CT Only: 30 ton Strike Fighter (TL=11)

[Spinward Flow]

Strike Fighter
Ship Type: FS (Fighter, Strike)
TL=11 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 commercial off the shelf standard drives and weaponry) (LBB5.80, p18)

Tonnage (custom hull): 30 tons (MCr3)
Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.6 (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor: 0

Maneuver-A (code: 6, 1 ton, MCr4, TL=9)
Power Plant-C (code: L, 10 tons, MCr24, TL=9, EP: 6, Surplus EP: +0.2 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 1+10 = 11 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 + 3 EP fuel tons per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​	Basic Power + 4.8 EP fuel tons per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​	Basic Power + 5.8 EP fuel tons per 7 days 1 ton fuel endurance​
6G​	30​	30/2000+(3*0.35) = 1.065 6d . 13h . 44m​	30/2000+(4.8*0.35) = 1.695 4d . 03h . 06m​	30/2000+(5.8*0.35) = 2.045 3d . 10h . 09m​

Bridge (6 tons, MCr0.15, includes 2 acceleration couches) (LBB5.80, p34)
Computer model/5 (Code: 5, 5 tons, MCr45, TL=11, EP: 3)

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Mixed Triple Turrets: 1 (1 ton, MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Weapons: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB2.81, p23) (LBB5.80, p25, p29)
Weapon Batteries (LBB5.80, p25, p29)

• 1x Sandcaster (code: 3)
• 1x Pulse Laser (code: 1)
• 1x Missile (code: 1)

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

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

Crew Small Craft Cabins: 2 (4 tons, MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Cargo Hold: 2 tons (multi-purpose conversion ready)

• Demountable Fuel Tank: 1 ton capacity (1 ton, MCr0.001) (LBB A5, p14)

Waste Space: 0 tons

Total Cost (laser fighter only, not including sub-craft)
MCr79.451 (100% cost single production)
MCr63.5608 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

Optional Construction Extras (not included in above single production cost)

• Magazine: 1 ton capacity (1 ton, MCr0.01, loaded into Cargo Hold, enables planetary bombardment) (LBB5.79, p32)
• External Docking: 170 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.34, Strike Fighter becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)

Strike Fighter          FS-0106L51-030000-10001-0    MCr63.5608       30 tons
       batteries bearing            1     1   1                        TL=11.
               batteries            1     1   1                       Crew=2.
Cabins=2. Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=2. Fuel=1(+1). EP=6. Agility=6. Bridge.
Maneuver-6, Agility-6 @ up to 33 tons total (+3 tons external)
Maneuver-5, Agility-5 @ up to 40 tons total (+10 tons external)
Maneuver-4, Agility-4 @ up to 50 tons total (+20 tons external)
Maneuver-3. Agility-3 @ up to 66 tons total (+36 tons external)
Maneuver-2, Agility-2 @ up to 100 tons total (+70 tons external)
Maneuver-1, Agility-1 @ up to 200 tons total (+170 tons external)

Strike Fighter (Type FS): Designed for longer range interplanetary patrols and deep strikes, the Strike Fighter is astonishingly capable for its modest technology level. Unlike a Light Fighter, the Strike Fighter has two single occupancy small craft cabins for its crew (pilot and gunner) to extend life support endurance beyond 24 hours, enabling crews to undertake multi-day missions and self-deploy between planets in different solar orbits, augmenting system defense coverage and patrol ranges. A demountable internal fuel tank is installed in the fighter’s cargo hold as a standard feature and is used as an emergency fuel reserve in the event of combat damage or mishap venting the primary fuel tanks, which effectively doubles the Strike Fighter’s operational combat radius and quadruples its effective one way ferry range.

Military variants of the Strike Fighter can install an automated magazine storage (shielded compartment for nuclear warhead safety, optional) into the remaining cargo hold volume, which creates a sufficiently deep magazine capacity as to enable planetary bombardment strike action when called for by fleet commands, particularly when bundled into squadron strike packages launched from carriers located at a safe(r) standoff distance from the target.

