CT Only: 16 ton Light Fighter (TL=9)

[Spinward Flow]

Laser Fighter
Ship Type: FL (Fighter, Light)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 commercial off the shelf standard drives and weaponry) (LBB5.80, p18)

Tonnage (custom hull): 16 tons (MCr1.6)
Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.32 (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor: 0

Maneuver-A (code: 6, 1 ton, MCr4, TL=9)
Power Plant-B (code: R, 7 tons, MCr16, TL=9, EP: 4, Surplus EP: +0.04 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 1+7 = 8 tons

Fuel: 1 ton

• 1 ton (minimum 1 ton, minimum 24 hours endurance) (LBB5.80, p34) (CT Errata, p15)
• Basic Power Fuel Consumption Rate = supported tonnage/2000 tons of fuel per 7 days (CT Beltstrike, p5, p11)
• EP Production Fuel Consumption Rate = 0.35EP tons of fuel per 7 days (CT Beltstrike, p5, p11)

Drive Performance​	Supported Tonnage​	Basic Power + 1 EP fuel tons consumption per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​	Basic Power + 1.96 EP fuel tons consumption per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​	Basic Power + 3.96 EP fuel tons consumption per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​
6G​	16​	16/2000+(1*0.35) = 0.358 19d . 13h . 16m​	16/2000+(1.96*0.35) = 0.694 10d . 02h . 04m​	16/2000+(3.96*0.35) = 1.394 05d . 00h . 30m​

Bridge (4 tons, MCr0.1, includes 2 acceleration couches) (LBB5.80, p34)
Computer model/3 (Code: 3, 3 tons, MCr18, TL=9, EP: 1)

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Dual Turrets: 1 (1 ton, MCr0.5) (LBB2.81, p23)
Weapons: Beam Laser, Beam Laser (MCr2, EP: 2) (LBB2.81, p23) (LBB5.80, p25, p29)
Weapon Batteries:

• 1x Beam Laser (code: 2) (LBB5.80, p25, p29)

Crew positions: 2 required (LBB2.81, p16) (LBB5.80, p34)

1. Pilot-2 or Ship’s Boat-1
2. Gunnery-1

Cargo Hold: 0 tons
Waste Space: 0 tons

Total Cost (laser fighter only, not including sub-craft)
MCr42.62 (100% cost single production)
MCr34.096 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

Light Fighter           FL-0106R31-000000-20000-0    MCr34.096        16 tons
       batteries bearing                  1                             TL=9.
               batteries                  1                           Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1. EP=4. Agility=6. Bridge.

Light Fighter (Type FL): Designed for short range intercepts, patrol and convoy escort duties from carriers, the Light Fighter is a remarkably capable craft for its otherwise unremarkable technology level. The primary limitation on the fighter's operational radius is its life support reserves (12 hours in combat, 24 hours without combat) before the crew must return to base to replenish and recover before launching again. A 12 hour return to base round trip mission can range out to ~7 million km away from a static base, while a 12 hour one way ferry self-deployment can range out to ~28 million km away from a static base. These range limits will often be sufficient for lunar transfers around planetary orbits, but insufficient for interplanetary transfers between solar orbits without a parent carrier to retire to for replenishment and recovery while en route.

A variant of the basic design stock trim can add up to 184 tons of external towing capacity (add up to MCr0.368 to single construction cost), but such features must be specified and incorporated during initial construction, since they cannot be retrofitted onto an already existing craft as an aftermarket add-on feature due to the necessary hull bracing and load strengthening required. This external towing capacity option has been gaining favor among merchant princes who are seeking fighter escort security for their trader starships, but also among tramps who may need to avail themselves of "sky crane" services in austere locations lacking in ground support for the marshaling of containerized modules and cargoes, both on world surfaces under gravity as well as assisting with docking/undocking maneuvers in orbit for rendezvous.

