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.
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 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)
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?
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 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?
F-1 looks okay. However: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 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.
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, 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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?- 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.
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.- 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.
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?
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.
If you do go big into Gauss weapons, is it worth also investing into railguns for fighters?
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
Hidden under the offtopic tag in case you want to work out the changes yourself. ;)