Another option that is of common interest to merchants as well as some Search & Rescue crews is to modify the hull to enable up to 170 tons of external towing capacity to be added. This must be specified during initial construction, since this feature 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 optional extra makes it possible to use the Strike Fighter as a “sky crane” in austere locations lacking in ground support to enable the more orderly marshaling of containerized modules and cargoes, both on world surfaces under gravity as well as assisting with docking/undocking maneuvers in orbital rendezvous contexts.

Small, agile, well armed and equipped with the best computer technology available at TL=11, the Strike Fighter is an exceptionally potent option for lower tech level carrier combat doctrines. Strike Fighters built using TL=13 technology increase their Pulse Laser and Missile codes by +1 factor due to continuing advancements in weapons technology.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Consider replacing the two small craft cabins with one stateroom at double occupancy, for longer life support endurance. Or, keep the small craft cabins and use their integral acceleration couches (implied by the description of acceleration couches in LBB2'81, p.17) to replace the two couches from the bridge and free up 1Td.

You can go 3Td larger and still get 6G out of that Size A maneuver drive.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Consider replacing the two small craft cabins with one stateroom at double occupancy, for longer life support endurance.

This makes the most sense for a (small craft) Battle Rider, where you have a single pilot/gunner crewman aboard. The starship stateroom then becomes the (single) crewman's berth, so you don't need to have any (additional) staterooms aboard the parent carrier ship for the (single) crewman. Makes the fighter relatively "self-contained" in that sense.

Or, keep the small craft cabins and use their integral acceleration couches (implied by the description of acceleration couches in LBB2'81, p.17) to replace the two couches from the bridge and free up 1Td.

I would NOT consider such a choice to be Design Legal™.
The 2 acceleration couches on the bridge are "included" with the bridge (whether you want them or not) and they are NOT available for "refund" to reduce the size of the bridge.

You can go 3Td larger and still get 6G out of that Size A maneuver drive.

Quite so (and already ahead of you).

One option that immediately suggests itself is to pull out the 2x Small Craft Cabins (refund, 4 tons) and increase the hull displacement to 33 tons (add, 3 tons), although this would increase the displacement of the Bridge from 6 tons to 6.6 tons (cost, 0.6 tons).

What you wind up with then is:
Maneuver-A with Power Plant-C: 11 tons
Fuel: 1 ton
Bridge: 6.6 tons
Computer: 5 tons
Turret: 1 ton
2x Starship Staterooms: 8 tons
Cargo Hold: 0.4 tons (containing a 0.4 ton internal demountable fuel tank)
11+1+6.6+5+1+8+0.4 = 33 tons

Doing that removes the option for a 1 ton magazine installation to enable planetary bombardments, but you also don't need to provide 4 ton starship stateroom quarters elsewhere for long term life support.

16 ton Light Fighter + 2 starship staterooms for crew = 24 tons total displacement commitment
30 ton Strike Fighter + 2 starship staterooms for crew = 38 tons total displacement commitment, planetary bombardment capability enabled
33 ton Medium Fighter = 33 tons total displacement, orbital bombardment capability dropped

So in terms of tradeoffs at the carrier squadron (10 fighters) aggregation, you're looking at a difference of spending +5 tons per Strike Fighter to enable planetary bombardment as a strike option relative to a "more self-contained" crew berthing which precludes the option of planetary bombardment capability. However, that consideration is only valid for carriers that are 1000 tons or less (because on ships over 1000 tons, small craft are carried at 130% of their actual tonnage for hangar displacement.

On carriers that are over 1000 tons, here's what happens on a per fighter displacement commitment basis:

• 30*1.3+8 = 47 tons displacement per fighter + crew quarters
• 33*1.3 = 42.9 tons displacement per fighter (which includes quarters)

So instead of the difference being 5 tons per fighter, it's closer to 4.1 tons per fighter ... or a mere 41 tons per squadron of 10 fighters ... at the expense of a planetary bombardment capacity.

Gets even worse if you add Launch Tubes into the calculation, since Launch Tubes are 25x the tonnage of whatever is being put through them (up to 40 craft launched per combat turn, recoveries at the same rate).

