]

Hammerhead class Fighter      445 tons       20 Crew       97.8 BP       TCS 9    TH 40    EM 0
8989 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 2.80 Years     MSP 13    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 2    5YR 36    Max Repair 30 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Holst Aero Engines Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine  EP40.00 (2)    Power 80    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 20.0    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.23 billion km (7 hours at full power)

Tsan-Ahlheim 10cm Railgun V30/C3 (1x4)    Range 30,000km     TS: 8,989 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Dubuc-Rector Beam Fire Control R34-TS3000 (1)     Max Range: 33,600 km   TS: 3,000 km/s     53 30 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Senecal-Welte Electronics Active Search Sensor AS4-R1 (1)     GPS 8     Range 4.5m km    MCR 406.2k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

That is improved nuclear pulse tech, with a res 1 search sensor and an 18 ton beam FC. Thats the "fat" version with the sensor. And crew quality can improve those hit %, so against missiles or ships, you still have utility. Are they as good as dedicated ship systems? No, but you can build LOTS of them for the cost of a ship, drop them in bases/stations/carriers.

The down side is they are super squishy, short ranged, short duration, and myopic. But, like Stalin said "quantity has a quality of its own". You can build lots of these, they have some utility value vs just about anything, and they ARE useful for ripping chunks of armor off of ships.

The other thing is that fighters, in coordination with beam SHIPS have a lot of utility. They enemy has a limited number of fire controls. If they are shooting at your ships, the fighters last longer and have a better chance of doing damage, if they shoot fighters, the ships maul them unopposed.

[vorpal+5 (OP)]

Mmmh yes, but I see no reactor?   

[liveware]

Well, reactors are pretty small, especially for only a single railgun. Should still be well within the 500 ton fighter displacement limit.

I personally prefer small fighters, ideally 125 tons or less. I often build swarms of gauss fighters armed with minimum size gauss cannons (similar to the blade design previously posted) to escort my missile bombers (I roleplay that the low accuracy gauss fighters are engaging in dogfights to account for their horible accuracy). Because the gauss fighters are so small they can be made extremely fat which actually gives them better accuracy than expected.

With the introduction of the new single weapon fire controls in v113 I am excited about new possibilities for small railgun fighters and will probably also revisit reduced sized lasers on fighters.

[nuclearslurpee]

Because the gauss fighters are so small they can be made extremely fat

I realize this was a typo but the mental image you've given me is absolutely hilarious.