Author Topic: Low tech fighters  (Read 8045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Low tech fighters
« on: July 16, 2016, 12:52:55 PM »
Designed a set of fighters for a very low tech start - designed to last long enough one does not need to research even hangers space or bays.   Also able to handle long range patrols and keep population happy by being in system.   A tiny tender with just one hanger, fuel and arms stocks could keep a number of squads of these ships in operation indefinitely.  not super deadly but these are nuclear pulse era fighters. 

*note, many times I start with a conventional start with box launchers included. 


Code: [Select]
Ratel Mk I class Fighter    310 tons     8 Crew     43.52 BP      TCS 6.2  TH 13  EM 0
2096 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 93.62 Years     MSP 88    AFR 0%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 0    Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 4   

Hendericks-Borup Aerospace 12.8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (1)    Power 12.8    Fuel Use 50.49%    Signature 12.8    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 23.0 billion km   (126 days at full power)

Kyoun Systems Size 2 Box Launcher (2)    Missile Size 2    Hangar Reload 15 minutes    MF Reload 2.5 hours
Yan-Italiano Missile Fire Control FC18-R100 (1)     Range 18.0m km    Resolution 100
Stingray Mk I (2)  Speed: 4 200 km/s   End: 83.3m    Range: 21m km   WH: 1    Size: 1.903    TH: 21/12/6

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

Code: [Select]
Ratel Mk II class Fighter    400 tons     12 Crew     68.12 BP      TCS 8  TH 13  EM 0
1625 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
Maint Life 38.76 Years     MSP 106    AFR 1%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 36 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 1   

Hendericks-Borup Aerospace 12.8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (1)    Power 12.8    Fuel Use 50.49%    Signature 12.8    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 17.8 billion km   (126 days at full power)

Lowrimore-Niwa Active Search Sensor MR18-R100 (1)     GPS 3600     Range 18.0m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2016, 02:00:24 PM »
I hope they're not for the FSA... That looks like a OST violation.  :P
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2016, 06:01:10 PM »
I hope they're not for the FSA... That looks like a OST violation.  :P

No,the research cost to get box launchers is high in our sort of game.   Wouldn't mind giving everyone box launchers, but alas, that not how it works.

That reminds me, need to bring up the OST again in the UN  ;D
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2016, 03:40:07 PM »
Here is a updated design - much more deadly by upping to a single size 4 missile.


Code: [Select]
A-1 Spaceraider class Fighter    305 tons     8 Crew     43.72 BP      TCS 6.1  TH 13  EM 0
2131 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 89.23 Years     MSP 90    AFR 0%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 0    Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 4   

Oda Design Bureau 12.8 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (1)    Power 12.8    Fuel Use 56.1%    Signature 12.8    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres    Range 21.0 billion km   (114 days at full power)

Kemmerer-Simpon Cybernetics Size 4 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 4    Hangar Reload 30 minutes    MF Reload 5 hours
Coplon & Carrick Space & Security Missile Fire Control FC18-R100 (1)     Range 18.0m km    Resolution 100
ASM-01-Vulcan (1)  Speed: 10 000 km/s   End: 30.3m    Range: 18.2m km   WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 43/26/13

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
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2016, 06:56:23 PM »
Much preferable, I generally don't like salvos of 2 or 3 missiles.
If enemy anti-missile defence is likely to be limited by fire controls rather than volume, we may as well use bigger missiles.
 

Offline Cavgunner

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 283
  • Thanked: 129 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2016, 10:10:49 PM »
Your fighter is barely faster than capital ships of the same tech level, the 21 billion km range is excessive, it has far more MSP than it could ever conceivably need, and the loadout of 2 size 2 missiles (or 1 size 4) is laughable.  18 million km's is also a bit excessive range for a mere size 2 missile, imo (I prefer 8-12 million km at lower tech levels).

If you want a cheap patrol unit that can travel between systems, I'd suggest using FACs instead.  You'll have more hull space to work with.  Because fighters are so small, it is important to cut as much fat as possible.  This allows them to carry as much punch as possible while also being as fast as possible.  I understand the reasoning behind your design notes, and that these fighters are intended to provide a cheap and low-maintenance military presence for outlying colonies.  Unfortunately the result is a design that is too slow, too long-legged, and unable to meaningfully contribute to a fight once it gets to its destination. 

For carrier operations, I find that an operating range of 4-10 days is sufficient, while engineering spaces are not usually necessary for fighters at all.

And honestly, the most practical solution to provide that initial presence for colony systems is just to build a small troopship and drop off a garrison battalion there to control unrest.  Meanwhile you simply wait for your tech to mature a couple levels before investing in your first actual warships.  If anyone is assaulting your systems while you are still at tech level 1 or 2, you probably won't be able to stop them anyway.
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2016, 11:24:58 PM »
If anyone is assaulting your systems while you are still at tech level 1 or 2, you probably won't be able to stop them anyway.

This is probably one of the strongest points here. I can only really see low tech fighters being useful for a multi-nation start on the same planet where nobody has any shipyards.
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Iranon

  • Guest
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2016, 01:21:07 AM »
@ Cavgunner: I don't get your notions of what a fighter "should" be. Lean, fast, short-legged, hangar-based works... but it's not the only combination that does.

There's nothing that encourages small craft to be particularly fast. In fact, missile fighters may be able to safely sacrifice a little performance.

If you build craft that last forever, fighters are a better choice than FACs: they can remain in orbit without needlessly using maintenance facilities and wasting minerals.

