A different take on Fighter design

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:09 am

Both designs look at using High efficiency batteries rather than fusion power plants.

Image

Image

Tempted to remove the turret, drop to a single cockpit, add a second fixed missile rack and add 12 more missiles for the heavy fighter.
paltrysum
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby paltrysum » Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:49 am

Nice design. If it gets destroyed, that's a huge financial hit as well with all those missiles. Have you considered adding an emissions absorption grid or stealth? The former is relatively cost effective.
"Spacers lead a sedentary life. They live at home, and their home is always with them—their starship, and so is their country—the depths of space."
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:40 am

I don't see any problem with it, but not much point either.

In the smaller fighter you use a 2.8 Dt MCr 0.6 battery to replace 1.4 Dt MCr 0.6 PP+fuel, i.e. 1.4 Dt extra, just to limit endurance from a day or so to two hours.

baithammer wrote:Tempted to remove the turret, drop to a single cockpit, add a second fixed missile rack and add 12 more missiles for the heavy fighter.
How about a missile barbette? Launching five missiles per round is a lot nastier than one or two.

I don't think you really need all those missiles. Missile combats are generally short affairs. 10-12 battery rounds should be quite sufficient.

And it only really has to be 35 Dt, meaning ~50% more fighters in the same carrier.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 02, 2018 5:33 am

Both designs have some extra missiles in order to carry variant missiles in addition to the stock load.

Using a battery for power also means less displacement required on the carrier for fuel and besides fighters aren't designed for long endurance any ways. ( System defense boats are a better fit for endurance.)

Adding a barbette requires reducing the amount of operational time, I've worked out a strike variant with a fusion barbette with only a small decrease in operational time. ( Rather use missile barbette on a larger frame in order to be able to feed the beast.)

As to the 35t, with the Imperials using 10t / 50t standardization and perferring docking spaces there is no advantage to using the 35t design without creating new carriers or going with large hangar deck model.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:57 am

Battery powered is viable; after all, the cockpit gets gamey after a day.

You can also unload your magazine really fast in close combat, compared to energy based weapon systems.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:15 am

The light fighter has 120 minutes of juice, so 40 mins or 6.7 turns worth of combat time, the heavy fighter has 210 mins of juice, so 70 mins or 11.7 turns of combat time assuming maxing out transit to / from target.

Further, missiles don't have a range limitation from being on a firm point, more likely to penetrate armour and do more damage than a pulse laser.
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3261
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby Reynard » Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm

Combat can or often does go longer that 7 turns. These are kamikazes? You need power to get to and from a battle.

I thought a fixed missile rack carries 4 not 12 missiles. No autoloader and why military craft have 2 gunners to a turret(firmpoint). Someone has to pass the ammo while the other fires.

Can you have both a turret and a firmpoint on a 50 ton small craft?

Cockpits, as described, are tiny, isolated compartments. I think you would need to add Cabin Space to access ammunition storage to reload the missile rack. I picture the gunner's seat folding back so the gunner can slide back into the cabin space connecting the ammo hold next to the firmpoint rack with just enough room to safely and efficiently pass missiles into the rack store.

I wonder what the system looks like to recharge the batteries during a battle. Fuel on a smallcraft lasts a month so time to reload missile munitions is the only factor. Would the power of the carriers have to be accounted for to recharge squadrons of fighters as quickly as possible?

"They can be recharged in any round by excess Power not being used by other systems". That might mean the carrier shunting enough power from other systems plus any time, crew and equipment to connect power cables. Refueling can be done at one's leisure after the battle.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:16 pm

Reynard wrote: I thought a fixed missile rack carries 4 not 12 missiles. No autoloader and why military craft have 2 gunners to a turret(firmpoint). Someone has to pass the ammo while the other fires.
Yes, 4 missiles for firmpoints, whether fixed or turret. Magazines are in addition to this.

Note that weapons can't fire and load in the same turn, so don't really need both gunner and loader.

(I allow autoloaders from dedicated magazines. Manual reloading is for civilians carrying extras in the cargo hold. This is a house rule that I have used since CT to reconcile LBB2 and LBB5.)

Reynard wrote: Can you have both a turret and a firmpoint on a 50 ton small craft?
Yes? Two firmpoints that can mount fixed mounts or turrets individually.