Small, agile, well armed and equipped with the best computer technology available at TL=9, the Light Fighter makes for a compelling package of combat capabilities.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Clever. Not sure I buy off on the specific rules-lawyering/house rules, but they're not totally unreasonable.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Clever.

We make every pretense of competency around here.

Not sure I buy off on the specific rules-lawyering/house rules, but they're not totally unreasonable.

Realistically speaking, that's the needle you have to thread, isn't it.
If you're going to extrapolate/interpolate your way into house rules, you need to aim for alignment/consistency/plausibility that is congruent with the already established rules ... rather than stretch/bend/fold/spindle/mutilate the agreed upon rules (in this case, RAW) beyond all recognition into something that was never intended and ought to be disapproved of.

At worst, I'm guilty of "reverse engineering LBB2.81" to find the formulas and then make use of them in a LBB5.80 small craft design context.
At best ... I've been "clever" in finding a remarkably optimized "balance point" @ TL=9 (nine!) that engineers a solution which is adequate to the task for a significant span of subsequent tech levels.

Want a bigger computer (which will increase construction costs dramatically)? An entire cascade of factors will be involved due to the need to increase the hull size to fit a larger computer, forcing an increase in the size of the power plant in order to maintain Agility=6, forcing ... forcing ... forcing ... which all adds up.

The moral of the story is that a twin beam laser plus model/3 computer @ TL=9 fits into a 16 ton hull ... but a twin beam laser plus model/4 computer @ TL=10 needs a 22 ton hull if you're going to keep the small craft bridge, a +37.5% increase in hull displacement and a +48.64% increase in total construction cost ... just to add +1 to the computer model ... a rather pricey upgrade for such a marginal improvement (+1 attack and defense because of computer model in LBB5.80 ship to ship combat).

I'm honestly thinking that the "next step change" upgrade after this 16 ton 6G Light Fighter @ TL=9 with model/3 computer and twin beam lasers would be @ TL=11 ... to a 6G Medium Fighter with a model/5 (five!) computer and a mixed triple turret of sandcaster, pulse laser, sandcaster displacing up to 33 tons maximum. The EP budget for that would then be:
Power Plant-C: +6 EP
Agility=6 @ 33 tons: -1.98 EP
Model/5 computer: -3 EP
Pulse Laser: -1 EP
Surplus: +0.02 EP

The only way to get "better than that" would be Heavy Fighters with massive computers (such as the Imperial Heavy Fighter with its model/7 but no bridge) which require more than 6 EP to achieve Agility=6 while powering computer and weapons and are thus forced to use custom LBB5.80 drives instead of being able to use LBB2.81 standard drives for the purpose.



And yes, I only just realized and thought of that just now while composing this reply, so I think I know what my next fighter small craft design sequence is going to be of.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Sorry to disappoint anyone who is reading this later on, but I made a critical math error with this design.
It's not possible to fit everything into a 16 ton form factor if using a model/3 computer and dual laser turret.

• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive (0.96 EP = Agility: 6)
• 7 tons Power Plant-B drive (EP: 4)
• 1 ton fuel
• 4 tons bridge
• 3 tons model/3 computer (1 EP)
• 1 ton dual laser turret (2 EP)

1+7+1+4+3+1 = 17 ... missed it by that much ...

It CAN be done with a model/2 computer though, in which case the turret can be upgraded to a triple pulse laser (code: 2) or triple beam laser (code: 3) while still being able to fit inside the 16 ton form factor. Increase the tech level from 9 to 13 and the triple beam laser upgrades to code: 4(!), which is highly relevant under LBB5.80 combat rules.

Note that a TL=9 Light Fighter with a model/2 computer and a code: 3 triple beam laser would be quite capable of inflicting critical hits onto hull code: 2- (with no armor) under LBB5.80 combat rules, making such craft a "serious threat" to low end merchant traffic (Small Craft, Scout/Couriers, Free Traders, Far Traders, etc.). Defensively, such a fighter would be "vulnerable" to more capable heavier fighters and big craft capable of combining better computer models (+offense AND +defense) as well as higher USP codes for batteries (+offense), fortunately, neither of which is all that practical in the TL=9-10 range.