• 30*25 = 750 tons
• 33*25 = 825 tons

So if you've got launch tubes in the picture, here's what you get for a package of 4 squadrons (before adding Flight Crew section, maintainers, etc.):

• 30*1.3+8 = 47*40+750 = 2630 tons (planetary bombardment: yes)
• 33*1.3 = 42.9*40+825 = 2541 tons (planetary bombardment: no)

Feel free to check my math, but what I'm seeing there is that the planetary bombardment capability (yes/no) is "costing the carrier" a grand total of 2630-2541=89 tons of additional displacement to enable the strategic strike option. Realistically speaking, the carrier would probably also want to include 40 tons of magazine capacity per bombardment wave to be delivered by the fighter squadrons in order to sustain a planetary bombardment through recover/rearm/relaunch cycles, but that's an almost trivial consideration to the point that I'm making.

Change the number of 10 fighter squadrons from 4 down to 3 per launch tube and look what happens:

• 30*1.3+8 = 47*30+750 = 2160 tons (planetary bombardment: yes)
• 33*1.3 = 42.9*30+825 = 2112 tons (planetary bombardment: no)

And it's at that point that as a Naval Projects and Procurement Manager™ you need to start asking yourself ... at what cost capability?

Speaking just for myself, such a marginal increase in committed tonnage aboard a carrier so as to enable a planetary bombardment capability from squadrons of what amount to "medium fighters" (by tonnage) feels almost like a "rounding error" added on for an entire order of magnitude increase in capability (fighter/bomber, not just fighter!). Additionally, those 30 ton capacity launch tubes are not "overbuilt" for the launching of 30 ton Ship's Boats that can be used for auxiliary, support and transport duties around the carrier, so there's a "cross-pollination" efficiency factor at work there as well into the bargain.

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And ... basically on the same day that I'm posting here about star carriers equipped with squadrons of strike fighters, the Spacedock channel posts a video about the practicality of carriers in space.

 

[RossWinn]

Why does any fighter have a maneuver drive of less than 6g after the development of Gravitics at Tech Level 9? I simply do not see the point of any fighter with less.

 

[whartung]

Depends on G-Comp. People don't do well under 6G for hours at a time. I didn't see G-comp really addressed until TNE. I don't know if MT does at all.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Depends on G-Comp. People don't do well under 6G for hours at a time. I didn't see G-comp really addressed until TNE. I don't know if MT does at all.

This defines the limits of inertial compensation:

CT HG'80, p17:
Tech level requirements for maneuver drives are imposed to cover the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.

This allows 6 G at TL-9.

 

[RossWinn]

Once Gravitics become common the ideas of inertia and the effects of long-term acceleration really become moot.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Once Gravitics become common the ideas of inertia and the effects of long-term acceleration really become moot.

Ye cannae change the laws of physics!

It's not that the IDEAS of "inertia and the effects of long-term acceleration really become moot" ... but rather that there are TOOLS available to engineer solutions to those problems. The end result may FEEL like it makes "inertia moot" (or words to that effect), but that's not what is ACTUALLY happening (in reality).

This is why + = when done as a thrust vector equation is different from + = as a vector equation.
The RESULT "adds up" to be the same, but how you achieve that result is NOT the same ... and that difference has knock on effects elsewhere.

Kind of like how "three left turns make a right turn" can work when driving on a square grid of streets, but doesn't work if streets are laid out in triangles (or hexagons, etc.). How you "get there" makes a difference, even if the "results" are that you ultimately wind up in the same place.



My point being that you need to be wary of oversimplification beyond the point of understanding what is ACTUALLY happening (under the hood, so to speak).



Physicist: Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density-
Engineer: HOLD IT. STOP right there.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Physicist: Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density-
Engineer: HOLD IT. STOP right there.

... that spherical chicken needs a 200% load safety margin added to it! Ok, carry on.

Physicist: why is it 200%, exactly?
Engineer: No idea, but the lookup table says you need it and it's always worked before....

 

[Spinward Flow]

... that spherical chicken needs a 200% load safety margin added to it! Ok, carry on.

Physicist: why is it 200%, exactly?
Engineer: No idea, but the lookup table says you need it and it's always worked before....

Ever noticed how you can use a REALLY SIMPLE question to find out what a person does for a living?

