Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:58:18 AM »Thanks for all of your help.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:46:07 AM »With those techs I'd change the ASM stats to:
2.6msp engine (X5) giving 13EP
1msp warhead giving 6pt
.4 fuel (1000liter)
Speed is now 65,000kps, range 68.6m km/17.61minutes, tohit vs 3000/5000/10000 216.7%/130%/65%
I very rarely use much agility in ASM's. With the bias towards engine the missiles are faster and thus more difficult to intercept. Since the primary target is warships I plan against expected speeds, in this case 5k/kps and 130% is actually a bit of overkill.
My version of the Eagle would look something like this:
1x5hs engine (x2.5) 250EP
1xtiny fuel storage(5000liter)
1xMFC Res-10 size-1.8hs 67m/km vs 500hs and larger
3x 4msp box launcher(what you currently have)
The result will be a little closer to 10hs, have a speed close to 25k/kps, range drops too 322m/km.
I like to have smallcraft be able to engage from well outside of expected missile defense ranges and I'm willing to bring carriers in closer. That MFC can engage similiar sized smallcraft and larger at close too the max range of the missile I spec'd. Granted, this approach requires another platform with actives that can see the target at those ranges.
2.6msp engine (X5) giving 13EP
1msp warhead giving 6pt
.4 fuel (1000liter)
Speed is now 65,000kps, range 68.6m km/17.61minutes, tohit vs 3000/5000/10000 216.7%/130%/65%
I very rarely use much agility in ASM's. With the bias towards engine the missiles are faster and thus more difficult to intercept. Since the primary target is warships I plan against expected speeds, in this case 5k/kps and 130% is actually a bit of overkill.
My version of the Eagle would look something like this:
1x5hs engine (x2.5) 250EP
1xtiny fuel storage(5000liter)
1xMFC Res-10 size-1.8hs 67m/km vs 500hs and larger
3x 4msp box launcher(what you currently have)
The result will be a little closer to 10hs, have a speed close to 25k/kps, range drops too 322m/km.
I like to have smallcraft be able to engage from well outside of expected missile defense ranges and I'm willing to bring carriers in closer. That MFC can engage similiar sized smallcraft and larger at close too the max range of the missile I spec'd. Granted, this approach requires another platform with actives that can see the target at those ranges.
Posted by: Starfyre
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:13:22 AM »Quote from: metalax link=topic=6187. msg63245#msg63245 date=1370346303
Yes, engineering spaces on the actual fighter are needed for maintenance, ie reducing how often failures occur. The failure rate listed on the design is for when the fighter has no time on it's maintenance clock. As a fighters maintenance clock increases, it will start suffering maintenance failures more frequently. Carriers are good for actual repairs as quite often a single fighter sized engineering space wont carry enough supplies to actually fix something that broke.
Maintenence modules for fighters aren't worth it for anything other than a scout fighter, becuse they get in the way of the holy grail of fighter survival and versatility, maximum speed. The maintenence clock is only incremented or checked when the fighter is deployed, ie, not in a hangar, and your strike fighter is going to be in and out of the hangar on the order of a day or two tops per deployment, simply because of fuel exhaustion. On the rare chance that a fighter does catch the wrath of the RNG and lose an engine, the carrier can always grab it for in-hangar repairs. I don't think I've ever seen a strikefighter suffer a maintenence failure even without engineering spaces. had a couple scout fighters get dinged, but I've had them picket stuff for weeks at a time before.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 08:54:52 AM »What tech levels are you currently using?
It looks like you're using:
Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology
Internal Confinement Fusion Drive Technology
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Litres per Engine Power Hour
from here it is less certain
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5(x5 missile engine)
Fusion-boosted Fission Warhead: Strength: 5 x MSP
Missile Agility 100 per MSP
Specificly what are you using for:
Active Grav Sensor Strength
EM Sensor Sensitivity
Armour
Keep in mind that the multiple engine use in your fighters is really only limiting range.(granted at these sizes the efficiency modifier doesn't change much) As you've noted ships this small are fragile, so the component redundency is less beneficial.
