Aurora 4x
VB6 Aurora => Bureau of Ship Design => Topic started by: Drgong 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.
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
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
-
I hope they're not for the FSA... That looks like a OST violation. :P
-
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
-
Here is a updated design - much more deadly by upping to a single size 4 missile.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
The sensor fighter won't be sneaky though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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
If you're looking for somewhere to stick your commanders while you build up a proper fleet then fighters have a very clear advantage in production time, resource costs, shipyard availability and upkeep over corvettes or frigates. They also fit nicely into many rp styles.
-
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
Both RP for the game I am playing and also it to produce slots for my lowest officers.
-
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).
I am a missile type of guy. the next tech level I am planning to make some beam fighters.
-
I'd probably try to shed some weight. This can probably afford to be slower so I'd go down to a size-1 engine, 50 years of maintenance life is still excessive, the FC seems more capable than required for the missile (although I might look at a longer-ranged missile instead).
Any ton you save makes you less likely to be detected by anything other than anti-missile sensors... which will hopefully have insufficient maximum range.
-
, the FC seems more capable than required for the missile (although I might look at a longer-ranged missile instead).
I loaded the wrong missile ::) :P
-
Sad to say, the A-1 Spaceraiders where the only thing to get hits on some alien as it proceeded to kick my butt. I might need to name them "Swordfish".
-
Swordfish class Fighter-bomber 445 tons 11 Crew 47.8 BP TCS 8.9 TH 20 EM 0
2247 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 1.2
Maint Life 43.02 Years MSP 67 AFR 1% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 1 Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
Magazine 8
Sims Cybernetics 10 EP Nuclear Thermal Engine (2) Power 10 Fuel Use 98% Signature 10 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 4.1 billion km (21 days at full power)
Lane Aeronautical Size 8 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 8 Hangar Reload 60 minutes MF Reload 10 hours
Burke-Daniels Missile Fire Control FC18-R100 (1) Range 18.0m km Resolution 100
Torp Mk 1 (1) Speed: 5 900 km/s End: 53.1m Range: 18.8m km WH: 12 Size: 8 TH: 21/13/6
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
New game, new low tech fighter concept. This one is much more of a planetary defense concept that makes up its questionable ability by having a powerful missile.
-
Isn't it concerning to you that so little of the fighter's mass is in weapons?
The size 8 box launcher is only 60 tons out of the 445 ton craft. This seems to suggest to me that it isn't very efficient in terms of the fire power it can bring for its production cost.
-
Isn't it concerning to you that so little of the fighter's mass is in weapons?
The size 8 box launcher is only 60 tons out of the 445 ton craft. This seems to suggest to me that it isn't very efficient in terms of the fire power it can bring for its production cost.
When you are trying to fit stuff into <500 ton package at low tech levels you do have to make a lot of odd sacrifices. To get decent speed you must be able to build up a lot of the tonnage to build a functional ship first, then think about weapons.
For example, here is the same concept at the next generation of engine tech.
Old one with upgraded missile
Swordfish class Fighter-bomber 445 tons 11 Crew 47.8 BP TCS 8.9 TH 20 EM 0
2247 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 1.2
Maint Life 43.02 Years MSP 67 AFR 1% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 1 Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 4
Magazine 8
Sims Cybernetics 10 EP Nuclear Thermal Engine (2) Power 10 Fuel Use 98% Signature 10 Exp 10%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 4.1 billion km (21 days at full power)
Lane Aeronautical Size 8 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 8 Hangar Reload 60 minutes MF Reload 10 hours
Burke-Daniels Missile Fire Control FC18-R100 (1) Range 18.0m km Resolution 100
Torpedo Mk 2 (1) Speed: 9 400 km/s End: 33.1m Range: 18.7m km WH: 12 Size: 8 TH: 34/20/10
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 the upgraded swordfish
Swordfish Mk 2 class Cruiser 460 tons 11 Crew 61.3 BP TCS 9.2 TH 40 EM 0
4347 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 1.2
Maint Life 41.12 Years MSP 83 AFR 1% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 1 Max Repair 12 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 2 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 8
Short-Lawrence Aerospace 20 EP Nuclear Pulse Engine (fighter) (2) Power 20 Fuel Use 136.96% Signature 20 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 20 000 Litres Range 5.7 billion km (15 days at full power)
Lane Aeronautical Size 8 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 8 Hangar Reload 60 minutes MF Reload 10 hours
Burke-Daniels Missile Fire Control FC18-R100 (1) Range 18.0m km Resolution 100
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
you are almost at 400 tons already with just the small fuel tank, engines, and a fire control.
