Author Topic: F Series of Fighters.  (Read 4091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Droll

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • D
  • Posts: 1703
  • Thanked: 599 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2021, 09:29:53 PM »
  - If you are using 2 Gauss Cannons, consider making them into a twin turret with 0 km/s Tracking Speed. That would allow you to link them to a Single Weapon FCS and reduce the crew requirement to boot.

But with 0 tracking speed those weapons are going to have 0 chance to hit, so I don't get what the point of this is.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2021, 09:49:32 PM »
  - If you are using 2 Gauss Cannons, consider making them into a twin turret with 0 km/s Tracking Speed. That would allow you to link them to a Single Weapon FCS and reduce the crew requirement to boot.

But with 0 tracking speed those weapons are going to have 0 chance to hit, so I don't get what the point of this is.

Actually in the case of a 0 km/s turret tracking speed, it will default to the racial tracking speed which at OP's tech level is 3000 km/s. Which is still very bad for a PD fighter but not entirely unworkable as a way to tie multiple guns to a SW fire control. This would probably be a better method for, say, a quad laser turret on a beam attack corvette or something.
 
The following users thanked this post: Droll

Offline xenoscepter

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1154
  • Thanked: 317 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2021, 10:36:46 PM »
  - If you are using 2 Gauss Cannons, consider making them into a twin turret with 0 km/s Tracking Speed. That would allow you to link them to a Single Weapon FCS and reduce the crew requirement to boot.

But with 0 tracking speed those weapons are going to have 0 chance to hit, so I don't get what the point of this is.

 - Nuclearslurpee is half right. The turret is treated as a hull mounted weapon in the case of 0 km/s tracking speed. So it would be Racial Tracking tech OR the Max B-FCS tracking Speed OR the Max Ship speed, whichever of the three is lowest. It's a good way to save on crew and to slave multiple weapons to a Single Weapon FCS. Nuclearslurpee is right about it being better for FACs though.

 --- Speaking to Gauss on Fighters at large, I personally tend to like Gauss Cannons on fighters as they can be made much smaller overall. This enables them to slip past RES10 sensors much easier, and allows me to cram more firepower into any given deck space. However, unless they are 250 Tons or less, you are likely better off with a 500 Ton Railgun armed fighter. Even then you need to build it to better. Much like Agraelgrimm, I also like to add them to missile ships so that they aren't useless once their payload is expended. Typically I mount two sub 50 Ton Gauss in a 0 km/s Twin Turret configuration. On ships equipped for anti-fighter operations, this let's them finish off enemy missile fighters. On ships equipped for Anti-Ship operations, these allow them the utility to press the attack, finish off wounded enemy shipping when operating in the commerce raiding role, and defend themselves against similarly armed fighters.
 
The following users thanked this post: Agraelgrimm, Droll

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2021, 10:41:27 PM »
If the speed is too low then its just going to die by AMM missiles and that is a waste of tonnage, so top speed reduces the event of explosions,

This definitely makes sense as a design compromise.

Quote
(Also, im using 2 gauss cannons, if each gives 1.5 damage, it would make it 3, right? And without the need for a capacitor and the extra size, it should be able to compete with a Railgun in terms of damage)

No. What I've been trying to say is that a reduced-shots railgun + reactor will have greater DPS (by about a factor of 2 at your tech level) than the same tonnage of Gauss cannons.

For example, a 2-shot railgun plus a R1.5 reactor at ion tech will take up 105 tons total and put out 2 damage per increment (DPI) under ideal conditions. Two of the R300-17.00 Gauss cannons displace 100 tons and will deal approximately 1 DPI under ideal conditions, which is half as much damage per increment - and it is important to realize that when I say DPI in this case, I mean the number of hits since both weapons deal 1 damage per hit. This is because of the 17% accuracy per shot, so 2x3 shots means on average you expect one shot to hit under ideal conditions, while the railgun fires two shots at 100% base accuracy. Gauss cannons are the only weapon type that can have a reduced base accuracy like this so it can be weird to get used to but is very important to understand.

If you really want to cut tonnage per fighter, you can even have a 1-shot railgun and R1 reactor, which would be roughly 65 or 70 tons (I don't have Aurora in front of me to check) with the same damage/hits per increment as the 100 tons of Gauss cannons. Either way railguns are going to be more efficient than Gauss even with the need to mount a reactor.

It is also worth noting that in practice you'll save even more tonnage since your 2x3 Gauss cannons either have to be turreted or hooked up with a MW fire control, while railgun + SW fire control is less tonnage.