Reynard wrote: Cockpits, as described, are tiny, isolated compartments. I think you would need to add Cabin Space to access ammunition storage to reload the missile rack.
I believe you technically need a bridge to be able to move about. The difference from Cockpit+Cabin Space is barely noticeable. Fixed mounts don't need separate gunners (but still need to be loaded).

Reynard wrote: I wonder what the system looks like to recharge the batteries during a battle. ... Would the power of the carriers have to be accounted for to recharge squadrons of fighters as quickly as possible?
UNREP equipment and energy from the carrier? I would certainly account for the energy from the carrier.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:31 pm

Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
Combat can or often does go longer that 7 turns. These are kamikazes? You need power to get to and from a battle.
7 Turns for combat is a third of the total fuel available, there is 14 turns for approaching / returning.

Further, you would only be sending at the most a third of your compliment against targets, unless the carrier squadron is under attack.
Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
I thought a fixed missile rack carries 4 not 12 missiles. No autoloader and why military craft have 2 gunners to a turret(firmpoint). Someone has to pass the ammo while the other fires.
The rack itself has only 4 spots, but if you dedicate space for ammunition its assumed an autoloader is available.

This does require a full turn to reload a rack and doing so prevents you from firing from the rack.
Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
Can you have both a turret and a firmpoint on a 50 ton small craft?
50t-70t has 2 firm points, a single turret only takes a single firm point. ( Barbettes on the other hand take 2 firm points.
Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
Cockpits, as described, are tiny, isolated compartments. I think you would need to add Cabin Space to access ammunition storage to reload the missile rack. I picture the gunner's seat folding back so the gunner can slide back into the cabin space connecting the ammo hold next to the firmpoint rack with just enough room to safely and efficiently pass missiles into the rack store.
Only if you store extra missiles in an area designated as cargo space, which doesn't have an autoloader.
Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
I wonder what the system looks like to recharge the batteries during a battle. Fuel on a smallcraft lasts a month so time to reload missile munitions is the only factor. Would the power of the carriers have to be accounted for to recharge squadrons of fighters as quickly as possible?
The carrier would need some extra overhead for the fighters, but since fighters should be used in waves the charging times can be accommodated.
Reynard wrote:
Sun Dec 02, 2018 1:34 pm
"They can be recharged in any round by excess Power not being used by other systems". That might mean the carrier shunting enough power from other systems plus any time, crew and equipment to connect power cables. Refueling can be done at one's leisure after the battle.
Fuel takes up space, using ships power takes up far less and you don't need much power to recharge the fighters. ( Also one of the other reasons to use only a third of the fighters actively at a time.)
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 02, 2018 9:14 pm

Relays of fighters.

The minimum size of fuel tanks remains one tonne, so that a lot f bunkerage for a ten tonne hull.

Because firmpoints are monoturrets, each one can only contain one weapon system.
Old School
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby Old School » Sun Dec 02, 2018 10:04 pm

Is there any advantage other than the cost reduction?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:10 pm

Old School wrote: Is there any advantage other than the cost reduction?
There is no cost reduction, and no advantage.

The MCr 4.8 batteries in the heavy fighter could be replaced with a MCr 2.6 fusion plant saving more than 20 Dt.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:39 am

Fighters aren't meant for long duration fights as there is no backup crew to support it. ( High Guard heavy fighters is more of a boat than a fighter.)

Fusion plants aren't that much cheaper.

TL 15 = 4.19 Mcr
TL 12 = 2.793 Mcr

TL 12 plants have too generous of a cost advantage.

Besides, no more fuel crits. :)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby AnotherDilbert » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:12 pm

If we are not worried about space, which we apparently are not, we can use a TL-8 power plant costing less than MCr 2.

But the small difference in cost is not significant, the difference in size is significant.

High severity crits are not much of a problem for fighters that are destroyed by a few hits. Crit ripple by Hull crits is a problem.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby baithammer » Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:44 pm

Power Plant pricing has poor scaling between power per ton versus price per ton which leads to little drawback when dealing with lower tech items.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: A different take on Fighter design

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:42 am

You minimize the energy requirement by using projectiles.

In the end, a fighter design has to fit the doctrine you're using.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests