The issue with Stealth

Golan2072

Cosmic Mongoose
Is that just me, or is stealth extremely underpriced? At the current price of MCr0.1 per ton of craft, you can turn a light fighter into a light stealth-fighter for a mere million credits! It doesn't make any sense for a military small-craft (for the very least) NOT to be stealthed.

I'd set a minimum cost for this, so that stealthing small craft won't be as obvious a choice.

Also what do you do with the massive heat generated by the power plant? Maybe trap it in coils which you have to jettison after a while (putting a time limit to stealth)?
 
Golan2072 said:
Is that just me, or is stealth extremely underpriced? At the current price of MCr0.1 per ton of craft, you can turn a light fighter into a light stealth-fighter for a mere million credits! It doesn't make any sense for a military small-craft (for the very least) NOT to be stealthed.

Same price it was in the 1st edition Core Rulebook.
 
Still, you might want to reconsider changing it. It is highly attractive for military small craft for the very least.
 
Stealth doesn't make you invisible just harder to see just like the stealth craft of the 21st century. Blowing away (not that hard) a stealth coated fighter is cost efficient to the attacker.
 
Yeah, but you get -4 to detection and lock-on attempts for dirt cheap...

Why should a military fighter NOT be stealthed?
 
Golan2072 said:
Yeah, but you get -4 to detection and lock-on attempts for dirt cheap...

Why should a military fighter NOT be stealthed?
Just for a bit of perspective consider this...

the game mechanic isn't that far off considering that current stealth programs are still paying for research and development costs.The f-117 and f-22 are prototype, next generation, advanced designs...in game terms basically the system is a tech level, or two, higher than standard....the US is buying it as prototype designs....the per unit costs are paying for the R&D of low observable materials, and manufacturing techniques.

now with a few tech levels to work out the bugs it becomes dirt cheap. At the per unit level...bean counters tend to look at the Per Program cost. Even in the future there will be bean counters/inquiries, screams to cut the budget of a program,etc...

considering one tigress can carry 300, 40 ton fighter.... at Mcr 0.1 per tons...that's 1200Mcr for one ship out of the fleet to have an all stealth fighter wing. that's a pretty serious budget item, when you consider how many thousands of fighters needed to supply a fleet.
 
And the bean counters will be keeping a permanent record of every stealth fighter shot down and every stealth fighter replacing the loss. Same could be said for stealth SDBs which really could use the technology for their missions.
 
Reynard said:
And the bean counters will be keeping a permanent record of every stealth fighter shot down and every stealth fighter replacing the loss. Same could be said for stealth SDBs which really could use the technology for their missions.

the first tie the US lost a stealth fighter to enemy fire there was a proverbial tempest of excreta...
 
The gentlemen brings up a valid point. Stealth is almost a must have.

This may not be a bad thing gents - it'd be the equivalent of ejection seats on fighters - a must have.

But, obviously illegal for civilian vehicles
 
Nerhesi said:
The gentlemen brings up a valid point. Stealth is almost a must have.

This may not be a bad thing gents - it'd be the equivalent of ejection seats on fighters - a must have.

But, obviously illegal for civilian vehicles

Not especially, like I pointed out the cost per unit is low but it adds up...for a special purpose/or battlepspace superiority fighter, I can see the argument. But the bulk of fighter operations wouldn't need to be stealthy, especially in large formations.

in current tactics stealth is a plus because there ae so few fighters int eh sky at one time. In Traveller where fleets deploy thousands of fighters at a time during battles...not so much advantage there.

But for fighters that will be part of swarms in close range combat with other craft...not so much.It really depends on the setting. As well as the general attitude toward fighters by the respective powers.

Lets look at a fighter we all know..the TIE, it's a swarm fighter, small, lightly armored, lightly armed..but the Imperial fleet wants LOTS of them...so the extra million or per unit comes into play when they produce MILLIONS of them. For the purpose it is intended the best advantage is to put as many TIE fighters in the sky as possible.
 
Except Tie equivalents (lets say the 10-ton light fighter) will end up costing you a simple 1 MCr per stealth treatment.

The benefit of which, is the probably massive drop in lockons (which are now at a -4 DM). Lock on = boon on all targetting attacks. Which is basically a swing of up to +5 (best case scenario replace a rolled 1 with a rolled 6).

