About Fighters

[tbeard1999]

Since Star Wars, fighters have become a sci-fi trope. In CT, they are well-represented. In LBB2, fighters are the only way that starships can allocate tonnage directly to weaponry. In High Guard, fighters (with nuclear missiles) can be dominant weapons platforms.

My own Commonwealth campaign is a small ship universe using modified LBB2 rules. The situation is analogous to the 1930s -- carriers are becoming the dominant warship, but capital ships are still prevalent and can (barely) hold their own. It's a dramatic situation that I like.

The problem is that there's no reason that space fighters should be so effective. The problem is that Real World aircraft operate in a different medium (the air) than the ships they are based on and target. This different medium furnishes the reason that aircraft can be so much faster and more effective than surface ships.

But in space, the fighter operates in the same environment as the larger spaceships. A space carrier would make as much sense as a naval ship carrying squadrons of gunboats.

Sooo...how do we make fighters at least vaguely plausible? One idea I have is that fighters use extremely efficient Handwavium drives that (a) provide a far more thrust than conventional maneuver drives; (b) cannot be built beyond a very small size (limiting them to 30 ton hulls or less); and (c) for some reason cannot be "stacked" in larger hulls. As a result, fighters are fast simply because they don't have to devote anywhere near the same space to drives as larger ships.

In the case of the Commonwealth, an additional justification for fighters is that the Commonwealth Navy is rather small, considering the size of the Commonwealth. Squadrons of fighters allow a single ship to patrol a much larger area (see the A-20 Vidicator design, a long range gunship specifically designed for extended duration missions).

Also, fighters may be better suited for atmospheric operations, such as air superiority and ground attack, compared with larger spaceships.

Any suggestions on (a) alternative rationales; or (b) how to flesh these drives out?

 

[aramis]

A couple things about fighters:

1) fighters are short endurance - that means no need to be up and about.
2) fighter pilots can be closer to the G-Comps
3) fighters themselves can more easily be stressed for higher loads

This all combines to give fighters an edge.

Since you don't need as much internal mobility, less space is needed for crewmen. Further, you can use more restrictive G-Compensation techniques (G-suits, and immersion tanks), and on top of that, if gravitics are extant, throw gravitic G-Comps on top. Thus, you can get an extra 3-5 G's above compensation limits. Plus you can have the pilot "Laying down" to grab an extra 0.5G for sustained thrust.

So, given canon compenation limits (TNE) of TL-9 G's... and using +4G from Gsuit, Immersion, and posture
Sustained safe Burns
TL9: Ships 1G, Fighters 5G
TL10: Ships 2G, fighters 6G
TL11: 3G vs 7G
TL12: 4G vs 8G
TL13: 5G vs 9G
TL14: 6G vs 10G
TL15: 7G vs 11G

One thing, tho: smaller drives with efficiencies will be the primary drives for everyone, simply mounted in arrays rather than individually. So your fighter drive needs a reason why you can't simply mount 10 of them on a scoutship to get similar performance to a single unit in a 10Td fighter.

 

[far-trader]

To make fighters "work" I've long thought that there needed to be an efficiency of scale applied to drives. Just like jump drives don't work for less than 100tons of ship, maneuver drives should have sharp efficiency steps based on hull size.

So M6 is only possible for hulls below 100 tons, i.e. only "fighters" have possible M6 agility 6 so only they get all the best bonuses. A fighter wing attacking gets initiative over anything except another fighter wing. This means fighter screens are viable and if your fleet doesn't have one you lose the critical first punch and can't engage the enemy main fleet (or homeworld) until their fighter screen is destroyed or recalled.

The other break points would depend on the specific flavour you're after and the CTU (small ship or big ship) in use but the biggest ships should only be able to manage M1 agility 1 at the most. No M6 agility 6 million ton monsters.

 

[pendragonman]

While the M drives give the acceleration, perhaps a better measure is the top speed that the "airframe" of a vessel can stand. Perhaps the way to look at it is the max speed of a fighter is way larger than that of other types of vessels.

This would help if the g-turn idea is used. The fighter would be able to burn more g-turns before reaching the top end of the envelop and thus have a much higher cruising speed.

Just an idea.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I had an odd thought (as most of mine are).

Often people use 1800s water vessels and the distances and time required to travel when trying to relate to Traveller space travel, piracy, and commerce.

When it comes to fighters, try to think of 1800's and using a canoe to attack a ship.

- The canoe usually would not try to outrun a ship. [there are times when a ship could be dead in the water].
- The canoe would have a hard time trying to damage a ship with their small weaponry. [1800's: bow/arrow, flintlocks? Traveller: wouldn't most large weapons need more power than a small fighter could produce?]
- A canoe would not have much chance against a ship that detects it - unless the ship has little to no weaponry.
- In large numbers canoes might be more effective but many would be lost.
- The canoe could use special close range weaponry [1800s:set ship on fire Traveller: special explosives or one shot weapons (limited # of short range missiles?)]
- The canoe could make a good stealth vessel for coming along side and boarding.

Lastly. Although ships always had canoes or other small watercraft for going ashore I don't recall any ocean battle where they were put into the water and used in combat. Can you? There may be a reason 1800's ships did not have 'fighters' littering their decks.

I'm no expert on anything I talk about and I'm just tossing you some ideas without thinking through any of it. Go ahead and trash it but maybe there is one idea worth something mixed in there.

 

[atpollard]

The problem is that there's no reason that space fighters should be so effective. The problem is that Real World aircraft operate in a different medium (the air) than the ships they are based on and target. This different medium furnishes the reason that aircraft can be so much faster and more effective than surface ships.

The B-52 and the FA-22 both operate in the same medium. I don't think that a large, heavy bomber could be made as maneuverable as a fighter.

I guess that this falls inder reasons why maneuverability should decrease with size. Fighters should fly circles around battleships (in space).

 

[infojunky]

Dude, think in the LLB2 trope. How many targets can your opponents engage?

Ton for ton fighters give you extra hard points, so your 500 ton ship pops it's 5 fighters, you have doubled your turret numbers.

Those are only the first two points I have for the "fighter question.

 

[whartung]

Dude, think in the LLB2 trope. How many targets can your opponents engage?

Ton for ton fighters give you extra hard points, so your 500 ton ship pops it's 5 fighters, you have doubled your turret numbers.

Those are only the first two points I have for the "fighter question.

This relates to the "allocate tonnage to weaponry" comment at the top.

What you lose, though, at least in HG, is the battery benefit. 9 Triple Laser Turrets on 9 ships is not as powerful as 9 TLTs on a single ship, because the latter is considered a single battery and a single attack, whereas the former are separated within the system as 9 separate attacks.

But, I don't think that LBB2 has a similar combat effect. A Laser is a Laser in LBB2.

So, as others have said, the advantages of fighters are simply the saturation of defenses in terms of "number of targets" limitations, and, perhaps, the higher ratio of weapons to tonnage. A 1000 ton ship can mount 30 lasers maximum. If you can deploy fighters to boost that maximum, then fighters will prevail.

But, to be fair, once fighters prevail, you're going to have to have some valid countermeasure. (Anti-fighter escort ships specifically equipped to deal with the extra targeting issue, superiority fleet defense fighters to engage them directly, again mitigating the multi-target problem, etc.)

The other trade off of fighters is the long preparation time for a large single assault. Notably the time it take to arm the fighter, fly to their target, unload their ordnance, and then return. So, you can have 10 fighters delivering 2 missiles each in a single 20 missile salvo, thus saturating defenses, etc. Whereas a ship can deal out steady damage, but not necessarily make the spike in damage that a fighter attack can.

If you have fighters with, say, lasers, that have, effectively for the terms of the battle, indefinite deployment times, then that start up and recovery cost don't really affect the overall battle. The fighters are simply "10 more lasers" constantly bombarding the enemy fleet, and you're back to the "tonnage/weaponry" ratio.

But if they do have limited sortie times, then while the fighters can have an initial impact with a surge in damage, these happen irregularly compared to the constant bombardment from a platform with much more endurance (a capital ship).

Finally, of course, fighters should be very easy to kill, compared to a capital ship. The trade off is firepower for survivability.

In space combat, speed and maneuverability (IMHO) simply can't be considered as a benefit for fighters, save in pursuit applications (and that's just speed). Light speed weapons are very difficult to out run and out maneuver.

