Multi-role interceptor

[Iceranger (OP)]

I never realize that I can duct tape 2 missiles together and call it a multi-staged missile, and shovel them into a larger launcher 

This enables me to build multi-role interceptors that I have imagined for a while. It fulfills both the anti-capital ship attacker role and the anti-fighter interceptor role.

For the interceptor role, the following missile is used:

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 3.0000 MSP  (7.50000 Tons)     Warhead: 9    Radiation Damage: 9    Manoeuvre Rating: 44
Speed: 72 733 km/s     Fuel: 679     Flight Time: 6 minutes     Range: 25.03m km
Cost Per Missile: 9.72024     Development Cost: 972
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 3200.3%   3k km/s 1066.8%   5k km/s 640.1%   10k km/s 320.0%

Having an S6 launcher firing an S3 missile is not efficient. So I put 2 of them on the second stage of a missile and put nothing in the first stage, and I got this:

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 6 MSP  (15.0 Tons)     Warhead: 0    Radiation Damage: 0    Manoeuvre Rating: 10
Speed: 0 km/s     Fuel: 1 358     1st Stage Flight Time: 1 seconds    1st Stage Range: 0k km
2nd Stage Flight Time: 6 minutes    2nd Stage Range: 25.03m km
Cost Per Missile: 19.44048     Development Cost: 1 944
Second Stage: ASM 3/9/73k/25M x2
Second Stage Separation Range: 50 000 000 km
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 0%   3k km/s 0%   5k km/s 0%   10k km/s 0%

Since the separation range is larger than the second stage range, when fired in range, the separation will happen in the next tick.

For the anti-ship role, it can use the standard S6 ASM, for example:

Code: [Select]

Missile Size: 6.0000 MSP  (15.00000 Tons)     Warhead: 25    Radiation Damage: 25    Manoeuvre Rating: 20
Speed: 82 200 km/s     Fuel: 1 175     Flight Time: 3 minutes     Range: 15.07m km
ECM Modifier: 60%     ECCM Modifier: 60%
Cost Per Missile: 25.72068     Development Cost: 2 572
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 1644.0%   3k km/s 548.0%   5k km/s 328.8%   10k km/s 164.4%

I modified my previous Needle class to include an additional longer-ranged MFC (to mitigate enemy ECM) for the anti-ship role.

Code: [Select]

Needle class Interceptor      125 tons       3 Crew       67.3 BP       TCS 2    TH 96    EM 0
38462 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.9
Maint Life 3.66 Years     MSP 20    AFR 25%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 2    5YR 35    Max Repair 48 MSP
Magazine 6   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 30 days    Morale Check Required   

Inertial Fusion Drive  EP96.00 (1)    Power 96    Fuel Use 1232.38%    Signature 96    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 1.2 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Size 6.00 Box Launcher (1)     Missile Size: 6    Hangar Reload 122 minutes    MF Reload 20 hours
Missile Fire Control FC72-R100 (1)     Range 72.6m km    Resolution 100
Missile Fire Control FC22-R3 (1)     Range 22.5m km    Resolution 3
2x ASM 3/9/73k/25M (1)    Speed: 0 km/s    End: 5.8m     Range: 25m km    WH: 0    Size: 6    TH: 0/0/0


[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... I think this is a pretty good design in general... at your tech you probably could get a AMM in there to and double them as missile protection as well. But a size six might be a bit too large as anti-fighter missiles tend to come in at rather small salvos in general.

I tend to have my small multi-role crafts carry size 4-6 launchers for the same purpose and that can give them all the roles in one.

I do have specialised small boats as well but a good mix is always useful, choice is a powerful tool.

I do the same with my destroyers as they often carry the same type of launchers and uses them for a mix of anti-ship or anti-fighter role. My destroyers usually take the role of dedicated escort and patrol ship with the purpose to engage and defend against small crafts in every form, I don't design them for direct anti-ship duties even if they can do that too if necessary.

This also make both fighters and ships able to carry and use much the same type of missiles.

[Iceranger (OP)]

Yes... I think this is a pretty good design in general... at your tech you probably could get a AMM in there to and double them as missile protection as well. But a size six might be a bit too large as anti-fighter missiles tend to come in at rather small salvos in general.

I tend to have my small multi-role crafts carry size 4-6 launchers for the same purpose and that can give them all the roles in one.

I do have specialised small boats as well but a good mix is always useful, choice is a powerful tool.

I do the same with my destroyers as they often carry the same type of launchers and uses them for a mix of anti-ship or anti-fighter role. My destroyers usually take the role of dedicated escort and patrol ship with the purpose to engage and defend against small crafts on every form, I don't design them for direct anti-ship duties even if they can do that too if necessary.

This also make both fighters and ships able to carry and use much the same type of missiles.

It surprises me that a ‘2-staged’ missile with an empty stage even works. Although the game does not seem to like it and keeps throwing errors if I try to view it in the missile design window.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... I think this is a pretty good design in general... at your tech you probably could get a AMM in there to and double them as missile protection as well. But a size six might be a bit too large as anti-fighter missiles tend to come in at rather small salvos in general.

I tend to have my small multi-role crafts carry size 4-6 launchers for the same purpose and that can give them all the roles in one.