I don't know, even at 1 Mcr for a Tie.. it's tempting at the very least. And this for a Tie / light fighter. For anything else it becomes pretty much a must :)
 
Best test is empirical. Use Trillion Credit Squadron to build opposing fleets, say at the Flotilla (Hundred Billion Credit) level with all other parameters equal. One side having stealth fighters of the same size as the other side's non-stealth.
 
Reynard said:
Best test is empirical. Use Trillion Credit Squadron to build opposing fleets, say at the Flotilla (Hundred Billion Credit) level with all other parameters equal. One side having stealth fighters of the same size as the other side's non-stealth.

Results will vary depending on fighters (as I indicated above). A quick test here displaying the percentages at play can determine this.

a) If you take the lowest of the low, 10 ton, 7.8 MCr fighter. 1 Billion budget gets you 128 fighters, no carriers.
b) The stealth version. 8.8 MCr fighter. 113 fighters for the same cost.

The reason I shy away from empirical analysis now is because there dozens of scenarios and variables:

Are they fighting each other? Are the pilots trying to achieve lock-on themselves?
Are they fighting capital craft?
The skill of the pilots.
etc...

As someone pointed out, the boon roughly translates into a +2 on a die roll, on average (but doesn't increase your absolute max roll).

So do 128 non-stealth fighters beat 113 stealth fighters? Probably not if you take that some of the 113 will not have +2s... but maybe it wont matter.

But as fighters get bigger, that numerical advantage shrinks (like when you're dealing with 50 Mcr+ fighters, rather than <10 Mcr) - which means the little bonuses have a more of an impact.

If anyone wants to do some massive full tests, feel free - it is evident to me that stealth is an absolute must on military craft. The only exception to this rule would be ... possibly, if you have a quadrillion or quintillion budget and you were building tons of light fighters. Which generally means you've got a bad strategy ;) (because general ineffectiveness compared to heavy strike craft, carrier/tenders concerns, and so on)
 
Remember, once a ship or craft is detected, that million dollar paint job is useless and now you have a cost effective target. We're used to very small encounters and I don't see any mass combat rules for the new High Guard yet. In large encounters and especially with large fighter or SDB groups, there must be a rule pending for sensor checks. The more sensors looking should mean a much easier chance to spot targets. If 128 fighters sweep for sensor blips, 113 stealth fighters will get spotted and now they are just overpriced. If stealth fighters were that common you would see starships and small craft AWACS with the best electronics, distributed or extended arrays, enhanced or improved signal processing, and the lovely extension net.

This is why you don't see every ship with stealth coat. Stealthed ships are rare and specialized using their ability for either very particular ambushes, acting as hidden recon or to get around an encounter rather than engage such as intrusion and infiltration vessels.

Let it be known I am not discouraging anyone from using stealth if their party or their business/government can afford it. The construction rules don't disallow and it's up to the referee to determine the reaction of authorities to civilian stealth coated vehicles. I'm just saying it's not the perfect defense some see it. Best thing, give it a try.
 
Condottiere said:
Outside of the budget, your other bottlenecks are pilot numbers and hangar space.


Hanger space is a serious problem. Even for a large ship like a carrier or dreadnought.

as for pilots, they would be a problem if you use the modern concept of pilots being elite highly specialized, officers.

if Small craft pilots are not specialist but more like vehicle operators in the modern army the population of possible pilots far larger.

but that's another subject all together.
 
I'm not sure most naval pilot compliments are green with miserable skill sets. Doesn't win battles or wars. This is especially so when you hand then very expensive fighters.
 
Reynard said:
I'm not sure most naval pilot compliments are green with miserable skill sets. Doesn't win battles or wars. This is especially so when you hand then very expensive fighters.

You mean like a 4.3 million dollar main battle tanks? which are operated by NCOs, and privates? :D

I am aware of the need for high degrees of training, but most of the training officers receive is not related to operating their fighter. Especially when you can loose an entire squadron in a single exchange of fire....

When you have a single fleet with as many combat pilots as the ENTIRE US Air force fighter arm, you might have to use pilots who are not as highly educated, and with the high social standing of an officer.
 
