F Series of Fighters.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

I am in the early Ion Era, just got the tech. I am making a series of 4-6 fighters and one FAC to give me more control over the space and colonies around me (Also for fleet protection and projection of power). This is the first one of the series and i will use the lessons and tips learned here to build the others as well.
The F1 was made to be a cheap fast interceptor that could be sent in small squadrons to intercept enemy FACS, bombers, fighters and in desperation, ASM.
My challenge is to lose the most amount of mass as i possible can (and reduce the crew count) to get more speed. I've taken away the engineer bay to free up more space but idk if that will give me problems in the future. I do intent to use them for 3 hours max. thats the total endurance and its if something got wrong.

F-1 class Interceptor (P)      141 tons       3 Crew       31.7 BP       TCS 3    TH 26    EM 0
12498 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.8
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 28%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 1    5YR 15    Max Repair 10.9375 MSP
Magazine 2   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP17.50 (2)    Power 35.0    Fuel Use 1496.66%    Signature 13.1250    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 2,000 Litres    Range 0.17 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Gauss Cannon R300-8.00 (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12,498 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Beam Fire Control R48-TS1500 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 1,500 km/s     30 22 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Baulch-Reisch Ordnance Size 1 Box Launcher (2)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Kennedy Precision Arms Missile Fire Control FC3-R1 (1)     Range 3.5m 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

[nuclearslurpee]

You're going to run into a bunch of problems:

First and most obvious: Your beam fire control tracking speed is way too slow. While the tracking speed of your weapon is fine (being the same as your ship speed), for trying to hit a target the BFC tracking speed also matters and the lower of the two is going to be your accuracy limiting factor. Your high speed is completely wasted here.

A second thing, while a lot of players prefer to build very small fighters usually for RP reasons, very rarely is there any good reason not to build fighters as close to the 500-ton limit as possible. Fighters suffer the most from tonnage efficiency losses due to small size, so minimizing those losses by building a larger ship is usually the best approach. If it is for RP reasons then it is what it is, however a smaller fighter is not the best way to maximize speed - speed is a function of the ratio between engine and total mass/displacement, not a function of ship mass only. You can in this case nearly quadruple the engine size, build a 500-ton fighter, and get the same speed with large efficiency gains in terms of firepower.

Gauss cannons are usually a poor weapon choice for fighters until fairly high techs, as a 10 cm railgun is usually more tonnage-efficient. The reason is that Gauss cannons are most effective as turreted weapons, which allows them to reach your maximum tracking speed (4x racial tech level) while railguns are limited by the speed of the ship they are mounted on. For a fast, fast fighter this limitation for a railgun is very minimal so a turreted Gauss cannon has comparatively little advantage for the extra tonnage spent. Here you have not turreted the Gauss cannon so it is simply not effective, for 0.5 HS (25 tons) you are dealing 0.24 expected damage per 5-second increment (0.48 per HS). A three-shot 10 cm railgun can deal 3 damage per increment on a 2.325 HS gun (1.29 per HS), while a full four-shot railgun (3 HS) can deal 1.33 per HS. Even with the added tonnage of a R3 gas-cooled reactor (0.72 HS) this is much higher damage potential. Gauss cannons only match or exceed railguns for fighters once you reach Rate of Fire 6 tech level.

Finally, including both missile and beam on the same fighter is sub-optimal. You would get more efficiency from having two classes, one with twice as many guns and one with twice as many launchers, reducing the net tonnage needed for fire controls. In general I dislike putting AMMs on fighters, as they don't benefit from the fighter as a weapons platform. Usually it is better to have a larger AMM ship with a big RES-1 sensor and MFC to provide rapid AMM fire with fast reloading and deep magazines. However if you want it for RP reasons, more power to you - but it would be better to put the AMMs on a different class of fighter.

----

If I take into account the above comments, but keep the dual gun/missile armament for flavor purposes, using the maximum 500 tons something like this is possible:

F-1 Heavy class Interceptor (P)      500 tons       20 Crew       98.5 BP       TCS 10    TH 120    EM 0
12023 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2.55
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 99%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 24    5YR 357    Max Repair 60.00 MSP
Magazine 6   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Ion Drive  EP120.00 (1)    Power 120.0    Fuel Use 571.55%    Signature 120.00    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 9,000 Litres    Range 0.57 billion km (13 hours at full power)

10cm Railgun V30/C1.5/S2 (1x2)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12,023 km/s     Power 1.5-1.5     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R48-TS12000 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     79 58 38 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor R1.5 (1)     Total Power Output 1.5    Exp 5%

Size 1 Box Launcher (6)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Missile Fire Control FC3-R1 (1)     Range 3.5m 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

Given the need for a bit more tonnage to fix the BFC range I settled for basically tripling the smaller design in terms of firepower. The two-shot railgun plus power cell is 105 tons, which is about the same as four 0.25-HS Gauss guns but puts out twice the DPS. With your current tech level there is no significant benefit to going above 12,000 km/s as you can't get a higher BFC speed, which puts an upper limit on how much engine power is needed. If you researched more BFC speed techs then more speed would be useful.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

Thanks for the awsome input!
Yes, some of my choices are RP, such as small fighter tonnage. However i do plan to have more fighter models to complement each other.
I will scrap the Gauss Gun... I may make it a bit bigger, twin it and turret to the FAC and bombers... The F1 model is for fighter and FAC interception. So instead of doubling the missiles, i will double the tonnage and use a 2.3 size torpedo, it should give me at least 4 to 5 damage, wich should be enough for small FACs. And i will reduze their Squadron Size from 12 to 6 because of the extra tonnage. That should solve most of my problems with this particular model.
My FAC will probably carry 4-6 box launchers (For size 3.3 torpedos) with no magazine, plus the railgun. I will wait for the next lv tracking speed for it.
Then i will make fast bombers to carry a better punch into capital ships, then i plan to have a boarding FAC, a multirole and then maybe a sensor ship. But as far as AMM protection, the FACS and bigger ships will handle that. How do you suggest me making this idea to work and what to diss out?

I will be using this missile for the interceptor:

Missile Size: 2.40 MSP  (6.000 Tons)     Warhead: 3    Radiation Damage: 3    Manoeuvre Rating: 18
Speed: 25,000 km/s     Fuel: 125     Flight Time: 103.7 seconds     Range: 2,592,500 km
Cost Per Missile: 2.634     Development Cost: 263
Chance to Hit: 1k km/s 450%   3k km/s 150.0%   5k km/s 90%   10k km/s 45.0%

[xenoscepter]

I am in the early Ion Era, just got the tech. I am making a series of 4-6 fighters and one FAC to give me more control over the space and colonies around me (Also for fleet protection and projection of power). This is the first one of the series and i will use the lessons and tips learned here to build the others as well.
The F1 was made to be a cheap fast interceptor that could be sent in small squadrons to intercept enemy FACS, bombers, fighters and in desperation, ASM.
My challenge is to lose the most amount of mass as i possible can (and reduce the crew count) to get more speed. I've taken away the engineer bay to free up more space but idk if that will give me problems in the future. I do intent to use them for 3 hours max. thats the total endurance and its if something got wrong.

F-1 class Interceptor (P)      141 tons       3 Crew       31.7 BP       TCS 3    TH 26    EM 0
12498 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 2      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.8
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 28%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 1    5YR 15    Max Repair 10.9375 MSP
Magazine 2   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.6 days    Morale Check Required   

Tsukatani Turbines Ion Drive  EP17.50 (2)    Power 35.0    Fuel Use 1496.66%    Signature 13.1250    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 2,000 Litres    Range 0.17 billion km (3 hours at full power)

Kennedy Precision Arms Gauss Cannon R300-8.00 (1x3)    Range 30,000km     TS: 12,498 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Morton & Roberts Sensor Systems Beam Fire Control R48-TS1500 (SW) (1)     Max Range: 48,000 km   TS: 1,500 km/s     30 22 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Baulch-Reisch Ordnance Size 1 Box Launcher (2)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Kennedy Precision Arms Missile Fire Control FC3-R1 (1)     Range 3.5m 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

 - I like it. Some issues I can see are as such:
 
 --- You have 0.6 deployment for 3 hours of flight time. You could drop that to 0.1, AKA 3 days and still have way more than you'd need. Might lower the crew count, ergo making the ship smaller to boot.

