Return of the Fighter

[AnotherDilbert]

OK, HG'22 nerfs fighters...

So, what can we do?

To have a chance to scratch a warship we need a barbette, so 70 Dt.
To get into range we need a reaction drive, so no people.

This gets us something like this:
71 Dt, Armour 15, 9 G + 16 G, barbette, max computer and automation, no squishy crew.
A few modules for reaction fuel, sensors, sub-command centre, and perhaps a few Fusion Z guns (smaller weapons).
Quite expensive at MCr 120.

With a Fusion Barbette enhanced with Long Range and High Yield we can reach to Close range and do a little bit more damage.

Stacking every DM available to us, the idea is to get enough Effect to be able to penetrate even heavy armour.
Reaching dogfighting range a typical attack task is:

-3  Evade
+2  Virtual Crew skill
+2  High Automation
+1  Sub-command Centre
+1  Aid Gunners
+2  Winning dogfight
+4  Fire Control
+2  Sensor Lock
================
11  Attack DM

Against armour 30, it would do average ~7 damage with damage scale.
Against armour 15, it would do average ~49 damage.
Against ships smaller than 2000 Dt, it will crit 97% of the time.

Average damage 2.4 × scale 3 = 7.2.

With a particle barbette (Intense Focus) we would be down to average 1 damage, but be immune to dampers.


200 heavy fighters would incinerate a battleship in 60 dogfight rounds ≈ 1 space combat round.
A single heavy fighter would incinerate a destroyer in less than 60 dogfight rounds ≈ 1 space combat round.

 

[Geir]

A robotic Space Ball... or Tiny Little Death Star. The Third Imperium would outlaw it has a killer robot, but that doesn't mean it can't be used against the Imperium - though the only likely TL15 enemies would be Hivers or K'kree. Or maybe some monomaniacal small Vargr power out there (can't recall any TL15 Vargr, but I haven't done a search).

So this is where the dogfighting rules come into play. Which I still dislike - if point defense can hit tiny missiles, then they should have no problem with fighters. Plus, vectors - if a ship comes in at 25Gs, it's going to only be at dogfight range for... well, certainly not 60 dogfight rounds. Ignoring physics, then you got to kill that thing as it comes at you... if you have a black globe, it would be wise to turn it on right as the things starts to close - cut the little ball in two.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A robotic Space Ball... or Tiny Little Death Star. The Third Imperium would outlaw it has a killer robot, but that doesn't mean it can't be used against the Imperium - though the only likely TL15 enemies would be Hivers or K'kree. Or maybe some monomaniacal small Vargr power out there (can't recall any TL15 Vargr, but I haven't done a search).

Virtual Crew allows remote control as well as independent operation. I would allow Imperial use with oversight control by a drone pilot onboard the carrier doing target selection and allowing fire.

So this is where the dogfighting rules come into play. Which I still dislike - if point defense can hit tiny missiles, then they should have no problem with fighters.

Point Defence Batteries are presumably too low-powered to do damage to even smallcraft?

Plus, vectors - if a ship comes in at 25Gs, it's going to only be at dogfight range for... well, certainly not 60 dogfight rounds. Ignoring physics, then you got to kill that thing as it comes at you...

You would have to match vectors first, if you can be bothered to do vector movement.

 

[wintertraveller]

Nicely done with this design and analysis. I've largely been ignoring the dog-fighting rules but this suggests to me that I reconsider.

Can a virtual crew/gunner software benefit from a fire control command center? I imagine that this is similar to the question of virtual crew sensor operators needing or not needing a sensor station. I think it may have been right to point out that the virtual crew software description noting that bridges are not required suggest that these physical facilities are not needed for and perhaps don't benefit virtual crew.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Can a virtual crew/gunner software benefit from a fire control command center? I imagine that this is similar to the question of virtual crew sensor operators needing or not needing a sensor station. I think it may have been right to point out that the virtual crew software description noting that bridges are not required suggest that these physical facilities are not needed for and perhaps don't benefit virtual crew.