 

[spank]

All I know is pi^2=g

 

[Jame]

And ... basically on the same day that I'm posting here about star carriers equipped with squadrons of strike fighters, the Spacedock channel posts a video about the practicality of carriers in space.

I saw that, and decided that it makes more sense for ships to have more generic small craft, e.g. pinnaces, ship's boats and so forth, than fighters, but you do want some fighters to deal with other small craft and small, unarmored starships. They're also useful for supporting planetary operations.

Also, I noticed that, per the canon description, most Star Wars ships can't get to escape velocity. I'm looking at you, 62 mph Executor which can't break orbit...

 

[Condottiere]

Obviously, manoeuvre drive factor/one point one.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I saw that, and decided that it makes more sense for ships to have more generic small craft, e.g. pinnaces, ship's boats and so forth, than fighters, but you do want some fighters to deal with other small craft and small, unarmored starships. They're also useful for supporting planetary operations.

It really depends on the usage case.

In a military usage case, Fighters (light, medium, heavy, etc.) basically turn into "mobile turrets" ... which in best case scenarios can "swarm" a target when deployed offensively. In defensive/convoy escort deployments they can be used for what amounts to "volume denial" by maneuvering around in a Combat Space Patrol (CSP), enabling the use of "fighter screen" tactics to protect primary craft.

In commercial/civilian usage cases, more conventional options of "generic" small craft (launch, ship's boat, pinnace, modular cutter, etc.) will often times wind up being a better choice, where the service demand is most often for transport (passengers and cargo) rather than for weaponry and ship to ship combat priorities.

The fun part comes in when you start looking at things like System Defense, which doesn't exactly "need" starship jump capability (hence, system defense BOAT). Small craft will still require bases to operate from (note: carriers count as "bases" for this) where fighter craft can refuel, repair and replenish before being relaunched ... but in a system defense role, having a longer (than 1 day of life support reserves) endurance capacity can make quite a LOT of difference in both mission tasking and opportunities. Being able to "loiter on station" without being detected to gather recon and intel over a sustained duration can potentially be invaluable.

Take the Guardian SDB from LBB S7, for example.
It costs MCr777.54 @ TL=12 for 400 tons of non-starship capable of:

• Agility=6
• model/5fib computer
• 9 armor
• 1x beam laser battery (code: 4)
• 1x missile battery (code: 3)

That's a price of MCr388.77 per offensive weapon battery for a boat that only be in 1 place at 1 time.

Then compare it to my Strike Fighter design above.
It costs MCr63.5608 @ TL=11 for 30 tons of small craft capable of:

• Agility=6
• model/5 computer
• 0 armor
• 1x sandcaster battery (code: 3)
• 1x pulse laser battery (code: 1)
• 1x missile battery (code: 1)

That's a price of MCr31.7804 per offensive weapon battery.
You can buy 12x Strike Fighters (MCr762.7296) for the price of 1x Guardian SDB (MCr777.54) ... and have a LOT more patrol options/formations available to you using a squadron of Strike Fighters than you would have using a single SDB for the same cost.

Same mission ... different tools.

Also consider that TL=11-12 isn't exactly "prime meson/particle sled" time yet, but larger single boats are going to be "more vulnerable" to spinal weapon attacks than swarms of small craft will be ... so there are pros and cons to consider.

 

[Jame]

I think system defense forces would have a mix of fighters and SDBs, for strategic flexibility.

 

[kilemall]

I have a different set of use cases then those listed above, but a lot of this is predicated on my unusual resolution system.

1) Close damage/boarding- at sub 100000km distances, the to hit and damage increases, making match course/speed puts the primary ship at greater risk. Use small craft to inspect/board/pirate, and easier to do so with higher Gs with less total risk. Classic example- the Gazelle and its gig.

2) Kinetic damage based on higher small craft Gs- small craft can accelerate greatly and fire missiles with greater velocity, which helps penetration and damage, without risking major ships.

3) EW cloud which single craft individually can’t do much but in large numbers in my system can act as ersatz front line cover blocking effective to hit ‘back line’ ships.

Flipside, I have smaller ships and craft armor cost greater percentage so they are that much more dependent on agility evade/computer.