Author Topic: Fighter Group  (Read 427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Resident Evil

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Fighter Group
« on: May 30, 2017, 11:21:47 AM »
Hi,

Just wanted to share my fighter designs and maybe get some constructive criticism :)

Initially I wanted to see how small a fighter I could come up with and came up with these.   .   .   

Code: [Select]
Daphnis III-M class Fighter    145 tons     4 Crew     65.5 BP      TCS 2.9  TH 7.2  EM 0
10344 km/s     Armour 2-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.6
Maint Life 51.59 Years     MSP 56    AFR 0%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 1    Max Repair 30 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 1   
Magazine 4   

Crawford-Webb 30 EP IntCon Compact Px1.5 (F0.5/T25/e1.36) (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 136.41%    Signature 7.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 9.1 billion km   (10 days at full power)

Daly-Page S1BL (4)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Hardy & Sims Missile FC FC32-R30 (a28/e14/50%) (1)     Range 32.2m km    Resolution 30
AHI Amnixiel S1W1 (32m/56k) (4)  Speed: 56,000 km/s   End: 9.5m    Range: 32m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 205/123/61

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

In hindsight I could probably have cut it down to 1 fighter engineering rather than 2 and perhaps squeezed another layer of armor or added a bit more fuel.   

With those is a group leader providing target acquisition.   .   .   

Code: [Select]
Daphnis III-S/L class Fighter    145 tons     5 Crew     90 BP      TCS 2.9  TH 7.2  EM 0
10344 km/s     Armour 1-2     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 33.29 Years     MSP 78    AFR 0%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 2    Max Repair 50 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months    Spare Berths 0   

Crawford-Webb 30 EP IntCon Compact Px1.5 (F0.5/T25/e1.36) (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 136.41%    Signature 7.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 9.1 billion km   (10 days at full power)

Hardy & Sims Active SS MR42-R80 (a28/e14/50%) (1)     GPS 2688     Range 42.1m km    Resolution 80

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

The idea was to have a long strike range with a standoff capability, closing to 30mkm to launch then turning tail and running while the group leader maintained sensor lock on the targets for the 10 min flight time of the missiles.    As it turned out, you really have to close to 27-28mkm to allow for the targets movement.   

I had some hostiles jump into Sol (I know, I should never have let them in, but at the time I only had the opportunity to hit them once with the gate defenses and, as they weren't hostile at the time, and I had no second strike capability, I decided not to pick a fight.   )

After a while, I noticed some of my commercial shipping was been chased by them, but by that point they were getting out towards Pluto, so I had to put my satellite deployment ships into service as stopgap carriers (4k hanger decks and 480 magazine.   ) Eventually I was able to chase them down, and finally kill them, but using the size 1 missiles was painful, like flicking peas at an elephant.   

Given the distances involved, I had to quickly design a fighter refueling craft and came up with this.   .   .   

Code: [Select]
Narvi T-10 class Strike Group Tanker    300 tons     5 Crew     102.5 BP      TCS 6  TH 14.4  EM 0
10000 km/s     Armour 1-3     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0
Maint Life 18.36 Years     MSP 64    AFR 2%    IFR 0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 30 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 1.9 months    Spare Berths 3   

Crawford-Webb 30 EP IntCon Compact Px1.5 (F0.5/T25/e1.36) (2)    Power 30    Fuel Use 136.41%    Signature 7.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 160,000 Litres    Range 70.4 billion km   (81 days at full power)

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

which proved extremely useful, especially as the hostiles had split into two different groups, as I was able to perform strikes at the better part of 10 bkm range from the task force.   

I'm currently working on a heaver 250 ton fighter with size 2 warhead strength 4 missiles.    I'm hoping they will have a bit more stopping power :) Anyway, I'll post that up later if anyone's interested.   

I reckon there probably is a niche for a small 150-200 ton fighter, but it's likely going to be in an anti-fighter/missile role.   

Anyway that's all for now.    Cheers.   
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 11:25:11 AM by Resident Evil »
 

Online Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2017, 11:36:49 AM »
You really should try to get the size down to a divisor of 500 so you can perfectly fill a hangar bay.  If you were to fill a 1000 ton hangar bay with these 145 ton fighters, you'll have 130 tons of hangar space left over.

I think you can do this by cutting deployment time and maintenance.  Generally fighters don't need more than 0.1 deployment time and they don't need any maintenance supplies at all.  Fighters get all their deployment time and maintenance from their carrier.

But I'm intrigued by the idea of tiny fighters.  Usually I build 500 ton fighters.  The advantages I'm seeing with tiny fighters is that you could fit many more in a carrier or the same number with a smaller carrier.  Further, tiny fighters will be harder to detect and harder to shoot.  I'd go with reduced signature engines to be even harder to detect.  Try to attack from a different vector than you approach from, so they can't follow you back to your carrier.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 11:49:01 AM by Barkhorn »
 

Offline Resident Evil

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2017, 11:54:34 AM »
Hi,

What I've found is that, once I start mixing different craft in the hanger bay, i.   e.    fighters, refueling craft, and awacs, which are all different sizes, it becomes too much of a headache to try and fit it all in perfectly, so I'm happy to have a 100 tons or so left over.   