 --- Secondly, your Missile FCS has 3.5 Million KM range, but your missile has just under 2.6... Might be a place to lose some tonnage, unless your FCS is already 5 tons, then you might want one with lower Active Sensor Strength, to save money.

 --- Next, you have no Active Sensors... either build a Sensor variant, fit one on, or piggyback of the fleet, but you need an Active Sensor to shoot at all.

 --- You have 2 engines. This is a fighter and as such tends to explode when observed. You can really consolidate these into one engine.

 --- Add a Maintenance Storage Bay of Small size or smaller... at the least. Preferably enough to cover about ten firings of the gun, as every time your craft pulls the trigger on that Gauss, it has a 1/100 chance of breaking.

 --- Your missile is too big for the launchers. Either add a single size 2.4 launcher or redesign your missile to fit within a Size 1 launcher. Your choice, but as is these will not load and ergo, will not fire.

 --- Finally, your ship is 141 Tons, consider either raising it to 150 or lowering it to 125. The former will fit 7 in one Hangar Deck + a Small Boat Bay, while the latter will fit 8 in a single Hangar Deck.

[Michael Sandy]

Small beam fighters really suffer from how greatly an inadequate beam fire control affects their dps.  In Aurora4x, the main advantage to small size is the reduced range that anti-ship missile fire controls lock on to it.  However, if a ship has anti-missile fire controls, your small fighters will still be engaged before closing to beam range.

Some small missile fighters can work, because they may be able to launch from beyond anti-missile range, and if they are really small, anti-fighter missile fire controls, like Res 10, may have a significantly reduced range against minimal sized fighters.

I don't really care for it, because to make it work you need to make a large commitment to making lots of very small fighters, and a small refit that adds the right resolution anti-fighter missile fire control completely screws your strategy.  Even if the AI rarely does that, I don't like a force that is defeatable by such a small change in the enemy designs.

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

- I like it. Some issues I can see are as such:
 
 --- You have 0.6 deployment for 3 hours of flight time. You could drop that to 0.1, AKA 3 days and still have way more than you'd need. Might lower the crew count, ergo making the ship smaller to boot.

 --- Secondly, your Missile FCS has 3.5 Million KM range, but your missile has just under 2.6... Might be a place to lose some tonnage, unless your FCS is already 5 tons, then you might want one with lower Active Sensor Strength, to save money.

 --- Next, you have no Active Sensors... either build a Sensor variant, fit one on, or piggyback of the fleet, but you need an Active Sensor to shoot at all.

 --- You have 2 engines. This is a fighter and as such tends to explode when observed. You can really consolidate these into one engine.

 --- Add a Maintenance Storage Bay of Small size or smaller... at the least. Preferably enough to cover about ten firings of the gun, as every time your craft pulls the trigger on that Gauss, it has a 1/100 chance of breaking.

 --- Your missile is too big for the launchers. Either add a single size 2.4 launcher or redesign your missile to fit within a Size 1 launcher. Your choice, but as is these will not load and ergo, will not fire.

 --- Finally, your ship is 141 Tons, consider either raising it to 150 or lowering it to 125. The former will fit 7 in one Hangar Deck + a Small Boat Bay, while the latter will fit 8 in a single Hangar Deck.

Ok, i will lower that deployment, i really need to cut the tonnage, i will make it into one single engine, you are right about dropping that termal signature. I now have the tech to drop even further. I am still deciding on that Gauss Cannon... For one, it doesnt add much firepower anyway, i dont think i will even get at 1 damage. Second, that AMM doesnt have the punch to kill a FAC in one hit. So i scrapped those size one launchers, made them to fit that bigger torpedo.
Now, if that lands it will kill a FAC, except if their tech is way beyond me. But with all 24 missiles being fired (im counting the whole squadron) it will most likely kill a FAC anyway. Maybe two. Im using a bomber to mitigate the lack of firepower and add a finish to bigger ships. My tonnage on that sensor is already as low as it can be and im thinking of leaving that there, since i use it for the AMM in other ships too. I dont care about the cost, just the tonnage.
What makes me consider the gauss cannon is the possibility of making the fighters stay longer in a fight, especially in the case of Commerce Raiding. The reason behind this is: As soon as i pull them back into the hangars, thats it. It will take a long time to refit them, and in that meanwhile the fight might end and not fabourable to me.