Ok, *now* its starting to make sense to me what you have been trying to say. I want to use the Gauss Cannons because they are small, what screws any type of decent usage of them is the accuracy chance, wich means that for instance, if i have a quad gauss cannon with 33% accuracy, i will hit one in 3 shots of each gun, but being 4 of them, i will actually be landing around 4 shots per salvo i think. Wich is not terrible, but as this gets lower and lower it gets harder to protect the ship. Wich defeats the point of having the smaller weapon the game can put. Especially if i have to turret it. I will use bigger ones on my corvettes, because it will have the tonnage for it, but still... At this point im thinking why bother and just go with a laser turret for both PD and offensive capability. They will have bigger range anyway.
How do i actually use gauss cannons?
 

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2021, 10:44:01 PM »
  - If you are using 2 Gauss Cannons, consider making them into a twin turret with 0 km/s Tracking Speed. That would allow you to link them to a Single Weapon FCS and reduce the crew requirement to boot.

But with 0 tracking speed those weapons are going to have 0 chance to hit, so I don't get what the point of this is.

 - Nuclearslurpee is half right. The turret is treated as a hull mounted weapon in the case of 0 km/s tracking speed. So it would be Racial Tracking tech OR the Max B-FCS tracking Speed OR the Max Ship speed, whichever of the three is lowest. It's a good way to save on crew and to slave multiple weapons to a Single Weapon FCS. Nuclearslurpee is right about it being better for FACs though.

 --- Speaking to Gauss on Fighters at large, I personally tend to like Gauss Cannons on fighters as they can be made much smaller overall. This enables them to slip past RES10 sensors much easier, and allows me to cram more firepower into any given deck space. However, unless they are 250 Tons or less, you are likely better off with a 500 Ton Railgun armed fighter. Even then you need to build it to better. Much like Agraelgrimm, I also like to add them to missile ships so that they aren't useless once their payload is expended. Typically I mount two sub 50 Ton Gauss in a 0 km/s Twin Turret configuration. On ships equipped for anti-fighter operations, this let's them finish off enemy missile fighters. On ships equipped for Anti-Ship operations, these allow them the utility to press the attack, finish off wounded enemy shipping when operating in the commerce raiding role, and defend themselves against similarly armed fighters.
If i put a 0 km/twin gauss cannons, then what is going to be its accuracy based on the size? Will still be around the 3%? And... Wich one of those 3 based on my design would the gun actually have as tracking rate?
 

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2021, 10:57:11 PM »
  - If you are using 2 Gauss Cannons, consider making them into a twin turret with 0 km/s Tracking Speed. That would allow you to link them to a Single Weapon FCS and reduce the crew requirement to boot.

But with 0 tracking speed those weapons are going to have 0 chance to hit, so I don't get what the point of this is.

Actually in the case of a 0 km/s turret tracking speed, it will default to the racial tracking speed which at OP's tech level is 3000 km/s. Which is still very bad for a PD fighter but not entirely unworkable as a way to tie multiple guns to a SW fire control. This would probably be a better method for, say, a quad laser turret on a beam attack corvette or something.
Im not trying to use it to take down missiles... I want to take down Fighters, FACS, commercial ships and then, in desperation, Missiles. Because my thinking is: If i get hit by an eccessive amount of missiles, lets say 35 at once, i wont be able to take those down. But my fighers, being really fast can compete with the missiles and if they reduce that number to an more... manageable number, all the better. It could save my skin. Also, i dont want the missile ships to be useless after ive fired, like one of the guys said here on the post. If im going to commit on using 16-20 small fighters, i cant use them and then wait 40-60 minutes to rearm them. In that time the fight may be over. Also, having a figher squadron as support might make my FACs live longer.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2021, 11:56:26 PM »
Ok, *now* its starting to make sense to me what you have been trying to say. I want to use the Gauss Cannons because they are small, what screws any type of decent usage of them is the accuracy chance, wich means that for instance, if i have a quad gauss cannon with 33% accuracy, i will hit one in 3 shots of each gun, but being 4 of them, i will actually be landing around 4 shots per salvo i think. Wich is not terrible, but as this gets lower and lower it gets harder to protect the ship. Wich defeats the point of having the smaller weapon the game can put. Especially if i have to turret it. I will use bigger ones on my corvettes, because it will have the tonnage for it, but still... At this point im thinking why bother and just go with a laser turret for both PD and offensive capability. They will have bigger range anyway.
How do i actually use gauss cannons?
If i put a 0 km/twin gauss cannons, then what is going to be its accuracy based on the size? Will still be around the 3%? And... Wich one of those 3 based on my design would the gun actually have as tracking rate?

