Author Topic: Fighter Design  (Read 2015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DizzyFoxkit (OP)

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 29
Fighter Design
« on: January 10, 2012, 06:19:54 PM »
My question is simple, how much tonnage/ hs do you use for your weaponry on your fighter, or do you try to go for more speed and keep the fighter under a certain tonnage?
 

Offline blue emu

  • Commander
  • *********
  • b
  • Posts: 344
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Fighter Design
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2012, 07:09:57 PM »
I try to keep my Fighters under 200 tons, at least until I reach pretty high tech levels.

Here's my current Strike Fighter:

Quote
Wasp I class Fighter    190 tons     3 Crew     49.1 BP      TCS 3.8  TH 53  EM 0
13947 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 38%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 3    5YR 52    Max Repair 25 MSP
Magazine 6    

FTR Magneto-plasma Drive E720 (1)    Power 52.8    Fuel Use 7200%    Signature 52.8    Armour 0    Exp 50%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km   (26 hours at full power)

Size 6 Box Launcher (1)    Missile Size 6    Hangar Reload 45 minutes    MF Reload 7.5 hours
FTR Missile Fire Control FC83-R100 1970 (1)     Range 83.2m km    Resolution 100
Size 6 ASM 4-50-1973 (1)  Speed: 37,700 km/s   End: 22.1m    Range: 50m km   WH: 4    Size: 6    TH: 264 / 158 / 79

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

... and my current Air Superiority Fighter:

Quote
Hornet I class Fighter    190 tons     3 Crew     49.1 BP      TCS 3.8  TH 53  EM 0
13947 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.9
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 38%    IFR 0.5%    1YR 3    5YR 41    Max Repair 25 MSP
Magazine 6    

FTR Magneto-plasma Drive E720 (1)    Power 52.8    Fuel Use 7200%    Signature 52.8    Armour 0    Exp 50%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 1.3 billion km   (26 hours at full power)

Size 2 Box Launcher (3)    Missile Size 2    Hangar Reload 15 minutes    MF Reload 2.5 hours
FTR Missile Fire Control FC21-R7 1970 (1)     Range 22.0m km    Resolution 7
Size 2 ASM 4-30-1973 (3)  Speed: 30,000 km/s   End: 16.7m    Range: 30m km   WH: 4    Size: 2    TH: 160 / 96 / 48

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
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 07:13:18 PM by blue emu »
 

Offline Gyrfalcon

  • Bug Moderators
  • Commander
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 331
  • Thanked: 199 times
Re: Fighter Design
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 03:16:31 AM »
I generally go for under 250 tons, allowing 4 to be assigned per hanger bay.  Weapons loadout is entirely dependent on tech level. As my sensor technology gets better, I play with the weapons configuration.
 

Offline jRides

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • j
  • Posts: 75
Re: Fighter Design
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 01:17:43 PM »
I'm the same , my primary concern is the tonnage, aiming below the 250 tons mark and updating weapons as tech improves.

I specialise even further with only a single fighter per squadron sporting an active sensor (usually with a reduced number of tubes, my strikefighters have 4 size 4 rails, the Ldr variant has a pair and an active sensor). Furthermore, independently operated AWACS fighters for providing radar coverage until the Ldr variants go active, (and extending radar coverage of the fleet itself) and tankers for in flight fuelling. The tanker and AWACS fighter-craft are usually bigger and are not armed.

Usually what suffers due to tech is the missile range, as engine and active sensor techs improve this will get better. Generally, if I can work my squadrons into 50-60m km range then each squadron (11 strikefighters + 1 Ldr) can unleash a 46 missile salvo that can often destroy the target outright and active sensors on the short range missiles send the excess at further targets. On an unsuspecting enemy (where there is no long or mid ranged defensive fire for the opening volley) this can and has proved devastating.