Small beam fighters really suffer from how greatly an inadequate beam fire control affects their dps.  In Aurora4x, the main advantage to small size is the reduced range that anti-ship missile fire controls lock on to it.  However, if a ship has anti-missile fire controls, your small fighters will still be engaged before closing to beam range.

Some small missile fighters can work, because they may be able to launch from beyond anti-missile range, and if they are really small, anti-fighter missile fire controls, like Res 10, may have a significantly reduced range against minimal sized fighters.

I don't really care for it, because to make it work you need to make a large commitment to making lots of very small fighters, and a small refit that adds the right resolution anti-fighter missile fire control completely screws your strategy.  Even if the AI rarely does that, I don't like a force that is defeatable by such a small change in the enemy designs.

I do plan to make the Interceptors as small as i can exactly because of that. I have bigger ships on the making, including FACs... And i do plan on using them in squadrons of 8 or 12 so they can pack a punch and add survivabilty.
Those ships are the standart load for my capital ships, so i could have a lot of them in a fight. If the enemy has too many AMM, i then just wait until the big ships intercept them and go around and try again. That is my strategy on using them so far.
Now im open to more suggestions. 

As stands with all the feeback i had,  this is how the F1 is right now:
F-1 class Interceptor (P)      152 tons       3 Crew       36 BP       TCS 3    TH 18    EM 0
11565 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 1.02
Maint Life 1.79 Years     MSP 5    AFR 30%    IFR 0.4%    1YR 2    5YR 29    Max Repair 26.250 MSP
Magazine 6.8   
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Turner Drive Systems Ion Drive  EP35.00 (1)    Power 35.0    Fuel Use 1058.30%    Signature 17.500    Explosion 20%
Fuel Capacity 2,000 Litres    Range 0.22 billion km (5 hours at full power)

Baulch-Reisch Ordnance Size 2.4 Box Launcher (2)     Missile Size: 2.4    Hangar Reload 77 minutes    MF Reload 12 hours
Baulch-Reisch Ordnance Size 1 Box Launcher (2)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Kennedy Precision Arms Missile Fire Control FC3-R1 (1)     Range 3.5m km    Resolution 1

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

(I decided to add 2 more slots for 2 AMM missiles, just in case they have to intercept a voley. And bear in mind, they will go in squadrons of 12, so its 24 AMM missiles)

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

F5 class Gunship (P)      270 tons       11 Crew       63.7 BP       TCS 5    TH 25    EM 0
9286 km/s      Armour 1-3       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 2
Maint Life 27.25 Years     MSP 86    AFR 2%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 3    Max Repair 37.500 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 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 4,000 Litres    Range 0.3 billion km (9 hours at full power)

Alagoa Defence Industries Gauss Cannon R300-17.00 (2x3)    Range 24,000km     TS: 9,286 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 17.00%     RM 30,000 km    ROF 5       
Anker Warning & Control Beam Fire Control R24-TS7500 (SW) (70%) (1)     Max Range: 24,000 km   TS: 7,500 km/s     58 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

F5 Gunship to close in the gap. I've decided to put 2 gauss  cannons, upped the tracking speed, put a more potent engine on it and lost as many tonnage as possible, as result, it doesnt have box launchers. They either gun down the missiles that are incoming or they are dead lol.

[nuclearslurpee]

F-1 looks okay. However:

(I decided to add 2 more slots for 2 AMM missiles, just in case they have to intercept a voley. And bear in mind, they will go in squadrons of 12, so its 24 AMM missiles)

24 AMMs will be able to intercept roughly 3-5 ASMs at a similar tech level, so against anything more than a single patrol ship firing a small missile salvo these aren't likely to accomplish very much. I would just use 3x the 2.4-MSP launchers and focus on blowing things up.

The F5 gunship still has too low of a tracking speed. Ship speed in excess of BFC tracking speed is always wasted as far as beam weapons go, and you'll have a better overall design if you up the tracking speed to 9000 km/s (should be 3x size modifier) and reduce the engine size by 5ish tons. You'd also still get better performance from a 2-shot 10 cm railgun but I won't belabor that point.

It is also worth noting that your BFC range is going to hinder accuracy, point defense final fire always takes place at 10,000 km so your range modifier for accuracy will be a rather poor 58%. Doubling the BFC range will give you 79% base accuracy instead at the cost of 30 to 40 tons depending on what you do about the tracking speed, definitely a net gain of efficiency.