These are not going to be super useful with the exception that there small size means they can many times approach a target without being detected. I could use a FAC but that uses up a shipyard while many times you have fighter plants idle for years in a conventional start.
-
What is the justification to put so much emphasis on speed if the purpose is local system defense?
- Enemy ships shouldn't try to run away since they can't see the bombers.
- Without a local carrier is seems unlikely that the bombers could perform multiple attack runs, which I think is normally the justification for very high speed.
-
I do something similar since at that tech level even slow fighters are still petty sneaky, they're cheap and disposable.
However , being disposable I would get rid of the maintenence (training them is annoying but I usually have a 1000 ton escort with a 500 ton hanger), btw they only have 15 days fuel so reduce the deployment time and get some extra tonnage. I generally reduce the range to a bare minmum for system defence, I'll assume maybe 2 billion Km so they can get to Jupiter or Saturn and back, and I'll shove as much engine into the ship as possible to maximise strike speed. Even if it only carries a single missile a swarm of them should at least be able to take out enemy ships due to fire control issues.
-
What is the justification to put so much emphasis on speed if the purpose is local system defense?
- Enemy ships shouldn't try to run away since they can't see the bombers.
- Without a local carrier is seems unlikely that the bombers could perform multiple attack runs, which I think is normally the justification for very high speed.
You need some speed to intercept a fleet
-
Since you can (in theory) get closer to your opponent with these fighters, would they serve as viable platforms for more exotic weapons like HPM's?
-
Since you can (in theory) get closer to your opponent with these fighters, would they serve as viable platforms for more exotic weapons like HPM's?
Yes, HPMs and fighters are a good match, but at this tech they might be too slow to survive defensive fire.
-
Yes, HPMs and fighters are a good match, but at this tech they might be too slow to survive defensive fire.
Isn't the theory that defensive fire would not know where they were since they engage from outside the range of AMM's, but are too small for larger active sensors to detect effectively?
-
If your HPM's out range the defenders AMM systems I will be surprised. So your HPM fighters will have to fly through the enemy AMM fire to get in energy range which is why going fast is good and then your HPM's will not outrange the enemy energy weapons so you have to stay alive until you manage a disabling HPM shot
-
Isn't the theory that defensive fire would not know where they were since they engage from outside the range of AMM's, but are too small for larger active sensors to detect effectively?
HPM are very short range. Missiles at least have some range.
Here is the Ion Drive Era bomber - Smaller, just as fast, and much more punch.
Vulcan class Fighter-bomber 380 tons 9 Crew 64.4 BP TCS 7.6 TH 30 EM 0
3947 km/s Armour 1-4 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 2.4
Maint Life 53.91 Years MSP 106 AFR 1% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 1 Max Repair 20 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months Spare Berths 1
Magazine 16
Bush Ind. 30 EP Ion Drive (fighter) (1) Power 30 Fuel Use 136.96% Signature 30 Exp 12%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 3.5 billion km (10 days at full power)
Alam -Alam Incorporated Size 4 Box Launcher (4) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
Ryan-Dixon Heavy Industries Missile Fire Control FC28-R100 (70%) (1) Range 28.8m km Resolution 100
ASM-2-Falcon (4) Speed: 11 500 km/s End: 88.3m Range: 60.9m km WH: 9 Size: 4 TH: 42/25/12
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
I just put in a standard size 4 missile, one could build a missile built to a 30 million mile range and get more speed or kick.
-
If you're using box launchers and planning on having salvo size overwhelm enemy FC, wouldn't you be better served by a single size 16 missile?
-
If you're using box launchers and planning on having salvo size overwhelm enemy FC, wouldn't you be better served by a single size 16 missile?
I would have to let the experts weight in on this.
-
It all depends on how many fighter-bombers you will field simultaneously. If a carrier group will carry a few hundred of them, I would say one large missile/torpedo would be better. But if there are only a few dozen, then a number of mid sized (like how you have it) is preferable.