 

[aramis]

max speed of any space vessel is relatively irrelevant.

The drag is so low as to be insignificant, and the physical limits on speed far more than can be reached with the on-board fuel... and essentially boils down to armor thickness to prevent the solar wind being effectively beta radiation.

Top space speeds for fighters would actually be LOWER, BTW, due to thinner armor, and thus lower radiation tolerances...

 

[far-trader]

max speed of any space vessel is relatively irrelevant.

The drag is so low as to be insignificant, and the physical limits on speed far more than can be reached with the on-board fuel... and essentially boils down to armor thickness to prevent the solar wind being effectively beta radiation.

Top space speeds for fighters would actually be LOWER, BTW, due to thinner armor, and thus lower radiation tolerances...

Except that radiation tolerances are not dependent on armor, are equal for all ships regardless of type, and that a fighter can have exactly the same armor as a battleship (which is of course another hot topic entirely).

My take on max M drive is not acceleration or normal drag related, but ties in with the manipulation of gravity since we're talking magic thrusters. I see no roadblocks to arbitrary limits based on hulls size for max G and even a max speed and agility. Heck the rules already limit it to no more than 6G anyway

 

[tim_manley]

Fighter: Using a 10-ton hull, the fighter is capable of 6-G acceleration, carries 1 ton of fuel, and has a crew of one. It includes a computer Model/1 and can mount only one type of weapon: one laser, up to three missile racks, or up to three sandcasters. It has one ton of excess space, and costs MCr18

So in a TL9 game you have a 1G 800t ship that launches a bunch of 6G ships, all with a weapon that does the same damage as it's 8 turrets can do, just faster, dispersed, and deadly.

In most sci-fi games fighters are swarm fodder and pop quickly. In LBB2 combat, with a single target to fire on. Having all fighters with missiles, each missile doing 1D of hits, means you have a pretty potent military force and are extremely viable as a combat unit.

 

[aramis]

Except that radiation tolerances are not dependent on armor, are equal for all ships regardless of type, and that a fighter can have exactly the same armor as a battleship (which is of course another hot topic entirely).

My take on max M drive is not acceleration or normal drag related, but ties in with the manipulation of gravity since we're talking magic thrusters. I see no roadblocks to arbitrary limits based on hulls size for max G and even a max speed and agility. Heck the rules already limit it to no more than 6G anyway

I was talking in real world terms. Translation to game terms is SEP... (Somebody Else's Problem).

And G's do not correlate directly to maximum speed.

 

[far-trader]

I was talking in real world terms. Translation to game terms is SEP... (Somebody Else's Problem).

Of course, but talking real world terms in application to a game where they'd produce FTL travel and such is nonsensical imo. Calling it SEP is an admission of that

And G's do not correlate directly to maximum speed.

Of course not, in real world physics. Who's to say what the correlation would be for a gravitic impulse drive that works reactionlessly with only electrical power as an input But I didn't mean there would be a correlation, necessarily. Only that both (or each to be more precise) might be limited by some arbitrary factor. I was thinking more hull size. So a small hull could have both high G thrusters and a high max speed, but the same hull with a low G thruster would have the same max speed but would take longer to achieve it and slow from it, and it's agility would be lower because of it. While a larger hull would be limited to both a lower G thruster and a slower max speed.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

Hi,

If you want to consider stuff from similar real world examples, but not specifically addressed in the Traveller rules, then you might also want to consider the impacts that issues like maintenance and crew day have on fighter operations. Specifically in the real world I believe that it can sometimes take several man-hours of maintenance and upkeep between flights to keep an aircraft type fighter operational.

Further more, a pilot strapped into a single seat (or even a dual seat) fighter probably isn't going to be fully effective for long periods of time, and will need time for rest and sustenance in between missions.

As such even if real world sea-going carriers may carry numerous fighters, not all of these may be available at any specific time, and it may be likely that rather than having all fighters aloft at all times, it may be more likely that in many circumstances some fighters may be aloft, some on short term standby, some undergoing maintenance and refit, and some being prepped to replace those either aloft or on standby. This doesn't mean that in some cases all available fighters won't be scrambled, but it may mean that in a lot of circumstances they won't all be available.