Gauss cannon base accuracy is always going to be fixed based on the size. The component design screen tells you exactly what your accuracy will be, but as a list:
  • 6 HS: 100% accuracy
  • 5 HS: 85% accuracy
  • 4 HS: 67% accuracy
  • 3 HS: 50% accuracy
  • 2 HS: 33% accuracy
  • 1.5 HS: 25% accuracy
  • 1.0 HS: 17% accuracy
  • 0.75 HS: 12.5% accuracy
  • 0.6 HS: 10% accuracy
  • 0.5 HS: 8% accuracy
You'll notice that to within a slight precision error, the accuracy of a Gauss cannon is proportional to its size, so there is no theoretical change in accuracy per HS (there are some salvo overkill effects in practice which tend to make the smaller cannons better for PD). Any size of cannon will work as well as another, but your base damage/number of hits per HS will be a constant at any given tech level.

As for how to actually use Gauss cannons, nearly always the way to use them effectively is to put them in a turret with maximum tracking speed (4x racial tech level). For the sake of example, let's look at an early ion tech fleet with a fleet speed of 4000 km/s and a BFC tracking speed tech of 3000 km/s (max 12000 km/s). We will compare 10 cm railguns, 10 cm lasers, and 50% accuracy Gauss cannons with ROF 3 tech - neglecting reactors, all of these take up 3 HS each which is close enough to do a rough comparison. We will consider a weapon with 12000 km/s tracking speed to possess "optimal" damage per increment (DPI), since for example against a fast missile this would be the best performance you could get at your tech level.
  • The railguns on a typical fleet ship will have 4000 km/s tracking speed (33% of optimal DPI) and fire 4 shots per increment, for a net 1.33 effective DPI.
  • The lasers if just mounted on a hull will also have 4000 km/s tracking speed, but only fire one shot per increment, for a pathetic 0.33 effective DPI.
  • Therefore it is better to mount the lasers in a turret with 12000 km/s tracking speed. We still only get one shot, for a net 1.0 effective DPI - still worse than railguns.
  • Now we consider the Gauss cannon. If we mount it on a ship with 4000 km/s tracking speed, and fire 3 shots per increment at 50% base weapon accuracy, the effective DPI is only 0.5. Better than lasers but much worse than railguns.
  • But if we put the Gauss cannon in a turret with 12000 km/s tracking speed, out effective DPI jumps up to 1.5 effective DPI - even better than the railguns! However, the turret adds additional mass, about another 1.2 HS, so at this tech level the Gauss cannon is still not quite as effective per ton as the railgun - but it's close, especially since the railgun needs a reactor as well.
Of course against a real missile moving much quicker than 12000 km/s your real DPI will not be as high, but the ratios will be the same. Please be cognizant, I've tried to compare between weapon systems of similar tonnage here (though not identical). If you change the Gauss cannon accuracy or the railgun number of shots, the above numbers will change - but so will the tonnages involved. Don't put a 6 HS Gauss cannon in a turret and come tell me it's better than a 3 HS railgun, the difference in tonnage must be accounted for.

There are a couple of corollaries here:
  • Gauss cannons will become more effective compared to railguns as the ROF tech increases. At ROF 4, they are roughly even depending on tech levels and fleet speed/doctrine. For ROF 5+ turreted Gauss cannons are the best PD money can buy.
  • The difference in performance between railguns and turreted Gauss cannons shifts in favor of the railguns as the speed of the ship they are on increases (relative to the maximum BFC tracking speed, of course). IN the above example, if we put our 10 cm railguns on a ship moving at 12000 km/s, they would have a net 4.0 effective DPI, leaving our Gauss turret in the dust. This is why Gauss cannons make poor weapons on fighters - they used to have a niche for very small fighters, but now with reduced-size railguns we can put a single-shot 10 cm railgun plus a reactor and SW BFC on a fighter with less than 100 tons of space used, which is good enough for everything except really hardcore small-fighter RP canons.

It is also worth noting that if you are expecting to fight targets which are slower than your maximum tracking speed (such as enemy fighters or FACs), railguns also gain an edge over Gauss cannons since you do not get bonus damage for having a faster tracking speed than your target's ship speed. Of course lasers are also good here due to dealing 3 damage per shot instead of 1 (and having good armor penetration). This highlights one more important fact about Gauss cannons - they generally are very weak weapons for anything other than point defense, because they are too heavy to compete with other light weapons and the extra speed from a turret is not as helpful against most ship-type targets.
 
