Author Topic: Advice on a PD fighter  (Read 685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline smoelf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Advice on a PD fighter
« on: December 19, 2016, 12:11:42 PM »
I have been experimenting with fighters and FAC's in my current game, but the limited space of fighters are proving to be a struggle. I have tried to design a few fighters with rail guns, but I am forced to make a decision in favor of either speed of hit chance on the fire control, and I don't know which is better. I was hoping you might offer an opinion on the two designs and if perhaps I would be better of using gauss cannons, as that would free up the space for the reactor. Also, if I remember correctly, I am defending against AMM's at about 24.000 km/s.

Here are the designs:

Number 1
Code: [Select]
Eland II class Fighter    482 tons     4 Crew     118 BP      TCS 9.64  TH 128  EM 0
13278 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 2.1 Years     MSP 15    AFR 18%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 5    5YR 68    Max Repair 64 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 0   

128 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 128    Fuel Use 325.84%    Signature 128    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km   (23 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V2/C3 (1x4)    Range 20 000km     TS: 13278 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S01.1 36-4500 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 72 000 km   TS: 18000 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes

Number 2

Code: [Select]
Eland II - Copy class Fighter    487 tons     4 Crew     120 BP      TCS 9.74  TH 160  EM 0
16427 km/s     Armour 1-5     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 3
Maint Life 1.73 Years     MSP 15    AFR 18%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 6    5YR 91    Max Repair 80 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 0   

160 EP Magneto-plasma Drive (1)    Power 160    Fuel Use 322.44%    Signature 160    Exp 20%
Fuel Capacity 10 000 Litres    Range 1.1 billion km   (19 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V2/C3 (1x4)    Range 20 000km     TS: 16427 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 2    ROF 5        1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fire Control S00.2 16-4000 (FTR) (1)    Max Range: 32 000 km   TS: 16000 km/s     69 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stellarator Fusion Reactor Technology PB-1 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Armour 0    Exp 5%

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and maintenance purposes
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1238
  • Thanked: 50 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Advice on a PD fighter
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2016, 01:40:21 PM »
well, the easiest way to rate defence potential is rating it in hit potential - essentially, by tracking speed of missiles destroyed per shot.

so for these fighters, the first one fires 4 shots at 13,278 km/s with a fire control accuracy of 86%  this gives it 4*13,278*0.86 = 45,676 km/s of incoming missiles destroyed per salvo - against AMMs traveling at 24,000 km/s that's about two missiles destroyed per fighter.   The second fighter fires 4 shots at 16,427 km/s with an accuracy of 69%, for 4*16,000*0.69 = 44,160 km/s of incoming missiles destroyed per salvo.  The two designs are extremely similar in their performance with a slight advantage to the 'base' version.  Since speed is an advantage itself - especially for beam warships - I would recommend the second design.

I would prioritize getting your railgun velocity up to 3, though.  As it stands, a ship traveling at as little as 4500 km/s is immune to your fighters if it has the initiative advantage.  (It can travel 22,500 km in a 5 second increment, enabling it to always stay outside your fighters 20,000 km maximum range.) Though, to be fair, the second designs less-capable fire control is incapable of effectively combatting anything at that range...

I would also recommend removing the maintenance section and replacing it with a minimum-sized active sensor.  You probably won't be able to fit a sensor that can detect missiles, but an active sensor would enable your fighters to operate independently and remain combat-viable if their supporting vessels are destroyed or crippled.   
 
The following users thanked this post: smoelf

Offline smoelf

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • s
  • Posts: 45
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Advice on a PD fighter
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2016, 01:26:26 AM »
Huh, I had no idea it was that easy to calculate the effectiveness of point defence. That's awesome, thanks :)
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54