Now, on to critiques on the design. I suppose it is meant to fight both small craft and be able to punch big ones in the nose, but how you have it now it is lacking the "fighter" of "fighter-bomber". I would suggest adding one or two small gauss cannons. . While you have brought the range down to levels others usually have fighters, the time is still way overboard. Anything under less than a month of deployment time gets a reduction in crew requirements, perfect for fighters. 0.2 months halves the crew and 0.1 brings it down to 1/3.
-
I generally prefer very large salvos or single missiles; if the main limitation of enemy missile defence is going to be fire controls anyway we may as well make our missiles larger for better armour penetration, shock damage and fuel efficiency.
Preferred size may also have something to with desired speed. Size-5 engines maximise fuel efficiency, a high-speed missile may be size 11 while a high-yield torpedo may be size 16.
-
I tend to use multiple smaller missiles for logistics reasons, it helps to have most or all of my ships using a standard missile size and often a standard missile. I usually have 3 types at most a Long range planatery defense missile , an AMM and a standard ASM. I have experimented with short range versions of the ASM but the increase in warhead size from removing half the fuel is rarely worthwhile , and also an AMM version with a larger warhead , slower and less agile for when I use AMM's offensively but the logistics are too much effort normally and it is embarrassing if you have the wrong missile variant left
-
Slightly modified example from another thread, using slightly higher tech in 8k techs + ion drives and box launchers (I'd be reluctant to research box launchers before ion drives).
Quasimodo class Fighter-bomber 300 tons 6 Crew 50.2 BP TCS 6 TH 14 EM 0
2333 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 17.83 Years MSP 21 AFR 3% IFR 0% 1YR 0 5YR 2 Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 15.6 months Spare Berths 0
Magazine 12
7.2 EP Ion Drive (2) Power 7.2 Fuel Use 16.57% Signature 7.2 Exp 6%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres Range 36.2 billion km (179 days at full power)
Size 3 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 3 Hangar Reload 22.5 minutes MF Reload 3.7 hours
Size 4 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 4 Hangar Reload 30 minutes MF Reload 5 hours
Size 5 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 5 Hangar Reload 37.5 minutes MF Reload 6.2 hours
Missile Fire Control FC75-R120 (1) Range 75.9m km Resolution 120
ASM-3 (1) Speed: 22 600 km/s End: 57.9m Range: 78.5m km WH: 4 Size: 3 TH: 158/95/47
ASM-4 (1) Speed: 22 600 km/s End: 57.9m Range: 78.5m km WH: 6 Size: 4 TH: 150/90/45
ASM-5 (1) Speed: 22 600 km/s End: 56.6m Range: 76.7m km WH: 9 Size: 5 TH: 128/76/38
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
A little more salvo dispersion with decent firing range, without excessive overhead in fire controls. Logistics get a little "uglier" since this needs 3 missile types that do the same thing, but not really harder - they'll always be fired in equal numbers.
Speed was sacrificed for endurance, these absolutely do not require carriers, maintenance life should suffice until they are thoroughly obsolete. The hope is that they won't require speed when they can engage most enemies without being detected.
-
Going the absolutely opposite way, you could end up with some thing like this:
King George V class Bomber 240 tons 4 Crew 77.6 BP TCS 4.8 TH 16.8 EM 0
10000 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 0 PPV 0.9
Maint Life 9.71 Years MSP 20 AFR 4% IFR 0.1% 1YR 0 5YR 6 Max Repair 21 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.2 months Spare Berths 4
Magazine 6
24 EP Ion Drive (2) Power 24 Fuel Use 336.02% Signature 8.4 Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 20,000 Litres Range 4.5 billion km (5 days at full power)
Size 6 Box Launcher (1) Missile Size 6 Hangar Reload 45 minutes MF Reload 7.5 hours
Missile Fire Control FC50-R100 (1) Range 50.4m km Resolution 100
Tech may not be exactly the same. It packs a lot less punch, of course, but it's a bit lighter, and compensates by being fast enough to make multiple trips back and forth.
Also, more than one size of offensive missiles make your logistics planners kill themselves. Poor guys.
-
Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.
Personally i play my fighters with that kind of attack in mind.