An example of such a circumstance in a Traveller setting might be if a carrier task force jumps into a system to do a sweep for enemy craft and perhaps to also refuel from the local gas giant. If the fleet is intending to stay in system for awhile (say a week or so), its probably not likely that the carrier will launch all its fighters as after several hours the pilots will likely begin to tire and may need rest and feeding, etc.

As such, a possible better solution might be to launch some fighters, keep some on standby, and then have others ready to take over for these craft, when the crew of the fighters that are aloft or on standby needs to stand down for rest and refit. As such if you had 60 fighters available it might make sense to split the fighters into 4 groups of fifteen, each taking over responsibility for providing a combat air patrol for a 6 hour period.

Of these fifteen aircraft in each group, you might only have 1/3rd of them aloft normally, with the other 2/3rds on standby. At the end of the 1st 6hr period the next group of fifteen would take over, and the 1st fifteen would start undergoing refit and re-arming with the pilots being given a chance to rest and eat, etc. If an emergency then arises the 10 fighters on standby would then launch and the next group of fifteen would be brought forward and prepped for launch as soon as possible as well.

This could be the typical method of operations for most of the week, though once the fleet prepares to refuel from the gas giant, when it might be especially vulnerable, it might make much more sense to put more fighter craft aloft and/or on standby.

However, if the carrier fleet is sent on a strike mission instead of a sweep of a system, then it might be likely that in that condition all available fighter might be launched either to strike at the enemy or to provide fleet defense.

Thus while sometimes most if not all fighters could potentially be launched, in a lot of circumstances not all fighters will necessarily be ready and available for use.

Anyway, as I noted above, while this isn't the kind of stuff that may be specifically covered in the rules, this type of stuff may make sense if we are using ocean going air craft carriers and their embarked aircraft as analogs for the fighters discussed in Traveller.

Anyway, just some additional thoughts to ponder on the topic of fighters in Traveller.

Regards

PF

 

[sabredog]

With LBB2 combat, all things being equal a 10 craft fighter unit with triple lasers is more than equal to a 1000 ton ship with the same armament.

While any hit on a single fighter will effectively neutralize the threat, the fighters will be cheaper and cause greater, more expensive damage to the 1000 tonner. The fighters might even get lucky and get a critical hit on a drive component or the computer system and neutralize the big ship.

Since fighters are cheap, a lot of them can be purchased for swarming the bigger ships. Colonials who can't afford the Commonwealth's gunboats could instead buy a couple dozen fighters armed with lasers and missiles. They fire the missiles at the big ship to keep the target's lasers busy intercepting missiles while the fighters use the lasers freely.

As an economic strategy fighters are pretty effective at leveling the field. Load one up with explosives and launch it at a capital ship on full burn (eject the pilot of course) and you'd even have a pretty god ship killing torpedo for the truely desperate. And the swarms are like the Fuzzy-Wuzzy tactics of yore when used against the stately capital ships.

 

[sabredog]

Aside from the fact that the little fighters can pack more punch per credit than their larger cousins you can also argue that they are harder to hit. While LBB2 doesn't have agility as a DM like High Guard does, you can extrapolate that easily enough using common sense regarding the two design philosophies of the books.

High Guard ships have huge powerplants and maneuver drives compared with the off the shelf ones in Book 2. So, (IMTU) I assume that while the players don't have to worry about having enough power points for all their weapons, computers when designing Book 2 ships (which is my rule for all non-military ships), they don't get to have all that agility you can get from High Guard drives and plants.

I assign potential agility to Book 2 designs by tonnage. The actual agility the ship then gets is equal to the acceleration of the maneuver drive to the max potential. So 6-G fighters get 6, but an 800 ton cruiser can never have more than 3 no matter how big the drives are. Straight line acceleration is easy, but pushing the mass around laterally quickly takes more time and effort.

1-99 maximum Agility 6
100-300 max. Agility 5
301-600 max Agility 4
601-800 max Agility 3
801-1000 max Agility 2
1001-2000 max Agility 1
2001 + no agility

Now under High Guard I can build some monster drives that could give some 100kt battlecruiser an agility of 6 but I figure thats just silly.