Specificly what are you using for:
Active Grav Sensor Strength: Researching Active Grav Sensor 48, done in 1 yr 9 months
EM Sensor Sensitivity: Researching EM Sensor Sensitivity 14, complete in 2 yrs 8 months
Armour: Researching compressed carbon armor, but it is a back burner project atm with only 1 lab to help build researcher skill. Completion date currently 97 years
The last two could be further prioritized if necessary. Active Grav Sensor 48 is currently maxed out with best researcher, so it cannot be sped up anymore.
Edit to add: Current missile agility is 80, not 100. Also I get 6/msp not 5.
Missile Agility 100 will not even start for 3 years; ok I moved some researchers around to knock 1.5 years off of launcher reload rate 5. So agility 100 will start in 1.5 years.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: June 04, 2013, 07:51:49 AM »What tech levels are you currently using?
It looks like you're using:
Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology
Internal Confinement Fusion Drive Technology
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Litres per Engine Power Hour
from here it is less certain
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5(x5 missile engine)
Fusion-boosted Fission Warhead: Strength: 5 x MSP
Missile Agility 100 per MSP
Specificly what are you using for:
Active Grav Sensor Strength
EM Sensor Sensitivity
Armour
Keep in mind that the multiple engine use in your fighters is really only limiting range.(granted at these sizes the efficiency modifier doesn't change much) As you've noted ships this small are fragile, so the component redundency is less beneficial.
It looks like you're using:
Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology
Internal Confinement Fusion Drive Technology
Fuel Consumption: 0.6 Litres per Engine Power Hour
from here it is less certain
Maximum Engine Power Modifier x2.5(x5 missile engine)
Fusion-boosted Fission Warhead: Strength: 5 x MSP
Missile Agility 100 per MSP
Specificly what are you using for:
Active Grav Sensor Strength
EM Sensor Sensitivity
Armour
Keep in mind that the multiple engine use in your fighters is really only limiting range.(granted at these sizes the efficiency modifier doesn't change much) As you've noted ships this small are fragile, so the component redundency is less beneficial.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:52:00 AM »Ok. Here are the latest versions then.
F15Eagle class Fighter 468 tons 5 Crew 119.9 BP TCS 9.35 TH 144 EM 0
15401 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 11.15 Years MSP 40 AFR 6% IFR 0.1% 1YR 1 5YR 9 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 1
Magazine 12
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (6) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (37 hours at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Size 3.875 Anti-ship Missile (3) Speed: 33,000 km/s End: 19.6m Range: 38.8m km WH: 6 Size: 3.875 TH: 363/217/108
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
F16A-Falcon class Fighter 478 tons 7 Crew 240.5 BP TCS 9.55 TH 120 EM 0
12565 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Maint Life 9.64 Years MSP 79 AFR 7% IFR 0.1% 1YR 2 5YR 23 Max Repair 131 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 5
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.0 billion km (44 hours at full power)
F1610cm C0.3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 150,000km TS: 12565 km/s Power 3-0.3 RM 5 ROF 50 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
F16Fire Control S01 175-5000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
F16Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 4 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
F15Eagle class Fighter 468 tons 5 Crew 119.9 BP TCS 9.35 TH 144 EM 0
15401 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 11.15 Years MSP 40 AFR 6% IFR 0.1% 1YR 1 5YR 9 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 1
Magazine 12
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (6) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (37 hours at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Size 3.875 Anti-ship Missile (3) Speed: 33,000 km/s End: 19.6m Range: 38.8m km WH: 6 Size: 3.875 TH: 363/217/108
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
F16A-Falcon class Fighter 478 tons 7 Crew 240.5 BP TCS 9.55 TH 120 EM 0
12565 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Maint Life 9.64 Years MSP 79 AFR 7% IFR 0.1% 1YR 2 5YR 23 Max Repair 131 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 5
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.0 billion km (44 hours at full power)
F1610cm C0.3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 150,000km TS: 12565 km/s Power 3-0.3 RM 5 ROF 50 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
F16Fire Control S01 175-5000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
F16Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 4 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Posted by: metalax
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:45:03 AM »That's quite a huge bit of agility, are these missiles really required to reliably hit targets way faster then 10k km/s? Wouldn't most of those MSPs be better spent on WH instead considering Size 1 AMMs normally work fine against FTRs and FACs?