The description is a bit vague, and does not mention crew. It's a grey area:

Element Class Cruisers, p74:
Sub-Command Centres
...
Specialist control centres can also be installed, each optimised for a single function of the vessel – for example, the power plant or missile armament – and represents an equivalent investment in terms of cost and tonnage to a small bridge. A small bridge dedicated to a particular function provides DM+1 on all checks related to that function.

Every DM counts if we want to punch through heavy armour with light weapons...

 

[wintertraveller]

The description is a bit vague, and does not mention crew.

Good point, thank you

 

[Condottiere]

The question usually comes down to three things, how much are you willing to invest in one, do you have access to the technical base to design the one you want, and have the manufacturing capacity to build the number you require?

 

[ottarrus]

Drone fighters and their utility are a subject of long discussion among Traveller war- and gearheads. This is especially notable nowadays when the US, Russia and China are within 15 years of deploying mission and dogfight capable Gen 6- or 7 drone fighters. That's not a myth, btw. People are actively working on it and the more thoughtful of the current generation of fighter pilots is wondering out loud if they're going to be the last.

Where I come down on the discussion is this: a drone fighter is basically a missile that can dogfight. While they are more survivable than most missiles, the fact remains that they are an expendable ordinance.
Drones lack the instincts of pilots... though it is very true that there are arguments for and against those instincts. 'Instinct' is often a psychological term for 'educated guess'... guess right and you're a hero, guess wrong and you're dead.
So the question really comes down to these two:
- How much are you willing to spend on a torpedo the size of a Type S Scout ship?
- How much are you willing to spend to recruit, train, -> and expend <- a corps of fighter pilots?
The OTU has long since decided in favor of fighter pilots, right up to the current Imperial Navy sourcebook. YTU will no doubt vary.

 

[Condottiere]

It might also come down to electronic warfare.

That factors in hardening and autonomy.

 

[ottarrus]

It might also come down to electronic warfare.

That factors in hardening and autonomy.

It will almost *certainly* come down to electronic warfare, no matter who is flying the birdie. Scrambling sensors and targeting systems works with both computer brains and pilots. And while I might mention 'instincts', the capabilities of TL 14-15 warfare are well the beyond the 'Mk 1 Eyeball' and spitballing your shot. 'Flight of the Intruder' and 'Top Gun' were 8 TLs ago, ya know?

 

[Condottiere]

There are two things that would make a manned fighter attractive - cost and resilience.

If you can mission kill a drone, whether by depriving it of it's central processing unit, or sensors, and it can't recover, then you can write it off.

With point and click munitions, it's out of the pilot's hands, and he can return to base, having fulfilled his mission.

Get into a dogfight, it's a question of whether basic sensors and/or mark one eyeball can discern targets at one to ten klix.

 

[Vormaerin]

Manned fighters (or remote piloted) fighters are valuable for a variety of tasks, especially "coast guard" kinds of tasks like security patrols. The pilot's decision making ability is important and the survivability is relatively high.

A battle that looks anything like the High Guard combats, individual pilot decisions are not that meaningful and survivability is low. Drone fighters would have to be a LOT worse than manned fighters to justify the massive loss of life that kind of environment suggests. Remote piloting might work if we think that'd survive the EW environment, but not having to quarter all the pilots on the carrier and having more drones as a result might be a factor as well.

 

[Condottiere]

I've always been a proponent of the Textron Scorpion.

 

[phavoc]

Conceptually fighters mount relatively light weapons that are best used on unarmored targets or lightly armored targets. That should mean armor factors of say 4-6 or less. A fighter shouldn't have weapons requiring large amounts of energy - that's what full-up starships are meant for. If a fighter needs lots of extra firepower then nuclear-tipped missiles would get to levels needed.

Strict views on Newtonian physics would mean that fighters really aren't useful in some situations (and "dogfights" wouldn't occur). But keeping track of full vector movement and all the energy expended for time/plane is completely un-fun.

