Modular Fighter

[baithammer]

Linked to this thread from the Gazelle thread...

I am pretty sure the rules don't say you can't but what's the deal with 25G?

There's an assumption (is it actually written down somewhere in 2e?) that the M drive comes with "inertial compensators" or some such that means a human crew can survive/operate at/tolerate sustained 9G acceleration but where do reaction drives come into this?

16G alone is enough to render any human unconscious pretty quickly.

Now, if the ship runs autonomously or remotely, fair enough, but there's a crew mentioned too.

Need to remember the drives rating is the top thrust not acceleration, also have to take into account a combat round is either 6s or 6 min which would put drives acceleration at a manageable range. From high guard-

it is these that give a ship its Thrust
score.

 

[h1ro]

Ya mean MgT is pseudo science meeting semantic shenanigans?

Who'd have thunk it?

ETA:

On a more serious note, the travel calculator on page 153 of the 2e CRB would suggest otherwise.

 

[Condottiere]

It's when you start examining the combat mechanics, you begin wondering how this fits in with legacy assumptions.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Need to remember the drives rating is the top thrust not acceleration, also have to take into account a combat round is either 6s or 6 min which would put drives acceleration at a manageable range.

For the purposes of High Guard Thrust 1 == 1 G acceleration. You don't have use the drives at 100%, but you are generally assumed to do so.

So, 9G, 16G , or 25G is not really possible without G-compensators compensating for it.

 

[steve98052]

As I see it, a modular fighter would be modular at the factory, and not particularly modular in terms of field reconfiguration. The main feature that changes between versions is the weapon package: missiles, lasers, fusion, particle, boarding, etc. A lot of those have different energy requirements; a missile fighter would have a lot of resources wasted on power plant if it used the same power plant as a fusion fighter. Rather than waste the money on excess power, a missile fighter would do better to add magazine space or increased maneuver agility (if the latter were possible within the G limit for the fighter's technology level). So rather than a swappable module design, it would be a class design that benefits from common design and manufacture discounts.

The other reason to rule it that way is less a "rules make us do it this way" than analogy with real life. You don't just stick another engine in an F-16 and make it an F-15. Even the absurdly expensive F-35, which is meant to be built in assorted versions, isn't meant to allow a VTOL version to go into the shop one day and come out as a carrier landing or long runway version a while later. Each version is optimized for its role, and doesn't change role for the lifetime of the fighter.

So, I would propose to make it a class of factory modular fighters, each version the best it can be for its role. If a fleet has the wrong mix of versions, combat attrition will allow the factory to realign the version mix by building different variations within the class.

 

[h1ro]

As I see it, a modular fighter would be modular at the factory, and not particularly modular in terms of field reconfiguration. The main feature that changes between versions is the weapon package: missiles, lasers, fusion, particle, boarding, etc. A lot of those have different energy requirements; a missile fighter would have a lot of resources wasted on power plant if it used the same power plant as a fusion fighter. Rather than waste the money on excess power, a missile fighter would do better to add magazine space or increased maneuver agility (if the latter were possible within the G limit for the fighter's technology level). So rather than a swappable module design, it would be a class design that benefits from common design and manufacture discounts.

There's no reason in the RAW you can't put your power source into the module. Each module can therefore be self contained.

The other reason to rule it that way is less a "rules make us do it this way" than analogy with real life. You don't just stick another engine in an F-16 and make it an F-15. Even the absurdly expensive F-35, which is meant to be built in assorted versions, isn't meant to allow a VTOL version to go into the shop one day and come out as a carrier landing or long runway version a while later. Each version is optimized for its role, and doesn't change role for the lifetime of the fighter.

I think it's easier to imagine modular ships that aren't governed by atmospheric requirements. A MF could be a close structure, which to my mind would lend itself well to swapping out modules.

With this all being in the 57th century, the modularity could be a mature technology that's quick and easy to adapt.

