Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Advanced Tactical Command Academy => Topic started by: quintin522 on February 07, 2010, 11:09:39 AM
-
Does anyone know if this is feasible? My idea was to mount a small turrent and fire control on a fighter, and then they would travel in front of you ships. Has this been tried before?
-
Very Babylon 5 Earth Alliance. I heartily approve
I can't see why it shouldn't work as fighters are essentially just small ships. Position them on the threat axis and set them to area defence or keep 'em with the fleet and set them on point blank (I like to think of the T-bolts with Agamemnon against the Clarkstown there), and they ought to engage any incoming.
Turret size and necessary tracking speed for the fire control might make it too big for a fighter to do the role effectively though. However, your fighters will be going pretty quickly usually, so you might not need a turret. Fiddle with some designs and see. You might be better off with a gunboat.
Stephen
-
Can you cram a CIWS into a fighter? My pd fighters usually run with a 1/2 size gauss cannon.
-
Would CIWS on a fighter fire upon missiles intended for its mothership?
-
No CIWS on a fighter would not fire at missiles targeted on mother ship
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
-
Very Babylon 5 Earth Alliance. I heartily approve
I can't see why it shouldn't work as fighters are essentially just small ships. Position them on the threat axis and set them to area defence or keep 'em with the fleet and set them on point blank (I like to think of the T-bolts with Agamemnon against the Clarkstown there), and they ought to engage any incoming.
Turret size and necessary tracking speed for the fire control might make it too big for a fighter to do the role effectively though. However, your fighters will be going pretty quickly usually, so you might not need a turret. Fiddle with some designs and see. You might be better off with a gunboat.
Stephen
One thing to remember is that the fire control for fighters is not the same as for other ships. There is a fighter only fire control and the benifit is that it starts with x4 speed multiplier, without having a bigger unit.
For example if your fire control is speed 3000, then the base speed for fighters is 12000 km/s.
This means for lower tech levels you can make a fairly small fire control x.5 range, x1 speed that is just as likely to hit the missiles as the larger fire control on a ship with turrets would be. If your fighter is fast enough then the turret is not needed, otherwise you might want the turret.
Brian
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
Banshee Mk1 class Fighter 355 tons 43 Crew 67.5 BP TCS 7.1 TH 28.5 EM 0
8028 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 71% IFR: 1% Maint Capacity 0 MSP Max Repair 15 MSP Est Time: 0 Years
Mandatyr KIllership MP StarDrive (1) Power 57 Fuel Use 7000% Signature 28.5 Armour 0 Exp 80%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 3.6 billion km (5 days at full power)
R1.5/C3 High Power Microwave (1) Range 15,000km TS: 8028 km/s Power 3-3 RM 1.5 ROF 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BFC FTR Micro (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 20000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
While i could reduce the size of this slightly, I would have to reduce the endurance to less than my usual minimum. This unit cannot operate alone, it needs a mothership or base to operate from.
it requires active sensors from another source and just about any maintenance failure cripples it, any damage other than the crew quarters will be a mission kill (as most systems are too small to absorb damage), and given its (relatively) low track speed its not going to be all that great in an anti missile role even if the HPM were usable for that (I dont know that it is or not)
I did look at a Banshee Mk2 with a sligtly bigger HPM, but it slowed the fighter down too much to be usable
-
One thing to remember is that the fire control for fighters is not the same as for other ships. There is a fighter only fire control and the benifit is that it starts with x4 speed multiplier, without having a bigger unit.
For example if your fire control is speed 3000, then the base speed for fighters is 12000 km/s.
This means for lower tech levels you can make a fairly small fire control x.5 range, x1 speed that is just as likely to hit the missiles as the larger fire control on a ship with turrets would be. If your fighter is fast enough then the turret is not needed, otherwise you might want the turret.
Brian
That's handy! I haven't messed around with fighters very much, so as someone said the other day, even us old timers keep learning new things.
Cheers
Stephen
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.
-
This means for lower tech levels you can make a fairly small fire control x.5 range, x1 speed that is just as likely to hit the missiles as the larger fire control on a ship with turrets would be. If your fighter is fast enough then the turret is not needed, otherwise you might want the turret.