True, that was just a quick design for illustration, so not optimised. I also tend to make my size 3-4 missiles for taking out fighters/facs as well as anti-ship work, so I tend to run with a higher agility. Still, agility would be cut somewhat to boost engine size/fuel when optimising it.
I had ignored engineering spaces thinking that if a fighter gets hit, it is dead. It will not likely get "damaged". Are engineering spaces necessary for maintenance? Shouldn't the CV or PDC provide the maintenance? That is how we did it in the USN.
Yes, engineering spaces on the actual fighter are needed for maintenance, ie reducing how often failures occur. The failure rate listed on the design is for when the fighter has no time on it's maintenance clock. As a fighters maintenance clock increases, it will start suffering maintenance failures more frequently. Carriers are good for actual repairs as quite often a single fighter sized engineering space wont carry enough supplies to actually fix something that broke.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:44:50 AM »Assuming you have kept your missile techs in line with your engine tech(so WH:8 Agility:100 Fuel:0.5 Max power:x3) then you should be able to design something like the following for the short-ranged anti-ship role.
WH 1.125 Fuel 0.175 Agility 1.1 size 1.6 x6 power fusion engineCode: [Select]Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 9 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 38
Speed: 48000 km/s Engine Endurance: 6 minutes Range: 16.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.85
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1824% 3k km/s 608% 5k km/s 364.8% 10k km/s 182.4%
Materials Required: 2.25x Tritanium 4.6x Gallicite Fuel x437.5
Development Cost for Project: 685RP
For your fighter I'd recommend using max power engines and adding some more small fuel tanks to bring the range back up a bit. I'd also put a fighter engineering space on the design as it should almost entirely remove the chance of breakdowns over the fighters expected lifetime.
I must be a couple of techs behind you there. OTOH, this missile will fit my needs until I catch up.
Missile Size: 3.875 MSP (0.19375 HS) Warhead: 6 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 33
Speed: 33000 km/s Engine Endurance: 20 minutes Range: 38.8m km
Cost Per Missile: 4.86
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1089% 3k km/s 363% 5k km/s 217.8% 10k km/s 108.9%
Materials Required: 1.5x Tritanium 3.36x Gallicite Fuel x437.5
Development Cost for Project: 486RP
Making my WH size 1.125 still left me with a warhead of 6. I also do not have the ability to make a x6 power engine.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:28:42 AM »I had ignored engineering spaces thinking that if a fighter gets hit, it is dead. It will not likely get "damaged". Are engineering spaces necessary for maintenance? Shouldn't the CV or PDC provide the maintenance? That is how we did it in the USN.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:19:15 AM »My thoughts on fighter doctrine are to use them well in advance of the fleet. My standard fleet speed is 6 kkps. The fleet pops in through the wormhole, AWACS detects enemy ships at extreme range (2-3 billion kilometers), the decoy fleet(heavily armored and shielded BIG ships loosely based on Blue Emu's "Rocks") heads directly for the hostiles with their active sensors lit up, ~6 hours later the fleet heads in the same direction, at 500 million to 1 billion km the fighters are deployed, at 200 million km the CAs launch an alpha strike by which time the fighters should have already closed to their combat ranges and they launch a TOT(Time on Target) strike to coincide with the CA missile arrival. Beam armed CLs and Gauss armed FFs clean up stragglers. The CVs and the CC(command cruiser, my AWACS) stay farthest back covered by Gauss PD DDs and FFs. I do still have some AMM armed PD DDs and FFs, but they are being phased out in favor of Gauss CIWS and PD.