You can also easily adapt the fusion and plasma guns to fighters to make a more powerful heavy type fighter that uses it's high agility and acceleration to get in fast to "carronade" (the nickname for these weapons IMTU) range and really hammer the big ship.

Finally, if you just have to have some kind of special drives for fighters you could say that they have afterburners (just to get it out of the way right now I'll go ahead and say turbo-booster ala' Boredomstar Galaxative) with a limited burn time similar to what Aramis was describing that can be added to the regular acceleration. Say, a 2-G bonus good for 4 burns. Hey, add drop tanks for extra burns.

 

[sabredog]

I had an odd thought (as most of mine are).

Often people use 1800s water vessels and the distances and time required to travel when trying to relate to Traveller space travel, piracy, and commerce.

When it comes to fighters, try to think of 1800's and using a canoe to attack a ship.

- The canoe usually would not try to outrun a ship. [there are times when a ship could be dead in the water].
- The canoe would have a hard time trying to damage a ship with their small weaponry. [1800's: bow/arrow, flintlocks? Traveller: wouldn't most large weapons need more power than a small fighter could produce?]
- A canoe would not have much chance against a ship that detects it - unless the ship has little to no weaponry.
- In large numbers canoes might be more effective but many would be lost.
- The canoe could use special close range weaponry [1800s:set ship on fire Traveller: special explosives or one shot weapons (limited # of short range missiles?)]
- The canoe could make a good stealth vessel for coming along side and boarding.

Lastly. Although ships always had canoes or other small watercraft for going ashore I don't recall any ocean battle where they were put into the water and used in combat. Can you? There may be a reason 1800's ships did not have 'fighters' littering their decks.

I'm no expert on anything I talk about and I'm just tossing you some ideas without thinking through any of it. Go ahead and trash it but maybe there is one idea worth something mixed in there.

Small craft carried on those ships were often fitted with carronades, mortars, and light cannon for inshore troop support, cutting out missions, and even for attacking ships in harbors that were blocked by chains and pickets.

They weren't used in a set piece battle that way, instead they'd be lowered over the side to carry the ship's animals (if there was time for that), and to just get them out of the way so they wouldn't become crew killing splinter bombs when hit by cannon balls while stacked up on deck.

In Traveller terms, though, their potential effectiveness in battle depends on which combat system you use: Book 2 or High Guard. In Book 2 a laser is a laser and a cheap little fighter can be just as effective as a capital ship when matched fighter to turret. In High Guard fighters are useless unless used as mobile batteries or to influence initiative. I use Book 2 unless resolving a battle between anything bigger than 5000 tons.

 

[mike wightman]

Don't forget another advantage a swarm of fighters have - the multi target program is the limit for how many ships a defending ship may fire against.

And don't forget the saving throw to avoid being hit in the ship's boat skill description

One last thing - forget Star Wars, think of the new BSG and the way vipers, raptors, raiders etc. are used there.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi, in LBB2....

With LBB2 combat, all things being equal a 10 craft fighter unit with triple lasers is more than equal to a 1000 ton ship with the same armament.

Hi,

I thought in LBB2 a fighter could only carry a single laser, 3 missile racks, or 3 sandcasters, but not any combination of the above.

Regards

PF

 

[sabredog]

Hi,

I thought in LBB2 a fighter could only carry a single laser, 3 missile racks, or 3 sandcasters, but not any combination of the above.

Regards

PF

Yes, technically you're right. In the original Book 2 there wasn't the same limitation because it didn't have the modular small craft construction rules that the 1981 rewrite did. In fact the modular cutter design originated in a JTAS article prior to the reprint. Its a good system for putting together small craft, though, but before that you had to do it the hard way with High Guard or your imagination. And a High Guard fighter can be worked up to carry multiple lasers, usually starting at 15 tons. In fact you can make one as small as 6 tons with a single laser.

Relative to what I wrote, though what I should have said was that any single fighter is more than equal to a triple laser turret on a 1000 ton starship. The reason being that on a bang for the credit basis the fighter can do the same damage to a big ship that the big ship can do to the fighter, and the damage done to the big ship can potentially be more expensive and worse.