 

[Condottiere]

It would be a quirk in design that modules once installed, would be remarkably hard to remove once installed, and that changing and calibrating one for each vessel requires teams of highly paid civilian contractors a long time.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Up to 75% of a ship’s internal tonnage may be designated as modular. This tonnage may not include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

Sorry, no power plants in modules. Possibly batteries.

The Modular Fighter produces enough power for the modules. Power is cheap so that is not a major problem. It also contains an 11 Dt Reaction Drive it cannot use unless fuel is provided by a module or drop tank.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, there should be no problem installing power plants in modules, if you tick all the boxes like minimum size, tankage and controls.

If you position them on the wingtips, solar panelling.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since a software update on the board has rendered the Code block with the design incomprehensible, I post a retouched (for the final rules) version.

Hopefully this is more readable:

 

[h1ro]

Up to 75% of a ship’s internal tonnage may be designated as modular. This tonnage may not include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

Sorry, no power plants in modules. Possibly batteries.

The Modular Fighter produces enough power for the modules. Power is cheap so that is not a major problem. It also contains an 11 Dt Reaction Drive it cannot use unless fuel is provided by a module or drop tank.

Oops, my bad. Makes mental note to have the rules to hand when discussing the rules...

 

[h1ro]

Are the modules armoured? I am guessing yes but the question arose as I was imagining that the modules were external. Thinking about it, I read that the rules assume the modules are internal and therefore under armour.

I really like the ideas behind the design, kudos AD.

The next step is to design all ships this way. Have you designed jump capable ships?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Are the modules armoured? I am guessing yes but the question arose as I was imagining that the modules were external. Thinking about it, I read that the rules assume the modules are internal and therefore under armour.

Modules are specifically banned from having armour. So I assume that they are covered by the ships armour, e.g. by a removable plate, despite the modules having external access.

I really like the ideas behind the design, kudos AD.

Thanks.

The next step is to design all ships this way. Have you designed jump capable ships?

Some designs here: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=119080

I tend to use small modules for defensive systems on bigger ships. That allows you to tailor you defences for the current enemies doctrine. This might be typical: http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?p=899048#p899048 Note that it was made with some version of beta rules and is probably not legal by the final rules.

Bays may be modular by nature, but I do not allow spinals to be modular.

 

[Condottiere]

Unless the armour slides down, that wouldn't appear to be the case with a modular cutter variant.

If you incorporated a turret or a bay there, would that leave the weapon system completely unprotected?

If the modules occupy a great deal of volume, would the armour just exceed actual unallocated tonnage of the remaining hull volume?

If armour from the primary hull covers the module. it's actually a cargo hold.

 

[baithammer]

Unless the armour slides down, that wouldn't appear to be the case with a modular cutter variant.

The cutters module bay appears to have a clam shell door so would be covered by the armor.

[quoteIf you incorporated a turret or a bay there, would that leave the weapon system completely unprotected?][/quote]

Armor allocation is designed with tonnage including the module, as part of the module it would most likely include alternate coverings and connection points. ( Door swap,ect.)

 

[Condottiere]

That would assume that all modules are more or less the same, which would lock each model of spacecraft to a specific type of module template designed for it.

 

[baithammer]

The module compartment is a fixed displacement baked into the ships design, so you stuck with equal or less displacement for the module.

 

[Condottiere]

If it's part of the initial design.

If you're using the cutter in the assault role, you'd want it to be heavily armoured; if it's as a (light) fighter tender, it doesn't need that armour.

You proportionately could heavily armour the primary hull, the module would be armoured as appropriate as to the mission it was designed for.

 

[baithammer]

If it's part of the initial design.

If you're using the cutter in the assault role, you'd want it to be heavily armoured; if it's as a (light) fighter tender, it doesn't need that armour.

You proportionately could heavily armour the primary hull, the module would be armoured as appropriate as to the mission it was designed for.

As earlier stated modules can't contain armor/structure/bridges/powerplants/drives.

 

[Condottiere]

I acknowledge the design restraints, but both armour and the module are considered part of the hull.

An unarmoured module presents a soft belly, the equivalent of an unshielded thermal exhaust port.