Anyway, here is a slightly revamped F-15:
F15Eagle class Fighter 455 tons 4 Crew 117.4 BP TCS 9.1 TH 144 EM 0
15824 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 91% IFR 1.3% 1YR 8 5YR 125 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 2
Magazine 12
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (6) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (37 hours at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Churchill Anti-ship Missile (4) Speed: 21,600 km/s End: 15.1m Range: 19.5m km WH: 5 Size: 3 TH: 72/43/21
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
Here is my Air Superiority Fighter F-16A
F16A-Falcon class Fighter 455 tons 6 Crew 235.8 BP TCS 9.1 TH 120 EM 0
13186 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 91% IFR 1.3% 1YR 21 5YR 314 Max Repair 131 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 0
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (44 hours at full power)
F1610cm C0.3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 150,000km TS: 13186 km/s Power 3-0.3 RM 5 ROF 50 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
F16Fire Control S01 175-5000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
F16Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 4 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Anyway, here is a slightly revamped F-15:
F15Eagle class Fighter 455 tons 4 Crew 117.4 BP TCS 9.1 TH 144 EM 0
15824 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 91% IFR 1.3% 1YR 8 5YR 125 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 2
Magazine 12
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (6) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (37 hours at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Churchill Anti-ship Missile (4) Speed: 21,600 km/s End: 15.1m Range: 19.5m km WH: 5 Size: 3 TH: 72/43/21
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
Here is my Air Superiority Fighter F-16A
F16A-Falcon class Fighter 455 tons 6 Crew 235.8 BP TCS 9.1 TH 120 EM 0
13186 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 2
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 91% IFR 1.3% 1YR 21 5YR 314 Max Repair 131 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 0
24 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 24 Fuel Use 93.7% Signature 24 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 2.1 billion km (44 hours at full power)
F1610cm C0.3 Far Ultraviolet Laser (1) Range 150,000km TS: 13186 km/s Power 3-0.3 RM 5 ROF 50 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1
F16Fire Control S01 175-5000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 350,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 97 94 91 89 86 83 80 77 74 71
F16Tokamak Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1) Total Power Output 4 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: June 04, 2013, 06:12:12 AM »Assuming you have kept your missile techs in line with your engine tech(so WH:8 Agility:100 Fuel:0.5 Max power:x3) then you should be able to design something like the following for the short-ranged anti-ship role.That's quite a huge bit of agility, are these missiles really required to reliably hit targets way faster then 10k km/s? Wouldn't most of those MSPs be better spent on WH instead considering Size 1 AMMs normally work fine against FTRs and FACs?
WH 1.125 Fuel 0.175 Agility 1.1 size 1.6 x6 power fusion engineCode: [Select]Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 9 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 38
Speed: 48000 km/s Engine Endurance: 6 minutes Range: 16.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.85
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1824% 3k km/s 608% 5k km/s 364.8% 10k km/s 182.4%
Materials Required: 2.25x Tritanium 4.6x Gallicite Fuel x437.5
Development Cost for Project: 685RP
Posted by: metalax
« on: June 04, 2013, 05:58:00 AM »Assuming you have kept your missile techs in line with your engine tech(so WH:8 Agility:100 Fuel:0.5 Max power:x3) then you should be able to design something like the following for the short-ranged anti-ship role.
WH 1.125 Fuel 0.175 Agility 1.1 size 1.6 x6 power fusion engine
For your fighter I'd recommend using max power engines and adding some more small fuel tanks to bring the range back up a bit. I'd also put a fighter engineering space on the design as it should almost entirely remove the chance of breakdowns over the fighters expected lifetime.
WH 1.125 Fuel 0.175 Agility 1.1 size 1.6 x6 power fusion engine
Code: [Select]
Missile Size: 4 MSP (0.2 HS) Warhead: 9 Armour: 0 Manoeuvre Rating: 38
Speed: 48000 km/s Engine Endurance: 6 minutes Range: 16.4m km
Cost Per Missile: 6.85
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1824% 3k km/s 608% 5k km/s 364.8% 10k km/s 182.4%
Materials Required: 2.25x Tritanium 4.6x Gallicite Fuel x437.5
Development Cost for Project: 685RPFor your fighter I'd recommend using max power engines and adding some more small fuel tanks to bring the range back up a bit. I'd also put a fighter engineering space on the design as it should almost entirely remove the chance of breakdowns over the fighters expected lifetime.
