So I have been min-maxing various gauss cannon designs because I am a boring person. I have been messing around with the concept of the gauss fighter as a dedicated PD fighter for ASM protection of my larger ships so I started to wonder if there was a point at which it becomes more efficient (technologically, economically, etc...) to produce gauss fighters or gauss turrets. Currently I'm at gauss tech level 4 and internal fusion engine tech, and I came up with the following fighters, turret, and CIWS:
Barracuda-G class Fighter 500 tons 21 Crew 167.2 BP TCS 10 TH 175 EM 0
17533 km/s Armour 3-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 3 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 3
Maint Life 12.82 Years MSP 232 AFR 8% IFR 0.1% 1YR 3 5YR 39 Max Repair 87.5 MSP
Lieutenant Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive EP175.00 (1) Power 175 Fuel Use 1002.23% Signature 175 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 15,000 Litres Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)
Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-50.0 (1x4) Range 30,000km TS: 17,533 km/s Accuracy Modifier 50.0% RM 30,000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Barracuda-G3 class Fighter 500 tons 23 Crew 156.2 BP TCS 10 TH 150 EM 0
15003 km/s Armour 1-5 Shields 0-0 HTK 4 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0 PPV 5
Maint Life 4.41 Years MSP 79 AFR 20% IFR 0.3% 1YR 7 5YR 98 Max Repair 75 MSP
Lieutenant Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days Morale Check Required
Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive EP150.00 (1) Power 150 Fuel Use 1082.53% Signature 150 Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 10,000 Litres Range 0.3 billion km (6 hours at full power)
Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x4) Range 30,000km TS: 15,003 km/s Accuracy Modifier 85.00% RM 30,000 km ROF 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Beam Fire Control R32-TS16000 (50%) (1) Max Range: 32,000 km TS: 16,000 km/s 94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
Single Chaimberlin-Sherman Gauss Cannon R300-85.00 (1x4) Turret
Damage Output 1 Rate of Fire 5 seconds Range Modifier 30,000
Max Range 30,000 km Turret Size 6.62 HS (331 tons) HTK 3
Cost 50.48 Crew 10
Maximum Tracking Speed: 16,000 km/s
Development Cost 500 RP
Materials Required
Duranium 6.40
Neutronium 4.08
Vendarite 40
I created the -G fighter variant first and then, after considering the relative merits of additional hangar space vs CIWS vs gauss turrets on my carrier class, created the -G3 variant with improved accuracy. I estimate the -G3 variant chance-to-hit accuracy to be approximately 80% taking into consideration the BFC tracking speed and the speed of the ship (target speed is ignored in this calculation), which is a considerable improvement over both CIWS and the -G variant, but not the gauss turret (which is smaller).
I personally like the gauss fighter concept better than the CIWS or turret because the fighter has some mobility, and gauss has better range than CIWS, so those concepts are driving my continuing design efforts. I am wondering if other people have come up with any relevant research data relating to CIWS, gauss cannon, and/or gauss fighter design trade-offs? I know Mr. Spike created a detailed thread a while back about gauss turrets specifically, and I've read through that several times, but what I am interested in is determining whether a larger ship with a gauss turret would be better or worse than a fighter with a fixed mount gauss cannon, and what the critical design trade-off parameters are if there is a potential for design trade-offs as I have described them here.
Also, I am intentionally ignoring railguns because I have intentionally neglected to research them in my current campaign.
*Edit: Updated range bands to 2000 and target speed to 10k (originally had them set to non-sensible numbers)