[Borealis4x]

I always wonder about the role fighters are supposed to have in Aurora. I always figured they were primarily for mobile point-defense and thought they'd be useful escorting bombers to shoot down AMMs and perhaps other fighters. But can they be used against smaller FAC sized ships as well to a reasonable degree? Or against commercial ships?

[Droll]

I always wonder about the role fighters are supposed to have in Aurora. I always figured they were primarily for mobile point-defense and thought they'd be useful escorting bombers to shoot down AMMs and perhaps other fighters. But can they be used against smaller FAC sized ships as well to a reasonable degree? Or against commercial ships?

Reduced size railgun fighters can certainly take on commercials and FACs, the fact that you can easily mount 15cm railgun weapons means that you actually have some AP on your fighters now, plus FACs usually can't afford to have many FCs to multi-target.

I still think that beam fighters are dubious when engaging capital ship fleets though, because reduced size railgun only gets you so far. You could possibly try to get a short range fighter at 500 tons with the smallest particle lance though, that would certainly be effective against even frigate / destroyer size ships I reckon.
Edit: The smallest particle lance would be 500 tons, so the smallest particle beam would be a 2-damage beam, which is I suppose ok if you want a long range fighter that can outrange laser FACs but otherwise just use railguns. Particle beam fighters become viable if you've found a ruin that unlocks the "advanced particle beam warhead", but by that logic the "advanced railgun" tech line is exactly the same.

[Borealis4x]

I always wonder about the role fighters are supposed to have in Aurora. I always figured they were primarily for mobile point-defense and thought they'd be useful escorting bombers to shoot down AMMs and perhaps other fighters. But can they be used against smaller FAC sized ships as well to a reasonable degree? Or against commercial ships?

Reduced size railgun fighters can certainly take on commercials and FACs, the fact that you can easily mount 15cm railgun weapons means that you actually have some AP on your fighters now, plus FACs usually can't afford to have many FCs to multi-target.

I still think that beam fighters are dubious when engaging capital ship fleets though, because reduced size railgun only gets you so far. You could possibly try to get a short range fighter at 500 tons with the smallest particle lance though, that would certainly be effective against even frigate / destroyer size ships I reckon.
Edit: The smallest particle lance would be 500 tons, so the smallest particle beam would be a 2-damage beam, which is I suppose ok if you want a long range fighter that can outrange laser FACs but otherwise just use railguns. Particle beam fighters become viable if you've found a ruin that unlocks the "advanced particle beam warhead", but by that logic the "advanced railgun" tech line is exactly the same.

I can see those particle beam fighters being useful as commerce raiders launched from a tender. Fast, hard to spot, disposable, numerous, and has unlimited ammo. Only issue would be range.

[nuclearslurpee]

I always wonder about the role fighters are supposed to have in Aurora. I always figured they were primarily for mobile point-defense and thought they'd be useful escorting bombers to shoot down AMMs and perhaps other fighters. But can they be used against smaller FAC sized ships as well to a reasonable degree? Or against commercial ships?

Fighters have a few roles in Aurora. The trick is that their utility is rarely related to being particularly efficient in terms of tonnage, a larger ship will always be able to pack on more effective firepower per ton. The value of fighters is in their small size which gives them a small sensor signature and the ability to be transported on a Carrier which makes a number of design choices possible that aren't feasible on a large ship - for example, fighters with max-boosted engines are viable because they can be deployed from a Carrier within a few 100m km of the battle, whereas a large ship with max-boosted engines is too fuel-hungry to reach a battlefield on its own.

The best-known role is as a missile bomber, because their small sensor signature lets them approach close to an enemy and fire from box launchers while the main fleet remains safely out of range. A large ship (CG, DDG, FFG, etc.) will be able to carry and deliver more missiles per ton of ship, but would not be able to approach the enemy fleet without being fired on unless you have a big tech advantage or make other design compromises.