Fighters are launched from well outside the range my cvs will be detected, they make a masssd attack, and come back to rearm.
50-60 size 8-10 missiles in 50-60 salvos is quite difficult for even a large fleet to deal with when trying to protect 1 ship.
Course by design i split roles between long range fighters and short range. Long range fighters have larger missile as their turn around time on attacks is already going to be a long time. They head out. Make a strike 3-4 hours away from my carriers, at low speed, and then return and take an hour or so to rearm.
Fighters that work closer to the cv, or off of a different kind of ship, tend to have more small missiles so the turn around time on the cv is shorter.
-
Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.
It really depends on which war you're looking at. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by two planes with high-tech missiles.
-
Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.
Fighters that work closer to the cv, or off of a different kind of ship, tend to have more small missiles so the turn around time on the cv is shorter.
As Sheb said, it depends on the war.
The KRI Hang Tuah (ex HMAS Ipswich) was taken out by one B-26, and then there is the Falkland wars.
-
It really depends on which war you're looking at. The HMS Sheffield was sunk by two planes with high-tech missiles.
Modern warships like HMS Sheffield aren't armored like ye old warships, and the space craft present ingame.
And Ipswitch was a destroyer that was taken out while by itself. Also destroyers were never ones for armor either.
A 10kt warship with 5-6 layers (which isn't even heavily armored) would take a 25-36 damage missile to penetrate, and probably 5-6 hits total to kill. (course 2 hits stacked ontop of eachother would likely cripple it noticeably and "mission kill" it. But)
And usually not dealing with 1. I fought an NPR a while ago at higher techs that just loved to throw 10-12 20kt missile ships after me at a time. 200-240kt total, I would face off against with 64 light fighters (250t designs. Carry 64 of them on a CV).
-
Few thoughts about salvo size and armament.
Consider history for a moment. In history. Planes were never used in small scale against warships. They were massed. Attacks of 70-200 bombers were used in airstrikes.
There are plenty of examples in History (WW2) of single hits sinking Capital warships.
Carrier Akagi (41,300ton) was sunk by a single bomb hit from a divebomber during the Battle of Midway
Carrier Taiho (37,300ton) was sunk by a single torpedo hit during the Battle of the Philippine Sea
There were also many successful small scale attacks.
-The famous torpedo plane attack that crippled the Bismarck was made up of 15 planes.
-Battle of Taranto which served as the model of WW2 Port strikes contained two waves of 12 + 8 aircraft attacking 6 Battleships in Port ( Sinking one and Heavily damaging 2 more ).
-A strike of 10 Japanese Torpedo bombers escorted by 6 Zeroes, managed to put 2 torpedoes in Carrier Yorktown which doomed her despite heavy air defenses.
Ofcourse the more planes you have available the better ( since hit chances were bad and enemy fighters + AA could easier be overwhelmed ), but that they were never used that way is false. Smaller strikes of 20 planes or less were frequently Carried out and got results against enemy capital ships during WW2. Smaller attacks actually were more common then larger were, but it's the larger ones with hundreds of planes that get all the glory like Pearl Harbour or sinking of Yamato ( the latter which was immense overkill ).
It's actually not far from being the same in Aurora, once you take shock damage and secondary explosions into account any larger single missile hit or meson hit has the potential to be lethal to even the biggest Capital ship, but with lower chance then hits being crippling in reality. Point Defense in Aurora is also more effective at missiles then stopping real munitions is/was, especially during WW2, which again favors you to go for larger strikes.
Another big difference is lack of over time damage in Aurora, when in reality the main causes of ship destruction was not catastrophic explosions but rather out of control fire/flooding ( which only needs a single good hit to get going if the target got bad damage control ).
-
Another big difference is lack of over time damage in Aurora, when in reality the main causes of ship destruction was not catastrophic explosions but rather out of control fire/flooding ( which only needs a single good hit to get going if the target got bad damage control ).
you could imagination power that feature into the game
-
you could imagination power that feature into the game
Just let me know how to imagination power it into the ships of my enemy NPRs and spoilers as well! ;)
-
Just let me know how to imagination power it into the ships of my enemy NPRs and spoilers as well! ;)
Sm mode can do a lot o favours to everyone. Just imagine harder.
Btw i an joking (sort of)