Posted by: Starfyre
« on: June 03, 2013, 09:13:32 PM »The missiles are going to be pretty short ranged either way because of your fire control, yeah? pump up your missile engine fuel use. for 18mkm max range, you want an engine that's basically as powerful as you can make it, which puts you in the PD missile design regime. sure, you'll burn through fuel fast, but at those ranges it's the difference between . 1 fuel storage and . 2 fuel storage. anything you lose in space for more fuel you more than gain in increased accuracy and effectiveness at penetrating hostile point defense. Depending on how much missile space you have devoted to engines, you might be able to upscale the warhead on that thing as well. 21kkm/s is pretty slow for a fusion-era shipkiller. I'd recommend doing the same thing for your fighter engines, but I dunno. maybe you need a really long-ranged fighter.
Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:03:47 PM »I have designed a couple of new fighters, my problem now seems to be designing missiles to work with the missile armed fighter. Is there a good missile design thread around? I can't seem to get the balance between size-speed-damage-agility that I want. I may want too much for my tech though.
Here is the fighter platform I will likely go with:
F15Eagle class Fighter 405 tons 3 Crew 95.4 BP TCS 8.1 TH 100 EM 0
12345 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 81% IFR 1.1% 1YR 6 5YR 97 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 3
Magazine 12
20 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 20 Fuel Use 59.4% Signature 20 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 3.7 billion km (3 days at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Churchill Anti-ship Missile (4) Speed: 21,600 km/s End: 15.1m Range: 19.5m km WH: 5 Size: 3 TH: 72/43/21
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
Ignore the missile, I have not finalized a design yet. Though I do like the speed for it. I am ok with the range. The to hit numbers really suck. I really need a good missile design tutorial. My old missiles did fine against the precursors, but they are not suitable for fighter use.
Here is the fighter platform I will likely go with:
F15Eagle class Fighter 405 tons 3 Crew 95.4 BP TCS 8.1 TH 100 EM 0
12345 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 81% IFR 1.1% 1YR 6 5YR 97 Max Repair 25 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.5 months Spare Berths 3
Magazine 12
20 EP Internal Fusion Drive (5) Power 20 Fuel Use 59.4% Signature 20 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres Range 3.7 billion km (3 days at full power)
Size 4 Box Launcher (3) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
F15BMissile Fire Control FC18-R5 (1) Range 18.6m km Resolution 5
Churchill Anti-ship Missile (4) Speed: 21,600 km/s End: 15.1m Range: 19.5m km WH: 5 Size: 3 TH: 72/43/21
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
Ignore the missile, I have not finalized a design yet. Though I do like the speed for it. I am ok with the range. The to hit numbers really suck. I really need a good missile design tutorial. My old missiles did fine against the precursors, but they are not suitable for fighter use.
Posted by: Starfyre
« on: June 03, 2013, 04:47:25 PM »Quote from: sonofliberty link=topic=6187. msg63220#msg63220 date=1370254589
Should I just go with light very very fast beam or Gauss fighters instead of missiles and box launchers?
Probably box launchers for fighters. I've found fighters are a bit small for a beam fit unless you've got fairly good tech. not for the guns, but for the mass associated with ECM/ECCM, and firecons. I've had a lot of luck running FACs with beam armaments, though. for a thousand ton fac, you can generally get a couple weapons, decent ewarfare equipment, and often enough spare tonnage to put 2-3 layers of armor on while being *almost* as fast as a fighter and generally better ranged. I know the general consensus is against putting armor on light craft, but I've had fac designs where adding 4 layers of armor takes me up a whole fifty tons, and that makes you a helluva lot more durable in combat. the FAC is still gonna die when the enemy decides to unload on it, but if that fac dies in two or three salvos instead of one, or takes 2-3x groups of missiles instead of one, that means your fac group dies slower, and groups that die slower can kill more during that. I've also had a lot of luck building 800 ton FACs as well, if I need to pour on more speed. you can also prefab FAC parts in construction factories, which means that with a decently sized FACyard (6-10x1000ton slipways) you can pump out FACs in absurd numbers as long as your minerals hold out. Certain spoilers are a lot easier when you can drown them under 300 dual meson FACs a year.