In terms of being an "adequate" frontier system defense light fighter, tasked with policing and intercepts of incoming/outgoing traffic (to be followed up by a patrol ship, if necessary), it ought to be serviceable.

A 16 ton form factor can go as small as 6x5.5 deck squares (9m x 8.25m x 3m = 222.75m³ ... 16*14=224) in a "box shaped" hangar bay. The 16 ton form factor ALSO corresponds to:

• 1 major cargo lot (10 tons)
• 1 minor cargo lot (5 tons)
• 1 incidental cargo lot (1 ton)

 

[Grav_Moped]

You could extrapolate a Mod2/bis computer (it existed in the '77 rules!), but since you're running in LBB5'80 it doesn't actually matter.

 

[McPerth]

Just one comment: should I be building a single laser fighter, I'd use Plaser instead of Blaser. This would not only be 0.5 Mcr cheaper, but, being both factor 2, the Plaser gives you a -2 on he damage table, taht can be handy if it hits (and irrelevant if not, of course )

 

[Spinward Flow]

You could extrapolate a Mod2/bis computer (it existed in the '77 rules!), but since you're running in LBB5'80 it doesn't actually matter.

LBB5.80, p34:

The price of the computer is paid (standard models only are available; bis and fib models are not allowed)

Just one comment: should I be building a single laser fighter, I'd use Plaser instead of Blaser. This would not only be 0.5 Mcr cheaper, but, being both factor 2, the Plaser gives you a -2 on he damage table, taht can be handy if it hits (and irrelevant if not, of course )

This brings up important questions around "what do you intend to do when you shoot at stuff" with this Light Fighter.

Higher code factors are good for accuracy and automatic critical hits against low end craft.
LBB5.80, p41:

Critical Hits: All batteries whose weapon code exceeds the size code of the target ship will inflict (if they hit and penetrate) automatic critical hits equal to the size difference.

Under LBB5.80 combat, for beam weapons, the difference between codes: 2-3 is negligible when rolling to hit, but there is a difference when trying to penetrate sandcaster defenses. If a hit is scored, a code: 3 weapon (triple beam laser) can inflict a critical hit against hull code: 2 ... which can potentially be far more devastating a result than a -2DM on the Surface Explosion table results you would get from a triple pulse laser (code: 2). Against other small craft, the triple beam laser inflicts 3 automatic critical hits rather than the 2 automatic critical hits of a triple pulse laser ... assuming armor is zero (which at TL=9-ish, it probably is in small craft).

By contrast, a triple pulse laser is slightly impaired by sandcaster defensive measures (relative to the triple beam laser option) and the triple pulse lasers do better Surface Explosion damage and inflict fewer automatic critical hits. Thus the triple pulse laser option is better if you're aiming for "disable rather than destroy" damage results. Think more "neutralize" rather than "wreck" in terms of damage output when the lasers hit.



And it's at that point that the "superior choice" between the two options starts coming down to a more informed (and nuanced) appreciation of the threat matrix and mission priorities.

I can easily imagine that for "policing and piracy" mission tasking, pulse lasers would be preferred ... to avoid "overpenetration" for additional critical hits on targets, when applicable. When the mission tasking aligns more with "disable and/or capture" then pulse lasers are probably going to be the superior option. But when the mission is combat with the intention to "take them out of MY SKY" where recovery/interrogation of targets is way down on the list of priorities ... then use of beam lasers is better in circumstances of being "loaded for bear" as fighters.

So to my mind, the question becomes more a case of "overpenetration" for automatic critical hits.
Beam lasers (code: 3) ... automatic critical hits against hull: 2-.
Pulse lasers (code: 2) ... automatic critical hits against hull: 1-.
And there's the "sandcaster defense penetration" difference between the two options.