From Trillion Credit Squadron, a good source for what constitutes a reasonable force for stellar navies:

"The final limitation on the size of a squadron is the number of pilots available to man vessels. The career track to become a pilot is one of the most strenuous and they are the most select group in the navy. While this makes sure that pilots are the best men and women the training regimen can produce, it also means there are few of them and the number of pilots available essentially becomes a top limit on the number of ships that can be formed into a squadron. There is no limit on crewmen
who are not pilots but they must be included in the squadron documentation."

Normal stellar forces don't shove untrained newbies into cockpits. You cited modern ground forces, what about modern air forces? Do they normally send up the greenest trainees in the best fighters let alone stealth fighters? Absolutely not!

Once again, a player is most welcome to put poor quality pilots behind the stick. Remember again, once the fighter is detected, it becomes a fighter of equal strength but with a less capable pilot. Stealth doesn't protect them.
 
Reynard said:
From Trillion Credit Squadron, a good source for what constitutes a reasonable force for stellar navies:

"The final limitation on the size of a squadron is the number of pilots available to man vessels. The career track to become a pilot is one of the most strenuous and they are the most select group in the navy. While this makes sure that pilots are the best men and women the training regimen can produce, it also means there are few of them and the number of pilots available essentially becomes a top limit on the number of ships that can be formed into a squadron. There is no limit on crewmen
who are not pilots but they must be included in the squadron documentation."

Normal stellar forces don't shove untrained newbies into cockpits. You cited modern ground forces, what about modern air forces? Do they normally send up the greenest trainees in the best fighters let alone stealth fighters? Absolutely not!

Once again, a player is most welcome to put poor quality pilots behind the stick. Remember again, once the fighter is detected, it becomes a fighter of equal strength but with a less capable pilot. Stealth doesn't protect them.

Alright let me see if I can clarify my points.

If you consider a fighter as a high value asset, and fighter pilots are considered ELITE forces, then yes every thing you said is true. Yu put your best men in them, you give them your best tech, you don't put them at risk without significant assurance of survival/victory.

this is the current model..because fighters are a preeminent weapon of war. our fighters are vital to every facet of warfare, and our strike craft can destroy any surface vessel with a single hit....so pilot of our fighters and strike aircraft crews, are the elite..the best of the best.

Now in a setting where fighters are NOT a predominant force in war...say replaced by battle cruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts. The best of the best would be channeled into that force. the qualities the current military looks for in fighter pilots ,would be the qualities a heavy ship fleet would look for in line officers, command staff, and tactical officers.

with a small percentage of the population holding those qualities...any one with them would be heavily encouraged to become a Warship officer..not a fighter pilot. those individuals would be considered to valuable to put into a secondary arm, which has limited impact on the outcome of battle, and a very high atrrition rate when anywhere near a capital ship.

In the second model fighter pilots become the Fleets version of infantry, they re well trained in their field of expertise, but not much else. ( currently an officer spends most of his time learning things not related to his specialty...ya know four years of college, a couple years of officers training, then he gets into the meat of his specialty. and after he arrives he gets more training in things other than flying a fighter.)

Tank crews on the other hand get a very focused training regimen. they learn to operate, and fight a tank, and not much more..it's not that they are any less intelligent, or skilled than their fighter pilot friends...they just don't need to learn all the other facets of being an officer...unless they are training for a command position.

I am suggesting that since fighters are NOT the major weapon of war in certain sci-fi settings..they would be less than elite groups with the best men and resources being channeled to forces that ARE considered primary forces...

pilots woulld recieve only the training they needed to operate, and utilize their fighters, and would not e considered elite personnel..unless they had displayed the skills and experience needed to be elevated into a specially formed squadron that was an elite force.

I am fairly sure flying screening, ground support, and escort missions would not be on the list of duties for the specialized Elite fighter groups. they woud be given more training, better fighters, and then be given specialized fighters with the best weapons, armor, and stealth technologies...

Or more likely put into command, or training positions where they could use their skills. Without exposing them to everyday risk of being vaporized by a stray shot from a cruisers secondary weapons.

And to counter the argument that a force that did put elite pilots in their fighters, or use their best men to operate them would defeat force that didn't..... I will counter that would deplete their pool of possible Warship officers. Weakening their main fleet assets by denying it the best of the best.

if fighters are not the main force in combat then they wont get the best men, and the million or so to fit fighter with stealth gear will be used to build more fighters, or used to pay for improved heavy ships systems.

It all pretty much depends on how important the fighter is to the outcome of conflict...
 
Back
Top