With the maintenance, as these were single engined craft I wanted them to have enough maintenance to fix an engine breakdown.    My new design are twin engined and so I have cut the maintenance so they can fix a launcher failing, but if an engine fails they'll just have to limp back on one engine.    With regards deployment time, what I found doing long distance strikes, with flight times to the target of about 10 days (20 day round trip) was that having a higher deployment time meant I could quickly relaunch without having to worry about downtime.    Also, from a RP perspective, in my mind my navy is an old school imperial navy, think oak dining tables, chandeliers and waiters :) and so, to travel in the luxury my naval officers are accustomed too, I have to give them lots of hull space, so long deployment times.   

Edit:

Yes, when I used them, the smallest resolution sensor on the hostiles was R20, so they had no chance to detect my fighters.   I would fly, with sensors off to 27mkm, switch the sensors on, increment 5 secs, launch and run.   Once the missiles hit I'd switch the sensors off again.   But even so, my carriers were the best part of 10bkm away anyhow.   But that was the idea initially anyway, to have a very small cross section so hard to track at long range :)

edit:spelling
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 12:01:30 PM by Resident Evil »
 

Offline Iranon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 477
  • Thanked: 32 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2017, 12:22:31 PM »
I'm rather fond of fighters in this weight class. A few things I'd do differently:

1) If they're carrier-based and limited to a few days by fuel, you don't need engineering spaces. The listed failure rates apply to ships with a year on their maintenance clock, which these will never get.

2) You probably don't need armour. Your best defence is tiny sensor footprint and you're unlikely to survive a reasonable missile salvo. Adding armour may make you marginally less safe.

3) 4-missile-salvos are probably no harder to shoot down than single missiles; the opponent is likely limited by fire controls. A single larger missile is attractive for armour penetration, shock damage, and fuel efficiency.

4) To make my life easier, I'd make tanker variants of the same size so you can have them tag alone without increasing sensor footprint.
 

Offline Resident Evil

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2017, 01:55:54 PM »
Hi Iranon,

First off, you got me wondering if a sub 100 ton fighter was possible, which it is. . . just. . . .

Code: [Select]
Prototype Interceptor class Fighter    92 tons     1 Crew     45.4 BP      TCS 1.84  TH 7.2  EM 0
16304 km/s     Armour 1-1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 0     PPV 0.3
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 18%    IFR 0.3%    1YR 1    5YR 16    Max Repair 30 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 0.1 months    Spare Berths 3   
Magazine 2   

Crawford-Webb 30 EP IntCon Compact Px1.5 (F0.5/T25/e1.36) (1)    Power 30    Fuel Use 136.41%    Signature 7.2    Exp 15%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres    Range 14.3 billion km   (10 days at full power)

Daly-Page S1BL (2)    Missile Size 1    Hangar Reload 7.5 minutes    MF Reload 1.2 hours
Hardy & Sims Missile FC FC5.25-R5 (a28/e14/50%) (1)     Range 5.3m km    Resolution 5
AHI Aciel Mk II S1W1 (5.6m/60k/192%) (2)  Speed: 60,000 km/s   End: 1.5m    Range: 5.6m km   WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 640/384/192

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 was able to do this with off the shelf components - so nothing specially designed - but I don't think there's much margin to squeeze anything else on it anyway.  If I was up against an opponent using lots of fighters, I might build something like this.

Now with regard to your comments.

1) Whilst I could leave out the Engineering, in this case adding it takes the size to 97 tons, and gives exactly 30MSP, which is enough to fix a engine failure.  I'm sort of thinking R2D2 in the back :) at a cost of about 850km/s.  To me it seems better to put it in just in case, otherwise I could end up with a stranded ship and needing to go rescue the crew, and I'm not sure there's a mechanism to do that in the game (except from lifepods).  But, if I want to project fighter power at 10+ billion km, I'm looking at long flight times for my fighters, not just a couple of days.

2) The armor - in this case I wouldn't add armor, it would breach the 100ton barrier and take the fighter into the next size class, so it's signature would be bigger - but if it's size was 90tons, I could squeeze another layer of armor on it and be at exactly 100 tons (but without maintenance:) ), which I'd be tempted to do cause it makes it that little bit harder to kill.   I'm guessing a single WH strength 4 missile will probably kill or cripple an unarmored fighter - but a single additional layer would allow it to survive.  So it improves things just that little bit. 

3) Have to agree, my experience with the size 1 missiles showed they lacked oomph :)

4) I matched the tanker speed to the fighters so it can accompany them to the refueling point, but then it just waits there to refuel the fighters on the return leg - it's never meant to to go into the combat zone at all.

Thanks for your comments.
 

Online Barkhorn

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 397
  • Thanked: 49 times
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2017, 02:13:48 PM »
I could end up with a stranded ship and needing to go rescue the crew
If you bring the carrier to the stranded fighter, you can dock it back to the carrier.  They don't need working engines to dock.
 
The following users thanked this post: Resident Evil

Offline Resident Evil

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Fighter Group
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2017, 02:34:40 PM »
Actually, you've given me an idea for a small, fast rescue ship to go rescue stranded fighters, a small boat bay should do the trick.  But that's for the future I think, if the need arises frequently enough to warrant it.
 

 

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