Posted by: sonofliberty
« on: June 04, 2013, 09:58:18 AM »Thanks for all of your help.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
Should I just go with light very very fast beam or Gauss fighters instead of missiles and box launchers?