 

[ottarrus]

Fighters in a Traveller setting are recon and screening elements. Yes, they can undertake *some* strike roles, but unless the fighters [or drones] overwhelm the small craft defense the cost of deploying them if very high.
This tends to damage the mystique of fighter pilots and makes them sad.
[As the ex-tank crewman in me quietly chortles in the back of the room...]

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It will almost *certainly* come down to electronic warfare, no matter who is flying the birdie. Scrambling sensors and targeting systems works with both computer brains and pilots. And while I might mention 'instincts', the capabilities of TL 14-15 warfare are well the beyond the 'Mk 1 Eyeball' and spitballing your shot. 'Flight of the Intruder' and 'Top Gun' were 8 TLs ago, ya know?

Yes.

There is no question of pilots OR computers, there is pilots AND computer control.

There is no "manual control" in even current cars or aircraft, most things are "control by wire"; you turn a wheel or lever and a computer will interpret that and apply power, breaking, or steering to individual wheels or fins to achieve the result it thinks you want (or are allowed to want).

The OTU has long since decided in favor of fighter pilots, right up to the current Imperial Navy sourcebook. YTU will no doubt vary.

Sure, the USAF and the IN wants people in the command loop, but it will also have computers whether it wants to or not.

Whether the crew is placed in the vehicle or not is a practical problem, not a matter of doctrine.



MgT fighters and current aircraft have the same problem: the physical limitations of the pilot limits performance. That makes it a question of when, not if, pilots will be removed from the craft.

Where the commander of the craft are placed, near the craft or far away in a nice air-conditioned office, is merely a practical question.

 

[ottarrus]

Yes.

There is no question of pilots OR computers, there is pilots AND computer control.

There is no "manual control" in even current cars or aircraft, most things are "control by wire"; you turn a wheel or lever and a computer will interpret that and apply power, breaking, or steering to individual wheels or fins to achieve the result it thinks you want (or are allowed to want).



Sure, the USAF and the IN wants people in the command loop, but it will also have computers whether it wants to or not.

Whether the crew is placed in the vehicle or not is a practical problem, not a matter of doctrine.



MgT fighters and current aircraft have the same problem: the physical limitations of the pilot limits performance. That makes it a question of when, not if, pilots will be removed from the craft.

Where the commander of the craft are placed, near the craft or far away in a nice air-conditioned office, is merely a practical question.

Sure, computers are part of the detection, acquisition and weapon release decision loop. That's been true since the Vietnam-era Gen 4 aircraft.
And since the 80s and Gen 5, there has been strike guidance by airborne radar operators.
[You REALLY wanna pop a jet jockey's bubble, tell them they're just a video game pet for an E5 in an AWACS... you can almost see the steam coming out their ears!]
So, minimum of three computers [aboard the carrier, aboard the aircraft, and aboard the ordinance] and two humans [the pilot and flight director] are directly involved in delivering the strike package.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Conceptually fighters mount relatively light weapons that are best used on unarmored targets or lightly armored targets. That should mean armor factors of say 4-6 or less. A fighter shouldn't have weapons requiring large amounts of energy - that's what full-up starships are meant for. If a fighter needs lots of extra firepower then nuclear-tipped missiles would get to levels needed.

Strict views on Newtonian physics would mean that fighters really aren't useful in some situations (and "dogfights" wouldn't occur). But keeping track of full vector movement and all the energy expended for time/plane is completely un-fun.

Fighters in the modern sense of the term are lightly armed and armored, yes. Fighters in Traveller though are more a mix of modern day fighters and naval PT boats if naval PT boats could fly. Or maybe the better example of putting the two together would be the A-10. It is not lightly armored or lightly armed, but it is the last thing an enemy tank commander ever wants to see. lol

 

[Condottiere]

See first, shoot first.

Ground attack is just mobile artillery, so I'm thinking suicide drones, or mini ones, dropping hand grenades.