The following users thanked this post: Andrew, Black, Agraelgrimm, skoormit

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2021, 12:23:55 AM »
Wow that was amazing. I do understand it now.
 

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2021, 12:57:34 AM »
F5 class Gunship (P)      268 tons       13 Crew       75.6 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
9350 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.98
Maint Life 19.29 Years     MSP 60    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 25.0    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.38 billion km (11 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Runar Light 10cm Railgun (1)    Range 30,000km     TS: 9,350 km/s     Power 0.75-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Kennedy Precision Arms Single Weapon Fighter BFC (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 6,000 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Anker Warning & Control THB Fighter Reactor (PO3) (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 10%

Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes


With the input i got from you guys. I did took out the maintence bay for extra speed. Reduced the maintanence life tough. But at least these are still the kind of fighters i can have on civillian stations, freighters, etc. And forget they are there.
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2021, 01:02:08 PM »
F5 class Gunship (P)      268 tons       13 Crew       75.6 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
9350 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.98
Maint Life 19.29 Years     MSP 60    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 25.0    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.38 billion km (11 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Runar Light 10cm Railgun (1)    Range 30,000km     TS: 9,350 km/s     Power 0.75-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Kennedy Precision Arms Single Weapon Fighter BFC (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 6,000 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Anker Warning & Control THB Fighter Reactor (PO3) (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 10%

Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes


With the input i got from you guys. I did took out the maintence bay for extra speed. Reduced the maintanence life tough. But at least these are still the kind of fighters i can have on civillian stations, freighters, etc. And forget they are there.

Looks pretty good. Couple of small things: first, you have an R3 reactor but you only need R1 if you design the railgun with a recharge rate 1.00 capacitor - which you should, as it only needs 0.75 power per increment (1.00 is the minimum capacitor size); second, you can reduce the maintenance much more to shave tons, a fighter does not need to have MSP to conduct repairs, all you need is a fighter-size engineering space to lower the IFR (incremental failure rate). An IFR of even 1.0% means that if your fighters happen to be deployed when the 5-day construction increment ticks over, only 1 out of 100 will experience a failure on average. Dropping IFR to 0.1% makes that ratio 1 in 1000. And further, your fighters will only fail at the construction increment, so if they are deployed and return to base before the construction increment ticks they won't fail anyways. So you do not need any MSP and only a minimal engineering space just to drop the IFR.

These changes would give you a design which is right at 250 tons, therefore stacking neatly with boat bay/hangar sizes which is a nice bonus. You can also bump the deployment time up to 0.02 to better match your fuel capacity with no change in tonnage. In the design below I've also shifted some of the BFC tonnage from the range to the tracking speed since the extra range gave a relatively small benefit, and the extra tracking speed will help to shoot down fast fighters/FACs and missiles.

Off-Topic: F5 Mk II class Gunship - Cheat Sheet • show
F5 Mk II class Gunship (P)      250 tons       13 Crew       62.2 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
10027 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.98
Maint Life 7.04 Years     MSP 15    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 8    Max Repair 37.500 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50.0    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 25.000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.41 billion km (11 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Runar Light 10 cm Railgun (1)    Range 30,000km     TS: 10,027 km/s     Power 0.75-1     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Nuclear Slurpee Corp Fighter BFC R48-TS10500 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nuclear Slurpee Corp R1 Fighter Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 1    Exp 10%

Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 Mk I-B (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes


Ship Components:
1x Active Sensor
0.4x Composite Armour
1x Beam Fire Control
2x Crew Quarters - Fighter
1x Engine
1x Engineering Spaces - Fighter
1x Fuel Storage - Tiny
1x R1 Reactor
1x 10 cm Railgun (1x1)


Hidden under the offtopic tag in case you want to work out the changes yourself.  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Agraelgrimm, Foxxonius Augustus

Offline Borealis4x

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 717
  • Thanked: 141 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2021, 03:10:23 PM »
If you do go big into Gauss weapons, is it worth also investing into railguns for fighters?
 

Online nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2960
  • Thanked: 2222 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2021, 04:42:20 PM »
If you do go big into Gauss weapons, is it worth also investing into railguns for fighters?

Yes, with a couple of caveats.