Many people like to use fighters as PD units. Here the advantage is chiefly in the use of railguns, as Gauss cannons are always better in turrets aboard larger ships but require a lot of research. Railgun fighters with boosted engines can reach high speeds and be more effective than railgun PD on a large ship, although since they require a carrier the actual efficiency gain varies quite a bit based on your techs and doctrine. If for example your carrier typically dedicates 1/3 of its tonnage to hangar space, you would want your fighters to be about 3x as fast as the rest of your fleet for railgun fighters to be better PD than a large ship.

AWACS (airborne warning and control system) fighters can mount a large active sensor, or stealth recon fighters can mount passive sensors, and either way can approach close to an enemy without coming into targeting range. This can be a useful way to extend the range of your missile warning systems as well, to get a bigger tracking bonus or to have more time to fire off AMMs, since the small fighters won't be spotted and shot down by the enemy missile ships.

The last notable benefit of fighters is logistical - if you need a highly specialized payload, it can be easier to build a couple dozen fighters and stick them on a carrier than it is to design and build new large ships. A good example of this would be building emergency jump point defense fighters with microwaves or carronades which can be thrown into a carrier and shuttled out to the JP to defend. These fighters may not be very efficient ships on their own, but they can do the job and can be deployed very quickly.

Some areas where the use of fighters is questionable:

• Anything involving closing to point-blank against hostile enemies. While being very fast can sometimes be a good defense against enemy fire, fighters in general are too fragile to survive this kind of approach. Further, their small size limits what they can mount, including heavier beam weapons as well as boarding bays and the like.
• Anything requiring long ranges such as deep space recon missions. Putting a bunch of extra fuel on a fighter tends to defeat the point of them being carrier-transportable, and due to their small size they suffer a lot from tonnage inefficiency where a larger ship can comfortably mount the mission payload without compromises.
• AMM defense work. Generally AMMs do not benefit from mounting on a speedy platform like beam PD guns do, and box launchers for AMMs are often not as efficient as full-size launchers plus deep magazines especially once you have the Reload Rate 6 tech (for ROF 5 AMM launchers).
• Any kind of multirole design is virtually guaranteed to fail, just because fighters are so starved for space to actually mount extra components. A common example is that a squadron of gun/missile dual armament fighters will always be inferior to an equal-size squadron which is 50% gun fighters and 50% missile fighters at least on paper (some players will claim that the latter composition will make it too easy to have one kind of capability wiped out while the other remains intact, but in my experience such situations are rare if they ever happen).

[Agraelgrimm (OP)]

F-1 looks okay. However:

(I decided to add 2 more slots for 2 AMM missiles, just in case they have to intercept a voley. And bear in mind, they will go in squadrons of 12, so its 24 AMM missiles)

24 AMMs will be able to intercept roughly 3-5 ASMs at a similar tech level, so against anything more than a single patrol ship firing a small missile salvo these aren't likely to accomplish very much. I would just use 3x the 2.4-MSP launchers and focus on blowing things up.

The F5 gunship still has too low of a tracking speed. Ship speed in excess of BFC tracking speed is always wasted as far as beam weapons go, and you'll have a better overall design if you up the tracking speed to 9000 km/s (should be 3x size modifier) and reduce the engine size by 5ish tons. You'd also still get better performance from a 2-shot 10 cm railgun but I won't belabor that point.

It is also worth noting that your BFC range is going to hinder accuracy, point defense final fire always takes place at 10,000 km so your range modifier for accuracy will be a rather poor 58%. Doubling the BFC range will give you 79% base accuracy instead at the cost of 30 to 40 tons depending on what you do about the tracking speed, definitely a net gain of efficiency.

I have the bombers to use the 2.4 missiles and they carry 4 of them. But here is the thing: I can have a FAC built around that railgun, but then i can only make *one* FAC per Hangar because it will get big. 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, also, the lower the tonnage, more of them i can build and pack it, so sure, a railgun can pack more punch, but i can make 1/3 more of them per tonnage, wich means that with 3 i gain space for one more and 3 of those are going to be better than have 1 and a half railgun FAC. I have limited space to bring fighters and my ships are way too bulky for that.
I will make the Railgun FAC to give additional fire support for smaller front line support or escort ships like Frigates and Destroyers. I would rather have 5 Fighter designs and have flexibility than 2 models with limited use. I will however update the BFC for the F5 and make the changes you proposed. (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)

[nuclearslurpee]

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.

(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.

[xenoscepter]

  - 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.