My experience (with moderately low tech e.g. lvl 3 or so) is that the fire control ends up MUCH faster than the fighter's speed, and so the fighter won't be suitable for a missile defense role because putting a turret on will mass too much. Hence the suggestion that turret speed add to (rather than replace) ship speed for tracking.
John
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.
When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.
Steve
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.
When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.
Steve
How long has that been on your list now Steve? Seems like a semi-mythical Shangri-La to me
-
When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.
How long has that been on your list now Steve? Seems like a semi-mythical Shangri-La to me :)
Steve
-
Hmm...this has given me an idea for the suggestions list. In the Honorverse, they would burn out the enemy missile's guidance system using ECM. While I don't believe this is already in the game, but if it was a ECM Fighter would be even better than a PD one.
along with that I'd like to see using nuclear warheads to blind the enemy, like the Havenite Triple Ripple.
When I finally get around to my full EW rewrite, I will be creating a variety of deception tactics. Something along these lines could probably be added at that point.
Steve
Yuck! No thanks to the pointless, nasty Weberism from me. A nuclear explosion in space is not going to shut down your sensors (especially our uber-TN ones). Even if you do create a small area of local disruption for a short while (and remember this is an expanding sphere of "disruption" getting weaker by the second), you're just going to move your ship a few thousand kms in any of the many directions available to you and look around it or wait until it gets so diffuse you can see through it. Even if you fire lots of missiles and create a bigger shield/wall, again, I just move a bit and "hey, look, there they are". If you can fire enough missiles to create a large and disruptive enough area to block sensors that requires any significant amount of time to move to see around it (and is so intense it won't be transparent for long enough), then stop messing about and shoot them at the ships instead and blow them up.
Stephen
-
I ended up doing this with a swarm of 50 meson armed fighters. They had been designed as escorts for my fast attack craft, and not for PD, but when I ran into some precursors i was forced to convert my entire fleet to PD, With the help of my fighters thinning the 3 24 missile salvos 60k ahead of my fleet, one of my two capital ships was able to weather their attack, and both my carriers survived. 7 out of 8 of my FAC and Destroyers were destroyed, but one survived it, leaving me with 1 active sensor that was undamaged. With my remaining capital ship blind, and my sensor ships destroyed, my max range on sensors were 160k km. I sent the last FAC with my fighters in what i hoped was the direction of the precursor fleet, a couple hours later the precursor ships lit up their active sensors, i'm guessing because they picked me up on thermal, acting as a lighthouse to my shortsighted attack force.
All in all it made for a pretty epic, and hairy battle.
edit: here are the fighters that did it:
Bahamas class Fighter 350 tons 48 Crew 59.5 BP TCS 7 TH 25.5 EM 0
7285 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 3
Annual Failure Rate: 1% IFR: 0% Maint Capacity 53 MSP Max Repair 15 MSP Est Time: 18.49 Years
FTR Magneto-plasma Drive E880 (1) Power 51 Fuel Use 8800% Signature 25.5 Armour 0 Exp 35%
Fuel Capacity 50,000 Litres Range 2.9 billion km (4 days at full power)
R3/C3 Meson Cannon (1) Range 30,000km TS: 7285 km/s Power 3-3 RM 3 ROF 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.5 20-3000 (FTR) (1) Max Range: 40,000 km TS: 12000 km/s 75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 AR-0 (1) Total Power Output 3 Armour 0 Exp 5%
This design is classed as a military vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as a fighter for production and combat purposes
-
Yuck! No thanks to the pointless, nasty Weberism from me. A nuclear explosion in space is not going to shut down your sensors (especially our uber-TN ones). Even if you do create a small area of local disruption for a short while (and remember this is an expanding sphere of "disruption" getting weaker by the second), you're just going to move your ship a few thousand kms in any of the many directions available to you and look around it or wait until it gets so diffuse you can see through it. Even if you fire lots of missiles and create a bigger shield/wall, again, I just move a bit and "hey, look, there they are". If you can fire enough missiles to create a large and disruptive enough area to block sensors that requires any significant amount of time to move to see around it (and is so intense it won't be transparent for long enough), then stop messing about and shoot them at the ships instead and blow them up.
Stephen
I wasn't talking about blinding the ships, I was speaking of blinding the missiles, which is what it was used for in the books