If they have extreme maintenance lives and decent deployment times, it's only natural to give them the range to not need a carrier.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2016, 09:42:03 AM »
I agree with Iranon. Some of my favorite fighters that I designed were only little faster than the warships and were equipped with 2 main weapons (laser, rail, particle, etc). Not only were they good extra missile defense, but they tore up enemy fighters and other small ships. And Cavgunner, in space a fighter might not equal an atmospheric fighter but more like a flying tank.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2016, 12:16:08 PM »
Your fighter is barely faster than capital ships of the same tech level, the 21 billion km range is excessive, it has far more MSP than it could ever conceivably need, and the loadout of 2 size 2 missiles (or 1 size 4) is laughable.  18 million km's is also a bit excessive range for a mere size 2 missile, imo (I prefer 8-12 million km at lower tech levels).

I am not looking for a fast fighter - think of more of a PBY flying boat that can be built in the years it takes to get to higher tech levels and then train the new fighters up to snuff.   
The range was so that I didn't even need to build or use a carrier to ship them to a system, they could hop from one colony to the next.
I do agree that the 2x2 box launchers was anemic - its why I updated to the 1x4 setup.
I like range on my missiles - many ships would never detect the fighters as they launch and have strikes on the ship.

Quote
If you want a cheap patrol unit that can travel between systems, I'd suggest using FACs instead.  You'll have more hull space to work with.  Because fighters are so small, it is important to cut as much fat as possible.  This allows them to carry as much punch as possible while also being as fast as possible.  I understand the reasoning behind your design notes, and that these fighters are intended to provide a cheap and low-maintenance military presence for outlying colonies.  Unfortunately the result is a design that is too slow, too long-legged, and unable to meaningfully contribute to a fight once it gets to its destination. 

a squadron of these craft (10 missile carriers and 2 sensor craft) would be equal to 6 FACs (Five missile and 1 sensor) - while not using up limited  shipyard space. 
At the same time, they have 90 year lifespans.  Once you have a backwater colony with x million they will demand defense.  Drop off 1-2 squadrons of these old fighters and you will keep the population happy without maintenance yards or other logistical issues such as maintaining a wide range of materials to maintain the FACs.


Quote
For carrier operations, I find that an operating range of 4-10 days is sufficient, while engineering spaces are not usually necessary for fighters at all.

These are not designed for carrier operations in mind.   

Quote
And honestly, the most practical solution to provide that initial presence for colony systems is just to build a small troopship and drop off a garrison battalion there to control unrest.  Meanwhile you simply wait for your tech to mature a couple levels before investing in your first actual warships.  If anyone is assaulting your systems while you are still at tech level 1 or 2, you probably won't be able to stop them anyway.

I am not expecting my "Backwater patrol craft" that I build for dirt cheap in the early game to stop a invasion.   I just want slots for my Lt. Commanders to command early game, and a simple way to keep a system content.   Unlike FACs they don't cost to maintain, When playing a conventional start it might be 10 years before you can make decent ships and FACs, till then you can make 3-4 squads of these for a song.  Also if you have someone in system in the start, it can be useful as well.   

I am well aware that these are not high tech carrier fighters -- but they were not designed as such. 
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2016, 12:32:18 PM »
The sensor fighter won't be sneaky though.
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2016, 12:39:02 PM »
The sensor fighter won't be sneaky though.

They are built in limited numbers in case other craft/PDCs do not provide coverage - Idealy they would be vectored in by another ship or PDC.  If not, they would fly in and only "light up" the ships when in range. 

to be fair, I am not expecting Tech 2 fighters to be surviving many encounters.  On my other computer I have the Tech 3 fighter which is of course, more effective.  I plan to build one of these fighters for every engine tech level to kinda show to progression of the design type. 
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline Drgong (OP)

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1181
  • Thanked: 34 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2016, 02:02:33 PM »
Code: [Select]
A-2 Epi class Fighter    345 tons     10 Crew     63.28 BP      TCS 6.9  TH 19  EM 0
2753 km/s     Armour 1-4     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 50.33 Years     MSP 115    AFR 0%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 32 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 8 months    Spare Berths 0   
Magazine 4   

Bush 19.2 EP Ion Drive (fighter) (1)    Power 19.2    Fuel Use 50.49%    Signature 19.2    Exp 8%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 10.3 billion km   (43 days at full power)

Kemmerer-Simpon Cybernetics Size 4 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 4    Hangar Reload 30 minutes    MF Reload 5 hours
Grieb-Chalifour Missile Fire Control FC48-R100 (1)     Range 48.0m km    Resolution 100
ASM-01-Vulcan (1)  Speed: 10 000 km/s   End: 30.3m    Range: 18.2m km   WH: 4    Size: 4    TH: 43/26/13

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

The next generation.    Less range, perhaps less useful. 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 02:34:54 PM by Drgong »
Check out or Join my Community Game
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=235.0
Also check out my stories, including Interactive tales.
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?board=239.0
 

Offline TCD

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • T
  • Posts: 229
  • Thanked: 16 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2016, 05:43:16 PM »
Out of interest, why didn't you go for a beam fighter instead of a missile fighter? They would then always have some value for point defense, if nothing else (and possibly JP guards as well).
 

Offline FrederickAlexander

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 87
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: Low tech fighters
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2016, 10:08:41 PM »
I am amazed that you are building fighters at such low tech, I usually go for corvettes rather than fighters at such early tech, or frigates