As a general rule, railguns on fighters will be superior to Gauss cannons at least up to Gauss ROF 6, if not ROF 8. The actual investment required is very minimal, in fact if you mostly just want point defense fighters then you can use the stock 10 cm / 10,000 km railguns you can build in every TN start with whatever capacitor tech is necessary to get the 5-second firing rate. If you needed the capacitor tech anyways for another beam weapon (lasers, particles, etc.) then this requires almost no RP investment aside from developing the railgun component(s).

The two caveats are: first, once you get to Gauss ROF 6 or 8 (depending on ship speeds/tracking speed tech), railguns are not superior anymore although they may be cheaper in terms of BP; second, you may need to make an investment into railgun range tech if you want to use them for anything other than point defense, so if you don't want to invest your valuable RP into railgun range techs it may be worth using the Gauss techs you already have researched and accepting some inefficiency. That being said, Gauss and 10 cm railguns have such short ranges anyways that closing to point-blank range is not really a major tactical constraint, so it may not really matter very much anyways.
 

Offline Agraelgrimm (OP)

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • A
  • Posts: 155
  • Thanked: 6 times
Re: F Series of Fighters.
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2021, 06:44:47 PM »
F5 class Gunship (P)      268 tons       13 Crew       75.6 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
9350 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.98
Maint Life 19.29 Years     MSP 60    AFR 3%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 5    Max Repair 37.5 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 25.0    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.38 billion km (11 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Runar Light 10cm Railgun (1)    Range 30,000km     TS: 9,350 km/s     Power 0.75-3     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Kennedy Precision Arms Single Weapon Fighter BFC (1)     Max Range: 72,000 km   TS: 6,000 km/s     86 72 58 44 31 17 3 0 0 0
Anker Warning & Control THB Fighter Reactor (PO3) (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 10%

Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes


With the input i got from you guys. I did took out the maintence bay for extra speed. Reduced the maintanence life tough. But at least these are still the kind of fighters i can have on civillian stations, freighters, etc. And forget they are there.

Looks pretty good. Couple of small things: first, you have an R3 reactor but you only need R1 if you design the railgun with a recharge rate 1.00 capacitor - which you should, as it only needs 0.75 power per increment (1.00 is the minimum capacitor size); second, you can reduce the maintenance much more to shave tons, a fighter does not need to have MSP to conduct repairs, all you need is a fighter-size engineering space to lower the IFR (incremental failure rate). An IFR of even 1.0% means that if your fighters happen to be deployed when the 5-day construction increment ticks over, only 1 out of 100 will experience a failure on average. Dropping IFR to 0.1% makes that ratio 1 in 1000. And further, your fighters will only fail at the construction increment, so if they are deployed and return to base before the construction increment ticks they won't fail anyways. So you do not need any MSP and only a minimal engineering space just to drop the IFR.

These changes would give you a design which is right at 250 tons, therefore stacking neatly with boat bay/hangar sizes which is a nice bonus. You can also bump the deployment time up to 0.02 to better match your fuel capacity with no change in tonnage. In the design below I've also shifted some of the BFC tonnage from the range to the tracking speed since the extra range gave a relatively small benefit, and the extra tracking speed will help to shoot down fast fighters/FACs and missiles.

Off-Topic: F5 Mk II class Gunship - Cheat Sheet • show
F5 Mk II class Gunship (P)      250 tons       13 Crew       62.2 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
10027 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.98
Maint Life 7.04 Years     MSP 15    AFR 5%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 1    5YR 8    Max Repair 37.500 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP50.00 (1)    Power 50.0    Fuel Use 885.44%    Signature 25.000    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 5,000 Litres    Range 0.41 billion km (11 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Runar Light 10 cm Railgun (1)    Range 30,000km     TS: 10,027 km/s     Power 0.75-1     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Nuclear Slurpee Corp Fighter BFC R48-TS10500 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 10,500 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nuclear Slurpee Corp R1 Fighter Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 1    Exp 10%

Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Active Search Sensor AS1-R1 Mk I-B (1)     GPS 2     Range 1.7m km    MCR 157.3k km    Resolution 1

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a e for auto-assignment purposes


Ship Components:
1x Active Sensor
0.4x Composite Armour
1x Beam Fire Control
2x Crew Quarters - Fighter
1x Engine
1x Engineering Spaces - Fighter
1x Fuel Storage - Tiny
1x R1 Reactor
1x 10 cm Railgun (1x1)


Hidden under the offtopic tag in case you want to work out the changes yourself.  ;)

My hero!