The irony is that against hull: 3+ the pulse lasers are probably "better" because no automatic critical hits and the pulse lasers get -2DM on the Surface Explosion damage results table (as you cite). So once again, knowledge of the "threat matrix" becomes important. If the "primary" threats are hull: 2- then beam lasers can inflict more devastating damage (because of automatic critical hits), and also do so more "reliably" through sandcaster defenses. If the "primary" threats are hull: 3+ then pulse lasers may be superior for disabling targets using surface explosion hits (assuming the pulse lasers penetrate sandcaster defenses).

Basically, it's a very nuanced choice that requires more information to choose the best option for the most frequently encountered circumstances, because of the potential for overpenetration that inflicts automatic critical hits on hull code: 2 (Y/N). If that result is desirable, then choose beam lasers ... otherwise, choose pulse lasers (as you cite).

 

[McPerth]

So to my mind, the question becomes more a case of "overpenetration" for automatic critical hits.
Beam lasers (code: 3) ... automatic critical hits against hull: 2-.
Pulse lasers (code: 2) ... automatic critical hits against hull: 1-.
And there's the "sandcaster defense penetration" difference between the two options.

See that those criticals only apply against unarmored targets, as each armor factor avoids one of those criticals...

This aside, I have serious doubts they will have to confront free traders or scouts, but probably larger (and probably armored) ships.

In fleet combats, I guess the main situation where what you say would apply would be dogfight against other fighters, but then the difference among receiving 2 or 3 criticals is likely to be marginal

 

[Spinward Flow]

In fleet combats, I guess the main situation where what you say would apply would be dogfight against other fighters, but then the difference among receiving 2 or 3 criticals is likely to be marginal

2 critical hits against other fighters ... probable mission kill.
3 critical hits against other fighters ... very likely mission kill.

This aside, I have serious doubts they will have to confront free traders or scouts

Depends on the mission tasking.

If the mission is system defense of space lanes along orbital transfer corridors ... it's highly likely.
If the mission is "police work" interacting with civilian commercial traffic ... it's highly likely.
If the mission is piracy ... it's highly likely (because, preferred prey and all of that).

If the mission is to intercept "unwanted visitors" to a remote location (such as a military base or an XBoat Tender station) ... not so much.
If the mission is to be a seeker/prospector assisting with mining operations ... not so much.
If the mission is to fly military combat against enemy fleets and fighters ... not so much.

I could keep going, but I would like to think I've laid out the dichotomy of threat matrices reasonably well.
Choose the best tool for the job.

 

[McPerth]

Choose the best tool for the job.

While this is a good advice, all too often you must choose your tool before knowing your exact work...

 

[Spinward Flow]

While this is a good advice, all too often you must choose your tool before knowing your exact work...

Granted.
However, being able to "swap" 3 pulse lasers for 3 beam lasers in a triple turret doesn't sound (or seem) to be all that challenging of a task.

If it is challenging, from a military Parts & Spares standpoint, you're probably going to want to have "turret kits" that are for our intents and purposes "hot swap plug 'n' play" in terms of turnaround. Drop the old turret out, plug the new turret in, run all the software updates ... okay, get out of my maintenance bay. NEXT!

Of course, there's a price to be paid (MCr) for that kind of flexibility ... but depending on the Location, Location, Location™ that can wind up being a worthwhile investment from a defense budget standpoint. That way, when you need the pulse laser turrets, you have them ... and when you need the beam laser turrets, you have them. Much cheaper than buying a complete new Light Fighter (with drives and computer and hull and everything).

 

[whartung]

We make every pretense of competency around here.

Sorry to disappoint anyone who is reading this later on, but I made a critical math error with this design.
It's not possible to fit everything into a 16 ton form factor if using a model/3 computer and dual laser turret.

Color me...disappointed.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Color me...disappointed.

True.
But consider the alternative.
The math error remains ... and the correction is never given.