I do have specialised small boats as well but a good mix is always useful, choice is a powerful tool.

I do the same with my destroyers as they often carry the same type of launchers and uses them for a mix of anti-ship or anti-fighter role. My destroyers usually take the role of dedicated escort and patrol ship with the purpose to engage and defend against small crafts on every form, I don't design them for direct anti-ship duties even if they can do that too if necessary.

This also make both fighters and ships able to carry and use much the same type of missiles.

It surprises me that a ‘2-staged’ missile with an empty stage even works. Although the game does not seem to like it and keeps throwing errors if I try to view it in the missile design window.

I think you should report it as a bug... this worked fine in VB6 as well and is suppose to work. I don't get any errors but it does not show the missile data correctly for me when I select such a missile. So something clearly is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with firing two size 3 missiles from a size 6 launcher, this is an intended feature as far as I know.

[xenoscepter]

Huh. Now why didn't I think of that?

You can't load two Size 3 Missiles into a Size 6 launcher and fire them simultaneously.

But if I were to, as you said, "duct tape" them together... I could set the separation range such that they split immediately.

Thus I could launch multiple missiles together... maybe.

The range might be weird... I'd have to test it out...

[Jorgen_CAB]

Huh. Now why didn't I think of that?

You can't load two Size 3 Missiles into a Size 6 launcher and fire them simultaneously.

But if I were to, as you said, "duct tape" them together... I could set the separation range such that they split immediately.

Thus I could launch multiple missiles together... maybe.

The range might be weird... I'd have to test it out...

It should work just fine as long as the separation range is further than the range of the missiles themselves. Set it a fair bit further as sometimes you can fire at a target moving towards you at a longer range than the missiles max range.

[vorpal+5]

How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?

[Iceranger (OP)]

How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?

Duct tape takes up literally no space? XD

[Jorgen_CAB]

How can it not be a bug that the first stage takes zero space and wrap up two size 3 for an overall size of 6?

It is just an abstraction and makes it easier to design such systems.

Multiple missiles in a MIRV missile don't take up additional space either as they probably should.

In my opinion an additional 5-10% space probably should be added to multiple missiles in one package or something. In that case you two missiles would instead be 2.72-2.85 in size. Could even be it's own technology branch to improve from say 12% down to 3% or something.

But that is not how the  current system works.

[liveware]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

[Iceranger (OP)]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.

[liveware]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.

Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.

That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.

[Iceranger (OP)]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.

Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.

That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.

Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.

When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.

On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.

Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.

That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.

Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.

When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.

On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.

Then you have to factor in that the fighter are very unlikely to roll a maintenance roll at all since its deployment time is so low... it actually is very rare for a fighter of this type to ever roll a single maintenance test at all. So this really should not be much of a concern at all. There is only a maintenance check every five days a fighter is outside the hangar. When back the maintenance clock is re-winded.
Also, fighters don't pay any maintenance while in a hangar... all maintenance in hangars are free. That is why you always should station fighters and FAC in hangars as they tend to be allot more expensive than the hangar itself is in maintenance cost.

As said... a box launcher failing and exploding is the worst thing that can happen and is a MUCH larger threat.

[liveware]

I think you will want to add some more MSP to prevent engine explosions on your interceptor ship.

The main reason to have any MSP on such interceptors is to prevent the box launcher from failing on launch and then explodes. Otherwise, since its operation time is less than 10 hours, an engine failure during such a short time is very unlikely.

Unlikely but still possible. To each their own I suppose but I always try to add at least enough MSP to cover a single max MSP repair. I often use 1x fighter/small sized maintenance storage module and 1x fighter sized engineering space and find that gives plenty of MSP for a fighter. The engineering space also drops the IFR to 0.1 for a typical small fighter, which helps to lower the operational cost of each fighter because they consume fewer MSP overall than without the engineering space.

That said, my current fighter designs only have 0.5b km range, so once I go through my next round of design revisionism and up the range to exceed max beam weapon range my design philosophy might change.

Fighters are docked in hangars most of the time, the cost saving is ignorable. When docked, their maintenance cost is only related to their total cost.

When there is a maintenance check, the failure chance for this design is 0.3%, and then it has to roll the engine (let's say 50% since the engine is almost half the ship), then the engine needs to roll the explosion chance (30%). This is a small enough chance that compared to the 1% failure chance of weapon firing.

On larger fighters, adding a fighter engineering space is not a big deal and I can see its value. But for small fighters at this size, every ton needs to be allocated to the most useful systems.

Then you have to factor in that the fighter are very unlikely to roll a maintenance roll at all since its deployment time is so low... it actually is very rare for a fighter of this type to ever roll a single maintenance test at all. So this really should not be much of a concern at all. There is only a maintenance check every five days a fighter is outside the hangar. When back the maintenance clock is re-winded.
Also, fighters don't pay any maintenance while in a hangar... all maintenance in hangars are free. That is why you always should station fighters and FAC in hangars as they tend to be allot more expensive than the hangar itself is in maintenance cost.

As said... a box launcher failing and exploding is the worst thing that can happen and is a MUCH larger threat.

I had incorrectly assumed that hangers worked like maintenance facilities and required upkeep. If what you say is true then I can certainly see an advantage for low MSP fighters. That is an interesting design consideration.